Approved - Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency

JE
Approved
May 24, 2012
MINUTES
of the Regular Meeting
Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency
Board of Directors
April 30, 2012
CALL TO ORDER
The Regular Meeting of the Board of Directors of the Monterey Regional Water
Pollution Control Agency was Called to Order by Chair Stefani at 7:02 pm, on
Monday, April 30, 2012 in the Board Room at 5 Harris Court, Building D, Monterey,
California.
2. ROLL CALL
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
Ron Stefani, Chair
Dennis Allion, Vice Chair
Ramiro Cortez
Lou Calcagno
Kenneth Nishi
Libby Downey
Chris Orman
Carmelita Garcia
Gloria De La Rosa
Dave Pendergrass
Felix Bachofner
Vacant — Ex-Officio
Castroville Comm Services District, President
Del Rey Oaks, Councilmember
Boronda County Sanitation District
Monterey County, Supervisor
Marina Coast Water District, Director
Monterey, Councilmember
Moss Landing County Sanitation District
Pacific Grove, Mayor
Salinas, Councilmember
Sand City, Mayor
Seaside, Mayor
U.S. Army, Representative
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
MRWPCA STAFF PRESENT:
Keith Israel
Brad Hagemann
Rob Wellington
Tom Buell
John Tiernan
General Manager
Assistant General Manager
Legal Counsel
Director of Finance
Director of Admin Services/Deputy GM

Minutes
MRWPCA Regular Board Meeting
April 30, 2012
Page 2
Bob Holden
Principal Engineer
Leara Sampson
Human Resources Administrator
Lindsay Synsteby
Customer Service Supervisor
Kevin Cunningham
Source Control Inspector II
Jarrod Levine
WWTP Operator III
Robert Locke
Operator Ill
Iowa Barnett
Operator Ill
Cathleen McKinney
Laboratory Analyst I
Bill Ragsdale-Cronin
Maintenance Supervisor
James Coleman
Safety Officer
Bill Franks
Senior Distribution Mechanic
Maddi Bell
Admin Support Specialist I
Chayito Ibarra
Executive Assistant
OTHERS PRESENT:
Nancy Isakson- Salinas Valley Water Coalition
Frank Aguayo — City of Salinas
Jeff Krebs — City of Monterey
Carl Niizawa — Marina Coast Water District
George Riley — Citizens for Public Water
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chair Stefani asked Ms. Garcia to lead in the Pledge of Allegiance.
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
At 7:05 pm, Chair Stefani called for Public Comments —
none
received.
5. CONSENT AGENDA
Mr. Bachofner said that his Board Agenda packet was missing page 8 from the
March 26, 2012 minutes and asked that Item A be removed from the Consent
Agenda and continued at the next regular board meeting
Mr. Nishi asked to pull Items E and H from the Consent Agenda.
ACTION TAKEN: On a motion by Ms. Garcia, seconded by Mr. Bachofner, the
Board unanimously approved to continue Consent Agenda item A (Approve
MinuteslReports for the Regular Board Meeting of March 26, 2012) to the May 24,
2012 Board meeting and approved Consent Agenda Items B through D, F and G,
and Items I through M as follows:

Minutes
MRWPCA Regular Board Meeting
April 30, 2012
Page 3
B. Approve Minutes/Report for the Special Recycled Water Committee
Meeting of April 11,2012
C. Approve Minutes/Report for the Special Board Meeting of April 13, 2012
D. Approve Minutes/Report for the Budget/Personnel Committee Meeting of
April 20, 2012
F. Receive Comparison Percentage of Budget Expended through March 2012
vs. 2011
G. Receive Check Register for March 2012
I. Receive Actual vs. Budgeted Fiscal Year 2011/12 Expenditures for the
Capital Improvement Program, Capitalized Equipment Fund, and Urban
Reclamation Fund
J. Receive Actual vs. Anticipated Fiscal Year 2011/12 Revenues from
Capacity Charges
K. Receive Residential Dwelling-Unit Aggregate as of March 31, 2012
L. Adopt Final MRWPCA Resolution 2012-05, Authorizing an Amendment to
the Contract between Cal PERS and MRWPCA
M. Received Proposed Committee Dates for February 2012 -
February
2013
Regarding Item E, Receive Financial Statement for March 2012, Mr. Nishi asked
about the General Fund level falling below the reserve policy of $3.3 million. Mr.
Tiernan explained that the General Fund was currently at $5.7 million. Mr. Nishi
explained that under the accounts payable section there was $4.7 million which was
going to be expended and that would leave the balance at $1 million. Mr. Nishi
added that because $300,000 of that was restricted it would only leave a balance of
$700,000 in the General Fund. Mr. Buell explained that if everything that was owed
was paid then it would fall below the reserve policy, but said that one cannot look at
the liability side without looking at the receivable side as well. He said that the
Agency expected to get all of the receivables which are another $3 million.
Mr. Israel, in response to Mr. Nishi’s request, noted that the reserve policy item was
tentatively scheduled for the Budget/Personnel Committee in May.
Regarding Item H, Receive Waste Discharge Report for March 2012; NPDES
Monitoring Report for March 2012; and, Plant Flows; and Effluent Quality for
Connected Agencies, Plus Flow Charts for Salinas, RTP, Monterey Peninsula,
Marina, Fort Ord and Castroville for March 2012, Mr. Nishi asked about the inflows
and expressed concern about water being treated that shouldn’t be treated. Mr.
Hagemann addressed the concern of inflow and infiltration where the highest
months with rain fall are the lowest months in terms of population (due to cycle of

Minutes
MRWPCA Regular Board Meeting
April 30, 2012
Page 4
seasonal workers). Mr. Hagemann added that by most engineering standards, flows
at the individual pump stations have a reasonable variance in the flow in terms of
inflow and infiltration.
ACTION TAKEN: On a motion by Mr. Nishi, seconded by Mr. AIIion, the Board
approved Consent Agenda Items E and H as follows:
E. Receive Financial Statement for March 2012
H. Receive Waste Discharge Report for March 2012, NPDES Monitoring Report
for March 2012, and, Plant Flows, and Effluent Quality for Connected
Agencies, Plus Flow Charts for Salinas, RTP, Monterey Peninsula, Marina, Fort
Ord and Castroville for March 2012
6. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
A. Reclamation Project Status Summary
Nancy lsakson, Salinas Valley Water Coalition, stated she encourages this Agency
to reach out to the agricultural community, Salinas Valley, and ratepayers in Zones
2Y, 2Z, and 2B; who pay for the tertiary treatment plant and noted that it is
unfortunate that Mr. Israel has been advised not to attend the meeting she has
scheduled for tomorrow with stakeholders. Ms. lsakson explained that there are
different agreements and hoped a discussion could reach some resolution. She
stated the original entitlement to the MCWRA seems to be for 19,450 acre feet per
year; which is a water right entitlement. She referenced to the Bureau of
Reclamation loan that characterized the 19,450 Acre Feet (AF) to be used for
irrigation water within the service area. She asked that this Board work together
with the grower community by attending the meeting that will be held at the MCWRA
on May 1.
Mr. Israel responded to Ms. Isakson’s comments and said that Water Quality &
Operations Committee meetings are held monthly where several presentations on
GWR have been provided over the past few years. He noted there is a lot of
history going back more than 20 years that could be updated, and he reported that
staff intends to start that process to provide historically accurate information about
these water agreements.
Mr. Calcagno stated the loan agreement for the Bureau of Reclamation indicates
that if any water is going to be used for other than agriculture there are certain
things that are required to be done before moving in that direction, such as an
environmental review. He noted that there are exceptions in that agreement, but if
proper protocol and procedures aren’t followed, the loan could be in jeopardy of

Minutes
MRWPCA Regular Board Meeting
April 30, 2012
Page 5
losing the low interest rate. Mr. Israel clarified that there are actually two loans: one
loan in the Agency’s name for the tertiary treatment plant; the second for the
growers with the County (MCWRA) which is for the distribution system. The Agency
pays for the tertiary treatment plant loan and is reimbursed by MCWRA each year.
He suggested a general presentation on this matter would be beneficial to helping
the Board understand the CSIP/SVRP agreements, followed by additional
presentations as needed.
Mr. Calcagno agreed and asked that a presentation be provided as soon as there
are many growers who are very concerned about progress on the GWR. He said
the water is going into the ocean and everyone agrees it should be injected into the
aquifer; but questions such as how much water, what facilities are going to be used,
and how the GWR project is going to be put together need to be answered.
Mr. Bachofner agreed it would be helpful for the Board to receive a presentation on
these agreements and to have a meeting that is dedicated to CSIP operations to
look at the governing documents that would include guidance from Legal Counsel
on the logical interpretations of the agreements.
Mr. Nishi asked why staff was not meeting tomorrow at the MCWRA since the group
was not meeting to make any decisions. Mr. Wellington provided background on
the reasons he advised the General Manager not to meet with this group at this
time. He noted that initially Mr. Israel agreed to meet with Ms. Isakson to clarify her
questions so that he could provide specific information for her. However, this
proposed meeting morphed into something completely different. When it was
proposed that a larger group meet to review all the agreements and make
determinations on who is entitled to what, Legal Counsel advised that it was not
appropriate for the General Manager to affempt to interpret these agreements on his
own without the specific advice of legal staff. Additionally there was a request to
have MCWD in attendance; and in light of recent correspondence from MCWD
amounting to facts and circumstances that constituted a threat of litigation, Mr.
Wellington felt it would be inappropriate for Mr. Israel to attend and have a
discussion or inquiry about what the agreements say or don’t say. Mr. Israel has
indicated to Ms. lsakson that he is going to answer her questions and is still willing
to meet with her on a one-on-one basis.
Ms. lsakson clarified that her intent for writing the leffer was to start a discussion and
agreed that it was a good idea for staff to provide a presentation regarding the
various documents to the Board allowing the public to also have an opportunity to
raise questions. Mr. Israel explained that it was important to go back and have a
legal review of all the different agreements. He noted there are records for the
meetings when the initial agreement was approved in 1992; however, parts of that

of a sudden, that handshake portion wasn’t any good. There are numerous
the MCWRA in 1992. Management changed at MCWRA and a few years later, all
Minutes
agreement about the urban project were based on a “hand-shake” agreement with
General Manager
the Board prepares for the Strategic Planning Workshop on May 11. Following is a
Strategic Planning Workshop would be held on May 11, 2012 beginning at 8:00 am.
There were no questions.
Replenishment project. Mr. Hagemann responded that a monthly update would be
documents and letters from the County that are available; however, staff will need
some time to assemble the information in order to begin the dialogue about this
Page 6
April 30, 2012
MRWPCA Regular Board Meeting
history.
Mr. Nishi clarified that Marina Coast does not object to the Groundwater
Third amendment and are not threatening to sue anybody — the District has certain
rights and wants to protect them.
Mr. Orman asked that the Board receive frequent reports on the Groundwater
placed under the Reclamation Summary Report.
B. Strategic Planning Goals (2011-2014) and One-Year Objectives Update
Mr. Israel stated the goals have been updated. He reminded the Board that the
C. Status Report of Other Significant Projects
No questions or comments.
D. Operations Report
No questions or comments.
7. STAFF REPORTS
A. General ManagerlAssistant General ManagerlLegal Counsel
Nothing to report.
B. Department Heads
Nothing to report.
C. Presentation: Strategic Planning Goals —
Mr. Israel gave a historical review of MRWPCA Strategic Planning Goals over the
last 13 years. He suggested that a review of this information may be beneficial as
Review Keith Israel,
Historical
Replenishment project. In fact, the District supports it, but wants to make sure that
everyone agrees. Additionally, he stated that Marina Coast did not object to the

April 30, 2012
summary of the goals from 1999 through 2002 to illustrate the Board’s
accomplishments:
Page 7
doing well as workers’ compensation costs have gone down, saving Agency money.
Mr. Stefani noted that the Workers’ Compensation letter shows that the Agency is
A. Worker’s Compensation Letter
8. CORRESPONDENCE
of our represented communities.
challenge all of us to think and work regionally to promote the best results for each
objectives at the Workshop in May. He also noted that our key goals continually
achievements for the Board and staff and serve as encouragement for setting key
Mr. Israel noted that these goals have resulted in very successful ventures and
• Develop and implement a plan to manage power in the most costeffective
manner
• Develop and implement a plan to manage bio-solids in the most costefficient
manner
• Be a leader in solving the water shortage problem in the area
agency
as existing, customers
• Develop and implement an agency-wide salt reduction plan
water for urban use
• Complete and begin to implement a plan for storage and use of recycled
• Actively address the issue of stormwater clean-up
• Maintain competitiveness to keep user fees low
• Increase public acceptance of recycled water
• Implement expeditiously the Rapid Response Plan to serve new, as well
• Construct the Urban Reclamation Project with the Marina Coast Water
District
• Maximize the use of recycled water
• Develop and begin to implement a plan to provide pump station capacity
for Boronda, Salinas, and North County growth
• Assure the safety and quality of recycled water
• Maintain and improve the human, physical and fiscal assets of the
• Increase the use of replenishment water
MRWPCA Regular Board Meeting
Minutes

Page 8
April 30, 2012
assessments on water projects that amount to quite a bit of money.
consider the financial repercussions of those agreements. He noted that the farmers
greater depth than he was comfortable having. He expressed appreciation to
asked to pay extra for the water going to the GWR, then those who are currently
agreements to determine if this Agency is being compensated properly, not only for
have paid dearly for the CSIP/SVRP project; however, Mr. Bachofner didn’t think the
cost of the water had been properly accounted for. He asked for a review of the
ratepayers paying for it but rather the people who are consuming the water. Mr.
asked that the Board keep the end objective in mind which is to treat the water as a
decrease of .03 from last year. He added that Mr. Hagemann and Mr. Coleman
the average mod rate and commended staff for the new rate of .76 which was a
MRWPCA Regular Board Meeting
Mr. Israel added that the workers’ compensation letter was received from the
California Sanitation Risk Management Authority. He noted that 1.0 is considered
have focused on worker safety and that this effort has resulted in not only saving the
Agency money but also in fewer reportable injuries.
10. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Mr. Allion stated that for the past 15 to 20 years there has been water pumped out
into the ocean that this Peninsula and others desperately need. He noted that once
this project is built, somebody is going to buy the water and it’s not going to be the
Allion concurred that the agreements need to be legally reviewed, however, he
very valuable resource and use it wisely.
Mr. Bachofner agreed that it was premature for Mr. Israel to have a meeting at a
Mr. Israel for holding back first because the Board needs to understand and then
give direction on how the Agency should be represented in discussion of this type.
Mr. Bachofner also asked that when the agreements are reviewed, the Board should
the building of the project, but for the delivery of the water. If the Peninsula is being
taking water from this Agency have to compensate appropriately for the water as
well. We may need a review back to the original intent of the agreements; that
everybody collaborate and create projects to help each other at the least possible
cost. Mr. Bachofner stated he wants to be clear on directions that he would be
giving on the Board to review this.
Mr. Calcagno said that the CSIP project was basically paid by the property owners
through a tax bill that every tax payer gets in Monterey County. He said the GWR
project is a completely different project; as he didn’t know who was going to pay for
it. He said that if you look at a typical water bill from a farmer or a property owner in
North County or North Salinas you will find that they are paying five different
Minutes

growers, Marina Coast, and all of these other agencies about the water, and not the
Mr. Bachofner commented on the push this agency is getting from Salinas, the
Page 9
April 30, 2012
U \BETTY\BOARD OF DIRECTORS\Board Meeting Minutes2Ot2\AprHi.ApriI 30, 2012 Reguiar Board Meeting\Board Minutes Draft 4-30-12 bndoc
Secretary to the Board MRWPCA Board of Directors
Keitt(E. Israel, Gee?hrManager n tefani, Chair 7/
Building D, Monterey, California on Thursday, May 24, 2012 at 7:00 pm.
regularly scheduled Board Meeting to be held in the Board Room at 5 Harris Court,
At 8:09 pm with no further business, Chair Stefani adjourned the meeting to the next
11. ADJOURNMENT
professionalism shown tonight. He encouraged the members to bring all questions
discussion.
Chair Stefani congratulated the Board members for their discussion and the
and thoughts to the Strategic Planning Workshop when there will be more time for
agencies.
purchases the water to pay back all of the expenses for the project to the two
build the plant, financed through the MPWMD through bonds and then Cal Am
Peninsula who will be getting the water will be paying for the water. The Agency will
Mr. Pendergrass stated that the MOU just signed states that the ratepayers on the
willing to pay for the commodity should have a right to it.
delivery mechanism. This agency needs to account for the cost of the water; every
not paying for it, you really don’t have any right to it. He added that those who are
drop that is treated and consumed. Once they do that it will be much clearer to see
who has water rights. He stated this water is a precious commodity and if you are
MRWPCA Regular Board Meeting
Minutes