HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-08-19 Min - Board REGULAR MEETING
August 19, 2009
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 perpe-
tually 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 6:02 PM in the TDPUD Board room by President Hemig.
ROLL CALL: Directors Joe Aguera, Ron Hemig, John Hillstrom and Pat Sutton were present.
Director Jeff Bender was absent.
EMPLOYEES PRESENT: Steven Poncelet, Stephen Hollabaugh, Neil Kaufman, Mary
Chapman, Lauren Schaake-Hudson, Rosana Matlock, Michael Holley and Barbara Cahill
CONSULTANTS PRESENT: Steve Gross and Shawn Koorn
OTHERS PRESENT: Juanita Schneider, Dan Warren, Curtis Lally, and Paula Sutton
CHANGES TO THE AGENDA
There were no changes to the agenda.
PUBLIC INPUT
There was no public input.
DIRECTOR UPDATE
There were no director updates.
WORKSHOPS
DISCUSSION OF WATER RATE STUDY REPORT This involves the discussion of
various water rates structure alternatives at the concept level.
Shawn Koorn of HDR consulting gave a presentation:
• Overview of the Analysis
o Determined rate structures in previous Board workshops
o August 5: reviewed draft results of analysis, received policy direction, requests for
further explanation on rate impacts
• Revenue requirement implications
o Future rate adjustments largely driven by inflation
o Minor rate/budget adjustments needed at this time
• Basis of proposed residential rate designs
o Two tier inclining rate
1 Minutes: August 19 2009
.. o Monthly service charges will comprise of 85% of rate revenue to minimize financial
risk; remaining 15% collected through usage charges and pump zone charges
o Pump zone charges have been re-assessed
o Proposed rates do not include current surcharges
o Separate hydrant charge is eliminated and included in proposed service charge
• Proposed residential rate- 2 tier inclining
o Present rate $51.48/mo, plus 75 cents = $52.23
o Year 1, 1.75% adjustment
• Monthly service charge: $53.15; usage charge 0-8,000 gal $0.55/1,000 gal;
over 8,000 $0.69/1,000 gal
• Unmetered rate $58.96
o Year 2, 1.75% adjustment
• Monthly service charge: $53.95/mo; usage charge 0-8,000 gal $0.60/1,000 gal;
over 8,000 $0.75/1,000 gal
• Unmetered rate $60.28
• Proposed pump zone charges
o Metered customer rate
Pump Zone 1 $0.00 /1,000 gal
Pump Zone 2 $0.25 /1,000 gal
Pump Zone 3 $0.50 /1,000 gal
Pump Zone 4 $0.75 /1,000 gal
Pump Zone 5 $1.00 /1,000 gal
Pump Zone 6 $1.25 /1,000 gal
Pump Zone 7 $1.50 /1,000 gal
o Un-metered customer rate
Pump Zone 1 $0.00 /1,000 gal
Pump Zone 2 $2.51 /1,000 gal
Pump Zone 3 $5.02 /1,000 gal
Pump Zone 4 $7.53 /1,000 gal
Pump Zone 5 $10.04/1,000 gal
Pump Zone 6 $12.55 /1,000 gal
Pump Zone 7 $15.06 /1,000 gal
• Sierra Meadows residential bill comparison- no use
o Existing rate base charge/mo $51.48, hydrant 75 cents, zone charge $5.60 =
$693.96 annually
o Future rate base charge/mo $53.15, no use = $637.80 annually (which is a 8.1%
decrease over existing)
• Sierra Meadows residential bill comparison- average user
o Existing rate base charge/mo $51.48, hydrant 75 cents, zone charge $5.60 =
$693.96 annually
o Future rate base charge/mo $53.15, average volume billing of 10,000/mo =
$708.28 annually (which is a 2.1% increase over existing)
• Sierra Meadows residential bill comparison- high user
o Existing rate base charge/mo $51.48, hydrant 75 cents, zone charge $5.60 =
$693.96 annually
o Future rate base charge/mo $53.15, average volume billing of 14,000/mo =
$741.40 annually (which is a 6.8% increase over existing)
2 Minutes: August 19 2009
• Sierra Meadows residential bill comparison- unmetered
o Existing rate base charge/mo $51.48, hydrant 75 cents, zone charge $5.60 =
$57.83/mo
o Future rate = $58.96/mo ( which is a 2.0% increase over existing)
• Donner View residential bill comparison- no use
o Existing rate base charge/mo $51.48, hydrant 75 cents, zone charge $15.08 =
$807.72 annually
o Future rate base charge/mo $53.15, no use = $637.80 annually (which is a 21.0%
decrease over existing)
• Donner View residential bill comparison- average user
o Existing rate base charge/mo $51.48, hydrant 75 cents, zone charge $15.08 =
$807.72 annually
o Future rate base charge/mo $53.15, average volume billing of 10,000/mo =
$828.28 annually (which is a 2.5% increase over existing)
• Donner View residential bill comparison- high user
o Existing rate base charge/mo $51.48, hydrant 75 cents, zone charge $15.08 =
$807.72 annually
o Future rate base charge/mo $53.15, average volume billing of 14,000/mo =
$909.40 annually (which is a 12.6% increase over existing)
• Donner View residential bill comparison- unmetered
o Existing rate base charge/mo $51.48, hydrant 75 cents, zone charge $15.08 =
$67.31/mo
., o Future rate = $69.00/mo ( which is a 2.5% increase over existing)
• Basis of proposed commercial rate designs
o Commercial- uniform rate with no usage allowance
o Commercial monthly service charges will comprise of 60% of rate revenue (compa-
rable to current structure)
o Pump zone charges have been re-assessed
o Surcharges are not included in proposed rates
o Separate hydrant charge is eliminated and included in monthly service charge
• Proposed commercial rates- alternative 1 Uniform Rate Structure (collect 60% from
service charge)
o Present rate for 3/4" $44.97; usage charge is a declining block
o Year 1, 1.75% adjustment
• Monthly service charge for 3/4" $53.15
• Consumption charge $1.45/1,000 gal
o Year 2, 1.75% adjustment
• Monthly service charge for 3/4" $53.95
• Consumption charge $1.48/1,000 gal
• Proposed commercial rates-3/4" customer- Pump Zone 1 (average use 2,000 gal)
o Existing rate base charge/mo $44.97, hydrant $1.15 cents, zone charge $0.66 =
$561.36 annually
o Future rate base charge/mo $53.15, usage charge/mo $2.90, no zone charge =
$672.60 annually (which is a 19.8% increase over existing)
• Proposed commercial rates- 4" customer- Pump Zone 1 (average use 40,000 gal)
o Existing rate base charge/mo $248.30, hydrant/mo $18.75, usage charge/mo
$58.02, zone charge/mo $13.20 = $4,059.24 annually
3 Minutes: August 19 2009
o Future rate base charge/mo $293.47, usage charge/mo $58.00, no zone charge =
$4,217.64 annually (which is a 3.9% increase over existing)
• Proposed commercial rates- 4" customer- Pump Zone 4 (average use 40,000 gal)
o Existing rate base charge/mo $248.30, hydrant/mo $18.75, usage charge/mo
$58.02, zone charge/mo $56 = $4,572.84 annually
o Future rate base charge/mo $293.47, usage charge/mo $58.00, zone charge/mo
$30 = $4,577.64 annually (which is a 0.1% increase over existing)
• Summary
o Impacts between customers will vary depending on usage
o Combining the proposed pump zone charges, cost of service adjustments, and
metered rates results in minor rate impacts
■ Residential and commercial impacts will vary by use and pump zone
• Conclusions
o Inflationary adjustments are needed to adequately fund the District's Operations &
Maintenance and capital needs
o Proposed rates are designed around the estimated average residential customer
use and metered commercial customer use
o Pump zone charges reflect change in methodology
• Next steps
o Sept 2 - Public workshop on proposed water rates
o Sept 16 — Review and approval of new water rates
o After Sept 16 approval of rates — mailing of public hearing notices
o Nov 4 — Public hearing on proposed rates' Board adoption after protest review
o Jan 2010 — Implementation of proposed rates
Public input:
• Do commercial rates have a charge per gallon and per zone
• Concern that 85% of the rate protects the utility against revenue risk
• Would the lowest tier see an increase in the base rate as metered
• Will the base amount be changed in the future
Board discussion:
• So the 3/4" residential and commercial have the same base charge of $53.15- but how
did you arrive at the incremental change
• Understand better
• One group with no use could have a decrease in their monthly bill- does not seem like
too many group types went up
• The possible increase in monthly billings is a lot less than originally thought
• Meters will register total use and people will be charged per 1,000 gallons of actual
consumption- not just in 1,000 gallon increments
• Rate will go up and depends on usage
• Pump zones- not sure where all areas of the District fit
• Board is not sure of percent increase as the Budget has not been completed yet
• In 2010, residential customers will still be on a flat rate- but customers will have a year
to see their usage
• Good linkage here- met the objective and put numbers to a test- rates seem
reasonable
4 Minutes: August 19 2009
• Maybe it would help customers to know the cents per gallon- this way it would seem to
be a negligible increase
• The examples made the rate structures much clearer
• Please explain the thought behind the zone charges
• There are electric costs to pump water so need zones relative to electric costs
• Tahoe Donner Association needs a response to their letter
DISCUSSION OF A CUSTOMER LEAK REPAIR REBATE PROGRAM This involves a
discussion of a Customer Leak Repair Rebate Program.
Steve Poncelet gave a presentation:
• Background / History
o Water Meter Project includes remote leak detection
■ Customer-side of the meter
■ System notifies District
■ Gives timing and rate of leakage
0 10-30% of customers have leaks
o District is notifying customers
■ Customer's responsibility
■ Procedures to locate leak
■ Toilet dye tablets included
■ Some customers contact the District for help
Some customers will need professional help
• New Information
o Customer Leak Repair Rebate Program
■ Targeted at larger leaks
■ Leaks in service laterals, irrigation, and interior piping
o Requires licensed plumbing contractor
■ District working on a list
■ Leak detection capability a requirement
■ Minimum insurance requirements
o Incentive to locate and repair leaks
o Customer letters will be the initial contact
o Customer Leak Repair Rebate Program Details
■ Current water customers
■ Requires invoice showing repair from licensed plumbing contractor
■ District verifies leak abated: $100
o Estimate 150 rebates in FY09 based on 500-1500 customer leaks
o Potential for significant water reduction
■ Customer service and other benefits
■ Well timed with Water Meter Project & leak notification
• Fiscal Impact
o $15,000 rebate budget for FY09
o Prioritized over other new water conservation programs
. .. o Leverages existing Conservation Department resources
There was no public input.
5 Minutes: August 19 2009
Board discussion:
• Have many people contacted us
• Good idea to offer$100 to hire a plumber to fix the leak- this will encourage and help
• Does the state provide any money for this program or do all the dollars come from
public benefits
• Fixing leaks will save on pumping costs
• Good program
• Seems like the more meters go in, the leak program will need more dollars
REVIEW OF THE DISTRICT MISSION STATEMENT This item involves the review of the
District Mission Statement.
Steve Poncelet gave a presentation:
• Background / History
o District Code Title 1, General Provisions, Chapter 1.05 contains District's Mission
Statement, and the Objectives and Goals
o March of 2008 was last update
■ Previously modified March of 2007
■ Original document adopted July of 2006
o Mission Statement, Objectives, & Goals provide direction to staff during the budget
process
■ Staff starting to work on FY10 & FY11 budgets
o The current Mission Statement
■ "The Mission of Truckee Donner Public Utility District is to provide adequate,
reliable and high quality water and electrical power services, and to manage
District resources in an open, responsible, environmentally sound manner at the
lowest practical cost. In pursuing this Mission, the District will aggressively
pursue renewable energy sources as set forth in its Renewable Portfolio
Standard (Chapter 7, Electric)."
• New Information
o Mission Statement needs to be periodically reviewed
■ Mission Statement is starting point for budget process
■ Provides direction to Staff
■ Prioritizes resources and programs
■ Objectives and Goals will be reviewed during the upcoming budget process
There was no public input.
Board discussion:
• The Mission Statement is a living document- it is good to review all objectives and
goals
• Did a good job in the Mission Statement
• The District aggressively pursued renewable energy sources
• Does not make sense to reference the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) as part of
the Mission Statement itself as the RPS may change- the statement should be a stand
alone
• The word "adequate" —does it mean enough of a supply
6 Minutes: August 19 2009
• Elaborate on the renewable statement- use language that sheds light on RIPS
standard
• Is there another way to say "environmentally sound"
• Think about regulatory
• Open up for discussion
• Should not be too specific on initial statement
• Need to pursue renewable energy
• Include regulatory as a useful phrase
• Mission Statement should include regulatory requirement
• Sound manner means responsible
• RIPS is more specific and does not belong in the actual Mission Statement
• Adequate is an awkward word- seems like it does not set a high bar. For the public, it
should be a stronger word
• Mission Statement is what the District says to the public- what is the organization
• Include other statements- not just renewable energy
• Look from the point of how to make the first statement more definitive
• On the water side, adequate means source; on electric side, adequate means capacity
• Could distinguish between adequate and reliability
• Look at the Mission Statement in the whole context
• Incorporate ideas into a Draft Mission Statement revision
• Don't want to understate
DISCUSSION ON DISTRICT STREET LIGHTS Discuss District Street and Security Light
Service as applied in District Code 7.52
Stephen Hollabaugh gave a presentation:
• Background / History
o District has had street and security lights within the District for a long time
o Street and security lights are billed and viewed the same
• Street lights are normally installed along streets
• Security lights are normally installed on private and commercial property
o District Code Title 7, Chapter 7.52 (Street and Security Lights Service) was
approved by the Board in November 2008
o Chapter 7.52.020.1 (B) excerpt
• The District intends to research and locate customers of record for each street
light and assign appropriate billing. If there is no corresponding customer or
owner of record, the street light may be removed.
o The District has been reviewing all opportunities to maximize efficiency and reduce
cost to our customers
• The un-owned streetlights are costly to our customers due to the unfunded
energy usage
• Annual operating costs is between $15,000 to $30,000 per year
• New Information
o Board inquired about forming a Street Lighting Assessment District and status of
program
o In 2009, the District has removed 34 un-billed streetlights to date for a total of 5100
watts
7 Minutes: August 19 2009
o Staff put together an estimate of what this may cost
o Assessment District Formation Costs: (estimate)
LAFCO Fees $ 25,000
Engineering study 125,000
Mapping facilities 25,000
Legal Costs 50,000
Capital Cost of 500 new installations 1,500,000
Sub total $1,725,000
o Annual Operating Costs:
Energy costs (for 500 efficient installations) $ 27,000
Operation costs — annual maintenance 30,000
Administrative costs 25,000
Sub total $ 82,000
First year Grand Total $1,8079000
Public input:
• Seems like a lot of dollars- we live in an environment of dark stars
• Do not want an addition of street lights
• Replace existing with efficient lights to provide safety and security
• Have a street light and pay for it- bulb has only had to be changed once in many years
• Hate to think people live alone and should have break-ins because light is gone
• Security lights give security
• Not against energy efficient lights
• Would hate to see security lights be done away with and have no street lights
• Still want to be able to have a security light, but pay for its operation
Board discussion:
• If the community feels strongly, then should have a street light district
• If there is public interest, they should support it
• Do not want to form a street light district if the community is not interested
• Need to have a dollar figure per customer, so people can relate to the money involved
to set up a street light district
• Could conduct a poll- have publicity before do an assessment district
• Don't want Truckee to look like LA with all the lights- there would be more complaints
• Could poll the public and see if there is support for a street light district
• Thought the Town has an ordinance about dark skies- strict lighting policy
• That is a lot of money for an assessment district
• Why isn't the street light removal process moving along quicker
• How much is paid for each light per month
• This seems like a Town responsibility and what they provide- police, security
• Did the General Manager, Michael Holley speak to the Town of Truckee about this
• In the 1980's, downtown needed to get lights; business owners pay to operate their
own light
8 Minutes: August 19 2009
. ROUTINE BUSINESS
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR JULY 15 AND AUGUST 5, 2009
Director Hillstrom moved, and Director Aguera seconded, that the Board approve the minutes
of July 15 and August 5, 2009.
ROLL CALL: Director Bender, absent; All other Directors, aye. SO MOVED.
TREASURER'S REPORT: JULY 2009
Approval of the report: Director Aguera moved, and Director Hillstrom seconded, that the
Board approve the treasurer's report for the month ended July 31, 2009.
ROLL CALL: Director Bender, absent; All other Directors, aye. SO MOVED.
Approval of disbursements: Director Aguera moved, and Director Hillstrom seconded, that
the Board approve the July 2009 disbursements report.
ROLL CALL: Director Bender, absent; Director Sutton, no (feels the Board should approve
the checks before they are mailed); All other Directors, aye. SO MOVED.
CLOSED SESSION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9, SUBDIVI-
SION (A), EXISTING LITIGATION: CLAIMS OF PACIFIC RIM CONSTRUCTION, INC.;
LAKESIDE SPECIALIZED TRANSPORTATION; ADVANCED ASPHALT; AND TEICHERT
PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION - GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
54957 (E): GENERAL MANAGER PERFORMANCE PLAN REVIEW
RETURN TO OPEN SESSION
Report from closed session
There was no reportable action.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:00 PM.
:RUC E D NER PU IC UTILITY DISTRICT
J Hemig, President
b Preparedy
Barbara Cah", eputy District Clerk
9 Minutes: August 19 2009