Pajaro River Watershed Flood Prevention Authority...

Pajaro River Watershed Flood Prevention Authority Meeting

c/o RAPS, Inc. P.O. Box 809

Marina, CA 93933 (831) 883-3750

Watsonville Civic Center Plaza Building 275 Main Street, 4th Floor 6th Floor Parking

May 6, 2011 9:00 a.m. Watsonville, California RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. CALL TO ORDER

2. ROLL CALL

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

4. WELCOME CONGRESSMAN SAM FARR & LTC TORREY A. DICIRO

5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE BOARD ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA

6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA

7. SIX MONTH UPDATE ON LOWER PAJARO RIVER PROJECT

A. Local Sponsor Presentation B. Congressman Farr Remarks C. Presentation /Response from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers D. Board Comments/Questions E. Public Comments F. Board Direction

8. CONSENT AGENDA RECOMMEND APPROVAL

A. Minutes of the November 12, 2010, January 7, 2011 and March 4, 2011 Meetings

Approve the minutes of the November 12, 2010, January 7, 2011 and March 4, 2011 meetings. Recommend approval. (Page 5)

of 84

B. Approval of Payment to Gutierrez Consultants for February and March 2011

Approve the February and March 2011 invoices for Lidia Gutierrez’s work on the Soap Lake Preservation Project. Recommend approval. (Page 19)

C. Approval of Payment to RAPS, Inc. for February and March 2011

Approve the February and March 2011 invoices for RAPS, Inc. Recommend approval. (5)

D. Authorization of Travel to Washington DC

By motion, authorize the Chair to approve Board/staff travel to Washington DC in conjunction with joint Pajaro River flood protection advocacy. Recommend approval. (Page 31)

E. Financial Statements

Accept the financial statements are enclosed. Recommend approval. (Page 33)

9. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR FOR DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION

10. PLANNING

A. Funding for Additional Pajaro River Watershed Study APPROVE

Request for authorization to commit up to $90,000 of General Reserve funds to provide local match for San Benito River Watershed Study. (Page 41)

B. Lower Pajaro River and Bench Excavation Project ACCEPT

Receive update from Bruce Laclergue on Lower Pajaro River Flood Control Project and Bench Excavation Project. (Page 55)

11. ADMINISTRATION

A. FY 2011-12 Agency Budget APPROVE

1. Staff memorandum. (Page 59) 2. Approve contract amendment with Gutierrez Consultants for

technical assistance. (Page 61)

Page 2 of 84

3. Approve contract amendment with Downey Brand for continued legal services. (Page 75)

4. Approve contract amendment with RAPS, Inc for agency management and oversight. (Page 79)

5. Approve the draft FY 2011-12 agency budget. (Page 83)

12. ADJOURN TO THE SEPTEMBER 9, 2011 BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING

Location: San Benito County Board of Supervisors Chambers, 9 am

Note: Action listed for each Agenda item represents the staff recommendation. The Board of Directors may, at its discretion, take any action on the items listed in the Agenda.

If requested, the agenda shall be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 USC Sec. 12132), and the federal rules and regulations adopted in implementation thereof.

If you have a request for disability-related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, contact AMBAG, at 831-883-3750, or email [email protected], at least 48 hours prior to the meeting date.

Mission: The purpose of the Authority is to identify, evaluate, fund and implement environmentally sound flood prevention and control strategies in the Pajaro River Watershed, on an intergovernmental, cooperative basis as required by the Pajaro River Watershed Flood Prevention Authority Act.

of 84

THIS PAGE IS

INTENTIONALLY BLANK

of 84

MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE

Pajaro River Watershed Flood Prevention Authority PRWFPA November 12, 2010 1. CALL TO ORDER The Board of Directors of the Pajaro River Watershed Flood Prevention Authority, Chair Gage presiding, convened at 9:25 a.m. on Friday, November 12, 2010 at the Watsonville Civic Plaza Building, Watsonville, CA. 2. ROLL CALL Members – Board of Directors

Representative

Present

Absent

County of San Benito Supervisor Margie Barrios X County of Santa Cruz Supervisor Tony Campos X County of Monterey Supervisor Louis Calcagno X County of Santa Clara Supervisor Donald Gage X Monterey County Water Resources Agency Director Silvio Bernardi X San Benito County Water District Director Frank Bettencourt X Santa Clara County Water District Director Rosemary Kamei X Zone 7 Flood Control District Director Manuel Bersamin X City of Gilroy (Associate Member) Saeid Vaziry, Sr. Environ. Engineer X City of Hollister (Associate Member) Councilmember Doug Emerson X City of Morgan Hill (Associate Member) Councilmember Mark Grzan X

Others Present: Carol Presley, SCVWD; Bruce Laclergue, John Ricker and John Presleigh, County of Monterey; Gary A. Patton; Bob Culbertson; Lisa Dobbins, Action Pajaro Valley; Jim Van Houten; Carlos Palacios and Nancy Bilicich, City of Watsonville; John Martinelli; Diane P. Cooley; Manuel Quezada, County of Monterey; Ellen Pirie, County of Santa Cruz; Steve Palmisano, City of Watsonville; Roland Velasco, County of Santa Clara; Lidia Gutierrez, Gutierrez Consultants; John Doughty & Ana Flores, Regional Analysis and Planning Services, Inc. (RAPS, Inc.). 3. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE BOARD ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA There were no communications from the public. 4. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA Director Gage announced that he has termed out from the County of Santa Clara however he will be returning to the FPA Board as the representative from the Santa Clara Valley Water District. 5. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF OUTGOING BOARD OF DIRECTORS Director Gage acknowledged Director Kamei as she was not re-elected to the Santa Clara Valley Water District.

of 84

6. CONSENT AGENDA

A. Minutes of the September 10th and September 27, 2010 Meeting

Minutes of the September 10th and September 27, 2010 meetings were approved. B. Approval of Payments for Gutierrez Consultants for August and September 2010 Invoices for services rendered by Gutierrez Consultants in August and September were approved. C. Approval of Payment to RAPS, Inc. August and September 2010 Invoice for services rendered by RAPS, Inc. in August and September 2010 were approved. D. Staff Working Group Meeting Notes The Staff Working Group meeting notes for the meeting of October 20, 2010 were enclosed for the Board’s information. Motion made by Director Campos, seconded by Bernardi to approve the consent agenda. Motion passed unanimously. 7. PROGRAM UPDATE AND LEGISLATIVE OUTREACH A. Presentation by FPA and Project Sponsors on the Pajaro River

Levee Reconstruction Project Director Campos gave a presentation on the history of the Pajaro River Watershed Flood Prevention Authority and showed a video of the 1995 flood and the devastation of the Communities affected. Director Calcagno gave a presentation on Soap Lake and its importance to the Pajaro River Levee Reconstruction Project. Director Calcagno also emphasized the importance of the bench excavation project and requested that the Corps provide the Board a work schedule for completion. Bruce Laclergue, County of Santa Cruz stated that the Corps should implement the locally supported solution to the levee project and that Watsonville and Pajaro receive 100 year flood protection due to the continued risk to those communities. Mr. Laclergue also urged the Corps to help get the levee project on the President’s budget. Lengthy discussion followed. B. Congressman Sam Farr Remarks Congressman Sam Farr gave an overview of the funding history for the Pajaro River Flood Control Project. Congressman Farr stated that the U.S. Army Corps has not requested appropriations for the Pajaro River Flood Control Project and this is the only Corps project

of 84

that has had a loss of life. Approximately $10.6 Million has been appropriated to this project and not a lot has been accomplished. Lengthy discussion followed. Congressman Sam Farr requested that the U.S. Army Corps provide a schedule for completion of the project. Lengthy discussion followed. C. Remarks from LTC Torrey A. DiCiro, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers LTC Torrey A. DiCiro stated that the milestones and work plan will be provided to the FPA Board as soon as possible. LTC DiCiro also stated that he will make more of an effort to keep up with staff on this project to advance local funds and map out a strategy for completion. D. Public Comments 1. John Martinelli stated that flood protection is extremely important to business owners

and the community and they should be priority to the Corps. 2. Bob Culbertson, Wetlands Watch expressed his concerns about water supply and

flood control. Mr. Culbertson also suggested that Soap Lake be allowed to drain slowly, that would help with discharge.

3. Lisa Dobbins, Action Pajaro Valley, stated that it’s important to keep the project

moving and to keep the Community in mind. Ms. Dobbins also recognized staff for all their efforts.

4. Nancy Bilicich, City of Watsonville stated that Watsonville has one of the largest

senior citizen communities and have constant anxiety over flood protection issues. Many citizens of Watsonville live on fixed incomes and pay approximately $500 in insurance and $1,300 in flood protection. Ms. Bilicich stated that she would love to be able to go to constituents and tell them that the project is moving forward.

E. FPA Board Remarks and Questions Director Bersamin stated that Watsonville is the poorest district in Santa Cruz County and citizens are living on approximately $15,000 - $20,000 a year. Director Bersamin asked where the help is for this community at the federal level. Director Gage stated that all elected officials should take responsibility for this project. Priority should also be taken to protect the Soap Lake Floodplain. Director Kamei stated that not moving forward with this project is irresponsible and the Community deserves to have peace of mind. The Board agreed that LTC Torrey A. DiCiro would return in six months (May 6, 2011) to provide an update on the status of the lower Pajaro project.

of 84

8. ADMINISTRATION A. Potential Intergovernmental Loan The Executive Coordinator reported that the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments is in need of a short term intergovernmental loan from the PRWFPA. AMBAG would like the PRWFPA to authorize negotiation of a short term intergovernmental loan (line of credit) with AMBAG in an amount not to exceed $150,000. The term not to exceed 90-days with AMBAG paying market rate interest on any and all amounts borrowed. AMBAG Legal Counsel would prepare the document with Downey Brand (PRWFPA Counsel) review and approve. This agreement would be much like agreements used by many of your agencies to address short term loans between restricted funds and the General Fund. Brief discussion followed. Motion made by Director Barrios, seconded by Director Bersamin to authorize the Chair to work with the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments on a short term intergovernmental loan not to exceed $150,000. Motion passed unanimously. B. Financial Statements The Executive Coordinator reviewed the financial statements. Brief discussion followed. Motion made by Director Calcagno, seconded by Director Bernardi to accept the financial statements. Motion passed unanimously. 9. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 11:15 a.m.

of 84


Pajaro River Watershed Flood Prevention Authority PRWFPA January 7, 2011 1. CALL TO ORDER The Board of Directors of the Pajaro River Watershed Flood Prevention Authority, Chair Gage presiding, convened at 9:00 a.m. on Friday, January 7, 2011 at the San Benito County Supervisor’s Chambers, Hollister, CA. 2. ROLL CALL Members – Board of Directors

Representative

Present

Absent

County of San Benito Supervisor Margie Barrios X County of Santa Cruz Supervisor Ellen Pirie X County of Monterey Supervisor Louis Calcagno X County of Santa Clara Supervisor Mike Wasserman X Monterey County Water Resources Agency Director Silvio Bernardi X San Benito County Water District Director Frank Bettencourt X Santa Clara County Water District Director Don Gage X Zone 7 Flood Control District Director Manuel Bersamin X City of Gilroy (Associate Member) Saeid Vaziry, Sr. Environ. Engineer X City of Hollister (Associate Member) Councilmember Doug Emerson X City of Morgan Hill (Associate Member) Councilmember Mark Grzan X

Others Present: Carol Presley and Scott Wilson, SCVWD; Bruce Laclergue, Clara Spaulding, County of Santa Clara; Adam Guise, Moss, Levy and Hartzheim; Wendy Chambers, Kevin Chambers and Jim Weaver, Frazier Lake Equestrian; Bill Phillips, MCWRA; Lidia Gutierrez, Gutierrez Consultants; John Doughty & Ana Flores, Regional Analysis and Planning Services, Inc. (RAPS, Inc.). 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Director Barrios led the Pledge of Allegiance. 4. WELCOME OF NEW BOARD MEMBERS Director Gage welcomed Supervisor Mike Wasserman from the County of Santa Clara and Supervisor Ellen Pirie from the County of Santa Cruz. 5. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF OUTGOING BOARD MEMBER CAMPOS Supervisor Tony Campos was not able to attend and his plaque will be sent to the County of Santa Cruz.

of 84

6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE BOARD ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA There were no communications from the Board. 7. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA There were no communications from the public. 8. ELECTION OF NEW CHAIR & VICE CHAIR Director Gage nominated Director Barrios as Chair of the Authority. Director Pirie nominated Director Calcagno as Vice Chair of the Authority. Motion made by Director Bersamin, seconded by Director Calcagno to close nominations. Motion made by Director Bersamin, seconded by Director Pirie to elect Director Barrios as Chair and Director Calcagno as Vice Chair of the Authority. Motion passed unanimously. Director Barrios took over the meeting. 9. FY 2009-10 AGENCY AUDIT Arleicka Conley, Director of Finance and Administrative Services presented and gave highlights of the Management Discussion & Analysis. Ms. Conley reported that there was an increase in the general fund with a net profit of approximately $54,000. Currently, there is $296,994.55 in the checking account and $126,542.64 in the LAIF account. Ms. Conley stated that AMBAG did not need to contact Downey Brand in regards to the intergovernmental loan requested by AMBAG. Adam Guise, Auditor, Moss, Levy & Hartzheim gave a report on the FY 2009-10 agency audit. Mr. Guise thanks RAPS, Inc. staff for assisting with the audit. Mr. Guise reported that net assets increased even though Prop 50 funds were frozen by the State. There was a note on cash & investments due to more than 2/3 of the Authority’s cash is in a non-interest barring account. Mr. Guise recommended that the Authority refer to their investment policy in order to transfer funds. Moss, Levy & Hartzheim had no recommendations and no findings. Motion made by Director Gage, seconded by Director Pirie to accept the FY 2009-10 agency audit. Motion passed unanimously. 10. PRESENTATIONS A. Frazier Lake Equestrian Center Project Jim Weaver, Frazier Lake Equestrian Center gave a general overview of the project. Mr. Weaver reported that the main facility will be the Equestrian Event Center where there will be two riding arenas and several more around the property. The outdoor arenas will be landscaped to help stop the wind. There will be four entrances to the property, a detention pond and it will have its own self contained septic system and water. The County of San

of 84

Benito has issued a mitigated negative declaration and staff is currently addressing the Counties concerns. Brief discussion followed. Director Barrios asked how the center will dispose of the manure. Mr. Weaver stated that the manure will be picked up three times a day and whenever necessary and moved off the property and taken to the composting business across the street. The manure management plan has been accepted by the County. Director Gage expressed his concerns regarding the center’s impact to the Soap Lake Floodplain. Mr. Weaver stated that the majority of water generated will flow into the detention ponds and will be reused on site. The Center will follow best management practices, regulate preventative measures and the health department will monitor water quality. 11. EXECUTIVE COORDINATOR’S REPORT AND OVERVIEW OF CONSENT

AGENDA ITEMS The Executive Coordinator reported that AMBAG did not need to use the intergovernmental loan that was approved at the November meeting and he thanked the Authority for their generosity. The Staff Working Group will be discussing the PRWFPA Action Plan in regards to the IRWMP at their March meeting and it will be brought to the Board at a future meeting. The Executive Coordinator also reported that staff will be scheduling the six month follow-up meeting with Congressman Sam Farr and LTC Torrey DiCiro for the May 6th meeting. Brief discussion followed. Director Bersamin suggested that the May 6th meeting be moved from Gilroy to Watsonville. By consensus, the Board approved that the meeting location for the May 6th Board of Directors meeting be moved to Watsonville. 12. CONSENT AGENDA

A. 2011 Schedule of Meetings

The 2011 schedule of meetings were approved. B. Approval of Payments for Gutierrez Consultants for October and November 2010 Invoices for services rendered by Gutierrez Consultants in October and November 2010 were approved. C. Approval of Payment to RAPS, Inc. October and November 2010 Invoice for services rendered by RAPS, Inc. in October and November 2010 were approved.

of 84

D. Staff Working Group Meeting Notes The Staff Working Group meeting notes for the meeting of December 15, 2010 were enclosed for the Board’s information. E. Financial Statements The financial statements were accepted. Motion made by Director Gage, seconded by Pirie to approve the consent agenda. Motion passed with Director Wasserman abstaining. 13. PLANNING A. Soap Lake Preservation Project Lidia Gutierrez, Gutierrez Consultants reported that staff was contacted by a landowner and the location of the easement was reviewed. The easement was not located within the Soap Lake Floodplain and therefore not eligible for this grant. Director Gage asked about the outreach to landowners. Ms. Gutierrez stated that staff will identify parcels and landowners using existing Soap Lake Floodplain maps to focus outreach efforts and create a landowner database. Director Calcagno suggested that more resources be focused on downstream, cleaning the river and bench cleaning. Director Barrios requested that staff give the Board an update on the different grants with descriptions of the Soap Lake Floodplain project in parallel with the bench excavation project. Motion made by Director Gage, seconded by Director Pirie to accept the Soap Lake Preservation Project update. Motion passed unanimously. B. Lower Pajaro River Project Bruce Laclergue, County of Santa Cruz reported that the locally request plans will be included in the final study. Staff will meet with Commander Levi from the Corps South Pacific Division on Monday, January 10, 2011. Mr. Laclergue reported that $5 Million from Prop 1E has been awarded to complete the GIR. A meeting with Congressman Sam Farr has also been scheduled. Bruce Laclergue reported that 320,000 cubic yards of material will be removed which comes out to 32,000 truck loads. Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants are currently working on a transportation analysis report and will be ready in approximately three weeks. A mitigated negative declaration will also need to be submitted. The project is on track to be finished by

of 84

July 2012. Mr. Laclergue stated that letters have been sent out to our local representatives to try to get this project on the President’s budget. Motion made by Director Pirie, seconded by Director Gage to accept the report on the Lower Pajaro River Project. Motion passed unanimously. 14. ADMINISTRATION A. Draft Action Plan Lidia Gutierrez, Gutierrez Consultants gave an overview of the draft action plan. Brief discussion followed and revisions were made to the draft action plan. Ms. Gutierrez stated that the local sponsors are planning a trip to Washington D.C. in March. Staff will contact the Board with the proposed dates and coordinate with the local sponsors. Motion made by Director Gage, seconded by Director Pirie to incorporate changes to the draft action plan and to coordinate the trip to Washington D.C. with the local sponsors. Motion passed unanimously. B. Follow-up to Special November 12, 2010 Meeting The Executive Coordinator reported that Congressman Sam Farr and LTC Torrey A. DiCiro will be invited for a follow-up meeting on May 6th and staff will change the location of the meeting to Watsonville. John Laird will also be invited. Motion made by Director Gage, seconded by Director Pirie to schedule the follow up meeting with Congressman Sam Farr and LTC Torrey A. DiCiro to May 6th in Watsonville. Motion passed unanimously. 15. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 10:35 a.m.

of 84


Pajaro River Watershed Flood Prevention Authority PRWFPA March 4, 2011 1. CALL TO ORDER The Board of Directors of the Pajaro River Watershed Flood Prevention Authority, Chair Barrios presiding, convened at 9:07 a.m. on Friday, March 4, 2011 at the Gilroy City Hall, Gilroy, CA. 2. ROLL CALL Members – Board of Directors

Representative

Present

Absent

County of San Benito Supervisor Margie Barrios X County of Santa Cruz Supervisor Ellen Pirie X County of Monterey Supervisor Louis Calcagno X County of Santa Clara Supervisor Mike Wasserman X Monterey County Water Resources Agency Director Silvio Bernardi X San Benito County Water District Director Frank Bettencourt X Santa Clara County Water District Director Don Gage X Zone 7 Flood Control District Director Manuel Bersamin X City of Gilroy (Associate Member) Saeid Vaziry, Sr. Environ. Engineer X City of Hollister (Associate Member) Councilmember Doug Emerson X City of Morgan Hill (Associate Member) Councilmember Mark Grzan X

Others Present: Bob Culbertson; Trish Mulvey, Hichael Halprin and Libby Lucas; Jim Slater, County of Monterey; Mike Sapunor, County of Santa Cruz; Carol Presley, SCVWD; Lidia Gutierrez, Gutierrez Consultants; John Doughty & Ana Flores, Regional Analysis and Planning Services, Inc. (RAPS, Inc.). 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Director Gage led the Pledge of Allegiance. 4. SOAPLAKE FLOODPLAIN TOUR Director Barrios stated that Item 4. Soap Lake Floodplain Tour has been moved to the end of the meeting. 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE BOARD ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA Director Gage stated that Director Wasserman was not able to attend the meeting due to another commitment in San Jose. 6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None.

of 84

7. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Payments for Gutierrez Consultants for December 2010 and January

2011 Invoices for services rendered by Gutierrez Consultants in August and December 2010 and January 2011 were approved. B. Approval of Payment to RAPS, Inc. for December 2010 and January 2011 Invoice for services rendered by RAPS, Inc. in December 2010 and January 2011 were approved. Item 7.C Future Audit Engagement was pulled. Motion made by Director Gage, seconded by Calcagno to approve the consent agenda. Motion passed unanimously. C. Future Audit Engagement Director Barrios concurred with the staff recommendation that Moss, Levy and Hartzheim be contracted for audit services for FY 2010-11, FY 2011-12 and FY 2012-13 and negotiate and ask that the same contract amount carries forward. This item will be brought back to the May meeting. Motion made by Director Barrios, seconded by Director Gage to authorize staff to negotiate a contract with Moss, Levy and Hartzheim, LLC for an annual audit services for FY 2010-11, FY 2011-12 and FY 2012-13. Motion passed unanimously. 8. ADMINISTRATION A. Financial Statements The Executive Coordinator reviewed the enclosed financial statements. Brief discussion followed. The Executive Coordinator stated that the contracts with Downey Brand for legal services, Gutierrez Consultants for the Soap Lake Preservation Project and RAPS, Inc for administrative services will be placed on the May Board agenda for approval. Motion made by Director Gage, seconded by Director Bettencourt to accept the financial statements. Motion passed unanimously. B. DRAFT FY 2011-12 Agency Budget The Executive Coordinator reviewed the enclosed draft FY 2011-12 agency budget. Brief discussion followed.

of 84

Motion made by Director Barrios, seconded by Director Gage to accept the Draft FY 2011-12 Agency Budget. Motion passed unanimously. 9. PLANNING A. Discussion of Funding for Pajaro River Watershed Studies & Improvements 1. Presentation and overview of funding sources for the Pajaro River

Watershed Flood Prevention Projects Lidia Gutierrez, Gutierrez Consultants gave a presentation of funding sources for the Pajaro River Watershed Flood Prevention projects. Mike Sapunor, County of Santa Cruz reported on the bench excavation project. Mr. Sapunor stated that they will be moving dirt by the summer of 2012. Lengthy discussion followed. Director Bernardi requested that staff give the Board a breakdown of the construction costs. Mr. Sapunor stated that $1.6 Million is going towards administrative costs and the rest is going toward construction costs. Director Bettencourt asked where the excess soil will be going. Mr. Sapunor stated that the Elkhorn Slough is one option but several sites are being researched. Several soil inspections have been preformed and all have passed with no issues. 2. Request for authorization to utilize up to $68,000 of general reserves for local

match to San Benito River Watershed Study This item will be continued to the May FPA Board of Directors meeting as there are unanswered questions with San Benito County regarding administrative costs. This will also allow for execution of the contracts with the State of California. B. Soap Lake Preservation Project Lidia Gutierrez, Gutierrez Consultants reported that staff has been working on outreach to landowners in the Soap Lake Floodplain and have been contacted by a landowner with interest in selling an easement. Staff has not had time to review the request. Motion made by Director Calcagno, seconded by Director Bettencourt to accept the report on the Soap Lake Preservation Project. Motion passed unanimously. Director Barrios thanked the Monterey County Water Resources Agency for providing the van for the tour. 10. ADJOURNED TO SOAP LAKE FLOODPLAIN TOUR The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 a.m. to the tour.

of 84

11. ADJOURNED The meeting adjourned at 11:15 a.m. upon return to Gilroy City Hall from tour.

of 84

THIS PAGE IS

INTENTIONALLY BLANK

of 84

MEMORANDUM

TO: PRWFPA Board of Directors FROM: John T. Doughty, Executive Coordinator SUBJECT: Travel Authorization MEETING DATE: May 6, 2011 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Board authorize the Board Chair to approve Board/staff travel to Washington DC for Pajaro River Flood Protection advocacy. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Lower Pajaro River Flood Protection project sponsors have indicated a desire to have the PRWFPA participate in advocacy in Washington DC. The Board has indicated a willingness to do so. At present, there are no firm dates for an advocacy trip; however, there is typically a trip scheduled in the fall. As the next meeting of the PRWFPA is not until September, the Staff Working Group recommended that we seek Board authorization to work on travel plans once dates have been established. Waiting for authorization in September would likely be too late to secure airline tickets, lodging, etc. The FY 2011-12 budget includes a line item for travel. It is recommended that the Board provide the Chair the authority to approve the travel with a report back to the Board of Directors at the next available meeting.

The

P.O. Box 809, Marina, CA 93933 Phone: 831.883.3750 FAX: 831.883.3755 www.pajaroriverwatershed.org Member Agencies: County of Monterey County of San Benito County of Santa Clara County of Santa Cruz Monterey County Water Resources Agency San Benito County Water District Santa Clara Valley Water District Santa Cruz County Zone 7 Flood Control District

of 84

THIS PAGE IS

INTENTIONALLY BLANK

of 84

`

MEMORANDUM

TO: Board of Directors FROM: John T. Doughty, Executive Coordinator RECOMMENDED BY: Arleicka Conley, Director of Finance &

Administrative Services SUBJECT: Financial Statements for February and

March 2011 MEETING DATE: May 6, 2011 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board of Directors receive and accept the monthly financial statements for February and March, 2011. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Regional Analysis & Planning Services, Inc. (RAPS) provides contract staffing services to the Pajaro River Watershed Flood Prevention Authority (PRWFPA). The contract includes administrative and financial services to the Board as well as the Staff Working Group (SWG). The monthly financial reporting, budget preparation and audit assistance fall within RAPS, Inc duties. The Board packet includes the monthly financials for February and March. There were no outstanding accounts receivables to report at the end of February 2011 or at the end of March 2011. Retention from Prop 50 invoicing in the amount of $21,888.72 remains on our books. Lidia Gutierrez from Gutierrez Consulting has informed us that we should be able to submit our next request for reimbursement for Prop 50 expenditures, covering the period from March 2010 to date, sometime prior to the end of


of 84

the current fiscal year. The loss currently showing on the Profit and Loss statement is a result of this revenue not being invoiced and posted in the current fiscal year. Attachments: 1. February 2011 Balance Sheet 2. February 2011 Profit and Loss Statement 3. February 2011 Accounts Payable 4. March 2011 Balance Sheet 5. March 2011 Profit and Loss Statement 6. March 2011 Accounts Payable

of 84

Unaudited Pajaro River Watershed Flood Prevention Auth. Balance Sheet

As of February 28, 2011

Feb 28, 11

ASSETSCurrent Assets

Checking/SavingsCash in Bank Checking 277,673.81LAIF Account 126,687.99

Total Checking/Savings 404,361.80

Total Current Assets 404,361.80

Other AssetsAcctsRec- Retention 21,888.72

Total Other Assets 21,888.72

TOTAL ASSETS 426,250.52

LIABILITIES & EQUITYLiabilities

Current LiabilitiesAccounts Payable

Accounts Payable 28,119.86Total Accounts Payable 28,119.86

Total Current Liabilities 28,119.86

Total Liabilities 28,119.86

EquityFund Balance 12,277.37Retained Earnings 393,839.10Net Income/(Loss) (7,985.81)

Total Equity 398,130.66

TOTAL LIABILITIES & EQUITY 426,250.52

of 84

Unaudited Pajaro River Watershed Flood Prevention Auth. Profit & Loss July-February 2011

July-Feb '11

Ordinary Income/ExpenseIncome

Interest Earned 483.54Prop 50 Revenue 0.00Member Dues 64,000.00

Total Income 64,483.54

Gross Profit 64,483.54

ExpenseAudit Services 4,250.00Soap Lake Consultants 25,998.50RAPS - Admin Serv 39,258.00Insurance Expense 1,109.00Other Expense BOD Support Costs 565.47 USB Drives 865.00 Web Page Maintenance Support 20.00 Premium Web Hosting 199.60 Travel and Meals 54.83 Plaques & Nameplates 148.95Total Other Expense 1,853.85Bank Service Charges 0.00

Total Expense 72,469.35

Net Ordinary Income/(Loss) (7,985.81)

Net Income/(Loss) (7,985.81)

of 84

Unaudited Pajaro River Watershed Flood Prevention Auth. A/P Aging Detail As of February 28, 2011

Date Num Name Due Date Open Balance

12/31/2010 844 Regional Analysis & Planning, Inc. 03/31/2011 7,172.5001/07/2011 010711 AMBAG 02/06/2011 173.9101/07/2011 301 Gutierrez Consultants 01/07/2011 6,515.0001/30/2011 303 Gutierrez Consultants 01/30/2011 1,411.5001/31/2011 845 Regional Analysis & Planning, Inc. 04/01/2011 3,896.5002/14/2011 5740661 Speakeasy 02/14/2011 24.9502/27/2011 310 Gutierrez Consultants 02/27/2011 3,741.5002/28/2011 846 Regional Analysis & Planning, Inc. 05/31/2011 5,184.00

28,119.86

of 84

Unaudited Pajaro River Watershed Flood Prevention Auth. Balance Sheet As of March 31, 2011

March 31, 11

ASSETSCurrent Assets

Checking/SavingsCash in Bank Checking 258,476.27LAIF Account 126,687.99

Total Checking/Savings 385,164.26

Total Current Assets 385,164.26

Other AssetsAcctsRec- Retention 21,888.72

Total Other Assets 21,888.72

TOTAL ASSETS 407,052.98

LIABILITIES & EQUITYLiabilities

Current LiabilitiesAccounts Payable

Accounts Payable 14,041.81Total Accounts Payable 14,041.81

Total Current Liabilities 14,041.81

Total Liabilities 14,041.81

EquityFund Balance 12,277.37Retained Earnings 393,839.10Net Income/(Loss) (13,105.30)

Total Equity 393,011.17

TOTAL LIABILITIES & EQUITY 407,052.98

of 84

Unaudited Pajaro River Watershed Flood Prevention Auth. Profit & Loss July-March 2011

July-March '11

Ordinary Income/ExpenseIncome

Interest Earned 505.31Prop 50 Revenue 0.00Member Dues 64,000.00

Total Income 64,505.31

Gross Profit 64,505.31

ExpenseAudit Services 4,250.00Soap Lake Consultants 25,998.50RAPS - Admin Serv 44,341.00Insurance Expense 1,109.00Other Expense BOD Support Costs 598.78 USB Drives 865.00 Web Page Maintenance Support 20.00 Premium Web Hosting 224.55 Travel and Meals 54.83 Plaques & Nameplates 148.95Total Other Expense 1,912.11Bank Service Charges 0.00

Total Expense 77,610.61

Net Ordinary Income/(Loss) (13,105.30)

Net Income/(Loss) (13,105.30)

of 84

Unaudited Pajaro River Watershed Flood Prevention Auth. A/P Aging Detail As of March 31, 2011

Date Num Name Due Date Open Balance

03/04/2011 030411 AMBAG 04/03/2011 33.3103/31/2011 848 Regional Analysis & Planning, Inc. 05/30/2011 5,083.0002/28/2011 846 Regional Analysis & Planning, Inc. 05/31/2011 5,184.0002/27/2011 310 Gutierrez Consultants 02/27/2011 3,741.50

14,041.81

of 84

MEMORANDUM

TO: Board of Directors FROM: Lidia Gutierrez, Gutierrez Consultants SUBJECT: Pajaro River Watershed Study MEETING DATE: May 6, 2011 BACKGROUND: The Pajaro River Watershed is recommended for a $1 Million grant to update and enhance the Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP) for the region. The planning effort is proposed to include a $112,100 grant for San Benito River sediment study tasks to be completed by the Pajaro River Watershed Flood Prevention Authority (FPA).

The FPA has completed several flood and sediment studies that provided insights into how sediment is eroded, transported and deposited in the Pajaro River watershed. However, these studies highlighted several data gaps that need to be addressed to develop a better understanding of sediment issues and the cost and benefits of solutions in the watershed. There were five study tasks that were scoped to address the data gaps. The additional studies and projects involve calculating and managing sediment load and peak flows from the upper watershed into the lower Pajaro River and will support the development of the Pajaro River Levee Maintenance Plan.

Of the five identified studies, two are proposed for funding by the IRWMP grant:

1. Calibration of the San Benito River sediment transport model based on observed erosion between 1987 and 2000.

2. Establishing a program to collect sediment concentration and flow data on both the Pajaro River and the San Benito River above their confluence, so that an accurate sediment budget for the two river systems can be developed.


of 84

The total budget for the sediment studies is approximately $201,100 and the grant amount is $112,100, of which $9,000 is allocated to San Benito County Water District for grant administration services. A local match of up to $90,000 is required to complete the studies. The FPA staff considered several alternatives for providing the local match requirement and proceeding with the study, as described below.

DISCUSSION:

The sediment study is designed to complement the Corps’ Levee Reconstruction Project by supporting the development of the Levee Maintenance Plan by partially addressing some of the channel maintenance concerns and further the FPA’s understanding of how various processes operate and interact within the entire watershed. The San Benito River is believed to be the main source of sediment in the Pajaro River. Though a sediment transport model of the San Benito River was previously developed, work showed that the river has widened by an average of 277 feet since 1986, the date of the topographic survey used in the former model. Thus, there is a need to update the model to account for the changed geometry and sediment transport capacity.

The San Benito watershed has relatively high relief, and is largely rural, dominated by agriculture and ranching. The San Benito River drains a 607-square mile watershed upstream of Hollister that lies parallel with, and slightly north, of the San Andreas Rift Zone for a length of approximately 60 miles. The San Benito River sediment model study reach extended approximately 8 miles upstream from the mouth, representing about ten percent of the total river length.

The San Benito River has undergone dramatic changes in channel morphology over the last 50 years, many related to gravel mining activities. Between 1955 and 1974, the channel incised by up to 40 feet downstream of the new State Hwy 156 Bridge, with much of the channel between Hwy 195 and Hollister degrading by more than 25 feet. A 2005 assessment of channel changes in the San Benito showed that between 1987 and 2000, the river widened by an average of 277 feet and incised by an average of 2.4 feet. This change in channel geometry increased channel capacity by 5.2 million cubic yards due to a mixture of gravel extraction and erosion. These changes altered the river’s sediment transport characteristics.

The sediment transport model results demonstrated that sediment delivery and discharge output from the San Benito River is a significant source of

of 84

sediment for the lower Pajaro River, with an average total sediment load of 410,482 tons per day being delivered at the peak of the 100-year flood, and 3,602 tons per day being delivered during bankfull events. Comparing the sediment outflow from the San Benito with the sediment inflow to the Pajaro River suggests that during high flows two thirds of the Lower Pajaro River’s sediment load comes from the San Benito River. At low flows the proportion is greater, but the excess may be stored between the San Benito and Chittenden, mobilizing only during larger events.

The study also suggested that while the river will continue to erode and generate sediment to the Pajaro River, the rate of vertical erosion may be similar to the last 20 years and lower than rates observed between the 1950s and the 1970s. Thus, the sediment delivery rates are expected to be similar to those observed during the last 20 years.

The study provided insights into how sediment is eroded, transported and deposited in the Pajaro River watershed. However, these studies highlighted data gaps that should be addressed to support the development of the Maintenance Plan for the Levee Reconstruction Project and meet the objectives of the FPA. The data gap was identified in the current sediment transport model between the confluence with the Pajaro River and River Mile 0.7 on the San Benito River. This gap, due to the limit of high resolution spatial data, means that it is unknown how much sedimentation or erosion occurs prior to the rivers joining. Higher resolution survey data would allow this data gap to be filled. The additional studies will focus on developing a better understanding of sediment issues and the cost and benefits of solutions in the watershed. The additional studies and projects involve calculating and managing sediment load and peak flows from the upper watershed into the lower Pajaro River.

Due to funding limits, only two of the highest priority studies are proposed for funding from the IRWMP grant:



The total budget for the two sediment studies is approximately $201,100 (inclusive of administration costs) and the grant amount is $112,100. A local

of 84

match is required to complete the studies. Staff is suggesting that should the Board choose to provide local match that the amount be set at an amount not to exceed $90,000. The FPA staff considered the following alternatives for providing the local match requirement and proceeding with the study.

1. Enter into a Cost Sharing Agreement with the Army Corps of Engineers for Federal Funding,

2. Utilize existing FPA reserves, or 3. Do not complete the study.

The following concerns were raised regarding an Army Corps of Engineers Cost Sharing Agreement:

1. Time and effort to secure a Cost Sharing Agreement, 2. Uncertain Federal appropriations and reimbursement process, and 3. Potential Corps distraction from the primary objective of completing

the levee design project.

For these reasons and because the FPA has the funds in reserve, staff believes the preferred funding approach is to utilize FPA funds as the local match. However, the FPA may choose not to proceed with the study. If the FPA chooses not to pursue the study, the funds would be reallocated and the data gaps would not be addressed.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff is recommending that the study is needed to address the data gaps, support the development of the Maintenance Plan for the Levee Reconstruction Project, and meet the goals and objectives of the FPA. The staff further recommends that the local match be provided by the FPA from existing reserves.

Attachment:

Pajaro Watershed Flood Prevention Authority scope of work.

of 84

D R A F T M E M O R A N D U M

Date: December 28th 2009

To: John Doughty

CC: Lidia Gutierrez and Bruce Leclergue

From: Andrew Collison

PWA Project #:

Subject: Pajaro Watershed Flood Prevention Authority scope of work

The following is a draft scope of services, deliverables list, schedule and fee estimate for completing additional watershed studies in the Pajaro River Watershed. The scope, fee, and schedule shall be used by the Pajaro River Watershed Flood Prevention Authority (FPA) to support the federal appropriations process with the Army Corps of Engineers and the pursuit of grant funding opportunities with the State of California to perform the additional watershed studies. The FPA has completed several flood and sediment studies that provided insights into how sediment is eroded, transported and deposited in the Pajaro River watershed; however, these studies highlighted data gaps that are the subject of this scope of work. The additional studies will focus on developing a better understanding of sediment issues and the cost and benefits of solutions in the watershed. The additional studies and projects involve calculating and managing sediment load and peak flows from the upper watershed into the lower Pajaro River. The five recommended studies include:



3. Performing an opportunities and constraints assessment for erosion reduction on the lower San Benito River (between Hollister and the confluence with the Pajaro River). The assessment will focus on arresting potential knickpoints that may migrate upstream, and on stabilizing the banks and bed of the San Benito River.

4. Development of a two-dimensional sediment transport model for the entire Lower Pajaro River Levee Reconstruction Project reach (from the Chittenden gage to the Pacific Ocean).

5. Performing an opportunities and constraints assessment for peak flow reduction on the San Benito River. The assessment will focus on identifying opportunities to detain water before it reaches the Pajaro River, reducing the flood peak for the downstream Lower Pajaro River Levee Reconstruction Project.

These items are described in more detail on the following pages.

of 84

aflores

Typewritten Text

Attachment 1

John Doughty December 28, 2009 Page 2

1. UPDATE, CALIBRATE AND RE-RUN THE SAN BENITO RIVER SEDIMENT TRANSPORT MODEL Phil Williams & Associates (PWA 2005) developed a one-dimensional hydraulic and sediment transport model (HEC-6T) for the San Benito River from a point 0.7 miles upstream of the confluence with the Pajaro River, to Lane Road in Hollister (11.5 miles upstream). The model was used to identify aggrading and eroding reaches and to assess sediment load from the San Benito River to the Pajaro River. The study identified several data gaps that this scope of work will fill:

• The model stopped short of the confluence with the Pajaro River due to a gap in high resolution topographic data between the Pajaro River and the downstream boundary of the San Benito River sediment transport model;

• An estimated sediment input had to be used at the upstream boundary due to the lack of data (a sediment rating curve) on the San Benito River or the Pajaro River upstream of the confluence to calibrate the model (there is sediment data from the USGS gage at Chittenden, downstream of the confluence); and

• Cross section data (from 1987 and 2000) are available that could be used to validate and potentially calibrate the model by comparing predicted and observed erosion and sedimentation trends, but this has not currently been performed.

Primary Objectives and Benefits The model will allow the FPA to calculate sediment delivery from the San Benito River to the Lower Pajaro River more accurately. An accurate estimate of sediment delivery is needed to plan for and manage sediment within the flood prone area around Watsonville and Pajaro, and to prioritize sediment management actions in the upper watershed. Scope of Work

1. Conduct topographic surveying of the confluence of the Pajaro and San Benito Rivers to extend the San Benito River sediment transport model to the confluence. The 2005 one-dimensional hydraulic and sediment transport model stopped 0.7 miles short of the confluence due to topographic data gaps. The consultant will carry out a topographic survey of the channel in this reach of the San Benito River, producing a cross section at least every 250 feet on average (assume 20 cross sections total).

2. Extend the existing sediment transport model to the confluence of the Pajaro River (total extent from the confluence of the Pajaro River to Lane Road, Hollister). The cross sections will be used to extend the existing HEC-6T model. The consultant may choose to convert the existing model from HEC-6T to HEC-RAS using the sediment transport module of HEC-RAS. The model shall be set up to simulate a movable bed system with a mixed particle size distribution (primarily sand and gravel).

3. Validate and calibrate the model using the observed changes in channel cross section between 1987 and 2000.

of 84


4. Re-run the model to calculate the sediment load from the San Benito River to the Pajaro River using continuous flow records from the USGS gage at Hollister from 1970 to the present.

Deliverables

• Topographic survey supplied in electronic form (AutoCAD) • 20 cross sections for export to a hydraulic model (X, Z data in feet) • HEC-RAS or HEC-6T hydraulic and sediment transport model with associated input and output

files • Draft and Final Technical Memo describing the model set up, calibration and validation using

channel cross section data from 1987 to 2000, and simulation of conditions from 1970 to present. The memo should include estimates of annual sediment load from the San Benito River to the Pajaro River, identify trends if present, and identify areas of erosion and deposition in the river.

• Presentation of Draft Technical Memo to the FPA and the USACE at up to two meetings

(additional meetings to be added as an optional extra task if required). Estimated Duration

• Topographic Surveying – Three months from Notice to Proceed (NTP) • Hydraulic model set up and simulation – Six months from NTP

Estimated Fee

• Topographic Survey ~$20,000 • Extend sediment transport model ~ $15,000 • Validate and calibrate based on historic topographic data ~ $15,000 • Re-run model to simulate period of record ~ $15,000 • Meetings and meeting preparation ~ $5,000 • Total ~ $70,000

2. A PROGRAM TO COLLECT SEDIMENT CONCENTRATION AND FLOW DATA ON BOTH THE PAJARO RIVER AND THE SAN BENITO RIVER ABOVE THEIR CONFLUENCE Primary Objectives and Benefits The data collection will allow the FPA to calculate relative sediment delivery rates from the Upper Pajaro River and the San Benito River to the Lower Pajaro River. An accurate estimate and partition of sediment yield is needed to plan for and manage sediment within the flood prone area around Watsonville and Pajaro, and to prioritize sediment management actions in the upper watershed.

of 84


Scope of Work 1. Install a flow gage on each of the Pajaro River and the San Benito River around Highway 101. 2. Develop a flow rating curve for the cross section. 3. Conduct automatic flow rate sampling (15 minute intervals) and necessary gage maintenance for

a period of 3 years. 4. Conduct event-based sediment and flow sampling on the Pajaro River and the San Benito River

upstream of the confluence to: a. Establish a sediment rating curve, b. Calculate sediment loadings, and c. Calculate relative sediment contributions from both rivers.

The sampling should consist of suspended load (Total Suspended Sediment), bed load and discharge at a range of flows on both rivers.

Deliverables

• Two installed flow gages with depth sensor and data logger • Technical Memo and presentation to FPA and USACE describing the flow rating curve and

instrument set up for each site • Flow data to be provided to the FPA quarterly within one month of the end of the quarter • Annual Draft and Final Technical Memo with all flow and sediment transport data • Annual presentation of results and conclusions to FPA and USACE

Estimated Duration

• Flow Gage Installation – Three months from NTP • Technical Memo describing set up and rating curve – end of first rainy season (June, assuming

project starts in fall or winter) Estimated Fee

• Equipment purchase and installation ~ $20,000 • Yearly maintenance and monitoring ~ $45,000 • Event monitoring and rating curve development ~ $35,000 Technical Memo ~ $10,000 • Total ~ $110,000 for 1st year, ~ $200,000 over 3 years

3. OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS ASSESSMENT FOR EROSION REDUCTION ON THE SAN BENITO RIVER The assessment will focus on arresting potential knickpoints that may migrate upstream, and on stabilizing the banks and bed of the San Benito River.

of 84


Primary Objectives and Benefits The San Benito River is believed to be the main source of sediment that is restricting flood conveyance in lower Pajaro River, and thus sediment reduction in the San Benito River watershed has the potential to reduce flood damages downstream. This study will identify the main sediment sources within the watershed downstream of Hollister and identify conceptual alternatives and conceptual level cost estimates to treat and reduce sediment. This will allow cost-benefit comparisons to be made between treating sediment at source and removing sediment from the lower Pajaro River. Scope of Work

1. Using the flow data at Hollister and data collected under the San Benito River sediment transport study (above), determine how much of the sediment transported from the San Benito River to the Pajaro River originates from upstream of Hollister and how much from downstream.

2. Based on the results of step 1, prioritize field and aerial photo assessments of major erosion sources that can be effectively treated to reduce sediment loading to the river. These sources are anticipated to include eroding banks, knick points and landslides adjacent to the channel.

3. Conduct a sediment trapping opportunities assessment. Opportunities may include potential sediment retention basins and floodplain areas.

4. Develop a prioritized list of conceptual treatments for at least the top ten erosion sources or opportunities to trap sediment, including a description of the feature, map showing locations, ownership, estimated volume of sediment eroded or that could be trapped per year, conceptual treatment, conceptual cost estimate.

Deliverables

• Draft and Final Technical Memo describing the sediment reduction opportunities and constraints along the San Benito River

• Presentation to FPA and USACE of results and conclusions Estimated Duration

• Draft Technical Memo - Six months after NTP • Final Technical Memo – Nine months after NTP

Estimated Fee

• Fieldwork and Technical Memo ~ $80,000

of 84


4. A TWO-DIMENSIONAL SEDIMENT TRANSPORT MODEL OF THE PAJARO RIVER FROM CHITTENDEN GAP TO THE OCEAN Primary Objectives and Benefits A two-dimensional sediment transport model will allow the FPA to evaluate the proposed project alternatives for erosion and deposition characteristics, including assessment of meander bends, setbacks, floodplain benches, and the effects of vegetation management. It will also allow assessment of long term issues such as the effects of sea level rise on the Lower Pajaro River Levee Reconstruction project’s performance. Scope of Work

1. Construct a two-dimensional hydraulic and sediment transport model for the Pajaro River from Chittenden gage to the Pacific Ocean (approximately 16 miles).

2. Conduct sediment sampling on the Pajaro River to characterize bed material. 3. Simulate the existing and proposed conditions (up to three alternatives) for the proposed Lower

Pajaro River Levee Reconstruction Project to evaluate sediment deposition and erosion rates and locations.

Deliverables

• Input and output files for two-dimensional sediment transport model • Draft Technical Memo describing the model set up and evaluating existing and proposed

conditions for sediment erosion, transport and deposition, as well as anticipated sediment removal requirements under the proposed Lower Pajaro River Levee Reconstruction project

• Presentation of Draft and Final Technical Memo to FPA and USACE • Participation in five meetings to provide technical input (additional meetings to be funded

separately if required) • Final Technical Memo

Estimated Duration

• Draft Technical Memo – Six months from NTP • Final Technical Memo – Nine months from NTP

Estimated Fee

• Model development and Technical Memo ~ $100,000 • Meeting preparation and participation ~ $15,000 • Total ~ $115,000

of 84


5. OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS ASSESSMENT FOR PEAK FLOW REDUCTION ON THE SAN BENITO RIVER The assessment will be a spatial (GIS) and hydrologic (rainfall-runoff model) assessment identifying opportunities to detain water before it reaches the Pajaro River, reducing the flood peak for the Lower Pajaro River Levee Reconstruction project. Primary Objectives and Benefits The San Benito River represents more than half the watershed area of the Pajaro River at their confluence, and is a major source of peak flows in the lower Pajaro River floodplain. Finding opportunities to detain water in the upper watershed will reduce the frequency and depth of inundation downstream. Scope of Work

1. Identify flood-reduction screening criterion. The consultant shall identify a general flood reduction target (percentage reduction and relevant flood event frequency) for use as an initial screening criterion to evaluate the effectiveness of potential storage locations.

2. Conduct modeling exercise to evaluate potential locations. Using an appropriate watershed hydrology model (e.g. HEC-HMS), the consultant shall investigate the potential effectiveness of detention at various locations in the watershed.

3. Identify a minimum facility volume. Based on the investigation above, the consultant shall identify an approximate minimum facility volume needed to meet the preliminary flood reduction target.

4. Screen out infeasible areas. Using spatial analysis along with the minimum facility volume, the consultant shall screen out areas that are too far upstream to detain the minimum required flood volume, heavily developed, too far from stream channels to permit water transfer to a facility under gravity, or topographically unable to reasonably accommodate the required storage volume.

5. Focus site-specific investigation in remaining zone. The consultant shall look for opportunities for flood detention within the remaining zone. Once potential locations have been identified, consultant shall perform modeling using site-specific parameters (i.e. stage-storage relationships, inflow hydrographs, potential detention structure configuration) to evaluate facility performance and flood reduction potential.

6. Recommend a facility location. Using the hydrology modeling results, the consultant shall recommend a location that best meets the flood-reduction target. The consultant may also recommend methodologies to rank feasible alternatives.

Assumptions It is assumed that the rainfall-runoff HEC-1 model developed by the FPA for the Pajaro River Watershed Study will be available. Deliverables

of 84


• Updated HEC-HMS model for the San Benito River Watershed with all input and output files • GIS input and output files used in the analysis • Draft Technical Memo describing the screening process and conclusions, including a description

of suitable detention sites, flood reduction potential, conceptual approach to detention and conceptual cost estimates

• Final Technical Memo • Presentation of results to FPA and USACE • Participation in five meetings to provide technical input (additional meetings to be funded

separately if required). (Note: this may be combined with Task 4 for cost savings.) Estimated Duration

• Draft Technical Memo – Six months from NTP • Final Technical Memo – Nine months from NTP

Estimated Fee

• Modeling and Technical Memo ~ $75,000 • Meeting participation ~ $15,000 • Total ~ $90,000

SCHEDULE AND PRIORITIZATION OF TASKS All tasks may start simultaneously using existing data, though data from Task 2 will provide information for subsequent sediment transport studies such as follow on work for Task 4. Work may be phased to facilitate funding or workloads. Priorities have been focused on tasks that are most likely to provide ‘actionable’ data for the FPA to reduce flood risk downstream, lower O&M costs and enhance the design of the USACE Lower Pajaro River Levee Reconstruction project. These priorities are as follows: Priority 1. Task 4 Development of a two-dimensional sediment transport model. This task will feed most directly into the flood project design process and provide the FPA with technical input on different design refinements, as well as O&M issues such as where sediment will require removal, effects of sea-level rise on the project in future etc. Priority 2. Task 5. Opportunities and constraints assessment for peak flow reduction. This task will seek to identify locations where flows can be reduced by upstream detention, directly benefiting the downstream communities.

of 84


Priority 3. Task 3. Opportunities and constraints assessment for erosion and sediment reduction. This task will seek to identify opportunities to reduce sediment inputs into the Pajaro River, lowering the need for O&M and maintaining flood conveyance downstream. Priority 4. Task 2. Sediment data collection. This task will inform long term planning for the watershed by providing data on sediment movement through the Pajaro and San Benito Rivers. Priority 5. Task 1. Extend and calibrate San Benito River sediment model. This task will quickly plug a gap in the sediment transport data and provide a long term estimate of sediment inputs from the San Benito River to the Pajaro River.

of 84

M

onth

from

Not

ice

to P

roce

ed

Tas

k C

ost

Tas

k Pr

iori

ty

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10

11

12

1.

Upd

ate,

cal

ibra

te a

nd r

e ru

n th

e Sa

n B

enito

Riv

er

sedi

men

t tra

nspo

rt m

odel

$

70,

000

5

2. A

pro

gram

to c

olle

ct se

dim

ent c

once

ntra

tion

and

flow

dat

a on

bot

h th

e Pa

jaro

Riv

er a

nd th

e Sa

n B

enito

Riv

er a

bove

thei

r co

nflu

ence

$11

0,00

0 ($

200,

000)

4

3. O

ppor

tuni

ties a

nd c

onst

rain

ts a

sses

smen

t for

er

osio

n re

duct

ion

on th

e Sa

n B

enito

Riv

er

$ 8

0,00

0

3

4.

a T

wo-

dim

ensi

onal

sedi

men

t tra

nspo

rt m

odel

of

the

Paja

ro R

iver

from

Chi

tten

den

to th

e oc

ean

$11

5,00

0

1

5.

Opp

ortu

nitie

s and

con

stra

ints

ass

essm

ent f

or p

eak

flow

red

uctio

n on

the

San

Ben

ito R

iver

$

90,

000

2

of 84

MEMORANDUM

TO: Board of Directors FROM: John T. Doughty, Executive Coordinator SUBJECT: Pajaro River Bench Excavation Project MEETING DATE: May 6, 2011 BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The Board of Directors has requested regular update of the status of the Pajaro River Bench Excavation Project. The lead agency for the project is Santa Cruz County Zone 7. Attachment 1 to this memorandum is the most recent staff update to Zone 7 regarding the project. Mr. Bruce Laclergue will also be present at the meeting to verbally provide any updates and to answer questions of the Board. Attachment: Zone 7 Flood Control staff memorandum


of 84

County of Santa Cruz 0207

FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT - ZONE 7

701 OCEAN STREET, ROOM 410, SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060-4070(831) 454-2160 FAX (831) 454-2385 TOO (831) 454.2123

JOHN J. PRES LEIGHDISTRICT ENGINEER

AGENDA: MARCH 15, 2011

March 1,2011

BOARD OF DIRECTORS-ZONE 7SANTA CRUZ COUNTY FLOOD CONTROLAND WATER CONSERV A nON DISTRICT701 Ocean StreetSanta Cruz, CA 95060

SUBJECT: STATUS REPORT ON THE P AJARO RIVER BENCH EXCA V A nON PROJECT

Members of the Board:

This report serves to update your Board on pertinent Bench Excavation Projectmatters since the November 16,2010, update. At that time the update included information aboutthe recent variance received from the Readiness Branch of the US Army Corps of Engineers, andabout the sheer volume of truck traffc associated with the proposed project.

A draft Transportation Analysis and Best Management Practices Report, datedJanuary 28,2011, was prepared by Fehr and Peers Transportation Consultants. The draft analysisis based on a two-year construction schedule and provides details on the circulation impacts oftruck traffic on surrounding roadways as sediment is relocated from the Pajaro River to the variousreceiving sites. Key findings of the draft analysis indicate impacts to daily and peak hourly traffcon State Route (SR) 1 to be less than 1 percent which is very good. The same findings indicateimpacts to daily and peak hourly traffc on SR 129 to be less than 2 percent. With the addition ofa quarr in north Monterey County as a new receiving site for sediment re-use, traffic circulationshould improve on SR 129. The new receiving site location allows for a right tum on SR 129,away from town, and should reduce impacts on SR 129 to 1 percent or less in a final draft analysis.A traffic impact of 1 percent or less is more desirable for the eventual environmentaldetermination.

Engineered plans and specifications are being prepared by Northwest Hydraulics Inc.,the firm who designed the initial bench excavation plans. Currently, a preliminary set of plans(at 35 percent completion level) is being developed and will include details on the excavation areas,volumes of sediment material to be removed, location of large trees in the excavation areas, andsuggested mitigations. This level of plan completion is the trigger point required for beginning theInitial Study component of the environmental review process. The 35 percent plan is on schedule forcompletion by today's Zone 7 meeting date. Therefore it is anticipated that the Initial Study and itssubsequent review period should be completed sometime in late June 2011. Development ofmitigation measures wil also be critical for a successful Initial Study.

J.2- of 84

aflores

Typewritten Text

Attachment 1

BOARD OF DIRECTORS-ZONE 7Page -2-

0208

The development of proposed mitigation measures and implementation strategy isbeing coordinated between District staff, the Planning Department, Northwest Hydraulics Inc., andKittleson Environmental Consulting. Prior biological monitoring indicates mitigation measures willbe required to protect or relocate red legged frogs and western pond turtles found in the proposedproject area. Recent surveys also indicate that a number of mature trees initially targeted for removalcan be retained without reducing the hydraulic efficiency goals of the project. In situations wheretrees are removed, consideration will be given to re-using them to create habitat structures which willbe helpful in meeting the environmental determination. Engineered re-use of the large woody debrisfor habitat improvement can also be accomplished without detrimentally influencing hydraulicefficiency goals.

District staff believe that bid documents wil be completed this season, and that theremoval of the targeted trees and the clearing and preparation of ingress and egress sites necessaryfor project construction may also be completed this season. An update, including a proposedschedule, will be provided at the June 20, 20 i i, meeting if not sooner.

It is therefore recommended that your Board accept and file this status report on thePajaro River Bench Excavation Project.

~:omi7- Ly,~JO 1. PRESLEIGH

istrict Engineerl1P:BLC:rw

RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL:~-fCounty Administrative Officer

Copy to: Zone 7 Board of DirectorsCarlos 1. Palacios, Manager, City of WatsonvilleCurtis Weeks, Monterey County Water Resources AgencyPublic Works (Program Administration)

i.i- of 84

THIS PAGE IS

INTENTIONALLY BLANK

of 84

MEMORANDUM

TO: PRWFPA Board of Directors FROM: John T. Doughty, Executive Coordinator RECOMMENDED BY: Arleicka Conley, Director of Finance &

Administrative Services SUBJECT: Draft FY 2011-12 Budget MEETING DATE: May 6, 2011 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Board adopt the FY 2011-12 fiscal year budget. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The PRWFPA like other public agencies is mandated to adopt, annually, a balanced budget. Throughout each year, the budget is monitored and periodic changes may be approved by the Board. Each year, prior to June 30th, the Board must adopt a budget for the coming fiscal year. We are pleased to present the Draft FY 2011-12 Budget to the Board. The proposed budget represents a continued maintenance of effort. This represents the limited funding for activities and incorporates suggestions provided by means of Board direction. The proposed budget emphasizes three primary areas of effort: 1) Continued implementation of the Soap Lake easement acquisition program through California Proposition 50 funds; 2) grant seeking for upper watershed studies; and 3) general coordination efforts within the watershed. The Board of Directors of the PRWFPA has chosen to operate the Authority on a contract basis. The option reduces operational costs while ensuring the efficient operation of the FPA. Contract services are currently provided by


of 84

three entities: 1) Gutierrez Consultants; 3) Downey-Brand and 3) Regional Analysis and Planning Services, Inc. (RAPS). General administration, facilitation and financial services have been provided by RAPS, Inc. Technical assistance and advocacy have been provided by Lidia Gutierrez of Gutierrez Consultants. Legal services are provided by Downey-Brand. Contracts for these services will expire on June 30, 2011 if not renewed/extended by the Board of Directors. The Board indicated a desire to retain the services of RAPS, Inc, Gutierrez Consultants and Downey-Brand. Those contracts are included on this agenda for ratification. The budget anticipates continuation of engagement with Moss-Levy for audit services. Letters of engagement will be signed for the coming three fiscal year audits (FY 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13). The Board has received two budget options. One option includes commitment of up to $90,000 for local match of a grant for the San Benito River (upper watershed), while option 2 excludes the grant revenue and required cash match. The Board is scheduled to consider the request on May 6th prior to budget consideration. Conclusion The proposed budget for FY 2011-12 is consistent with the purpose of Pajaro River Watershed Flood Prevention Authority (PRWFPA), which is to identify, evaluate, fund and implement environmentally sound flood prevention and control strategies in the Pajaro River Watershed, on an intergovernmental, cooperative basis as required by the Pajaro River Watershed Flood Prevention Authority Act (AB807 Keeley). Attachments: 1. Gutierrez Consultants Contract 2. Downey-Brand Contract 3. Regional Analysis and Planning Services, Inc. (RAPS) Contract 4. Draft FY 2011-12 Agency Budget: Option 1 5. Draft FY 2011-12 Agency Budget: Option 2

of 84

CONTRACT FOR SERVICES This Amendment No. 2 to the Contract for Services dated June 4, 2010 between the Pajaro River Watershed Flood Prevention Authority (Authority) and Gutierrez Consultants (Contractor) amends the following sections of the original agreement. 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES

A. CONTRACTOR shall perform all of the necessary services as described above and incorporated herein by this reference and shall comply with all relevant conditions as set forth in the AGREEMENT. The Scope of Work is attached as Exhibit A.

B. Time is of the essence in this Agreement.

C. Said services and all duties incidental or necessary thereto shall be performed diligently and competently and in accordance with professional standards of performance. 2. COMPENSATION

A. Authority shall pay CONTRACTOR for services a total amount not to exceed SIXTY FOUR THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED (64,800). In no event shall compensation exceed this amount without prior written consent of the AUTHORITY. Rate schedule is attached as Exhibit B.

B. Invoices for services must be presented to AUTHORITY no later than the first

business day of each month for the month prior. CONTRACTOR shall submit to AUTHORITY an invoice stating a description of services provided, and stating the amount due CONTRACTOR for such service. AUTHORITY shall pay the CONTRACTOR promptly. No interest or carrying charges shall accrue to CONTRACTOR by reason of delayed payment. 3. TERM OF AGREEMENT. The term of this agreement shall commence on July 1, 2011 (Commencement Date), and shall continue until June 30, 2012 (Termination Date), or until the parties mutually determine that the work required hereunder is satisfactorily completed, whichever occurs first. In witness whereof, the parties hereto have executed this agreement this May 6th, 2011 in Watsonville, California. REGIONAL ANALYSIS & PLANNING SERVICES, INC.

Signature Date

Lidia Gutierrez Principal

of 84

aflores

Typewritten Text

Attachment 1

PAJARO RIVER WATERSHED FLOOD PREVENTION AUTHORITY

Signature Date Margie Barrios Chair of the Board of Directors Approved as to Form Kevin O’Brien Date Attorney at Law

of 84

FY 2011/12 Amendment No. 2

EXHIBIT A

Scope of Services for

Soap Lake Floodplain Preservation Project The Pajaro River Watershed Flood Prevention Authority (FPA) has been awarded $4,425,300 in grant funding from Proposition 50 for the implementation of the Soap Lake Floodplain Preservation Project. Of the approximate $4.4 million grant, $3,825,000 is to go towards land and easement acquisitions and the remaining $600,300 is to go towards development, implementation, and administration of the land and easement acquisition project. The $4.4 million dollars will be awarded to entities seeking to purchase land or easements in the Soap Lake Floodplain consistent with the floodplain requirements established by the FPA. The $600,300 will include tasks to develop the grant program necessary to distribute the $4.4 million to those entities seeking to purchase lands or easements in the floodplain. These tasks include grant program development, grant agreements, contracts, and MOU development, title/easement document oversight, public outreach, partner facilitation, record keeping and database management, and funding and acquisition cost research. This Scope of Services describes those tasks to be completed by Gutierrez Consultants (CONSULTANT) necessary for the implementation of the Soap Lake Preservation Project through June 30, 2011. This Scope does not include services associated with the fiscal administration of the grant budget and coordination with the grant contracting agency, Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency. It is understood that a separate agreement will be executed for the fiscal administration of this project. Project Background Lower Pajaro River watershed communities have experienced costly and dangerous flooding over the years. Recent floods have caused millions of dollars in damage and are a hazard to public and private property, including residences, agriculture, highways, watercourses and environmental resources. Although efforts have been made by individual agencies in the region to protect against flooding, the recent Pajaro River Watershed Study, completed by the FPA, demonstrated that the ultimate solution to flooding will require coordination of the structural downstream Pajaro River Levee Reconstruction Project and the Soap Lake Project. The combination of theses two projects will maintain current storm flow water levels downstream and is considered to be the most feasible flood protection strategy to protect the region, its population, industry and resources. The Soap Lake Floodplain Preservation Project (Project), Phase 1, is the first phase of the long-term recommended non-structural, 100-year flood protection project developed by the FPA. The implementation of this project will enact flood protection in the Pajaro River Watershed through land preservation. The Project will preserve the current floodplain attenuation benefits provided by the Soap Lake are in the upper Pajaro River Watershed by preserving land in agriculture or open space through fee title or flood and conservation easement acquisitions. The Soap Lake Project will ultimately protect 9,100 acres of agricultural lands in the upper Pajaro River Watershed, the approximate area inundated by the 100-year flood flows. The Project would maintain the current hydrologic and hydraulic conditions at the existing project site and adjacent properties. This project does not include the construction of any structural facilities or the development

of 84

of any additional storage. The cost of the Soap Lake Floodplain Preservation Project is limited to land and easement acquisition and related activities. The approximate costs to acquire the 9,100 acres in the 100-year floodplain range from $50 million to $180 million, depending on land values and acquisition type. In general, easements cost from approximately 30% to 60% of fee title purchase. Approximately 1,700 acres have already been preserved and therefore 7,400 acres remain. The awarded grant funds of $4.425 million will not complete this project, but will assist in funding the continued land and easement acquisition. The Soap Lake Floodplain Preservation Project includes the following six implementation tasks:

Task 1: Grant Program Administration Task 2: Financing Plan

Task 3: Land / Easement Acquisition Task 4: Planning / Design / Engineering / Environmental Documentation Task 5: Construction / Implementation Plan

Task 6: Other Tasks Of these six tasks, three are completed. The work items described in this Scope of Services include only those in Task 1: Program Administration, Task 3: Land / Easement Acquisition, and Task 6: Other Tasks. Task 1: Grant Program Administration As the Grant Program Administrator, the Authority will distribute funds to eligible entities for land and easement acquisitions to implement the Soap Lake Floodplain Preservation Project. Subtask 1.1: Development of Grant Agreement with Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency Prior to final approval of the Department of Water Resources Grant Agreement with Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency, each grant project proponent will be required to enter into an agreement with PVWMA establishing the grant project workplan, budget, schedule, monitoring and reporting requirements. CONSULTANT shall be responsible for preparing the project information required for the grant agreement. The information shall be provided to the FPA administration and fiscal agent consultant for review and submittal to PVWMA. In addition to the development of the Grant Agreement requirements, this subtask assumes CONSULTANT preparation for and attendance at two coordination meetings with the FPA administration consultant. Deliverable:

Grant Agreement Workplan, Schedule, Budget, Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Subtask 1.2 (a): Develop Grant Guidelines The FPA will distribute grants funds on a competitive basis to entities interested in acquiring land and easements in the Soap Lake Floodplain consistent with the FPA’s objectives. CONSULTANT shall prepare Grant Guidelines. The Grant Guidelines shall define grant eligibility requirements, appropriate grantee match percentage, and proposal scoring process and criteria. The FPA Board of Directors will approve the Final Grant Guidelines. In addition to the development of the Grant Guidelines, this subtask assumes CONSULTANT prepares for and attends four (4) Staff Working Group meetings and two (2) Board of Directors meetings.

of 84

Deliverables:

Grant Guidelines Meeting Handouts and/or Presentations

Subtask 1.2 (b): Develop Request for Proposals CONSULTANT shall prepare a Request for Proposals (RFP) to initiate Phase 1 of the Soap Lake Floodplain Preservation Grant Program. The RFP shall incorporate the guidelines and involve the development of the program timeline, proposal submittal and approval schedule, interested stakeholder and partner mailing list, and letter of interest. The FPA Board of Directors will authorize distribution of the RFP. In addition to the development of the Request for Proposals, this subtask assumes CONSULTANT prepares for and attends two (2) Staff Working Group meetings and one (1) Board of Directors meeting. Deliverables:

Request for Proposals Meeting Handouts and/or Presentations

Subtask 1.3: Open Enrollment RFP The RFP developed in Subtask 1.2 shall be an ‘open enrollment’ RFP. The purpose for this is to allow eligible applicants access to acquisition funding as soon as land becomes available. If proposal applicants meet RFP criteria, they will be eligible for funding consideration. As the program grows, the open-enrollment RFP shall be evaluated on an annual basis for necessary updates and changes to the funding program. Once RFP changes have been reviewed and approved by the Authority and other necessary entities, such as legal counsel or real estate experts, then the revised RFP will be re-released once per year. The tentative annual month of release shall be August to occur soon after the start of the state fiscal year. The release of the RFP shall be advertised in local newspapers and through mailers to the project partners and watershed stakeholders. CONSULTANT shall be the primary point of contact for interested parties and applicants and shall be responsible for fulfilling requests for information. In addition to the development of the RFP, this subtask assumes CONSULTANT prepares for and attends six (6) Staff Working Group meetings and three (3) Board of Directors meetings. Deliverables:

Newspaper Advertisement Mailer Notifications Meeting Handouts and Presentations

Subtask 1.4: Review Proposals A thorough review of all proposals will be conducted by the CONSULTANT to determine applicant eligibility. At a minimum, proposals will be reviewed for project applicability to the Soap Lake Project and compliance with the goals and objectives of the Authority, and will be evaluated for conformity with the criteria outlined in the RFP. The willingness of the landowner to sell and the demonstrated ability of the purchaser to adhere to necessary easement provisions for the preservation of the Soap Lake floodplain shall be clearly demonstrated.

of 84

A list of the proposals will be maintained for the duration of the project. A metric for proposal review shall be a final computed score and a results discussion between the applicant and the Authority. In addition to proposal reviews, this subtask assumes CONSULTANT prepares for and attends six (6) Staff Working Group meetings and three (3) Board of Directors meetings. Deliverables:

List of Proposals Summary of Findings and Score for each Proposal Meeting Handouts and / or Presentations

Subtask 1.5: Grant Recipient Recommendations CONSULTANT shall be responsible for developing grant recommendations for land and easement acquisitions in the Soap Lake floodplain shall be made on an on-going basis as proposals are received and reviewed for those components discussed in Subtask 1.3. The recommendations will be presented to the Staff Working Group for review and recommendation for FPA Board of Directors approval. In addition to development of the Grant Recommendations, this subtask assumes CONSULTANT prepares for and attends six (6) Staff Working Group meetings and three Board of Directors meetings. Deliverables:

List of Grant Recipient Recommendations Recommendation Letters to Grantees Meeting Handouts and / or Presentations

Subtask 1.6: Grant Agreements Development The FPA will be the grant contract administrator for the grants that are provided to partners. CONSULTANT shall be responsible for preparation of all draft agreements, contracts, and MOUs related to the administration of the program. The documents will be developed and submitted to the FPA for review by their general counsel. Deliverables:

Draft Grant Agreements, Contracts, Memoranda of Understanding Subtask 1.7: Easement Provisions CONSULTANT shall develop conservation easement provisions that meet the Soap Lake Floodplain Project objectives and FPA goals. These provisions shall be provided to the grantees to assist in the development of the easement documents. The easement documents shall be reviewed for each proposed acquisition to verify the appropriate conditions are in place to protect the flood attenuation benefits of the Soap Lake Floodplain and meet the FPA goals. The easement provisions shall also define the FPA’s on-going role in monitoring, commenting, right-of-notification of change in ownership and proposed amendments to the easement, and successors to grantee. Easement agreements should be written to give the FPA staff the ability to inspect the property with the partner. Deliverables:

Easement Provisions

of 84

Subtask 1.8: Information and Public Outreach Program It is anticipated that there will be many questions from the community as to how the project will be implemented, how the project will benefit or impact them, and how individuals can participate and get involved. An Informational Program shall be developed to ensure that targeted landowners within the floodplain are made aware of opportunities for land preservation. CONSULTANT shall draft materials for handouts or mailings that describe the program’s goals and objectives, an overview of the need for the program, a history of land acquisitions to date, a list of partners, and financial benefits / costs to the landowner including tax benefits. A list of contact information for interested parties, such as landowners, realtors, agencies, and other groups interested in the program, shall be maintained. Meetings will be held where partners discuss the financial incentives and costs associated with land preservation. These meetings could be for stakeholder groups or one-on-one with interested landowners. If appropriate, a press release or media event may publicize acquisitions and explain the benefits to the community. This may generate more interest from other landowners within the floodplain. The FPA website shall be updated to include information on the on-going success of the program. Also, information shall be mailed to all landowners in the area to keep them apprised of the program. Deliverables:

Public Information Flyers (handouts, mailings, and other applicable products as developed) List of Interested Parties Meeting Agenda, Handouts Presentations Press Releases Information for Web Postings

Subtask 1.9: Partner Facilitation The FPA has identified interested partners and maintains on-going communications with each partner through regular meetings, conference calls and e-mail. CONSULTANT shall inform all partners of the on-going status of acquisitions, facilitate inter-agency cooperation, share strategies, work on joint projects, and monitor that the project goals are being met through acquisitions. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) shall be developed to help formalize the collaboration effort. Each partner shall sign an MOU that outlines conditions and goals that the FPA hopes to accomplish. The coordination of tasks – securing additional funding, public outreach, and landowner contact – shall all be done jointly and details in the agreement shall delineate responsibilities for specific tasks. The MOU shall specify a regular meeting interval with an evaluation performed at the end of each year to assess the group's progress. Established partners who have signed an MOU may be promoted through the FPA’s website. A link to their website or program information could be included. Deliverables:

MOUs Partner Meeting Agenda, Meeting Summaries, and Other Applicable Documentation

Subtask 1.10: Grant and Contract Administration Meet with Consultants and PVWMA staff, as appropriate. Review invoices, claims filing and overall

of 84

grant administration on behalf of the PVWMA. Review Final Grant Agreement between PRWFPA and PVWMA. Subtask 1.11: Fundamental Administration Assist in the development and maintenance of interested stakeholders, brokers, realtors, agencies, environmental consulting firms, and partners making lists. Coordinate with RAPS, Inc. for website updates. Deliverables:

• List of resources (partner agencies, organizations, experts, etc.) Task 2: Financing Plan This task is complete and no additional services are required. Task 3: Land / Easement Acquisition Work items in Task 3 will be performed by Implementation Partners that receive grant funds through the Authority for the Soap Lake Floodplain Preservation Project. The Consultant role on this task is to provide oversight, guidance and support to the Partners during the acquisition process to ensure consistency with FPA objectives. Land and easement acquisitions have begun in the Soap Lake floodplain and have been implemented by FPA Implementation Partners. Of the 9,100 acre floodplain, approximately, 1,700 acres have been protected, leaving 7,400 acres to be preserved. The FPA’s collaboration with implementing partners will be crucial to the success of the program. The partners would continue their efforts in acquiring land and easements within the Soap Lake floodplain through landowner and public outreach, completing the steps needed to obtain easements, holding title to the land (in fee or easement), and providing monitoring. The partners may also help establish an agricultural mitigation bank, if deemed appropriate. All land acquisition work completed by the implementation partners for the Soap Lake Project shall involve cooperation with and oversight by the FPA. However, the responsibility for all deliverables listed for this task is borne by the implementation partner who will hold the fee title or easement title. These deliverables are not considered submittals to the State, but rather they represent the documentation necessary to complete land and easement acquisitions, and must be completed pursuant to standard real estate and legal practices to preserve Soap Lake and its natural floodplain benefits. The FPA will be proactively involved in the land acquisition process by assisting the partners whenever possible at every phase of Soap Lake floodplain acquisitions. Implementation partners shall hold the fee title or easement title. If a partner holds the easement, the FPA may be a co-easement holder or listed as a cooperating partner with specific rights. These rights shall include notification of change in ownership, notification if the partner wishes to sell the easement or if the partner dissolves, the Authority’s role in monitoring, and proposed amendments to the easement, and successors to grantee. There are some situations where a third-party is needed to hold an easement temporarily. For example, if an implementation partner purchases land in fee title with the intent to sell the land with an easement, a third-party would need to hold the easement temporarily (since the landowner cannot hold and sell the easement simultaneously). The American Farmland Trust has been used in this role for the Carnadero Preserve acquisition and may be considered for other acquisitions on a case-by-case basis. Other land trusts shall be considered to fill this role, if needed, throughout the term of the Soap Lake Project.

of 84

Subtask 3.1: Contacting Land Owners and Owner Outreach Each land trust or agency has their own public outreach efforts and the FPA would assist them with their outreach programs. The land trusts also may have established relationships with land owners and would make contact directly with them. Subtask 3.2: Obtaining Land/Easements The FPA has forged partnerships with cooperating land trusts to obtain conservation easements within the floodplain. With oversight from the FPA, the land trusts would be responsible for completing the steps outlined below to obtain an easement within the Soap Lake floodplain:

Qualified Appraisal. A “qualified appraisal” includes: a description of the property, information on the appraiser’s qualifications, the valuation method used to determine fair market value, and a description of the fee arrangement between the appraiser and the donor. Deliverable: Parcel Appraisals

Funding. The partners would be responsible for securing matching funding for transactions

where they will hold the title or easement. The typical process is to apply for funding grants from government and private sources. The FPA could provide a letter of support or assist with the funding application process as described under the Role of the Authority. Some groups, such as The Conservation Fund, also can provide bridge financing for land acquisitions (fee and easement) when funding is not immediately available. Deliverable: Funding Proposals

Sales Agreement. Between the time the parties come to an agreement and the time they are

ready to acquire the easement, a title search must be completed, an environmental assessment may be ordered, and the grantee may need time to raise funds for the purchase. To document the parties’ commitment during this period, which often can take several months, it is wise to have a written agreement prepared and signed by the parties. This agreement can take the form of a standard real estate sales contract, in which the easement buyer makes a deposit towards the purchase price. In other instances, the preferred agreement would be a letter contract requiring the landowner to reimburse the municipality for title and other costs should the landowner subsequently withdraw from the transaction. The partner that intends to hold the easement would be responsible for preparing a sales agreement. Deliverable: Sales Agreements

Baseline Documentation. An analysis of the property’s conservation values should be

performed. This is an IRS requirement for landowners who intend to take a charitable tax deduction and a way for easement holders to conduct meaningful inspections in the future. The partner would prepare a report – called “baseline documentation” – that describes the condition of the property at the time the easement is placed on it and identifies the property’s important resources and any threats to those resources. Deliverable: Baseline Documentation

Title Search. An entity acquiring a conservation easement should always do a title search to

check for liens, encumbrances, or other problems with the property’s title. Title information furnishes the legal property description that must be included in any land transfer document. A title insurance policy is recommended for every purchased easement. Title insurance protects an easement holder from financial loss resulting from defects in the property’s title, other than defects that are listed and excluded from the title insurance policy. Some grantees obtain title insurance for donated easements as well. The cost of title insurance usually is borne by the entity acquiring the easement. The partner that intends to hold the easement would be responsible for obtaining both the title search and title insurance. Deliverables: Title Search and Title Insurance

of 84

Environmental Assessment. A Phase I environmental site assessment may be conducted to document the environmental condition of the property prior to acquisition. The assessment includes a site inspection of the property (and neighboring properties), review of past uses of the property (and neighboring properties), and could include ground or water sampling if necessary. A geology report may also be needed if mineral resources are potentially present at the site. These reports would be obtained by the partner and kept in their files. Copies of the report may be provided to the Authority. Deliverables: Phase I Environmental Assessment (required) and Geology Report (if necessary)

Drafting the Easement Document. The easement document will list mutually agreed-upon use

and development restrictions and will specify which parcels (or portions of parcels) are covered by those restrictions. The partner would draft the easement and negotiate the document with the landowner. The easement should be prepared following the required and suggested easement provisions provided by the FPA. Deliverables: Easement Document

Survey. A survey may be required if the property boundaries are unclear or in dispute. If

necessary, the partner would arrange for the survey to be conducted. Deliverables: Property Survey

Closing / Recording. A real estate closing is completed after all the conditions of the easement

have been agreed on. The title company or buyer attorney generally handle the closing. After the grantor and grantee have signed the document, the easement is recorded on the deed at the county recorder's office. Deliverables: Closing / Recording Documentation

Subtask 3.3: Annual Monitoring Part of upholding the legal terms of the easement will include parcel compliance monitoring and reporting. The grantee (implementation partner) shall be responsible for monitoring and enforcement responsibilities, but this does not preclude the FPA from assisting with this responsibility or in providing their own monitoring if authorized. Deliverable: Compliance Reporting Documentation Subtask 3.4: Establish an Agricultural Mitigation Bank (Optional) The establishment of an agricultural mitigation bank is being explored with the City of Gilroy and the Silicon Valley Land Conservancy (formerly the Land Trust for Santa Clara County). The Soap Lake floodplain contains valuable farmlands that could be preserved in an agricultural mitigation bank to help mitigate for the loss of agricultural land from development elsewhere in San Benito County and Santa Clara County. Along with partners for preservation in the Soap Lake area, the FPA would take an active role in assisting with the coordination to establish local governmental policies and program guidelines for such a mitigation bank. Deliverables: Establishment of Program and Implementation Development Plan Subtask 3.5: PRWFPA Acquisition Monitoring Assist implementation partner in his monitoring and implementation responsibilities. If necessary, provide own monitoring, if authorized by the PRWFPA. Task 4: Planning / Design / Engineering / Environmental Documentation This task is complete and no additional services are required. Task 5: Construction / Implementation Plan This task is complete and no additional services are required.

of 84

Task 6 – Other Tasks Other tasks include program assessment, evaluation, reporting, parcel site visits, and easement compliance tracking. This is an important task by which to measure the on-going success of the Soap Lake Floodplain Preservation Project implementation. After land and easements have been acquired, field visits will be conducted and records kept as to the compliance with easement provisions. Success of the Soap Lake Project and the associated Pajaro River Levee Reconstruction Project relies on the continued availability of the flood water storage and attenuation provided by the Soap Lake area. Therefore, parcel observations and compliance with flood control easement provisions are essential to protecting communities and resources downstream, as well as important to maintaining the many benefits of preserving Soap Lake in its existing agricultural and undeveloped state for surrounding communities. Subtask 6.1: Program Evaluation and Reporting CONSULTANT shall regularly evaluate the effectiveness of the program and suggest any modifications to be made, as well as report on the progress and accomplishments of the Soap Lake Project. Program aspects to evaluate and consider include, but are not limited to, outreach effectiveness, acquisition strategies and rate, priority targets for acquisition, role of partners, implementation schedule, and other funding sources. CONSULTANT shall prepare project quarterly and annual reports that will be provided to the Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency (PVWMA), contracting agent with the Department of Water Resources. These reports will also be available to all partners and the general public for review. The quarterly reports shall document, at a minimum, project progress, issues, changes, and accomplishments since the last quarterly report. Annual reports will summarize all program findings for the previous year, as well as evaluate and discuss overall program effectiveness and percent of acquisition by acreage and priority parcel. Although this task describes evaluation and reporting on the Soap Lake Project program performance, a more refined Project Assessment and Evaluation Plan (PAEP) shall be developed upon the initiation of project implementation. The PAEP will provide the framework for how the Authority, as the program administrator, will assess, evaluate, and report implementation performance and proposal achievements for the Soap Lake Project. If necessary, this task will include the development of a Labor Compliance Plan to conform with California Labor Code as regulated by the Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Labor Statistics and Research. Deliverables:

Project Assessment and Evaluation Plan Labor Compliance Plan Quarterly Reports Annual Reports

Subtask 6.2: Parcel Site Visits and Outreach CONSULTANT shall develop a standard checklist for annual field visits to acquired parcels. The checklist will be utilized to ensure that flood attenuation benefits of the Soap Lake Project are maintained. This form shall be provided to each implementing partner for their use during their post-acquisition outreach efforts, such as site visits and other landowner outreach (letters and telephone calls). The FPA shall maintain a right to accompany partners on the annual field visits. The easement agreement

of 84

shall be written to give the FPA the ability to inspect the property with the implementing partner. During such site visits, parcels shall be assessed for easement provision compliance. FPA staff could visit the property and respond to landowner’s questions and requests. Deliverables: • Checklist for post-acquisition field visits Subtask 6.3: Provision Compliance and Reporting CONSULTANT shall maintain records regarding parcel compliance with easement provisions. Compliance status will be determined from the field visit checklists and other notes and data gathered by the Authority and/or Implementation Partners during field visits and other outreach. CONSULTANT shall maintain adequate records of actions taken post-acquisition, such as amendments to the easement, amendments to the successors to the grantee, and right-of-notification of change of ownership. Any interpretations, changes and associated decisions shall be recorded. Information gathered shall be summarized by the Consultant for reporting purposes, and will be included in the appropriate quarterly and annual progress reports submitted to the DWR and SWRCB. Deliverables:

Completed checklists per acquired parcel/easement with other field notes Compliance status worksheet Written actions per acquired parcel: interpretations, issuance of concurrence or dissent to

proposed easement changes Subtask 6.4: PRWFPA Easement Compliance Conduct annual field visits to inspect properties and assess easement provision compliance.

of 84


EXHIBIT B

Rate Schedule

for Gutierrez Consultants, Inc.

Classification Principal Associate Planner

2011 Rate $180/hour $135/hour

1. The individual hourly rates include salary, overhead and profit. The hourly rates also include ordinary expenses, including telecommunications, computer usage, and regular reproduction jobs. Other direct costs (ODCs) such as large reproduction jobs and travel expenses will be charged at actual cost plus 10%. Mileage will not be marked up. Subconsultants will be billed at actual coast plus 10%. Mileage rate will be that allowed by current IRS guidelines.

of 84

THIS PAGE IS

INTENTIONALLY BLANK

of 84

CONTRACT FOR SERVICES

This agreement is made and entered into as of the date and place set forth below by and between The Pajaro River Watershed Flood Prevention Authority, hereinafter referred to as Authority, and, Downey-Brand hereinafter referred to as Contractor upon the following terms and conditions: 1. Authority hereby engages contractor and contractor hereby agrees to perform all services as hereinafter described. The contractor, who represents that he is qualified and will perform services described in the “Scope of Work”, Attachment 1.

2. For all of the services described above and all goods and material supplied by contractor, Authority shall pay the Contractor according to the “Fee Schedule”, Attachment 2. Payment will be made monthly within forty-five (45) days upon submittal of invoices and completion of tasks as mutually agreed upon. 3. Invoices for services must be presented to Authority. Receipts for expenditures and invoices for services should be presented in accordance with the payment schedule above. Authority shall pay the Contractor promptly after Authority receives and invoice, as appropriate, and accepts the invoice for payment. 4. The work to be performed under this agreement shall commence on or about July 1, 2011, and shall remain in effect until June 30, 2012, or until the work required is satisfactorily completed, whichever occurs first. Any extension beyond the Termination Date must be requested in writing two weeks prior to the Termination Date, and approved and signed by both parties. 5. The contract amount shall not exceed Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00). No interest or carrying charges shall accrue to contractor by reason of delayed payment. Contractor shall not be entitled to extra compensation for services or materials not otherwise authorized under this agreement, unless Authority has first authorized such extra services or materials in writing. 6. Contractor is an independent contractor and shall not be considered an agent or employee of Authority, its member agencies or AMBAG. 7. Contractor shall, at all times during the terms of this agreement, carry worker's compensation insurance covering all of its employees, public liability, errors and omissions insurance and property damage insurance, and automotive insurance as required by current statute, and shall comply with all state and federal laws relating to employees. All insurance coverages shall be maintained in full force by the contractor for the duration of this agreement, and shall name Authority as an additional insured on such policies of insurance. 8. Authority may terminate this agreement without cause, at any time, upon giving thirty (30) days advance written notice to contractor. Such notice will set forth the effective date of the termination. An oral stop work order may be used to temporarily halt work by the contractor in anticipation of written notice of termination. The written notice of termination immediately discontinue all services under this agreement and deliver all products, and other items developed in the performance of this contract.

of 84

aflores

Typewritten Text

Attachment 2

9. None of the services or work to be provided under this contract may be subcontracted to another contractor. 10. This Agreement constitutes the sole and only agreement between the parties hereto relating to the work described under this agreement, and correctly sets forth the rights, duties, and modifications of each to the other as of its date. Any prior agreement, promises, negotiations, or representations not expressly set forth in this agreement are of no force and effect. Any modification of this agreement must be in writing.

In witness whereof, the parties hereto have executed this contract this May 6, 2011 in Watsonville, California. AUTHORITY CONTRACTOR _______________ ___ __________ ____ _____________ _____________ Signature Date Signature Date Name: Margie Barrios Name: Kevin O’Brien Title: Chair Title: Attorney at Law

of 84

Attachment 1

Scope of Work

1. Advise the Authority on a broad range of legal matters including, without limitations compliance with:

a. The Ralph M. Brown Quality Act.

b. The California Environmental Quality Act.

c. Conflict of interest laws.

d. Laws relating to the functions of joint powers authorities.

2. Advise the Authority, as appropriate, concerning flood control and flood liability issues.

of 84

Attachment 2

Fee Schedule

Kevin O’Brien $385.00 per hour

Amanda Gearson $200.00 per hour

of 84

CONTRACT FOR SERVICES This Amendment No. 13 to the Contract for Services dated July 21, 2000 between the Pajaro River Watershed Flood Prevention Authority (Authority) and Regional Analysis & Planning Services, Inc. (Contractor) amends the following sections of the original agreement. 1. SCOPE OF WORK. The Scope of Work is attached as Exhibit A. 3. COMPENSATION. For all services listed in Exhibit A, Contractor shall be reimbursed

for actual costs incurred, (time and material). A rate schedule is attached as Exhibit B. 5. TERM OF AGREEMENT. The term of this agreement shall commence on July 1, 2011

(Commencement Date), and shall continue until June 30, 2012 (Termination Date), or until the parties mutually determine that the work required hereunder is satisfactorily completed, whichever occurs first.

6. COST LIMITATIONS. The total amount of compensation under this agreement shall

not exceed $60,000 for Agency Administration. In witness whereof, the parties hereto have executed this agreement this 6th of May, 2011 in Watsonville, California. REGIONAL ANALYSIS & PLANNING SERVICES, INC.

Signature Date

John Doughty Chief Executive Officer PAJARO RIVER WATERSHED FLOOD PREVENTION AUTHORITY

Signature Date Margie Barrios Chair of the Board of Directors Approved as to Form Kevin O’Brien Date Attorney at Law

of 84

aflores

Typewritten Text

Attachment 3


EXHIBIT A

Scope of Services

AGENCY ADMINISTRATION

1. Organize, schedule and notice meetings, workshops and hearings of the Authority.

2. Organize and schedule meetings of the Authority’s Staff Working Group.

3. Prepare/distribute agendas, take minutes, activate/set up public address systems, record proceedings and carry out similar work related to the meetings.

4. Prepare basic non-technical reports to and correspondence from the combined agencies based on input from the Staff Working Group.

5. Insure that all participating agencies are kept up to date and informed (through the use of mail, e-mail and fax) of proposed agenda items, correspondence and other information related to the efforts of the Authority.

6. Process correspondence, maintain files and carry out related work. 7. Provide a range of clerical and administrative staff support to insure the

most effective, efficient and fiscally responsible staffing level for the respective tasks.

7.1 Provide liaison with the legal counsel and administer legal contract. 7.2 Maintain FPCC filing responsibility. 8. Act as the fiscal agent for the Authority. 9. Administer contract(s) agreement(s). 10. Fulfill other tasks as needed, and directed by the Authority’s Board of

Directors. 11. Maintain PRWFPA website.

of 84


EXHIBIT B

HOURLY RATES Executive Assistant $92.00 Executive Coordinator $295.00 Associate Planner $115.00 Director of Finance/Admin. $158.00 GIS Coordinator $147.00 *Overhead Costs include: insurance, rent, utilities, office supplies, computer services, communications (telephone, postage, fax, e-mail), in-house printing, transportation, and accounting services. Note 1. Itemized monthly invoices will include hours worked for each major task (to the

quarter hour). Staff time records shall be available for review upon request.

Note 2.. There is a flat 15% fee for administrative overhead and administration of

contractor’s agreements.

of 84

THIS PAGE IS

INTENTIONALLY BLANK

of 84

Paja

ro R

iver

Wat

ersh

ed F

lood

Pre

vent

ion

Aut

hori

tyFY

201

1-12

Pro

pose

d B

udge

t - O

ptio

n 1

May

6, 2

011

FY 2

010-

11FY

201

1-12

FY 2

010-

11FY

201

0/11

Bud

get

APP

RO

VE

DPR

OPO

SED

AC

TU

AL

AS

OF

to F

Y 2

010/

11 A

ctua

l06

/04/

1003

/04/

1102

/28/

11D

iffer

ence

RE

VE

NU

E:

AG

ENC

Y R

EVEN

UE

Mem

ber A

genc

ies C

ontri

butio

ns -

Age

ncy

Adm

in. &

Stu

dy (8

x $

8k)

64,0

00$

64

,000

$

64,0

00$

-$

Pr

opos

ition

50

Fund

s - S

oap

Lake

Pre

serv

atio

n Pr

ojec

t20

0,00

0$

150,

000

$

-

$

20

0,00

0$

Pr

opos

ition

84

Fund

s - S

an B

enito

Riv

er S

tudy

-$

11

2,10

0$

-$

-$

In

tere

st E

arne

d3,

000

$

1,50

0$

48

4$

2,51

6$

Gen

eral

Res

erve

-

$

21,9

00$

-

$

-

$

Subt

otal

267,

000

$

34

9,50

0$

64,4

84$

202,

516

$

FUN

D B

AL

AN

CE

RE

STR

ICT

ED

(CA

RR

Y-O

VE

R):

*Le

gal R

eser

ve17

5,70

1$

203,

059

$

20

3,05

9$

-

$

*G

ener

al R

eser

ve

175,

700

$

18

1,15

9$

203,

059

$

(21,

900)

$

Tot

al F

und

Bal

ance

35

1,40

1$

384,

218

$

40

6,11

7$

(2

1,90

0)$

Tot

al R

even

ue

618,

401

$

34

9,50

0$

64,4

84$

180,

617

$

E

XPE

ND

ITU

RE

S:A

genc

y A

dmin

istra

tion

**R

APS

, Inc

.50

,000

$

10,0

00$

-

$

50

,000

$

Lega

l Fee

s10

,000

$

10,0

00$

-

$

10

,000

$

Aud

it Fe

es4,

250

$

4,25

0$

4,

250

$

-$

Li

abili

ty In

sura

nce

1,50

0$

1,

500

$

1,10

9$

39

1$

**

Trav

el6,

000

$

6,00

0$

-

$

6,

000

$

**

Mis

c. E

xpen

se (M

eetin

g Ex

pens

es, W

ebsi

te H

ostin

g, S

uppl

ies,

Etc.

)7,

000

$

7,00

0$

1,

854

$

5,14

6$

Soap

Lak

e Pr

eser

vatio

n Pr

ojec

t**

RA

PS, I

nc.

10,0

00$

50

,000

$

34,0

74$

(24,

074)

$

**G

utie

rrez

Con

sulta

nts

60,0

00$

12

0,75

0$

22,2

57$

37,7

43$

**

Lega

l 10

,000

$

10,0

00$

-

$

10

,000

$

**U

pper

Wat

ersh

ed S

tudy

and

Impl

emen

tatio

n40

,000

$

40,0

00$

-

$

40

,000

$

***

Loca

l Mat

ch fo

r Pro

posi

tion

84: S

an B

enito

Riv

er S

tudy

(IR

WM

P G

rant

Sup

port)

-$

90

,000

$

-$

-$

C

onsu

lting

Ser

vice

s (G

rant

See

king

, Eng

. Sup

port,

etc

.)5,

000

$

-$

-

$

5,

000

$

U

.S. A

rmy

Cor

ps o

f Eng

inee

rs

12,0

00$

-

$

-$

12,0

00$

Su

btot

al21

5,75

0$

349,

500

$

63

,544

$

15

2,20

6$

FU

ND

BA

LA

NC

E F

OR

WA

RD

*Le

gal R

eser

ve17

5,70

1$

203,

059

$

20

3,05

9$

-

$

*G

ener

al R

eser

ve17

5,70

0$

181,

159

$

20

3,05

9$

(2

1,90

0)$

T

otal

Fun

d B

alan

ce

351,

401

$

38

4,21

8$

406,

117

$

(21,

900)

$

Tot

al E

xpen

ditu

res

567,

151

$

34

9,50

0$

63,5

44$

130,

307

$

FU

ND

BA

LA

NC

E R

EC

ON

CIL

IAT

ION

:B

egin

ning

Fun

d B

alan

ce a

s of J

uly

1, 2

010

384,

218

$

Prio

r Per

iod

Adj

ustm

ents

-$

Exce

ss o

f Rev

enue

s Ove

r/(U

nder

) Exp

endi

ture

s 94

0$

Proj

ecte

d En

ding

Fun

d B

alan

ce (n

et o

f res

erve

s) a

s of J

une

30, 2

011

385,

157

$

*Th

e Fu

nd B

alan

ce re

pres

ents

an

accu

mul

atio

n of

net

inco

me

sinc

e th

e in

cept

ion

of th

e ag

ency

. Ple

ase

note

that

the

Age

ncy

has r

estri

cted

thes

e fu

nds f

or le

gal

and

gene

ral b

usin

ess u

se.

**A

maj

ority

of t

hese

con

tract

s am

ount

s are

dee

med

reim

burs

able

exp

ense

s to

be p

aid

by P

ropo

sitio

n 50

fund

ing.

***

Loca

l cas

h m

atch

requ

ired

to m

eet I

RW

MP

gran

t req

uire

men

ts fo

r the

com

plet

ion

of tw

oSa

n B

enito

Riv

er se

dim

ent s

tudi

es. T

he to

tal b

udge

t for

the

two

sedi

men

t stu

dies

is $

180,

100

and

the

gran

t am

ount

is $

112,

100.

A lo

cal m

atch

of $

90,0

00 is

requ

ired

to c

ompl

ete

the

stud

ies.

2011

-201

2 C

ON

TR

AC

T S

ER

VIC

E A

MO

UN

TS:

Dow

ney,

Bra

nd A

ttorn

eys L

LP10

,000

$

Gut

ierr

ez C

onsu

ltant

s 12

0,75

0$

Aud

itors

(for

the

FY 1

0-11

audi

t)4,

250

$

RA

PS, I

nc.

60,0

00$

of 84

aflores

Typewritten Text

Attachment 4

Paja

ro R

iver

Wat

ersh

ed F

lood

Pre

vent

ion

Aut

hori

tyFY

201

1-12

Pro

pose

d B

udge

t - O

ptio

n 2

May

6, 2

011

FY 2

010-

11FY

201

1-12

FY 2

010-

11FY

201

0/11

Bud

get

APP

RO

VE

DPR

OPO

SED

AC

TU

AL

AS

OF

to F

Y 2

010/

11 A

ctua

l06

/04/

1003

/04/

1102

/28/

11D

iffer

ence

RE

VE

NU

E:

AG

ENC

Y R

EVEN

UE

Mem

ber A

genc

ies C

ontri

butio

ns -

Age

ncy

Adm

in. &

Stu

dy (8

x $

8k)

64,0

00$

64

,000

$

64,0

00$

-$

Pr

opos

ition

50

Fund

s - S

oap

Lake

Pre

serv

atio

n Pr

ojec

t20

0,00

0$

150,

000

$

-

$

20

0,00

0$

In

tere

st E

arne

d3,

000

$

1,50

0$

48

4$

2,51

6$

Gen

eral

Res

erve

-

$

44,0

00$

-

$

-

$

Subt

otal

267,

000

$

25

9,50

0$

64,4

84$

202,

516

$

FUN

D B

AL

AN

CE

RE

STR

ICT

ED

(CA

RR

Y-O

VE

R):

*Le

gal R

eser

ve17

5,70

1$

203,

059

$

20

3,05

9$

-

$

*G

ener

al R

eser

ve

175,

700

$

15

9,15

9$

203,

059

$

(43,

900)

$

Tot

al F

und

Bal

ance

35

1,40

1$

362,

218

$

40

6,11

7$

(4

3,90

0)$

Tot

al R

even

ue

618,

401

$

25

9,50

0$

64,4

84$

158,

617

$

E

XPE

ND

ITU

RE

S:A

genc

y A

dmin

istra

tion

**R

APS

, Inc

.50

,000

$

10,0

00$

-

$

50

,000

$

Lega

l Fee

s10

,000

$

10,0

00$

-

$

10

,000

$

Aud

it Fe

es4,

250

$

4,25

0$

4,

250

$

-$

Li

abili

ty In

sura

nce

1,50

0$

1,

500

$

1,10

9$

39

1$

**

Trav

el6,

000

$

6,00

0$

-

$

6,

000

$

**

Mis

c. E

xpen

se (M

eetin

g Ex

pens

es, W

ebsi

te H

ostin

g, S

uppl

ies,

Etc.

)7,

000

$

7,00

0$

1,

854

$

5,14

6$

Soap

Lak

e Pr

eser

vatio

n Pr

ojec

t**

RA

PS, I

nc.

10,0

00$

50

,000

$

34,0

74$

(24,

074)

$

**G

utie

rrez

Con

sulta

nts

60,0

00$

12

0,75

0$

22,2

57$

37,7

43$

**

Lega

l 10

,000

$

10,0

00$

-

$

10

,000

$

**U

pper

Wat

ersh

ed S

tudy

and

Impl

emen

tatio

n40

,000

$

40,0

00$

-

$

40

,000

$

Con

sulti

ng S

ervi

ces (

Gra

nt S

eeki

ng, E

ng. S

uppo

rt, e

tc.)

5,00

0$

-

$

-$

5,00

0$

U.S

. Arm

y C

orps

of E

ngin

eers

12

,000

$

-$

-

$

12

,000

$

Subt

otal

215,

750

$

25

9,50

0$

63,5

44$

152,

206

$

FUN

D B

AL

AN

CE

FO

RW

AR

D*

Lega

l Res

erve

175,

701

$

20

3,05

9$

203,

059

$

-$

*

Gen

eral

Res

erve

175,

700

$

15

9,15

9$

203,

059

$

(43,

900)

$

Tot

al F

und

Bal

ance

35

1,40

1$

362,

218

$

40

6,11

7$

(4

3,90

0)$

Tot

al E

xpen

ditu

res

567,

151

$

25

9,50

0$

63,5

44$

108,

307

$

FU

ND

BA

LA

NC

E R

EC

ON

CIL

IAT

ION

:B

egin

ning

Fun

d B

alan

ce a

s of J

uly

1, 2

010

362,

218

$

Prio

r Per

iod

Adj

ustm

ents

-$

Exce

ss o

f Rev

enue

s Ove

r/(U

nder

) Exp

endi

ture

s 94

0$

Pr

ojec

ted

Endi

ng F

und

Bal

ance

(net

of r

eser

ves)

as o

f Jun

e 30

, 201

136

3,15

7$

*Th

e Fu

nd B

alan

ce re

pres

ents

an

accu

mul

atio

n of

net

inco

me

sinc

e th

e in

cept

ion

of th

e ag

ency

. Ple

ase

note

that

the

Age

ncy

has r

estri

cted

thes

e fu

nds f

or le

gal

and

gene

ral b

usin

ess u

se.

**A

maj

ority

of t

hese

con

tract

s am

ount

s are

dee

med

reim

burs

able

exp

ense

s to

be p

aid

by P

ropo

sitio

n 50

fund

ing.

2011

-201

2 C

ON

TR

AC

T S

ER

VIC

E A

MO

UN

TS:

Dow

ney,

Bra

nd A

ttorn

eys L

LP10

,000

$

Gut

ierr

ez C

onsu

ltant

s 12

0,75

0$

Aud

itors

(for

the

FY 1

0-11

audi

t)4,

250

$

RA

PS, I

nc.

60,0

00$

of 84

aflores

Typewritten Text

Attachment 5

Pajaro River Watershed Flood Prevention Authority...

Documents

Transcript of Pajaro River Watershed Flood Prevention Authority...