mprwa regular meeting agenda packet 04-25-13 updated.pdf

7/28/2019 MPRWA Regular Meeting Agenda Packet 04-25-13 Updated.PDF

1/18

AgendaMonterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority (MPRWA)

Regular Meeting

7:00 PM, Thursday, April 25, 2013

Council ChambersCity of Carmel-By-The-Sea7th Avenue & Monte Verde

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 subjectwhich is within the jurisdiction of the MPRWA and which is not on the agenda. Any person or groupdesiring to bring an item to the attention of the Authority may do so by addressing the Authority duringPublic Comments or by addressing a letter of explanation to: MPRWA, Attn: Monterey City Clerk, 580Pacific St, Monterey, CA 93940. The appropriate staff person will contact the sender concerning thedetails.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

1. April 11, 2013

AGENDA ITEMS

2. Receive Report on April 25, 2013 Workshop Regarding Cal-Am's California Public UtilitiesCommission Application A.1204019 (Burnett) -

3. Receive Update Report from Cal Am Regarding Compliance with Conditions for AuthoritySupport of Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (Information Only)

4. Receive Report on April, 22, 2013 Governance Committee Meeting (Burnett)

5. Review Public Outreach Program and Adopt Budget for Fiscal Year 2013-2014 (Reichmuth)

ADJOURNMENT

The Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority is committed to include the disabled in all ofits services, programs and activities. For disabled access, dial 711 to use the California RelayService (CRS) to speak to staff at the Monterey City Clerks Office, the Principal Office of theAuthority. CRS offers free text-to-speech, speech-to-speech, and Spanish-language services24 hours a day, 7 days a week. If you require a hearing amplification device to attend ameeting, 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 relatedwritings or documents provided to the MPRWA are available for public inspection during themeeting 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 CodeSection 54954.2(a) or Section 54956.


2/18


3/18

MINUTES

MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA)Regular Meeting

7:00 PM, Thursday, April 11, 2013COUNCIL CHAMBERSFEW MEMORIAL HALL

MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA

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

Directors Absent: None

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

ROLL CALL

President Della Sala called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. and all members were present.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

REPORTS FROM BOARD DIRECTORS AND STAFF

President Della Sala invited reports from Directors and staff and had no requests to speak.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

President Della Sala invited comments from the public for items not on the agenda. DavidArmanasco representing Deep Water Desal provided a brief update indicating they haveresponded to requests from the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to meet andprovide information as an alternative project to the Cal Am Monterey Peninsula Water SupplyProject (MPWSP) Environmental Impact Report (EIR). He also indicated that DWD will besubmitting a project description simultaneously to the CPUC and the State Lands Commission.

With no further requests to speak, President Della Sala moved to the first agenda item.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

1. February 14, 2013

Action: Approved

On a motion and carried by the following vote, the Monterey Peninsula Regional WaterAuthority approved the minutes of February 14, 2013.

AYES: 6 DIRECTORS: Burnett, Edelen, Kampe, Pendergrass, Rubio,Della Sala

NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: NoneABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: NoneABSTAIN: 0 DIRECTORS: NoneRECUSED: 0 DIRECTORS: None

2. March 14, 2013

Action: Approved

On a motion and carried by the following vote, the Monterey Peninsula Regional WaterAuthority approved the minutes of March 14, 2013.


4/18

MPRWA Minutes Thursday, April 11, 2013

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority

Regular Meeting Minutes - Thursday, April 11, 20132

AYES: 6 DIRECTORS: Burnett, Edelen, Kampe, Pendergrass, Rubio,Della Sala

NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: NoneABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: NoneABSTAIN: 0 DIRECTORS: NoneRECUSED: 0 DIRECTORS: None

AGENDA ITEMS

3. Receive Report From The Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency and TheMonterey Peninsula Water Management District Regarding The Ground Water ReplenishmentProject (Israel, Stoldt)Action: Received Report and Discussed

a. Review Scopes of Work for Feasibility and CEQA Analysis

Monterey Peninsula Water Pollution Control Agency (MRWPCA) General Manager Keith Israelintroduced the item and acknowledged the support the Monterey Peninsula Water Management

District has provided, specifically with regards to funding. He spoke to the goals of the GroundWater Replenishment (GWR) project of bringing an additional 3,500 acre foot of water into theSeaside Basin. He then reported on the three components to the project; 1) Bringing sourcewater to facility, 2) Reverse Osmosis Treatment and 3) Pumping water into Seaside Basin. Theanticipated cost for the program is $2,000 to $2,600 per acre foot of water. He provided ahandout with the projected schedule which is outlined below:

CEQA to be completed by Second Quarter 2014. Monitoring test well completed by end of 2013. Two phase feasibility study to address sizing, which will complete phase 1 by June 2013

to be able to provide concept to partners (farmers and city of Salinas) regarding thesource of water under consideration.

Continue to work on pilot tests in 2013 Design work to be completed in 2014, Design-Build staring in 2015 to be completed by end of year

Mr. Israel then reported the MRWPCA passed the budget authorizing various components ofthe project and indicated that public outreach is the next major hurdle and they are working withan independent consultant for assistance. The current focus is trying to understand the keyissues from the stakeholders. He then invited agencies to coordinate public outreach efforts tomaximize the use of the dollars available.

Mr. Israel then spoke about the public workshop being sponsored by the California PublicUtilities Commission on June 12, 2012 to determine criteria for Ground Water Replenishment.

He also spoke about conducting a water feasibility study to determine water rights, how muchwater is needed and how to distribute it. He identified additional sources of potential waterwhich could be treated and used such as produce wash water, Peninsula and Salinas stormwater flows, drain water and unused waste water.


5/18




Monterey Peninsula Water Management District General Manager Dave Stoldt then presenteda report highlighting things the District is doing separately to support the GWR project andtouched on the GWR Go/No Go criteria that is being developed. He reported that the Districtintents to reach out to the three intervening parties to ensure they understand the criteria priorto the cost workshop. He reported that the model for the first draft of cost sharing needs sometweaking and the District is considering taking a more significant role. Mr. Stoldt listed thefollowing hurdles the District is trying to work through:

Storage agreement - must be modified from those who have current rights. Develop water purchase agreement with assurances that will work for Cal Am Address the debt equivalence issues. Policy consideration for GWR, there are four key policy areas state wide, 3 from the

water resources control board. Trying to forge a nexus between what they want and howit is a solution, and how it interacts with the CDO.

AB 32 related to energy use. Need for hospitality-specific public outreach

Both Mr. Stoldt and Mr. Israel answered questions from the Directors. Director Edelensuggested a press conference, and coordinating a trip to the Orange County facility for mediarelated personnel and encouraged arming them with complete and accurate information aboutsuccessful programs.

Director Rubio spoke in support of public outreach and suggested bringing back cases of waterfor distribution as samples by the public. He then questioned the completion of the scoping ofthe EIR and requested consideration of a full scale EIR for the GWR project. He questioned therecycled water project if it would supply enough water to have a recycled component forlandscaping. Mr. Israel responded that the Marina Coast Water District is ready to talk specificson the use of Recycled water and it is targeted as an additional source of water.

Director Pendergrass spoke to the difference in perspective after a trip to the Orange Countyfacility and spoke to the positive impact it makes to perspective of the project and heencouraged anyone that is available to tour the facility. Director Kampe questioned the processthat astronauts use to clean water during missions and Mr. Israel confirmed it is the sameprocess.

Vice President Burnett spoke to the support of the interveners testimony, including thePlanning and Conservation League, who indicated that they would be willing request a partialrelaxation of the Cease and Desist order if it moved the GWR project forward. The June 12,2012 CPUC meeting will help establish the go-no go criteria and Vice President Burnett, asChari of the TAC will vet through the TAC and other interveners before bringing it back to theDirectors.

President Della Sala invited public comments on the item. Nelson Vega questioned the water

rights of the agricultural community and requested an explanation of the ownership of theSeaside Aquifer. He also questioned why there has been no discussion on the facility thatwould be used to filter and treat the water. He suggested that water be sold at different rates forthose that have different uses of water and urged the Directors to support the lowest cost watersupply. With no further requests to speak, President Della Sala closed public comment.


6/18




Mr. Israel spoke to Mr. Vegas comments that the MRWPCA is looking for additional sources ofwater to avoid legal conflict and that conversations with the agricultural community have beenpositive. The goal is proposing a project that meets that need by working with multiple sourcesof water to solve the water rights issue. Member Stoldt responded to Mr. Vegas question aboutcost and indicated that the small desalination facility will cost approximately $3,400 per acrefoot and the GWR project costs could be approximately $2,400 per acre foot. He then said thecost of the desalination facility plus the GWR project is the most cost effective option and that

there is an analysis being done to illustrate and will be presented to the public. He then spoketo the question about control of the aquifer and said that storage is allocated based on what theAdjudication Judge assigned to existing pumpers. If storage is going unused, it can be madeavailable to others. The Water Master has a storage recovery agreement, which is somethingthat can be modified. Would look to the current rights holders and request agreement. Lastly hespoke to the comment about selling water at different rates and he said there is a legalmechanism to allow the highest bidder purchase, however, the bidding process works againstall models in California. There is an opportunity to recover the different costs by charging aconnection feel, but not through cost adjustment. There will come a time that water will need tobe allocated differently to the different jurisdictions.

4. Receive Report Regarding The Status of the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water ManagementDistrict Back up Projects (Stoldt)Action: Received Report and Discussed

Mr. Stoldt presented the report for this item and indicated that the Request for Qualifications(RFQ) for a desalination facility was issued and two statements of qualifications were received.Both were reviewed at the Committee and Board level and the MPWMD elected to beginnegotiations with Deep Water Desal (DWD) for a cost-sharing of the permitting process.Contractual relationships are being solidified and there will be a meeting with the State LandsCommission to potentially become a co-lead agency for the environmental work. This processis to ensure that a backup plan is in progress while waiting for the results for the MPWSP testwells. There is still a high risk for not receiving permits for open water intake and the MPWMD

is making an investment to advance an alternative plan.

President Della Sala opened the item to public comment. Nelson Vega clarified that the DWDproject was supported as an alternative project and expressed concern for the cost to taxpayers associated with pursuing the alternative plan. Tom Rowley spoke representing MontereyPeninsula Taxpayers Association expressing concern that there is duplication of effort andcosts for pursuing an alternative project as the Authority requested the CPUC to require aproject level analysis of DWD. He requested that the Authority question this duplication. Havingno further requests to speak, President Della Sala closed public comment.

President Della Sala spoke to Mr. Rowleys comment indicating the duplication is a hedgeagainst the eventuality of litigation that could paralyze the desalination project. MPWMD did

endorse the MPWSP, and adopted the 8 conditions, including pursuing an alternative intakeproject, which Cal Am is not pursuing. The MPWMD is doing what has been asked of Cal Am tomove along and qualify an alternative intake that is out of the Salinas Valley Basin.

5. Receive Report on Second Governance Committee and Provide Direction (Burnett)

a. Cal Am Request for Qualifications for Design Build Firms Desalination Plant


7/18




Vice President Burnett reported on the recent Governance Committee which discussed theRequest for Qualifications (RFQ) for the MPWSP. He communicated all comments provided bythe Authority and Cal Am agreed to incorporate all comments and the RFQ has been released.The Request for Proposal (RFP) will be released in draft form in May 2013 and Cal Am willallow the Authority to provide comments before publication. Other action items from themeeting included a letter sent to Judge Weatherford requesting a workshop to discuss criteria

for the GWR decision. Also, efforts have been made to meet with the Monterey Regional WasteManagement District to explore opportunities with the landfill gas recovery program. A letter ofinterest describing the parameters and timeline will be prepared and sent. Vice PresidentBurnett answered questions from the Directors.

President Della Sala opened the item to public comment. Nelson Vega questioned access toinformation being sent or received by public officials during public meetings. Legal CounselFreeman responded that it is not illegal, even with the Brown Act, but it would be a publiccomment and would be accessible to the public. Sue McCloud commented on pursuingdiscussions with the MRWMD and encouraged a letter of interest to be sent prior to distributionof the Board packet. With no other requests to speak, President Della Sala closed public

comment.

6. Review 2013 -2014 Budget for Public Outreach and Provide Comments to Staff (Reichmuth)

Presented Report and Received Direction

Executive Director Reichmuth spoke to the request by the Authority for a comprehensive publicoutreach campaign. Included in the agenda report was an expansive public outreach programfor a water supply project, GWR and desalination facility. Mr. Reichmuth answered questionsand received direction from the Directors.

Director Kampe spoke to Mr. Reichmuths comments and suggested a public outreach budgetof approximately $40,000 and requested staff to explore some cost sharing opportunities with

other agencies. Director Rubio spoke in support of Director Kampes comment.

President Della Sala opened the item to the public. Tom Rowley spoke to the credibility of theAuthority from their past actions, acknowledged the need for public outreach including the needto avoid rationing water. He said the best outreach is the reputation of the Authority, then spoketo having all Land Use jurisdictions represented. Doug Wilhelm suggested more researchabout what type and level of outreach is needed and spoke about the level of effort of publicoutreach that occurred with the Poseidon Project in San Diego, CA. Nelson Vega spoke to thecost of outreach per person and suggested outreach to the public via the water bill. SueMcCloud spoke to previous comments about how to combine outreach efforts with otheragencies. With the last project there was a vetting many firms and the objectives to be achievedmust be identified and broken down into functional methods. Past efforts could be reformatted

for this campaign. With no further requests to speak, President Della Sala closed publiccomment.

Director Pendergrass suggested a subcommittee of the board collaborate with other agenciesfor public outreach. Director Rubio agreed with Director Pendergrass and said Cal Am also hasresponsibility to communicate to their constituents.


8/18




President Della Sala spoke to the need to be transparent and be good representatives andsuggested a budget of $40,000 for the next Fiscal Year, scheduled to be spent quarterly or bytasks to be able to track the expenditure of money. An agreement tonight will allow staff toprepare and have the Directors approve the budget for next year to be passed on to theMember City jurisdictions prior to adoption of their annual budgets.

Director Kampe spoke to the need for an upgraded website, televised meetings, and spoke to

the emotional sensitivity to the public that needs to be documented, distributed and available.He suggested a budget of $45,000. He then commented that he does not know what thepurpose of the outreach is intended to be, what the goal is or what the time line will be. TheAuthority came to a consensus that staff return at the next meeting with a tier 1 approachbudget of $45,000 for the next fiscal year.

7. Receive Update Report from Cal Am Regarding Compliance with Conditions for AuthoritySupport of Cal Am Desal Project (Bowie)Action: Merged Items 7 & 8, Received Report and Discussed

Vice President Burnett reported that staff for the MPWSP project have been at the CPUChearing testifying and have not had the opportunity to update on progress made since the last

presentation therefore will not be able to provide a full report. He then requested that Items 7and 8 on this agenda be merged. The Directors agreed.

Mr. Burnett indicated that the CPUC Testimony Hearing was a productive exercise and spoketo the great work our Legal Counsel Russ McGlothlin provided. He then spoke to the processthat took place throughout the proceeding and said the productive work was accomplishedspending time with all the intervening parties to understand their issues and make agreements.He reported that the next step includes hearings which will be completed in early May, afterwhich begin the legal briefings which is expected to be a costly endeavor. There is a 30 daywindow of opportunity to submit to the CPUC compromises that have been worked out byintervening parties. Legal Counsel Freeman spoke in support of eliminating issues prior to thebriefings to reduce legal costs.

Vice President Burnett then spoke to the two handouts presented which are matrix updates ofthe testimony hearings and Cal Ams compliance with the Authority adopted support conditions.He noted that the topic of public contribution received the largest amount of attention at thehearings, as well as the construction of public funds.

Vice President Burnett then described the process that could be used to cover the $40 billiondollars in transactions, $6 billion approved by the CPUC through a process called securitization.He indicated that a testifying Cal Am expert admitted that although there are many potentialproblems from utilizing public funding, there are ways Cal Am could be willing to accept since itis not recourse debt. Mr. Burnett then reported about a meeting that occurred after thehearings concluded resulted in generation of four potential scenarios for public contribution.

Ken Talmage spoke to explain the different scenarios.President Della Sala opened the item for public comment. Nelson Vega thanked Vice PresidentBurnett for his efforts, then expressed concern that it was very risky to the rate payers and inmany scenarios could leave them with stranded costs. With no further requests to speak,President Della Sala closed public comment. Vice President Burnett answered that anagreement can be made to have a reserve fund set aside or to have up to one year of bondservicing in reserve in the event of default.


9/18




Vice President Burnett then commented on progress made to meet the eight complianceconditions for the MPWSP. He noted that Cal Am has acknowledged that the project likely willneed a NEPA permit so they have applied to the Army Corps of Engineers. Also, Cal Am is notactively pursuing a contingency plan and Mr. Burnett questioned what should be done aboutthat. He then indicated that there is a request from an intervening party for a change to thebrine discharge system, from a depressurized to a gravity controlled system, which would force

the brine to mix. Cal Am indicated that is not necessary and would add $10 million to the projectcost. The argument is that it could cause a dead zone if not remediated. Lastly, he reiteratedthat many intervening parties are amenable to a settlement and should be perused.

President Della Sala opened the item to public comment. Tom Rowley spoke to the eight policyconditions and questioned the timing for the release of the EIR in relation to the release of theAdministrative Law Judge decision and what the process would be if it is denied. He thenexpressed concern about the duplication of efforts. Nelson Vega also expressed concern aboutthe process and questioned the development of contingency plan, and expressed frustrationwith Cal Am that they will not develop a contingency because they cannot recoup the costsfrom the ratepayers. With no additional requests to speak, public comment was closed.

Vice President Burnett spoke to Mr Vega's comment that Cal Am cannot recover cost forsomething that is not used. Legal Counsel Freeman confirmed that the CPUC could direct theresistance to engage in a parallel process, where they would only be able to be reimbursed forthe one successful project.

Vice President Burnett requested agendizing for a future meeting contracting for professionalhelp, not to exceed $10,000, to assist with the settlement process to reduce the amount of workassigned to the Attorney of Record, indicating the settlement process will require more structurerather than ad hoc availability. Legal Counsel Freeman suggested not losing the two weeksbetween now and the next meeting and suggested the Authority authorize the action. TheDirectors Agreed.

8. Receive Update and Provide Direction for California Public Utilities Commission TestimonyHearing for Application (A-12-01-019)Action: Item Merged with Agenda Item 7

ADJOURNMENT

With no further business to come before the Authority, President Della Sala adjourned themeeting at 9:57 p.m.

ATTEST:

Lesley Milton, Clerk of the Authority Chuck Della Sala, MPRWA President


10/18


11/18


Agenda Report

Date: April 25, 2013

Item No: 4.

08/12

FROM: Prepared By: Clerk to the Authority

SUBJECT: Receive Report on April 22, 3013 Governance Committee Meeting (Burnett)

DISCUSSION:

There is no written report for this item. An oral presentation will take place at the meeting.

ATTACHMENTS:

Agenda from April 22, 2013 Meeting


12/18

GovernanceCommitteeC/OMontereyPeninsulaWaterManagementDistrictP.O.Box85Monterey,CA93942

GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE

FOR THE

MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT

CaliforniaAmericanWaterMontereyCountyBoardofSupervisors

MontereyPeninsulaRegionalWaterAuthorityMontereyPeninsulaWaterManagementDistrict

Thismeetinghasbeen

noticedaccording

to

the

BrownActrules. This

agendawaspostedon

Friday,April19,2013.

GovernanceCommitteeMembers:CaliforniaAmerican

Water

RobertMacLean

MontereyPeninsula

RegionalWaterAuthority

JasonBurnett,

Alt. ChuckDellaSala

CountyofMonterey

DavidPotter

Alt. SimonSalinas

MontereyPeninsula

WaterManagement

District

BobBrower

Alt.JeanneByrne

StaffContact:David

J.

Stoldt,

MPWMD

ArleneTavani,MPWMD

AGENDAREGULARMEETING

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectGovernanceCommittee

***************

Monday,April22,2013,2:00PMMontereyPeninsulaWaterManagementDistrict,ConferenceRoom,

5HarrisCourt,BuildingG.,Monterey,CA

CalltoOrder/RollCallPledgeofAllegiancePublicCommentsAnyonewishingtoaddresstheCommitteeonmattersnotlistedontheagendathatarewithinthesubject

jurisdictionoftheCommittee,maydosoduringPublicComments.Thepublicmaycommentonanyother

itemslistedontheagendaatthetimetheyareconsideredbytheCommittee.Pleaselimityourcomment

to3(three)minutes.

AgendaItems1. ApproveMinutesofMarch20,2013CommitteeMeeting

2. Adopt2013GovernanceCommitteeMeetingSchedule

3. Presentation from William Merry, General Manager of Monterey

Regional

Waste

Management

District

on

Landfill

Gas

as

an

AlternativeEnergySourceforaDesalFacility

4. Review California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Response to

Governance Committee Request for Workshop on Groundwater

ReplenishmentProject(GWR)

A. DevelopAgendaTopics forCPUCWorkshoponGWR

B. Review Draft GWR Criteria as Discussed by Water Authority TAC

(SeeExhibitGC4attached)

5. FinalizeScheduleforCalPolyDesignTeamReview

6.

Updatefrom

Cal

Am

on Status

of

Procurement

for

the

Desal

Design

Build

Effort

7. DiscussionofItemstobePlacedonFutureAgendas

8. ScheduleNextMeetingDate

Adjournment


13/18

Agenda

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProject

GovernanceCommittee

April22,2013

Page2of2

Upon request, the Governance Committee will make a reasonable effort to provide

written agenda materials in appropriate alternative formats, or disabilityrelated

modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, to enable

individuals with disabilities to participate in public meetings. Please submit a written

request, includingyourname,mailingaddress,phonenumberandbriefdescriptionof

therequestedmaterialsandpreferredalternativeformatorauxiliaryaidorserviceby5

PMonApril19,2013. RequestsshouldbesenttotheGovernanceCommitteeSecretary,

MPWMD, P.O. Box 85, Monterey, CA, 93942. You may also fax your request to the

AdministrativeServicesDivisionat8316449560,orcall8316585600.

After staff reports have been distributed, if additional documents are produced and

providedtotheGovernanceCommitteeregardinganyitemontheagenda,theywillbe

made available at, 5 Harris Court, Building G, Monterey, CA during normal business

hours. In addition, such documents may be posted on the MPWMD website at

http://www.mpwmd.dst.ca.us/governancecommittee/agendas .Documentsdistributedat

themeetingwillbemadeavailableinthesamemanner.

U:\Arlene\word\2013\GovernanceCommittee\Agendas\20130422\20130422C.docx


14/18


15/18


Agenda ReportDate: April 25, 2013

Item No: 5.

08/12

FROM: Executive Director Reichmuth

SUBJECT: Review Public Outreach Program and Adopt Budget for Fiscal Year 2013-2014

(Reichmuth)

RECOMMENDATION:

That the MPRWRA Board approve the public outreach funding for next fiscal year and theagency budget for 2013/14 and authorize staff to forward to member agencies.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The proposed budget action would fund a budget of $423,680 for the MPRWA to adequatelyfund their operations. Details are provided in the Discussion section of this report.

DISCUSSION:

At its most recent Board meeting, MPRWA Directors requested a limited public outreachprogram for the next fiscal year as part of the overall budget. That program is as follows:

Table 1: Proposed Public Outreach Budget

Website Update/Redevelopment $15,000

Ease of use

Attractiveness

Search engine by keyword

Speakers' Bureau Support $20,000

Research

Develop brochure

Key points

Cost/benefit analysis

Ratepayer impacts

Significant issues and concerns

Televising Meetings $14,000

TOTAL $49,000

Below are spreadsheets describing overall budget impacts. At such time as County membershipbecomes active, then costs/reallocations will be adjusted.


16/18

Based on the Authoritys Joint Powers Agreement, below is the approved Member City expenseallocation based on water usage.

Table 2: Member City Expense Allocation Based On Water Usage

Member City Weight

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%

The proposed revisions to the budget and the Member City expected contributions are includedbelow in Table 2, and Table 3.

Table 3: Proposed Budget 2013-2014 Fiscal Year

Adopted

Budget

12-13

Proposed

Budget

13-14

Carry

Over

From

12-13

Funds

Requested

Professional Services

Legal Counsel $20,000 $63,000 $4,500 $58,500

Attorney of Record $149,412 $100,000 $0 $100,000

Staff $35,000 $35,000 $0 $35,000

Financial Advisor Services $12,500 $0 $0 $0

Executive Director $131,868 $94,680 $63,548 $31,132

Studies $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $0

Project Evaluation $86,650 $20,000 $1,545 $18,455

Contract Assistance $0 $15,000 $0 $15,000

Travel $0 $5,000 $0 $5,000

Public Outreach $0 $49,000 $0 $49,000

Insurance $4,000 $7,000 $86 $6,914

Audit $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000

Contingency $22,295 $20,000 $2,738 $17,262

Total Budget FY 13-14 $476,726 $423,680 $82,417 $341,263


17/18

Table 3: Financial Contributions by Member City

Member City Contributions

Member City

Approved

Percent

Distribution

Total

Contributions

FY 2012-13

Total

Contributions FY

2013-14

Carmel By the Sea 9.30% $44,336 $31,737

Sand City 1.30% $6,197 $4,436

City of Pacific Grove 18.80% $89,624 $64,157

City of Seaside 22.00% $104,880 $75,078

City of Monterey 46.50% $221,678 $158,687

City of Del Rey Oaks 2.10% $10,011 $7,167

Total Income $476,726 $341,263

Total Budget $476,726 $423,680

* Carry Over Balance Reduces total Contribution

Attachments: 1. Resolution

c: President Della SalaLegal Counsel Freeman

Director and TAC Chair Burnett


18/18