tac mprwa agenda packet 01-06-14.pdf

8/13/2019 TAC MPRWA Agenda Packet 01-06-14.pdf

1/12

AgendaMonterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority (MPRWA)

Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)Regular Meeting

10:30 AM, Monday, January 6, 2014Council Chamber580 Pacific Street

Monterey, California

CALL TO ORDER

ROLL CALL

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

REPORTS FROM TAC MEMBERS

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

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

1. November 4, 2013 Regular Meeting

2. December 9, 2013 Special Meeting

AGENDA ITEMS

3. Review and Discuss Current Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Schedule (Burnett)

4. Receive Report and Discuss Status of Ground Water Replenishment Product WaterNegotiations and Status of SDPH Criteria for Groundwater Recharge of Waste Water(Israel)

5. Receive Report and Discuss Water Project Status Reports Being Conducted by theMonterey Peninsula Water Management District (Stoldt)

6. Receive Report, Discuss and Provide Direction Regarding Alternate Funding Scenarios asIt Related to Cost of Water (Cullem)


2/12

Created date 01/03/2014 10:38 AM Monday, January 6, 2014

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 Relay

Service (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 related writings or documents provided to the MPRWA are available for publicinspection during the meeting or may be requested from the Monterey City Clerks Office at 580Pacific St, Room 6, Monterey, CA 93940. This agenda is posted in compliance with California

Government Code Section 54954.2(a) or Section 54956.


3/12

M I N U T E SMONTEREY PENINSULA WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA)

TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC)Regular Meeting10:30 AM, Monday, November 4, 2013

MONTEREY REGIONAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY REGIONALTREATMENT PLANT

14811 DEL MONTE BLVD, MARINA 93933

Members Present: Israel, Narigi, Riedl, Stoldt, Burnett

Members Absent: Riley

Staff Present: Executive Director, Legal Counsel, Clerk

CALL TO ORDERThe meeting was called to order at 10:30 a.m.

ROLL CALL


ADJOURN TO FIELD TRIP

1. Tour of the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency Regional Treatment Plantat 14811 Del Monte Blvd, Marina 93933

The meeting reconvened at 11:17 a.m.


Member Stoldt reported on speaking engagements he has attended regarding securitizationfunding for the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project. Chair Burnett reported about theDirectors Special Meeting where they authorized a representative to participate with the Cal AmDesign Build Firm interview process noting it was an unusual opportunity that a public agencywas invited to participate in the private process. The Authority authorized contracting with Alex

Wesner from Separation Process Incorporated to participate on behalf of the GovernanceCommittee.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

Chair Burnett invited public comments. David Lifland questioned the status of the test well permit application with the City of

Marina. Chair Burnett responded that he will provide an update at the November 14,

2013 Director meeting.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES


4/12

MPRWA TAC Minutes Monday, November 4, 2013

On Motion by TAC Member Stoldt and seconded by TAC Member Narigi and passed by thefollowing vote the TAC approved the minutes of August 19, 2013

AYES: 5 DIRECTORS:Israel, Narigi, Riedl, Stoldt, Burnett

NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: NoneABSENT: 1 DIRECTORS: RileyABSTAIN: 0 DIRECTORS: None

AGENDA ITEMS

3. Receive Report, Discuss and Make Recommendations Regarding Ground WaterReplenishment Project Bifurcation, including timeline and process for cost comparison andother project criteria (Burnett)

Chair Burnett reported on this item speaking to the approved settlement agreement granted bythe CPUC judge which includes project criteria for the Ground Water Replenishment (GWR)project. He noted that the process laid out in the settlement agreement leaves some questions.He requested the TAC to consider if there are particular criteria that could benefit from Authorityengagement.

The following items were determined to be considered

for engagement:

1. Source water2. Department of Health3. On schedule delivery4. Preliminary design completed to 10% level5. Funding plan is in place

6. Water purchase agreement with just and reasonable terms7. Comparison of the revenue requirement in compare to a larger desal without GWR

Member Israel spoke to conversations the Pollution Control Agency has been engaged inregarding source water. Progress is being made so binding arbitration has been delayed butanticipates to have the source water issue worked out on or before 2014.

Chair Burnett opened the item to public comment.

Nelson Vega spoke to the need to have a confirmed source of water before any

additional monies are spent to avoid stranded costs. David Lifland questioned the supporting evidence for regulations on the treatment and

injection process and thinks it is in conflict with the 2011 basin plan. He is concernedthat the Department of Health and the State Water Resources Control Board will notapprove the process.

Mr. Israel responded to concerns expressed during public comment.

Mr. Stoldt left the meeting at 11:31 a.m.

Member Narigi urged consideration for future water supply needs. He indicated he has a variety


5/12


The TAC agreed on the following action items: Monitor the schedule and how we are doing relative to that. Need staff recommendation

to how we can provide answer to questions that Member Narigi raises. Want to see the scope of work on the externality study from Member Stoldt

List of legal challenges or concerns that could come up and if they could be vettedthrough CEQA process

4. Receive Report, Discuss and Make Recommendations Regarding Ground WaterReplenishment Project Schedule and Areas where the Water Authority Can Assist in Evaluatingand Moving the Project Forward (Israel)

TAC Member Israel spoke to the item indicating that the list has been updated with regards topublic health. He questioned what the procedural mechanism is for asking the CPUC to engage.Legal Counsel Russ McGlothlin will be contacted to provide the best opportunities.

The TAC spoke to the schedule included in the packet and the opportunities identified by theMRWPCA for the Authority to offer assistance which include the following:

Source Water Agreements

Participating in key discussions with regulator agencies

Support of project funding via the 2014 Water Bond Assistance in the planning of the externalities study

Mr. Israel outlined the numerous permits that were required on the Federal (6), State (10),regional/local permits (16) and private entities (3) level. He then spoke to current efforts toassess and identify all waters in Northern Monterey County citing the need for the developmentof a full-scale general plan to minimize short term solutions.

Chair Burnett invited public comments.

Tom Rowley spoke concerning the availability of source waters. He expressed concernabout ASR not being reliable, the timeline for installation of the proposed pipeline andquestioned opportunities to expedite the process. He questioned the GWR projectquantity projections and how it was measured.

Nelson Vega spoke to the draft Water Purchase Agreement (WPA) and expressedconcern about liability if you cannot produce the amount of water that is committed. Hespoke in support of bifurcating the two projects but thinks the projects will still be done in

a lineal pattern instead of on parallel tracks. Lastly, he expressed concern regardingstranded costs from the projects.

Mr. Israel answered Mr. Rowleys questions that the quantity of water is measured at point ofinjection and that the deep wells are more expensive than the shallow wells. Chair Burnettagreed with concerns of liability if adequate water cannot be produced but noted the WPA hasnot been drafted yet and contingencies will be built into the projects to account for theseconcerns.

The TAC discussed the need for an independent analysis to be done of the GWR project.Member Israel reported that the Independent Advisory Panel, funded by the Irvine Foundation isconducting an analysis of the project and has offered to provide an update to the Authority if


6/12


5. Discuss, Provide Staff Direction in Identifying Information Necessary to Evaluate the GroundWater Replenishment Project (Cullem)

This item was discussed and taken up under previous items. There was no additionaldiscussion.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 12:53 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted, Approved,

Lesley Milton, Committee Clerk Jason Burnett, TAC Chair


7/12

M I N U T E SMONTEREY PENINSULA WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA)

TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC)Special Meeting10:30 AM, Monday, December 9, 2013

SEASIDE COUNCIL CHAMBER440 HARCOURT AVESEASIDE, CA 93955

Members Present: Israel, Narigi, Riley, Riedl, Stoldt, Burnett

Members Absent: None

Staff Present: Legal Counsel, Executive Director, Clerk, SPI Consultant Alex Wesner

CALL TO ORDER

TAC Chair Burnett called the meeting to order at 10:30 a.m.

ROLL CALL



TAC Member Riley spoke to a newspaper article discussing future water rates and requested anopportunity to ask questions. TAC Member Narigi spoke to the December 2, 2013 CaliforniaPublic Utilities Commission (CPUC) Workshop and reported meeting with Executive Director

Cullem regarding Ground Water Replenishment Project concerns. Chair Burnett also reportedregarding the CPUC workshop indicating the focus of questioning was regarding the size of thedesal facility and that he had the opportunity to speak to the Authority position of sizing and theneed to have water for lots of record and economic rebound. Member Stoldt indicated additionaltopics of discussion included cost cap, procedure for GWR, and securitization financing.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

David Lifland requested an update on the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project test wellproject. Cal Am Engineering Manager Ian Crooks responded that Cal Am is working with Marinato provide six additional technical studies to the City of Marina by the end of December.

AGENDA ITEMS

1. Review, Discuss and Provide Recommendations on Draft SPI Report to the MontereyPeninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP) Design Build Consultant Selection Process(Consultant Alex Wesner)


8/12

MPRWA TAC Minutes Monday, December 9, 2013

A brief over view of the project was provided by TAC Chair Burnett. He recapped theGovernance Committee structure which provides a venue for the three public agencies to weigh

in on the different aspects of the planning and construction of Cal Ams Monterey PeninsulaWater Supply Project.

Mr. Alex Wesner, contracted consultant from Separation Processes Incorporated provided adetailed presentation of his involvement in the selection process for the Design Build contractfor the MPWSP as members of the Governance Committee on behalf of the three publicagencies. His role was to review relevant documents, including statement of qualifications,Request for Proposals, proposal responses, questionnaire response and evaluation reports. Healso attended meetings including interviews with the contractors, proposal scoring sessions and

negotiations with selected Design Build firm.

Mr. Wesner spoke to the technical specifications that were included in the contract negotiationprocess and provided evidence of the justifications for selection of the firm CDM including price,design ideas and site plan. He explained that the process was prescriptive to respond to specifictechnical criteria yet allowed the bidders to submit voluntary alternate proposals for flexibility.

Mr. Wesner provided the following schedule highlights proposed by the selected contractor

CDM (*This time frame is contingent upon the success of the test wells.) then answeredquestions from the TAC.:

GWR Capacity Decision: October 2015

Final Design/Construction Start Nov 2015 Initial Start up at for 6.4 MGD Sept 2017

Final Start up for 9.6 MGD March 2018

The TAC discussed the voluntary alternative proposals and requested the proposed rates beincluded within the contract. Mr. Wesner noted that there were no immediate alternativespresented that should automatically be adopted and included from other proposals. The TACdiscussed ways to speed up the process but Mr. Wesner responded that schedule accelerationis linked to Cal Ams permitting schedule. Member Narigi spoke to the cost difference betweenthe different sized facilities, noting it was a small incremental cost. Mr. Wesner encouragedlooking at the total project cost including operating costs as this facility would be more energydemanding to operate than the GWR project.

Mr. Crooks thanked the Authority for the effort Mr. Wesner provided to the process. The processwas very throughout and the product results were acceptable.

Chair Burnett opened the item to public comment

David Lifland questioned redundancy of the wells if there are unanticipated outages. Mr.Crooks confirmed that that is adequately addressed. Cal am could start up some of theother wells if those wells if there is an outage. He also spoke to the ability to pull waterfrom the Carmel River or other areas and run for a short period of time in an emergency.


9/12


Member Riley requested anticipated completion dates of the EIR and the planned decision datefor the CPCN to be included in the Critical Path method schedule. Mr. Cooks responded that the

Draft EIR is anticipated to be released in February 2014, for approval in August. The TACdiscussed the schedules as laid out in the CPUC settlement agreements for both the MPWSPand the GWR project, but noted they are all speculative and based on progress of the projects.

TAC Chair Burnett read an email from Legal Counsel McLaughlin into the record indicatingAttorney Wes Strickland reviewed the proposed contract and concluded that the agreement waswell drafted and fair. One further item is being explored regarding meeting coordination, butfeels it is ripe for approval by the Governance Committee.

Executive Director Cullem summarized the following concerns discussed by the TAC: High cost spread of the bids Pushing the design work schedule given the permitting

Brine disposal issues and how they could affect the design

Contract being increased due to the added Lock in reduced rate if filters are eliminated

Contract ignores permitting schedule

Small difference in costs between both size facilities

Quality Assurance vs. Quality Control Water Supply Sources and Redundancies

Executive Director Cullem spoke to the need to compile recommendations necessary to pass tothe Authority Directors and then to the Governance Committee.

The TAC requested the following changes to the contract include:1) Request Cal Am to look into locking-in the price of reduction in the event the

filters are not needed if iron and manganese are not needed and any other areaswhere voluntary alternatives could reduce costs that could be locked inThe TAC suggested further review of the following:

2) Looking at oversight of quality control and quality assurances3) Clarification when the value engineering exercise begins4) Identify the critical path schedule that the public agencies and the public can look

to ensure the project stays on schedule

On Motion by TAC Member Stoldt and seconded by TAC Member Narigi and passed by the

following vote the TAC endorse the selection of CDM Smith for the design build team anddirected this recommendation be passed to the Authority with the exception of the potential fora credit for the pre filtration if not necessary based on water quality test, as well as to considerinclusion into the contract for Quality Assurance to be conducted by Cal Am or itsrepresentative.

AYES: 5 DIRECTORS:Israel, Narigi, Riley, Riedl, Stoldt,

NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: None

ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: NoneABSTAIN: 1 DIRECTORS: Burnett


10/12


Mr. Cullem noted that the discussion was longer than anticipated and due to time constraintsthe remaining items will be tabled.

The TAC requested for a future agenda to discuss and determine how best to calculate andcommunicate water rate increases to the ratepayers. It was additionally noted that this designbuild selection resulted in substantial ratepayer savings over the original savings projected bySPI in the previous report.

2. Review and Discuss Current Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Schedule (Burnett)

Action: Tabled

3. Receive Report and Discuss Status of Ground Water Replenishment Product WaterNegotiations and Status of SDPH Criteria for Groundwater Recharge of Waste Water (Israel)Action: Tabled

4. Receive Report and Discuss Water Project Status Reports Being Conducted by the MontereyPeninsula Water Management District (Stoldt)Action: Tabled

5. Receive Report, Discuss and Provide Direction Regarding Monterey Regional Water PollutionControl Agency Responses to The Coalition of Peninsula Businesses (Narigi).Action: Tabled

6. Receive Report, Discuss and Provide Direction Regarding Alternate Funding Scenarios as ItRelated to Cost of Water (Cullem)Action: Tabled

ADJOURNMENT

The next scheduled meeting on December 16, 2013 was canceled. The next scheduled meetingfor the TAC will be on January 6, 2014. The meeting was adjourned at 12:13 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted, Approved,

Lesley Milton, Authority Clerk Jason Burnett, TAC Chair


11/12

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water AuthorityAgenda Report

Date: January 06, 2014

Item No: 6.

FROM: Executive Director Cullem

SUBJECT:Receive Report, Discuss and Provide Direction on Alternate Funding Scenarios as Related to

the Cost of Water.

RECOMMENDATION:Staff recommends that the TAC review the alternative funding scenarios as outlined in theattached Cal-Am attachment to better understand the impact that the various Desal projectfunding scenarios have on the cost of water to the average customer as defined in footnote #4.It is further recommended that the TAC provide suggestions and input to the Water Authority asappropriate.

DISCUSSION:

The attached Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Financing Scenarios document waspresented and discussed at the CPUC pre-hearing on December 2, 2013. For purpose ofcomparison, it refers only to the 9.6 MGD plant.

The columns in the table outline estimated costs caps that cannot be exceeded without CPUCapproval by means of a Tier 2 Advice Letter or a Petition for Modification. Refer toparagraphs III C and III D of the Comprehensive (Large) settlement agreement for a detaileddiscussion.

Go to the Water Authority web site at www.mprwa.organd click on Resource Central thanDocuments to find the full text of the settlement agreement.

This item will be discussed at the Water Authority meeting this afternoon, so any TACsuggestions or recommendations should be conveyed to the authority through the ExecutiveDirector or during the public comments period at the Authority meeting.

ATTACHMENT:

Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Project & Financing Scenarios ( as of 2 Dec 2013)


12/12