Date Submitted
2024-04-09
Name
Chad Nishida
Party
City of Ontario
Question
In the Recharge Water Program Debt Service and O&M (document #7) - Please define any cost sharing agreements for capital and O&M, as no additional references were provided.
a. Provide further breakdown of the Debt Service costs for each Debt Type totaling $772,768 (e.g., administration, engineering, construction, etc.)
b. It is unclear how the Inter-Fund Loan Debt Service and Future SRF Loan Debt Service are shared between CBWM and IEUA.
QUESTION ASKED REGARDING THE BUDGET:
Regarding Account No: Document 7
In the Recharge Water Program Debt Service and O&M (document #7) - Please define any cost sharing agreements for capital and O&M, as no additional references were provided.
a. Provide further breakdown of the Debt Service costs for each Debt Type totaling $772,768 (e.g., administration, engineering, construction, etc.)
b. It is unclear how the Inter-Fund Loan Debt Service and Future SRF Loan Debt Service are shared between CBWM and IEUA.
- The Cost sharing methodology for O&M are captured in the Peace II Agreement Section 8 as well as the "Agreement for Operation and Maintenance of Facilities to Implement the Chino Basin Recharge Master Plan", better known as the 4-Party Agreement.
- The Cost Sharing plan for Capital Projects can be found in the Peace II Agreement, the 2013 RMPU Update Section 8.4.3, as well as the "Financing Plan For the 2013 Recharge Master Plan (May 2016)"
- For "a." and "b." please refer to slides 2-5 from Document 7 IEUA's "Recharge Water Program FY 2024/25 Proposed Budget Debt Service and Operations and Maintenance"
Date Submitted
2024-04-09
Name
Chad Nishida
Party
City of Ontario
Question
Account No. 7402 – PE4: The Engineering Tables show different costs than the Summary Report for the Consultant Labor as well as the Total Cost Estimate. Which is the correct cost?
QUESTION ASKED REGARDING THE BUDGET:
Regarding Account No: Documents
Account No. 7402 – PE4: The Engineering Tables show different costs than the Summary Report for the Consultant Labor as well as the Total Cost Estimate. Which is the correct cost?
This question was further clarified with the City of Ontario and they considered it addressed.
Date Submitted
2024-04-09
Name
Chad Nishida
Party
City of Ontario
Question
Account No. 7614 (Implementation of SY Court Order) – This task has excessively high costs, approximately $768K. It is unclear whether the modeling effort involving extremely detailed inputs and outputs are usable, relevant or cost effective. We recommend reducing the scope for this fiscal year and delaying the implementation of the uncertainty analysis until the 2030 Safe Yield redetermination to develop an approach with clearly defined outcomes.
QUESTION ASKED REGARDING THE BUDGET:
Regarding Account No: Document 4
Account No. 7614 (Implementation of SY Court Order) – This task has excessively high costs, approximately $768K. It is unclear whether the modeling effort involving extremely detailed inputs and outputs are usable, relevant or cost effective. We recommend reducing the scope for this fiscal year and delaying the implementation of the uncertainty analysis until the 2030 Safe Yield redetermination to develop an approach with clearly defined outcomes.
- The budget for the 2025 Safe Yield Reevaluation in FY 2024/25 is about $660,000. This is consistent with the total estimated cost for FY 2024/25 developed during the 2022 Safe Yield Reset Methodology (SYRM) Update, presented to the parties and documented in the 2022 SYRM Technical Memorandum.
- Watermaster's Engineer strives to make this a cost-effective process that meets the parties' needs while following the Court-ordered SYRM. All written comments during the development of the SYRM and during the 2025 Safe Yield Reevaluation have been responded to in writing. Several of the comments from the AP have resulted in reduced costs.
- This is required by court order, which was part of a negotiated settlement to the SY reset appeal.
- The uncertainty analysis was developed in response to and in coordination w/ the AP and part of an unopposed motion to the Court to approve a new SYRM.
- Staff/legal have no reason to propose a change in methodology or deviation from the process required by the Court's orders, and the Board has not directed staff/legal to pursue such a change.
- Parties can file challenges to the methodology at their own discretion.
- The tools and processes being developed during the 2025 Safe Yield Reevaluation will facilitate more efficient groundwater modeling investigations and reduce the cost of the 2030 Safe Yield Reset.
- Watermaster is currently working with the Appropriate Pool technical consultant and other stakeholders' technical experts to address feedback and concerns regarding the implementation of the Court ordered methodology including, but not limited to, the uncertainty analysis.
Date Submitted
2024-04-09
Name
Chad Nishida
Party
City of Ontario
Question
Are there other alternatives to reducing “travel” expenses since several meetings can occur virtually?
QUESTION ASKED REGARDING THE BUDGET:
Regarding Account No: Document 4
Are there other alternatives to reducing “travel” expenses since several meetings can occur virtually?
Watermaster has consistently reduced the amount of travel by reducing in person appearances of consultants unless necessary.
Date Submitted
2024-04-09
Name
Chad Nishida
Party
City of Ontario
Question
In the Engineering Budget Tables (document #4) the footnotes are not identified.
QUESTION ASKED REGARDING THE BUDGET:
Regarding Account No: Document 4
In the Engineering Budget Tables (document #4) the footnotes are not identified.
The updated engineering budget tables with identified footnotes has been uploaded. Please refer to Document #3.
Date Submitted
2024-04-09
Name
Chad Nishida
Party
City of Ontario
Question
BHFS Legal Fees (Document #3 - OBMP Update 6907.45): The text states, “Work in 2024-2025 would include assistance with OBMPU implementation and assisting the parties with issues associated with potential amendments to the Peace Agreement and OBMPU Implementation Plan.” and Article II section 2.25 of the Rules and Regulations states, “Watermaster shall reasonably defend the Judgment, the Peace Agreement, the Peace II Agreement, the OBMP Implementation Plan, and these Rules and Regulations against challenges brought by persons who are not parties to the Judgment.” What role does Watermaster intend on having with respect to amendments to the Peace Agreement? It is our understanding that Watermaster will not be a part of renegotiating the Peace Agreement.
QUESTION ASKED REGARDING THE BUDGET:
Regarding Account No: Document 3
BHFS Legal Fees (Document #3 - OBMP Update 6907.45): The text states, “Work in 2024-2025 would include assistance with OBMPU implementation and assisting the parties with issues associated with potential amendments to the Peace Agreement and OBMPU Implementation Plan.” and Article II section 2.25 of the Rules and Regulations states, “Watermaster shall reasonably defend the Judgment, the Peace Agreement, the Peace II Agreement, the OBMP Implementation Plan, and these Rules and Regulations against challenges brought by persons who are not parties to the Judgment.” What role does Watermaster intend on having with respect to amendments to the Peace Agreement? It is our understanding that Watermaster will not be a part of renegotiating the Peace Agreement.
Watermaster is budgeting for providing support in the Peace Agreement negotiations if requested by the parties.
Date Submitted
2024-04-09
Name
Chad Nishida
Party
City of Ontario
Question
For Account Nos. 6907.31, 6907.32, and 6907.36: Are these projects going to take place FY 24/25?
a. It is unclear what legal services are anticipated for these projects since the projects are well established and managed by the SARWQCB. In addition, it is unclear what the actual expenses were in FY 23/24 for these Account Nos.
QUESTION ASKED REGARDING THE BUDGET:
Regarding Account No: Document 3
For Account Nos. 6907.31, 6907.32, and 6907.36: Are these projects going to take place FY 24/25?
a. It is unclear what legal services are anticipated for these projects since the projects are well established and managed by the SARWQCB. In addition, it is unclear what the actual expenses were in FY 23/24 for these Account Nos.
We budget for these types of potential expenses for all the reasons explained in the memo. While parties are assessed in order to allow for potential services within these categories, if the services aren’t provided, then the funds are returned to the assessed parties. It is easier/more nimble to have budgeted ahead than to try to change budget/collect post hoc.
Date Submitted
2024-04-09
Name
Chad Nishida
Party
City of Ontario
Question
Can Watermaster break out carry over funding?
QUESTION ASKED REGARDING THE BUDGET:
Regarding Account No: Document 1
Can Watermaster break out carry over funding?
Please refer to Document #2 labeled Carryover Budget.
Date Submitted
2024-04-09
Name
Chad Nishida
Party
City of Ontario
Question
In the Proposed Budget for FY 2024-25 (document #1), “Special Project Expense” [which includes litigation expenses] should be assigned a task order number and separately budgeted and accounted for, as stated in Article IV, Section 4.1 (b) per Chino Basin Watermaster Rules and Regulations {Judgement 54(a)}.
QUESTION ASKED REGARDING THE BUDGET:
Regarding Account No: Document 1
In the Proposed Budget for FY 2024-25 (document #1), “Special Project Expense” [which includes litigation expenses] should be assigned a task order number and separately budgeted and accounted for, as stated in Article IV, Section 4.1 (b) per Chino Basin Watermaster Rules and Regulations {Judgement 54(a)}.
This question was further clarified with the City of Ontario and they considered it addressed.
Date Submitted
2024-04-09
Name
Chad Nishida
Party
City of Ontario
Question
For Account Nos. 5901.7, 6901.3, 6901.9, 7301.1, and 60182.4: Please explain why there is significant difference in variance for these particular salaries and benefits?
a. Line item 26 (conference and seminars) please explain and include the expected number of conferences and seminars as this is a significant increase from last year’s budget.
QUESTION ASKED REGARDING THE BUDGET:
Regarding Account No: Document 1
For Account Nos. 5901.7, 6901.3, 6901.9, 7301.1, and 60182.4: Please explain why there is significant difference in variance for these particular salaries and benefits?
a. Line item 26 (conference and seminars) please explain and include the expected number of conferences and seminars as this is a significant increase from last year’s budget.
- Accounts 5901.7, 6901.3, 6901.9, and 7301.1 pertaining to salaries have been budgeted based on anticipated time allocations performed by staff due to efforts going to Judgment Administration, OBMP, and special projects. The amount of hours worked by staff remains similar to previous Fiscal Years, it is only the anticipated allocation that varies. Retiree health (60182.4) is budgeted at an increase from FY 24 due to two additional retirees to be considered in the budget.
- For line item 26 - The previous version of the budget showed a level of funding that was not intended and has since been corrected.