Meeting Date:

August 21, 2006





David A. Berger,




General Manager

Line Item No.:


Prepared By:

Arlene Tavani

Cost Estimate:



General Counsel Approval:  N/A

Committee Recommendation:  On a vote of 2 – 0, the Public Outreach Committee recommended that the full Board review options for committee responsibilities and membership developed at the August 7, 2006 meeting and consider development of a charge for the committee.

CEQA Compliance:  N/A


SUMMARY:  Public Outreach Committee (POC) members Michelle Knight and Kristi Markey met on August 7, 2006 with 12 representatives from community groups that had expressed an interest in participating on a proposed Community Advisory Committee (CAC).   The third POC member, Alvin Edwards, was unable to participate and neither was the committee alternate, Larry Foy.


At the meeting, the POC and community group representatives exchanged ideas on options for the responsibilities and membership of the CAC, in an effort to assist the POC in development a charge for the new committee.   The concepts developed by the group are outlined in draft minutes of the meeting attached as Exhibit 13-A.   The POC agreed to present to the Board the various options developed at the meeting, and allow the Board to reach consensus on the breadth of responsibility for the CAC and establish its membership, so that the draft charge (Exhibit 13-B) could be refined.  Some of the issues for the Board to consider, if they choose to refine the draft charge are listed below.


1.                  Primary Function and Process Sections:  Currently, the Primary Function section refers to “policy matters related to water use and consumption,” and the Process section refers to “issues related to water demand management and water conservation.”  These two sections could be amended to be in agreement with each other. 


2.                  Composition and Structure Section:   There was support among the Directors at the June 22 meeting to increase the number of organizations on the committee from 5 to 15.  There was consensus at the August 7, POC meeting that government agencies, including the US Navy, Army and Coast Guard, should not be members of the committee.  It was also suggested that the committee could be modeled after the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District’s Citizen’s Advisory Committee.  For your reference, the description of that committee is included as Exhibit 13-B.


3.                  Responsibilities of the Committee Section:  This section could be amended to agree with the Primary Function and Process sections, should they be modified.


RECOMMENDATION:  The Board should decide if a CAC will be formed.  If so, then the draft charge could be refined taking into consideration the options for CAC responsibility and membership outlined in Exhibit 13-A, and comments that were made by the Board at the January 26, 2006 Board meeting attached as Exhibit 23-C. 


BACKGROUND:  Included as Attachment 13-1 is the staff report regarding development of a CAC charge that was prepared for the August 7, 2006 POC meeting.  This meeting was held at the request of the Board, who reasoned that the POC should meet with public interest groups that expressed an interest in participating on the proposed CAC to ascertain the scope of responsibility prospective CAC members would be willing to assume.


The Board first discussed the possibility of increasing public participation on District committees at the September 8, 2005 Strategic Planning Session, when it was proposed that membership  on the Policy and Technical Advisory Committees could be expanded to include members of the public.  Later, at the December 12, 2005 meeting, the Board decided that membership on the Policy and Technical Advisory Committees should not be modified.  Instead, the Board began discussions on formation of a Citizens Advisory Committee, a new committee to be comprised of representatives from public interest groups.  The Board considered development of a charge for the proposed committee on January 26, March 20, and June 22, 2006.


IMPACT TO STAFF/RESOURCES: Significant staff effort and modest additional expense will be required to support the CAC. As the scope of responsibility for the committee is expanded, the impact on workload for each division increases.  If the draft committee charge remains focused on water demand management and water conservation issues, existing Water Demand Division staff will be assigned to support this new committee, resulting in workload adjustments that could adversely affect existing project priorities and other management functions.   If the committee charge is expanded to include other areas of responsibility, the impact on workload and priorities in the Engineering and Water Resources Divisions will also be affected.  



13-A    Draft Minutes of August 7, 2006 Public Outreach Committee Meeting

13-B    Description of Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control Agency’s Advisory Committee



13-1     Action Item 2 from August 7, 2006 Public Outreach Committee Meeting, titled Develop Recommendation on Charge to Proposed Community Advisory Committee