Strategic Planning Workshop/Special Meeting
Board of Directors
Monterey Peninsula Water Management District
Chair Foy welcomed all assembled for the meeting.
Chair – Larry Foy, Division 5
Vice Chair – Kristi Markey, Division 3
Alvin Edwards, Division 1
Judi Lehman, Division 2
Michelle Knight, Division 4 (Did not attend morning session. Was present for afternoon session.)
David Pendergrass, Mayoral Representative
David Potter, Monterey County Board of Supervisors
David A Berger, General Manager
Andy Bell, District Engineer/Planning and Engineering Manager
Rick Dickhaut, Chief Financial Officer/Administrative Services Manager
Darby Fuerst, Senior Hydrologist
Joseph Oliver, Water Resources Manager
Inder Osahan, Chief Technology Officer
Stephanie Pintar, Water Demand Manager
Henrietta Stern, Project Manager/Public Information Officer
Arlene Tavani, Executive Assistant
District Counsel present: David C. Laredo
Chair Foy led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Eileen Goodwin of APEX Strategies reviewed the items that would be discussed and the format to be followed.
4. Water Supply Discussion – All
Curtis Weeks, General Manager of the Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA), provided an overview of the water situation in Monterey County and the needs that could be addressed by a regional water supply solution. A summary of his comments is available at the District office and on the District’s web site at www.mpwmd.dst.ca.us.
Henrietta Stern, Project Manager for the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, provided an overview of the Comparative Matrix of Water Supply Project Alternatives (Matrix) that are proposed to meet the water supply needs of the Monterey Peninsula. A summary of her comments is available at the District office and on the District’s web site at www.mpwmd.dst.ca.us.
Summary of Board Discussion
A. Need to see the cost of the 21,000 acre-feet desalination project proposed by California-American Water (Cal-Am) so rate payers can compare the cost of a project that could meet the production shortfall identified in State Water Resources Control Board Order 95-10, and a project sized to meet the future water needs of the community at buildout. District staff replied that similar engineering studies must be conducted on both projects before the costs can be accurately compared.
B. The cost of the aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) component of Cal Am’s project must be separated from the larger plan in order to accurately compare it with the other proposed ASR projects.
C. Should ask Cal Am to separate ASR from the Coastal Water Project. The District and Cal-Am should come together to solve the situation with the MOA on the Management of the Seaside Basin ASR Facilities. The community could move forward on ASR. It should not be tied to another project.
D. Add Phases 2 and 3 of the ASR Project to the Matrix. Project costs should be included.
E. A mechanism to fund Phases 2 and 3 of the ASR Project must be discussed. The District should not procrastinate in its efforts to move ahead on ASR.
F. Need to conduct a future meeting to review each of the desalination projects listed on the matrix and their costs. Suggested that an independent assessment of the costs be conducted.
G. It would be very expensive and take a long period of time to conduct an independent study of the projects costs listed on the Matrix. It could take less time and still provide useful information if staff prepares a comparison of project costs from communities similar to the Monterey Peninsula.
H. Should compare the estimated costs of the proposed local desalination, recycled wastewater and reclaimed water costs with those from other areas. Suggested a region that compares with ours, one that has a hospitality/visitor serving economy and golf courses such as San Diego.
I. Questioned the accuracy of using 10,730 acre-feet shortfall identified in Order 95-10 as the amount of water that must be provided by a project.
J. Must determine the capacity of the Seaside Basin soon, and also reassess the estimated water need of 10,730 acre-feet.
K. Project timelines listed on the Matrix should be scrutinized.
L. Dredging the Los Padres and San Clemente reservoirs should be pursued.
M. A Board meeting or workshop should be conducted to discuss the Directors’ opinions on providing water for general plan buildout.
N. Should evaluate a regional solution proposed by either Cal Am or the Pajaro/Sunny Mesa Community Services District. If there are more participants in a project, the cost could be lower for all communities involved. There are also groundwater recharge and purified recycled water project opportunities to pursue. The regional solution should be tied to the regional governance solution.
O. Should discuss the Regional Urban Water Supply governance issue. There’s much work to be done. A consultant must be hired to lead a discussion of the issues such as the amount of water needed, and the ultimate water supply solution. The effort will be funded by a $5,000 contribution from each participating jurisdiction.
P. Would like a reassessment of the one acre-foot per household factor that is used by the District to estimate water needs. The factor should be based on some real criteria.
Q. A workshop should be conducted to review the amount of water conserved since 1986. The estimated community water need should be reduced by the amount of water that has been conserved.
R. The District and the jurisdictions must have a commitment to continued water conservation. If a water supply project is developed that meets buildout demand, will the community continue to support the current requirements for water conserving devices and practices?
S. In response to a question from the Board, District staff confirmed that information provided by the Marina Coast Water District (MCWD) states that 300 acre-feet of the Regional Urban Water Augmentation Project will be set aside for distribution in the Cal Am system for open space areas such as parks, golf courses and median strips. Curtis Weeks noted that there are several agreements for distribution of purified recycled water. One agreement allows for the distribution of 1,500 acre-feet of water to the Monterey Peninsula. District staff stated that they would like to hear more about these projects from the MCWD, the MCWRA and the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency (MRWPCA).
5. Community Input
(1) Ms. Goodwin read a comment from Glenn Menir, a community member, that proposed raising the level of one of the dams on the Carmel River to the Matrix of Water Supply Alternatives. (2) Madeleine Clark, Director of the Elkhorn Slough Coalition, spoke about the Regional Urban Water Supply (RUWS) governance plan. Ms. Clark cited several documents that she obtained per a request under the California Public Records Act (on file at the District office). According to Ms. Clark, the management group developing the RUWS worked with the understanding that individuals would not have direct input into development of the public governance process. She expressed concern that elected officials were also not invited to participate in the management group, so the plan was being developed by staff. (3) David Dilworth, Executive Director of Helping Our Peninsula’s Environment (HOPE), submitted a document (on file at the District office) that expressed support for the 8,409 AFY seawater desalination project proposed by the MPWMD because it is the only project being considered that would require approval by a public vote. He stated that any water supply solution must be appropriately sized, comprised of several different project alternatives, approved by the electorate, and cost effective.
Summary of Board Discussion
A. Should conduct a workshop on the RUWS governance planning process and take leadership in bringing this issue to the public. Mr. Weeks stated that he would be happy to speak at a District workshop regarding the work of the RUWS planning group. He noted that presently the planning group is developing an agreement for joint funding of the activities necessary to complete its mission.
B. Questions were raised about why the General Manager did not circulate to the Board of Directors the draft proposal for consulting services that was mentioned by Ms. Clark during the public comment period. It was suggested that District staff should not have been involved in the RUWS planning process without asking for Board direction on ideas to bring before the planning group.
C. It is ridiculous to assume that District staff should not develop innovative ideas and then bring them to the Board.
D. At a future Board workshop on the RUWS governance plan, there should be a discussion of alternatives to the appointed joint powers authority proposal. The governance board should be directly elected. It should not be comprised of elected officials that are summarily appointed to sit on the governance board.
6. Mid-Morning Break
At 10:30 AM the meeting was recessed and reconvened at approximately 10:45 AM.
7. Roles and Responsibilities – All
Summary of Board Discussion
Role of Committees
A. Each committee should develop a charge, with the assistance of staff, and bring it back to the Board for approval.
B. It is appropriate to have a charge for each committee so that each year when the committees are formulated, the members can review their charge and understand their role.
Role of Chair and Vice Chair
A. The Board should discuss their ideas on the role of the Chair/Vice Chair committee so that a charge can be developed based on those comments.
B. The Chair, Vice Chair and General Manager should develop a draft that will be brought to the Board for approval.
C. General Manager Berger noted that he is not a member of the committee. He and District Counsel participate in the meetings as support staff. The General Manager presents the viewpoint of staff at the committee meetings.
D. In response to a question, District Counsel Laredo confirmed that at one time, the Chair and Vice Chair invited a third member of the Board to sit in on the meetings. Directors were invited on a rotating basis.
E. A third member, or a third rotating member should be included on the Chair/Vice Chair committee.
F. The Chair/Vice Chair committee is an opportunity for two directors to strategize. I oppose the idea of a third member.
G. Guidelines should be developed to address situations where there is a difference of opinion between the Chair and Vice Chair. Should they be required to vote on decisions?
H. District Counsel Laredo interjected that if the committee was required to come up with a collective decision based on a vote, it could be determined that they have subject matter jurisdiction and the Chair/Vice Chair might be required to post an agenda, discuss only items on that agenda, and allow public comment.
I. Suggest that the committee be comprised of the Chair and Vice Chair. The General Manager’s role would be to represent the conscience of the Board. He could bring reason to the committee and balance any difference of opinion between the Chair and Vice Chair. The General Manager has a good idea of the opinions of the different directors. He should be prepared to say to the Chair and Vice Chair, “How will the Board react? Are you prepared to accept the consequences of this decision?”
J. In response to a question, District Counsel Laredo stated that the District is guided by Robert Rules of Order, which state that the Chair presides over meetings and recognizes people when they speak and make a motion. The Chair has the authority to determine the format for meetings. In the past, the Chair has made decisions regarding meeting venues and seating arrangements.
K. Be careful. Don’t make rules that will limit the authority of future Board Chairs.
L. The Chair and Vice Chair perform a service for the Board. They should be considering the views of all Board members when decisions are made. This is not a power position, it is a service position. The charge to the committee should include that statement. In between Chair/Vice Chair meetings, there should be a person the General Manager can call for advice and direction. That person should consider what he/she understands the Board’s wishes to be, not individual opinions. That should also be included in the charge.
M. General Manager Berger suggested that the Chair/Vice Chair operate as a Ways and Means committee. When issues arise that are not ready for full Board consideration, the Chair/Vice Chair could be a sounding Board for the General Manager and staff. The committee could guide the General Manager as to whether a situation should be handed in the usual manner, or whether a committee should be established to review it. Mr. Berger stated that he needs guidance from the Chair and Vice Chair.
N. Ms. Goodwin expressed the consensus of the group that each committee will develop a charge, with the assistance of staff. The committee charges will be brought to the full Board for approval. A charge will also be developed for the Chair/Vice Chair committee. Later in the day, development of the charges will be assigned to the appropriate divisions.
Spokesperson for the Board/Interaction with the Media
A. Rule 6 of the MPWMD Meeting Rules that speaks to the Chair as the spokespersons for the District should remain unchanged. The Chair or his/her designated spokesperson should have the authority to speak for the District. If a Director is speaking as an individual, he/she should be clear about it.
B. Before I make a statement to the public or media, I always state that I’m speaking for myself, not the Board.
C. I’m concerned about the General Manager and staff making statements that are quoted in the media about issues that express a philosophical point of view.
D. The General Manager should have told the Directors that they would be seated in the audience at the August 25, 2005 Town Hall Meeting. In addition, the Board should have been told that the RUWS planning group had morphed into a working group. It should have been on a Board meeting agenda so the Directors could provide policy direction.
E. General Manager Berger noted that during development of the Proposition 50 MOA on development of a Greater Monterey Bay Integrated Regional Water Management Plan the Board did not review draft agreements, but they did consider approval of the final agreement. He confirmed that the Board should have input on the RUWS governance structure. The Chair/Vice Chair, serving more as a Ways and Means Committee, could provide that direction.
F. District Counsel Laredo should be authorized to speak on behalf of the Board. If a person under his authority speaks out indirectly, I want him to deal with it.
G. Should the Chair be allowed to speak for the District, considering that the position is rotated every year? Suggest that the General Manager be designated as the only spokesperson for the Board. We should have a consistent message.
H. This discussion is a waste of time. A Director cannot represent the acts of this agency without getting into trouble. The current Rule 6 is clear. We are making a big to-do about nothing.
I. Anyone who addresses a policy or position of the Board should only express that policy if the Board has voted on the issue.
J. Rule 6 should be deleted altogether. It is not necessary.
K. There may be a circumstance in the future when it is important to have this rule in effect. It would be wise to keep it.
L. Board meetings are televised, so the need for Directors to express the position of the Board is not as great as it used to be.
M. I am concerned about District staff addressing policy issues to the media. I would encourage staff to provide technical information.
N. Ms. Goodwin suggested that the Board have a discussion of this issue at a future Board meeting and decide if Rule 6 should be deleted or modified.
(1) David Dilworth, HOPE, stated that the Chair and Vice Chair should each have one vote on the Chair/Vice Chair committee. That would force them to reach a compromise on difficult issues. He suggested that Rule 6 should be maintained but could be clarified. (2) Vienna Moore, Chair of HOPE and Chair of the Carmel Valley Women’s’ Network, urged the Board to stop over-pumping of the Carmel River. She expressed support for a water supply solution that would legalize Cal Am’s production shortfall identified in Order 95-10. She suggested the solution should be promoted as the “save the river facility.” (3) Virginia Hennessey expressed appreciation for technical information District staff has provided to expand her understanding of water issues. She requested that the Board continue to allow District staff to speak to the media about water issues, and not limit that role to the General Manager.
8. Adjourn to Chapman Room for Lunch
At 11:45 AM the meeting was recessed for a lunch break. The participants reconvened at 12:45 PM.
9. Review Divisional Objectives of 2004/2005 Strategic Plan and New Objectives -- All
Question: Should the Strategic Plan be updated annually, every six months, or every two years?
Consensus: A progress report is published monthly in the Board packet. The Board could review specific items on the strategic plan according to timelines listed in the plan.
Comments: (1) Difficult to conduct these meetings every two months. Could require a six-month progress report from staff. (2) Annual review is best with six-month progress report.
Question: Does the Board agree that the Vision Statement is still accurate?
Comments: (1) The intent was that the General Manager would be working with other agencies. However, there has been controversy about that issue. I would not like to see the District revert to parochialism again.
Question: Does the Board agree that the Mission Statement is still accurate?
Comments: (1) I don’t interpret that to mean that we are committed to participate in a joint project with other agencies. We may decide to move ahead on our own projects.
Discussion of Fiscal Issues
The 2006 Strategic Plan will list the following items under the heading “Administrative Services Division”
Question: Should a multi-year budget be developed?
Consensus: The 2006/07 budget could include long-term projections for the ASR project. The user fee levels and the District’s fee schedules should be reviewed in 2007. The District should promote the fact that the annual audit report is approved by the Directors at a Board meeting. In concert with development of 2006/07 budget, staffing levels will be reviewed. The mid-year 2005/2006 budget review should include an update on the impacts of budget cuts made on staffing levels, supplies, outside services and other issues.
Discussion: (1) Would support a two-year budget with a six-month review. (2) Support a two-year budget. Allows planning in advance for funding projects that require assistance from consultants. (3) A two-year budget would create more work for staff and the Board. It means the second-year items will be reviewed and modified twice. Developing a general picture of the second year would be good, but not a detailed budget. (4) A three-year budget similar to that prepared by the MCWRA might be a good idea, at least for long-term projects. (5) We should probably look into the future, but not spend a lot of time on that because our revenue stream is unknown. (6) District staff noted that it would be difficult to develop long-term projections until the Board provides direction on the water supply projects to pursue. (7) We should not have long-term budget projections, unless it is for a multi-year capital project such as Sand City desalination. (8) Should set a multi-year budget for development of Phases 2 and 3 of the ASR project. (7) Change completion dates to 2006 on all items re the user fee. (8) That would be too soon. We just completed a comprehensive adjustment to our fee schedules, we should see if that is working. (9) Should review staffing levels to discover if approved positions have been filled.
Water Resources Division
Objective: Clarify ASR Program
Consensus: November 2005 agenda will include an item asking the Board if staff should pursue the idea of the District becoming a water distribution system. The discussion will also include other options that could be considered for moving ahead with the ASR project.
Discussion: (1) This item has been held up while the District waits to hear from Cal Am on proposed revisions to the MOA. We should add a goal to the Strategic Plan to find out what should be done for the District to become a water distribution system. (2) District staff stated that it was not possible for the District to become a water distribution system. (3) Why couldn’t we lease the system from Cal Am? (4) We don’t have a right to lease those facilities. (5) Hasn’t the question about the District becoming a water distribution system been answered previously? (6) District staff noted that the issue has only been mentioned during discussions about an integrated system. The District could receive ASR water from Cal Am and sell it back to Cal Am for delivery. (7) That would only increase the cost of water to the ratepayer. (8) Shouldn’t the issue before the Board also ask what the options are if an agreement on the MOA cannot be reached with Cal Am? (9) The MOA is alive until the voters make a decision on Measure W. (10) This should be agendized for November 2005, to prevent the perception that the discussion is linked with Measure W. (11) I don’t think it’s a good idea to discuss this before the Measure W election. It could look like the District wants to take over Cal Am’s role as water distributor. (12) As long as the MOA is in limbo, we cannot draw out the water that has been injected. (13) We don’t need that water. (14) If a Cal Am well is taken off line due to a malfunction, there will be an urgent need for the ASR water.
Objective: Develop Seaside Basin Groundwater Management Plan
Consensus: Maintain the target of completion by March 2006. Develop an implementation plan also by March 2006. The timeline may change depending on progress made by the Seaside Basin Groundwater Advisory Committee and the outcome and timing of the Seaside Basin Adjudication.
Discussion: (1) District staff stated that any action taken on the Seaside Groundwater Management Plan is dependent on the outcome of the adjudication proceedings and cooperation with the other litigants. (2) The Board should receive monthly reports on the Seaside Basin so there are no episodes of seawater intrusion. (3) Provide reports to Board on progress of Groundwater Advisory Committee.
Objective: Determine Agency Role in Environmental Protection?
Consensus: No further action required.
Discussion: (1) The Board discussed the issue of cutting back mitigation program activities during the 2005/2006 Budget discussions. Some reductions were made and the issue was put to rest.
Question: Should the District update the Water Allocation Program? (Issue raised by David Dilworth.)
Consensus: During the preliminary study session on the 2006/2007 budget (assuming the Seaside Basin Adjudication issue is settled), the Board should conduct a discussion on the timeline, budget and staffing needed to update the Water Allocation Program.
Discussion: (1) District Counsel Laredo noted that an update must include the determination on the Seaside Basin Adjudication. That may not be settled until the end of fiscal year 2005/2006. (2) There is no need to revisit the Allocation Program until a major water source is developed. There is no new water to allocate. (3) This item should not be added to the Strategic Plan because it was proposed by a member of the public, not a Director. (4) I disagree with the idea that this should be discussed before there is a water supply project on line. (5) The discussion should take place after a water supply project is developed.
Question: When will a charge for the Water Demand Committee be developed.
Consensus: December 2005.
Objective: Establish Consistency and Simplicity in Policies and Procedures
Consensus: Ongoing. Revised targets are accurate as listed.
Objective: Determine Agency Role in Conservation
Consensus: March 2006.
Discussion: The objective re determining the agency role in conservation relates to the Cal Am rate case before the Public Utilities Commission, and a section in that case that would fund a District staff person to carry out conservation activities.
Planning and Engineering
Question: Is anyone interested in receiving an update on reclamation project opportunities?
Consensus: In November 2005, the Board will receive a report from staff on opportunities for District participation in reclamation projects.
Objective: To Have a More Community Outreach Focus
Consensus: Move to section titled Community Issues.
Objective: Celebrate what is going right by June 2005
Consensus: An open house should be conducted in February. The event could be conducted on Valentines Day, perhaps with the theme “Love Your District.”
Question: When should the charge to the Carmel River Advisory be reviewed/revised?
Consensus: December 2005.
Question: Should the Planning and Engineering Division or the Water Demand Division develop the Rules and Regulations Review Committee charge?
Consensus: Should be developed by the Water Demand Division, with the understanding that the General Manager will work on it.
Objective: Stream Issues
Consensus: The first and second issues from the 2004/2005 Strategic Plan that are not listed on the Strategic Planning Initiatives Progress Report should be listed in the 2005/2006 Strategic Plan as “ongoing.”
Administrative Services Division
The 2006 Strategic Plan will list the items shown below under the heading “General Manager Division.”
Question: Shall a new objective, “Update Website,” be added?
Consensus: Yes. This should be shown as an ongoing project. A progress report will be provided to the Board in March 2006.
Objective: Recognize Board Member Service in a Positive Way.
Consensus: Recognition of the Chair, outgoing Directors, and members of public committees such as the Carmel River Advisory Committee should continue. List as ongoing.
Question: Who should develop the charge for the Chair/Vice Chair committee?
Consensus: The Chair, the Vice Chair and the General Manager will develop the charge and bring it to the Board for consideration in December.
Discussion: (1) The Chair, Vice Chair and a third Director such as Director Potter should work to develop the charge. (2) The Chair should decide who the third person should be. (3) The Administrative Committee should not develop the charge. (4) Ms. Goodwin reminded the Board that it was decided during the morning session that the Chair, Vice Chair and General Manager would develop the charge.
Objective: Should Rule 6 of the Board Meeting Rules be deleted or modified?
Consensus: This should be brought to the Board for discussion in November 2005.
Objective: Finalize a single accurate and agreed set of water supply numbers.
Consensus: The numbers could be presented to the Board in November 2005 if the Policy Advisory Committee approves them.
Question: Should members of public interest groups be invited to join the Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) and Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)?
Consensus: A charge must be developed for the PAC and TAC by December. The suggestion that PAC and TAC membership should be reevaluated, or that another community committee should be developed could also be discussed in December at the Board level.
Discussion: (1) Environmental groups and other public interest organizations should be included on the PAC and TAC. This issue should be discussed in a Board meeting or workshop. (2) This issue should be placed in the Strategic Plan under the heading “Community Issues.” (3) I don’t agree that the PAC and TAC membership should be reevaluated. TAC is for technical staff, and PAC is for policy makers to weigh-in on issues. The District conducts public hearings where members of public interest and environmental groups can speak to an issue. The PAC and TAC make recommendations that are forwarded to the Board for consideration. (4) The public feels that once an issue gets to the Board, it is too late to affect a change. (5) The PAC and TAC represent the jurisdictions. They are the official representatives from local communities. Environmental groups do not represent the jurisdictions in an official capacity. (6) District staff suggested that the PAC and TAC might be renamed as the “Jurisdictions Representative Committee” or something similar. The broader committee that has been suggested could be given another name.
Objective: Convene Water Summit to discuss topic of interagency cooperation on regional solutions in April or May 2005.
Consensus: Conduct annually in August, after the Annual Report is mailed with an invitation to attend the meeting.
Question: Should public workshops be conducted on issues coming before the Board?
Consensus: Workshops will be conducted by June 2006. By October 2005, staff will present to the Board a timeline for conducting the workshops. The workshops are listed below in order of priority, except that RUWS Governance and ASR should both have number one priority and will be conducted as soon as possible. The workshops will be listed in the Strategic Plan under the objective, “Finalize the role of the District.”
ASR – Water Resources (will cover all ASR projects and the capacity)
Water Needs Analysis for Existing Demand
Project Cost Analysis and Timeline
Discussion: (1) Should conduct workshops where there is an exchange of ideas and time for the public to speak. (2) Sessions should be conducted in the evening and should be televised. (3) Workshops should be focused on one topic at a time. (4) Should conduct a workshop on the condition of the Seaside Basin. (5) Mr. Laredo stated that there are four components to the Water Needs Analysis: SWRCB Order 95-10, what is needed to make the Seaside Basin right, lost conservation is it real, and is there an augmentation goal. (6) There may be a need to conduct follow-up workshops to respond to issues and questions raised at a specific workshop. (7) Curtis Weeks stated that the Board of Supervisors will be discussing the governance issue in October. He offered to speak to the MPWMD Board about it before the Board of Supervisors meets. He also offered to modify the RUWS timeline in order to participate in the District’s workshops.
Objective: Determine the timing of the re-commencement of currently suspended CEQA EIR (TBD)
Consensus: Change the objective to state “Continue pursuit of Phase 1 ASR program and complete certified EIR by March 2006.”
Objective: Help the community understand the complexity of the District’s mission.
Consensus: Continue with revised Annual Report format.
Objective. End current perceived inconsistent communication with Cities.
Consensus: Should be listed as an ongoing item. Ms. Goodwin may expand wording of the objective.
Objective: Develop a Best Practices Model for individual jurisdictions regarding permitting issues and their timing.
Consensus: Should be completed by Spring or Summer 2006. Includes development of baseline outdoor and indoor best management practices.
Objective: Seek professional help as necessary and appropriate.
Consensus: Keep this in the plan and follow-through if needed.
Objective: Find funding for community conservation programs.
Consensus: Completion is based on approval by Public Utilities Commission of Cal Am’s general rate case application. Should be determined by January 2006. An agreement with Cal Am can be finalized at that time. The new staff person could be hired by February 2006.
Objective: Continue to Improve Board-member to Board-member Communication
Consensus: A video of the Sleepy Hollow Facility could be prepared. The State Water Resources Control Board members should be invited to participate in the tour of District facilities. District staff should continue to meet with SWRCB staff. In addition, the practice of giving regular reports to the Board on Mitigation Program activities could be implemented.
Discussion: (1) Prepare video of Sleepy Hollow Facility that can be shown at Board meetings instead of conducting a tour. (2) Should develop a better relationship with the State Water Resources Control Board. (3) Should meet with State Board staff. (4) District staff noted that Art Baggett, SWRCB Chairman, plans to conduct a workshop in Monterey County within 2 or 3 months. The SWRCB Board members should be invited to attend. In addition, the District has scheduled a tour of the District facilities for all Western states water rights engineers. (5) During the discussion, Mr. Dilworth advised the Board of the Carmel River Advisory Committee’s recommendation that the Board receive 15- minute updates at the Board meetings on mitigation program activities. The District should also take members of the media out in the field to view successful mitigation projects.
Question: When will a charge for the Public Outreach Committee be developed?
Consensus: December 2005.
10. Community Input – Larry Foy, Chair
David Dilworth stated that he hoped the Board could work together more effectively in the future. He urged the Board to be a model in the community for problem solving.
11. Wrap up and Next Steps – Eileen Goodwin
12. Adjourn to Closed Session in Chapman Room
The meeting was adjourned at 3 PM. The Closed Session was immediately convened in the Chapman Room.
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 4 PM.
David A. Berger, Secretary to the Board