Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-06-03 Min - Board REGULAR MEETING June 3, 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 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 6:00 PM in the TDPUD Board room by President Hemig. ROLL CALL: Directors Joe Aguera, Jeff Bender, Ron Hemig, John Hillstrom and Pat Sutton were present. EMPLOYEES PRESENT: Kathy Neus, Neil Kaufman, Ed Taylor, Mark Thomas, Steven Poncelet, Nancy Waters, Rosana Matlock, Jessica Wilson, Michael Holley, Lauren Schaake and Barbara Cahill CONSULTANTS PRESENT: Steve Gross and Shawn Koorn OTHERS PRESENT: Juanita Schneider, Dan Warren, Jake Hudson, Lauren Schaake, Mike Hughes, Eric Tracy (MCS), Rich Surratt (MCS), Bob Raymond, Allen Johnson, Larry Ford, Elaine Johnson, David Woodhead, Carl and Elaine Rasmussen, Don Colclough, Joe Pomroy, Paula Sutton, Maris Bowls, Greg Markwardt (Vulcan), Bruno Dietl (Vulcan), Ross Thomson (Ferguson), Richard Sanders (Datamatic), Brent Craig (Datamatic), Dawn Groves (Feister), Dave Bordenkircher (Ferguson), Jacqui Zink, Patty Lomato, Bob Ben, Ellie Hyatt and Rolf Godon CHANGES TO THE AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. PUBLIC INPUT There was no public input. DIRECTOR UPDATE Director Hillstrom attended a Northern California Power meeting, There was some discussion concerning hydroelectric allocation. This does not affect the TDPUD as much as it does other utilities in the bay area. Director Sutton wanted to let everyone know that Juanita Schneider will be the Grand Marshall of the Truckee 4th of July parade. Director Bender wanted to thank Kathy Neus for all her time on the energy audit of the District building. There are things that can be done to reduce energy. President Hemig wanted to let the Board know that former Director Robert Jones passed away and to recognized his service to the Truckee Donner PUD. 1 Minutes: June 3, 2009 President Hemig asked to move the workshop about Water Rate Structure Alternatives up in the meeting since there are many interested attendees. WORKSHOP DISCUSSION OF WATER RATE STRUCTURE ALTERNATIVES This item involves a dis- cussion about various water rate structure alternatives at concept level. Shawn Koorn of HDR gave a presentation: • Overview of the rate review process o Determine Goals o Compare Conceptual Alternatives to the Goals o Narrow Down the Conceptual Alternatives o "Test Drive" the Selected Alternatives o Make a Final Selection • Overview of the rate design goals o Develop Metered Water Rates for Residential Customers and update Commercial Metered Rates ■ Cost Based ■ Equitable o Provide Adequate Revenues to Operate the Water Utility ■ Revenue Stability o Simple to Administer and Easy to Understand o Minimize Financial Risk • Review the prior Board direction o Test Drive Three Conceptual Rate Structures ■ Uniform Rate Structure ■ Seasonal Rate Structure ■ Two Block Inclining Rate Structure o Keep it Simple o Minimize Financial Risk • Rate structure rest drive o Rates are designed to be revenue neutral ■ Based on current revenue projections o Pumping zone charge will be included in the final rate structure o Service charge vs. usage charge revenues o Rate relationship (cost of service/equity) between residential and commercial cus- tomers o Impacts to customers will depend on specific usage o Provide the Board with the relative rate (bill) impacts to its customers from the transi- tion to metered rates • Calculation of residential usage o Method of estimating residential usage ■ Test meters & other metered data ■ Production data less metered commercial plus estimated losses ■ Comparison to other local water utilities o Estimates vary depending on type of customer ■ Full time vs. part time 2 Minutes: June 3, 2009 o Average use ranges from 5,000 gal/month to 25,000 gal/month ■ Winter vs. summer ■ Full time vs. part time o Annual average is estimated at 9,000 gallons per month o Estimate is based on best available information • Residential rate structure assumptions o Based on estimated usage o Includes both monthly service charge and usage charge o Three alternatives ■ Uniform rate structure: base charge 5/8" x 3/4" $40/mo, all consumption $1.15/1,000 gal ■ Seasonal rate structure: base charge 5/8" x 3/4" $40/mo, winter (Oct-Apr) con- sumption $1.05/1,000 gal, summer(May-Sept) consumption $1.30/1,000 gal ■ Two block inclining rate structure: base charge 5/8" x 3/4" $40/mo, 0-8000 $1.10/1,000 gal, over 8000 $1.45/1,000 gal o Target 80% of residential revenue through monthly service charge • Summary of the residential rate structures o Impacts between customers will vary depending on usage ■ Trade off between level of monthly service charge and customer impacts ■ Revenue stability (transition period) o Financial risk o Pumping zone charge requires further analyses o Uniform rate structure minimizes the impact of larger use customers • Commercial rate structure assumptions. o Have metered water usage data o Includes both a monthly service charge and usage charge o Pumping zone charges will be added to final rates o Maintained current level of monthly service charge ■ 60% of total commercial revenues o Same alternatives as residential review ■ Different service charge and usage charge o May need to transition commercial customers to final recommended rate structure • Summary of commercial rate structures o Impacts between customers will vary depending on usage o Commercial impacts will be greater to larger water users under any of the alternative ■ Large users may not be "inefficient" users o Uniform rate structure minimizes the impact of larger use customers ■ Seasonal rate structure may not provide correct price signal ■ Inclining block rate structure may not reflect customer usage patterns o May be appropriate to develop additional commercial classes of service • Rate structure test drive summary o Rate structure may vary by class of service o Residential vs. commercial o Impacts to larger use customers may be significant o Final rate structure will depend on the results of the comprehensive rate study o Additional classes of service may be recommended during the rate study process o Fit within the direction provided by the Board • Next steps 3 Minutes: June 3, 2009 o Develop the draft results of the analysis ■ Revenue requirement ■ Cost of service o Finalize analysis toward the end of June/early July ■ Collect more test meter data for summer outdoor irrigation period o Input from Board will shape the final rate design alternatives Public comment: • Board should be aware and check the definition of extra dwelling units • How many people have meters now • Will there be a published implementation schedule for meter installs and billings • The pumping charge is significantly more to get water up to Tahoe Donner than to downtown- is the average assumed in the analysis of the rate • Where do golf courses come in on the rate structure • Is there a PUD mission or goal related to conservation- would affect how look at a rate structure; the more used, the higher the rate • OK with the pumping rate charge • Pay by usage would benefit me as I am a non average person: no children or lawn • Why the difference in rates for summer and winter • See a lot of water wasted here • Applaud going to meters • When customers use more water, there should be a higher rate- greater price to encourage conservation • Meter rate- say 1' commercial- set threshold and use pipe capacity • Pump zone surcharge is a challenge as to equitable cost- based on geographic location- specific cost for specific purpose- or is it based on energy • Are meters now read in the Donner Lake area by radio • As a second homeowner, I do not always use water, would there still be a charge • What is a base charge for • Variable and fixed rates would serve well • Everyone should pay costs • Experts say we have lots of water • Subscribe to reducing energy costs by charging fair share of costs • Use 85% and not 80% for fixed costs • 1 am for the inclining block rate • Good idea- like the inkling block—what about a no base allowance • Water meters are an important part of conservation- why worry about the impact on high water users- would like to see high users charged. • Why replace all meters if they are not broken • 1 have a lawn and irrigation- I would like feedback before actually being billed for usage so I can make an educated decision on my landscaping • If the hospital is a big user, they could be hit with a higher rate • Could the commercial rate separate between golf courses and schools • How do you find leaks in residences- is there some equipment now • Would not expect someone at a lower elevation to pay the same pumping charge as a person living in a higher elevation 4 Minutes: June 3, 2009 Board discussion: • Truckee is an old community — some meters were installed long ago in the 70's, 80's and 90's and do not accurately measure water usage • There will be a risk to the District once the system is in place and people see price changes and fix major leaks- this will reduce use and District revenues • Good positive input regarding inclining block rates for residential • Where is the usage line drawn- 8,000 gallons, 10,000 gallons • Seasonal commercial does not make sense- not worth while to move forward with this type of rate structure- continue with declining block rate • Zone charge- look at and analyze- move toward per gallon charge and make as equita- ble as possible • Has HDR done work for other utilities in this area- would like an analysis that tells the Board what the other utility company rates were and what they adopted • One half of the water users are out of town- but many people have been here many years and are skeptical about going too fast • How will we handle the extra dwelling unit or multifamily units • Conservation will have an impact regardless • Do an 85% fixed cost • Spoke with people and they like the inclining rates • Smaller differential to start and different rate down the road- say go with flat with commercial next few years- use meter size as allocation threshold • After the new meter is installed, can the District give people a bill for a year on what they use and see how it differs from the flat rate • Is 125,000 gallons a lot for commercial use- should we look at high users specifically • Like usage base zone charge- do not want to be too complicated- maybe we have too many zones • Set the rate so it is enough to pay District bills • Rate structures look in the ball park • On residential option 3, base with 8,000 gallons used per month would equal $49- so if use 2,000 more gallons, that would cost $2.90 ($1.45/1,000 gal) • Pumping charge- narrow down the number of zones- still need a pumping charge- each zone should pay its own way • Board needs to figure what to do about penalties and bigger users • Be conservative • Could roll pumping charge into usage • Residential- leaning toward inclining balance and commercial toward uniform • Get a draft of final rates and look at the impacts • May need transition period • Determine a rate to pay equal share • Bring back: pump zone base on usage, where draw lines, incremental pressure zone charge 5 Minutes: June 3, 2009 ACTION ITEMS CONSIDERATION OF THE AWARD OF A CONTRACT FOR PHASE 2 OF THE METER IMPLEMENTATION PLAN This involves the award of a contract for Phase 2 of the Water Implementation Plan. Director Hemig moved, and Director Hillstrom seconded, that the Board authorize the Board President to sign a contract with MCS for Phase 2 of the installation of a meter system for $2,107,000 plus tax and a 10% change order authorization for a total amount not to exceed $2,440,000, subject to contract provisions regarding milestones for performance, liquidated damages, on site construction management and indemnity with respect to prevailing wage issues. ROLL CALL: All Directors aye, by voice vote. SO MOVED DISCUSSION OF WATER AND ELECTRIC STANDBY CHARGES AND CONSIDERATION OF AMENDING THE HDR RATE STUDY CONTRACT TO PREPARE AN UPDATED ANALYSIS OF WATER STANDBY CHARGES This item involves information about standby alternatives. Director Aguera moved, and Director Bender seconded, that the Board approve HDR's cost proposal to update the Water Standby Charges in an amount not to exceed $5,850. ROLL CALL: All Directors aye, by voice vote. SO MOVED WORKSHOPS WORKSHOP REGARDING DISTRICT MOTOR VEHICLE FUEL USAGE Workshop Regarding District Motor Vehicle Fuel Usage Kathy Neus gave a presentation: • Recent Contract for fuel purchases awarded in May 2009 to Western Energetix • Fuel Usage: motor vehicles (gasoline and diesel) and stand-by generators • Reviewed the five previous years of usage: 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 377140 377499 35,263 34,872 321484 • Number of Vehicles: 50 • Fuel Costs 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 $77,906 $967173 $1037236 $107,249 $1247314 • Consider establishing a goal of 10% fuel reduction during FY10/11 Budget There was no public comment. Board discussion: • Good goal to reduce fuel use by 10% • Challenge staff to reduce usage Like 10% goal 6 Minutes: June 3, 2009 REVIEW OF FY09 CONSERVATION PROGRAMS Mid-year update status of existing FY09 conservation programs and new program development. Steven Poncelet gave a presentation: • FY 09: existing programs and added energy conservation programs Energy Programs Water Programs 1. Million CFL 1. Green Partners 2. Residential Rebates 2. TDPUD Water Wise Demonstration Garden 3. Commercial Rebates 3. Web-Based Water Wise Garden Resource 4. Refrigerator Recycling 4. Smart Water Controllers 5. Business Green Partners 5. Water-Efficient Toilet Program 6. Green Challenge 7. Green Builders 8. Low/Moderate Income Assistance Program 9. Green Schools Program 10. LED Holiday Light Exchange 11. "Keep Your Cool' Commercial Refrigeration 12. LED/CFL MR-16 Business Lighting Pilot 13. LED Exit Sign Retrofit 14. Residential Green Partners 15. Home & Business Electronics Education 16. Portable/Take Home Energy Metering • Conservation Department is on schedule o Big push for new program development o Completed EM&V and CEC reporting o "Event Season"just starting o Many programs back-loaded • Existing program results YTD o Million CFL: 18,000 lights (50,000 goal) o Appliance rebates: 166 (350 goal) o Business Green Partners: 60 (200 goal) • New energy programs in progress o Keep Your Cool (22 Businesses) o Residential Green Partners (36 Customers) o Portable Energy Meters Loans (21 Customers) o LED MR-16 Business Lighting Pilot (14 Customers) • New energy programs in development o Energy Savings Program (ESP) o LED Exit Sign Retrofit o Home & Business Electronics Education o Green Challenge • New water programs in progress o Smart Water Controllers o Green Partners • New water programs in development o TDPUD Water Wise Demonstration Garden o Web-Based Water Wise Garden Resource o Water-Efficient Toilets 7 Minutes: June 3, 2009 There was no public input. Board discussion: • Where is the PUD water wise demo garden • Where is the MR16 light used • What is the plan for the water efficient toilet: install, rebate or exchange CLOSED SESSION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9, SUBDIVISION (A), EXISTING LITIGATION, CLAIM OF PACIFIC RIM CONSTRUCTION, INC. 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 10:00 PM. TRUCKEE DO R PUBLIC T ITY DISTRICT 51 J. toiil4emig, President Prepared by Barbara Ca ill,` Deputy District Clerk 8 Minutes: June 3, 2009