Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Prop 218 Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mid Kings River GSA advances Prop 2 18 outreach and presents draft five‑year budget
Summary
The Mid Kings River GSA on May 12 reviewed a draft five‑year budget tied to a proposed Prop 2 18 funding election, outlining a two‑part funding approach (per‑acre fixed assessment and per‑acre‑foot pumping fees) and a staged outreach plan with a draft engineer's report expected in June.
The Mid Kings River Groundwater Sustainability Agency on May 12 presented a draft five‑year budget and a public outreach timetable ahead of a proposed Prop 2 18 funding election.
Amir, the GSA manager, told directors the agency proposes funding operations with two components: a land‑based fixed assessment to cover annual operating costs and a variable pumping fee charged per acre‑foot to support mitigation programs such as a dry‑well pilot, water‑quality responses and subsidence mitigation. “The fixed costs…we are currently thinking that those costs would be borne by a land based assessment,” Amir said, explaining the distinction between fixed per‑acre charges and per‑acre‑foot pumping fees for mitigation.
Consultant Becca of Provost & Pritchard outlined a three‑phase outreach plan for the Prop 2 18 election: a listening and feedback phase of direct landowner engagement, a broader education phase as a draft engineer’s report is finalized, and the formal election period that requires at least 45 days’ public notice. Becca said a preliminary draft engineer’s report will be ready in June to support early outreach.
On the draft budget, Amir listed fixed costs that would be covered by the per‑acre assessment: payback to Kings County Water District, the City of Hanford and Kings County for costs already incurred; staffing and payroll‑related costs for a manager and support; outside legal and engineering; monitoring and website setup; and outreach. Variable costs tied to pumping were described as the source for mitigation funds, noting the GSA would charge pumpers for dry‑well mitigation and other pilot programs.
When asked about the financial liability the GSA had inherited, a staff member provided rough estimates: roughly $306,000 in initial liabilities, about $350,000 in county‑incurred costs since county administration began, and about $150,000 by the City of Hanford, for total liabilities the staff estimated at roughly $700,000 (figures described as approximate).
Directors pressed on who would pay if the election fails. Staff said the GSA is currently funded about 89% by Kings County and 11% by the City of Hanford and that, without a successful election, the board would return to discuss what services could continue under that funding arrangement.
Next steps: the GSA will refine budget numbers with the stakeholder advisory committee and the engineer’s report team, then bring a final budget and rate methodology back to the board for approval before taking the funding measure to a Prop 2 18 election.
