Attachment 1

 

REVISED DRAFT

Record of September 29, 2004 Strategic Planning Session

Board of Directors

Monterey Peninsula Water Management District

 

 

Directors present:  Chair, Alvin Edwards; Vice Chair, Larry Foy; Michelle Knight; Judi Lehman; Kristi Markey; David Potter

 

Directors absent:  David Pendergrass

 

General Manager:  David A. Berger

 

Facilitator:  Eileen Goodwin, Apex Strategies

 

Staff participants:  Joe Oliver, Darby Fuerst, Andy Bell, Henrietta Stern, Rick Dickhaut, Stephanie Pintar

 

District Counsel participating:  David C. Laredo

 

VISION

The MPWMD: (1) will strive to serve as a catalyst in collaboration with public and private entities for environmentally responsible solutions that result in a reliable and legal water supply; (2) shall be a fiscally responsible, professionally and publicly respected leader in managing water resources.

 

MISSION

The mission of the MPWMD is to manage, augment and protect water resources for the benefit of the community and the environment.

 

EXPECTATIONS

  • Mission update – open dialogue on District business.  Develop better communication.
  • Open dialogue – talk to each other – relax
  • Open for ideas – outside the box -- #1 goal find “common goals”
  • Consensus for priority actions for staff – fiscal, image, long-term supply
  • Open dialogue – set priorities – where should we be going – tell public
  • Find out Board priorities and what drives them
  • Mesh out as a new group the priorities
  • Mission/Vision to generic – need to get behind that – very interested in p.m. session
  • Glad to be back together looking at big picture – fiscal – method and timing of budget deficit
  • Community image
  • Water augmentation – need guidance – need priorities
  • Ditto above – forge shared vision – common view
  • Deficit and budget guidance
  • Find out if staff has been working on priorities
  • Update of work effort and specific actions

 

COMMUNITY IMAGE

  • Directly elected Board, permit, lack of public image knowledge
  • Distrust, discontent, lawsuits, collaboration
  • Inaccurate public image – negative image (smear campaigns, unlike professional image, public frustration, multiple purposes, unique/unusual, manager not purveyor, road block, not providers, no public relations program, no spokesperson)
  • Seek professional help – needs to be a budget item
  • Need to recognize it will cost money
  • Must highlight conservation success
  • Individual jurisdictions help make MPWMD a target and gate keeper – why do we allow that?  Timing of “no” proof of water first
  • Stop the attacks
  • Go out to introduce General Manager
  • Collaboration re timing of water-proof/permitting
  • Staff over-shadowed by battling Board image
    • Is this current?
    • What about our Board behavior?
    • Current Board is improved

 

  • Complexity of Mission
    • Press outreach – Send out vision/mission
    • A new day dawning
    • Need to further explain water decision process
    • Be leaders – pull people together
    • Simplify materials – overhaul web site and materials, FAQs

 

·        Inconsistent Communication with Cities

    • Reports – what is coming out from fellow Board members
    • PAC/TAC with Board jointly (yet only represent a part of the community) potentially a supplemental group

 

  • Inconsistent Communication with Cal-Am
    • Getting information from them – accurate timely
    • No public engagement
    • Foreign ownership
    • Water tastes bad
    • Deteriorating infrastructure
    • Fire District concerned about insufficient fire flows

 

·        Confusion/lack of communication about implementing Board policy

    • Policies and procedures manual by 12/04
    • Have an on-going process for update
    • Conduct strategic planning workshop annually or twice a year

 

  • Need based interaction – usually negative
    • Find funding for resources for community conservation programs
    • Find and celebrate other community connections
    • Participate in community events/service organizations

 

·        Media likes to feed this division

    • Need to reach out with positive message
    • Define budget issues – state issues
    • Promote summit

 

  • Sphere of Influence – define

 

 

FISCAL

Permit, financial

  • Rate increase (need based)
    • Timing is bad – how to present to public?
    • Combo of rate increase and cost cutting
    • Very little money being spent now to define things
    • 8 to 9 month lag

 

  • Change budgets (by division, by program, by revenues and expenses) performance and goals and expectations
    • Restructure by March 2005 Draft – latest
    • Cal-Am increases – assumption
    • Make public/Board friendly
    • Show mandated allocations (staff and costs)

 

  • Permit fees should they be increased?
    • Need report? What happens to issue
    • **Update with mid-year review by 12/04

 

·        When resolve budget next fiscal year or sooner?  Reserves.

    • Mid-year review
    • Need to know what gets dropped if this is speeded up

 

  • **Current budget “no” funds for water supply planning (Future Agenda Item)
    • $100,000 for EIR (may need more)
    • We are “catalyst not necessarily funding”
    • If we never raise rates we’ll never be anything but a minor player
    • Need to look at future progress

 

·        Allocation of fees?

    • Needs Board resolution – need timetable explained – likely to be next budget

 

  • Staffing levels
    • More staff?
    • Next fiscal year
    • Full explanation and review
    • Staff time reimbursement conundrum
    • Constantly changing priorities

 

 

WATER RESOURCES DIVISION

·        Permit

·        Carmel River inadequate

·        Seaside/seawater intrusion

·        ASR

·        Environmental protection

 

·        ASR where are we going?  Expand partner?

    • If expand then dollars
    • Water rights?
    • Partner – is there excess out there?
    • Field trip for Board and media
    • Planning and Engineering tie-in

 

  • Water Distribution System Permits
    • **Collaborate with Curtis Weeks
    • Follow-up with TAC
    • Clarify?  Change Rules – November Board meeting for one and January Board meeting for other
    • Time issue by staff part of budget discussion
    • Are we taking on something Monterey County needs to be doing?
    • **Need a Board item explanation

 

·        Seaside Plan

    • (Litigation)
    • Plan processing – 2 year process – October first meeting of Advisory Committee

 

·        Environmental Protection (staffing, fish rescue, mitigation monitoring, resources, water quality Carmel River and Lagoon)

o       Take a review – what are we obligated to do?  Related to budget.

 

WATER DEMAND DIVISION

Conservation, reclamation, permit

Distrust/Discontent

 

·        Consistency and Simplicity on Policies and Procedures

o       Educated other jurisdictions; public

o       Web site

o       Put together outlines and process hand-outs; need outside help and resources; posters

o       What can we stop doing?? Budget process.  Weekly/monthly reports

 

·        Ordinance Explanations

o       Send General Manager/Board member to reinforce

 

  • Conservation
    • Need staff resources to implement new or current commitments – only covering the basics (Next budget cycle)
    • Need to get information and correspondence done with current staffing

 

 

PLANNING AND ENGINEERING DIVISION

Reclamation, permit, reconciliation, inadequate environmental protection

 

  • Environmental Protection
    • Celebrate what is going right
    • Permitting takes a lot of time and resources

 

·        Future public reaction/relations issue

    • Do media outreach – explain why cannot be done – at the right time
    • Is there a Pajaro flooding issue coming
    • Need to do something proactive, private property owners funding 404 permit in Salinas is an example (2 years for 404)
    • **Get stream alteration agreement from California Department of Fish and Game (October 15, 2004)
    • Get tough with California Department of Fish and Game.  Potter letter

 

  • Permits for supply projects

 

  • Reconciliation (growth)
    • Handled elsewhere

 

 

ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIVISION

·        Audit Reports and Documents

    • Bring to Board the resources used to create them

 

·        Board Packet

    • Same as above

 

  • Revolving Chair
    • Recognition at end of term – not when leave the Board

 

 

OTHER ISSUES/BOARD POLICY

  • Community ownership – Acquisition of Cal-Am
  • Community ownership – Ownership of new public utility, JPA vetted issues, Buyout
  • Buyout of Cal-Am is inconsistent with the District’s purpose

 

  • Develop explanation and steps to do these items.  May be too soon?
    • Reconciliation?
    • Inadequate/illegal
    • Collaboration – knowledge of other agencies lawsuits
    • **Board should be in support of agency.  How can the agency earn its position?
    • **Board should take leadership on the governance issue (don’t let splinter groups control).  Water summit during January/February.  Future community ownership and water  systems and supply.  Water supply project.
    • **Recommendation for improvement on communication – Board to Board member.  Report from County and report from city representative on MPWMD agenda

 

 

GENERAL MANAGER

·        Needs to be the spokesperson

·        Get professional support for public relations and materials

·        Cal-Am coordination and collaboration as an equal – get them to stop taking credit – need thanks – get credit for use of Paralta Well to supplement their production when their wells were down

·        Water distribution system permit synch-up

·        Regular report to Board on other agencies

·        Convene city manager’s meeting and report loop

·        Arrange for water summit by January/February 2005

·        Present to other agencies

·        Budget next year

 

 

WATER SUPPLY

  • Get current with the numbers – synch up to one set
  • Criteria – cost to consumer (end user) – is an apples to apples comparison available?
  • Operation and Maintenance costs
  • How much are people willing to pay?  Survey?  Phases?
  • We need water – doesn’t really relate to what people like/willing to pay
  • Size – Difficult to weigh without more certain information – Need to wait because we aren’t building
  • Hire consultant?
  • Are sponsors overly optimistic?
  • Re-emphasize cost – staff recommendation
  • Compare potential project (s) to the lowest projected cost per acre-foot of water to keep down monthly user cost
    • Desal (2 Moss landing sites) $1,000 to $1,200 per acre-foot)
    • Desal (MPWMD, Sand City site $2,700 AF)

 

·        ASR Project

    • Potable water cost $1,600 to $,800 per acre-foot
    • Reclaimed water $1,100 acre-foot or lower

 

  • District project goal
    • MPWMD at a different crossroad in the pursuit of augmenting its water supply.  Fiscal condition is too constrained to now support any project proposal within its boundaries
    • Regional participation that includes water for MPWMD and other participants will distribute the cost and reduce the potential financial burden to MPWMD constituents

 

  • What are our partnership goals?
  • Timing – this will move slowly
  • Pajaro/Sunny Mesa cost prospectus
  • Capitalization based on TD cost – potential for profit
  • Do we have the clout to convince sponsor to convince us?  Do a follow-up with individual agencies
  • Proprietary vs. “only” regulatory role?  Yes, JPA?
  • County will have a discussion vis-a-vis public utility by end of October 2004 that sets governance of Cal-Am project/political power of who operates the facility/RFP-RFQ
  • **Should this Board have an interest in a proprietary role?
  • Who builds the project cheaper/faster
  • Castroville – County expansion issues
  • If we are regulatory, how do we control progress?
  • It will cost us money – What is Board capacity?
  • **Develop public input scenarios
  • **JPA – step 2 level, maybe peer/consultant review
  • **Criteria – add major environmental impacts and major constraints (2 using same site, anecdotal)
  • **October 28th meeting/too soon?  ASR on 18th or 28th
  • **No further NEPA work at this time
  • ASR has value for storage
  • ASR timing – (well beyond temporary permit).  State Board needs an EIR.  10/18 or 10/28 filed trip
  • ASR
    • Reclamed water is a prime candidate for recharge, as it can be mixed with groundwater
    • MRWPCA is concluding Phase 3 study for reclamation use in ground water recharge
    • Orange County program 21 has used reclaimed water successfully for 25 years to recharge aquifer and is currently planning expansion

 

  • North Monterey County (Del Piero) – Center of participation program.  Can do!  Within 90 days.
  • Wish Cal-Am and Pajaro/Sunny Mesa would collaborate

 

  • District desalination not big enough??
    • We should still pursue – could be phased – can look at partnering with Marina and Sand City.  Add benefit of being in our jurisdictional area
    • May be too expensive there?
    • Consultant agreement for ASR is same as District desal.  Can resources be reassigned?
    • **Keep it tabled. May need it in the future – may need more money spent on it in the future – change and edit existing draft
    • Drought resistant resource

 

  • Whatever potable water project proves feasible, reclamation water should be included as supplementary to the overall regional solution(s)
  • Primary reclamation uses are golf courses, cemeteries, dual residential plumbing, etc.

 

 

U:\staff\word\boardpacket\2004\2004boardpacket\20041018\ConsentCalndr\01\item1_exh1b_attachment1.doc