HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-07-02 Min - Board REGULAR MEETING
July 2, 2008
In accordance with District Code Section 2.08.010, the TDPUD minutes are action only
minutes. All Board meetings are recorded on audio tapes which are preserved perpetually and
made available for listening to any interested party upon their request.
The regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the Truckee Donner Public Utility District was called
to order at 6:01 PM in the TDPUD Board room by President Taylor.
ROLL CALL: Directors Joe Aguera, Ron Hemig, Tim Taylor and Bill Thomason were present. Director
Patricia Sutton was absent.
EMPLOYEES PRESENT: Ian Fitzgerald, Ed Taylor, Nancy Waters, Joe Horvath, Mary Chapman,
Steven Poncelet, Rosana Matlock, Bob Mescher, Neil Kaufman, Michael Holley and Barbara Cahill
CONSULTANTS PRESENT: Steve Gross
OTHERS PRESENT: Kappy Mann, Juanita Schneider, Dan Warren and Nova Lance-Seghi
CHANGES IN THE AGENDA
There were no changes to the agenda.
PUBLIC INPUT
There was no public input,
DIRECTOR UPDATE
President Taylor asked Michael Holley for an update on Director Sutton. Mr. Holley reported that
Director Sutton is in the hospital in Reno and staff expects her back with full recovery.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Agenda Item No. 6, Quit Claim for the Aspens was pulled and placed in Action Items.
AMENDMENT OF GENERAL MANAGER'S CONTRACT This item concerns amending the
General Manager's contract related to the District's Sphere of Influence.
DECLARE EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS SURPLUS This item concerns declaring District
equipment and materials surplus.
RESOLUTION GRANTING GENERAL MANAGER AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE EMERGENCY
TEMPORARY RESIDENTIAL WATER SERVICES This item concerns granting the General
Manager authority to provide emergency temporary residential water services.
Director Thomason moved, and Director Aguera seconded, that the Board approve the consent
calendar. ROLL CALL: Director Sutton, absent; All other Directors aye, by voice vote. SO MOVED
1 Minutes: July 2, 2008
ACTION ITEMS
QUIT CLAIM FOR THE ASPENS This item concerns a Deed that pertains to APN 18-601-029
10130 Donner Trail Road, The Aspens.
Director Hemig recused himself as The Aspens are his clients.
Director Aguera moved, and Director Thomason seconded, that the Board authorize the Board
President to sign the Quite Claim removing the restriction on APN 18-601-02, 10130 Donner Trail Rd.
ROLL CALL: Director Sutton, absent; Director Hemig, recused; All other Directors aye, by voice vote.
SO MOVED
SIERRA COLLEGE CHANGE ORDER This item concerns the approval of a change order for
the Sierra College joint water facilities.
Director Hemig moved, and Director Aguera seconded, that the Board authorize a revision to the
agreement between the District and Sierra College for a revised payment from the District to Sierra College
in an amount of $348,710; authorize an expenditure of up to $380,000 for the project; and authorize the
transfer of necessary funds from Water Facility Fees to the Water General Fund to pay for the
improvements.
ROLL CALL: Director Sutton, absent; All other Directors aye, by voice vote. SO MOVED
APPROVAL OF CEQA INITIAL STUDY FOR STOCKHOLM PUMP STATION REPLACEMENT
This item concerns the approval of the CEQA Initial Study for the Stockholm pump station.
Director Aguera moved, and Director Thomason seconded, that the Board authorize staff to file the
proposed negative declaration and environmental initial study with the Office of the Nevada County
Clerk; authorize staff to file the proposed negative declaration and environmental study with responsi-
ble and interested agencies and with the State Clearinghouse; authorize staff to publish a notice of
public review period and public hearing on the proposed negative declaration; and authorize staff to
set a public hearing date of July 16, 2008.
ROLL CALL: Director Sutton, absent; All other Directors aye, by voice vote. SO MOVED
SCHEDULING OF A SPECIAL BOARD MEETING FOR WATER METERING This item involves
the scheduling of a special meeting regarding water metering.
Director Hemig moved, and Director Aguera seconded, that the Board set the date of July 23, 2008 at
6:00 PM for a special Board meeting regarding residential water meters.
ROLL CALL: Director Sutton, absent; All other Directors aye, by voice vote. SO MOVED
AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE NEW COMPUTER SERVERS FOR THE DISTRICT'S
NETWORK This item concerns authorizing the purchase of new servers and associated
hardware and software under the State of California's CMAS contract with Dell Computers Inc.
Director Aguera moved, and Director Thomason seconded, that the Board approve the purchase of
the hardware and software on the itemized attachment titled Computer Server Upgrade including
other supplies and sales tax in an amount not to exceed $40,000.
ROLL CALL: Director Sutton, absent; All other Directors aye, by voice vote. SO MOVED
2 Minutes: July 2, 2008
APPROVE THE RESOLUTION FOR REVISIONS TO DISTRICT CODE, TITLE 3 FINANCE &
ACCOUNTING This item involves approval of a resolution to adopt the revisions to District
Code, Title 3, Finance and Accounting.
Director Hemig moved, and Director Thomason seconded, that the Board authorize the President of
the Board to sign the Resolution Adopting Amendments to the District Code Title 3, Finance and
Accounting with one revision to 3.06.2, No. 2 to remove "with the first principle (A) having priority over
principle (B)".
ROLL CALL: Director Sutton, absent; All other Directors aye, by voice vote. SO MOVED
APPOINT A DISTRICT NEGOTIATOR FOR REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATIONS This item in-
volves the appointment of a negotiator(s)to represent the District in the purchase of Glenshire
property where The Strand pump station is located.
Director Thomason moved, and Director Aguera seconded, that the Board appoint the General Man-
ager as the District's negotiator with Howard Henn concerning the purchase of the parcel located on
The Strand in Glenshire subdivision.
ROLL CALL: Director Sutton, absent; All other Directors aye, by voice vote. SO MOVED
Director Hemig asked to move agenda action item No. 16, Approve Updated Development
Agreement- Electric &Water, after the Grand Jury Workshop
WORKSHOPS
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING METERING OF RESIDENTIAL WATER SERVICES
This item is a presentation and discussion of various financing options regarding residential
metering.
Neil Kaufman and Bob Mescher gave a presentation:
• State mandate to install water meters and bill volumetrically
• History
o Residential customer are currently billed a flat rate
o SB 229 (1992) requires meters on new connections
o AB2572 requires billing SB 229 connections by 2010 and installing meters and billing all
customers volumetrically by 2025
o Full implementation will cost approximately$10 million (today's cost)
• Three Phases to AB 2572 Compliance
o Phase 1- Pilot program
■ Cost $266,000
■ Install or upgrade approx 500 meters with Automated Meter Reading technology
(AMR) by No. 2008
■ Gather customer consumption an installation cost data
■ Based upon results, estimate total cost of Phase 2 and 3 and validate AMR selection
o Phase 2
■ Cost of $2 million to meet first AB 2572 deadline compliance in 2010
■ Install or upgrade approx 5,546 meters in 2009 using AMR
■ Begin volumetrically billing Phase 1 and 2 customers by January 1, 2010
o Phase 3
■ Cost of $7.7 million to meet AB 2572 deadline compliance in 2025
■ Install approx 4,134 meter boxes and 6,339 meters utilizing AMR
■ Begin volumetrically billing all customers by January 1, 2025
3 Minutes: July 2, 2008
• Timing
o Phase 1: 2008
o Phase 2: 2009
o Phase 3: delayed (start 2020- complete by2023), gradual (install 500 per year for 12
years, complete by 2021) and expedited (complete by 2012)
• Funding sources
o Board designated funds- Reserve for Future Water Meters
o Loans (repaid with rates)
o Rates (rates to "pay as we go")
• Financial Assumptions
0 3.5% inflation of material and labor
o Interest rates of 4.29%for 10 year loans and 5.46%for 15 year loans
o Fixed surcharge starting in 2009 continuing for the term of the repayment
o $1,272,000 of reserves used
• Estimated charge per customer- each has a pro and a con
o Delayed implementation: $4.87 per month for 16 years
o Gradual implementation: $5.39 per month for 14 years
o Expedited implementation: $5.88 per month to cover a 15 year/$9.6 million external loan
• Surcharge options for expedited
o Fixed: $5.88
0 2- year ramp: $3.07, then $6.14
0 3- year ramp: $2.50, $4.75, then $6.33
• Technology options
., o Drive-by systems
■ Currently used by district
■ Radio transmitter installed on all meters
■ Meters read by receiver unit in vehicle and read only when vehicle dispatched
■ Most systems have guilt-in programming for leak detection, backflow and tampering
■ Lower level of customer service than fixed-base systems
o Fixed-base Systems
■ Radio transmitter installed on all meters
■ Meters read by receiver units mounted at fixed locations.
■ Data retransmitted to District office from receiver
■ Function well with Expedited Implementation
■ Will perform all functions of Drive-by with other features(depending on system): collect
data at short intervals, meter reads via internet, remote turn-ons & shut-offs, self-
diagnostic for efficient maintenance, no additional efforts for special reads
■ Will provide enhanced customer service
■ Allow more effective conservation program
• Other Issues
o Manufacturers use different radios for drive-by &fixed-base-limits opportunity for migration
o No standardization between meter& AMR manufacturers-competing don't interface well
o Most AMR system manufacturers also offer an electric meter
• Technology Cost Implications
o Meter mounted radio transmitter similar for both drive-by&fixed-base systems
o Drive-by vehicle mounted receivers completive between manufacturers
o Fixed-base: different radio technologies requirements vary for number of receivers and
... mounting heights
o There are fixed-based systems that are cost competitive with drive-by systems.
• Time Line
o Select implementation plan: July 23, 2008
4 Minutes: July 2, 2008
o Develop RFP/Bid package for AMR System: July 2008
o Bid and purchase AMR system: July/August 2008
o Implement pilot program and bring AMR on line: August to October 2008
o Install AMR system on remaining meters for AB2572 compliance: summer 2009
o Develop alternative rate structures: Summer 2009
o Begin sample billing based on meter reads: January 2010
o Full implementation of metered billing for customers with meters: January 2011
o Install meters on remaining customers- to be determined
Public input:
• How do the different Phase 3 timelines affect the funding process?
• Are the cost numbers based on the Drive By system?
• Are some systems more expensive?
• What is the best way to not to go into external debt?
• Can existing homes be retrofitted?
• Meters will be good for conservation
• What type of rate structure are you considering?
Board discussion:
• What does a fixed based system use to transmit information?
• Where would the fixed based transmitting towers/collectors go?
• If we choose to put in all the meters by 2012, could technology change dramatically and
become obsolete
• Would the legislature soften their stance for smaller utilities?
• What about Title 3 and debt goals of not more than 25% of generated revenue to debt- can we
stay in this goal? We do not want to violate our own policy.
• A $15 million note could mean $3.7 million on interest- what about pay as you go? Concern
about external debt.
• Leaning toward not hitting rate payers with another loan
• What about the AMR system test- are you going to buy in July or August?
• What about a gradual implementation and install 500 meters per year?
• What about new electric meters- could they be compatible with the new water meter reading
system? It would be good to change electric meters out over time.
• Fixed base seems the way to go- good reading for diagnostics and system could
accommodate electric in the future
• Is the cost close between drive-by systems and fixed based systems?
• What about the time out? If take years to install rest of meters, there could be conflict between
customers when some are metered and some are not.
• Can the District deal with a dual rate system?
• Funding should not drive the decision- should be what is best for the customers. Do quickly
and get done. Conservation value will occur quickly.
• Do Phase 1 pilot program this year, Phase 2 next and do gradually with Phase 3
• Will need $10 million regardless- rate payers will need to pay.
• Expedited is the way to go- have the entire district done by 2013- no different rates for different
customers.
• If use the gradual Phase 3- this carries into 2021 and will have different rates for 13 years
. ... • Do both fixed base and drive by meters have battery radios?
• Radio transmits instantaneous read
• The fixed base is advantageous for the expedited Phase
5 Minutes: July 2, 2008
• The table goes over possible customer charges for fixed customer rate, 2-year ramp, 3-year
ramp with meters in by 2012- surcharge would start in January 2009
• With a new loan, will the debt ratio be less that 25 of revenues? How long can debt be drawn
out?
• Get it done
• Need a rate study- so pilot data and phase 2 can help from that basis
• Leaning toward expedited with a fixed surcharge
• Quicker get done can roll into conservation- look at how deal with water
• Delayed would not help with conservation
• Fixed Base would have better data for conservation. And in the future move electric over to
Fixed Base system- better technology and capabilities
• People want data to address conservation
• If install meters gradually, the project would cost more to construct by 2023
• There are water wars now with no metering
• What about the quantity of conservation element- 20% reduced usage when meter. Relate to
power savings and impact of quicker installation of meters. Quantify- take 10% and the value
effect on the three scenarios
• What will be the volume of water conserved and not being pumped to save energy dollars?
The board asked staff to come back with requested information for a workshop on July 16, 2008
meeting.
GLENSHIRE WATER SYSTEM FINANCIAL RECAP This item is a recap of the debt status of the
Glenshire water system.
Mary Chapman gave a presentation about the Glenshire water system:
• Acquired from Glenshire Mutual Water Company in 2001.
• Several capital projects/upgrades were required to connect to the TDPUD system.
• All assets (cash, land and other credits) were transferred to TDPUD to offset upgrade costs
• District financed $1,911,158 of the upgrade costs
• Glenshire customers were assessed a $10.75 monthly surcharge on their water bills
• Asset and Loan Recap
o Liquid assets $1,171,358
o Loan external $1,740,000 (Current balance $1,249,196; payoff 2017)
o Internal loan $ 142,908 (Current balance $43,294)
o Surcharge collected to date $1,045,186
■ Total $4,099,452
o Capital assets constructed <$3,054,266>
o Loan Payments <$1,045,186>
■ Total $4,099,452
• Two properties have been sold; the District is actively engaged to sell the Glenshire Drive
property. Once sold, Board can either reduce the surcharge or term of the loan.
There was no public input.
Board comment:
• Would there be an advantage to pay down the loan?
• Understand the Board will need to decide whether to reduce the surcharge or loan term.
6 Minutes: July 2, 2008
REVIEW OF STREAMING VIDEO CAPABILITIES This item is a presentation of the District's
streaming video capabilities with respect to Board meetings.
Steven Poncelet gave a presentation:
• Background
o Board directed staff to improve customer access to board meetings
o Staff worked with TTCTV to develop streaming video on the web for live and past board
meetings
o The test period is now complete and the process is fully installed on the TDPUD website
for board meetings from May onward.
• Capabilities
o Past meetings are available on TDPUD website 2-3 days after meeting date
o Ability to pause, rewind, forward
o Keyword search capability
o Can select email block and send a link
o Archive past 12 months on website
• Demonstration of meeting actually live on www.tdpud.org home page (gold box with links)
Board comments:
• Excellent- great job
• Make known to the public
• How will we market?
• How can public access board meetings after the 12 months of archives?
RESPONSE TO THE GRAND JURY REPORT This item concerns response to the Nevada
County Grand Jury report, dated June 3, 2008.
Steven Poncelet gave a presentation:
• Background/History
o TDPUD and Developers routinely enter into Development Agreements for new connec-
tions.
o On February 25, 2008 the Nevada County Grand Jury received a complaint concerning a
Development Agreement signed in July, 2002 and subsequently conducted an investiga-
tion.
o On June 3, 2008 the Grand Jury posted their report on the Nevada County Website and
provided a written copy to the TDPUD Board.
• New Information
o TDPUD Staff reviewed the Grand Jury report, created draft responses, and are seeking
feedback and direction from the Board.
o As required by the California Penal Code, the Board must respond in writing to the Grand
Jury "Findings" and "Recommendations" by October 1, 2008.
o For Grand Jury "Findings", the Board response must be made in a certain format
o For Grand Jury "Recommendations", the Board response must be made in a certain format
• Draft Responses to the Grand Jury Report "Findings": (Note: TDPUD draft response in Bold)
o Grand Jury Findings
1. The District enjoys a virtual monopoly since, with a limited exception, there are no other
entities that provide its services within its service territory. Agree.
.. 2. There were egregious delays of more than three years in reconciling the deposit and costs
and in billing the Developer under the 2002 Agreement. Agree.
3. This dispute, which took ten months to resolve, was marked by acrimony on both sides.
Agree.
7 Minutes: July 2, 2008
4. Developer was delinquent in promptly submitting as-built drawings under the 2002 Agree-
ment. Agree.
5. The District treated the Developer as a credit risk in spite of having his significant deposits
on hand. Agree.
6. The Board was aware of the decision to withhold services under the 2006 and 2007
agreements as a way of forcing payment under the 2002 Agreement. Agree.
7. The District currently has no published process for resolving disputes between the District
and developers, although it does have such a process for resolving disputes between the
District and customers. Agree.
8. The new General Manager has begun a thorough and complete review of the District Code.
To date, only review of Title 1, General Provisions, has been completed. Partially Agree.
The District has reviewed and adopted a revised Title 4, is in the process of
reviewing Title 3, and has plans to review all remaining Titles.
• Grand Jury Recommendations
1. The Board should set up a clear dispute resolution process for development issues,
culminating in access to the Board. The recommendation has been implemented.
The TDPUD Board has taken action on this issue at the July 2, 2008 Board meeting.
The revised Development Agreement template now includes a dispute resolution
clause that includes formal access to the Board.
2. The Board should ensure that staff promptly completes its reconciliation of costs and depos-
its and promptly bills or refunds the balance to developers. The recommendation has
been implemented. The District has reviewed the management of Development
Agreements and now assigns a Project Administrator to each Development
Agreement to ensure contractual compliance and timely billing.
3. The Board should ensure that the practice of holding a developer hostage, by not serving a
different project, does not occur again. The District has implemented changes to the
Development Agreement that will result in consistent and fair treatment of all
developers.
4. The Board should establish clear Board policy for resolution of any credit risk issues that
may arise despite the existence of deposits. This item has been implemented. The
District will now break larger projects into phases and collects, up front, deposits
to cover the costs of each phase. Given this structure, credit evaluationstrisks are
no longer a part of the process.
5. The Board should enthusiastically support the complete review and revision of polices,
rules, and procedures in the District Code being undertaken by the new General
Manager. In light of the leverage that being the only game in town creates, the Board
should make sure that the revisions address the matters set forth in this Report, as well
as any other shortcomings that may be found during the review. This recommendation
has been implemented and the Board supports the on-going District Code revision
process. This process should be completed by December, 2008.
• Next Steps
o Post Grand Jury report, responses and actions on TDPUD Website.
o Direct the Staff to create a draft response to the Grand Jury report to include Board
comments.
o Agendize action item on Board response to the Grand Jury report in August timeframe
There was no public input.
Board comments:
• Recommendation 3- Changes have been implemented for fair treatment
• What if a developer is delinquent on one project- do we have to serve on a different project?
• What if a developer has not paid for one phase and wants a new one?
8 Minutes: July 2, 2008
• How can a project be reconciled if the developer does not provide information- example "As-
Builts"- how do we meet deadline if developer is not cooperating?
• Projects will be easier to manage on a monthly basis
• What is conditional/unconditional acceptance in the development agreement?
• Recommendation 5- "enthusiastically support" that tone makes it sound like we are not excited
about what we are doing
• Good to have verbage in place to solve the situation when there are dollars owing from one
project when there is another project pending for the same developer
• Good to cut projects into pieces and have a project administrator
• Agree with all recommendations- can trace staff response in new revised development
agreement
• Did the media have access to the Grand Jury report?
• Want District draft response to be public
• Believe the District was following what was in the existing policy at the time- but there were
holes in that policy.
• Staff has made a great attempt to revise this hole- especially number one being a clear
dispute resolution for the developer- the District has one for customers ,but needed one for
developers
• We have learned things through his process
• Great to move forward from here
• District needs to respond by October 1 to the Grand Jury- do they respond back?
• All Grand Jury concerns answered and have implemented
... ACTION ITEM
APPROVE UPDATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT- ELECTRIC & WATER This item involves
the approval of revisions to the development agreement process.
Director Hemig moved, and Director Thomason seconded, that the Board approve the proposed
changes to the Development Agreement Guidelines and associated Development Agreement
Contracts. ROLL CALL: Director Sutton, absent; All other Directors aye, by voice vote. SO MOVED
CLOSED SESSION
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR PURSUANT TO SECTION 54956.8 OF
THE GOVERNMENT CODE. PROPERTY: 14629 GLENSHIRE DRIVE APN 49-011-29 AND 14630
GLENSHIRE DRIVE, 49-011-31; DISTRICT NEGOTIATOR: GENERAL MANAGER; NEGOTIATING
PARTIES: TOWN OF TRUCKEE; UNDER NEGOTIATION: PRICE AND TERMS.
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR PURSUANT TO SECTION 54956-8 OF
GOVERNMENT CODE. PROPERTY: THE STRAND APN 49-240-37
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL ON PENDING LITIGATION GOVERNMENT CODE
54956.9: SIERRA PACIFIC POWER TRANSMISSION.
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR PURSUANT TO SECTION 54956.8 OF
THE GOVERNMENT CODE. PROPERTY: SIERRA PACIFIC POWER COMPANY, CALIFORNIA
PROPERTY; DISTRICT NEGOTIATOR: GENERAL MANAGER; NEGOTIATING PARTIES: SI-
ERRA PACIFIC POWER COMPANY; UNDER NEGOTIATION: PRICE AND TERMS.
9 Minutes: July 2, 2008
PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION-GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957(E):
GENERAL MANAGER
RETURN TO OPEN SESSION
There was no reportable action.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 10:41 PM.
TRUCKEE DONNER PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
Tim F. Taylor, Pr ident
"? ", kw
Prepared b e i/0 ��� �6k
p Y
Barbara Cahil ,,Deputy District Clerk
10 Minutes: July 2, 2008