tac mprwa agenda packet 04-07-14

Agenda Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority (MPRWA)

Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Regular Meeting

10:30 AM, Monday, April 7, 2014

Council Chamber 580 Pacific Street

Monterey, California

CALL TO ORDER

ROLL CALL

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

REPORTS FROM TAC MEMBERS

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 TAC and which is not on the agenda. Any person or group desiring to bring an item to the attention of the Committee may do so by addressing 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 appropriate staff person will contact the sender concerning the details.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

1. March 3, 2014

AGENDA ITEMS

2. Receive, Discuss, and Make Recommendations on the Draft Request for Proposal (RFP) and Scope of Work for a Value Engineering (VE) Study of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP) -Cullem

3. Receive Report on Detailed Schedule for Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project

Permits, Status of Borehole and Test Slant Well Construction and Update on Alternative Test Well Sites - Cal Am

4. Receive Update Report, Discuss and Provide Direction Regarding Negotiations for GWR

Source and Product Water, and on the Progress of the "Pure Water Monterey" Project - Israel

5. Receive Report, Discuss and Provide Direction Regarding Monterey Peninsula Water

Management District Consultant Selection for GWR Externalities Study- Stoldt

ADJOURNMENT

Created date 04/04/2014 12:02 PM Monday, April 7, 2014

2

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 Clerk’s 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 Clerk’s 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 Clerk’s 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.

MINUTES

MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC)

Regular Meeting 10:30 AM, Monday, March 3, 2014

COUNCIL CHAMBER 580 PACIFIC STREET

MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Members Present Huss, Israel, Narigi, Riley, Riedl, Stoldt, Burnett

Members Absent: None Staff Present: Executive Director, Legal Counsel, Clerk CALL TO ORDER In Mayor Burnett’s absence, TAC Member Stoldt called the meeting to order at 10:33.a.m.

ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE REPORTS FROM TAC MEMBERS Executive Director Cullem reminded the TAC that Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) Form 700s for all TAC members are due to the Clerk.

PUBLIC COMMENTS Tom Rowley urged thanking the community for past and ongoing conservation efforts and spoke to the proposed regulation water tiers and to comments received regarding cost increases. David Lifland expressed concern regarding water storage capacity as well as requested an update on the release of the Deep Water Desal report regarding the proposed intake methods.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Rowley requested a correction on the minutes to a comment he made which should read: the report was lacking information about the waste lands predicted by the Hopkins researcher regarding Brine Disposal.

On motion by TAC Member Huss and Seconded by TAC Member Reidl and approved by the following vote the Technical Advisory Committee approved the minutes of Feburary 3, 2014.

AYES: 7 MEMBERS: Huss, Israel, Riedl, Riley, Stoldt, NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 2 MEMBERS: Narigi, Burnett ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None

2. Receive Report and Discuss Status of Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project: Ian Crooks, Engineering Manager from Cal Am provided an update on the status of the

MPRWA TAC Meeting, 4/7/2014 , Item No. 1., Item Page 1, Packet Page 1

MPRWA Minutes Monday, March 3, 2014

MPRWA TAC Meeting Minutes Regular Meeting Minutes - Monday, March 3, 2014

2

borehole construction project noting the second bore hole drilling is about to begin and the results of the water analysis will be released once certified. He then spoke to the power purchase Agreement status and indicated the report regarding the capital costs of the engineering solution will be published by the end of march. Chair Burnett Arrived at 10:44 a.m. and indicated that the Authority, the City of Marina, and Cal Am representatives will meet to strategize on engagement with the City of Marina earlier with the slant wells to work to prevent delays in the future. Executive Director Cullem spoke to future efforts to obtain details on remaining necessary permits to prepare a detailed schedule and identify all possible barriers. Member Narigi Arrived at 10:47 a.m. Chair Burnett invited public comment and had no requests to speak.

3. Review Discuss and Provide Direction on Current CPUC Schedule and Administrative Law Judge Decision of Jan 27, 2014 (Cullem)

Executive Director Cullem spoke to the item and the change in schedule for the CEQA and CPCN track. He expressed concern with the substantial delay for the project due to the newly revised report release dates and questioned opportunities to request reconsideration of the release dates. Ian Crooks from Cal Am provided an outline schedule regarding the draft EIR circulation date and indicated that the full analysis of each bore hole content will be complete 4 to 6 weeks after submission. Chair Burnett invited public comment on the item.

• David Lifland requested clarification regarding data needed from the Slant Wells and suggested switching to open water intakes to move more quickly.

• Tom Rowley expressed concern regarding previous efforts to obtain the CPCN before the EIR on the failed desalination project and the need to recognize any unnecessary delays.

Chair Burnett answered questions posed during public comment speaking to the purpose of the data collection as required and requested by the Salinas Valley Working Group. The TAC discussed the opportunities to speed up the draft EIR release date. On motion by Member Riley and seconded by Member Narigi and passed by the following vote the Technical Advisory Committee approved sending a letter to the California Public Utilities Commission urging expeditious decision regarding the schedule of the release of the Environmental Impact Report and the Administrative Law Judge review citing that the purpose of delay has been resolved and consideration of cooperative efforts should be given to put time back on the schedule.

AYES: 5 MEMBERS: Huss, Israel, Narigi, Riedl, Riley, Stoldt, Burnett

NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None




3

Narigi requested that due to time constraints the TAC discuss item 7 out of order. The TAC Agreed.

7. Receive Report, Discuss and Provide Direction Regarding Issues, Implications and Benefits of Commissioning a Study Regarding a Public Take Over of Cal Am.

Chair Burnett introduced the item saying that the Authority was created to help deliver a water supply project to the Peninsula and has tried to avoid deviation from that core purpose. He requested the TAC to consider if the Authority would benefit from engagement with regard to ballot measure O, by commissioning a study on the impacts of the measure to provide information to the public that is not currently available, and not biased. The TAC discussed if the following opportunities before the Authority while keeping in mind the purpose of the Authority to obtain a reliable water supply as soon as possible.

1. Do nothing 2. Take a position but not be involved in providing analysis of pros and cons 3. Don’t take a position and provide an analysis of pros and cons.

Chair Burnett invited public comment on the item. • Tom Rowley spoke to unsuccessful previous votes and lack of support for public

water and spoke against doing a study that it is a diversion from obtaining a water supply.

• Bill Hood spoke in agreement to Mr. Rowley and said this is a policy issue, and should be taken up by the Directors.

Chair Burnett agreed that it is a policy decision but that the TAC should determine the issues to study if a study was to be conducted. Member Stoldt indicated that the Water Management District will not participate in providing any direction due to their position of neutrality. He spoke to the intent of the ballot measure and what would be the resulting process if passed. The TAC discussed the timing for the completion of the study, the timeline for the election ballots, the perception of the community efforts at the state level, potential Authority involvement to provide an educational component, if there would be impacts on future water deliveries, the impacts to the settlement agreements and bond financing impacts. Chair Burnett Invited public comment on the discussion:

• Bill Hood spoke to the discussion, and indicated that the Authority has already provided policy direction on this topic already and disagrees with the approach.

• David Lifland spoke in support of public ownership of water and against the Authority taking a position on this issue.

• Tom Rowley spoke in support of letting the Citizens vote on the public ownership.

On motion by Member Narigi and seconded by Member Huss and passed by the following vote, the Technical Advisory Committee approved making a recommendation to the Authority Directors to commission a factual analysis of Measure O, based on Article 2.2 of the JPA agreement, as it addresses the ballot initiative to include all of elements.

AYES: 5 MEMBERS: Huss, Israel, Narigi, Riedl, Burnett NOES: 1 MEMBERS: Riley ABSENT: 0 MEMBERS: None




4

ABSTAIN: 1 MEMBERS: Stoldt RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None

Member Narigi left the meeting at 12:10 p.m.

4. Receive Update Report, Discuss and Provide Direction Regarding Negotiations For GWR Product Water, Update On Availability of Source Water And Discuss Unresolved GWR Questions Posed By The Business Community (Israel) Member Israel gave a report regarding current status of the negotiations for product water and progress made on source water for the GWR project. Executive Director Cullem indicated there was no need to discuss questions posed by the Business Coalition as they have been answered by Mr. Israel previously. The TAC questioned and discussed the level of involvement with the Marina Coast Water District indicating a partnership could help keep the costs down, as well as discussed scenarios of changes in source water availability. Member Huss left the meeting at 12:27 p.m. Chair Burnett invited public comment on the item. Tom Rowley spoke to Member Narigi’s question regarding concerns about the schedule and costs. This item was for information only to keep the public and the other agencies informed of the progress. No action was taken.

5. Receive Report, Discuss and Provide Direction On Emergency Funding For GWR And Affect On Cost Of Water (Israel) Member Israel spoke to the state emergency funding and other possibilities that could benefit the GWR project and the cost of water. Member Stoldt spoke to meetings with representatives regarding state revolving funds who are compiling a priority list for 0% financing for state recycled water projects and spoke to proposed legislation related to drought relief for California. Chair Burnett invited public comment on the item.

• David Lifland questioned if the current balance of the IRWM account. • Tom Rowley spoke to the survey of willingness of people in CA willing to pay.

Votes, rate payers and tax payers in the local area. The study says people are willing to pay more, but people in the local area are less willing. Don’t be deceived.

Report was received.

6. Receive Report, Discuss and Provide Direction Regarding Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Consultant Selection for GWR Externalities Study (Stoldt) Member Stoldt spoke to the item and provided an update on the report commissioned by the Water Management District, as required by the settlement agreement to discuss the externalities as it relates to the GWR project. He reported the draft will be released to the MRWPCA next week for comments and thereafter released to the Authority for comment and review. Chair Burnett invited public comment and had no requests to speak.

ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 12:45 p.m.




5

ATTEST: Lesley Milton, Authority Clerk Jason Burnett, TAC Chair


Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority Agenda Report

Date: April 07, 2014

Item No: 2.

№06/12

FROM: Executive Director Cullem SUBJECT: Receive, discuss, and make recommendations on the draft Request for Proposal

(RFP) and Scope of Work for a Value Engineering (VE) Study of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP)

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority (MPRWA) TAC review the draft RFP and scope of work for a Value Engineering (VE) study of Cal Am’s Desal facility 30% design and suggest any changes in time for inclusion in the Water Authority agenda on April 10, 2014.

DISCUSSION:

At its meeting of March 31, 2014, a Governance Committee report stated that, per Section V of the Governance Committee Agreement, the Committee shall select a professional engineer to perform a value engineering analysis for the Desalination Project.

In addition, the Committee voted to advertise, select, and award a contract for the VE study. The Governance agreement currently allows the Committee to select the VE consultant, but it will need to be modified to authorize the Committee to advertise and award the contract in lieu of Cal Am doing so.

Since the Governance Committee cannot directly award contracts, and since time is of the essence, the Water Authority has been requested to advertise the RFP, select the consultant, and award a contract.

The attached draft RFP and scope of work previously prepared by Cal Am has been modified by the Authority staff to conform with the requirements for public contracting and to better reflect the concerns and issues of the Authority and the Governance Committee.

BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS:

The FY 2013-2014 budget will have to be increased to pay for the VE study with the full cost to be reimbursed by Cal Am per the Governance Agreement.

ATTACHMENTS:

• Draft Contract

• VE RFP(draft)

• VE Scope of Work (draft)


1

MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY

April 11, 2014 To: Selected Recipients TBD

Directors:

Chuck Della Sala, President Jason Burnett, Vice President

Ralph Rubio, Secretary Jerry Edelen, Treasurer

Bill Kampe, Director David Pendergrass, Director

Executive Director:

Jim Cullem, P.E. Re: California American Water Company Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP) Desalination Infrastructure Request for Proposal – Value Engineering Study Dear Sir or Madam: The Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority (MPRWA), on behalf of the MPWSP Governance Committee (GC), is seeking a qualified Value Engineering (VE) Consultant to provide VE services related to the design and construction of a 6.4 to 9.6 mgd seawater desalination water treatment (desal) plant on the Monterey Peninsula. You are invited to submit a proposal for VE services for the above referenced project. The project is currently being designed for the California American Water Company (CAW) by Camp Dresser & Mckee (CDM) Constructors, Inc. with offices in Walnut Creek, California. CDM will have made a 30% design submittal prior to the VE study. Preliminary site plans, floor plans, elevations and a geotechnical report will be available for the study. Schematics for the process, treatment residuals handling and chemical systems will also be available. A preliminary cost estimate and energy consumption model will be provided. In general, the objectives of the value engineering services are:

• To identify potential changes to the project design that would satisfy the essential functions of the project at a lower capital and/or life cycle cost;

• To identify potential changes to the project design that would better accomplish the essential functions of the project and/or provide better overall value;

• To improve confidence in the effectiveness of the design, i.e., to ensure the design represents the most efficient combination of cost, performance and reliability;

• To identify constructability, durability, adaptability, operability, safety, and maintenance issues;


2

• To identify opportunities to attain a Silver Award level of sustainable design under the Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure(ISI) Envision rating system;

• To identify opportunities to attain a Silver Award level of design under the US Green Building Council LEEDS rating system.

Scope of Services The work will consist of the following tasks and as detailed in Exhibit “A”, Scope of Services, attached. It is intended that the selected VE Consultant will conduct one VE workshop to be conducted in the Monterey, California area from June 23 through June 27, 2014. The VE workshop will follow the standards of the Society of American Value Engineers (SAVE). The workshop meeting location will be announced and will be and paid for by others. The VE workshop will consist of the following phases conducted over a period of four/five consecutive days:

• Information Phase • Function Analysis Phase • Creative Phase • Evaluation Phase • Development Phase • Presentation Phase

Required Qualifications The VE Consultant shall provide a team leader/facilitator that is certified by SAVE International as a Certified Value Specialist (CVS). The team will also include multidiscipline technical specialists with appropriate qualifications such as: an architect, instrumentation and controls engineer, civil and structural engineer, process design engineer, electrical engineer, construction cost estimator and construction superintendent. The team shall also include experienced operations and maintenance staff as well as certified ENVISION and LEEDS evaluators to round out the technical specialist staff. The VE Consultant shall demonstrate corporate experience pertinent to the subject matter of the VE study.

Proposal Elements Proposals are to include the following elements: Cover Letter Table of Contents Understanding of the Scope of Work Proposed Methodology and Delivery Schedule Qualifications and Experience, including client references Brief Biographies of Key Personnel Fee Proposal (in separate sealed envelope) Other considerations


3

Detailed resumes and additional corporate information may be also submitted, if so desired. Note that key personnel must disclose any economic interest they have in CAW, American Water, or CDM. The proposal should be on a lump sum basis, inclusive of per diem costs for travel and living expenses. Note that the MPRWA will utilize a Qualification Based Selection (QBS) process in procuring professional services. Accordingly, the fee proposal is to be provided in a separate sealed envelope submitted with the technical proposal, and will not be considered in the selection of the best proposal. It will be opened at the time of initial negotiation with the selected firm. Proposals should be submitted by 4:00 p.m. on Thursday, May 8, 2014. One original proposal, two (2) hard copies and three (3) CD-ROMS shall be addressed and sent to: Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority (MPRWA) 735 Pacific Street Monterey, CA 93940 Attention: Executive Director. Thank you for your cooperation. If you have any questions or comments concerning the project scope of services, please contact me at 831-241-8503 or [email protected]. Very truly yours, James M. Cullem, P.E.

Executive Director EXHIBITS: A- Scope of Work for Value Engineering Study B- MPRWA Sample Contract for Professional Services Xc: Chuck Della Sala- President MPRWA Jason Burnett- Chair, Governance Committee Dave Stoldt- GM, MPWMD I. Crooks –CAW R. Svindland - CAW S. Creel - AW J. Gallagher - AW


4

EXHIBIT “A”

SCOPE OF SERVICES FOR VALUE ENGINEERING STUDY

The Value Engineering (VE) Consultant will provide the following services in accordance with this scope of work. CONSULTANT VE STUDY TEAM The Value Engineering Consultant will provide the VE study team members identified below:

• VE Team Leader/Facilitator Provided by VE Consultant • Civil / Structural Engineer Provided by VE Consultant • Architect Provided by VE Consultant • Process Design Engineer Provided by CAW • Electrical Engineer Provided by VE Consultant • Instrumentation and Controls Engineer Provided by VE Consultant • Construction Cost Estimator Provided by CAW • Construction Superintendent Provided by CAW • Operations personal Provided by VE Consultant

& CAW • Maintenance personal Provided by VE Consultant

& CAW • Envision and LEEDS certified evaluators Provided by VE Consultant

All other team members will be provided by the Governance Committee (GC) and/or California American Water (CAW), at no cost to the VE Consultant. The VE Consultant will communicate directly with the MPRWA Contract Manager, the GC Project Manager, the California American Water Project Manager, CDM Constructors Inc. and with all other study team members as needed relative to scheduling, pre-workshop, workshop and post workshop activities. PRE-WORKSHOP ACTIVITIES The VE Consultant will perform pre-workshop activities to include those tasks which must be accomplished in order for the study team to be able to efficiently and effectively perform in the workshop. These activities will consist of:

• Scheduling value engineering study tasks, • Scheduling and coordination with VE study team members • Assisting the GC and CAW with scheduling VE study participants • Coordination of the necessary project documentation of the project for distribution by the

GC and CAW to study team members • Document review by VE Consultant-supplied team members • Preparation of cost, energy, life cycle costs, etc. to the extent that the information needed

for their preparation is available. • Identify Envision Silver level Certification requirements and cost benefit analysis • Identify LEEDS Silver level Certification requirements and cost benefit analysis


5

CAW and the GC will distribute the project documents and materials to be studied to the VE study team members at least five (5) working days prior to the workshop start. All team members are expected to review the project documents and material prior to the start of the workshop. WORKSHOP The VE Consultant will conduct a 40 hour value engineering workshop using the six-step job plan that is consistent with the best management practices recognized by SAVE. The workshop will include an Information Phase, a Function Analysis Phase, a Creative Phase, and Evaluation Phase a Development Phase and a Presentation Phase. A site visit for the team members will be conducted on the first day of the workshop. The workshop will be initiated by presentations from the GC and CAW representatives, who will describe the objectives of the study and any constraints that will be placed on the study team. The designers will explain specifically how the design accomplishes MPRWA and CAW’s objectives and the details of that design. The workshop will include a detailed function analysis of the major project elements. The team will generate a list of ideas for project improvement followed by an evaluation of those ideas. This evaluation will include input from key GC and CAW decision makers before proceeding with development of recommendations. On the last day of the workshop, a presentation of the recommendations will be provided to CAW, key representatives of the design team, and the GC. The workshop will be held at CAW’s local office, 511 Forest Lodge Road, Suite 100, Pacific Grove, CA. The cost of providing the workshop meeting facilities and all other costs associated with the meeting facilities will not be borne by the consultant. To ensure that the study team has complete information about the project criteria, CAW will provide, at a minimum, key personnel from both CAW and the design team for the first day and last day presentations. POST WORKSHOP The VE Consultant will conduct a four-hour post-workshop Decision/Implementation Meeting at a location to be announced following receipt by the study team of the written design responses to the Preliminary Report. The purpose of the Decision/Implementation Meeting is to assist the GC and CAW in making decisions regarding acceptance or rejection of the individual value proposals. Attendees will consist of GC representatives, key CAW staff, key designer staff and the VE study team leader. SCHEDULE The work will be performed in accordance with the following schedule: Pre-Study Activities Upon receipt of a signed contract and notice to proceed Workshop June 23 – 27, 2014 Preliminary VE Study Report Three (3) days after completion of the Workshop Decision/implementation Meeting On a date to be determined by the GC, CAW, VE Consultant

and designer Final VE Study Report Fourteen (14) days after receipt of Comments on the draft

report


6

DELIVERABLES The VE study effort will include the following deliverables, all which are related to the results of the workshop:

• Study Team Presentation Handout • Preliminary VE Study Report • Final VE Study Report

The Preliminary VE Report will be prepared in the Value Engineering Consultant report format, and will be a compilation of the handwritten products developed in the workshop. The purpose of this draft report is to give the GC, CAW and other reviewers the opportunity to check the final VE Study report prior to final issuance. The Final VE Study Report is the final documentation of the VE Study. The report is a finalized version of the Draft Report including the incorporation of GC and CAW comments. The submittal of the final report concludes the Scope of Work. The VE Consultant will provide the GC with two (2) electronic copies (CD-ROM) and the following number of hard copies of each report:

• Preliminary VE Study Report 6 copies • Draft of Final VE Study Report 6 copies • Final VE Study Report 6 copies.


7

EXHIBIT “B”

CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

Agreement for Consultant Support Services

THIS AGREEMENT is executed this __ day of ______, by and between the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority, a municipal corporation, hereinafter called "Authority", and _________, hereinafter called "Consultant". IT IS HEREBY MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. Scope. Consultant hereby agrees to provide to the Authority, as the scope of services under this Agreement, Value Engineering Services as described on the following attachment: Scope of Services for Value Engineering Study (attached hereto as Exhibit “A”). 2. Timely Work. Consultant shall perform all tasks in a timely fashion, as set forth more specifically in paragraph 3 below. Failure to so perform is hereby deemed a material breach of this Agreement, and Authority may terminate this Agreement with no further liability hereunder, or may agree in writing with Consultant to an extension of time.

3. Term. The work under this Agreement shall commence no later than June 1, 2014 and shall be completed by July 31, 2014, unless Authority grants a written extension of time as forth in paragraph 2 above.

4. Compensation. Authority agrees to pay and Consultant agrees to accept as full and

fair consideration for the performance of this Agreement, a lump-sum payment as set forth in Consultant’s Proposal (Exhibit C), in a total amount of __________________ ($_________). Compensation under this Agreement shall become due and payable 30 days after Authority’s approval of Consultant’s submission of a written invoice to the Authority Executive Director. Written invoices shall include a copy of timesheets or invoices from sub-consultants. The payment of any compensation to Consultant hereunder shall be contingent upon performance of the terms and conditions of this Agreement to the satisfaction of the Authority. If Authority determines that the work set forth in the written invoice has not been performed in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, Authority shall not be responsible for payment until such time as the work has been satisfactorily performed. 5. Additional Services. In the event that Authority should request services identified in Exhibit C, or for additional services not covered by the terms of this Agreement, said services will be provided by Consultant and paid for by Authority only after a fee for said services has been agreed upon between Consultant and the Authority Executive Director, only after the Authority Director provides written authorization for the additional work. 6. Meet and Confer. Consultant agrees to meet and confer with Authority or its agents or employees with regard to services as set forth herein as may be required by Authority to insure timely and adequate performance of this Agreement. 7. Indemnification. Consultant hereby agrees to the following indemnification clause:


8

To the fullest extent permitted by law (including, without limitation, California Civil Code Sections 2782 and 2782.6), Consultant shall defend (with legal counsel reasonably acceptable to the Authority), indemnify and hold harmless the Authority and its officers, designated agents, departments, officials, representatives and employees (collectively "Indemnitees") from and against claims, loss, cost, damage, injury expense and liability (including incidental and consequential damages, court costs, reasonable attorneys' fees, litigation expenses and fees of expert consultants or expert witnesses incurred in connection therewith and costs of investigation) to the extent they arise out of, pertain to, or relate to, the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of Consultant, any Subconsultant, anyone directly or indirectly employed by them, or anyone that they control (collectively "Liabilities"). Such obligations to defend, hold harmless and indemnify any Indemnitee shall not apply to the extent that such Liabilities are caused in part by the negligence, or willful misconduct of such Indemnitee.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the above paragraph, Consultant agrees to indemnify and

hold harmless the Authority from and against any and all claims, demands, defense costs, liability, expense, or damages arising out of or in connection with damage to or loss of any property belonging to Consultant or Consultant's employees, contractors, representatives, patrons, guests or invitees.

Consultant further agrees to indemnify Authority for damage to or loss of Authority property to

the proportionate extent they arise out of Consultant's negligent performance of the work associated with this agreement or to the proportionate extent they arise out of any negligent act or omission of Consultant or any of Consultant's employees, agents, contractors, representatives, patrons, guests or invitees; excepting such damage or loss arising out of the negligence of the Authority.

8. Insurance. Consultant shall submit and maintain in full force all insurance as

described herein. Without altering or limiting Consultant's duty to indemnify, Consultant shall maintain in effect throughout the term of this Agreement a policy or policies of insurance with the following minimum limits of liability:

Commercial general liability insurance including but not limited to premises, personal injuries, bodily injuries, products, and completed operations, with a combined single limit of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence and $2,000,000 in the aggregate.

Professional Liability Insurance: Consultant shall maintain in effect throughout the term of this Agreement professional liability insurance with limits of not less than $1,000,000 per claim and $2,000,000 in the aggregate. Consultant will either maintain or cause to be maintained professional liability coverage in full force or obtain extended reporting (tail) coverage (with the same liability limits) for at least three years following Authority's acceptance of the work.

Commercial automobile liability insurance covering all automobiles, including owned, leased, non-owned, and hired automobiles, used in providing services under this Agreement, with a combined single limit of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence.

Workers' Compensation Insurance: If Consultant employs others in the performance of this Agreement,Consultant shall maintain workers' compensation insurance in accordance with California Labor Code section 3700 and with a minimum of $100,000 per occurrence for employer's liability. Other Insurance Requirements

A. All insurance required under this Agreement must be written by an insurance

company either:


9

• admitted to do business in California with a current A.M. Best rating of no less than A:VI;

or • an insurance company with a current A.M. Best rating of no less than A: VII.

Exception may be made for the State Compensation Insurance Fund when not specifically rated.

B. Each insurance policy required by this agreement shall be endorsed to state that

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority shall be given notice in writing at least thirty days in advance of any cancellation thereof, except 10-day notice for nonpayment of the premium.

C. The general liability and auto policies shall:

• Provide an endorsement naming the Authority, its officers, officials, and employees as additional insureds under an ISO CG 20 10 07 04 or ISO 20 37 07 04 or their equivalent.

• Provide that such insurance is primary and non-contributing insurance to any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the Authority.

• Contain a "Separation of Insureds" provision substantially equivalent to that used in the ISO form CG 00 01 10 01 or their equivalent.

• Provide for a waiver of any subrogation rights against the Authority via an ISO CG 24 01 10 93 or its equivalent.

D. Prior to the start of work under this Agreement, Consultant shall file certificates of

insurance and endorsements evidencing the coverage required by this agreement with the Authority. Consultant shall file a new or amended certificate of insurance promptly after any change is made in any insurance policy which would alter the information on the certificate then on file.

E. Neither the insurance requirements hereunder, nor acceptance or approval of

Consultant’s insurance, nor whether any claims are covered under any insurance, shall in any way modify or change Consultant’s obligations under the indemnification clause in this Agreement, which shall continue in full force and effect. Notwithstanding the insurance requirements contained herein, Consultant is financially liable for its indemnity obligations under this Agreement.

F. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by

the Authority. At the option of the Authority, either: the insured shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the Authority, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or Consultant shall provide a financial guarantee satisfactory to the Authority guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses.

9. Ownership of Work. Upon completion of the work under this Agreement, ownership, and title to all materials and deliverables produced as part of this Agreement will automatically be vested in the Authority and no further agreement will be necessary to transfer ownership to Authority. 10. Licensing. Consultant represents as follows: that it is experienced in the professional services and a specialist in the work performed under this Agreement; is duly organized, existing and in good standing under applicable state law; and is properly licensed and/or certified to perform


10

the work specified under this Agreement, including but not limited to possession of a current City of Monterey business license, and will only employ persons and sub-consultants with all required licenses and certifications. 11. Substitution of Consultant Personnel. The key personnel of Consultant or any sub-consultants listed in Consultant’s proposal and assigned to perform the work under this Agreement may not be substituted with or replaced by other personnel or sub-consultants without the advance written consent of Authority. 12. Termination. Authority may terminate this Agreement upon ten days' written notice. The amount of damages, if any, as a result of such termination may be decided by negotiations between the parties or before a court of competent jurisdiction. 13. Agency. In performing the services specified under this Agreement, Consultant is hereby deemed to be an independent Consultant and not an agent or employee of Authority. 14. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties hereto and supersedes any and all prior agreements, whether oral or written, relating to the subject matter thereof. Any modification of this Agreement will be effective only if it is in writing signed by both parties hereto. 15. Validity. If any provision in this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining provisions will continue in full force without being impaired or invalidated in any way. 16. Assignment of Interest. The duties under this Agreement shall not be assignable, delegable, or transferable without the prior written consent of Authority. Any such purported assignment, delegation, or transfer shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement upon which Authority may terminate this Agreement and be entitled to damages. 17. Conflict of Interest. Consultant hereby certifies that it does not now have, nor shall it acquire, any financial or business interest that would conflict with the performance of services under this Agreement. 18. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in multiple originals, each of which is deemed to be an original, and may be signed in counterparts. 19. Laws. Consultant agrees that in the performance of this Agreement it will reasonably comply with all applicable State, Federal and local laws and regulations. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California and the City of Monterey. 20. Venue. Should either party to this agreement bring legal action against the other (formal judicial proceeding, mediation, or arbitration) the venue for the matter shall be Monterey County, California. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement is entered into by the parties hereto on the day and year first above written in Monterey, California. AUTHORITY CONSULTANT __________________________ __________________________ Executive Director Consultant Name




Item No: 3.

№06/12

FROM: Executive Director Cullem

SUBJECT: Receive report on detailed schedule for MPWSP permits, status of borehole and test slant well construction.

DISCUSSION:

There is no written report for this item. A verbal report will be provided by a representative from Cal Am.




Item No: 4.

№06/12

FROM: Executive Director Cullem SUBJECT: Receive Update Report, Discuss and Provide Direction Regarding Negotiations

For GWR Source and Product Water, and on the progress of the "Pure Water Monterey" Project - (Israel)

DISCUSSION:

The materials for this item are the same as for item #2 of the Feb 3, 2014 TAC packet and item #4 of the March 3, 2014 packet.

A verbal discussion will take place at the meeting.


TO: Natural Resources Defense Council

FROM: Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates

RE: Key Findings from Recent Survey on Water Issues

DATE: February 24, 2014

Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates (FM3) recently conducted a survey of 1,000 California voters likely to cast ballots in November 2014 to assess their views on key water issues facing the state. 1 The results show that voters are enormously concerned about water supply in the face of the current drought, and support a multi-pronged approach to dealing with the state’s water needs. More than nine in ten voters agree that the state is facing a serious drought, and that all Californians – including farmers – need to do their part to conserve water. More than four in five say that the state’s water needs are so critical that we need to make investments now to address them. Critically, voters also say that they are willing to pay more on their water bills in order to fund solutions to the state’s water needs.

Among the key specific findings of the survey were the following:

a By a wide margin California voters view the drought as the single most critical issue facing the state right now. Survey respondents were offered a list of major issues facing the state, as shown in Figure 1 on the following page – and they were asked to rank each as either an “extremely serious,” “very serious,” “somewhat serious” or “not a serious” problem for California. As the data make clear, water shortages are the single-most important issue on California voters’ minds. More than two in five rate it an “extremely serious” problem, and more than four in five at least a “very serious” problem – dwarfing every other item on the list. While concern about the economy and the deficit has receded slightly, concern about water shortages has increased dramatically.

1 Methodology: From February 1-9, 2014, FM3 completed 1,000 telephone interviews with California voters likely to cast ballots in November 2014. Interviews were conducted on landline and wireless phones. The margin of sampling error for the full sample is +/- 3.1%. Margins of error for subgroups within the sample will be larger.

2425 Colorado Avenue. Suite 180 1999 Harrison Street Suite 1290 Santa Monica, CA 90404 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: (310) 828-1183 Phone: (510) 451-9521 Fax: (310) 453-6562 Fax: (510) 451-0384


Key Findings – Survey of California Voters on Water Issues – February 2014 Page 2

FIGURE 1: Concern About Major Issues Facing the State

(Split Sampled)

Issue % Extremely Serious

% Extremely/ Very Serious

Water shortages due to more frequent droughts 42% 82% Current drought conditions in California 40% 80% Jobs and the economy 30% 71% Government waste and inefficiency 37% 70% The cost of health care 34% 69% The quality of public schools 31% 64% The state budget deficit 33% 63% Water pollution 18% 49% Global warming 20% 46% The amount you pay in taxes 23% 46% Increasing extreme weather events, like storms, floods, fires, and droughts

18% 46%

The state’s dependence on oil 16% 45% Air pollution 16% 45% The price of gasoline 19% 42% Climate change 18% 42% The cost of electricity 15% 42%

• Voters agree that addressing water problems will require both increased investment and collective effort. In response to this widespread concern, voters want to see action taken – both by California residents and also by state government (as shown in Figure 2 ).

FIGURE 2: Agreement with Statements About Water Supplies



More than four in five voters agree that California’s water problems are so severe as to require immediate investments (a perception which has increased dramatically in the past year), and more than nine in ten say that all Californians have a role to play in meeting this challenge, including farmers. More than two in three agree “strongly” with this sense of collective responsibility for water conservation.

• Voters prioritize – and are willing to pay for – a range of different approaches to expanding water supplies. As detailed in Figure 3 , survey respondents were offered a list of different objectives that might be considered as part of efforts to expand water supplies. They were asked two questions about each item on the list: how important a priority they thought it should be, and whether or not they would be willing to pay a small increase on their water bills to support it. The results are striking – more than three in five rated each item on the list a “very important” priority, and more than seven in ten indicated that they would be willing to pay a small increase in their water bills to support each one.

FIGURE 3: Importance of Goals Related to Water in California, and Willingness to Pay More on Water Bills to Support Them

Potential Water Supply Objective Total %

Extremely/Very Important

Total % Willing to Pay a Small

Amount More on Water Bill

Increasing sustainable, local water supplies

76% 77%

Investing in new technologies to more efficiently use current water supplies

71% 75%

Building local water recycling plants 64% 74% Capturing rainwater for local use 69% 74% Cleaning up locally contaminated groundwater

74% 71%

• Voters prefer developing local supplies of water to importing them from elsewhere. California voters were asked to choose where they would like to see their water agency invest – developing local supplies of water, or enhancing the reliability of water supplies imported from elsewhere. As shown in Figure 4 on the following page, by a margin of 74 percent to 17 percent, voters clearly preferred expanding local water supplies.



FIGURE 4: Preferred Objective for Water District’s Use of Ratepayer Funds

• Offered a choice of approaches to improving conditions in the Delta, voters are most inclined to support options that include investments in water efficiency, conservation, and recycling. Survey respondents were given the description of the Delta shown below an then asked to choose between three approaches to addressing the Delta’s challenges, as shown in Figure 5 on the following page.

Next, let me tell you a little about a related issue. The Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, or California Delta, is formed at the western edge of the Central Valley, where snowmelt from the Sierras flows through the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and the two rivers meet. The water then flows out through the Delta to San Francisco Bay. The Delta also serves as the hub of our state’s water delivery and infrastructure system - providing drinking water for 25 million Californians, irrigation for millions of acres of farmland and water for businesses statewide. However, as demand for water by farms and cities has increased, fish populations in the Delta have decreased, and key elements of the water infrastructure have deteriorated, water experts have concluded that major changes are needed in Delta water management.



FIGURE 5: Preferred Approach to Addressing Challenges in the Delta

These results again reinforce the strong priority that voters attach to maximizing diverse approaches to expand local water supplies. More than four in five voters select one of the two options that incorporates water efficiency, conservation, and recycling efforts, while only one in ten favors a tunnel-only approach.

On the whole, the results show that now is a time of great potential to make progress on water policy in California. Voters are acutely aware of the urgency of the issue; favor a wide range of approaches to expanding water supplies – particularly at the local level – and are willing to pay the additional costs that such approaches might entail.


5 Harris Court, Building G, Monterey, CA 93940 P.O. Box 85, Monterey, CA 93942-0085 831-658-5600 Fax 831-644-9560 http://www.mpwmd.net

February 11, 2014 Mr. John Narigi Co-Chair Coalition of Peninsula Businesses PO Box 223542 Carmel, CA 93923 Dear John: Thank you for your letter dated January 28, 2014 expressing the concerns your organization has with respect to the Groundwater Replenishment (GWR) Project budget adjustment. Please note that the budget adjustment proposed on our Board’s February 13th agenda is a reduced budget from the one you evaluated as Item 19 on the January board meeting agenda. This letter addresses the issues you have raised. Expenditures to date: Expenditures through the end of 2013 are shown below:

Please see the MRWPCA February 2014 Recycled Water Committee report on GWR for an

Expense FY 05/06

through FY 12/13

FY 13/14 Budget

FY 13/14 Expenses

Total to Date

Technical/Consultants $1,305,968 $2,157,570 $739,984 $2,045,952 Legal $376,855 $250,000 $143,246 $520,101 Environmental $274,681 $1,292,430 $249,629 $524,310 Internal Labor $1,102,837 $300,000 $201,604 $1,304,441 Total Expenditures/Budget

$3,060,341 $4,000,000 $1,334,463 $4,394,804

Watermaster (reimbursement)

($100,000) ($0) ($0) ($100,000)

MPWMD (reimbursement)

($361,317) ($2,831,495)* ($114,434) ($475,751)

SRF Feasibility Grant (reimbursement)

($0) ($74,883)* ($0) ($0)

BOR Title 16 WaterSMART Grant (reimbursement)

($0) ($149,791)* ($0) ($0)

Total After Reimbursements

$2,599,024 $943,831* $1,220,029 $3,819,053


John Narigi Page 2 of 2 2-11-14

update through January 2014. That report should become available later this week. All project expenditures are reviewed by the Recycled Water Committee and ultimately by the MRWPCA Board and are also reviewed by the MPWMD Administrative Committee and Water Supply Planning Committee, and ultimately the MPWMD Board. Status of environmental and feasibility studies: The CEQA team is in the process of finalizing the project description and submitting an administrative draft for internal review. The feasibility studies are in a parallel track with the environmental documents. Status of acquisition of rights to source wastewater: MRWPCA routinely meets with key stakeholders to discuss water right strategies and possible scenarios for securing appropriate agreements. MRWPCA and MPWMD are working jointly on determining the status of Blanco Drain and Replenishment Ditch waters. Beginning this month, MPWMD is having a greater role in evaluating feasible economic outcomes that may result in successful negotiations for source waters. Estimates of projected cost of treated waste water to the end user: GWR water is expected to be produced at no more than $2500 per acre-foot. Cal-Am has estimated for an average residential use of 74cfs a 2013 monthly bill of $68.91 will rise to $106.73 in 2018, an increase of 41%. This is based on the combined GWR facility and a 6.4 MGD desalination facility. Status of negotiations with MCWRA on rights to the treated wastewater:

MRWPCA and MCWRA have been meeting (typically monthly) since last August We have provided data/trend information indicating declining water supplies in the future A joint solution was proposed that is mutually beneficial to each party

A joint committee between MRWPCA and MPWMD Boards was recently formed to enhance communications between the two entities regarding the GWR project. Sincerely yours, David J. Stoldt General Manager


Joint Powers Authority Member Entities: Boronda County Sanitation District, Castroville Community Services District, County of Monterey, Del Rey Oaks, Fort Ord, Marina Coast Water District, Monterey,

Moss Landing County Sanitation District, Pacific Grove, Salinas, Sand City, and Seaside.

Business Coalition’s Five Questions to the JPA TAC MRWPCA Responses

1. Is there an agreement with the local governments that clearly states the

wastewater from these jurisdictions is available for GWR?

a. MRWPCA Legal Counsel has determined that, pursuant to State law, once wastewater flows are provided to or delivered to the regional conveyance lines then that wastewater is owned by the MRWPCA to use 1) as it so determines, or 2) as agreed upon in previous agreements.

2. Who currently has rights to the water in the reclamation ditches and will “producers” of the source wastewater have rights to the reclaimed wastewater?

a. For the MRWPCA EIR, the Reclamation Ditch and the Blanco Drain are being classified as alternative supplemental source water components. It is our understanding that flows in both the Reclamation Ditch and Blanco Drain may be considered waters of the state under the jurisdiction of the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and would be comprised of precipitation-driven runoff, urban runoff, and agricultural return flows. For the points of diversion being considered in the Reclamation Ditch and Blanco Drain, the SWRCB website, http://www.waterboards.ca. gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/ewrims/index.shtml shows that no permits have been issued to divert surface flows downstream of these points of diversion. However, there appear to be pending permit applications for diversions in some of the streams in the upland areas of the Reclamation Ditch watershed (i.e., upstream of the City of Salinas). Staff is preparing an application to request that the SWRCB make a determination to allow the use of these sources. In coordination with MPWMD, staff will be consulting the SWRCB for the correct determination of uses for these sources which may result in the preparation of an application.


Response to Business Coalition January 29. 2014 Page Two 3. Who has to approve the injection of the advanced treated water into local

aquifers as part of the GWR process; in other words, from whom and how many permits are needed?

a. The California Department of Public Health (CDPH) formally approves a project after review and approval of the project’s comprehensive engineering report. One permit is issued to inject the water into local aquifers by the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCBG). The permit includes CDPH and RWQCB requirements to protect all groundwater beneficial uses and water quality. A USEPA permit for a Class V underground injection well is not required. In July 2014, the CDPH Drinking Water Program is tentatively scheduled to become a Division within the State Water Resources Control Board. As part of this transition, the CDPH/RWQCB approval and permitting process may be modified, but the permit issued for an injection project that uses recycled water will still be crafted to protect beneficial uses of groundwater and groundwater quality. Other permit(s), authorizations, or approvals will be required from local entities including: MPWMD, Seaside Basin Watermaster, Monterey County Environmental Health, City of Seaside, and Fort Ord Reuse Authority to construct the injections and monitoring wells for the project.

4. What is the projected timeline for the GWR process from today to the time the first gallons of water are pumped from the recharged aquifer into the CAW distribution system?

a. Our target for project completion is January 1, 2017.

5. What is the projected cost per AF (+/- 10%) of the GWR water at the time it is taken from the recharge aquifer for delivery to Cal Am (or other distributor) and what is a definitive estimate of the cost of water to Cal Am customers?

a. The range in cost per acre foot is still estimated to be $2,500/AF. As the feasibility and facilities planning documents begin to shore up some project costs this summer, the figure will have more clarity. We have contacted Cal Am regarding the estimate of the cost of water to Cal Am customers as we currently do have not the cost for distribution. Additional information is attached regarding anticipated Cal Am water costs.

Z:\General Manager\Mayors JPA-MPR Water Authority\Business Coalitions GWR Questions-Responses 1-29-14.doc


1/2St2014

Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project

CALIFORNIA r IZ I CAN WATIR

Monterey Water Supply Project

California American Water updates Customer Rate Impact estimates for proposed Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project

Based on recent 16-party settlement agreement, revised figures show an approximate 41-percent increase for a typical customer over the next five years

California American Water, in an ongoing effort to keep (he community informed, has updated .ts estimate of bill impacts for customers on the Monterey Poninsuta. As a result of the proposed Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and all other rate changes proposed between now and 2018,a typical cus tomer should expect an approximate 41-percent increase in their bill between 2013 and the end 01 2018

The estimates incorporate a major settlement that was reached on the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Pro:ect appt cation, which is currently pending before the California Public. Utilities Com mis s .on. Among the various issues settled in the agreement was a public lunding contribution that could reduce the overall cost of the project.

The settlement agreement, a ong with implementation of our San Clemente Dam decision and the recent rate filing allowed us to update our numbers " said Dave Stephenson, director of rates and revenue for California American Water. "With the settlement In place, includiiv the planned public contribution we have revised our customer b II impact estimates This approximately41-percentincrease will be phased In over five years."

This equates to a monthly bill increase from about $75 to about $105 or about an additional dollar per day, This is based on a typical customer who uses 74 units of water per month (10 cubic feet per unit, or about 5,600 gallons per month). Customers with different water consumption levels will be affected differently.

MonterevWater Supply Protect Rate Imeactfact Sheet

Monterey County District Bill Comparison

Our goal in updating these estimates was to give customers a realistic idea of how their bills will change with the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and all other infrastructure investments and system operating costs between now and 2018," Stephenson said.

California American Water conducted an analysis of how infrastructure investment over the next five years, including those antidpated in the settlement agreement, will impact the typical customer. The methodology assumes CPUC approval of California American Waters full request to fund infrastructure improvements and expenses for 2015,2015 and 2017. The following monthly bill estimate Is what a typical customer can expect to pay between now and the end of 2018.

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

$75.74

$79.86

1$88A2

$97.27

$97.38

$106.73

These numbers are provided as estimates based on current conditions and are subject to change based on actual costs and other factors. California American Water's committed to keeping customers informed of all major project updates, including rate Impacts. Customers interested in following the development of this project are encouraged to visit its webslte, www.watersupplyprojecterg where customers can review the latest information and sign up for email updates.

0 2014 American Water. 'California American Water" and the star logo are the registered trademarks of American Water Works Company, Inc. All rights reserved.

31K1U1 - • rri-Vauy Poky • Terinc of Ilia • Site Map

FOR EMPtirrE13 a

http://www.amwater.cornkaaw/Customer-ServicelRates-InforrnatiOnimonterey-Aater-supply-project.hIrril 111 MPRWA TAC Meeting, 4/7/2014 , Item No. 4., Item Page 11, Packet Page 31

Monterey Water Supply Project Rate Impact Fact Sheet

CALIFORNIA

AMERICAN WATER

Synopsis This fact sheet is intended to show how the typical customer bill will be impacted by the Water Supply Project and other ongoing charges from 2013 to the project's expected completion in 2018.

Summary From 2013 to 2018, a typical customer will likely see their bills increase by about 41%, depending on the size of the desalination plant that is required. Their bill will increase from $75.74 at the end of 2013 to $106.73 at the end of 2018. This equates to an additional 944 per day.

The following is a year-by-year breakdown of what a typical customer will see happen to their bill during this period. This is based on a three-person home, with a 5/8-inch meter, using 74 cubic feet per second of water per month during the summer months.

• 2013 — Currently, customers are already being billed a 15% surcharge for the Water Supply Project's pre-construction costs. This 15% surcharge, itemized as "Surcharge #1" on the bill, is projected to remain in effect through the middle of 2015. Also on the bill will be a number of other familiar surcharges that are presently being assessed such as the San Clemente Dam Removal Surcharge and the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Surcharge. Typical customer bill at the end of 2013: $75.74

• 2014 — Surcharge #1 will increase from 15% to 20%, for an annual average of 17.5%. Typical customer bill in 2014: $79.86

• 2015 — Surcharge #1 is projected to be discontinued in June of this year. Before this happens it will increase to a rate of 30%. When it expires, customers will then see the introduction of Surcharge #2, at a rate of 30%. Surcharge #2 will pay for the desalination support facilities, including the pipeline, and significantly lower the project's cost with this injection of interest-free funding. Other charges and fees will remain in effect. Typical customer bill in 2015: $88.42

• 2016 — Surcharge #2 will increase to an annual average of 40% of the bill. Typical customer bill in 2016: $97.27

• 2017 — Surcharge #2 will increase to an annual average of 48%. However, several other surcharges will be eliminated from the bill entirely. This includes the National Marine Fisheries Surcharge for environmental mitigation as well as a couple of balancing account surcharges. As a result, the typical customer will not see a significant increase from the year before. Typical customer bill In 2017: $97.38

• 2018 — The Water Supply Project is expected to be completed. Surcharge #2 two will be assessed at 56%. Typical customer bill once the project is completed in 2018: $106.73

Typical customer bill at end of 2013: $75.74

Typical customer bill at end of 2018: $ 106.73 (with a 6.4 million gallons per day plant)

Percentage increase: about 41%

These CSUITlates are based on the best

information available to us at this thee

(September 2013}. Actual rate impacts

may vary based on CPL1C actions.

WE CARE ABOUT WATER. IT'S WHAT WE DO. MPRWA TAC Meeting, 4/7/2014 , Item No. 4., Item Page 12, Packet Page 32

MONTEREY MAIN SYSTEM

Based en actual 2052 residential fnefage use ef 74 els, the base b.

ha4ld be as follo.s,

MONTEREY COUNTY DISTRICT 2 013 -2018 Bill Impacts - 6.4 IYI6D

BILL COMPARISON

I 2018

Rate

(Projected)

•

Charge

(Proj

including

Rate

(Cr

1* te

2013 I Teat)

Charge

/ 2013

Rate

(Projected]

Charge

I 2014

Rate

(Projected)

Charge

1 2015 (Proj

Rate

[led)

Charge

i 2016 (Pro}

Rate

cted)

Charge

I 2017

Rate

(Projected)

Charge

2818

Lied MWSP)

Charge

MEIMM I CM:11 MEM E=1 MEM ECM MEM 1=1 MEM OEM MEECI MEM ME 1=1 MEEE MEI MEM MI. =MEM =I MEM 1=1= =IEEE EC= MEM =IEEE! EXIM MEM= MEM 0111 MEM 8000 Mil $000 UM $000 ES=1 *00° EME1 $000 MEM 1000 EEE1 OW 136671 0000

1231 11=11 5903 CCM *000 EMI 6600 IMO *000 MEM 390* CEO 1000 CE311 $999 =• 1000

EM: IME1 0000 Enn 6000 =I 90 00 =I *000 MEM 1909 [2:1=1 1000 854554 0000 MEM 00 00

I=E: M:£13 ■ MEM ■ MEM ■ MEE ■ MEM ■ MEM ■ MEM I■1 MEM E:=3:1M■ ■113:13 ■M:E=3 ■ MEM ■ M33 ■ MEM ■ KM= MEM Kt= 1■1=E1 LE:1= EMM MEM MEM MEM MEM MEM EMMEN ECM REM MEM EMM Ems MI lEriN 5352

li=13 MEM ME MN MEM EMIR= IEVEMIXEM MI MEM ■II■1 1■ 1■11=1111111= 111:= ■ ■ ■ 09 554 91085 44091 02504 MEM IZEI MI $3405

1211=2 MEM COM

■ I■ 1■

MEM MEM

■ ■

KM MEM

■ ■

WM MEM

■ ■

MEM MEM

■■■ MEM

■ ■

MI MEM

MI I■1

I■1 KIM LE=1■I

EZIE I I■1 MIMI= EMM ■ MEN ■ WM ■ MEM ■ MEM ■ MEM ■ MEM

1=1:■ Daher Difference

■ EOM ■ =El ■1203 ■ 1=1 ■ EEO NEM LEM I■ E:=1■ amm EZIE ZEE ■ IMIII ■ E311 IMMI EMM NMI EMI ■11=1

1:1=C■ ■ MI MIN I■1 I■1 =II 1■13313 I■1 28 42% 11 11E31 MIll ECM ■ EXIM CE:=■ ■ ■ ■ El= l■ CM 1■1:1=1 1■11:121 MIMI KIM MIMI MI ■I EMI


BaseJ GI &lull 2012 resizmal s.erage use or 7,1 Os. tee base OM

hcula oe as [Woes:

(Cu rre

Rate

2013 t Year)

Clsarge

MONTEREY

(Pro]

Rate

2013 cted)

Charge

COUNTY 2013-2018 Bill Impacts

DISTRICT - 9.6 MGD BILL COMPARISON

I 2017 (Projected)

1

Charge

(Proj I 2014

Rate

(Projected)

Charge

I 2015

(Pro]

Rate

cted)

Charge

1 2016 (Pro'

Rate

elm()

Charge

2018 clod)

Charge

Including

Rate

2 01B

(Projected MINSP)

Charge

ITM:21 MEM MEM 1=1E= ECM MEM DM MEI EEEM MEM EOM MME MEM MEM MO MEM 1313 11=11•03 MEM MEM Ens= =1 MEM DIEM= =1 9:s eg 99 6185 11133111=1 139 40 Birth 3 0 Emu 0000 12.2183 *000 Em 10 00 023810 60 00 62.3874 60 00 12.3014 1000 am 3000 com so 00 IZIEE EMI 90 00 MEM 80 00 =MI 0000 MUM $000 MEM 1003 =El *000 OM *000 =I *000

Mot 5 0 *4192* SO 00 96.0724 SO 00 elm 50. ,13 3660 SOCA 08.2071 1000 Emmi 10 oo Eirm $o oo =1 .80 00 Er Drew 74 MEM ■ MEM ■ MEM ■ NOM ■ MEM ■ MEI ■ MEM IMMI MEIE

CII:=2■ ■ mom ■ MEM ■ EMI ■ MEC] ■ MI=3 ■ =El ■ ZEE ■ WEE Fl S. rrv.r rr MEM KM EOM MEM MEM MEM MEM MEM =MEM MEM MEM MEM MEM MIEIM MEM

=MEM IDEM=mm ■■ ■ MINI 1=1 I■1 ■ ■I EM1111: ■■ ■■ ■■ IMME MEM ECM MEM MEM EEE3 E=91E1=E■ Gantlet Can Bat h00 99 39 EMM ■ MEM ■ MEM ■ MZEM ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■ 1=02 ■ LIM ■ MEM ■ MEM ■ MIME ■ ECBM ■ EMM ■ LEM ■ MEM 1=111: 11 98 01.90 51.96 $1.98 81.98 *1.98 Mill 91.96 51.98

1:13:2= MEM ■ MEE ■ EEO ■ E=E1 ■ EOM ■EZEI ■ $99.99 $103.66 Deem 0111emee MN NM MU 1123711 Mil EMEil II■1 EMU NM MEI MMI1 HI 64 UM ■ EM11 ES:=■1 I■ 1■I ■111M11111111MI LEM 1■I =I 1■111E3 MIME= ■ EMI NMI E=1 1:1=MM=M1111111MIIMI IIMMI 10991% ■111=211111M11=1 ■ EE11 MEM 13:133 =II I■1 CIES

ggigew_LAnorggol • 2015-2017 Rates based on filed CRC

• 2018 Rate estimate inflation of

• 2015-2018 MPW1410 Surcharge estimated at 52.5M urination 10% annually) to Revenue Requirement

• Surcharge N2 - rate changes within each year. Used average rate each year

• Gen Erie Sal Acct estimate lully recovered by 3rd Qtr 2016

• WRAM Surcharges included in base rates through 2016

• San Clemente Dam Surcharge included in base rates

• NOAA Surcharge ncluded in base rates through 2016

6.4 MOD Plant

• Total capital is 5277.2M

• Funded with 586.5M CAW Equity at a 9.99% required rate of retti

• $66.4M of SAP debt at 2.5'

• SRF debt is 20 year term and Exempt from Properly Taxes

• Surcharge 2o1 S71.5M

• Public Financing ISecurituatien} of $64.5M

• Company's standard 53W47% capital structure

• FirSt year rate base is expected to oe 150M

• Yr I Revenue Requirement of 536.2*4

• Ground Roarer recharge expense of $8.75MM per annum . -icluded

hiuD Plant

• Total capital is $320.814

• Funded with $86.5M CAW Equity at a 9.99% required rate of return

• 576.8M of SRF debt at 2.5%


• Surcharge 201 $71.51h

• Public Financing (Securitizationt of $86111

• Company's standard 53%/47% capital structure

• First year rate base is expected to be $79.7M

• Yr 1 Revenue Requirement of 533.311

CALIFORNIA

AMERICAN WATER WE CARE ABOUT WATER. IT'S WHAT WE DO. (888) 237-1333 • www.califomlaarmvater.com

MP

RW

A T

AC

Meeting, 4/7/2014 , Item

No. 4., Item

Page 13, P

acket Page 33

Monterey Water Supply Project Rate Impact Fact Sheet

CALIFORNIA

AMERICAN WATER

Synopsis This fact sheet is intended to show how the typical customer bill will be impacted by the Water Supply Project and other ongoing charges from 2013 to the project's expected completion in 2018.

Summary From 2013 to 2018, a typical customer will likely see their bills increase by about 41%, depending on the size of the desalination plant that is required. Their bill will increase from $75.74 at the end of 2013 to $106.73 at the end of 2018. This equates to an additional 94tt per day.

The following is a year-by-year breakdown of what a typical customer will see happen to their bill during this period. This is based on a three-person home, with a 5/8 inch meter, using 74 cubic feet per second of water per month during the summer months.

• 2013 — Currently, customers are already being billed a 15% surcharge for the Water Supply Project's pre-construction costs. This 15% surcharge, itemized as "Surcharge #1" on the bill, is projected to remain in effect through the middle of 2015. Also on the bill will be a number of other familiar surcharges that are presently being assessed such as the San Clemente Dam Removal Surcharge and the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Surcharge. Typical customer bill at the end of 2013: $75.74

• 2014 — Surcharge #1 will increase from 15% to 20%, for an annual average of 17.5%. Typical customer bill in 2014: $79.86

• 2015 — Surcharge #1 is projected to be discontinued in June of this year. Before this happens it will increase to a rate of 30%. When it expires, customers will then see the introduction of Surcharge #2, at a rate of 30%. Surcharge #2 will pay for the desalination support facilities, including the pipeline, and significantly lower the project's cost with this injection of interest-free funding. Other charges and fees will remain in effect. Typical customer bill in 2015: $88.42

• 2016 — Surcharge #2 will increase to an annual average of 40% of the bill. Typical customer bill in 2016: $97.27

• 2017 — Surcharge #2 will increase to an annual average of 48%. However, several other surcharges will be eliminated from the bill entirely. This includes the National Marine Fisheries Surcharge for environmental mitigation as well as a couple of balancing account surcharges. As a result, the typical customer will not see a significant increase from the year before. Typical customer bill in 2017: $97.38

• 2018 — The Water Supply Project is expected to be completed. Surcharge #2 two will be assessed at 56%. Typical customer bill once the project is completed in 2018: $106.73

Typical customer bill at end of 2013: $75.74

Typical customer bill at end of 2018: $ 106.73 (with a 6.4 million gallons per day plant)

Percentage increase: about 41%

These estimates are based on the best information available to us at this time

(September 20131. Actual rate impacts

may vary based on CMG' actions.

WE CARE ABOUT WATER. IT'S WHAT WE DO. MPRWA TAC Meeting, 4/7/2014 , Item No. 4., Item Page 14, Packet Page 34


Baled cn actual 2012 les:derMal 3,e0age use cl 74 els. Me base ell

a cOd 48- as folio's:

(Cum

Rat

2013 t Year)

Charge

MONTEREY COUNTY 2013-2018

DISTRICT Bill Impacts

BILL COMPARISON -6.4 MG D

1 2013 I Pro)

Rate

cted)

Charge

I 2014 (Proj

Rate

etc.])

Charge

I 2015 (Pro)

Rate

cted)

Charge

I 2016 (Projected)

I 2017 (Pro) cted)

Charge

I 2016

Rate

(Projected)

Charge

2 01 !Pro)

including

Rale

8 cted MYY5P)

Charge

Illats 1 45 seater EMISI =I IMES =MEM =ME= [COMM= EMI= CM 124.55 10 8713 1)9.21 C:12M =I KUM SD 8976 MEM En3 IEM3 =I MEI El=3 EZEI ECM E3=1 E:I= min EEO EMI

12 00 121: METE 3000 EMI 80,00 13E3 1200 EMU 5000 =I 3000 E131 WC° MEI 1001) n 6671 Pers.* 0 13,5312 1000 cm *000 Eam imp cm 000 Enci $000 ccei *000 cm 1000 mi 10 00 IZISI EOM 3000 EMI 30.00 111231M•:11211:111 1000 36.2071 $0.00 ETSMI an° 15.4554 10.00 EtI=1 1500 stir me. f4 M:1:1:3 I■1 MEM ■ REM ■ MEM MIMI =El I■ MED ■ 31250 MI= 62072 =2:1=1:: 14880 NMI EXIM LIM ■E3:1 ■ I= ■ EMEI■11121131■ I:=I9 611111+0 Surcnaigt 6005 S 3 48 1=1 Eli =EWEN EMMEN =WE= =SEEM NM EMI MEE EMI 1:2221 112E ME NM S8 32 117 "I SU" EMI KEES NMI I■ ■ ■■ ■ ■ s.....: . ■ ■ ■ ■ EMI I■ DEM MEM =ME= EIEZI KM 13:111=1■ ■ EIZZEI ■ EMI ■ WEE I■1 MIX ■I MEM ENE 1E= E= ■ ■ ■ ■ MIMI ubsYSMCeni*uortsfe MIMI= ■ KEE ■I KEE NNE WOE I■ EMI I■ EMIE ■ EISE MINE=

EI1:1 1 1■11331 ■ MEE ■131:1 ■ElIZE ■ MEE ■ EMI EMI S1.43

1331=1:M■ 1■1113=31 ■ MO ■ E=3 ■ 1=3 ■ Mil ■ QM MII EMU ■ LE= 1:2=1: M=11■1 MEI MEM ■ EMI ■ EMI ■ EMI ■ EMI MIME:CM

I■1 MIMI ■ ■

LEIZI E=I 12111=1=11■ ■ I■1 I■ ■ ■ ECII I■1E=Il 1111E EXEZI ■12=1

CE:==IME■ ■■ Il■ E=I 1■13=1 l■ Et= ■ =I ■ El= ■ EMI IIM E=I


Paled en actual 2012 resdential &erne use Si 74 cfs, One case e II

'mild follohs: So as

MONTEREY

20

Rate

(Projected) 13

Charge

COUNTY 2013-2018

DISTRICT Bill Impacts - 9.6 !MD

Charge

(Projected)

BILL COMPARISON

1 2011

Rate.

(Projected)

Charge

1 2017

Rate

(Projected)

Mugs

I 2018

Rate

(Projected)

Chug*

2018

Including

Rate

Irmected

•

MYY5P) (Current

Rate

2013 Year)

Rabe

2014 (Projected)

1 2015

Rate Charge

13L5Ch 1 45 QM MEI I= MUM ECM MEM 1:1= IEESEI =I NEM ECM= ECM EITEI =El KIM Bk. 2. 29 30 .8828 121.60 60 ,1076 126 03 300041 128.10 30 ,8450 12741 10923d 126,19 *0 .3356 icE=1 cm omi Elm Em

Ell: 111:31 10 00 EEI:13 30.00 El= 30.00 ECM 80.00 EEE31 10.00 E•1 17700 124826 1000 ElaZI 1000 Rick.' 0 13.5311 IOW 14.4312 10.00 Emma cm 10 00 cm 10 00 CI= 0000 IME111 $0.00 1=1 100* c! Elm $0.00 cm 10.00 cm $0.00 16 .3650 10.013 68 ,2071 s000 mg 1000 6847.64 10 .00 orn So 03 5/6' Mrtor 74 M=I MM IEEM I■1 KEE I■ MEI I■1 KM MEI= ■ MEI ■ MEM =11=1: ■ E=3 ■ E=3 ■ EICEI■ EMI NMI S6286 MEI= ■ I= ■ ECM 1,1byrIAD Sunhat*. 1=11E= Exam Kam MIME= ERE MEM ZEE EMI =MEM 3,t EMI EBB 13 41 1=11•11■ MEE= El= $8 .32 MERE= =MELEE ■ ■ ■ ■ ME I■ ■■

MEI

M11111■1■ 1■ Surma(' +2 Milllillill MI EMI =ME= EMI= ETU 634 °6

121:= ■ EMI =MI EMI I■ WEE 1■11E2E:1 MN ZEN ■ ■ ■ MPSSMOCenseitraion KOME ■ ME ■ EMI MI MEM I■1 EMI ■ MEE ■ EMI ■ EMS

131:1 ■ EIEE ■ EMI 1■11EIE2 ■ MEE MN EOM ■ MEE ■E=E MIME=

1==■11M ■E=r1 ■ EMI MOE= EMI I■1 EMI OM EEEZI ■ E=1MIM =I 171::1:= ■■ Mil EXZE MIIIII12111 I■1133:13 l■ EMI ■113111 ■ =MI MEM EMI % DIRersore here 2013 fltrelatiart) MI= IIMI ECM ■131M1 1=11 E=I 3281% =I 13:=■111•1111 l■ ■ ■11EMI■ ECE=1 ■ I=I =ME= I■12=I■ =I ■ I=

ROI Impact Assumptions

• 2015-2017 RateS based on filed CRC

• 2018 Rate estimate inflation of 3%

• 2015-2018 MPVINID Surcharge estimated at $2.5M {inflation 10% annually) to Revenue Requirement

• Surcharge #2 - rate changes within each year. Used average rate for each year

• Gen Sp Sal Acct estimate fully recovered by 3rd Qtr 2016



• NOAA Surcharge included in base rates tnrough 2016

0.4 MOD Plant

• Total Capital is 5277.2M

• Funded with 586.5M CAW Equity at a 9.99% required rate Of return


• SRF debt Ls 20 year term and Exempt from Properly Taxes

• Surcharge 2 of 571.5h1

• Public Financing tSecurnitationi. of 564.5M

• Company's standard 53%14791 capital structure

• First year rate base is expected to be $69M

• Yr 1 Revenue Requirement of 536.2M

• Ground water recharge expense of $8.751410 per annum included

9.6 MOO Plant

• Total capital is $320.8M



• SRF debt IS 20 year term and Exempt from Property Taxes

• Surcharge 2 of $71.5M

• Public Financing (Securitization, of 586M

• Company's standard 5321147% capital structure

• Forst year rate base is expected to be 579.7M

• Yr 1 Revenue Requirement of $33.3M

CALIFORNIA

AMERICAN WATER WE CARE ABOUT WATER. IT'S WHAT WE DO. (888) 237-1333 • www.califomlaamwater.com

MP

RW

A T

AC


No. 4., Item

Page 15, P

acket Page 35

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority Date: February 03, 2014

Agenda Report Item No: 2.


SUBJECT: Receive Report, Discuss and Provide Direction on the Ground Water Replenishment (GWR) Schedule, Response to Business Coalition Questions, and Product Water Negotiations.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the TAC review the GWR schedule, noting “focused” schedule activities, review the MRWPCA responses to the Business Coalition Questions, and review the status of GWR Product Water Negotiations with the purpose of establishing a recommended decision date after which declaratory relief should be pursued.

DISCUSSION:

Attachment #1 is the latest (7 October 2013) schedule for completion of the GWR project. Italicized dates represent the most recent completion dates while standard type reflects the dates established during settlement negotiations (10 September 2013). Items shown in red are suggested by staff to be critical, those in yellow as approaching critical. All others do not seem to be critical or near critical as of this date.

Attachment #2 is the MRWPCA Proposed Groundwater Replenishment Project Phasing.

Attachment #3 is the Business Coalition Five Questions to the JPA TAC MRWPCA Responses.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. GWR “focused” schedule dated 3 Feb 2014. 2. MRWPCA Proposed Groundwater Replenishment Project Phasing 3. Business Coalition Five Questions to the JPA TAC MRWPCA Responses

№06/12

MPRWA TAC Meeting, 2/3/2014 , Item No. 2., Item Page 1, Packet Page 1 MPRWA TAC Meeting, 4/7/2014 , Item No. 4., Item Page 16, Packet Page 36

October 7, 2013

“FOCUSED” Schedule and Task List for MPWSP Post Settlement (REV 3 Feb 2014)

CPUC Calendar Dates NOTE: Sept 10th entries shown in BLUE and rev Oct 7th entries in italics

Task Due Date Responsible Party Notes Comments on

Settlement Agreements Due

August 30, 2013 Complete

Reply Comments on Settlement Agreements

Due

September 13, 2013 Complete

Prehearing Conference: Status of Settlement Motion (if any), of CEQA work

& other matters

September 16, 2013 Complete

Quarterly Check-in Call with Settling Parties

October 2013 MPRWA In Progress

Informational Hearing on Settlement Agreements

December 2-3, 2013


January 2014 MPRWA

DEIR circulated for Comment

February 28, 2014


April 2014 MPRWA

Comments on DEIR Due

April 14, 2014

Common Outline Opening Briefs due

April 29, 2014

Reply Briefs due May 14, 2014 FEIR published June 17, 2014

Proposed Decision on Phase I

Mailed

July, 2014 Phase 1


July 2014 MPRWA

Commission Action on Phase I

August, 2014


October 2014 MPRWA

GWR Phase -Testimony of Interested Parties (from Settlement K)

December 2014


January 2015 MPRWA

GWR Phase - Settlement discussion

commencing (from Settlement K)

January 2015

015621\0002\10768534.1


October 7, 2013

“FOCUSED” Schedule and Task List for MPWSP Post Settlement (REV 3 Feb 2014)


GWR Phase - Concurrent Rebuttal

Testimony (from Settlement K)

January 2015

GWR Phase - Evidentiary Hearings (from Settlement K)

February 2015

GWR Phase - Briefing (from Settlement K)

March 2015


April 2015 MPRWA

GWR Phase - Proposed Decision (from Settlement K)

June 2015


July 2015 MPRWA

GWR Phase - Final Decision (from Settlement K)

July 2015


October 2015 MPRWA

015621\0002\10768534.1


October 7, 2013

MPRWA TAC Meeting, 2/3/2014 , Item No. 2., Item Page 4, Packet Page 4 015621\0002\10768534

SECURITIZATION Due Date Responsible Party Notes Task

Draft Timeline and August 2013 MPWMD Complete Implementation Plan Meet with Legislative August 2013 MPWMD & MPRWA Complete

Delegation re: Timeline and Implementation

Plan Initial Revision and Early September 2013 MPWMD Complete

Redline of Legislation Obtain Cal-Am Input on Late September 2013 MPWMD, MPRWA, & In Progress

Draft Legislation Cal-Am Retain Necessary October 2013 MPWMD In Progress

Additional Financial/Legal

Consultants (Charles Atkins)

Revise Financial October 2013 MPWMD & Cal-Am In Progress Comparison of Early October 2013

Securitization v. Cal-Am Financing

Draft 1-2 Page Fact sheet describing

legislation Meeting with October-December MPWMD & MPRWA In Progress

Community/Interest 2013 Groups and Cities

Further Revise October-November In Progress Legislation as 2013

Necessary November 2013 Draft Summary of December 2013 MPWMD

Legislation Legislative Counsel Early January 2014 Legislative Counsel Prepares Cover and

Digest Introduce Legislation January 2014 MPWMD, MPRWA, & Meet with Legislative Late January 2014 Cal-Am Delegation re strategy

Lobbying Effort February-April 2014 MPWMD, MPRWA, & Cal-Am

Legislative Committee February-March 2014 Hearings

Legislation Adopted April-May 2014 Initial Draft of Motion for April 2014 MPWMD

Financing Order June 2014 Perform Analysis to April 2014 MPWMD & Cal-Am

Demonstrate Annual June 2014 Customer Benefits

Exceed 1.0% of Total Annual Revenue

Requirement Motion for Financing May 2014 MPWMD

Order July 2014 Obtain CPUC Financing August 2014 Order on securitization

Order With Commission financing contingent on .1


October 7, 2013

Task Due Date on on Pha Responsible Party Notes a satisfaction of remain

crit from setl 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 NEW ITEM

Obtain Rating on Water Rate Relief Bonds July-August 2015 MPWMD

Determine internal costs of Cal-Am and AW to comply with securitization structure to be included in rates to Monterey District customers

July-August 2015 Cal-Am NEW ITEM

Obtain Letters From Ratings Agencies Demonstrating No

Impact to American Water

July-August 2015 MPWMD NEW ITEM

Obtain Legal Opinion that Securitization Does

Not Create a Taxable Event for Cal-Am

July-August 2015 MPWMD

Verification of Annual Customer Benefits

Exceed 1.0% of Total Annual Revenue

Requirement

July-August 2015 (or prior to Issuance of

Bonds)

MPWMD & Cal-Am

Cal-Am Creates SPE September 2015 MPWMD & Cal-Am

Water Rate Relief Bonds Issued

TBD (End of 2015?)

015621\0002\10768534.1


October 7, 2013

GWR “FOCUSED” Schedule and Task List for MPWSP Post Settlement (REV 3 Feb 2014)


Task Due Date Responsible Party Notes File Motion for

Bifurcation of the GWR Decision

August 2013 MRWPCA Complete and Granted

Board Actions to Approve Revised

Governance Committee Agreement

October 2013 August/Sept 2013

MPWMD, MPRWA, County, & Cal-Am

To be Completed in October

Executed Agreements for GWR Source Water

and/or Declaratory Relief

June 2014 Sept/Nov 2013

MRWPCA Meet & Confer in Progress

Draft WPA Mar 2014

Oct/Dec 2013

MPWMD & MRWPCA

Obtain Representations from DPH re Use of

Extracted GWR Water Oct 2014

Oct/Dec 2013

MRWPCA

Obtain Representations from RWQCB re Use of Extracted GWR Water

Oct 2014 Oct/Dec 2013

MRWPCA

Storage Agreement with Seaside Basin

Watermaster Jul 2014

Oct/Dec 2013

MRWPCA & MPWMD

GWR Basis of Design Complete with At Least

10% Design Jul 2014

Oct/Dec 2013

MRWPCA

GWR Financing Plan Sufficient for SRF

Funding Aug 2014

Oct/Dec 2013

MRWPCA & MPWMD

Agreement on Terms of WPA May 2014

January 2014

Cal-Am, MRWPCA, &MPWMD

Perform Revenue Requirement Analysis

Including Any Debt Equivalency Effect

Jul 2014 Jan-Mar 2014

MRWPCA & MPWMD

Perform Assessment of GWR Positive and

Negative Externalities for Any Premium

June 2014 Jan-Mar 2014

MRWPCA & MPWMD

015621\0002\10768534.1


October 7, 2013

Showing DEIR Circulated July 2014 MRWPCA Dilution Water Requirements

July-October 2014 MRWPCA

Project Approved and FEIR

October 2014 MRWPCA

All Permits for GWR Construction Obtained ???

January 2015

MRWPCA

015621\0002\10768534.1


October 7, 2013

Source Wells “FOCUSED” Schedule and Task List for MPWSP Post Settlement (REV 3 Feb 2014)


Task Due Date Responsible Party Notes Drill Exploratory

Boreholes Sept. 2013 – February

2014 Cal-Am PENDING

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 ?

015621\0002\10768534.1


MP

RW

A TA

C M

eeting, 2

/3/2014

, Item N

o. 2

., Item P

age 9, P

acket Page 9

MP

RW

A T

AC


No. 4., Item

Page 24, P

acket Page 44

Business Coalition’s Five Questions to the JPA TAC MRWPCA Responses

1. Is there an agreement with the local governments that clearly states the wastewater from these jurisdictions is available for GWR?

a. MRWPCA Legal Counsel has determined that, pursuant to State law, once wastewater flows are provided to or delivered to the regional conveyance lines then that wastewater is owned by the MRWPCA to use 1) as it so determines, or 2) as agreed upon in previous agreements.

2. Who currently has rights to the water in the reclamation ditches and will “producers” of the source wastewater have rights to the reclaimed wastewater?

a. For the MRWPCA EIR, the Reclamation Ditch and the Blanco Drain are being classified as alternative supplemental source water components. It is our understanding that flows in both the Reclamation Ditch and Blanco Drain may be considered waters of the state under the jurisdiction of the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and would be comprised of precipitation-driven runoff, urban runoff, and agricultural return flows. For the points of diversion being considered in the Reclamation Ditch and Blanco Drain, the SWRCB website, http://www.waterboards.ca . gov/waterrights/waterissues/programs/ewrims/index.shtml shows that no permits have been issued to divert surface flows downstream of these points of diversion. However, there appear to be pending permit applications for diversions in some of the streams in the upland areas of the Reclamation Ditch watershed (i.e., upstream of the City of Salinas). Staff is preparing an application to request that the SWRCB make a determination to allow the use of these sources. In coordination with MPWMD, staff will be consulting the SWRCB for the correct determination of uses for these sources which may result in the preparation of an application.

Joint Powers Authority Member Entities: Boronda County Sanitation District, Castroville Community Services District, County of Monterey, Del Rey Oaks, Fort Ord, Marina Coast Water District, Monterey,

Moss Landing County Sanitation District, Pacific Grove, Salinas, Sand City, and Seaside.


Response to Business Coalition January 29. 2014 Page Two

3. Who has to approve the injection of the advanced treated water into local aquifers as part of the GWR process; in other words, from whom and how many permits are needed?

a. The California Department of Public Health (CDPH) formally approves a project after review and approval of the project’s comprehensive engineering report. One permit is issued to inject the water into local aquifers by the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCBG). The permit includes CDPH and RWQCB requirements to protect all groundwater beneficial uses and water quality. A USEPA permit for a Class V underground injection well is not required. In July 2014, the CDPH Drinking Water Program is tentatively scheduled to become a Division within the State Water Resources Control Board. As part of this transition, the CDPH/RWQCB approval and permitting process may be modified, but the permit issued for an injection project that uses recycled water will still be crafted to protect beneficial uses of groundwater and groundwater quality. Other permit(s), authorizations, or approvals will be required from local entities including: MPWMD, Seaside Basin Watermaster, Monterey County Environmental Health, City of Seaside, and Fort Ord Reuse Authority to construct the injections and monitoring wells for the project.

4. What is the projected timeline for the GWR process from today to the time the first gallons of water are pumped from the recharged aquifer into the CAW distribution system?

a. Our target for project completion is January 1, 2017.

5. What is the projected cost per AF (+/- 10%) of the GWR water at the time it is taken from the recharge aquifer for delivery to Cal Am (or other distributor) and what is a definitive estimate of the cost of water to Cal Am customers?

a. The range in cost per acre foot is still estimated to be $2,500/AF. As the feasibility and facilities planning documents begin to shore up some project costs this summer, the figure will have more clarity. We have contacted Cal Am regarding the estimate of the cost of water to Cal Am customers as we currently do have not the cost for distribution. Additional information is attached regarding anticipated Cal Am water costs.

Z:\General Manager\Mayors JPA-MPR Water Authority\Business Coalitions GWR Questions-Responses 1-29-14.doc



Based en actual 2052 residential fnefage use ef 74 els, the base b.

ha4ld be as follo.s,

MONTEREY COUNTY DISTRICT 2 013 -2018 Bill Impacts - 6.4 IYI6D

BILL COMPARISON

I 2018

Rate

(Projected)

•

Charge

(Proj

including

Rate

(Cr

1* te

2013 I Teat)

Charge

/ 2013

Rate

(Projected]

Charge

I 2014

Rate

(Projected)

Charge

1 2015 (Proj

Rate

[led)

Charge

i 2016 (Pro}

Rate

cted)

Charge

I 2017

Rate

(Projected)

Charge

2818

Lied MWSP)

Charge

MEIMM I CM:11 MEM E=1 MEM ECM MEM 1=1 MEM OEM MEECI MEM ME 1=1 MEEE MEI MEM MI. =MEM =I MEM 1=1= =IEEE EC= MEM =IEEE! EXIM MEM= MEM 0111 MEM 8000 Mil $000 UM $000 ES=1 *00° EME1 $000 MEM 1000 EEE1 OW 136671 0000

1231 11=11 5903 CCM *000 EMI 6600 IMO *000 MEM 390* CEO 1000 CE311 $999 =• 1000

EM: IME1 0000 Enn 6000 =I 90 00 =I *000 MEM 1909 [2:1=1 1000 854554 0000 MEM 00 00

I=E: M:£13 ■ MEM ■ MEM ■ MEE ■ MEM ■ MEM ■ MEM I■1 MEM E:=3:1M■ ■113:13 ■M:E=3 ■ MEM ■ M33 ■ MEM ■ KM= MEM Kt= 1■1=E1 LE:1= EMM MEM MEM MEM MEM MEM EMMEN ECM REM MEM EMM Ems MI lEriN 5352

li=13 MEM ME MN MEM EMIR= IEVEMIXEM MI MEM ■II■1 1■ 1■11=1111111= 111:= ■ ■ ■ 09 554 91085 44091 02504 MEM IZEI MI $3405

1211=2 MEM COM

■ I■ 1■

MEM MEM

■ ■

KM MEM

■ ■

WM MEM

■ ■

MEM MEM

■■■ MEM

■ ■

MI MEM

MI I■1

I■1 KIM LE=1■I

EZIE I I■1 MIMI= EMM ■ MEN ■ WM ■ MEM ■ MEM ■ MEM ■ MEM

1=1:■ Daher Difference

■ EOM ■ =El ■1203 ■ 1=1 ■ EEO NEM LEM I■ E:=1■ amm EZIE ZEE ■ IMIII ■ E311 IMMI EMM NMI EMI ■11=1

1:1=C■ ■ MI MIN I■1 I■1 =II 1■13313 I■1 28 42% 11 11E31 MIll ECM ■ EXIM CE:=■ ■ ■ ■ El= l■ CM 1■1:1=1 1■11:121 MIMI KIM MIMI MI ■I EMI


BaseJ GI &lull 2012 resizmal s.erage use or 7,1 Os. tee base OM

hcula oe as [Woes:

(Cu rre

Rate

2013 t Year)

Clsarge

MONTEREY

(Pro]

Rate

2013 cted)

Charge

COUNTY 2013-2018 Bill Impacts

DISTRICT - 9.6 MGD BILL COMPARISON

I 2017 (Projected)

1

Charge

(Proj I 2014

Rate

(Projected)

Charge

I 2015

(Pro]

Rate

cted)

Charge

1 2016 (Pro'

Rate

elm()

Charge

2018 clod)

Charge

Including

Rate

2 01B

(Projected MINSP)

Charge

ITM:21 MEM MEM 1=1E= ECM MEM DM MEI EEEM MEM EOM MME MEM MEM MO MEM 1313 11=11•03 MEM MEM Ens= =1 MEM DIEM= =1 9:s eg 99 6185 11133111=1 139 40 Birth 3 0 Emu 0000 12.2183 *000 Em 10 00 023810 60 00 62.3874 60 00 12.3014 1000 am 3000 com so 00 IZIEE EMI 90 00 MEM 80 00 =MI 0000 MUM $000 MEM 1003 =El *000 OM *000 =I *000

Mot 5 0 *4192* SO 00 96.0724 SO 00 elm 50. ,13 3660 SOCA 08.2071 1000 Emmi 10 oo Eirm $o oo =1 .80 00 Er Drew 74 MEM ■ MEM ■ MEM ■ NOM ■ MEM ■ MEI ■ MEM IMMI MEIE

CII:=2■ ■ mom ■ MEM ■ EMI ■ MEC] ■ MI=3 ■ =El ■ ZEE ■ WEE Fl S. rrv.r rr MEM KM EOM MEM MEM MEM MEM MEM =MEM MEM MEM MEM MEM MIEIM MEM

=MEM IDEM=mm ■■ ■ MINI 1=1 I■1 ■ ■I EM1111: ■■ ■■ ■■ IMME MEM ECM MEM MEM EEE3 E=91E1=E■ Gantlet Can Bat h00 99 39 EMM ■ MEM ■ MEM ■ MZEM ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■ 1=02 ■ LIM ■ MEM ■ MEM ■ MIME ■ ECBM ■ EMM ■ LEM ■ MEM 1=111: 11 98 01.90 51.96 $1.98 81.98 *1.98 Mill 91.96 51.98

1:13:2= MEM ■ MEE ■ EEO ■ E=E1 ■ EOM ■EZEI ■ $99.99 $103.66 Deem 0111emee MN NM MU 1123711 Mil EMEil II■1 EMU NM MEI MMI1 HI 64 UM ■ EM11 ES:=■1 I■ 1■I ■111M11111111MI LEM 1■I =I 1■111E3 MIME= ■ EMI NMI E=1 1:1=MM=M1111111MIIMI IIMMI 10991% ■111=211111M11=1 ■ EE11 MEM 13:133 =II I■1 CIES

ggigew_LAnorggol • 2015-2017 Rates based on filed CRC

• 2018 Rate estimate inflation of

• 2015-2018 MPW1410 Surcharge estimated at 52.5M urination 10% annually) to Revenue Requirement

• Surcharge N2 - rate changes within each year. Used average rate each year

• Gen Erie Sal Acct estimate lully recovered by 3rd Qtr 2016



• NOAA Surcharge ncluded in base rates through 2016

6.4 MOD Plant

• Total capital is 5277.2M

• Funded with 586.5M CAW Equity at a 9.99% required rate of retti

• $66.4M of SAP debt at 2.5'


• Surcharge 2o1 S71.5M

• Public Financing ISecurituatien} of $64.5M

• Company's standard 53W47% capital structure

• FirSt year rate base is expected to oe 150M

• Yr I Revenue Requirement of 536.2*4

• Ground Roarer recharge expense of $8.75MM per annum . -icluded

hiuD Plant

• Total capital is $320.814




• Surcharge 201 $71.51h

• Public Financing (Securitizationt of $86111

• Company's standard 53%/47% capital structure

• First year rate base is expected to be $79.7M

• Yr 1 Revenue Requirement of 533.311

CALIFORNIA

AMERICAN WATER WE CARE ABOUT WATER. IT'S WHAT WE DO. (888) 237-1333 • www.califomlaarmvater.com

MP

RW

A T

AC


No. 4., Item

Page 29, P

acket Page 49

MP

RW

A T

AC


No. 2., Item

Page 16, P

acket Page 16

MP

RW

A T

AC


No. 4., Item

Page 31, P

acket Page 51



Item No: 5.

№06/12


SUBJECT: Receive Report Regarding Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Consultant Selection for GWR Externalities Study (Stoldt)

DISCUSSION:

. Section 4.2 of the “Large” Settlement Agreement states:

(a) “The parties agree that a revenue requirement premium for the combination of the GWR Project and a smaller MPWSP desalination project may be determined just and reasonable, for some, but not necessarily all of the following reasons, if the combined GWR/smaller desalination project affords significant net benefits in comparison to a larger desalination project alone upon a consideration of all positive and negative externalities associated with the GWR Project. Significant positive benefits that could support the Commission’s approval of such a premium, include, but are not limited to, the following: (i) a material schedule advantage in that the GWR Project is anticipated to be operable sooner than the desalination plant; (ii) water supply resilience and reliability (benefit of the portfolio approach); and (iii) other positive externalities of the GWR Project, including, but not limited to reduced atmospheric carbon emissions, reduced brine discharge, and the implementation and encouragement of State policies regarding water recycling through early adoption of a water reuse project. The Parties anticipate that the evidentiary hearings in the separate phase will support findings by the Commission of an upper range of reasonableness for the price of GWR Project water for inclusion in the WPA based upon consideration of all positive and negative externalities associated with the GWR Project.”

Dave Stoldt will provide an update on how the Externalities will be identified and quantified.


tac mprwa agenda packet 04-07-14

Documents