|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
EXHIBIT
22-E FINAL
MINUTES |
|
||||
Ordinance No. 152 Oversight Panel of the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District March 4,
2014 |
||||||
|
|
|
||||
Call to
Order |
The meeting was called to order at 10:02 am in the MPWMD
conference room. |
|||||
|
|
|
||||
Committee
members present: |
|
MPWMD Staff
members present: |
||||
John Bottomley |
|
David J. Stoldt, General Manager |
||||
Paul Bruno |
|
Arlene Tavani, Executive Assistant |
||||
Jason Campbell |
|
|
||||
Jody Hanson (Arrived at 10:08 am) |
|
|
||||
Todd Kruper |
|
|||||
Christine Monteith |
|
|||||
George Riley |
|
|||||
John Tilley (arrived at 10:05 am) |
|
|||||
|
|
|||||
Committee
members absent: |
Norm Yassany |
|||||
|
|
|||||
District
Counsel present: |
David Laredo |
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
Comments from the Public: |
|
|||||
No comments were directed to the committee. |
||||||
|
||||||
Action
Items |
|
|||||
1. |
Adopt
Minutes of August 1, 2013 and November 19, 2013 Committee Meeting |
|||||
|
On a motion by Bruno and second of Riley, the minutes were
adopted on a unanimous vote of 6 - 0, by Bottomley,
Bruno, Campbell, Kruper, Monteith
and Riley. Hanson and Tilley were
absent for the vote. . |
|||||
|
|
|||||
2. |
Adopt 2014
Meeting Schedule |
|||||
|
On a motion by Riley and second of Monteith,
the 2014 meeting schedule was adopted unanimously on a vote of Bottomley, Bruno, Campbell, Kruper,
Monteith and Riley.
Hanson and Tilley were absent for the vote. It was also agreed that meetings would
begin at 10 am. |
|||||
|
|
|||||
|
Tilley
arrived at 10:05 am and Hanson arrived at 10:08 am. |
|||||
Discussion Items |
||||||
3. |
Review of Revenues
and Expenditures of the Water Supply Charge on Water Supply Related
Activities |
|||||
|
Stoldt
summarized the Water Supply Charge Availability Analysis and responded to
questions. Concerns were raised about
the negative balance shown under the Carry-Forward Prior Year Water Supply
Charge category for FY 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 budget years. Stoldt explained that total project
expenditures listed for the FY 2014-2015 and 2015 – 2016 budget years are
overstated, which results in the deficit numbers. At the next committee
meeting, Stoldt will clarify this inconsistency and present a more detailed
explanation of water supply charge revenues and expenditures, as compared to
project expenditures. |
|||||
|
|
|||||
4. |
Update on
MPTA v MPWMD Lawsuit re Ordinance No. 152 |
|||||
|
Laredo reported that Margaret Thum, the attorney for MPTA, has suggested that a hearing
be set in July or August 2014. At this
time, the court has not set a hearing date.
Because the time to set the tax rolls will have elapsed, the water
supply charge will be collected through 2015, irrespective of the outcome of
the lawsuit. |
|||||
|
|
|||||
5. |
Review Mid-Year Budget Adjustment for Groundwater Replenishment
Project (GWR) |
|||||
|
The committee
expressed concern as to whether the spike in GWR and other water project
expenditures is temporary or will continue into the future. Are the expenditures necessary due to the
multiple projects under consideration at this time? The committee also wants
assurance that overhead costs are limited to 15% of water supply charge
expenditures. Stoldt will provide at
the April meeting, a draft memo from the committee that includes
recommendations to the Board regarding water supply charge expenditures. |
|||||
|
|
|||||
6. |
Update on Local Projects |
|||||
|
The
committee expressed support for use of water supply charge funds for
development of local water projects such as the following. (1) Wells on Monterey Airport District
property that is outside of the Seaside Groundwater Basin that could provide
a sub potable water source. Filling
stations could be established for mobile water distribution systems to
provide sub potable water for landscape irrigation or other uses. (2) The MPAD wells could be used to
irrigate the Monterey Pines Golf Course.
(3) Wells on the Monterey County Fairgrounds property might be used
for toilet flushing, in order to reduce potable water use. The District’s goal would be to free up
potable water and make it available for use by the jurisdictions. For example, if 50 acre-feet of non-potable
water could be produced by the MPAD wells, that might facilitate the transfer
of 40 acre-feet of potable water to the jurisdictions. |
|||||
|
|
|||||
7. |
Discuss District Responsibilities and How They Can be Funded
should the Public Water Now Initiative be Enacted |
|||||
|
All
committee members present expressed opposition to use of water supply charge
funds to pay for the analysis of the cost to purchase California American
Water facilities, should the Public Water Now initiative by approved by the
voters. This recommendation will be
included in the draft memo from the committee to the Board of Directors that
will be presented for review at the April 1, 2014 committee meeting. |
|||||
|
|
|||||
Adjournment |
||||||
The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 am. |
||||||
U:\staff\Boardpacket\2014\20140623\InfoItems\22\item22_exh22e.docx |
||||||