May 26, 2015 CC Meeting Handouts

Transcription

SF Bay Area IRWMP Coordinating Committee
Meeting Summary
April 27, 2015
Location: StopWaste, Oakland
1. Roll Call—Appointed FA representatives present
WS-WQ
• Thomasin
Grim,
MMWD
• Brad
Sherwood,
SCWA
WW-RW
• Linda Hu,
EBMUD
• Cheryl
Munoz,
SFPUC
FP-SW
• Mark
Boucher,
CCCFCWCD
• Carol
Mahoney,
Zone 7
• Brian
Mendenhall,
SCVWD
Watershed
• Jennifer
Krebs, SFEP
• Harry
Seraydarian,
NBWA
Other
• Steve Ritchie,
Chair,
SFPUC
• Norma
Camacho,
Vice Chair,
SCVWD (by
phone)
Others Present:
Gordon Becker, CEMAR
Adrianne Carr, BAWSCA
Mike Connor, EBDA/BACWA
Ted Coughlin, Cal Water
Teresa Eade, StopWaste
Lorien Fono, BACWA
Carole Foster, San Mateo DPW
Christy Kennedy, RMC
Andria Loutsch, CDM Smith
Vivian Ma, City of East Palo Alto
Carl Morrison, Morrison & Associates
Michelle Novotny, SFPUC
Molly Palmer, Stetson Engineers
John Parodi, Point Blue Conservation Science
Caitlin Sweeney, SFEP
On the Phone:
Tracy Hemmeter, SCVWD
Jake Spaulding, SCWA
Kellyx Nelson, San Mateo County RCD
2. Updates on Round 2 and Drought Round
Jennifer Krebs reported that on Round 2, SFEP submitted the quarterly reports and
invoice information to DWR on April 15th. DWR will send questions back that the Bay
April 27, 2015 BAIRWMP CC Minutes
1
Area region needs to address, and an input sheet for the invoices. After they give us that
sheet, we will submit it back to them completed, and we will get paid 90 days after that.
DWR is also processing the amendment for Round 2.
For the Drought Round, we got a draft contract from DWR and sent it out to all of the
project proponents. They are asking for all budget, scope, and workplan changes, but
have not yet heard from everybody. Our goal is to get it to DWR this Friday.
Linda Hu noted they have some potential changes to the budget of a project in the
Drought Round, and wondered how they should handle them in the process.
Ms. Krebs replied that Ms. Hu should call her when they finalize the budget to see where
they are in the process with DWR.
3. PSC Updates
Harry Seraydarian reported that we received 45 project proposals totaling $270 Million
by the deadline on April 20th. There were six regional projects, and the others are
subregional, though some cover multiple regions. Seven people reviewed all 45
proposals. We took the results of those reviews and entered them into the scoring matrix.
We scored for goals and objectives in the Plan, readiness to proceed, physical benefits,
what we thought would be the benefit/cost ratio for the project, degree of collaboration,
degree of integration, and overall impact and effect. The regional projects got the highest
score. Mark Boucher compiled all the scores and developed a draft ranking matrix. The
scoring was pretty consistent. The scores from the scorers who scored their own projects
were deleted.
The group decided not to comment on the draft PSP, and that we could meet the
application due date of August 7th.
The group identified the top 3 projects from the consolidated scoring, which were the
Shoreline Resilience Program, the AQPI project, and the San Francisco Bay Region
Stream Habitat and Improvement Program. The subregional targets for the remaining
round are $8.53 million for the north, $9.15 million for the west, $7.45 million for the
east, and $14.09 million for the south. That includes $2M for administration.
The PSC also decided on proposal objectives. The first tier of objectives is to 1) achieve
sub-regional balance, and 2) achieve a high scoring DWR proposal. The second tier
objective is to work towards Functional Area balance and use of Bay Area scoring, and
the third tier is to have a manageable proposal and grant.
Mike Connor asked what the current Functional Area distribution is based on past rounds.
Michelle Novotny replied the current distribution for all Prop 84 funds is as follows:
• Water supply/water quality: $34 million
• Wastewater/recycled water: $28.7 million
2
•
•
Stormwater/flood protection: $9.3 million
Habitat/watershed protection: $9.1 million
Mr. Seraydarian continued his description. The PSC considered various conceptual
options, including the highest scoring proposals, the best sub-regional projects, adjusted
proposals for subregional balance, and the highest scoring proposals using DWR criteria.
They emphasized capital investment, not planning or research. They give 2 extra points
if the project could count as fulfilling the “human right to water,” and within project
scoring they give 3 points if the project was a drought preparedness project and 2 points
if it was a DAC.
They will develop options further once we get responses to questions from certain
projects. The following are questions being sent out tomorrow for 20 projects:
• Could you accept a lesser amount, and if so how much?
• For the regional entities, how would you allocate the reduced amount by
subregion?
• Would the project go forward by 2019 without this grant funding?
• Would your project be eligible under Prop 1?
• Please define the primary and secondary benefits that you will include and how
you will quantify if included in the grant application.
The PSC will be meeting Monday, May 4th from 10am-1pm. We will consider another
option – possibly identifying top priority projects in each subregion and identifying
what’s left over from that for regional projects. That option would help the south meet
their allotment.
Mr. Seraydarian then posed the following policy questions for the CC:
• Would the CC be comfortable giving $20M to one project?
• What percent would you allocate for regional vs subregional projects?
• Are there any options we should remove?
• How much emphasis should we put on DACs?
• How much emphasis should we put on the Human Right to Water?
Brian Mendenhall asked how certain we are that DWR is only considering primary and
secondary benefits. For scoring, we benefited projects that could show benefits in
multiple areas.
Mr. Seraydarian replied we did that because we were looking through the lens of the Bay
Area plan.
Carl Morrison noted we’re not the only region in the funding area.
Mr. Seraydarian stated we potentially compete with East Contra Costa. The worst case
scenario is that they have a human right to water drought preparedness project that scores
higher than our proposal. So, we have to at least look at the projects that would give us a
higher score.
3
Mr. Morrison stated East Contra Costa has not been participating with us for a long time.
Mr. Connor said that, to his knowledge, at this point East Contra Costa doesn’t have
anything in play.
Mr. Ritchie noted that just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not after you.
No one from Contra Costa has been present at the CC. The only anxiety that Jerry Brown
expressed is that projects other than water supply were being prioritized.
Mark Boucher noted that the East County has applied many times, but they have to split
the funding between 12 funding regions, so it’s not worth it for them.
Thomasin Grim stated we do have one experience of that coming up to bite us.
Mr. Seraydarian asked the group what should be the maximum amount allocated for any
one project. He’s primarily looking at AQPI. Are we willing to give more than half of
the money to that project?
Mr. Ritchie asked whether there is any precedent on this.
Mr. Seraydarian said the only thing that is potentially similar was conservation funding in
Prop 50.
Ms. Krebs noted that conservation cumulatively has gotten more than $20 Million in Prop
84 funding to date, including a lot in Round 1 (possibly up to $12M).
Mr. Seraydarian said that in the past we’ve tried to get different projects in the mix.
Brad Sherwood said we should answer that question based on the merit of the project.
Mr. Seraydarian stated it’s like comparing apples and oranges. The SCWA and SFPUC
and SCVWD strong proponents. Does BAFPAA like this project?
Mr. Boucher replied yes, BAFPAA is a strong project proponent.
Mr. Connor noted there is a $19.9 Million Functional Area balance for flood control.
Teresa Eade said we need to look at the competitiveness of our proposal for DWR if we
put all our eggs in one basket.
Carol Mahoney said we should look at how information falls out before the next PSC
meeting.
4
Mr. Ritchie stated that, because there are multiple benefits to the project in multiple
geographical locations, it really acts like several projects even though it’s couched as one
project.
Mr. Seraydarian brought up the question of what percent of funding should be regional
vs. sub-regional. We assigned a percentage in Round 2. In this case, two regional
projects could suck up all the money.
Lorien Fono asked how DWR views an application with 2 projects instead of 5.
Mr. Morrison replied that DWR generally wants to administer fewer projects.
Mr. Seraydarian said if there’s an issue with AQPI, it’s about making sure it’s funding
implementation.
He then asked whether any of the options are not worth pursuing. The options include:
1) Top scoring – all flood and watershed
2) Top subregional, option 4 geographical balance, option 5 DWR scoring.
Ms. Grim said we should strike the “High Scoring DWR Option” and instead put it in an
overlay and use it to inform decision-making.
The group agreed we should not select the High Scoring DWR Option.
Linda Hu noted that whatever option we select, we need to screen it through DWR’s
criteria to make sure we have a strong proposal.
Ms. Foster said that scoring is one of our Tier 1 priorities, so we need to keep those
projects in the mix.
Seraydarian – how much emphasis on human right to water and DAC?
The next PSC meeting will be from 10am to 1pm on Monday May 4th at StopWaste.
4. Discussion of Regional Proposal Submissions
The six regional project proponents each had an opportunity to give a short synopsis of
their projects. John Parodi with Point Blue Conservation Science described the STRAW
program, which engages students in restoring wetland habitat.
The group asked him what that actual on the ground implementation would be, and he
responded that if fully funded the project would restore 62 acres, including re-vegetation
along denuded channels, flood control, unclogging culverts, erosion control, etc.
Mr. Seraydarian then asked whether Mr. Parodi would consider habitat restoration to be a
capital investment, and Mr. Parodi replied he would.
5
Gordon Becker with CEMAR then discussed the Bay Region Stream Habitat
Improvement Program, which involves restoring stream habitats around the Bay Area in
order to benefit salmonids.
Mr. Seraydarian asked whether CEMAR has any South Bay projects. Mr. Becker replied
that the monitoring program will involve San Francisquito Creek, which is partly in the
South Bay. Also the Alameda Creek diversion dam will be laddered in the future, and
they might be able to place a monitoring component in the South.
Amy Hutzel with the State Coastal Conservancy discussed the Regional Shoreline
Resilience Program, which is a $26 million proposal including 3700 acres of bayland
restoration, various types of tidal habitats to benefit endangered species, transitional
habitat for adaptation to sea level rise and existing high tide issues, and innovative reuse
of sediment and fresh water.
Mr. Seraydarian asked Ms. Hutzel whether the Hayward Marsh project is still viable, and
she replied that she would check. Also, he asked her to define what the project could do
with less funding.
Mr. Morrison discussed the Advanced Quantitative Precipitation Index, which is a
prediction tool to use atmospheric rivers to determine how much precipitation will fall
where and assist system operators to better respond to storms. The project also has
wastewater and water supply benefits, and could potentially assist natural resources
through better stream gauges.
Teresa Eade with StopWaste then discussed the Accelerating Sustainable Landscape
Adoption project, which is the highest scoring for the lowest cost on the project list. It
would establish a regional public agency council to provide policies for sustainable
landscape and standards, capitalizing on the drought to support rapid uptake of droughttolerant landscaping.
Mr. Seraydarian asked what the on-the-ground capital investment implementation would
be. Ms. Eade said they will be paying to hold these forums, money to switch projects to
be showcase landscapes, and technical assistance for policy adoption.
Mike Connor discussed the BACWA Regional Nutrient Removal project, which focuses
on nutrient removal, a significant capital requirement on water quality in the Bay Area.
One of the strategies is to use wetlands, so also has a wetlands aspect to it. The project
would fund a set of moored sensors in the South Bay where the nutrient problem is the
most serious, and they would also figure out what actions are working to make the best
benefit and would do a set of optimization projects.
5. StopWaste Presentation on Quantity Quotes
Stephanie Stern with StopWaste then gave an informational presentation on Quantity
Quotes. Quantity Quotes is an online marketplace where you can submit bulk purchases
6
of 10 units or more for various products. StopWaste took the program over from the US
Department of Energy, and they have added all the WaterSense products. It’s possible to
get multiple bids easily, which drives down the cost of items, and it’s also possible to get
in touch with vendors that you might otherwise not have thought to work with, with no
cost to you or the vendors. Your information as the purchaser is not shared with the
vendor. The actual purchase takes place through your normal purchasing channels, not
through QuantityQuotes. It is easy to use and free. You can register and try it out
without any obligation to make the purchase. We are continually expanding and adding
to the system. If you have feedback on the type of products or vendors you’d like to see,
please let us know. You can also combine with other agencies to put in a bigger request
to drive down prices. Go to Quantityquotes.net for more information.
Mr. Mendenhall asked whether the system has a link to local rebates.
Ms. Stern replied that’s a direction they’d like to go in, but right now the program is
available nationally and therefore doesn’t have that kind of localized information.
Mr. Connor asked what kind of discounts purchasers get through the program, and Ms.
Stern said they didn’t have that data.
Ms. Mahoney asked whether they have any cross-reference with local business, and she
and Ms. Novotny noted both of their agencies have local purchase requirements which
limit the entities from which they can purchase.
Ms. Eade replied that since it’s a national database, the local information is not available.
It might be worthwhile to do a presentation with multi-family developers and to refer the
private sector to this tool.
6. Announcements and Next Steps
Mr. Morrison announced that the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Water will
be hearing SB 758 on atmospheric rivers, and Mark Boucher will be testifying in favor of
the bill.
7
Bay Area IRWMP
April 24, 2015 Project Screening Committee
Draft Meeting Summary
I Introductions
-See participant list at end
-No additions to agenda
Reviewed prior action items ( indicates completed or opportunity provided)- April 6
Action-Any PSC member who identifies issue in PSP should send comment to Harry (none received)
Action –Jennifer will report back on workshop with any issues we should consider for comments.
Action- Jennifer will ask for DWR clarification on monitoring ( see below)
 Action- Carl M. and Leigh S. volunteered to develop scoring spreadsheet for 2015 using 2014 as starting point
II DWR Draft PSP
Monitoring* DWR requires monitoring plan for every project unless you already have a monitoring plan.
* DWR will not pay out funds until monitoring plan received.
* Annual submittal does not require providing monitoring results
DWR Workshop-Proposals due August 7, No research unless followed by implementation, Need to comply with
Sustainable GW Act( Med./ High), Water agencies need to meet 20 by 2020, Can include DAC project even if not
in plan, Must comply with CASGEM, Must have adopted Plan, Similar to drought round-Full workplan(not
summary), more in depth budget, similar scoring – project scoring includes drought points
Questions
Should we comment on August 7 date?-Conclusion of Group – No- we can meet date.
Question to Group ( Jennifer)- Can we have Horizon start reviewing projects common to options early?
Group- Yes –wait until PSP finalized
Is Horizon available to review specific projects if requested by PSC? - Yes –wait until PSC finalized.
III Draft Scoring Matrix
*Group walked through matrix and scoring factors
 Consensus-Matrix is fine – may modify (add factors) later
IV Project Scoring
*Mark Boucher walked through his consolidated matrix provided as handout
- 9 reviewers total (7 reviewed all projects, 2 west reviewers split review of west projects only)
- Averages based on number of reviewers of that project
- Mark’s observation was that scores were pretty consistent overall
- Mark did not have time to drop scoring for reviewers of own projects
Action – Mark will drop those scores for projects where reviewer (agency/ entity) was also project proponent
(MMWD- 5, CCFC-2, Marin Co- 2, BACWA- 1 regional)
Top 3 projects from draft consolidated scoring (Highest possible score- 25)
-Bay Area Shoreline Resilience Program (22.86)
-San Francisco Bay Area Advanced Quantitative Precipitation Information (AQPI) System (21.29)
-The San Francisco Bay region Stream Habitat Improvement Program (20.29)
Question- What are sub-regional targets?
After drought Round based on Matt’ last spread sheet
North-$ 8.53m, West- $9.15 m, East- $7.45 m, South- $ 14.09 m.
Does this include dropping Rinconada? ( Believe so, not positive)
Action- Jennifer will check accuracy of sub –region target numbers with Matt
Scoring issues
*One project claimed to have attempted to submit but was unsuccessful-Napa River Restoration, Bio-assessment,
Education & Smart Water Meter Project. Thomasin scored – 10 points.
Harry proposed that American Canyon Smart meter proposal may be a legitimate “Human Right to Water“ Project given
circumstances. Group did not support considering that component separately given overall low score and American
Canyon not submitting on own.
*How do we evaluate individual projects in “regional” proposals?
IV Policy Options/ Issues for CC
The group discussed Objectives for 2015 Round.
 Consensus- Objectives
Tier 1- High Scoring DWR proposal, Sub regional balance
Tier 2- Use ranking (scoring), Functional Area Balance
Tier 3- Manageable proposal and grant (number of projects)
Jennifer provided summary of DWR Scoring (Page 25 of PSP)
Proposal Scoring – 7 points (2 points for human right to water – one point /project)
Project Scoring- 22 points (3 points for drought preparedness)
Questions
Should we screen out any projects at this point? (no- wait)
What is definition of Human Right to Water?
- “…human consumption, cooking and sanitary purposes”
Action- Carl will contact Tracie Billington for clarification on Human Right to Water
What are potential “Human right to water projects on list?
- San Mateo RCD component
- East Palo Alto
- Calistoga Recycle
Conceptual Options-identified by group
1) Highest Scoring
2) Flood/ Stormwater and Habitat /Watershed
3) Best Sub-regional projects
4) Adjusted regional proposals for geographic balance
5) Highest scoring using DWR criteria
Policy issues
1) Would CC be comfortable giving $20 million to one project?
2) Is funding to all sub-regional projects acceptable as an option?
3)
Questions to project proponents?
Will DWR fund AQPI?
VII Wrap Up
*Reviewed agreements and actions
*Next meeting- April 27- 10-1 EBMUD
Participants
Mark Boucher, Chris Choo (Phone), Mike Connor, Teresa Eade, Laurien Fono (Phone), Carole Foster, Thomasin Grim,
Linda Hu, Judy Kelly, Jennifer Krebs, Carl Morrison, Cheryl Muñoz, Michelle Novotny, Harry Seraydarian, Jake Spaulding
(Phone), David Williams
Bay Area IRWMP
April 27, 2015 Project Screening Committee
I Introductions
Action – Mark will drop those scores for projects where reviewer (agency/ entity) was also project proponent
Carryover Action- Jennifer will check accuracy of sub –region target numbers with Matt
Action- Carl will contact Tracie Billington for clarification on Human Right to Water
(Category really for communities with limited water and limited affordable options)
II Project Scoring
*Mark presented revised scoring with reviews by project proponents deleted- very little change
* Group decided to not formally screen out any projects based on scoring (options below focused on a
subset of projects)
Group Conclusion-Scoring results are fine, no need to add factors
III Conceptual Options
*Group walked through conceptual options identified at last meeting and identified projects for each option
1) Highest Scoring
-Shoreline, AQPI, Stream Habitat, San Francisquito Creek, Sustainable Landscape
Shoreline, AQPI, Stream Habitat, San Francisquito Creek, STRAW
North-Napa River, NBWRA, Lower Lagunitas 2020 turf replacement
East- DERWA Recycled, Alameda/Contra Costa Livestock, Lower Walnut Creek, Pacheco Marsh
South- Anderson Dam, Coyote Creek Trail, City of Milipitas Recycle
West- San Bruno GW, Coastal San Mateo, EPA GW supply
South/West- San Francisquito Creek
4) Adjusted regional proposals for geographic balance
Subregion
North
West
East
South
Regional
Total
Shoreline
AQPI
Habitat
Total
Draft target
$6m (Novato 4, BMK-2)
$ 4.25 m( SFr & Ravenswood)
$9m (Eden 4m, Hayward 5m)
$ 6m ( Mtn. View)
$5m
$ 6m
$ 5m
$ 5m
$21 m
$15.3
$11.15 m
$ 16 m
$ 11 m
$ 1.33 m
$ 54.78 m
$ 8.53 m
$ 9.15 m
$ 7.45 m
$ 14.09 m
$ 25.25 m
$4.3 m
$.9 m
$ 2m
$1.33 m
$ 8.53 m
*Time did not permit developing allocation for geographic targets
$ 39.22 m
*Used scores for Readiness and Benefits and added points for completion date of 2019 (1 point), Drought
Preparedness (3 points) and DAC (3 points)
Coastal San Mateo, EPA GW supply, San Francisquito Creek, San Bruno GW Dev. AQPI, San Francisco
GW-Lake Merced, DERWA Recycled Water, NBWRA, Central Redwood City Recycle Water, Coastal
San Mateo.
6) Sub-region Priority projects(first) + Regional projects
* Suggested at this meeting and not developed
IV Questions for Project Proponents
• Group agreed to send following general questions to 20 projects identified in options above.
Questions
1) Could you accept a lesser amount? If so how much?
Regional: How would you allocate the reduced amount by Sub-region?
2) Would the project go forward by 2019 without this grant funding?
3) Would your project be eligible under Prop 1?
4) Please identify the primary and secondary benefits your project provides and how you will quantify
them if your project is included in the grant application.
Action –Thomasin will send question to identified project proponents by Tuesday and ask for response by Thursday
4/30
Group identified following specific questions for regional proposals
Shoreline- Is Hayward marsh still a viable project?
AQPI- How low can you go?
-Also asked at PSC meeting
How is money allocated and to who? (No clear answer)
What is maximum acceptable to SCVWD to meet target? ($ 5-6 m)
Habitat- Any Projects in South?
Stop Waste and STRAW- What is the on the ground implementation that would be considered capital investment?
Action- Harry will ask questions of regional project proponents at CC meeting
V Policy Options/ Issues for CC
Group identified following questions for CC:
1. What is the maximum to allow for any one project?
2. What percent would you allocate for regional vs. sub-regional?
3. Are any of the options not worth pursuing?
4. How much emphasis should we put on potential DAC projects?
5. Should we emphasize human right to water (ex. Coastal San Mateo)?
VI Wrap Up
*Next meeting- May 4- 10-1 Stop Waste- 1537 Webster Street, Oakland
Participants
Mark Boucher, Mike Connor, Teresa Eade, Laurien Fono, Carole Foster, Thomasin Grim,
Linda Hu, , Jennifer Krebs, Liang Lee(phone), Carol Mahoney, Brian Mendenhall, Carl Morrison, Michelle Novotny, Harry
Seraydarian, Leigh Sharp(phone), Brad Sherwood
Bay Area IRWMP
May 4, 2015 Project Screening Committee
I Introductions
Carryover Action- Jennifer will check accuracy of sub –region target numbers with Matt
 Action –Thomasin will send question to identified project proponents by 4/28 and ask for response by 4/30
 Action- Harry will ask questions of regional project proponents at CC meeting
II Conceptual Options
*Group walked through conceptual options identified at last meeting and reached following conclusions
1) Highest Scoring
-Given target of $39,240,435 for projects this option would be limited to two projects- Shoreline and AQPI
- Weaknesses in option- NO Drought, DAC, or Human Right to Water points
- No consensus on eliminating as Conceptual Option
- Given target of $39,240,435 for projects this option would be limited to 3 starting projects-Shoreline, AQPI,
Stream Habitat, and maybe others to be identified.
- This option was not refined further- group focused on two “feasible” options- see below
- No consensus on eliminating as Conceptual Option
Action-All PSC members should review compilation of responses to questions distributed by Thomasin on April 30 and
identify any projects they think should be further considered in Option 2 before next meeting on May 13.
- This option was not refined further- was partially included in “Feasible” Option below
4) Regional Projects with Sub- regional Balance
- This option was not refined further- group focused on two “Feasible” Options- see below
-This Option was not refined further-was partially included in “Feasible” Option below
6) Sub-region Priority projects(first) + Regional projects
- Group refined below
Issues
How do we acknowledge sub-regional benefits of “regional” projects in developing regional/ sub-regional
balance?
Further review of Coastal San Mateo Project
-The group had a number of questions addressed by RCD representatives
What is breakdown for funding various components in project?
-Drought component total- $ 1.84 m request, $ .4m is for domestic repairs, rest for Ag, match exists
- Sediment/ Flood- 2 projects used for match, not asking for grant funds
- Habitat/Restoration- rest of funds
What is drought status after rains? (Gauge height same as last year- some people trucking water)
How did you score in Drought round? (Scored highest of Bay Area projects- 19.3)
Are you a DAC or not?
Note- Jennifer checked with DWR and they will modify scoring to give DAC points if DAC is 25 % of project area (or
population served): (RCD indicated they would meet either measurement).
*RCD representatives emphasized the linkage of ag and domestic use in the project area
III Refine Options
*Group developed following “Feasible” Options-Both require further refinement to meet geographic targets
Highest Scoring/ DWR Score Hybrid (aka -Carol’s Option {in 5/1 email from Carol} or 6a)
-Add top score from matrix to top DWR score and rank, allocate regional total, add 3 sub-regional projects from ranking
and allocate towards geographic targets
North
East
West
South
(Carol) Total
Minimum
AQPI
?4-5 m
?4-5 m
?4-5 m
? 5-6 m
$ 18.9 M
$ 16.5-20.9 m
Shoreline
$ 3.25 m $ 4 m
$ 3m
$4m
$ 14.75M ( $.5 m
$19.1 m
mgmt.)
San Francisquito
$.625 m
$ .625 m
$ 1.25 m
$1m
SAN Mateo
$ 1.9 m
$ 1.9 m
$1.9 m
Drought
Anderson
$ 2.2 .m
$ 2.2 m
$ 2m
EPA GW**
$2.8 m
$ 2.8 m
$ 2.8 m
Total
$ 40.55 m
TARGET
$ 8.53 m $ 7.45 m $ 9.15 m
$14.09 m $39,240,435
**EPA GW Added to Carol’s original list
Best Sub-regional projects plus Regional (aka Brian’s Option refined or 6b)
*Group set target for Sub-regional projects – 40% (~ 2 top projects /sub-region) and Regional- 60%
Picked top projects for sub-regional using combined scores above and projects included in request for answers.
North
East
West
South
Total
Other
San Francisquito
$ 1m
$ 1m
$ 2m
$ 1m
Anderson
$ 2.2 m
$ 2.2
2.0 m -min
San Mateo
$ 1.9 m
$ 1.9 m
1.9 min
Drought
Lower Walnut
$ 9m
$ 9 m -min
Creek
DERWA
$ 2.5 m
$ 2.5m -Min
2020-MMWD
$ .8 min
Total
Subregional
NBWRA
$ 3.9 min
$15, 696,174
Shoreline
?
?
?
?
Total-Regional
AQPI
?
?
?
?
$ 23, 544.261
Action – Mark will contact Lower Walnut Creek proponents about minimum
Action –Tracy will clarify SCVWD view on AQPI share attributable to South Bay
Action- Harry will contact SCC about attending May 13 PSC meeting
Action-Jennifer will ask Horizon to compare 10 projects identified in two hybrid options to Draft PSP Scoring and rank
them 1 through 10 using DWR scoring criteria and best professional judgement and send to PSC by May 12.
*Group agreed Horizon time should be limited to 25 hours total and they can call proponents and ask questions.
IV Policy Options/ Issues for CC
*Group did not get to the policy questions but did address some indirectly in development of “feasible“ options.
V Wrap Up
*Next meeting- May 13- 12:30-3:00 EBMUD-375 11th St., Oakland
Participants- Mark Boucher, Teresa Eade, , Carole Foster, Thomasin Grim, Tracy Hemmeter (phone), Joe Issel,
Jennifer Krebs,, Carol Mahoney, Brian Mendenhall(phone), Carl Morrison, Cheryl Munoz, Kellyx Nelson, Michelle
Novotny, Harry Seraydarian, Leigh Sharp(phone), Brad Sherwood, Jake Spaulding (phone)
Bay Area IRWMP
I Introductions
Reviewed prior action items ( indicates completed or opportunity provided)
May 4 actions
Carryover Action- Jennifer will check accuracy of sub –region target numbers with Matt
Action-All PSC members should review compilation of responses to questions distributed by Thomasin on April 30
and identify any projects they think should be further considered in Option 2 before next meeting on May 13.
Action – Mark will contact Lower Walnut Creek proponents about minimum
Action –Tracy will clarify SCVWD view on AQPI share attributable to South Bay
Action- Harry will contact SCC about attending May 13 PSC meeting
Action-Jennifer will ask Horizon to compare 10 projects identified in two hybrid options to Draft PSP Scoring and
rank them 1 through 10 using DWR scoring criteria and best professional judgement and send to PSC by May 12.
II Refine (Feasible) Options
Incorporate Input from Horizon
Group reviewed summary chart from Horizon with ranking based on DWR scoring.
-noticed minor discrepancies in ranking and scores
Group discussed “Human Right to Water” and concluded we should make our case with best projects we have
in application.
Revisit proponent responses as necessary
- Horizon misinterpreted summary of projects included for NBWRA
- Group revisited Lower Walnut Creek- proponent could not reduce request dramatically and offered an
alternative project that was submitted under 1-E and was ready to go. Group decided to not consider
since the new project was not evaluated in original submittals.
Incorporate sub-regional balance
Group first focused on Option 6a (aka –Carol’s option or hybrid- Highest scoring and DWR)
Shoreline
-Questions were raised about timing for completion of Ravenswood in West
- Matt emphasized $19.1 million minimum request was to include 6 projects
- Group suggested considering one project in each sub-region
- Tentative revised shoreline proposal- South – Mtn. View, North- BMK or Novato, East- Eden or backup
–(Albany and/or Bay Point), West- Ravenswood (or San Francisquito Creek).
Group agreed on Tentative Target for Shoreline - $15 million Total
Action- Matt will evaluate whether San Franciscquito Creek can replace Ravenswood in Shoreline proposal
AQPI
- Group considered input from Carol and SCVWD
-Group agreed on Tentative Target of $ 19 million total
Suggestion
Should DAC project costs be allocated to regional pot?
-Group did not agree with suggestion that sine DAC projects benefit region in application therefore costs
should be allocated to the regional pot.
• Identify issues
- Can Ravenswood be replaced by San Francisquito Creek in West? (San Francisquito Creek may have permit
issues)
- East Recycling representatives would like an option that includes recycling ( DERWA)
Action- Cheryl Munoz and Linda Hu will discuss project option in East with Mark Boucher and Carol Mahoney
- East Contra Costa is having a meeting next week to discuss possible project submittals
Group generated following table as a feasible option incorporating sub-region targets
North
East
West
South
Total
Target
AQPI
$ 4.25 m $ 4.25 m
$ 5.5 m
$ 5m
$ 19 m
$ 19 m
Shoreline
3.5 m
$ 3m
($ 3.5)
$ 4m
($ 14 m * + SCC -~ .42 $ 15 m
m)
San Francisquito
S. M. RCD
Anderson
EPA GW
2020
TotalTarget
$ .5 m
$ 1.65 m
.78
$ 8.53 m
$ 8.53 m
$ 1.5 m
$ 7.25
$ 7.25 m
$ 9.15
$ 9.15 m
$ .5 m
$4.59
$ 14.09
$ 14.09 m
$ 1m
$ 1.65
$ 4.59 m
$ 1.5 m
$ 39. 02 m
( $ 238 k available)
$ 39,240,435
Note- Shoreline in effect reduced to less than $ 12 m if San Francisquito replaces Ravenswood?
If Ravenswood stays West sub-region is way over target
II Evaluate Options
-Group did not do this explicitly but did deliberate importance of objectives such as Functional Area balance,
versus including drought projects in submittal.
III Policy Options/ Issues for CC
Group quickly reviewed policy issues given recent dialogue
1. What is the maximum to allow for any one project? ( $19 m- AQPI)
2. What percent would you allocate for regional vs. sub-regional? ( Option developed allocates3. Are any of the options not worth pursuing? ( none eliminated but only one developed)
4. How much emphasis should we put on potential DAC projects? ( including 2-3 in developed option)
5. Should we emphasize human right to water (ex. Coastal San Mateo)? ( We should make best case with
identified projects)
V Wrap Up
*Next meeting- May 19- 10:30-1:30 SFPUC San Francisco, 525 Golden Gate
Participants-, Rhodara Biogtan, Chris Choo( phone),Paul Detjens, Teresa Eade, , Carole Foster(phone), Matt Gearhart,
Thomasin Grim, Tracy Hemmeter (phone), Linda Hu, Joe Issel, Jennifer Krebs, Andria Loutsch(phone), Carol
Mahoney(phone), Brian Mendenhall, Carl Morrison, Cheryl Munoz, Michelle Novotny, Sara Rosendahl, (phone), Harry
Seraydarian,, Brad Sherwood, Jake Spaulding (phone), Leah Walker, Ben Wallace.
Bay Area IRWMP
I Introductions
- Added “allocation of costs for application” to agenda
Reviewed prior action items ( indicates completed or opportunity provided)
May 13 actions
Action- Matt will evaluate whether San Franciscquito Creek can replace Ravenswood in Shoreline proposal
Action- Cheryl Munoz and Linda Hu will discuss project options in East with Mark Boucher and Carol Mahoney
II Refine (Feasible) Options
Questions- Shoreline
Can San Francisquito replace Ravenswood? _ Yes- San Francisquito Creek is closer to being complete though Ravenswood
is a larger project.
Does San Francisquito have permit issues? - RWQCB took 2 years to issue permit-now complete.
Can SCVWD shift funds to Shoreline (Mountain View)?S Yes-SCVWD agreed to shift $.5 m from Anderson to Mountain
View
Question-Administration costs
Can SFEP reduce cost of project administration given number of projects?
Action – Jennifer will check to see if 5% administration costs can be reduced given small number of projects
Questions-DERWA Project
Should DERWA be included in East projects?
Argument for: Unprecedented drought-should include recycle project
Arguments against: BACC decided to try and balance Functional Area funding in last round; Recycling has received fair
share in prior rounds; DERWA received $ 4m in Drought Round; top 2 regional projects ( AQPI and Shoreline) are in
Flood/Stormwater and Habitat/watersheds Functional Areas and both ranked higher than DERWA in original scoring;
AQPI is a drought response tool.
Question-Eligibility
Can State bond money go to federal agency (or entity outside state?)?- OK if subcontractor; SCC has done it.
Action- Jennifer will double check on eligibility for federal agencies or entities outside state
Question-Application Costs
Can we ask for reimbursement for application consultant costs?
Action- Jennifer will follow up on asking for reimbursement of consultant costs
Fine tuning allocations
*The group added back in the full corrected targets for each sub-region.
*The group evaluated a number of options to shift funds to Shoreline to get closer to the original target of $15 million.
-This included considering changes to sub-regional allocations for AQPI which was dropped.
-The group eventually agreed to shift the allocation for San Franciscquito between the South and West from 50/50 to
25/75 given the more immediate flood benefits to East Palo Alto. This allowed additional funding for Mountain View in
the South and a small reduction for San Mateo RCD.
*Minor excess funds in each sub-region were allocated to 2020 in North, Shoreline in East, EPA GW in West and
Shoreline in South.
Recommended Proposal to CC
North
East
AQPI
$ 4.25 m
$ 4.25 m
Shoreline
3.5 m
$3,206,037
San Francisquito
S. M. RCD
Anderson
EPA GW
2020
$781,563
Total$8,531,563
$7,456,037
Note-San Francisquito will be included in Shoreline
West
$ 5.5 m
See note
$ .75 m
$ 1.4 m
$ 1,506,050
$9,156,050
South
$ 5m
$ 4,756,785
$ .25 m
$4.09 m
$14,096,785
Total
$ 19 m
$ 11,462,822
$1m
$ 1.4 m
$ 4.09 m
$ 1,506,050
$781,563
$39,240,435
III Evaluate Options
*Group compared recommended projects to objectives.
-Proposal achieves sub regional targets and includes projects that will score well with DWR system including 4-5
“drought” projects, 2 or 3 possible DAC projects, and possibly 2 “human right to water” projects.
- Proposal gets closer to Functional Area parity and includes top scoring projects from original Bay Area ranking.
- Proposal includes 6-9(if Shoreline split out) projects and is certainly manageable for application and grant.
IV Prepare for CC Discussion
CC presentation
*Group suggested incorporating major milestones in the 5 PSC meetings since projects were submitted on April
20.
- Ranked Projects using Bay Area scoring matrix, Agreed on Objectives, Identified Conceptual Options
- Developed scoring matrix for DWR ranking, Populated options with top projects (20), Identified general
questions for project proponents and specific questions for regional proposals, Identified policy issues
- Reviewed options and developed two hybrids and identified best projects for each hybrid which reduced
projects to 10, asked Horizon to rank the 10 projects based on DWR scoring system.
- Refined feasible options and incorporated sub-regional targets, set targets for large regional projects,
reduced to one feasible option with questions on certain projects and identified issues.
- Further refined allocations to projects to address issues. Reached agreement on 6 proposals and funding
levels- AQPI, Shoreline (may be 4 projects), Anderson, San Mateo RCD, EPA GW, and 2020.
*Include overall rationale for projects selected and a summary of who is unhappy.
Action-Harry will develop handout for CC meeting on PSC deliberations and recommendation
Backup Plan- Group discussed possible contingencies in case projects drop during application process or
during DWR review.
Conclusion- Emergency meeting of PSC if needed. First consider more funding to remaining projects recognizing
constraints with sub-regional targets and match.
V Communications to Project Proponents
Action-Harry and Carl will draft communication to project proponents based on presentation to CC
VI Wrap Up
Rules for allocation of costs for application
• Bigger projects such as AQPI and Shoreline should pay more
• Smaller projects pay less
• Minimum should be $5 k
*Reviewed agreements and actions, *Next meeting- TBD
Participants-, Rhodara Biogtan, Mark Boucher, Chris Choo( phone), Carole Foster, Matt Gearhart, Thomasin Grim, Joe
Issel, Jennifer Krebs, Andria Loutsch(phone), Carol Mahoney, Len Materman (phone), Brian Mendenhall, Carl Morrison,
Cheryl Munoz, Molly Petrick, Sara Rosendahl, (phone), Harry Seraydarian,, Brad Sherwood, Jake Spaulding (phone) .

May 26, 2015 CC Meeting Handouts

Transcription

Similar documents

Dr. Jeanne Tunks, Director of the Core Barbara Stone, Graduate

Hollywood Nights

April 27, 2015 CC Meeting Handouts

Saturday, June 27th11:00am to 9:00pm

Shred Event_Poster_NoBleed - Horizon Community Credit Union

Document 6563289

The Parks and Recreation Foundation of San

Level B Assessment Training on the Woodcock-Johnson Achievement Test &

Going Further 4 PERSONALITY TYPE