Mprwa Tac Regular Meeting Agenda Packet 12-03-12

7/30/2019 Mprwa Tac Regular Meeting Agenda Packet 12-03-12

1/50

AgendaMonterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority (MPRWA)

Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)Regular Meeting

2:00 PM, Monday, December 3, 2012Few Memorial Hall of RecordsCity Council Chambers

Monterey, California

CALL TO ORDER

ROLL CALL

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

REPORTS FROM TAC MEMBERS

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

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

1. November 13, 2012

2. November 19, 2012

AGENDA ITEMS

3. Review of Recommendations to Authority Board on CPUC Cost Model and Action AsWarranted

4. Discussion of Seaside Groundwater Basin Watermaster Study of Replenishment

5. Consider and Recommend Options for Updates to the Report from Separation Processes

Inc.: Evaluation of Seawater Desalination Projects

6. Propose a Roadmap for Decisions, Recommendations and Direction for Public UtilitiesCommission Testimony

7. Approve Future Meeting Dates for Technical Advisory Committee in 2013

ADJOURNMENT


2/50

Created date 11/29/2012 1:58 PM Monday, December 3, 2012

2

The Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority is committed to include the disabled in all ofits services, programs and activities. For disabled access, dial 711 to use the California RelayService (CRS) to speak to staff at the Monterey City Clerks Office, the Principal Office of theAuthority. CRS offers free text-to-speech, speech-to-speech, and Spanish-language services24 hours a day, 7 days a week. If you require a hearing amplification device to attend ameeting, dial 711 to use CRS to talk to staff at the Monterey City Clerks Office at(831) 646-3935 to coordinate use of a device or for information on an agenda.

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


3/50

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

TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC)Special Meeting

1:30 PM, Tuesday, November 13, 2012COUNCIL CHAMBER

FEW MEMORIAL HALL OF RECORDSMONTEREY, CALIFORNIA

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

Staff Present: Legal Counsel, Clerk to the Authority

CALL TO ORDER

ROLL CALL

TAC Chair Burnett called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m.


PUBLIC COMMENTS

Chair Burnett opened the floor to public comments for items not on the agenda and having norequests to speak, closed public comment.

AGENDA ITEMS

1. Receive and Discuss Consultants Report from Separation Processes Inc.: Evaluation ofSeawater Desalination Projects and Make Recommendations to the MPRWA AuthorityDirectors

Chair Burnett opened the item noting the report under discussion is only a draft and anycomments or recommendations will be distributed to the Authority Board as well as to the SPIConsultants. He also clarified that any recommendations given to the Board will be regardingthe report information and not recommendation of a desalination project.

Member Stoldt informed the TAC that the SPI Consultants will be attending the Authority Boardmeeting on November 14, 2012 to discuss key variables, uncertainties and assumptions. He

also indicated this will be an opportunity to give comments and feedback regarding projectproponents to be included into the final report. He then directed the discussion to focus oncompiling any issues or concerns to be elevated and to collect comments from the public.

Chair Burnett suggested the recommendations be broken down into the following categories:

Clarification of questions for the consultants Sensitivity analysis of the key variables


4/50

MPRWA TAC Minutes Tuesday, November 13, 2012

2

Identification of key questions the JPA will need answered before a recommendationcan be made to the Authority Board on a January time frame

Chair Burnett opened the item to the public. David Armanasco spoke in appreciation of thework from the SPI Consultants for the review of all three projects and wanted to provide theTAC with comments in four areas: source of water supply and quality, O&M costs, schedule,and project risks. He provided a written document to the TAC with expanded comments.

Paul Hart representing the Peoples Moss landing project requested additional comparisons bedone by SPI Consultants by presuming different circumstances as potential alternatives and togive new costs assessments based on the alternative positions. His recommendations andconcerns for the report included the following:

The cost of debt service is different in scenarios of purchase versus lease and may notimpact the cost of operation over period but total life of the project.

Too much presumption on the ability of a lease agreement without need of eminentdomain. No consideration of large up front capital costs for acquisition of property.

Expense of the intake pipes need to be comparable, it was included in some but notother projects.

Need to equalize to the cost of foot of water to what the public is paying and not the costto produce.

Nadar Agha rejected the report and the assumptions made about the Peoples Moss Landingproject (PML). He disagreed about the cost assumptions generated by the consultants for thePeoples project that they are significantly different than his own cost forecast and said he hassuccessfully built projects never exceeding his cost forecast. He also expressed frustration that

the SPI Consultants used outdated numbers, even when provided with updated figures and healso disagreed with the assumption the project cannot meet the necessary deadline. Mr. Aghareminded the TAC that PML has a completed and Environmental Impact Review.

Doug Wilhelm expressed concern that Cal Am appears to be competitive in costs, but thereport does not include the 99 million dollar surcharge from the rate payers. Director Burnettclarified that the consultants did not look at financial issues, because the JPA did not requestthe consultants to include the surcharge for the net present value calculation but the issue ofthe surcharge is important enough that it will be agenized at a future Authority Board meeting.

Dale Hekhuis commented about the appropriateness of the proposal and provided writtencomments to the TAC. He expressed that project management fees are missing from costsestimates and profit contributions would start at $8 million and decline due to assets. Hequestioned if Cal Am considered contingencies of the slant wells on the impact to the schedule.

Sue McCloud questioned if the same discussion will take place again tomorrow night and wasdisappointed the consultants were not present at this meeting. She questioned energy costs,specifically the opportunity to use methane power from the local landfill and that there was nomention of legal actions and how it could delay and increase costs. Ms. McCloud requested


5/50


3

expansion on the process of acquiring rights of the water route, specifically an existing pipeline,and questioned when confidential information about the Deep Water Desal (DWD) projectwould be made public.

David Armanasco spoke in response to part of Sue McClouds concern about the water routeand indicated the DWD project intends to replace the current pipe with a larger pipe and that heexpects the confidential information to be made public as soon as this week.

Paul Hart challenged the calculations of initial capital costs and indicated the method ofcalculation was incorrect by dividing per acre feet by the total costs.

Safwat Malek spoke in support of Ms. McClouds comments requesting SPI to respond in anaddendum in addition to the TAC memo prior to the Authority Board meeting. He alsoquestioned why the financial figures for Cal Am's project were drastically different thanpreviously published numbers.

Dennis Ing, Chief Financial Officer for Deep Water Desal indicated that they did their best toprovide accurate information to the consultants working around confidential information and ashort time line. He complimented the SPI Consultants staff on the report and acknowledgedthat the report was a snapshot of the information available at that time.

TAC Burnett reiterated the goal of the discussion was to request clarification and gatherquestions but not to find answers and brought the item back to the TAC for suggestions,corrections, and requests for clarification or questions.

Member Narigi requested clarification on the following areas:

Cost of the slant wells vs. rainey wells Clarification on where all the projects are with relation to the schedule to date The plants would be running at 98% capacity which is a replenishment plan and not

factoring in growth for community vitality. What level of acre feet production is needed to make the schedule

Member Riedl questioned water quality numbers listed in chapter four. Water quality drivescosts and suggested the TAC or the Authority BOard make a determination of a standard ofsource water quality. He also suggested that the report should indicate that water rights werenot considered in this evaluation. Mr. Riedl indicated he had other technical concerns and thathe will submit additional comments in writing prior to the Authority Board meeting.

Member Riley commented that site reviews were apples to apples on site control, but it is anassumption that should be changed or clarified. He also requested clarification for schedule 6-5, chart 6-1, which allows for an EIR only for the Cal Am project but requires an EIR and EIS forthe other two projects.


6/50


4

Rich Svindland spoke representing the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply project about theproject status of test slant wells indicating that intended to have a test slant well installed duringthe snowy plover absence, but without a complete application with the Coastal Commission,they will have to wait until the next non nesting season (November-March). He also clarifiedthat they intend to return water to the Salinas Valley Basin on any day that the productionexceeds the daily water requirement.

Member Riley expressed concerned the report is targeting the first year of operation to get aproject initiated and that he's not comfortable with the long term implications and makingdecisions based on short term results will result with being trapped in a bad process in thefuture. He also indicated that this report will be useful for the JPA if one of the projects fails andurged any additional considerations be included for contingency plan.

Member Riedl indicated that the Watermaster Technical Advisory Committee will take up thequestion of replenishment versus growth at a meeting on November 14, 2012.

Chair Burnett gave a brief synopsis of the key assumptions discussed during the meeting andindicated a memo would be developed to present to the Authority Board for the next meeting onNovember 14, 2012. With no further discussion on the item, Chair Burnett adjourned themeeting.

ADJOURNMENT

Respectfully Submitted, Approved,

Lesley Milton, Committee Clerk President MPRWA


7/50

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

TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC)TAC Regular Meeting

2:00 PM, Monday, November 19, 2012CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER

FEW MEMORIAL HALL OF RECORDSMONTEREY, CALIFORNIA

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

Staff Present: Clerk of the Committee, Legal Counsel

CALL TO ORDER

ROLL CALL

Member Stoldt called the meeting to order at 2:04 p.m.


REPORTS FROM TAC MEMBERS

There were no reports from TAC members.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

Member Stoldt invited public comments for items that were not on the agenda. Donald Murphyresponded to George Rileys presentation during the Authority meeting on November 8, 2012and expressed concern that Mr. Rileys affiliations may present a conflict with his ability toparticipate impartially as a TAC Member. He expressed the position that the TAC should be aan unbiased and non political group. With no further requests to speak, Mr. Stoldt closed publiccomment.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

1. September 17, 2012

On a motion by Member Israel, seconded by Member Riedl and carried by the following vote,the MPRWA Technical Advisory Committee approved the September 17, 2012 minutes asamended:

AYES: 4 MEMBERS: Stoldt, Riedl, Israel, RileyNOES: 0 MEMBERS: None


8/50

MPRWA TAC Minutes Monday, November 19, 2012

2

ABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: BurnettABSTAIN: 1 MEMBERS: NarigiRECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None

2. October 15, 2012

On a motion by Member Riedl, seconded by Member Israel and carried by the following vote,the MPRWA Technical Advisory Committee approved the October 15, 2012 minutes asamended:

AYES: 4 MEMBERS: Stoldt, Riedl, Israel, RileyNOES: 0 MEMBERS: NoneABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: BurnettABSTAIN: 1 MEMBERS: NarigiRECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None

AGENDA ITEMS

3. Discuss MPWMD Financial Analysis of SPI Cost Comparisons Report

Member Stoldt introduced the item and made a presen tation about the principals andcalculations for public financing and explained the economic analysis performed for recovery ofcapital is very much like how public financing is done. He also explained how a capital recoveryfactor is used to convert a single up front capital cost into an annual amount to be recovered asif the money was to be repaid as a loan, based on an interest rate and time period.

Member Stoldt then discussed how public debts must include borrowed interest and duringconstruction, issuance costs and a reserve fund. How and when interest is calculated and

accrued and the benefits and draw backs to public funding. There was discussion from the TACover borrowing funding all at one time versus incrementally over the life of the project

Member Stoldt also clarified that Proposition 18 is a pay-as-you-go financing, increasing ratesto the ratepayers a few years before the project monies are needed. However calculations donein the SPI Consultants report are based on a one time loan at a set rate.

Member Stoldt opened the item for comments or questions from the public. Having no requeststo speak, Member Stoldt closed public comment on this item and moved on to the next agendaitem.

4. Discuss Cal Am Requested Surcharge 2, Impacts to Ratepayers, and Provide Direction to Staff

Member Stoldt introduced the item and distributed a document outlining the scenario that zero'sout the proposed Cal Am surcharge 2, instead of including the surcharge of the proposed $99million. Member Stoldt explained the surcharge and the effects of changes in differentscenarios and how it would impact the rate base. He also expressed that the fundamentalconcern of the ratepayer is the idea that current ratepayers will have an unequal burden withminimal benefits compared to future resident. The Authority Board will address their position onthis item in the near future. Member Stoldt opened the item for comments from the TAC whorequested clarification on specific calculations. Member Stoldt then opened the item for


9/50


3

comments from the public.

Doug Wilhelm expressed his view that the Cal Am surcharge is equivalent to extortion and isunequally charged and unfairly distributed.

Dale Haikus spoke representing the Peninsula Water Ratepayers Alliance clarifying the $99million surcharge is currently a proposal before the CPUC and is not guaranteed however itwould be a gambling of ratepayer money. He urged the continuance of competition between thethree projects and expressed concern with the level of risk associated with the Cal Am projectwhich if failed, would leave rate payers with extensive stranded costs. He requested theMPRWA to facilitate three things 1) ensure continuance of a fair playing field 2) advancefunding proposal would not go forward without providing rate payers an equity stake and 3)encouraged the Mayors to protect the best interest of the community.

Safwat Malek questioned Cal Ams proposed budget figures and disagreed with supporting CalAm's proposed surcharge. Member Stoldt spoke to Mr. Malek's question and indicated that CalAm provided the $207 million discounted figure to the Consultants. With no further requests tospeak Member Stoldt brought the discussion back to the board.

The TAC discussed different rate and borrowing scenarios and possibilities as well as tried tocompile the direct message the TAC wants relayed to the Authority Board. With no furtherdiscussion on the item, Member Stoldt closed discussion and moved to the next agenda item.

5. Review Cost Model and Discuss Strategy and Recommendation for CPUC Cost and FinancialWorkshops December 11-13, 2012

Member Stoldt introduced the item and walked through the assumptions to discussinputs and alternatives. He indicated that the purpose of this item was to provide the Authorityany guidance of scenarios the TAC thinks should be evolved for the cost workshops or if thereare specific topics that should be presented to the Authority Board.

George Riley commented about instructions to recues himself over the surcharge, due to hispresentation at the November 13 Authority Board meeting which preempted his participation onthis item. He felt he should not participate in this discussion either because it was too closelyrelated therefore recuesed himself from this item as well.

Don freeman spoke to this comment and indicated that if a member advocates strongly for aposition representing an outside group, that it makes it very difficult for the public to understandif that person is keeping an open mind. While there are no financial conflicts of interest, orincompatibility of office in any way, Mr. Reily recuesing himself was a way to preserve theintegrity of the position and of the Authority. Mr. Reily is entitled to have his opinion, but if herecuesed himself, he will be stepping down from all communication related to this item includingpublic comments.

Member Stoldt redirected the discussion back to preparing direction to present to the Authority.

Member Israel clarified the calculations of percentages on the worksheet as well as mitigationallowance not being high enough to resolve. He requested it be higher figures for mitigation and


10/50


4

lower figures for electricity and control systems. Member Narigi requested inclusion of a lineitem factor for test wells and TAC members agreed to include under the plant assumptions.

Member Stoldt clarified that the default scenario of 2,500 cost per acre foot and pointed out thatunder the cost of debt, financing area should be looking at authorized cost of debt, corporatedebt, and questioned what if corporate debt was tax exempt without credit support as well asconsider looking at it without backstop. State revolving fund debt should be looked at as a debtand then moving it over as a surcharge.

Member Israel requested reconsideration of the cost of energy and any impacts of usingmethane generated power from the Monterey Regional Waste Management District.

Member Riedl questioned turning off surcharge 2 and state revolving fund as an option, as itwas lumped together in the worksheet, and asked if they be equitable. You could make a publiccontribution at no ownership, but it's a non starter.

The TAC agreed to indicate to the Authority that surcharge 2, although cheaper, has specificissues such as is unequally charged and that ratepayers and businesses may suffer from "rateshock" when implemented. The goal would be to determine how to get the benefits of thesurcharge without affecting the population.

Member Stoldt opened the item for questions from the public. Salfwat Malek questioned anysafeguards the ratepayers have if the project fails. Libby Downey expressed disagreement withLegal Counsel Freeman, and encouraged the TAC to appear as if they are advising and notadvocating. Doug Wilhelm questioned the surcharge and assumptions on the key assumptionspage. Member Stoldt clarified the layout of the table under the Surcharge and ConstructionAssumptions section of the Key Assumptions hand out.

The TAC agreed to write a memo about the assumptions and recommendations discussed toprovide for reference and inclusion to the CPUC Cost Workshop and for future discussion forthe Authority Board. Member Stoldt clarified that these are not the consultants numberspresented today, but generated for the cost modeling workshop. With no further discussion oritems to come before the TAC, Member Stoldt adjourned the meeting at 4:13 p.m.

ADJOURNMENT

Respectfully Submitted, Approved,

Lesley Milton, Clerk to the Authority Director Burnett, TAC Chair


11/50

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water AuthorityAgenda Report

Date: December 03, 2012

Item No: 3.

08/12

FROM: Clerk of the Authority

SUBJECT: Review of Recommendations to Authority Board on CPUC Cost Model andAction As Warranted

DISCUSSION: An oral discussion of the attached will take place at the meeting.

Attached: TAC Recommendations to Authority Board on CPUC Cost Model


12/50

DRAFT -- MEMORANDUM

TO: MPRWA Board of DirectorsFROM: Technical Advisory CommitteeDATE: December 3, 2012SUBJECT: TAC Recommendations to Authority Board on CPUC Cost Model

Introduction

At its November 19, 2012 meeting the Technical Advisory Committee reviewed the November 15, 2012California-American Water Company compliance filing (attached) on the Monterey Peninsula WaterSupply Project Financial Model, in advance of the CPUC cost workshops to be held December 11 th-13 th .The following represents the consensus recommendations of the Technical Advisory Committee withrespect to the Key Assumptions and other inputs for future scenario analysis.

Recommendation

The Authority Board should review the following recommendations and consider which, if any, to directits representative(s) to put forth during the workshops, and/or identify additional topics of interest orconcern.

i) Provide a scenario that includes the CAW-Only Facilities to show impact on revenuerequirement;

ii) Reduce the allocation of costs to Instrumentation and control systems;

iii) Increase the mitigation allowance;

iv) Provide a scenario that includes the cost of the test well. (Provide a scenario with both theCAW-Only Facilities and the test well);

v) Change the cost per acre-foot of GWR to $2500 for all scenarios;

vi) Examine the effect on operating costs, and the revenue requirement, of the cost of energy both the cost in $/kWh in the base year, as well as escalation rate.

vii) For the cost of debt, examine the following:

At the authorized debt rate of return

At the current corporate borrowing rate

As tax-exempt debt based on AWW Capital Corp credit rating, and

As tax-exempt debt based on a public backstop credit rating


13/50

viii) Examine the State Revolving Funds (SRF) either treated as Cal-Am debt or as a public

contribution;

ix) Examine reducing the amount of Surcharge 2, as well as the size and frequency of thesteps;

x) Examine the effect of a public contribution of funds, at various amounts;

xi) Can both SRF moneys and a public agency contribution be modeled simultaneously as off-balance sheet sources?

xii) Discuss the difference between single test year amounts and total life -cycle costs,especially as it relates to energy cost (see item vi above) and the future costs of wellreplacement; and

xiii) What is the cumulative impact of Surcharge 1 and Surcharge 2 in the next 4-5 years?


14/50

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Application of California-American Water Company (U210W) for Approval of theMonterey Peninsula Water Supply Project andAuthorization to Recover All Present and FutureCosts in Rates.

A.12-04-019(Filed April 23, 2012)

CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY

COMPLIANCE FILING ON THE MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY

PROJECT FINANCIAL MODEL

Sarah E. Leeper Javier E. NaranjoCalifornia-American Water Company333 Hayes Street, Suite 202San Francisco, CA 94102Telephone: 415.863.2960Email: [email protected]: [email protected]

Attorneys for ApplicantCalifornia-American Water Company

Dated: November 15, 2012


15/50

1

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Application of California-American Water Company (U210W) for Approval of theMonterey Peninsula Water Supply Project andAuthorization to Recover All Present and FutureCosts in Rates.

A.12-04-019(Filed April 23, 2012)

CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY

COMPLIANCE FILING ON THE MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY

PROJECT FINANCIAL MODEL

Pursuant to the Administrative Law Judges Directives to Applicant and Ruling on

Motions Concerning Scope, Schedule, and Official Notice , dated August 29, 2012, California-

American Water Company (California American Water) respectfully submits this compliance

filing to provide a financial model that can be used to compute various revenue requirement

scenarios for the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project. California American Water worked

jointly with representatives from the Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA) and Monterey

Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD) to develop the financial model, 1 attached

hereto as Attachment 1.

The attached financial model reflects the collaborative efforts of DRA, MPWMD, and

California American Water and includes the input of these interested parties. Counsel for DRA

and MPWMD have authorized the undersigned to state that they support the model, as well as

the use of the model as the basis for a common methodology. 2

1 In addition to an in-person meeting that took place amongst these parties at MPWMD's offices on Tuesday,October 30, California American Water, DRA, and MPWMD also met on other occasions to develop the model.2 By telephone, on November 15, counsel for MPWMD and DRA represented that they support the model and basedon the input of their clients believe that the model can be used as the basis for a common methodology to calculate


16/50

2

Dated: November 15, 2012 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Sarah E. Leeper Sarah E. Leeper Attorney for ApplicantCalifornia-American Water Company

the various revenue requirement scenarios.


17/50

Attachment 1


18/50

onterey Water Supply Projecty Assumptions

nt Assumptions Project Summary ($MM)Plant Size (MGD) 9.0Capital Scenario High End Capital Investmentvs. Most Probable Capital Scenario +25.0% Desal Plant $254.7nclude CAW-Only Facilities? No CAW-Only Facilities 0

AFUDC 1Mobilization/Demobilization 2.0% Total Project Cost $267.5Engineering/Startup 15.0%mplementation 20.0% CAW Rate Base at Year End 2017

Elec, Inst & Control Systems 40.0% Utility Plant * $260Contingency 25.0% SRF Funded Costs * 0Mitigation Allowance 1.0% Surcharge Funded Costs * (102.5Exclude Test Well? Yes Pub Agency Funded Costs 0.

Deferred Taxes (1.Ground Water Recharge Total CAW Rate Base $157.2Annual AF 0 * Net of depreciation & amortizationCost per AF ($) $3,000

Total Cost to Customer

ancing Assumptions CAW Pre-Tax Equity Cost $14Cost of Capital CAW Pre-Tax Debt Cost 3Cost of Equity 9.99% Depreciation & Amortization 4.1Cost of Debt 5.00% General Taxes 1Equity % 53.00% Fixed O&M 2Debt % 47.00% Variable O&M 6

Year 1 CAW Rev Req ($MM) $33Cost of Capital 7.64% Customer SRF Surcharge 0.

Public Agency Costs 0Other Debt Rates Total Yr 1 Cost to Customer $33.3

Short Term Debt Rate 1.00%Short Term Debt Cap ($MM) $20.0 Fixed Cost per AF $2,61SRF Debt Rate 2.50% Variable Cost per AF $68SRF Term (yrs) 20 Total Cost per AF $3,309SRF Assets Exempt from Prop Tax? Yes

CAW Captial StructureCAW Financing Scenario 3 - CAW Equity & Debt / SRF CAW Equity 53.0% of SRF Debt in CAW Cap Structure? (Max = 47.0%) 0.0% CAW Debt 47.0SRF Borrowings ($MM) $0.0 SRF Debt 0.0

Total 100.0

charge & Contribution Assumptions

Utilize a Surcharge? Yes

Period % of Mont Revenue Req Start Date End DatePeriod 1 30.0% 07/01/13 12/31/13Period 2 45.0% 01/01/14 06/30/14Period 3 60.0% 07/01/14 12/31/14Period 4 60.0% 01/01/15 06/30/15Period 5 60.0% 07/01/15 12/31/15Period 6 60.0% 01/01/16 06/30/16Period 7 60.0% 07/01/16 12/31/16

Non CAW Debt via Public Agencies (ie. Public Agency Contribution, SRF Funding off CAW Debt Balance Sheet)Contribution Amount ($MM) $0.0Contribution Date Jan-14Financing Rate 2.5%Financing Term 20


19/50

Monterey Water Supply ProjectInputs

Project Dates / Timing AFUDC Rates Capex In Service In RatesEngineering Start Date Jul-13 % of Debt as ST in AFUDC Rate Desal Dec-16 Dec-16Engineering Length (months) 24 AFUDC Rate 7.64% North Pipeline Dec-16 Dec-16

Grossed Up AFUDC Rate 11.29% Engineering Dec-16 Dec-16Construction Start Date Jul-15Construction Length (months) 18 Taxes Other Ratemaking

Federal 35.00% CWIP in Rate Base NoTotal Project Length (months) 42 State 8.84% Reg Assets in Rate Base No

Rev Req Inflator 2.0%O&M Expenses Begin Jan-17 Effective Tax Rate 40.75%PUC Order Jul-13 Replacement Capital Year Date

Yr 1 Monterey Rev Req $50.0 Pumps 20 Dec-36Ground Water Recharge Annual Rev Req Inflator 3.0% Chemical Equipment 1 15 Dec-31Cost as of Jan-17 Chemical Equipment 2 30 Dec-46GWR Begins Jan-17 Uncollectible % 0.3%

O&M Expenses Fixed % Variable %

Depreciation/Amortization Fuel & Power 0.0% 100.0%Book Depreciation Rate 2.50% Inflation Rates Chemicals 0.0% 100.0%Tax Depreciation Rate 4.00% Consumer Price Index 1.3% Membrane/Media Replacement 0.0% 100.0%Reg Asset Amorization Rate 2.50% Water & Sewer Maintenance 5.6% Repairs & Maintenance 0.0% 100.0%CAW Pipeline Depr Rate 1.33% Purchased Water 0.0% 100.0%

PUC Labor Escalation Labor 100.0% 0.0%CAW Share of O&M in Year 1 2011 1.60% Avoided Costs 0.0% 100.0%Fuel & Power 100.0% 2012 3.10%Chemicals 100.0% 2013 1.50% Capacity Factor 100.0%Membrane/Media Replacemen 0.0% 2014 1.70%Repairs & Maintenance 20.0% 2015 2.10%Purchased Water 100.0% CAGR 2.00%Labor 100.0%Avoided Costs 100.0% PUC Non-Labor Escalation

2011 5.50%

O&M Items 2012 0.10%Avoided Costs ($MM) $2.0 2013 2.00%Date of Estimate Dec-12 2014 6.60%Portion of R&R Capitalized 50.0% 2015 2.10%

CAGR 3.23%Property TaxesProperty Tax Rate 1.05%

Surch Exempt from Prop Tax? Yes


20/50


21/50



Item No: 4.

08/12


SUBJECT: Discussion of Seaside Groundwater Basin Watermaster Study of Replenishment

DISCUSSION: An oral discussion of the attached will take place at the meeting.

Attached: Watermaster Replenishment Study November 2012


22/50

ITEM VIII.A.1.11/29/2012

SEASIDE GROUNDWATER BASINWATERMASTER

TO: Board of Directors

FROM: Laura Dadiw, Assistant to the CEO APPROVED BY: Dewey D Evans, CEO

DATE: November 29, 2012

SUBJECT: Clarification of the schedule of repayment by California American Water (CAW) of artificial or in-lieu replenishment water to the Basin per the terms of theMemorandum of Understand, (MOU) between Watermaster and CAW dated January 21& 29, 2009.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

PURPOSE:Consider revisions to the language of the MOU between the Watermaster and CAW inorder to clarify the schedule of repayment by CAW of artificial or in-lieu replenishmentwater to the Basin.

RECOMMENDATION :Consider revising the language of Section 2. (a) of the agreement within the attached copyof the MOU to clarify the schedule of repayment by CAW of artificial or in-lieu replenishmentwater to the Basin to be on a 25-year schedule at 700 acre-feet annually (AFA).

BACKGROUND:

An MOU was approved with revisions by the Watermaster Board at its December 3,2008 meeting that contained conditions on the extension of Replenishment Assessmentcredit to CAW to ensure replenishment of the Basin by water from CAW projectsoperational in the years ahead. The MOU contains a guaranty from CAW that it wouldprovide replenishment water in the future to avoid the impact of drought or seawater intrusion to the extent that CAW over-pumped through time under the judgment.

DISCUSSION:

Although the MOU stipulates that CAW will ensure replenishment of the Basin with water from its operational projects, at no cost to Watermaster, in an amount equivalent to thequantity of water that CAW has overproduced during Basin adjudication, there is

currently no language as to the schedule of repayment by CAW other than on aschedule that is feasible per Section 2. (a) of the agreement. There is no languagewithin the Decision itself that clarifies the schedule of repayment.

The matter was addressed at a meeting of an Ad Hoc Committee consisting of DirectorsBruno, Sabolsice, Edelen, and Bachofner on November 13, 2012. Director Sabolsice

38


23/50

presented a Draft For Discussion Purposes Only schedule which outlined variousbasin replenishment scenarios, with the committee ultimately focusing on threerepayment scenarios: 50 years (350 AFA), 25 years (700 AFA), and 10 years (1,750

AFA), keeping in mind that each scenario affects plant design (plant size, number of wells, pre-treatment improvements, etc.) and ultimately the cost to customers. A clausewould be included to allow an override of the schedule should conditions in the basinchange (i.e. evidence of seawater intrusion) at some point during the replenishmentperiod.

A majority of the committee favored the 25-year repayment scenario.CAW developedAttachment A California American Water Replenishment Schedule that details the 25-year repayment schedule (attached).

FISCAL IMPACT :

There is minimal, if any, anticipated staff time required to provide information to legalcounsel to make revisions to the language of the MOU. Staff time would also be requiredto document the repayment over the years.

ATTACHMENTS :Draft Memorandum of Understanding between Seaside Basin Watermaster andCalifornia American Water dated January 21 & 29, 2009.

Attachment A California American Water Replenishment Schedule

39


24/50

ATTACHMENT A

CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER REPLENISHMENT SCHEDULE

A1. Upon final completion and acceptance by California American Water of a Water Supply

Project and beginning October 1 of the subsequent Water Year, California American Water shallcommence replenishment of the Seaside Basin in accordance with the schedule contained herein.The schedule is agreed by all parties to be feasible in accordance with Section 2 of the MOUdated December 3, 2008.

A2. Watermaster and California American Water agree that the volume of artificial or in-lieureplenishment shall be based on a running five (5) Water Year average. Should the averagevolume of artificial or in-lieu replenishment calculated by the Watermaster be less than 700 acrefeet annually and if the Watermaster declares that water for Artificial Replenishment is availablefrom sources other than the CAW Water Supply Project, Watermaster shall have the option of requiring CAW to pay a part of CAW's Outstanding Replenishment Assessment for the purpose

of providing Watermaster with funds to obtain Artificial Replenishment in sufficient quantities toreplenish that quantity not provided via in-lieu replenishment.

A3. Watermaster and California American Water agree that should conditions change in thebasin sufficient to indicate that Seawater intrusion is occurring; this replenishment schedule shallbe subject to immediate modification.

A4. Replenishment Years subsequent to Replenishment Year 25 shall continue at 700 acre-feet annually based on a running 5-year average until California American Waters totalcalculated Over-Production volume has been achieved. In accordance with Section 4 of theMOU, at any stage in CAW's replenishment prior to Replenishment Year 25 should the Courtdetermine that the Basin has been replenished in an amount sufficient to prevent seawaterintrusion or the Basin has been protected by alternative seawater intrusion preventive measuresCAW's obligations under conditions set by this MOU shall be deemed fully satisfied.

REPLENSIHMENT YEAR * ARTIFICIAL REPLENISHMENT (AFA) IN-LIEU REPLENISHMENT (AFA)1 7002 7003 7004 7005 7006 700

7 7008 7009 700

10 70011 70012 70013 70014 70015 700

40


25/50

16 70017 70018 70019 70020 70021 700

22 70023 70024 70025 700** 700

41


26/50

706125.03/SDC1144-029/10-16-08/jsd/scm

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN SEASIDE BASINWATERMASTER AND CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER

This Memorandum of Understanding between the Seaside Basin Watermaster(Watermaster) and California American Water (CAW) is entered into pursuant to a motionpassed by Watermaster on December 3, 2008 with respect to the following:

R E C I T A L S

A. The Amended Decision in Case No. M66343 filed February 9, 2007 (Decision)provides that Standard Producers that exceed their allocation of Natural Safe Yield are subject toa Replenishment Assessment for each acre foot of Over-Production for each Water Year. UnderSection III.M1.d of the Decision, CAW has the right to claim a credit against its ReplenishmentAssessment (Replenishment Credit) for costs incurred for water supply augmentation that has or

will result in replenishment of the Basin.

B. Wastermaster has calculated the Replenishment Assessments for CAW for FiscalYear 2006 (Water Year 05/06), Fiscal Year 2007 (Water Year 06/07) and Fiscal Year 2008(Water Year 07/08) in the total amount of $10,166,640. Pursuant to Section III.M.1.d of theDecision, CAW applied for a Replenishment Credit for expenditures totaling $12,305,924.00that CAW has made through calendar year 2006 for water supply augmentation associated withpre-construction expenses for the Coastal Water Project. The request was made on March 5,2008 and supplemented with further information on May 2, 2008.

C. Watermaster approved CAW's request for a Replenishment Credit in the amount

of $12,305,924.00, subject to conditions set forth in the motion which provide that CAW willensure replenishment of the Basin with water from the Coastal Water Project, or a comparablealternative project, at no cost to Watermaster, in an amount equivalent to the quantity of waterthat CAW has overproduced, and thus incurred a Replenishment Assessment obligation forFiscal Years 2006, 2007 and 2008.

D. Watermaster and CAW desire to enter into this Memorandum of Understandingregarding future CAW requests pursuant to Section III.M.1.d of the Decision for ReplenishmentCredits against future Replenishment Assessment obligations.

42


27/50

43


28/50

44


29/50

ITEM VIII.A.2.11/29/2012



FROM: Robert S. Jaques, Technical Program ManagerMODIFIED ANDAPPROVED BY: Dewey D Evans, CEO


SUBJECT: Discussion/Consider Approving a Professional Services Contract with HydroMetricsfor $45,290.00 to update protective water levels and perform modeling work toevaluate replenishment scenarios.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -RECOMMENDATIONS :It is recommended that the Board approve the attached RFS No. 2012-04 for $45,290.00 with

HydroMetrics to perform groundwater modeling of Seaside Basin replenishment scenarios.

It is also recommended that if the Board decides to approve the contract that the Board approvethe funding as outlined in the fiscal impact section of this report.

BACKGROUND:

At the Boards October 3, 2012 meeting one agenda item pertained to the Memorandum of Understanding between Seaside Basin Watermaster and California American Water (MOU)regarding CAWs Replenishment Assessments and Replenishment Assessment Credits.Specifically, this agenda item pertained to the development of a schedule under which CAWwould repay the quantities of water that it has overpumped from the Seaside Basin, upon

completion of its Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project. The Board determined that it wouldhandle this matter without TAC involvement. However, there was discussion on this matter at theOctober TAC meeting which led to Eric Sabolsice stating that he would approach the Boards AdHoc Committee (created for the purpose of working on this topic) to provide them the TACsrecommendation that modeling be done in order to assist in the development of a feasiblereplenishment schedule for use by Cal Am in fulfilling its MOU repayment obligations. At theTACs November meeting there was further discussion about developing a proposed contract tohave HydroMetrics perform the modeling work, so it could be presented for the Boardsconsideration at its November 29 th Special meeting.

DISCUSSION

The TACs discussion led to the conclusion that if modeling work is to be performed, it shouldinclude the following work to provide information on the following issues:1. Develop revised protective water levels using more detailed hydrogeologic information

about the Seaside Basin than was available when the first set of protective water levelswas developed during preparation of the February 2009 Basin Management Action Plan .

45


30/50

This will likely result in slightly lower protective water levels that will be easier toachieve.

2. Model two replenishment scenarios:a. Scenario 1: What groundwater levels will be if Cal Am provides 700 acre-feet per

year (AFY) for Basin replenishment over a period of 25 years, and how theselevels will compare to the water levels needed to protect the Basin against seawaterintrusion (protective water levels). This scenario will provide information abouthow close to achieving protective water levels the Cal Am replenishment proposalwill come.

b. Scenario 2: How much replenishment water will need to be supplied in order toenable Standard Producer pumping rates to be sufficiently reduced over a 25 yearperiod in order to achieve protective water levels? If completely replacingStandard Producer pumping with replenishment water does not achieve protectivewater levels, additional replenishment water may be needed to recharge the Basin,either by injection or by spreading. This scenario will provide information on howfeasible it would be to achieve protective water levels in a 25 year period.

3. Estimate the rate-of-approach of the offshore seawater intrusion front under bothScenarios to provide a sense of how fast the front is approaching the Basin under eachScenario.

The TAC felt that this work would provide a sound and logical basis for determining whether ornot the Cal Am replenishment scenario represents a feasible replenishment scenario, asdescribed in the MOU. The TAC also believed that the Judge would want to have the Scenario 1and 2 data, along with information about the rate-of-approach of the seawater intrusion front, inorder to render a decision on the acceptability of Cal Ams replenishment proposal.

The attached RFS No. 2012-4 contains the scope of work developed as a result of the TACs

discussion on this topic, and the cost proposal from HydroMetrics to perform this work. The costproposed by HydroMetrics is $45,290.

FISCAL IMPACT:

At the regular meeting of the Board of Directors on June 6, 2012 three line items in theMonitoring and Management Plan Operations Budget were identified that could be deferred to alater fiscal year to cover the modeling work that was determined to be needed to request the courtto suspend the 10% triennial phasing down of pumping from the Basin. Those three line itemstotaling $55,000 of which only $30,780 was needed to cover the modeling work; leaving $24,220to be used for other purposes with Board approval. The three budget approved line items that

were identified and deferred were:Evaluate Replenishment Scenarios and Develop Answers to Basin ManagementQuestions $25,000Refine and/or Update the Basin Management Plan $25,000Evaluate Coastal Wells for Cross-Aquifer Contamination Potential $5,000

46


31/50

The is another $13,519 remaining in the Monitoring and ManagementCapital Fund that isavailable leaving only an additional amount of $7,551 needed to total the $45,290 required tofund the entire Professional Services Contract with HydroMetrics. It is suggested that the $7,551be taken from the budgeted contingency account which would leave $32,033 remaining in theaccount ($39,584 - $7,551 = $32,033).

Summary:

Remaining amount from deferred task items $24,220Balance available in M&M Capital Fund 13,519M&MContingency Account 7,551

$45,290

ATTACHMENT:1. HydroMetrics RFS No. 2012-04

47


32/50

48


33/50

49


34/50

50


35/50

51


36/50

52


37/50

53


38/50

54


39/50

ITEM. IX.

NEW BUSINESS

67


40/50

ITEM IX. A.

COMMITTEE REPORTS

68


41/50

ITEM NO. IX.A.1.

TECHNICAL ADVISORYCOMMITTEE

(TAC)

69


42/50

ITEM IX.A.1.a11/29/12



FROM: Robert S. Jaques, Technical Program ManagerMODIFIED AND APPROVED BY Dewey D Evans, CEO


SUBJECT: Discussion/Consider Approving the Seawater Intrusion Analysis Report (SIAR) for FY2012- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -RECOMMENDATIONS :It is recommended that the Board approve the Seawater Intrusion Analysis Report for WY 2012.

BACKGROUND:HydroMetrics has prepared the Draft Seawater Intrusion Analysis Report (SIAR) for Water Year2011-2012. The Executive Summary from the SIAR is attached. The SIAR examines the healthof the Basin with regard to whether or not there are any indications that seawater intrusion is eitheroccurring or is imminent. At its November 14, 2012 meeting the TAC reviewed the Draft 2012SIAR and recommended it for approval by the Board

DISCUSSIONThe key Conclusion contained in the SIAR is that depressed groundwater levels, continuedpumping in excess of recharge and fresh water inflows, and ongoing seawater intrusion in

the nearby Salinas Valley all suggest that seawater intrusion could occur in the SeasideGroundwater Basin. However, in spite of these factors, no seawater intrusion is currentlyobserved in existing monitoring wells.

A trend toward increasing chloride concentration was observed in WY 2012 in three of the near-coast monitoring wells, as well as a decreasing sodium/chloride molar ratios in some of those wells.While it is too early to determine whether these are early indications of approaching seawaterintrusion, this warrants increasing the monitoring frequency in those wells. The additionalmonitoring will be performed for the Watermaster by MPWMD under its existing contract with theWatermaster. Since this additional work was not known when their contract was initially prepared,an addendum to that contract will need to be issued to MPWMD during the first quarter of 2013 to

compensate them for performing that additional work.

FISCAL IMPACT:Unknown at this time, additional cost is expected to be modest.

ATTACHMENTS:Executive Summary of the WY 2012 Seawater Intrusion Analysis Report. The complete SIAR isposted on the Watermasters website at http://www.seasidebasinwatermaster.org/ , for review bythose Board members who wish to examine the entire document, including all of its attachments.

70


43/50

Executive Summary

This annual report addresses the potential for, and extent of, seawater intrusion in the SeasideGroundwater Basin. Continued pumping in excess of recharge and fresh water inflows, pumpingdepressions near the coast, and ongoing seawater intrusion in the nearby Salinas Valley all suggestthat seawater intrusion could occur in the Seaside Groundwater Basin. No seawater intrusion iscurrently observed in existing monitoring and production wells, as demonstrated by the differenttools and analyses that are used to investigate for evidence of seawater intrusion. However, thereare two monitoring wells (PCA-West Deep and sentinel well SBWM-4) that need to be watchedcarefully over the next water year.

Piper diagrams for groundwater samples collected from depth-discreet monitoring wellsduring Water Year 2012 show no changes in water chemistry towards seawater.

No groundwater samples analyzed with Stiff diagrams are indicative of incipient seawaterintrusion.

Wells with increasing chloride concentrations over the past year are: PCA-West Deep,sentinel well SBWM-4 shallow, and SBWM-4 deep. The September 2012 chlorideconcentration in the PCA-West Deep well is only 4 mg/L below the chloride threshold valueof 186 mg/L established in the Seawater Intrusion Response Plan (SIRP) for this well(HydroMetrics WRI, 2009c). The sentinel wells do not have chloride threshold values,however, the deep sample from well SBWM-4 is above the secondary MCL of 250 mg/L.The increasing trend seen in the shallow and deep samples from well SBWM-4 start at thesame time as the PCA-West Deep wells increasing trend. Well SBWM-4 should besampled quarterly at the same time as the PCA-West Deep well so that results can becorrelated. No other increases from the current monitoring frequency are warranted.Quarterly data from PAC-West Deep and SBWM-4 need to be evaluated each quarter afterresults are received from the laboratory.

The PCA-West Deep well and sentinel well SBWM-4 are the only wells with decreasingsodium/chloride ratios. If these trends continue and drop below 0.86, it could indicateseawater intrusion.

Maps of chloride concentrations for the shallow aquifer do not show chlorides increasingtowards the coast. The deep aquifer maps show that higher chloride concentrations arelimited to coastal monitoring wells PCA-West Deep and sentinel well SBWM-4.

Although production wells have a different water quality than the monitoring wells, this is

probably as a result of them being screened across both shallow and deep zones. Theproduction well water qualities are not indicative of seawater intrusion.

Groundwater levels continue to be below preliminary protective elevations in all deepcoastal target monitoring wells (MSC deep, PCA-W, and Sentinel Well 3). Two of the threeshallow wells groundwater levels are above protective elevations: PCA-W shallow andCDM-MW4. MSC shallow remains below preliminary protective elevations.

Based on the findings of this report, the following recommendations should be implemented tocontinue to monitor and track potential seawater intrusion.

71


44/50

1. Analyze Data from PCA-West Deep QuarterlyIncreasing chloride concentrations, decreasing sodium/chloride molar ratio, and chlorideconcentrations approaching the chloride threshold justify increasing how often data from well PCA-West Deep is evaluated. In the past, access issues due windblown sands from the nearby dunes haveprevented sampling in the first quarter of the water year. However, every effort must be made tocollect a sample in the first quarter of WY 2013 to confirm the observed trends. Additionally, due toa change in sampling method from airlifting to micropurging in 2009, it would be prudent to collectsamples using both methods to verify whether the change in water quality is an artifact of thesampling method. After each quarterly sampling event at this well, the data must be analyzed anddocumented.

2. Initiate Quarterly Water Quality Sampling and Analysis for Sentinel Well SBWM-4Because nearby monitoring well PCA-West Deep has an increasing chloride trend with decreasingsodium/chloride molar ratio which matches the trends observed in SBWM-4, sampling at SBWM-4needs to increase its sampling frequency from semi-annual to quarterly so that a direct comparisoncan be made with the quarterly samples collected at PCA-West Deep.

3. Evaluate Water Quality at Sand City Public Works Corp Yard Well

Due to the evolving water type being observed in the Piper diagram, the source of the irregularwater quality at this well needs to be evaluated. The Piper and Stiff diagrams, and sodium/chloridemolar ratio suggest that the source of high chloride is not seawater, however, this needs to beconfirmed with further investigation into historical water quality of the area around the well.

4. Watermaster to Request Complete Sample Analysis for Production WellsWhen Watermaster makes its annual request to producers for water quality data, the request willstate that full results from one sample are to be reported. This ensures that the anions and cationsbalance and that anion/cation analyses can be carried out for this report.

5. Continue to Analyze and Report on Water Quality Annually

Seawater intrusion is a threat, and data must be analyzed regularly to identify incipient intrusion.Maps, graphs, and analyses similar to what are found in this report should continue to be developedevery year.

6. Refine Preliminary Protective Groundwater ElevationsOnce the water supply parameters of the Coastal Water Project are better defined, we recommendthat the preliminary protective groundwater elevations be refined using final calibrated aquiferproperties from the Seaside Basin groundwater flow model. It is expected that the protectiveelevations will decrease by a few feet, which will make them more practical to meet.

72


45/50



Item No: 5.

08/12

FROM: Director Burnett Prepared by: Clerk to the Authority

SUBJECT: Consider and Recommend Options for Updates to the Report from SeparationProcesses Inc.: Evaluation of Seawater Desalination Projects

DISCUSSION:

SPI report was based on a "snapshot in time as of October 15, 2012." The Water Authority willsubmit testimony to the PUC in the January/February timeframe. Some have raised concernsthat any decisions made in January should be made based on updated information that is morerecent than the October 15, 2012 snapshot. The discussion will be to make a recommendationto the Authority board about how the MPRWA should address these concerns.


46/50


47/50



Item No: 6.

08/12

FROM: Director Burnett

Prepared by: Clerk of the Authority

SUBJECT: Propose a Roadmap for Decisions, Recommendations and Direction for PublicUtilities Commission Testimony

DISCUSSION:

The Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority will be asked to make various decisions andrecommendations to enable our contracted Outside Legal Counsel to draft testimony due inFebruary 2013. The MPRWA would benefit from the TAC's recommendations on how to framethe decision and how to sequence the decision making such that we can take a very large issue

and break it down into it component pieces and make sure we are taking up the first orderquestions first and secondary questions second.


48/50


49/50



Item No: 7.

08/12


SUBJECT: Approve Future Meeting Dates for Technical Advisory Committee in 2013

DISCUSSION:

Below are the proposed meeting dates for the Technical Advisory Committee through March30 th, 2012. Meetings will be held at the City of Monterey City Council Chamber at 2:00 p.m.unless otherwise posted.

January 7, 2012January 28, 2012*

February 4, 2012February 25, 2012*

March 4, 2012March 18, 2012

*January 21, 2012 and February 18, 2012 are holidays so these dates are the 4 th Monday of themonth.


50/50

Mprwa Tac Regular Meeting Agenda Packet 12-03-12

Documents