mprwa final agenda packet 06-12-14.pdf

8/12/2019 MPRWA Final Agenda Packet 06-12-14.pdf

1/65

AgendaMonterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority (MPRWA)

Regular Meeting

7:00 PM, Thursday, June 12, 2014

Council Chamber580 Pacific Street

Monterey, California

ROLL CALL

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

REPORTS FROM BOARD DIRECTORS AND STAFF

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 and which is not on the agenda. Any personor group desiring to bring an item to the attention of the Authority may do so by addressing theAuthority during Public Comments or by addressing a letter of explanation to: MPRWA, Attn:Monterey City Clerk, 580 Pacific St, Monterey, CA 93940. The appropriate staff person will contactthe sender concerning the details.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

1. May 8, 2014 Regular Meeting -

2. March 13, 2014 Regular Meeting - Milton

AGENDA ITEMS

3. Receive Update on the Pure Water Monterey and Ground Water Replenishment Projects -Israel

4. Receive Update on the Status of the Peoples Desal and the Pacific Grove Water Recycling

Projects - Kampe

5. Approval of Checks and Projected Year-End Financial Report - Milton

6. Receive Report, Award a Contract for a Value Engineering (VE) Study for the Monterey

Peninsula Water Supply Project to Value Management Strategies, Inc (VMS),Reimbursable by Cal Am With a Not-To-Exceed Cost of $109,035.70, Approve aContingency of $11,000.00, and Authorize the President to Execute The Contract forProfessional Services - Cullem

7. Receive Report on Progress of Securitization Bills in the State Legislature and the Statusof Settling Parties Joint Comments on Ruling Requesting Comments on SurchargeOptions and Proposals - Burnett
http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=74498http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=74511http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=74504http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=74504http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=74506http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=74506http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=74499http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=74500http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=74500http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=74500http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=74500http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=74500http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=74500http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=74501http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=74501http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=74501http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=74501http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=74501http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=74501http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=74500http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=74500http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=74500http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=74500http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=74500http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=74499http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=74506http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=74506http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=74504http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=74504http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=74511http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=74498


2/65

Thursday, June 12, 2014

2

8. Receive Report and Discuss Latest California Public Utilities Commission Schedule for theMonterey Peninsula Water Supply Project - Burnett

9. Discuss the Marina Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Monterey Peninsula

Water Supply Project Slant Test Well - Crooks

10. Discuss and Provide Direction Regarding The Detailed Critical Path Method (CPM)Schedule for all Permits and Approvals for the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project -Cullem

ADJOURNMENT

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.
http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=74502http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=74502http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=74503http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=74503http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=74509http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=74509http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=74509http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=74509http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=74509http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=74509http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=74509http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=74503http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=74503http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=74502http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=74502


3/65

MINUTES

MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA)Regular Meeting

7:00 PM, Thursday, May 8, 2014COUNCIL CHAMBER580 PACIFIC STREET

MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA

Directors Present: Edelen Kampe, Pendergrass, Rubio, Alt. Director Talmage, Della Sala

Directors Absent: None

Staff Present: Executive Director, Legal Counsel, Clerk

ROLL CALL

The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.

Alternate Director Talmage was present representing Vice President Burnett.



No reports were made.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

President Della Sala invited public comment for items not on the agenda.

Libby Downey, Monterey City Council Member thanked the Authority for working toobtain public funding to decrease costs to the ratepayers, spoke to the notion ofhospitality versus residents and thinks the residents will be penalized with the new tierfunding. She expressed concern that the Directors were not representing their full CityCouncils, then requested the Directors help with the source water negotiations, whichare holding up progress on water projects.

Nelson Vega spoke against Ms. Downey's comments indicating that the direction is veryclear, to find a source of water to lessen the impact of the water cliff. He spoke insupport of the Directors efforts and actions.

Tom Rowley spoke representing the MPTPA regarding the May 5, 2014 newsletteroutlining their position opposing Measure O and indicated resident are being misleadand given incomplete information regarding the impacts if it passes.

David Lifland expressed concerned with the proposed plans for the basin including overdrafting, plant sizing, storage capacity and the mixing of the different types of water. Heis concerned that the capacity is not adequate for what is projected to be produced.

George Riley requested that the Authority agendize revisiting the contingency plan dueto resistance for source water agreements. He expressed concern that if the GWRproject is not advanced enough in development it will not assist with a relaxation of theCDO and requested that the Authority elevate its attention to this issue.

President Della Sala responded to Ms. Downeys comments speaking to the transparencyefforts of the Authority including agenda notifications, televised meetings, City Council updates


4/65

MPRWA Minutes Thursday, May 8, 2014

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority

Regular Meeting Minutes - Thursday, May 8, 20142

and the fact that all of the Directors will also be impacted by the water supply project nodifferent than any other ratepayer. He cited a statement taken from the July 5, 2013 CPUCDecision 13-07-41 that residential users consume 68% of the peninsula water and they pay70% of the costs and closed by saying that it is critical to stay united on the MPWSP.

CONSENT ITEMS

President Della Sala invited public comment for the consent calendar. George Riley requestedthat Agenda Item 1 be pulled for discussion.

On a motion by Director Rubio, seconded by Director Edelen, and carried by the following vote,the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority approved the consent items as presentedwith the exception of Agenda Item 1.

AYES: 6 DIRECTORS: Edelen, Kampe, Pendergrass, Rubio, Alt. DirectorTalmage, Della Sala

NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: None

ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: NoneABSTAIN: 2 DIRECTORS: Kampe, Agenda Item 2 onlyTalmage Agenda Items 2 and 3 only

RECUSED: 0 DIRECTORS: None

1. Minutes from March 13, 2014 Regular Meeting

Mr. Riley questioned a statement recorded on the minutes of March 13, 2014 during AgendaItem 8 discussing commissioning a study of the implications of a public take over of Cal Am. Herequested clarification if a staff report was submitted to the Authority or to the MayorsAssociation and that the TAC discussion regarding the item was not reported to the Directors.

On a motion by Director Edelen seconded by Director Kampe, and carried by the following vote,the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority continued the minutes from March 13, 2014for review: Director Talmage Abstained.

AYES: 5 DIRECTORS: Edelen Kampe, Pendergrass, Rubio, Della SalaNOES: 0 DIRECTORS: NoneABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: NoneABSTAIN: 1 DIRECTORS: TalmageRECUSED: 0 DIRECTORS: None

2. Minutes from March 27, 2014 Regular Meeting

Action: Approved

3. Minutes from April 10, 2014 Regular Meeting

Action: Approved

4. Approve and File Checks through May 8, 2014

Action: Approved

5. Adopt Resolution Accepting the Amended Fiscal Year 2013-14 Budget and Adopting the FiscalYear 2014-15 Operating Budget


5/65




Action: Approved and Passed Resolution 14-03

AGENDA ITEMS

6. Receive Report, Discuss, and Provide Direction on Public Outreach

Action: Report Received and Direction Provided

Public Outreach Consultant Ashley Beleny spoke to public outreach efforts since her contractwas executed including reorganizing the website, conducting outreach at a public event,creation of presentation materials, coordinating speaking engagements, and participating onthe joint outreach committee. Ms. Beleny made recommendations for continued outreachopportunities including speaking engagements, newsletters, regularly scheduled media and apotential public forum to re-align the peninsula following the results of the June 2, 2014election.

Director Edelen spoke in support of a public forum re-adjoining the community, regardless ofthe election outcome. Director Talmage spoke to a presentation made by Mr. Stoldt and themoving targets. Executive Director Cullem spoke to a previous forum held at the City ofMonterey, and to a City of Seaside presentation regarding all of the four projects and suggested

a similar forum format. He also spoke to questions of pricing, noting it is not appropriate for theAuthority but may be during the forum.

President Della Sala invited public comments on the item.

Tom Rowley spoke to previous speaking engagements regarding water and the waterpolicies. He indicated that people want the facts but currently the information issaturated and encouraged continuing outreach after the election has concluded.

Nelson Vega indicated the public outreach is underfunded. He encouraged directing awater update be made at all Member City Council meetings. He encouraged thediscussion and outreach regarding what is at stake as a result of the CDO.

Libby Downey indicated that defacto replenishment should be explained, along with allthe other projects. The function of all the other projects should be outlined. Ms. Downeyspoke to an analysis of the City of Felton ad finding it inaccurate.

The Directors requested that Ms. Beleny move forward with the possibility of holding a forum inJuly with the intent to provide a brief explanation of each project under timeline, as well as theaccomplishments of the Authority since inception.

7. Receive Report, Discuss and Provide Direction on Presentation from the Monterey PeninsulaWater Management District Regarding the Deep Water Desal Project


6/65




Dave Stoldt, General Manager from the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District spoketo the item including the purpose and efforts the MPWMD has committed to with the DeepWater Desal project. Mr. Stoldt outlined the business model and spoke to the differences in theproject from the MPWSP, which include a synergistic relationship between the desalination andthe data center. He noted the project is over two times the size of the MPWSP and the conceptremains intact for a regional solution. He spoke to the timing of the projects and the

environmental report status indicating studies have been completed for entrainment andimpingement for intakes, brine discharge, review of alternative intakes, including open waterintakes. The intake pipeline study is in process and product water pipeline is being examinedfor distribution north and south.

Mr. Stoldt spoke to timing expectations indicating that the EIR consultant should be hired by theState Lands Commission by August and certified around June 2015. Negotiations for the siteland is occurring and on June 16, 2014, all of the experts will gather for a science symposium.

President Della Sala requested clarification on the meaning of a "data center project" to whichMr. Stoldt explained the economic development aspects and the symbiotic relationship the datacenter has with the desal component.

David Armanasco spoke on behalf of the Deep Water Desal project expanding on Mr. Stoldt'scomments explaining DWD believes that the ocean was owned as part of the public trust andwill ultimately give rights to the control of water to the local JPAs. He informed the Board thatthe National Marine Sanctuary Foundation coordinated all of the scientific studies, funded byDWD.

President Della Sala invited public comment on the item.

Nelson Vega questioned if this is a for-profit project, and if so, what is their profit marginand who will they contract with to run the facility. He requested to see the information inwriting, otherwise he discouraged support.

David Lifland questioned when the Tenera Environmental report will be available citingconcerns expressed within the SPI report indicating the temperature increase in thedata cooling process may promote additional scaling on the RO filters. Mr. Armanascoindicated that all information will be made public when submitted to the State LandsCommission. He then responded to Mr. Lifland that there is an MOU for solar panels butcould not confirm if that was still a viable project component.

George Riley requested to agendize revisiting the issue of contingency planning due tochanging conditions and progress made or not made on other projects. He informed theBoard of a concerning meeting with Cal Am, Members of Monterey County andrepresentatives from the Salinas Valley regarding moving the intake from the proposedsite and expressed concern that the meeting was secret and would result in significant

stranded costs. Dale Heikhus congratulated the promising concept for a new water source presented by

DWD. Expressed concern regarding the many jurisdictional authorities to contend withand encouraged the Authority to assist in any way possible.

Ian Crooks from Cal Am spoke to Mr. Rileys comments and acknowledged that therewas a meeting regarding the desal plant and Protrero Road location, because theProtrero Road site was identified throughout the process as an alternate location andwill be listed in the EIR as such. He denied any conspiracy efforts.


7/65




Public Comment was closed and Mr. Armanasco responded to Mr. Vega's comments regardingprofit margin indicating the DWD desal component would be turned over and sold to a JPA forownership and operations. The other components of the project is where DWD will receiveincome and profit: the data center, carbon sequestration plant, and other small components.

Director Kampe spoke to the Authority position to maintain a contingency and has beensupportive of the MPWMD for their contingency planning efforts and is pleased to see theprogress made toward the alternative while the Authority works with Cal Am for the success ofits project. President Della Sala reminded that the Authority requested the CPUC to look at allprojects as equal in the EIR for the MPWSP. Report was received and no action was taken.

8. Receive Report, Discuss and Provide Direction Regarding Presentation from MontereyRegional Water Pollution Control Agency Regarding Negotiations for Source and Product Waterfor the Ground Water Replenishment Project

Keith Israel, General Manager of Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency presented

regarding the status of the GWR or "Pure Water Monterey" project. He spoke to theIndependent Advisory Panel who provided a review with recommendations and a technicalpanel independently appointed to report back to the department of public health. He outlinedthe project phasing, the status of the testing and demonstration facility and discussed themeeting with the related parties for negotiations for source water agreements reporting theelements of the agreement need to be completed by the end of June before submission ofinformation to the EIR. He spoke to the regional synergies of the project and that by workingtogether it benefits all parties. If built, this would be the first time an integrated project would bedone and he is confident that the project could succeed.

President Della Sala questioned the cost of water to the Salinas farmers after processing to

which Mr. Israel responded that he is confident that the end cost will be one that they canafford. Director Rubio spoke to his involvement in the water negotiations and reported positiveinteractions with the growing community and that near future meetings appear to be promising.

President Della Sala invited public comment on the item.

Tom Rowley spoke to previous concerns expressed to timeline slippage and expressednew concerns regarding the Monterey County Board of Supervisors differing position ofthat from the peninsula cities regarding water ownership.

Nelson Vega questioned the proportionate charges for water for the peninsula to that ofthe growing community.

David Lifland expressed concern regarding confidential negotiations

Mr. Israel spoke to questions posed and indicated the MRWPCA users cannot subsidize theAgricultural community and then identified several different potential funding mechanismsincluding differing quantity charges, or creating new rate categories for interruptible flows.


8/65




9. Receive Report, Discuss and Approve Adopting a Resolution Amending the GovernanceCommittee Agreement to Authorize the Governance Committee and Water Authority toAdvertise and Award The Value Engineering Contract

Legal Counsel Freeman spoke to the item requesting minor changes to the GovernanceCommittee Agreement which would grant the authority for the facilitation of the Value

Engineering Contract for the MPWSP. He informed the Board it was approved with an action atthe previous meeting and this is to formalize the changes requested.

President Della Sala invited public comment on the item and had no requests to speak.

On a motion by Director Rubio seconded by Director Talmage, and carried by the followingvote, the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority approved the recommendation tomodify the Governance Committee Agreement as presented to authorize the ability to facilitatethe Value Engineering contract.

AYES: 6 DIRECTORS: Edelen, Kampe, Pendergrass, Rubio, Alt. Director

Talmage, Della SalaNOES: 0 DIRECTORS: NoneABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: NoneABSTAIN: 0 DIRECTORS: NoneRECUSED: 0 DIRECTORS: None

ADJOURNMENT

Having no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned.

ATTEST:

Lesley Milton, Clerk of the Authority Chuck Della Sala, President


9/65

MINUTES

MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA)Regular Meeting

7:00 PM, Thursday, March 13, 2014COUNCIL CHAMBER580 PACIFIC STREET

MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA

Directors Present: Burnett, Edelen, Kampe, Pendergrass, Della Sala, Rubio

Directors Absent: None

Staff Present: Executive Director, Legal Counsel, Authority Clerk

ROLL CALL

The meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m.



There were no reports from Directors. Executive Director Cullem reported on changes to theprinted packet materials and questioned direction on how to proceed with Cal Ams request toreduce Surcharge 1 from 15% to 4.5% and extend the period of time it was charged. TheDirectors requested he handle it administratively.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

President Della Sala invited public comment for items not on the agenda.

Tom Rowley spoke to the Government Affairs Committee meeting where NicholeCharles reported regarding SB 936. He requested re-ordering the agenda to take upAgenda Item 8 first.

Doug Wilhelm questioned the proposed reduced surcharge asking if it would increasethe total amount of money over the course of the loan. Executive Director Cullemresponded that it would not.

George Brehmer advocated strongly for residents to take care of themselves andencouraged individuals to obtain personal rain water and grey water catchment, andother self sustaining water supply systems.

Darby Mossworth spoke concerning future legislation that would allow unlimitedamounts of money to be contributed to elections.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

On a motion by Director Pendergrass, seconded by Director Edelen, and carried by thefollowing vote, the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority approved the minutes for bothJanuary 30, 2014 and February 13, 2014.

AYES: 6 DIRECTORS: Burnett, Edelen, Kampe, Pendergrass, Rubio, DellaSala



10/65

MPRWA Minutes Thursday, March 13, 2014


Regular Meeting Minutes - Thursday, March 13, 20142

ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: NoneABSTAIN: 0 DIRECTORS: NoneRECUSED: 0 DIRECTORS: None

1. January 30, 2014 Special Meeting

Action: Approved

2. February 13 2014

Action: Approved

AGENDA ITEMS

3. Approve and File Checks for the Period of February 2014.

Action: Approved

Authority Clerk Milton reported regarding checks processed during February 2014. Under publiccomment David Lifland requested an update regarding reimbursement from the County ofMonterey and the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, both which are still pending.

On a motion by Director Rubio, seconded by Director Kampe, and carried by the following vote,the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority approved to file the checks for the month ofFebruary 2014


NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: NoneABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: NoneABSTAIN: 0 DIRECTORS: NoneRECUSED: 0 DIRECTORS: None

4. Authorize Staff to Send Letter Nominating the Salinas and Carmel River Basins Study forFunding Under the Bureau of Reclamation's FY14 Basin Study Program

Dave Stoldt, General Manager of the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District spoke tothe item which would focus on assessing long term climate change on the local water supplyfrom the Salinas and Carmel river basins. Mr. Stoldt requested a letter of support nominatingthis study to the Bureau of Reclamation to accompany the application put forth by MRWPCAand MRWMD. In closing, he informed the Directors he would not stay for Agenda Item 8 tomaintain the neutrality of the MPWMD. President Della Sala invited public comment on the itemand had no requests to speak.

On a motion by Vice President Burnett, seconded by Director Rubio, and carried by the

following vote, the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority authorized staff to send aletter nominating the Salinas and Carmel River Basins study for funding under the Bureau ofReclamations FY 14 Basin Study Program.




11/65




5. Adopt Resolution Approving Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP (Brownstein) as SpecialCounsel for the period January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014, Authorize the ExecutiveDirector to sign a Consent and Waiver of Conflict of Interest, and Authorize the President toexecute the agreement for legal services.

Executive Director Cullem spoke to the item regarding extending the legal services contract

through December 31, 2014 and authorize changing the firm from being the AuthoritysAttorney of Record to being Special Legal Council.

President Della Sala invited public comment on the item. Salfwat Malek questioned the totalcost of the contract. Mr. Cullem indicated the budgeted amount is not to exceed $194,000 for2014.

Mayor Rubio questioned if there was any ability to align the contract with the fiscal year. Mr.Cullem spoke to the administrative effort required to process, renew and track all contracts atone time. Director Kampe spoke to the substantial costs for the legal services but defended thecosts by saying that these are substantial projects which require a large level of collaboration,cooperation and perseverance and that this is a very modest budge considering the total cost ofthe project. The Directors spoke in support Mr. McGlothlin's efforts and experience noting thatalthough expensive, his efforts saved rate payers over 120 million dollars between theSettlement Agreements and through Governance Committee structure and participation of theRFQ and RFP process.

On a motion by Director Edelen and seconded by Director Rubio, and carried by the followingvote, the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority approved the staff recommendation andadopted Resolution 14-02 Approving Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP (Brownstein) asSpecial Counsel for the period January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014, authorized theExecutive Director to sign a Consent and Waiver of Conflict of Interest, and authorized thePresident to execute the agreement for legal services.



6. Authorize Extension of Contract with the City of Monterey For Executive Director Services

On a motion by Director Rubio and seconded by Director Edelen, and carried by the followingvote, the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority authorized extending the contract withthe City of Monterey for Executive Director services.



Authority Clerk Milton reported on the item requesting the Authority to authorize extension ofthe contract for Executive Director services with the City of Monterey. President Della Salarecused himself as mayor of the City of Monterey, the contracting agency. Vice President

Burnett invited public comment on the item and had no requests to speak. The Directors spoketo the outstanding job Mr. Cullem has been doing.


12/65




ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: NoneABSTAIN: 0 DIRECTORS: NoneRECUSED: 0 DIRECTORS: None

7. Adopt Financial Policies and Procedures

On a motion by Director Edelen and seconded by Director Kampe, and carried by the followingvote, the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority adopted the presented FinancialPolicies and Procedures as amended.

6 5 DIRECTORS: Burnett, Edelen, Kampe, Pendergrass, Rubio, DellaSala


8. Receive Report, Discuss and Provide Direction Regarding Issues, Implications ofCommissioning a Study Regarding a Public Take Over of Cal Am.

Executive Director Cullem began the item by informing the Directors of the discussion whichoccurred during the February 3, 2014. Water Authority TAC meeting which discussed theissues and implications of commissioning a study regarding a public acquisition of Cal Am andrecommended that the Authority first consider if the issue was appropriate for consideration andauthority under the formation agreement, and second, how the action may be interpreted by

state agencies, as well as any impact on future bond funding. Mr. Cullem outlined the followingfour options for consideration should the Water Authority decide to consider conducting a studyof an acquisition of Cal-Am:

1. Commission a study of a public takeover of Cal-Am with the intent to provide informationprior to a vote by the public.

2. Commission a study of a public takeover of Cal-Am with the intent to provide a Water

Authority recommendation prior to a vote by the public.

3. Defer consideration of study until some undetermined time after a vote by the public.

4. Determine that commissioning a study of the subject is outside the purpose of the Water

Authority.

President Della Sala invited public comments on the item.

Executive Director Cullem provided the report and recommended adopting a policy that moreclearly outlines the procedures and operations with regard to financial operations for theAuthority. Director Kampe requested adding language to the whistle blower policy to report tothe President and/or Vice President any concerns.


13/65




Tom Rowley, Nelson Vega, John Narigi and Rick Heuer said the public needs correctfacts regarding the impacts if the ballot measure passes and spoke in support of thestudy.

Safwat Malek and Mike Baer spoke in support of publicly owned water utilities in thecounty and expressed concern regarding costs and the PUC.

Phil Wellman, Darby Mossworth, a citizen, Sal Cardinale, Melanie Krislock, CharlieCheck, Alan Ebels, Andrew Bell, Doug Whilhelm, John Hall, Dan Turner, GeorgeBrehmer, Jay Rowland and Jessie Williams requested the Directors to support PublicWater Now and spoke against Cal Am.

Dan Presser suggested having a public forum as a way to inform voters of Measure O.

Kevin Tilden from Cal Am spoke to the comments regarding water spikes and requestedanyone who experiences a spike should contact customer service who will helprecognize the leak and fix it. If it is identified and fixed they are not penalized. Heindicated that all political advertisements paid for by cal am are clearly labeled and most

are not done at rate payer or customer expense. He urged an impartial, factual analysisand spoke in support of the study.

George Riley expressed disappointment regarding the TAC discussion of this item anddid not think that the staff report was objective or includes all the information available.He spoke in support of Public Water Now and publicly owned water.

David Lifland Spoke in support of public water but indicated that the community shouldfocus their efforts on obtaining a water source first.

Ron Cohen Managing Director of Public Water Now spoke against the study indicatingthe amount of money projected would only politicize the issue but not analyze it.

Public Comment was closed.

Director Edelen spoke to the Cease and Desist Order imposed and the requirement to find anew water source and spoke to the challenges that the desal project is up against. He spoke insupport of the study, as an independent analysis from to provide factual information back to theBoard and the public.

Director Rubio spoke to the purpose of the Authority and to the need for non-biased, factualinformation to help the voters understand the impacts of the Measure.

Director Burnett spoke to the TAC discussion on the item reiterating it was a regular, publiclynoticed meeting with an agenda distributed prior to the meeting and there was minimal publicparticipation. He spoke against comments that there was not an opportunities for proper orequal debate. He spoke to the community debating water for generations and the Authority ismoving toward a decision. The TAC recommendation was for the Board to conduct an analysiswhich focuses on the purpose of the Authority as written in the mission statement and listed thereasons that this project falls within the scope of the authority.


14/65




Director Kampe questioned the election dates and the ability to complete the project prior to theelection and then spoke to public sentiment of priorities presented 1.5 years ago within his

jurisdiction with the priority being sufficient water supply. He spoke in support of low cost water,but noted it was more important is having sufficient water first. He lastly indicated that no matterhow objective the report is, it will always be viewed as partisan and also did not think that itwould be a wise use of money for timing purposes.

Director Pendergrass spoke against a study that the results will be taken as the Authorityposition and will perpetuate skepticism. He spoke to the history of the failed desal projectwhich caused the formation of this group to provide governance of the public site. He remindedthe public of the concession by Cal Am to allow public oversight.

Vice President Burnett indicated we are operating in the realities of a water-constrainedenvironment faced with a regulatory guideline in the way the CDO was intended. This is not aquestion of if we like or don't like Cal Am, it is about what will deliver a water supply solution tohave sufficient water, cost effectively with appropriate governance. He expressed fear that thesingle greatest risk is losing the consensus that the community has built in the last two years.This issue has the potential to be divisive enough to leave us in a position not to be able to

petition for a relaxation of the CDO because no project will be complete by January 1, 2016 andthe ramifications are severe because there will be no water supply, regardless of ownership.

Vice President Burnett then outlined the accomplishments of the Authority over the last twoyears of its existence including the tenants of the Authority Governance committee and thebenefits it provides, the profit cuts achieved through the public financing work saving the ratepayers over 20 million dollars and then he spoke to the hurdles yet to come.

The Directors discussed their authority and weather the public would be better served by theAuthority taking a position or if the public would be better served by laying out impartial, factualinformation. The Directors spoke against the study due to timing, unknown true cost chargedback to the member jurisdictions and many will not change their minds based on the report and

suggested taking a position as peninsula mayors.

On Motion by Director Rubio and seconded by Director Pendergrass and passed by thefollowing vote the Authority directed staff to write up and bring back for approval a documentwhich outlines the Authority position opposing ballot Measure O, described this evening, andverify the legal ability to take such a position.


NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: NoneABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None

ABSTAIN: 0 DIRECTORS: NoneRECUSED: 0 DIRECTORS: None

President Della Sala adjourned the meeting to recess at 10:09 p.m.

9. Receive Report, Discuss and Provide Recommendation on the Status of Monterey PeninsulaWater Supply Project


15/65




The meeting reconvened at 10:14 p.m. Executive Director Cullem provided an update on thestatus of the borehole construction project noting the second bore hole drilling was about tobegin and the results of the water analysis will be released once certified. He then spoke to thepower purchase agreement status and indicated the report regarding the capital costs of theengineering solution will be published by the end of march. He further reported on the slippagebeing reflected in the CPUC schedule reflected as a total 6-month delay being imposed by the

CPUC.

The Directors discussed the timeline and indicated that the City of Marinas ultimate approvalsped up the process by months and should be recognized and that the schedule as presentedis doable unless something else delays the project. President Della Sala invited publiccomment on the item.

Tom Rowley expressed concern regarding lack of data in the draft EIR from the testslant wells indicating since it is new technology it will be challenging and will invitecriticism. Suggested having the TAC review.

David Lifland requested getting Point Blue to sign off on a well, requested an update onthe remaining reports due to the City of Marina and asked if the Authority should or

could intervene.

Ian Crooks, Engineering Manager for Cal Am spoke to the issue of getting viable slant welltechnology and reported that nearly all reports due to the City of Marina have been completedand the consultant will have a draft MDNA ready in April for public review. Chair Burnettindicated that if there is any desire by the Board for additional review or analysis of the DraftEIR, or the issue of brine disposal it should be agendized in the near future.

ADJOURNMENT

Meeting was adjourned at 10:33 p.m.

ATTEST:

Lesley Milton, Authority Clerk Chuck Dells Sala, President


16/65

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water AuthorityAgenda Report

Date: June 12, 2014

Item No: 3.

06/12

FROM: Executive Director Cullem

SUBJECT: Receive Update on the Pure Water Monterey and Ground Water ReplenishmentProjects - Israel

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the Water Authority receive an update from Keith Israel, GeneralManager of the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency on the status ofnegotiations for source and product water, and on the prospects of PWM/GWRremaining competitive as part of the MPRWA portfolio of water supply projects.

DISCUSSION:

The Pollution Control Agency has conducted a series of critical negotiating sessionswith the Salinas Valley agricultural interests in an effort to work out a compromise toallow PWM/GWR to remain a viable water supply option for the Peninsula.

As noted in item 8 of the Authority agenda, the schedule for meeting CPUCrequirements to include GWR is getting very tight. Critical decision points areapproaching and one of them concerns GWR.

Keith Israel will provide additional details verbally at the Water Authority meeting.


17/65


Date: June 12, 2014

Item No: 4.

06/12


SUBJECT: Receive Update on the Status of the Peoples Desal and the Pacific Grove WaterRecycling Projects - Kampe

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the Water Authority receive an update from Director Kampeand/or staff on the status of Pacific Grove participation with the Peoples Desal project,and the status of the Small Pacific Grove Water Recycling projects.

DISCUSSION:

On June 8, 2014 Pacific Grove posted a notice of a public hearing concerning thecertification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for its Storm WaterManagement Project.

Pacific Grove has been developing a storm water management project that can reuseand recycle water for landscaping purposes, freeing up potable water as part of theSmall Pacific Grove Water Projects component of the Water Authority portfolio ofwater projects.

Pacific Grove had also had involvement with the Peoples Desal project as its publicpartner. The City has been requested to update the Authority on the status of thatarrangement.


18/65

FROM: Authority Clerk Milton

SUBJECT: Approve and File Checks through June 12, 2014 and Projected Year End FinancialReport

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the MPRWA approve and file the accounts payable payments made duringthe period of April 10 through June 12, 2014. Total Accounts Payable for the above referenced periodis $27,891.77. It is recommended that the Authority approve the below checks and receive the reportregarding year-end projected expenditures and balances.

DISCUSSION:

At its meeting on September 12, 2013, the Authority Board approved a staff recommendation toprovide the Directors a listing of general checks issued since the last report so that it can inspect andconfirm these checks. Each invoiced expense has been reviewed and approved by the ExecutiveDirector and Finance personnel prior to payment to insure that it conforms to the approved budget.

The following checks are hereby submitted to the Authority for inspection and confirmation.

$ 450.00 to Access Monterey Peninsula for Video Production Services $ 900.00 to Environmental Relations for Public Outreach Services $ 6,963.91 to Brownstein, Hyatt, Farber and Schreck for Legal Services $19,577.86 to City of Monterey for Reimbursement of Executive Director Services.

FISCAL IMPACT

The listed checks have been budgeted and paid from the various funds, as appropriate and the

attached Budget to Actual report. All of the above expenses are within the contracted not to exceed

amounts outlined in the agreements.

There are still outstanding invoices from the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District and the

County of Monterey for their fair share of the Separation Processes Inc. Services. The MPWMD has

approved the reimbursement request and the invoice has been submitted for processing. It is

anticipated to be received prior to the close of the Fiscal Year.

The County of Monterey payment was received for the fair share contribution of $83,000 for Fiscal

Year 2012-2013. A fair-share contribution request for the Fiscal Year 2013-2014 and for Fiscal Year

2014-2015 have been made and staff attended the Budget Committee meeting on June 10, 2014 to

answer questions about the current and next fiscal year fair-share contribution requests.

The bank balance as of June 5th, 2014 is sufficient cover the above checks and the remaining fiscal

years encumbrances therefore, staff is recommending approval of the above checks.


19/65

For the remainder of the fiscal year, expenses are not expected to exceed the budgeted amount for

any budget line item or the current bank account balance. Any remaining funding will be rolled over

into the next fiscal year and may work to offset future member funding requests.

ATTACHMENTS:

Budget to Actual Report as of 6/5/2014


20/65

2:30 PM

06/05/14

Accrual Basis


Profi t & Loss Budget vs. ActualJuly 1, 2013 through June 5, 2014

Budget Jul 1, '13 - Jun 5, 14

Ordinary Income/Expense

Income

47200 Program Income

47230 Membership Dues 424,563.00 424,562.00

47240 Program Service Fees 0.00 0.25

47250 Reimbursement SPI Contract 18,562.00 0.00

47260 Reimburesment VE Contract 200,000.00 0.00

47200 Program Income - Other 0.00 0.00

Total 47200 Program Income 643,125.00 424,562.25

49900 Uncategorized Income 0.00 0.00

Total Income 643,125.00 424,562.25

Expense

60900 Admini stration and Clerical

60901 Clerk of the Board 35,000.00 35,000.00

60902 Executive Director 90,680.00 34,196.0660903 Principal Offc o f the Autho rity 0.00 0.00

60904 Financial Services 0.00 0.00

60905 Misc Admin Expenses 0.00 0.00

60900 Admini stration and Clerical - Other 0.00 0.00

Total 60900 Administration and Clerical 125,680.00 69,196.06

62100 Legal Fees

62110 Board Counsel 59,000.00 27,000.00

62140 Special Counsel 186,000.00 129,723.09

62100 Legal Fees - Other 0.00 0.00

Total 62100 Legal Fees 245,000.00 156,723.09

62800 Contract Services

60801 Public Outreach 15,000.00 7,559.19

60806 Contract VE 200,000.00 0.00

62802 Audit Services 6,700.00 6,700.00

62803 Televised Meeting 10,000.00 4,237.50

62804 Contract Services & Studies 3,000.00 0.00

62805 Contract SPI 35,000.00 27,843.43

62800 Contract Services - Other 0.00 0.00

Total 62800 Contract Services 269,700.00 46,340.12

65000 Insurance 7,000.00 6,701.88

65100 Travel Expenses 1,000.00 828.74

66000 Payroll Expenses 0.00 0.00

68300 Contingency 2,000.00 734.78

Total Expense 650,380.00 280,524.67

Net Ordinary Income -7,255.00 144,037.58

Other Income/Expense

Other Expense

Page 1 of 2


21/65

2:30 PM

06/05/14

Accrual Basis


Profi t & Loss Budget vs. ActualJuly 1, 2013 through June 5, 2014

Budget Jul 1, '13 - Jun 5, 14

80000 Ask My Accou ntant 0.00 0.00

Total Other Expense 0.00 0.00

Net Other Income 0.00 0.00

Net Income -7,255.00 144,037.58

Page 2 of 2


22/65


Date: June 12, 2014

Item No: 6.

06/12


SUBJECT: Receive Report, Award a Contract for a Value Engineering (VE) Study for theMonterey Peninsula Water Supply Project to Value Management Strategies, Inc(VMS), Reimbursable by Cal Am With a Not-To-Exceed Cost of $115,000 andAuthorize the President to Execute The Contract for Professional Services -Cullem

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the Water Authority award a contract to VMS for a VE Study of the

MPWSP as approved by the Governance (GC) Committee on May 23, 2014, at a price not-to-

exceed $109,035.70, approve a contingency of $11,000.00, authorize the Executive Director to

administer the contract and to approve changes up to a total of the contingency, and authorize

the Authority President to execute the contract.

DISCUSSION:

Section V., Category A.2 of the Governance Committee Agreement specifies that the

Governance Committee (GC) shall make a recommendation to California American Water (Cal-

Am) on selection of professional engineer to perform a value engineering (VE) study for the

Desalination Project at the 30% design level. At its meeting of March 31, 2014, GC voted tohave a public agency award and administer the contract as well as make the consultant

selection.

Since the GC has no staff to award or administer contracts, an amendment to Section V. was

approved by the Water Authority on May 8, 2014 to allow the Authority to do so on behalf of the

GC. Following a review by the GC and the TAC, a RFP for a VE Study was advertised on April

17 and two (2) proposals were received on May 8.

A selection committee reviewed the proposals and recommended a preferred firm to the GC. On

May 23 the GC accepted the committee recommendation and approved the selection of Value

Management Strategies (VMS) for a fee not-to-exceed $124,000.00, the price proposed byVMS. The GC also authorized the MPRWA Executive Director to meet with VMS to negotiate

changes in the scope of work in an effort to reduce the costs without compromising the

effectiveness of the VE Study.

Following negotiations between the staff of VMS, Ian Crooks of Cal-Am, and Jim Cullem of the

MPRWA, minor changes were made to the scope of work, primarily in reduced hours for the

ENVISION evaluator, and the substitution of equally qualified, but less costly, VMS staff to


23/65

conduct the VE Study. These changes resulted in savings of approximately $12,000.00.

Adjustments to administrative costs, including the elimination of printed draft & final reports,

saved an additional $3000.00.

The original VMS Proposal and Cost Proposal are at Exhibit A. A letter from VMS describing thenegotiated Scope and Fee Modifications is at Exhibit B. The modifications have been

incorporated into the contract for services, at a revised cost of not-to-exceed $109,035.70, is at

Exhibit C.

Although additional contract modifications are not anticipated, it is advisable to provide for a

contingency of 10%. Accordingly, the Executive Director requests approval of a contingency of

$11,000.00 and authorization to approve contract changes up to a total of that amount.

It is also requested that the Water Authority authorize the President to execute the contract on

its behalf.

BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS:

Since the Water Authority FY 2013-2014 budget has already been increased by $200,000.00to

pay for the VE Study, the recommended expenditures are well within budgeted amounts. In

addition, the total of the negotiated contract plus the contingency is less than the $124,000.00

approved by the Governance Committee.

Actual final costs will be paid by Cal-Am per the Governance Agreement, and per an agreement

to deposit funds into a reimbursement account in advance of payment of consultant invoices.

EXHIBITS:

A. Resolution

B. VMS Proposal and Cost Proposal

C. Scope and Fee Modifications

D. Contract for VE Study

E. Letter from Cal Am Regarding Escrow Account


24/65

MPRWA RESOLUTION NO. 2014-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITYAWARDING A CONTRACT TO VALUE MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. (VMS) FOR A

VALUE ENGINEERING (VE) STUDY FOR THE MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY

PROJECT

WHEREAS, the Governance Committee requested the Monterey Peninsula RegionalWater Authority (MPRWA) to advertise for, to interview, and to recommend selection of, a firmfor a Value Engineering (VE) Study of the California American Co. (Cal Am) Monterey PeninsulaWater Supply Project (MPWSP) desalination facility design currently at 30% completion byCamp, Dresser, McKee (CDM), and;

WHEREAS, following review and recommendation by a selection committee, theGovernance Committee selected the firm of Value Management Services, Inc.(VMS) to conductthe VE Study at a price not-to-exceed $124,000.00, and;

WHEREAS, the Governance Committee further authorized the MPRWA ExecutiveDirector to engage in negotiations with VMS with the goal of modifying the proposal in ways thatwould not significantly compromise the study but that might result in cost savings;

WHEREAS, the Executive Director and VMS, in coordination with representatives of CalAm, negotiated a reduction in the cost of the VE Study to a not-to-exceed price of $109,035.70,and;

WHEREAS, the Executive Director recommends a project contingency of $11,000.00and requests authority to administer the contract and authority to approve any necessarycontract modifications up to the total of the contingency, and;

WHEREAS, all costs of the VE contract are to be reimbursed by Cal Am in advance ofWater Authority payment to VMS and the price for the VE study is within the currently approvedbudget of the Water Authority for FY 2013-2014,

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the President of MPRWA is herebyauthorized to execute a contract with VMS for a Value Engineering Study of the Cal AmMPWSP Desal facility design at a price not-to-exceed $109,035.70, and;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the MPRWA does hereby approve a projectcontingency of $11,000, authorizes the Executive Director to administer the contract and toapprove contract modifications up to a total of the contingency, and authorizes the Director to

insure full and timely reimbursement from Cal Am.


25/65

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATERAUTHORITY this 12thday of June 2014, by the following vote:

AYES: 0 DIRECTORS:NOES: 0 DIRECTORS:

ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS:ABSTAIN: 0 DIRECTORS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Chuck Della Sala, President

Clerk to the Authority


26/65

PROPOSALFORSERVICES:ValueEngineering

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectDesalinationInfrastructure

May2014

PreparedbyValueManagementStrategies,Inc.


27/65

Date: May8,2014

MontereyPeninsulaRegionalWaterAuthority(MPRWA)

Attn: JamesM.Cullem,ExecutiveDirector

735PacificStreet

Monterey,CA93940

Subject: ValueEngineeringStudyProposalforMontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectDesalinationInfrastructureValueManagementStrategies,Inc.ispleasedtosubmitthisproposaltoconduct

a5dayValueEngineering(VE)studyfortheMontereyPeninsulaWaterSupply

Project(MPWSP)DesalinationInfrastructure. PertheRequestforProposal

scopeofserviceswereceivedonApril17,2014,thefollowinginformationisrespectfullyenclosedintheattacheddocument:

Understandingofthescopeofwork,withproposeddeliveryschedule QualificationsandexperienceofproposedVEfacilitatorandteam Briefbiographiesoftheproposedpersonnel Alumpsumfeeproposalissubmittedunderseparatecoverfromthis

technicalproposal

WeproposeMarkWatson,PE,CVSLife,PMPtofacilitatetheVEworkshopanda

highlyexperienced

team

of

subject

matter

experts

from

HDR

to

perform

this

study.Weareconfidentthattheproposedteamwillprovidethehighestlevelof

serviceduringthisVEstudytoensuretheobjectivesareachieved,resultingin

optimalprojectfunctionalityandperformance.

IamtheVMSofficerauthorizedtonegotiatethiscontractonbehalfofVMS,Inc.

Thankyouforyourconsiderationofourproposal.Welookforwardtoworking

withyou.

Sincerely,

VALUEMANAGEMENTSTRATEGIES,INC.

RobertBStewart,CVSLife,FSAVE,PMP,PMIRMP

President

ValueLeadership

CORPORATEOFFICE:900CanterburyPlaceSuite330Escondido,CA92025T: 7607415518F: 7607415617Portland,OR

T: 5039579642

GrandJunction,CO

T: 9702425531

Bothell,WA

T: 2067063055

Merriam,KS

T: 8162060067

Sacramento,CA

T: 9162249812

Chicago,IL

T:7027556876

LasVegas,

NV

T:7203084205


28/65

Proposal to Provide Value Engineering Services Value Management Strategies, Inc.

ValueManagementStrategies,Inc.

7607415518 www.vmsinc.com

TableofContents

1. IntroductionandFirmOverview......................................................................................... 11.1 Introduction1.2 ValueManagementStrategies,Inc.FirmInformation

2. UnderstandingofScopeofWork........................................................................................ 23. ProposedMethodologyandDeliverySchedule.................................................................. 2

3.1 VEStudyWorkPlan3.2 VEWorkshopMethodology3.3 VEStudyAreasofFocus3.4 DeliverySchedule

4. QualificationsandExperience............................................................................................. 74.1 TeamQualifications4.2 RelevantProjectExamples/Experience

5. BiographiesofKeyPersonnel............................................................................................ 105.1 VETeamLeader:ValueManagementStrategies,Inc.5.2 VETeamMembers:HDREngineering,Inc.

6. References......................................................................................................................... 126.1 ProjectReferencesandReviews6.2 Firm/TeamLeaderReferences

7. OtherConsiderations......................................................................................................... 137.1 QualityAssurance7.2 CostControl


29/65

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectDesalinationInfrastructure 1

1.0 INTRODUCTIONANDFIRMOVERVIEW1.1 IntroductionValueManagementStrategies,Inc.(VMS)ispleasedtosubmitthisproposalforthefacilitationofa5day

ValueEngineering(VE)workshopontheMontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectDesalinationInfrastructure

for

the

California

American

Water

Company

(CAW)

and

the

Monterey

Peninsula

Regional

WaterAuthority(MPRWA).

ForthiscontractwehaveteamedwithHDREngineering,Inc.toprovidethetechnicaldepthnecessaryto

successfullycompletetherequestedVEeffort. TheindividualsselectedforthisVEstudyincludesome

ofthemostexperienceddesignandconstructionpersonnelavailableintheindustrytoday. Inaddition,

ourteamhasexperienceworkingwithandforMPRWAonValueEngineering/ConstructabilityReview

workshops,ProjectCostandScheduleEstimatingassignments,and/orProjectDesign.

WhileVMSunderstandsthepotentialbenefitofbringingtogetherdiverseexperienceandperspectives,

thesynergyaffordedbybuildingateamofHDRsubjectmatterexpertsfaroutweighsanybenefitsof

buildingateamfromdifferentfirms.AmajorchallengethatoftenfacesVEteamsnotaccustomedto

workingtogether

is

the

time

it

takes

during

the

study

to

build

familiarity,

strong

communication

and

a

goodworkingrelationshipamongallteammembers.Thisissueisentirelyeliminated,fortheproposed

teamoftechnicalexpertsfromHDRisfamiliarnotonlywiththistypeofworkingeneralandMPRWA

projectsspecifically,butalsowithmunicipalagenciesinthestateofCalifornia,andworkingtogetheras

ateam.AlloftheirenergyandeffortwillbefocuseddirectlyonthegoalsandobjectivesoftheVEeffort

ratherthananyteambuildingtypicallyneededtogetuptospeed.VMShasobservedthatthemost

successfulVEstudiesandgreatestresultsaregenerallyachievedbyteamsofhighlyexperiencedsubject

matterexpertswhohaveworkedtogetherbefore,andenjoydoingso.Itisforthesereasonswe

selectedtheHDRteam,andlookforwardtosharingtheirexperienceandstrongworkingrelationship

withyou.

Specialattention

was

given

to

ensure

the

selected

team

members

have

experience

with

this

type

of

project,withparticularemphasisondesignandconstructionexpertiseinwatertreatmentfacilitiesand

seawaterdesalination,inclusiveofpriorexperienceconductingsimilarvalueengineeringreviews. We

believeourteamisespeciallyqualifiedtoprovidethetypeofvalueoptimizationneededtomakethisa

successfulworkshopintermsofmeetingthestatedobjectivesofoptimizingprojectperformancewhile

balancingcost,andschedule;improvingprojectvalue;reviewthe30%designforpotentialissuesrelated

toconstructability,durability,adaptability,operability,safetyandmaintainability;identifyingsolutions

thatenhancetheprojectssustainabilityprofile,andreducingrisk.Additionalobjectivesidentified

duringtheprestudyphaseoftheworkshopwillbeincorporatedintotheprocesstoprovidethemost

comprehensivevalueengineeringeffortpossible.

1.2 ValueManagementStrategies,Inc.FirmInformationVMSwasfoundedin1990,andisacertifiedsmallbusinessbasedinSanDiegoCounty,California.VMSis

structuredtoaddressthespecificandlocalizedneedsofourclients,andtomanage,plan,coordinate,

conductanddocumentcomprehensivevaluebasedservices. Wespecializeintheapplicationand

facilitationofValueAnalysisandValueEngineering,ConstructabilityReviews,RiskAssessmentand

Management,QuantitativeModelingandAnalysis,andTraininginordertoassistclientsintheirgoalsof

successfullydeliveringtheirprojectsandprograms. VMSteamleadershavefacilitatedover3,000value

focusedstudiesandreceiveexcellentfeedback,resultinginmanylongstandingclientrelationships.


30/65


Althoughasmallbusiness,VMSisthelargestandmostexperiencedVEfirminthecountrywith15

employees,9ofwhomareCertifiedValueSpecialists.Todaywefacilitateover200valuefocused

workshopseveryyearfororganizationsaroundtheworldonawiderangeofprojects.2.0 UNDERSTANDINGOFSCOPEOFWORKVMSteamleadersapplytheirfocusandeffortonthefacilitationofstudiesusingthesameVEprocessoutlined

inMPRWAs

RFP

scope

of

services.

The

VE

Job

Plan

defined

by

SAVE

International

and

the

specific

tools

and

techniquesimplementedbyVMSrepresentatestedandprovenmethodologythatwillleadthestakeholders

andprojectteamtowardthestatedobjectivesinanefficient,professionalandenjoyablemanner.

Accesstothefollowingdocuments(listedintheRFP),willproveinvaluabletotheVEteamseffortandwill

supportthestudysrelevanceandultimatesuccess:

Preliminarysiteplans Floorplans Elevations Geotechnicalreport Schematicsfortheprocess,treatmentresidualshandlingandchemicalsystems Preliminarycostestimate Energyconsumptionmodel

Withsubmissionofthisproposal,VMSacknowledgesitsunderstandingoftheobjectives,expectationsand

timelinesstatedfortherequested40hourVEeffort.VMStakesprideinworkingwitheachofourclientsto

providethehighestqualityofworkinaflexibleandefficientmannertomeettheneedsofeachproject.The

requestedstudydatesofJune2327,2014areeasilyaccommodatedbytheproposedCVSfacilitatorandVE

teammembers,asisthetimelinesetforthforthedeliverablesubmittalsincludingthepreliminaryandfinalVE

reports.

3.0 PROPOSEDMETHODOLOGYANDDELIVERYSCHEDULE3.1 VEStudyWorkPlanBaseduponourextensiveexperienceconductingsimilardesignandtechnicalreviewservices,VMS

believesthatthemosteffectivewaytoorganizeandconductthisVEstudywillbetofollowtheValue

MethodologyJobPlan.UsingthecoreprinciplesoftheValueMethodology,theprocesswouldconsistof

thefollowingelements:

Amultidisciplinaryteamofengineers,sustainabilityexperts,stakeholdersandownerrepresentativesadministeredbyaCertifiedValueSpecialist(CVS).

Athoroughpresentationbyprojectmanagementandthedesignteamoutliningspecificissuesand

concerns

relating

to

the

projects

design

and

construction.

Asystematicreviewoftheprojects30%plans,costestimate,andenergyconsumptionmodelsbytheVEteamutilizingasystematicanalysisprocessandasystemofchecklistsandformsto

documentrecommendations.

AformalpresentationoftheVEteamsrecommendationstoprojectmanagementandthedesignteam,andadiscussionofthesefindings.

PreliminaryandFinalReportsdocumentingtheresultsofthestudyincludingtheVEteamsrecommendations,theanalysesperformedduringtheworkshop,supportingdocumentation.


31/65


AsnotedintheRFPScopeofWork,theVEeffortwillconsistofa5dayworkshop. Thefirstdaywill

includeaworkshopkickoffmeetingtoincludetheVEteammembers,CAWprojectrepresentativesand

designteammembersatorneartheprojectsite,andasitevisit.Thestudywillcontinuewithadditional

informationgathering,functionanalysis,creativity,evaluationanddevelopmentofVEalternatives,prior

toaformaloutbriefheldthefinaldayoftheworkshop.TheoutbriefpresentationwillprovideMPRWA

andtheirdesignconsultantsanoverviewoftheVEteamsfindingsandprovideanarenafordiscussion

toclarifyanyoftheconceptspriortopublishingthePreliminaryVEreport.

Animplementationmeetingwillbescheduledat/aftertheendoftheVEworkshoptosupportdecision

makingandimplementationactivities,aswellastodocumentanyadditionalcommentsorresultsofthe

study.FeedbackanddecisionsfromthisimplementationmeetingwillbeincorporatedintotheFinal

ValueEngineeringReport,indicatingcompletionoftheproject. Furtherdetailsofeachstepofthe

processareincludedinthefollowingsection.

3.2 VEWorkshopMethodologyVMSproposestoutilizethetools,techniques,andjobplanfromtheValueMethodologyandSAVE

InternationalbestpracticesasaguideandformatfortheVEworkshop. Themethodologytobe

employedwillutilizeafunctionbasedsystemthatquicklyfocusesteamsonatask,facilitates

communication,buildsconsensusandachievesresultsintheoptimizationoftheprojectwithrespectto

functionalperformance,initialcost,lifecyclecost,anddurationforconstructiondelivery.

Thedirectandactiveinvolvementoftheprojectsstakeholdersisatthecoreofthisprocess. TheVE

teamleaderwillguidestakeholdersthroughthemethodology,usingthepoweroftheprocesstodistill

subjectivethoughtintoobjectivelanguagethateveryonecanrelatetoandunderstand. Thedialogthat

developsthenformsthebasisfortheVEteamsunderstandingoftherequirementsoftheprojectand

towhatdegreethecurrentdesignconceptismeetingthoserequirements. Fromthisbaseline,theVE

teamcanfocusonidentifyingissueswiththecurrentdesignandperhapsidentifyalternativeconcepts

thatwillquantifybothperformanceandcost,contributingtoanimprovedprojectvalue.

Ourapproach

to

performing

aVE

study

yields

the

following

benefits:

Buildsconsensusamongprojectstakeholders(especiallythoseholdingconflictingviews) Supportsabetterunderstandingofaprojectsgoalsandobjectives Developsabaselineunderstandingofhowtheprojectmeetsperformancegoalsandobjectives IdentifiesareaswhereprojectperformancecanbeimprovedthroughtheVEprocess Developandunderstandtherelationshipbetweenperformanceandcostindeterminingvalue Usesvalueasthetruemeasurementforselectingtheoptimaldesignconcept

ThefollowingnarrativeprovidesanoverviewofthespecificactivitiesproposedfortheVEworkshop.

PreStudy

MeaningfulandmeasurableresultsaredirectlyrelatedtotheworkperformedpriortotheVEworkshop.

Allorpartofthefollowinginformationwillbedeterminedduringtheprestudyphase:

Cleardefinitionofthecurrentsituationandstudyobjectives IdentificationofVEteammembersandprojectstakeholders Definitionofhowstakeholdersareimpactedbytheproject Identificationofkeyissuesandconcerns Identificationofcriteriatobeusedforevaluationofprojectperformance GatherprojectdataanddistributetoVEteammembers


32/65


InpreparationfortheVEworkshop,theteamleader(CVS)willmeetwithMPRWAandstakeholdersto

confirmandfinalizetheworkshopprocessandagenda,initiatedatagathering,refineworkshopscope

andobjectives,coordinatewiththeVEteammembers,andfinalizestudyplans. Followingtheinitial

planningmeeting,theteamleaderwillreviewthedatacollectedfortheprojectanddevelopacost

model.Theteamleaderwillalsoconsultwiththetechnicalspecialiststopreparethemforthe

workshop.

VEWorkshop(Study)VMSproposesa7phaseJobPlanforthisVEstudy.Theelementsandactivitiesconductedduringthe

studywillinclude:Informationphase,FunctionAnalysisphase,Creativephase,Evaluationphase,

DevelopmentphaseandPresentationphase,followedbyImplementation.

1. InformationPhase: AtthebeginningoftheVEstudy,thebackgroundanddecisionsthathaveinfluencedthedevelopmentoftheprojectorprocessarereviewed.TheVEstudybeginswitha

meetingwithrepresentativesofthestakeholderagencies.Analysisoftheprojectproceedsbasedon

thedataprovided.Theanalysisincludesreviewingthecostmodel(s)andbecomingfamiliarwiththe

issuesandconstraintscommunicatedbythestakeholders.Eachofthefocusareasidentifiedinthe

previoussectionwillbediscussed,andspecificcommentsandrecommendationswillberecorded.

2. FunctionAnalysisPhase: Developmentofthefunctionalrequirementsofaprojectarekeytoassuringastakeholderthattheprojectwillmeetthestatedcriteria.Theanalysisofthesefunctions

intermsofactualcostisaprimaryelementinaVEworkshop.AFunctionAnalysisSystemTechnique

(FAST)diagramisdevelopedtohelptheteambetterunderstandthefunctionalrelationshipsofthe

project.CostandperformancearerelatedtotheprojectfunctionsontheFASTdiagramtodirectthe

teamtothefunctionswheretheyshouldfocustheirefforts.

3. CreativePhase: Duringthisphase,theVEteamgeneratesasmanyideasaspossibletoprovidethenecessaryfunctionsfortheprojectandmeetthecriteriaidentified. Judgmentoftheideasisnot

permittedduringthisphase,andallideasarerecorded.

4. EvaluationPhase: TheVEteamevaluateseachideawithrespecttothefunctionsandevaluationcriteria.EachideaisevaluatedagainstthespecificperformancecriteriaestablishedbyMPRWA

duringtheInformationPhase. Onceeachideaisfullyevaluated,theideaisrankedbaseduponthe

teamsconcurrenceofitssignificancetoprioritizethedevelopmentoftheideas.

5. DevelopmentPhase: Duringthedevelopmentphase,eachideadeemedworthyofadditionalconsiderationisexpandedanddocumentedonVEAlternativeforms.Eachrecommendationis

documentedwithabriefnarrativetocompareitwiththeoriginalconcept,includingsketches,

discussionofperformanceandrisk,andcostcomparisonsasapplicable.

6. PresentationPhase: ThefinalstepoftheVEstudyisaformalpresentationofthestudysresultstothe

project

stakeholders.

This

will

provide

MPRWA

an

opportunity

to

preview

the

recommendations

developedbytheVEteambeforethePreliminaryVEReportispublished.

7. WrittenReports&ImplementationPhase: FollowingthecompletionoftheVEstudy,theteamleadercompilestheinformationdevelopedduringtheVEstudyintoaPreliminaryReport.This

reportdocumentsallrecommendations,andwillbeprovidedtoMPRWAunderthestated

deliverabletimeline.ThereportincludesanExecutiveSummary,detaileddescriptionsofeach

recommendation,andallsupportingdocumentation.


33/65


OncethePreliminaryReportreviewiscompleteandcommentsarereceivedfromMPRWA,the

reportiseditedtoreflectthecommentsandanyimplementationdecisions,andisreissuedasthe

DraftFinalVEStudyReport. Furthercomments,editsandfeedbackwillbeaddressedpriorto

publicationanddeliveryoftheFinalVEStudyReportasindicatedintheRFP.

3.3 VEStudyAreasofFocusThe

following

paragraphs

identify

some

of

the

areas

that

VMS

believes

may

require

special

attention

withrespecttotheMPWSPVEeffort. AdditionalelementswilllikelybeidentifiedduringtheVE

workshop;thelistbelowillustratestopicswewillcovertoensureathoroughreviewoftheproject.

1. DesignConceptEnhancements: Identificationofchangestotheprojectdesignthatwillimprove/enhancetheessentialfunctionsandconcept(s)atalowerinitialcapitalcostorlifecycle

costasproposedinthedesigndocuments.

2. OperationsandMaintenance:Reviewofthedesignconcepttoidentifytheoptimalconfigurationthatbestrepresentsidealoperability,reliability,maintainability,andpersonnelsafety.

3. DesignConceptValidation:Reviewofthebaselinedesignconceptforvalidationoftheeffectivenessof

the

design

in

ensuring

it

represents

the

most

efficient

combination

of

cost,

performance,

and

reliability.

4. NewAlternatives: Identificationofnewfunctionalapproachestooptimizingtheessentialfunctionsoftheproject,solvingissues,andmeetingthegoalssetforthfortheprojectforthebestoverall

value,includingincorporationofthelatesttechnologiesandadvancements.

5. SustainabilityAssessment:ReviewandvalidationoftheprojectforidentificationofopportunitiestoattainanEnhancedlevel(equivalenttoSilver)ofsustainabledesignundertheEnvisionrating

systemoftheInstituteforSustainableInfrastructure.IdentificationofopportunitiestoattainaSilver

awardlevelofdesignundertheUSGreenBuildingCouncilLEEDRatingsystem.

6. ArchitecturalComposition: Suggestionsthatwillalignthedesignofthefacilityintermsofoptimalfunctionalperformanceandoperationsandaestheticpresencewiththeenvironmentandlocation.

7. FutureDesignConsiderations: Recommendationstothedesignerregardingspecificideas,components,details,materialsorproductsthatshouldbeconsideredasthedesignprogresses.

8. Staging/Access: Assessmentofwhetheradequatespaceandfacilitiesareavailabletostagetheprojectincludingtheprovisionofutilities,andifaccesstothesitewillberestrictedwithalternatives

providedtomaketheflowoflabor,equipmentandmaterialsmoreefficient.

9. EnvironmentalImpacts: Areviewoftheprojectsenvironmentalimpactstoassurethattheconstruction

process

can

meet

the

requirements

of

the

EIR

permitting

agency

demands,

defining

alternativesthatwilladdressandsupportconflictresolution.

10.ConstructionImpacts: Ideaspromotedtominimizeoreliminateimpactsofconstructionontheexistingstreambedorexistingfacilitiesandinfrastructure.Thisareawillalsoconsidertemporary

environmentalconditionsrelatedtoconstructionactivities.

11.CostControl: Nottobeconfusedwithcostcutting,thisareawillfocusonmaintainingthedesiredbudgetorprovideamorecosteffectivewaytoachievethesamedesignobjectives. Thisincludesa


34/65


cursoryassessmentofthecostestimatefortheselectedalternative.

12.ScheduleControl: Recognizingtimelycompletionisimportantrelativetooverallriskreduction,thisareawillfocusonthepotentialtomeettheprojectscheduledeadlinesorthepossibilityof

completingtheprojectaheadofschedule.

13.AdditionalConstructabilityIssues: Suggestionsregardingprojectconstruction,atafeasibilitylevel,that

will

assess

specific

areas

of

construction

difficulty.

Key

subjects

include:

Reducingtotalconstructiontimebycreatingconditionsthatmaximizethepotentialforconcurrent(ratherthansequential)construction,whileminimizingworkandwastedtime.

Reducingworkhourrequirementsbycreatingconditionsthatpromotebetterproductivityorcreatingdesignsthatdemandlesslabor,minimizingtheneedforhighcostspecialequipment.

Reducingpotentialchangeorders,workdelaysandaddedcostsbycheckingthedrawingsandspecificationsfordimensioningerrors,omissionofnecessarydetail,interdisciplinaryconflicts,etc.

Identifyingtheappropriatenessoftheprojectsconstructioninstallationtechnology,methodologyandmaterials.

Identifyingprojectspecificissues,theirprobableconsequences,andproposedmitigationrecommendations.

14.RiskAnalysis: Giventhepotentialprojectcomplexitiesrelativetotechnicaldesignissues,environmentalandpermittingissues,andconstructionissues,VMSproposestoconducta

QualitativeRiskAnalysisoftheprojectduringtheVEworkshop. ThroughitsRiskAssessmenttools

andtechniques,VMSwillworkwithprojectstakeholderstoidentifyandprioritizethoserisksmost

inneedofproactiveresponseandmanagement.Thisallowsissuesthatmayotherwiseresultin

significantimpactstobeaddressedbydevelopingproactiveriskresponsestrategiesandactionplans

tominimizethreats,maximizeopportunities,andoptimizetherelationshipsofprojectandprogram

performance,cost,andtime.

3.4 DeliveryScheduleVMSteamleadersareequippedwiththeexperienceandtoolstoquicklytransformtheproject

information,analysesperformedandtheelectronicorhandwrittencontentdevelopedduringaVE

studyintocomprehensive,professionalqualityVEreports.VMSsupportstaffassistteamleadersin

documentingtheresultsofeachstudytoensurethereportsbeingdeliveredarepolished,easyto

navigateandarriveontime.VMSpracticesahighlyeffectiveQA/QCproceduretoensurethecontent

andformatofeachprojectsdeliverablesareproducedquickly,consistentlyandaccurately.

TheVEstudyiscurrentlyscheduledfortheweekofJune2327,2014.ThePreliminaryVEReportwillbe

submittedperRFPrequest,three(3)daysfollowingcompletionoftheworkshop,onJune30,2014. An

implementationmeeting

will

be

scheduled

after

the

desired

review

period,

at

which

point

VMS

will

consolidateandincorporateallcommentsanddecisions.TheFinalVEReportwillbeissuedwithin14

daysofreceiptofcommentsandconfirmationfromtheprojectmanagerthatnofurthercommentsor

changesareanticipated.

VMSproposestodeliverthePreliminaryandFinalVEreportsinelectronic(PDF)formatviaemailbyor

beforethedeadlinesstatedabove.Hardcopydeliveryofprintedreports(6copies)andCDs(2copies)

foreachsubmittalcantypicallybeexpected23businessdaysfollowingtheemailsubmittalduetothe

lengthoftimerequiredtoproduceandshiphardcopiestotheMPRWAoffice(s).


35/65


4.0 QUALIFICATIONSANDEXPERIENCE4.1 TeamQualificationsAsstatedpreviouslyinthisproposal,VMSisthelargestpurevalueconsultingfirminthecountry.VMS

specializesintheapplicationofValueAnalysisandValueEngineering,BusinessProcessImprovement,

DecisionAnalysisProcesses,RiskAssessmentandManagement,QuantitativeModelingandAnalysis,

andTraining

in

order

to

assist

clients

in

their

goal

of

making

sound

decisions

and

getting

the

most

out

of

theirprojectsandprograms.With9fulltimeCertifiedValueSpecialistfacilitatorsonstaff,VMShas

conductedover3,000studiesduringits24yearsofprovidingvalueservices.

VMShasprovidedVMservicesforamultitudeoflocal,state,regional,andfederalgovernment

agencies.Typesofprojectsincludeplanninganddesignofwater/wastewatertreatment,healthcare

facilities,offices,andadministrativebuildings;planning,design,andimplementationoftransportation

andtransitfacilitiesandsystems;recreationalfacilities;equipmentandmaintenancefacilities;housing;

firestations;andanarrayofotherprojects.Asaresultofourinvolvementwithnumerousprojectsfor

variousgovernmentandlocalagencies,VMShasdevelopedathoroughunderstandingoffederal/state

governmentregulations,constructionmethods,andcoordinationrequirements.

Finally,our

long

history

and

track

record

of

building

successful

VE

teams

provides

VMS

access

to

some

ofthemostexperiencedandsoughtafterconsultantsinthevariousengineeringdisciplines.Basedona

wealthofexperienceworkingonregionalwaterauthorityprojectsandwithgovernmentagenciesinthe

stateofCalifornia,theproposedteammembersfromHDREngineering,Inc.areseasonedveteranswith

extensiveexperiencedesigning,optimizingandconstructingsimilarprojects.Thefollowingteam

membersareproposedforthisVEeffort:

ProposedRole NameandCredentialsCVSTeamLeader/Facilitator MarkWatson,P.E.,CVSLife,PMP

Civil/StructuralEngineer OmidTavangar,P.E.

Architect&LEEDCertifiedEvaluator MichaelLambert,R.A.,LEEDGreenAssociate

Electrical/Instrumentation&ControlsEngineer BillEttlich,P.E.

OperationandMaintenanceExpert CraigClose,P.E.

ENVISIONEvaluator,HDRProjectManager DaveReardon,P.E.,ENVSP

VMSstrivestoprovidethemostcosteffectivemeansofdeliveryvalueimprovingservicestoourclients.

Asaresult,pleasenotethatsomeoftherequestedroles/teammembersforthisVEstudyhavebeen

consolidated.Thishasbeendonewiththeintenttoprovidetheproperexperienceinthemost

streamlinedandcosteffectivemannerpossible. Withtheparticipationofadditionalstakeholder

personnelbeingprovidedbyCAWasstatedintheRFPscopeofservices,theteammembersproposed

hereinprovidethenecessarylevelofexperienceandexpertiserequiredforthesuccessofthisstudy.

4.2 RelevantProjectExamples/ExperienceThefollowingprojectsrepresentasmallsamplingofrelevantVEandwater/wastewaterproject

optimizationeffortstheproposedVEteamhasfacilitatedorparticipatedoninthestateofCalifornia.

JosephJensenWaterTreatmentPlantSolidsDewateringFacilityandLagoons,GranadaHillsMarkWatsonfacilitatedtheVEstudy,foraprojecttoconstructamechanicaldewateringfacilitywithbeltpresses,conveyors,andacakestoragearea,aswellasaseriesoflagoonsforairdryingsolids.These

facilitieswillallowLAMWDtoreliablyprocesssolidsatallanticipatedproductionrates,whilecomplying


36/65


withwaterqualityregulationsandexistingpermitconditions.Theestimatedcost,includingallmarkups

andcontingencies,is$22,740,000forContractNo.1and$13,130,000forContractNo.2.

TheobjectivesoftheVEstudyweretoreviewthedesignrelativetoprojectpurposeandneedtoidentify

moreeconomicalalternativesinprovidinganewsoliddewateringfacilityandlagoons;andtodevelop

VEalternativesthatimproveaspectsofthesolidsprocessingbyeitherreducingcostorimproving

performance.

TheVEteam,throughtheapplicationoffunctionanalysisandcostmodeling,evaluatedthebaseline

concept.TheVEteamobservedthattherewereopportunitiesforsignificantcostsavingsbyrelocating

theBeltPressBuildingtolocationsofbettersoilsandawayfromthesightlinebetweenthe

Administration/ControlBuildingandlagoons.Further,giventherelativelyhighcostsrelatedtothesoil

remediationmeasures,theVEteamfocusedonidentifyingothermethodsthatresultinreducedcosts

andimpacts,reducedschedule,andreducedriskofmovementanddamageduringanearthquakeevent.

Further,theVEteamfocusedonthedewateringprocessitselftoidentifyalternativesthatmaximize

passivemeansofreducingthewatercontentofthesolidsandsimplifyingtheremovalofthethickened

solids.Finally,theVEteamfocusedontheconstructionscheduleandcontractpackagingtoreducerisks

andcoordinationissuesofearlycriticalpathitemsandmultipleconstructioncontractors.TheVEteam

developed12alternativesforimprovementoftheproject,7ofwhichwillbeconsideredfor

implementationwhenthedesignreachestheappropriatephase.Ifallalternativesareacceptedas

proposedasavingsofnearlyof$20millionmayberealized.

SeasideOzoneTreatmentFacility,MontereyThe$3.2millionconstructionimprovementstotheSeasideOzoneTreatmentFacilitycompletedin1964.TheMPWMDimposedabuildingmoratoriumin

1992citingthelackofwatersupplyontheMontereyPeninsula.Althoughitwasapoliticalmove

attemptingtogainsupportfortheproposedNewLosPadresDam,itactuallycausedapublicbacklash

towardsMPWMDandCalAm.CalAmagaintookaleadershiprolebydiscovering"new"groundwaterin

theNorthernCoastalAquiferinnortheastSeasidealongtheFortOrdborder.Anew2500gpmwellwas

constructedtoproduce2000afyofadditionalwatersupplyforthePeninsulacommunities.The

MPWMDBoardapprovedonlya1000afyallocationandtiedtheliftingofthebuildingmoratoriumwith

thestart

up

of

the

new

well.

However,

the

new

Paralta

well

had

high

levels

of

hydrogen

sulfide

and

was

constructedonasmallresidentialbuildinglot,insufficienttobuildanytreatment.

CraigClosewasresponsibleforfindingasolutionandconstructingafacilityimmediatelytoavoidpublic

criticism.Heevaluatedbothhydrogenperoxideandozonetreatmentprocesses,sinceusingGAC

pressurefilterswasnotfeasibledueeconomic,spacelimitations,andbackwashwastedisposal

problemscreatedbythehighH2Sconcentrations.Aninlinetreatmentprocesswasconsideredthebest

solution.Thehydrogenperoxideprocesswaseliminatedduetothelargequantitiesofchemicalsneeded

andthelongcontacttimenecessaryforthechemicalreactiontoconverttheH2Stosulfate.Therefore,a

5mgdozonetreatmentplantwasconstructedatCalAm'sOrdGrovewellsite,treatingboththeParalta

andOrdGrovewells.Two60lb/dayozonegeneratorswereusedtosupplyozonetotheinjectors30

feetupstreamofthefacilityina24inchheaderpiperoutedthroughthechemicalcontainmentareaof

thetreatmentbuilding.Zincorthophosphateforcorrosionprotectionandsodiumhypochloriteforpost

disinfectionusedatthefacility.Theozonetreatedwaterwouldthengothroughanozonedestructunit

priortoenteringthe0.5MGOrdGrovetanklocatedadjacenttothetreatmentbuilding.Finishedwater

wasthenpumpedoutofthestoragetankintothedistributionsystemviathreesubmersiblecanpumps.

Thefullyautomatedtreatmentfacilitywentonlineinearly1994.TheSeasideOzoneTreatmentFacility

wasthefirstozonefacilityintheAmericanWaterSystem.


37/65


VE,DesignDocumentQA/QC,andCostEstimatingforSacramentoRiverandE.A.FairbairnWaterTreatmentPlantsRehabilitationProjects,CityofSacramentoOmidTavangar,P.E.andBillEttlich,P.E.ofHDRprovidedtheStructuralandElectricalengineeringservicesforaVEstudy,designdocument

QA/QC,andcostestimatingservicesforrehabilitationupgradestothecitystwosurfacewater

treatmentplantstoreplaceagingfacilitiesandprovidenewsolidshandling.Improvementstothe160

mgdSacramentoRiverWaterTreatmentPlantwerevaluedat$145millionandincludedanew80mgd

flocculation/sedimentationbasinwithmixers,eightnewdualmedialfilters,retrofitoftheexistingfi

mprwa final agenda packet 06-12-14.pdf

Documents