MP Regional Water Authority TAC Meeting

MINUTES MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA) TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) Regular Meeting 2:00 PM, Monday, December 3, 2012 FEW MEMORIAL HALL OF RECORDS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Members Present: Burnett, Israel, Narigi, Riedl, Riley, Stoldt Members Absent: None Staff Present: Legal Counsel, Clerk to the Authority CALL TO ORDER TAC Chair Burnett called the meeting to order at 2:15 p.m. ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE REPORTS FROM TAC MEMBERS Member Riley reported about a presentation he made at the Authority Directors meeting on November 13, 2012 and acknowledged that as a member of the TAC he is responsible to be open minded and address each decision independently. Member Israel indicated that The Pacific Institute released a report on the costs of desalination which he encouraged the MPRWA to review. He also reported that the Santa Clara County Water District is building a groundwater replenishment unit which will be on line next year. Chair Burnett reported of efforts to schedule a representative from the Coastal Commission to speak to the Authority about process and permitting requirements. Also, he indicated the TAC will be presenting recommendations to the Authority Directors for appointment of additional TAC Members at the next meeting. PUBLIC COMMENTS Chair Burnett opened public comments for items not on the agenda. Interim Executive Director Meurer spoke about the process of publishing the Authority meeting agendas and materials. He requested feedback from the members about suggestions for increasing the efficiency of information distribution to ensure that materials are released with enough time to review prior to meetings. He also commented on efforts to televise specific Authority meetings. Doug Wilhelm spoke about the San Diego Water Authority Board agreement with Poseidon for a 50,000 acre per year plant which will be online in 2016 and questioned why their statistics are much different than our local proposals. He emphasized two points that he encouraged the  MPRWA TAC Minutes Monday, December 3, 2012 TAC to consider. First, the risks are in the hands of the private company and second, he the San Diego Water Authority had the option to buy the facility after a number of years on a formula basis. With no further requests to speak, Chair Burnett closed public comment. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. November 13, 2012 Action item: Approved On a motion by Member Narigi and seconded by Member Stoldt and passed by the following vote, the MPRWA voted to approve the minutes of November 13, 2012. AYES: 6 DIRECTORS: Israel, Narigi, Riedl, Riley, Stoldt, Burnett NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: None ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None ABSTAIN: 0 DIRECTORS: None RECUSED: 0 DIRECTORS: None 2. November 19, 2012 Action item: Continued On a motion by Member Stoldt and seconded by Member Narigi and passed by the following vote, the MPRWA voted to continue the minutes of November 19, 2012 for clarification on item number 3. AYES: 6 DIRECTORS: Israel, Narigi, Riedl, Riley, Stoldt, Burnett, NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: None ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None ABSTAIN: 0 DIRECTORS: None RECUSED: 0 DIRECTORS: None AGENDA ITEMS 3. Review of Recommendations to Authority Board on CPUC Cost Model and Action As Warranted Member Stoldt introduced the item requesting review of the draft worksheet and memorandum included in the packet for completeness and answered questions from the TAC. Chair Burnett requested comments from the public having no requests to speak, closed public comment and returned the discussion to the TAC. Member Stoldt then described the CPUC cost workshop agenda and discussion facilitation. Chair Burnett requested that of the 13 items listed, the TAC identify the most critical items that should be recommended to the Authority representative to address at the Cost Workshop. TAC members recommended items 7, 8, 9, & 10 as priorities and that item number 6 regarding energy costs should also be solidified. 2  MPRWA TAC Minutes Monday, December 3, 2012 TAC Members also discussed the issues associated with the pending Cal Am surcharge and indicated that is a large enough dollar amount and impact to the rate payers to warrant a full discussion at a future meeting. Director Burnett thanked Member Stoldt for his efforts producing the recommendations and recapped the discussion and recommendation to reorder the categories, with a top tier section. He indicated the Authority would take up the issue at the next meeting and designate a representative from the Authority to attend the Public Utilities Commission workshop. With no further discussion Chair Burnett closed the item. 4. Discussion of Seaside Groundwater Basin Watermaster Study of Replenishment Member Stoldt introduced the item discussing the Seaside Groundwater Basin Watermaster Study of Replenishment. There was a verbal discussion about what was presented at the Watermaster meeting as well as potential scenarios for replenishments rates. The discussion concluded with a vote of 6 to 2 to hire a consultant to do a 25 year replenishment model. Member Stoldt then answered questions of the TAC. Member Riley commented on his attendance at the meeting and if the proposal was a straight line replenishment of 50 or 25 years. Member Riedl responded clarifying that two different agenda items were discussed at the Watermaster meeting. The first considered was the 25 year straight line replacement and the second was stabilization of the replenishment rate. Member Israel reported that he is still talking with the growing community about the need and availability of water as well as how often the facility should run. He indicated that depending on the capacity, they might be able to assist with the recharge. Chair Burnett opened the item for public comment, having no requests to speak, closed public comment and returned the discussion to the TAC. Chair Burnett then asked if this modeling allows for banking or flexibility given other parts are weather dependent. Member Stoldt responded that Cal Am has indicated that the 350 acre foot/year does not include an additional capital expense, but that the proposed 700 acre foot/year likely will. The amount of water available to the Peninsula needs to be factored into the 25 year plan before it is finished. If the JPA wants to take a policy issue on replacement and replenishment it will have a cost implication related to other projects. Chair Burnett recapped that the TAC is willing to make a recommendation that the Authority Board suggest a higher rate of replenishment however he indicated it would be premature at this time because the study has not been completed. However, a discussion at the Director level is appropriate as three of the Directors were present at the Watermaster meeting. With no further discussion, Chair Burnett closed discussion on this item. 5. Consider and Recommend Options for Updates to the Report from Separation Processes Inc.: Evaluation of Seawater Desalination Projects 3  MPRWA TAC Minutes Monday, December 3, 2012 Chair Burnett reported that the draft SPI report was prepared as a snapshot in time and that some projects have materially and/or significantly changed since the first round of information and questioned if this is an opportunity to determine if there is a need to revise the scope of the report. Director Burnett opened the item for discussion for the TAC and questioned if the TAC would recommend authorization for additional funding for incorporation of new information and additional work. Member Riley and Member Narigi both responded about how long the door should be left open to new information, as it is and will continue to be constantly changing and suggested a 3 month update of only critical information. Member Riedl questioned if SPI would be responding to comments presented. Chair Burnett responded that they would respond to all comments compiled and submitted to them. Chair Burnett opened the item for comments from the public. Doug Wilhelm commended the work of the consultants with regard to cost, but the outstanding questions was looking at similar interest rates across the three proposals as well as risk factors which could easily delay any project. With no further requests to speak, Chair Burnett brought the discussion back to the TAC. The TAC discussed the possible levels of additional funding related to a revised scope of work. Member Riley questioned what SPI could do to clarify cost priorities. On a motion by Chair Burnet and seconded by Member Narigi and carried by the following vote, the MPRWA TAC moved to request SPI to identify additional critical information that would affect the project to a significant degree, be prepared to provide a memo back to the community by Jan 15, 2013 to include reasonable cut off and budget and request Member Stoldt to communicate with SPI and bring information back to Water Authority at the next scheduled meeting. AYES: 6 DIRECTORS: Israel, Narigi, Riedl, Riley, Stoldt, Burnett NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: None ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None ABSTAIN: 0 DIRECTORS: None RECUSED: 0 DIRECTORS: None Member Stoldt left the meeting at 3:23 p.m. 6. Propose a Roadmap for Decisions, Recommendations and Direction for Public Utilities Commission Testimony Chair Burnett introduced the item and indicated that testimony for the CPUC proceedings are due in February and the Authority needs to provide direction to outside Legal Counsel in order to prepare. He posed the question of how can the TAC help the Authority in sequencing the 4  MPRWA TAC Minutes Monday, December 3, 2012 decisions so that they can make the best decisions possible for the community. Chair Burnett then opened the item for questions and discussion from the TAC. Member Narigi commented about the process the TAC and Authority went through to hire the SPI consultants and suggested that in order to make a more informed recommendation, it is necessary to wait until the Final Report is finished, make decision as a TAC with the information available, then pass on to the Authority Board. Member Riedl acknowledged that the SPI report is only a part of the puzzle as it does not touch on financing the project or potential legal rights and he recommends generating a detailed project schedule to develop including milestones and financial performance goals. If performance goals are not reached then it will be understood that a project cannot be reached. Acknowledging that performance goal would be time consuming, he suggested the option to hire a project manager. Member Riedl also suggested looking into the issue of water rights as well as potentially developing a budget and finance committee. Member Israel suggested that this could be included in SPI's revised scope of work, to develop recommendations and a series of alternatives to be included at the end of the report. Chair Burnett responded that the consultant are not intending to make recommendations of one project over another, but could make recommendations on specific project aspects. Chair Burnett requested the TAC identify the key seven points from what they studied that they can make recommendations from. Chair Burnett opened the item to the public. Salfwat Malek questioned if SPI has fulfilled the obligations in their contract and spoke about concerns about the Authority’s ability to meet the timeline for the CPUC deadlines. Having no further requests to speak, Chair Burnett closed public comment and responded to Mr. Malek's comments. He agreed the timeline presented looks challenging and indicated that some of the recommendations were policy questions and some were TAC recommendations and that the Authority will do their best to achieve all deadlines while being responsive to the public interest. Member Israel stated that intervener testimony for the CPUC is scheduled for January 22, 2013 and the Authority needs to make sure we provide the best possible information. He questioned what is a reasonable period of time to request the final report be completed by the consultants. Chair Burnett summarized the discussion and indicated that further future discussion will be helpful. He noted that the SPI report as updated, would include financial and legal projections, organized into a matrix (6 key issues) and the possibility of a detailed project schedule with timeline for resolving key issues. Still to be resolved is the key question of contingency plans. With no further discussion on this item, Chair Burnett moved to the next agenda item. 7. Approve Future Meeting Dates for Technical Advisory Committee in 2013 Action item: Approved as Presented On a motion by Member Narigi and seconded by Member Riley and passed by the following vote, the MPRWA voted to approve the presented meeting dates for the Technical Advisory 5 MPRWA TAC Minutes Monday, December 3, 2012 Committee through March 30, 2013. AYES: 5 DIRECTORS: Israel, Narigi, Riedl, Riley, Burnett NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: None ABSENT: 1 DIRECTORS: Stoldt ABSTAIN: 0 DIRECTORS: None RECUSED: 0 DIRECTORS: None ADJOURNMENT Director Burnet adjourned the meeting at 4:11 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Lesley Milton, Clerk to the Authority President MPRWA 6