Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-06-03 Min - Board I.")0 JUNE 39 1975 N 0 t � 13E- 'DD N va TOE The regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the Truckee-Donner Public Uti 1 i t District was called to order by the Chairman at 7:30 p.m. in the conference room of the District. ROLL CALL: Roy Waters, present; Pat Sutton, present; Fosten Wilson, present; Rex Anderson, present; John Craig, present. EMPLOYEES PRESENT: Hobensack, Kinzie, Drace OTHERS PRESENT: Bob Christensen, Sally Christensen, Art Broughton (Sierra Sun) , Adolph Moskovitz, Calvin E. Bright, Lowell Northrop, Charles C. White, Don Strand (Dart Resorts) , Marge Adkerson, Dan Cook, Joe Joynt, Charles Dos kow MINUTES OF MAY 69, 12, and 27, 1975 Although some of the directors received their minutes of May 6 and 12 today, Pat Sutton submitted some corrections. The corrections include, page 5 midway down the page, "Hobensack. . ." She asked that the minutes show that Mr. Hobensack read a pre- pared statement regarding the proposal from Arthur Young and Company. She agreed that this could be added in parenthesis. Also, on page 17, fourth paragraph from the bottom, beginning "Mr. Hobensack commented. . .", she asked that it show that Mr. Hobensack read a prepared statement. Page 10, fifth paragraph from top, "Anderson. . ." should be changed from liabel to libel . Page 11 , lst line, "2,000,000 going to the Community" should be through, and the fifth paragraph, "Wilson. . ." read, and should be red. Director Sutton stated there were some typographical errors that she would like to call to the attention of the Secretary at some other date, not necessarily tonight. Director Waters asked if this meant the minutes would have to be retyped. He felt the cost to prepare the minutes was getting extremely expensive and more so everyday. Director Wilson moved that the Minutes of May 6 be approved as corrected. Seconded by Director Sutton. ROLL CALL: Mr. Waters, didn't care to vote on the subject---cost tot expensive; Sutton, yes; Mr. Wilson, yes; Mr. Anderson, yes; Mr. Craig, yes. (May 12, 1975) Since these minutes/were not received until late this afternoon for some members, Director Sutton moved that these be tabled until the next meeting. This was agree- able to all directors. The minutes of May 27 were not submitted to the Directors for approval . It was not known if they would be completed prior to the next regular meeting. Mr. Wilson asked if the minor corrections above mentioned would require retyping of the minutes. Mr. Hobensack referred this question to the Legal Counsel . Mr. Craig asked what the experience has been over the past. Mr. Hobensack said they have been typed over where it is necessary. Mr. Joynt said that the corrections brought up tonight shouldn't require retyping. Mrs. Sutton thought the corrections would be incorporated in the filed copy of the minutes. Mr. Joynt said it -is acceptable to "pen" in the correction, although it would not look as neat. He stated that even after minutes are approved, if a genuine mi stake is made, corrections can even be made in the minutes. Mr. Hobensack said he was concerned with the legality of "penning" in corrections. Minutes that have been approved and filed, according to Mr. Joynt, will have a reference to the correction in later minutes. He recommended there be a marginal notation referring to the later minutes approving the amendment to varify the accuracy of the change. He doesn't think the changes made to the minutes prior to their being filed makes any difference. Since Mr. Dan Cook had to be at a Truckee Sanitary District Board meeting at 8:00, he asked that the matters pertaining to his advise be taken up at this time, providing it doesn't disrupt the Board's meeting. AIRPORT WELL - DAN COOK Mr. Dan Cook circulated amoung the Board copies of a draft agreement with the Truckee Tahoe Airport District on the purchase of the Airport Well . Cook: What we have drafted here is an outline agreement based on the fundamentals that we spoke of the other day in the Dart Committee Meeting. What I would like to see and what I am suggesting is the Dart Committee meet with the Aiport Committee, subject to the well , again and the alternate dates as I understand it are either the 12th or the 13th (of June), in the afternoon. I would like to see the two committees meet prior to the Airport District meeting which I guess is the 18th. To discuss the possibility of the purchase, the purchase as outlined here is one that Dart is a Page 1 - June 3, 1975 11 9V Airport Well .. . continued standard agreement and that is between District and Dart, As this agreement is put forth, Dart will deposit with the Airport District, the book value less depreciation of the well and the line that extends westerly from the well to the warehouse. The title to the well and the line would be vested within the PUD. The PUD would accept it for operation and maintenance, replacement, and repair. Dart would see that the construction of the line will take place from the existing terminus at the warehouse in this position, either down to our existing 8 inch line in this manner or -from the well , down in this manner, at their option, whichever they felt could best recapture their investment. That would be done at the earliest possible date. The intent being to alleviate the requirement of the Airport District to install a storage tank. Craig: Which they have to do this summer? Cook: Which they have to do this summer. Dart would also see that the construc- tion took place from the existing well easterly down to the position of the proposed T-hangers, as early as possible. In addition to that, the Airport District, for the lands that are currently under their ownership, would receive water without cost. Waters: For how long? Cook: Fifteen year period. And the first of the fiscal year following the 15th year, they would fall underthe same rates and charges of the District from then on. Craig: Would Dart pick up the cost of the water to be used? D. Cook: Dart would be paying for the cost of water for whatever water is delivered. We require, in there, that the Airport District install a meter on each point of service. And that cost would be paid by Dart. Craig: Our District wouldn't be giving anything away? Cook: No, you are just a vehicle in this case, making the thing function between two political bodies. Dart is the prime mover. Hobensack: Would there be a limit to the amount of water for these existing facilities or property that they own? Cook: No. They would be limited to their now-existing properties. Hobensack: Inside their property lines? Cook: Right. Any acquisition that would take place as proposed here, would be a separate matter and would be charged. Wilson: Is there an indication from the Airport District that they would be willing to deal with something like this. Cook: There is a staff level indication that they would be respective to something like this and that is why I suggest the two committees get together and discuss it rather than discuss it between you and via the news media. Anderson: I am not sure I understand when you say existing boundaries. Are you talking about facilities that already receiving water or anything that may receive water in the future within their property lines. Cook: That is correct. Anything that is within their property line now that may wish to receive water during this fifteen year period of time. Anderson: And they get it for nothing? ,.,..� Cook: That is right. The Airport District would not pay anything. But Dart would. Anderson: It would be free to the Airport District? Cook: That is correct. Sutton: But you understand that they are trying to pick up a perimeter property around the Airport. Anderson: Yes, but I understand that is outside of the present facilities. I was just concerned about increasing the water capacity within the properties. It could very well happen. Page Two - June 3, 1975 i Airport Well . . . continued Cook: It could very well happen. The thought being to limit it to the now-existing properties, is there is some talk of got fcourse i nterti a with the existing gol fcourse and an expansion on beyond. Quite apparently, they don't have a commitment at this time to serve you. They may have a desire, but they don't have concessionaile of the property or the need. That need should fall under the total community, in my judg- ment. Now, in addition to the i nterti a system, the whole of the system would be constructed. If we contacted, at this point or at this point at Dart's option (point- ing to map), the balance of the work is generally outlined here, would be constructed under the terms of this agreement. At a subsequent date, within the constraint of time, this intertie and the line extending to the east, have a critical timetable so far as the Airport District is concerned. And that is that they would like to get those done so that they could get the initial planning in and authorize the construc- tion of the T-hangers. The planning has to do with the Planning Commission approval of the T-hangers. Craig: And you think this will save the Airport some $60,000? Cook: Yes. There are, in my judgments, a multitude of benefits to the whole of the region in the tying of this system together and integrate them. We are, then required by virtue of this draft agreement, to operate this well the same as we do Sou thside, the same as we do the Northside and Donner Creek. We will have a mode selector back here on the panel that will make the Airport Well the lead well, for Southside, the lead well for the Northside, so that all of the wells in your operation then get equal exercise and can be developed and maintained. Craig: It was Mr. Maki 's opinion from the Fire District that this would be beneficial to the Airport and Truckee. Cook: There are several rather immediate benefits to the whole of the region that exist. And we have about four million gallons total storage that is available in various zones that can be drawn down. Obviously, Zone 9 doesn't have four million gallons, but zone 1 does. The Airport happens to be in Zone 1 . There wouldn't be any need to construct additional storage. Additionally, there would be some advan- tage to the Airport District, now, there would be no need to construct that $60,000 pressure system simply to make the irrigation system operational . It will operate -- off our existing storage and in proportion to the whole of the area, the Donner Trials tanks will become the key tanks. And that is the point that all of your telemetry comes from. There is a very mark advantage to the Airport District as a whole, Placer and Nevada County and that is that the investment in public funds for the Airport area is reduced and those funds can then be diverted for other public uses for which the District has a very long list. The benefits to our people through- out our region is that we have got on the east end of us, a strong producing well , a completely integrated system that we can deliver greater quantities with much greater reliability to any point within our system than we could before this occured. The advantage to Dart is that it is a known system, it is a known quantity and it is one step out of three, the second step being resolved already, one step out of three for replacement of their commitment and requirements for a water source. From my worm's eyeview, no one loses in this proposal as presently constituted and I think the Airport District when they sit down and look at it as it is presented to them rather than as they thought they understood what the grapevine was telling them, will see that. I am sure that they will . And I think the Committee Meeting will have that end result. Craig: Will you be available for the Committee Meeting then? On the 12th or 13th? (Cook: Yes) Okay. We should contact Mr. Domergue? Cook: Is either one of those days more preferable to the Dart Committee? They are Thursday and Friday of next week. ,-.. Sutton: It doesn't matter to me. Craig: Thursday is a little better for me. Anytime Thursday. Does this look good to the rest of the Board. Should the Dart Committee pursue this with the Airport? That was one reason we had it on the agenda. And had Dan here was to give the full Board an opportunity to see this and make sure we are heading in the right direction before we make any more commitments. Sutton: I would like to ask Dan a Question. Are we specifying that. . .how much the well was worth? I mean are we specifying how much Dart is paying? Cook: As I understand it, it will be the audited book value less any depreciation. Which, in essence, is a def initive value, yes. Page Three - June 3, 1975 !2.j Airport Well . . . continued Wilson: I haven't read this agreement but from Dan's presentation, I would be in favor of that. Craig: Assuming it follows Dan's presentation, the Board is in favor of it? (Wilson, yes). Roy? Waters: I just saw it when he brought it in with him. I would go along with it, though. Craig: From what Dan said? Cook: There will be a great deal more discussion with the full Board. . . Waters: And you will be working also? Cook: Yes. When we get down to the point where we are actually talking specifics with them and we have agreed on the three-party thing. We have had one meeting with one member of the Airport Committee and that member of the Airport Committee couldn't meet with the Airport Board and we have had one meeting with the Dart representatives which I thought was very beneficial . In kind of crystallizing where and what and why for the entire in-relationship between the three agencies. . . the two agencies and the private corporation. Craig: Okay, Director Sutton and myself will pursue it with the Airport Committee. Sutton: Is this the only presentation we are having? Is for purchase of the well? Craig: Apparently. Doskow: That was going to be my second point. The first one is that Ithink Dan has made an excellent presentation of the reasons why this is a good idea for everybody. The. . .one of the reasons we supported- this is that we think that it is in the bests interests of the community, the Airport, and this District, the people who live here. The second point that I was going raise is that we talked at the meeting about various legal forms by which this could be accomplished. And obviously, we have no interest in anything that doesn't assure this in virtual perpetuity. ....� But I was hoping that nobody would take a position that will hang them up if somebody had a word hangup. And if a 99 year lease sounded better to someone, then we could work on that basis, or if a purchase of water on a firm basis sounded better and the consequences were the same, I would like to see it pursued on that basis rather than just putting everything in one basket, I think this proposal is basic- ally sound and if the Airport District can be convinced, then there is no problem. I think, I ought to emphasize, though, any agreement that is made, is in principle and is tentative only because Dart is not committing any funds prior to a-defin- itive agreement with this Board. And you have got kind of a chicken-and-leg situation until you decide whether you can do it. But I think this could be done in principle, I think everyone should understand that it will be tentative, it will be in option form, it will be in some form under which we are going to reserve until we have a definitive. . . (faded out, could not read off tape). We have to, there is no other way around it. I don't think that is going to bother anyone. Craig: As long it is only a little bit, we should get something done this summer. Otherwise, there is no advantage to the Airport. Doskow: Well , we are committed tothis program on the assumption that we fit it into a reasonable agreement with you. Craig: And also 180 days will be up with the State Lands Commission and Water Resources and. . . . move Doskow: If we get this done, I have a feeling that we and the PUD could/further quickly. I think an agreement in principle on both sides would give us a basis to start talking very subsequently. Ifthis proposal is accepted, I think it would move very quickly. Craig: If it were accepted by the Airport? Doskow: Yes. Craig: I might say on the. ..as we talked about in the Committee Meeting, the agree- ment to lease for 99 years and wholesale purchase of water from the Airport didn't sound acceptable to me. I personally couldn't go along with it. I didn't think that satisfied the PUD's commitment to the people that live in Tahoe Donner or that have purchased lots in Tahoe Donner. And that is why I didn't pursue it with Dan. Page 4 - June 3, 1975 12�- Airport Well . . . continued Doskow: You know that I am not interested in something that doesn`t satisfy the commitments. All I am trying to say is that there are different ways and different legal forms and phraseology to accomplish the same thing. If it makes you all happy, do it differently. I would like to at least keep the subject open and the ball in the air. Cook: I think we have, Chuck, got what we think we can tackle. I think we have detoured problems. Doskow: Did you want Dart to be represented at the meeting on the 12th or 13th? Craig: It is a public meeting as far as I am concerned. Doskow: I don't think that is responsive. Craig: I didn' t evade it. I think that is up to you. Sutton: - Well , the last time, there were several from Dart. And it didn't create any problems. Doskow: I think we would have to. Sutton: Anyway, you don't object to the District pursuing the proposal as far as the purchase of the system goes at this point? In fact, as we go, we can talk about some of the alternatives. Doskow: Right. I think it is the best immediate action that can be taken. Craig: Okay. Cook: I had one other thing that I wanted to advance to you tonight, not on this subject and it is way back on your agenda. It has to do with the Bonner Pines matter. Is it okay now? Craig: Sure. Cook: We have received the Title Report that the Board authorized. You will see here a yellow line (pointing to an aerial photo which he provided to the Board members and Mr. Hobensack) down the right hand side of the page. That is a Public Utility Easement that was granted to the Sierra Pacific Power Company by the Donner Lake Utility. . .the Donner Lake Development Company in 1936. That easement was in turn given to you with your purchase of the facilities at Donner Lake. You will see that it does intersect the southeast mosterly unit of the Donner Pines Development. The southeasterly most unit of the Donner Pines is in trespass of the property under control of the Truckee-Donner Public Utility District. The Truckee-Donner Public Utility District is also in trespass of the lands that are owned by Donner Pines. It is two separate issues. Sutton: YOu will have to explain that. Waters: We are in trespass, also? Cook: Yes, sir. This is an easement that you have, interestingly enough, it is an unspecified width, it is however wide is necessary to erect, maintain, remove or replace the poles. Hobensack: Remove the poles? Cook: Or replace or maintain. That is yours. This one is in trespass, it is built on your easement. It is built on your controlled property. This is your power line that is built/Heir property. Wilson: There are dual 1 i nes here, is that the width of the existing trespass? Cook: Yes. You have got, well this is the outside of the arms , this is the width. Wilson: Do you know, off-hand, which line is in reference to the suit? Cook: No I don't. And I don't know if it was on this building, this building, or this building. It would seem to me that it would make a great deal of difference in the lawsuit if it were on this building. I would say it was "bad luck, Charlie" for him. Hobensack: I am not sure, but I believe that is the one it is. Cook: If it were on this one here, I would say, Joe, don't let them make that motion Page 5 - June 3, 1975 ! z-3 Donner Pines continued for late claim. Joynt: I don't know what I can do about it. Craig: It is up to the judge. We will have more on this tonight. Anderson: Can you see if it has been confined to one building? Cook: I have seen nothing. Hobensack: I haven't seen anything either, but it should be specified if it were necessary. --- Cook: It is going to make the whole issue. Anderson: I mean, is it somewhere already been specified? Or should have been by law? Before the suit was filed? Cook: It seems to me by this time we should know where it was, Rex. But I haven't seen any documentation of where it is. Joynt: It isn't specified. In anything that I have seen. Cook: I have always assumed that it is this one on the corner. Because that is the under coverage by our lines. It seems to me that the whole substance of the issue is going to center around if that guy got hurt doing something wrong on our property. And we had every right to be on that property, we just didn't have any right to be overhere. It seems to me the issue of the lawsuit has changed drastically. We got the title report yesterday. The title report is wrong, the title report doesn't show that easement, interestingly. And a new corrected title report is on route to you, Mr. Joynt. Sutton: This is the Sierra Pacific easement? And is that based on a 1936 or a more recent? Cook: Yes, 1936. OPNMM% Sutton: And there isn't anything more recent? Cook: No, there is nothing more recent. Sutton: And did anybody check the easements that were specified in Sierra Pacific contract for the purchase of the system in 1967? Cook: The Inter County Title Company has. Craig: Where is the phone company? Cook: Well , it is one that goes down across there and they have provided in their final map of recording of this in 1973 and it comes right down between the buildings and then exits between the buildings. See, this provides the.. .they missed this one in their search. Craig: So, they planned their development around the phone company? Cook: That is correct. Craig: It is underground. Cook: Yes. The title company has a problem, McDermett has a problem, who is the engineer, and the owner has a ,problem So, of rather significant magnitude. a Craig: Does that take careoF it, Dan? (Cook: Yes, thank you) We appreciate your presentation. Doskow: Did the Board take action on Dan's proposal or was. .. Craig: There was a consensus to pursue it with the Airport Committee. Doskow: No formal action was taken? Craig: Not that I know. Doskow: Has the Board received a reply from counsel about the proposed Dart/ Page 6 - June 3, 1975 l Zy Dos kow. . .continued C a t t a n quote-unquote agreement? Cri ag: Not yet. Doskow: You still haven't received your financial report? Craig: No, is it still going to be the first of July, Paul? Paul : I haven't heard from them. Mary is the last one to hear from them. She talked to one of them when they were here. I can call there and see what the status is. •�-- Craig: Let Mr. Doskow know what the status is. As soon as it arrives, we will send it special delivery. Is one copy enough? Doskow: One would be sufficient; I will make copies. G.O. 95 INSPECTOR - JIM BONDESON Mr. Craig introduced Mr. Jim Bondeson from the Public Utilities Commission to the other Board members. Mr. Craig explained that he requested Mr. Bondeson come up to Truckee and look at the el ectri cal construction in the District and give the Board an opinion on whether or not itneetsthe G.O. 95 rules. He suggested a recommenda- tion from Mr. Bondeson in regards to the District adopting G.O. 95 safety standards for the people and employees of the district. Mr. Bondeson stated that G.O. 95 originated in 1911 and that there have been many predecessors. The intent of the Order is not only for the protection of the lineman, but also the public. California is one of the few states in the Country that has safety standards such as G.O. 95. Mr. Bondeson said the Civil Courts have accepted G.O. 95 as the safety standards. He informed the Board that most publicly-owned utilities have accepted W. 95 such as SMUD and L.A. Power and Water in Los Angeles. Mr. Bondeson presented the Board with copies of a List of Common Infractions of G.O. 95. He went over and reviewed the various infractions with the Board. He said many of the infractions were not applicable to the PUD. Some of the infractions Mr. Bondeson did view in the District included the Climbing Space Violation (insufficient space on pole for lineman to safely maneuver) , excess materials on poles (such as services not used--hardware, conductors, etc.---guys that are not needed, etc. ), anchor guys left exposed to traffic without the pro- tection of a guy guard, loose guys (which could be remedied by "turn buckles") , the District's method of grounding conflicts with that which is allowed by G.O. 95, and the transformer hanger bolts were without bolt covers. Mr. Craig asked Mr. Bondeson if he mainly found minor infractions. Mr. Bondeson agreed with this and stated he did not find any real serious problems other than the things listed above. Mr. Anderson asked how often (10. 95 is updated. Mr. Bondeson said it is either done by the Commission under its own initiative, or done as a result of an application by a utility. He said the updating is done continuously. The changes normally become effective 20 days after the decision is made by the Commission. Mr. Hobensack asked if G.O. 95 conflicts with the National Electrical Safety Code. Mr. Bondeson said it did not. However, he did say that they were initiated for different purposes. Mrs. Sutton asked if the District is under G.O. 95 without having adopted it for their safety standard. Mr. Bondeson said this is questionable, but that the Courts have accepted it as the standard. He thought it would be to the District's advantage to consider the adoption of G.O. 95. to The Board agreed that they would like Joe Joynt/prepare a resolution for the adoption of G.O. 95 as a minimum safety standard of the District. The Directors ,,..* wanted to review the requirements prior to adoption. MASTER METERING OF TRAILER PARKS - BRIGHT'S TRAILER PARK Craig: Next, if it agreeable to the Board, we will take up Item 4, Old Business, Master Metering of Trailer Parks and I assume Mr. Bright has something to say. Hobensack: That is two different items. Craig: Okay, let's take up 7 first, Mr. Bright's trailer Park. Mr. Moskovitz, Mr. Bright. Moskowitz: Pherhaps I can speak at this point, Mr. Bright might have something to Page 7 - June 3, 1975 Bright's Mobilehome Park . . . continued add or be available to answer questions if questions arise. As you may recall from the last meeting, there was fairly lengthy discussion and finally a vote was taken on the recommendation of the so-called Bright Committee. The recommendation was to allow a master meter to be installed and power delivered on the appropriate commer- cial rate and distributed within the trailer park by the owner of the park, instal- lation of meters to each pad and then the owner of the trailer park had the oppor- tunity to charge at the District's retail rates for the power that was distributed to each pad. And when this matter finally came to a vote, the motion had two votes in favor, two votes against, and one abstention which left it somewhat uncertain. However, it was suggested that I consult with Mr. Bright and inform him what happened and see whether there was some other approach that might be pursued. Mr. Bright has made a fairly substantial investment up to now in pursuing this trailer park proposal . He has obtained the approvals necessary at the County level in terms of zoning, permits, and ascertained that there is a need in this area for the kind of mobilehome park that his development anticipates. He is anxious --to have a relationship with the district for power that will be econom- ically feasible. And he is an experienced builder and owner of rental property in other parts of California so he is knowle ftabl a about what the financial market is, the opportunity to obtain funds necessary to construct, what kind of terms are required in order for the investment to be a feasible one. He has been in con- tact with lending agencies and made an extensive investigation of how this sort of development obtains power elsewhere in the state. I passed on to him what occurred last time and asked him whether there were other approaches that he knew of that accorded with those of the Board who were not in favor of the committee recommendation. What he has informed me, and is here ready to answer questions and discuss these points is that, in order for this development, this mobilehome park, tot6@ financially feasible, he has to have a way of recovering the invest- ment in/distribution line, the electrical power distribution system, within the trailer park. This District expects that he will build and install with his funds. If the District were in the position to install the lines to each pad, then he would not be concerned and would be happy to have the District deliver the power at District rates and collect the revenues without any participation on his part but the District has indicated it is not in the position to do that and expects Mr. Bright to do that, to expend his own funds which would be considerable for that installation. If this is required in order for this to be financially feas- ible, there must be a way for him to recover that investment in some reasonable way. The approaches seem to be most reasonable and based on similarities used elsewhere is that he could resell , have a master meter and resell . And this is the approach he had to follow. As I mentioned last time, it seems to me that your District rules, Rule 10, provides that the Board can allow that as an exception to your general rule that you will deliver power to each pad. Your counsel feels an amendment to your rule would be preferable to. . .if that were the Board's desire. It seems to me, there already is an anticipation in your rule that there could be circumstances in which this is in the best interest of all concerned. We think this is one of them. We would like to ask that this Board consider that recommendation again and have a vote which is a complete vote on that issue. Again, I want to point out, that is something that will not be disadvantageous to the District, there can be safeguards and protections against what you might be concerned with. And that is user dissatisfaction, we think a contract can be worked out that will protect the District and will protect Mr. Bright's interest also. In any event, we want to try to work out something. If that is not acceptable and I would hope that it is, we would like to work out a system whereby in some other fashion, there can be recovery of that investment. We think it is only fair. Particularly in light of the fact that this is the way it is done in so much of the State. We certainly want to work something out amicably. That is our objective, but I think it is important to recognize that Mr. Bright has a substantial investment. It is not something you can walk away from. At one point, he might have been willing to do that and want to do it. He cannot walk avay from the investment. He must work out something that will allow him to have a financially feasible and reasonable development. We want to do that to the utmost that we can, in cooperation with the District if at all possible. Sutton: Can I ask a question of someone. Paul and Joe, presumably? Under our present rules of the District, if some development took place past this trailer park, would Mr. Bright recover some of his investment? On the basis of the ex- tension rules of the District? I know we do have some rules that on a private home where somebody paid for a line to be built, that when somebody beyond them builds a home, there is a reimbursement over a certain period of time. Are any of you familiar with that? I don't have it with me and I don't know. Hobensack: I will try to cover that, Pat. If he had an expenditure from our existing distribution line to where, if he had a master meter, then that would be the only thing that the person down the line would have to share the cost of. Inside the Park, as I understand it, will be underground and there is no provis- ion to go on down to some other customer via the underground lines. So, the new Page 8 - June 3, 1975 2- Bright Mobilehome Park . . . continued customer on down the line, would not be picking up the portion of the cost of under- grounding. Sutton: So, then how would the new customer receive service? Hobensack: Probably go down the public street. Sutton: Aren't we designing. . .wouldn't Mr. Bright be constructing according to our design and specs? Hobensack: It would be according to our designs, but at this sitting, it is not designed to go down the street. Sutton: But we don't have any firm plans and specifications on. . . Hobensack: We have proposed plans by their engineers. Sutton: But nothing that the District has accepted. Hobensack: Nothing has been accepted yet, that is correct. Sutton: So that if the main line were built in the capacity to carry the land use beyond there, would there not be something that Mr. Bright might re-coop some of his investment in the main line at least or in a ten year period or whatever? Hobensack: It could be designed . so that if someone built on down the line, then he would recoop part of his investment. However, I think that as our rules stand now, after five years you have no re-coop of investment. That would need a rule change too i f he had more than fi ve years. . . Sutton: With Dart and the water system, we are talking about a longer period than that, aren't we? Hobensack: This could be if the Board made a new rule. I think our rule as it now stands, is after five years, he gets no recapture of investment. Sutton: I don't know what the practice is. Hobensack: I am aware of that, because I was talking about my own piece of land that the people have already built a line and I am going to have to buy a portion of it. If I waited five years, I understand the rule now, I wouldn't have to buy a por- tion of that line and he would be in the same boat. Sutton: That was partly because the district couldn't figure out a way to keep the records on it. That is true. I am not being facetious. Joynt: The distribution line is presently very close, isn't it? It wouldn't take much to bring it to the boundaries. Bright: I think it should be pointed out that with these plans and specifications, they have been worked out in conjunction with the District engineers. Sutton: Who are the District engineers that you have worked with? Mr. Hobensack or some other. . . Bright: I think we have worked some with Mr. Hobensack and his predecessor, and Mr. Krajewski . Hobensack: Cook was involved in it also. Sutton: But on the water, not on the electric. Hobensack: There have been no thoughts on getting it on down the road further. I think that answer is yes. Sutton: The main line will not be underground at this point? Hobensack: The mainline will be underground inside the park. Sutton: I mean, the main line into the development. Hobensack: Coming through the development as I understand it will not be underground. Sutton: What do you mean "understand", did you help write the plans and specs or not? Page 9 -- June 3, 1975 /2--7 Bright Mobilehome Park . . . continued the park, Hobensack: Inside the park it is underground, outside/there has been no design for it yet. I have only been concerned with the part of it that is inside the trailer park, the board could say that they want it underground from his park out to the nearest distribution line and it would go underground. But there have been no determinations on that portion of it yet. an Sutton: I saw a letter in the file today from Mr. Krajewski to/engineer with Sierra Pacific in 1972 asking for them to design underground service to this particular parcel for a trailer park. Hobensack: I am not aware of that. Sutton: There is nothing in the file that indicates that they did this, but there is nothing that indicates the main line was underground. Hobensack: I am not aware of anything on that end of it, Pat. Craig: There are two things I would like to point out. Have all the directors read Mr. Joynt's letter of May 30, 1975, regarding Bright Mobilehome Park? And in this Mr. Joynt contacted SMUD, Mr. Dom Freeman, and he said that they did have problems with --quote--poor distribution system in trailer parks that master metered. Moskovitz: Mr. Craig, could I see a copy of that letter that concerns this matter? Craig: Sure. And that either the parks were gradually converted to individual metering by the utility, they eventually went over or under to quote the letter and also as far as recovering improvement costs, Tahoe Donner is putting in a much larger investment in the last couple years and will this year and in the future and we have no provision with them for them to recover the costs. So I don't know exactly how we would decide on the precedent of. . . . Bright: I think you are talking about an entirely different type of installation. Craig: A much larger one. Moskovitz: I note that in this letter respecting what SMUD does, SMUD puts in ,_... everything including distribution system, all the primary and secondary trans- formers, etc. ; they do the work themselves and they charge $100 per lot. That is all . Sutton: Go ahead and read the rest of it. He says it is not sufficient. Moskovitz: It is way too low, he is trying to get it raised. But the point is that this has been. . .the standard procedure if Sierra Pacific were serving this area or PG &E or Southern California Edison were serving-it. There would be a method worked out for recovery. We are not really hung-up on a particular method. Wilson: Excuse me, would you explain that statement. There would be a method for recovery for what? Moskovitz: Of Mr. Bright's investment in the distribution lines that he is expected to put in at his expense and turn over without cost to the District. Wilson: Okay, in that letter it indicates that SMUD at least, considers it necessary for the developer, or whoever, to put up funds sufficient to pay their costs. And they do the installation. And there is no recapture for the developer for the funds. Moskovitz: Inthis case, however, the amount of money that is charged is not anywhere near what Mr. Bright would have to pay to put in this system. Wilson: It indicates in there that they feel they are charging. . .undercharging and need to raise it. MOskovitz: Well , the policy with SMUD as I read this letter, has not been altered, this may be the opinion of the man that Mr. Joynt talked to. All I have is Mr. Joynt's letter. But it indicates what the present rule is. The present rule is $100 per lot. Joynt: He also said that they are constantly changing their rates and raising their rates and whether they. . .well , he didn't go this far, but the way I understood it, as to whether they recover their costs in the initial deposit or through rates, and he said rates for each class of user. Now, whether they have a mobilehome park master meter user, probably not that refined. But master meter resale rates, so they get it back somewhere. Page 10- June 3, 1975 1 2- 15 Bright Mobilehome Park . . . continued Moskovitz: Of course, that is just the point, there ought to be a way in which investments can be recovered from those that get the benefit. The user is the one that ge15 the benefit. Craig: The people in the trailer? Moskovitz: Yes, they are the ones that are getting the benefit of the system. Every- body knows who is in business; some of you gentlemen are. If you are not able to get your cost out.` at a reasonable return, you are out of business. You just can't oper- ate a business without doing that. Now, Mr. Bright has carefully looked this thing over. In order to make it work, there has to be some way that the investment in these lines within the park can be recovered. And as I said, we are not hung-up on any particular system, but we thing the system should be worked out. The way things stand now, there is no feasible or reasonable way for that investment to be recovered by him. Craig: Do you feel the Board is here to tailor our rules so that people can make. . . have going businesses in Truckee and make profit on the business? MOs kovi tz: I think that if the Board is able to work something out which will reasonably provide electricity and allow developments which have been approved and which are needed in the community to go ahead, I think this is a responsibility that this Board has. Craig: But I look at it that the Board has a responsibility to the public as a whole to provide the best financial conditions for the District, for the people in the whole of the District. Moskovitz: Certainly you shouldn't go into anything that is unfair or inappropriate or doesn't protect the public interest. What I am suggesting is that the approach we proposed is a very common approach in which the PUC itself uses. Now, the PUC has as its main responsibility the protection of the public interest in situations where there are privately-owned utilities. And it is not an unfair system for the public, not at all . The system we proposed involved the public paying the same rate the public would pay if the District were making the service. -- Sutton: Mr. Moskovitz, in the rate setting for an investor-owned utilities, the construction costs are part of the rate-setting process where the consumer pays for that construction. This is not that kind of an entity. We are trying to change things so that the person who is asking for service is paying his fair share. We have levied a standby charge on vacant lots for power and water so that the person who is living in this community and paying a rate is not responsible for $100,000 worth of the budget. We have increased the hook-up charges and we are getting lots of screams about that by local people who want to build a house. So that the person who is requiring new service will pay what it actually costs the District to hook-up service, within a range. Based on the manager's best estimates on what the actual cost to the District is. And we raised that from $50 to $350 because this was in the past borne by th person who buys the electricity. When we get into rate studies, we are going als 9be concerned about whether the second home user is paying his fair share of the cost of electricity around here. So we are operating on a different premise than the investor-owned utility who only passes it on to the consumers. Moskovitz: Well , I don't have any quarrel with having reasonable standby charges. I think that is appropriate when service is available for somebody who is not ready to use it. I have no quarrel with that. Craig: But PG&E doesn't do it and the PUC doesn't do it. Sutton: Only public utilities and water districts can do it. I mean public entities. Moskovitz: I have no quarrel with the need to have connection charges that truly 'r reflect the cost the District incurs in making connections. All I am suggesting is that there ought to be a way whereby consistent with that kind of a protection of the public interest and fair spreading of the costs, consistent with that. The cost that is borne by Mr. Bright at the outset that is put out as front-end money, can be recovered by him so that the enterprise is a feasible one. Sutton: But who benefits from that system, unless there is someone who connects beyond it. The main line being built so that it could carry the capacity necessary for whatever the zone use is adjacent and beyond is and a recovery on that, would seem to be a legitimate thing. But for Mr. Bright to simply want to recover his investment in a business, that doesn't quite do the same thing for me. Bright: Mrs. Sutton, may I interrupt? I wonder, i f I am perfectly willing to use the Page 11 - June 3, 1975 1Z9 Bright Mobilehome Park . . . continued rules of SMUD, if this Board will . . . . Sutton: Mr. Bright, you have come asking us to completely change all of our rules to make you the exception on everything. We do not do construction for developers. we made that determination last year and we turned down several developers. We are trying to get the party who is coming in to develop a piece of land, to pay those costs that are incurred by construction. That is the way Tahoe Donner has been from the beginning, although there have been other problems on the administration of the contract. But you helped write that contract, you know that a certain amount. . . that was the first time that specific amounts of money were charged by this district per lot for electrical and water service. Moskovitz: I didn't know it was the first time. I know that it certainly was included in it. Sutton: Well . . .but you may not be aware that the District is not in the con- struction business any longer after attempting to build the lines to Tahoe Donner. You missed that. Craig: To the agreement you wrote. . . Sutton: I guess you did help rewrite the electrical agreement, didn't you last spring? Moskovitz: I had minor. . .help in that. Sutton: Well , we do have rule 10 and it does make an exception in an auto trailer camp and by no stretch of the imagination is the modern, present-day mobilehome subdivision the same thing as an automobile trailer camp which is a transient, you know day-away operation. Moskovitz: Well , I can't tell you what the transient rate would be. All I can say again is that there ought to be a way that we can work out an opportunity for recov- ery of this kind of investment, which is a substantial one. And do so in a way that doesn't upset your standards. For example. . . Craig: Your other client, Dart Resorts, is living by the District's rules. Why can't you. . .you have two separate clients and they both want a different thing. Your larger client likes the rules that we have and then you have another client that doesn't like the rules that we operate with. Moskovitz: First of all , there are distinctions. In this case, I don't think a mobilehome park is truly analysis to a lot subdivision where the lots are sold to people to bold on. In this case, this is a rental situation. You can draw analogies between that and a trailer park and that and a motel . Craig: The problem is the front-end money, Right? That is the bone in the throat, it is the front-end money. And Dart is coming up with front-end money. Bright: Mr. Chairman, I think that you will find that, if you go back to SMUD, that they have different rules for resort-type development than they have. . . Craig: I am sure they would be different than ours. This is just not Sacramento. This is Truckee. Bright: PG&E has Turlock Irrigation District, I know because I have looked into these, and they do have. We develop raw land into lots and lots into homes. And there is a different set of rules that apply completely. Craig: We are talking up-front money, right? Bright: . . .you have totally different economics. Craig: Right. We are a quarter of a million dollars in the hole right now and we don't have any up-front money. Moskovitz: We are not asking you to put up the money at this point. We under- stand that. We are asking for him to have an opportunity to get his front-end money back in a reasonable way. That is all we are asking. Bright: We are asking you to deliver electricity like you would deliver it to Teichert or any other type of business around here and the problems from that meter on are ours. That is what we are really asking. Craig: Well , we have heard from SMUD apparently that SMUD didn't find that arrange- ment workable. They got too many complaints from irate trailer owners that they felt it would be better handled if the utility handled all of the problems themself. Page 12 - June 3, 1975 13 Bright Mobilehome Park continued Bright: Okay, they are talking about ten years ago and things have changed alot in the last ten years. And this park is designed to your rules and will be inspected by your people. Wilson: I believe there is an indication that it is a three-year-old rule. Moskovitz: I would like to have an opportunity to read this letter of course, more than I have been able to scan it standing up here. I wish I had had an opportunity earlier that this was going to be a factor. Last week I asked whether you people were interested in getting information from other public utilities, that I would be happy to try and do so and there was no expression of interest. Craig: I think there was an expression. Wilson: Not that you do the. . . Sutton: It was requested that our attorney get it, as I recall . I think. I made that request. Moskovitz: Yes, it would have been appropriate for us to have been informed and given a copy of the results so that we could have verified it ourselves. Sutton: I only got it yesterday myself. Moskovitz: Yes. Bright: - Mr. Craig, I have understood that the District does have a financial problem. And for that reason, I haven't pursued the SMUD-type agreement. Sutton: You wouldn't be entitled to it. We don't have $100 per trailer home pad kind of arrangement. That. . .we don't have that. So why would you pursue it? Craig: I think in Aspen, Colorado, they charge $600 for a water hook-up. Everybody has different rules and different prices. It just depends on where you are. , .. Moskovitz: Another way this can be done, if your concern is that aside from not having the money to put up for construction and you want the developer to do it. And your concern is that you want to have the direct relationship in selling the electricity to the actual user and in reading the meters and in maintaining the system and recovering the charges. There could be a reimbursement procedure adopted whereby a portion of what you recover that is in excess of your cost of your oper- ation and maintenance is used to help reimburse for the capitol cost what you have not put up. Craig: Well , as I understand it now, we are operating at below cost of operation and maintenance so I don't know how we would return any or what the return is. Moskovitz: Your charges are lower than enough to just simply operate and maintain? Craig: We are going further in debt every month. Moskovitz: Well , then I think you need a rate study, a rate revision. But certainly your rates. ..it seems to me that a proper rate schedule ought to include enough not only for your operation and maintenance cost but for capitol recovery and for a fund to replace and repair as time goes on. I don't. .I am not trying to advise you about your rates. Sutton: Are you aware that this District has a REA loan which was used to build distribution lines to subdivisions back around the late 60's. Mumma Moskovitz: No, I am not aware of that. Sutton: Which caused a considerable amount of controversy in the community, I believe. And the District just simply is not particularly i nterested. . . (end of tape, a few words were lost) . . .by whom? Bright: Well , by competition in the area. Moskovitz: And beyond that. Competition is one of the factors that you have to be com- petitive. Another factor is that when you charge per pad it doesn't take into account the amount of electricity that you have used. And apparently it varies widely in trailer parks. Page 13 - June 3, 1975 !3� Bright Mobi 1 ehome Park continued Craig: But your capitol investment would be the same per lot. Sutton: What do you, Mr. Bright, see as your total value when this trailer park is completed? $500,000? You know, what kind of an investment are we talking about? Bright: I don't have the figures with me and I am very reluctant to quote figures without somewhere between. . . Lowell Northrup: $600,000 to $800,000. Sutton: That is the land and the roads and the water and the power and the sewer? Northrup: Close to it. Bright: I want to say that if you want those, I can get them for you. Craig: What is the point, though, Pat? Sutton: I was just wondering how large an investment we were talking about because I did a survey on trailer.parks back several years ago which are part of the minutes of one of the meetings of this agency, which indicated that there were something like 241 trailer spaces already available this community and i since then another trailer park has been built and that s about 30% of the total residences in the area. And Mr. Moskovitz said you had done a survey and this was badly needed, I also did a survey of the assessed valuation of a trailer park and they were so small that the assessed valuation was so small that it couldn't even support a portion of the children, for instance, that were attending school . In some instances, the assessed valuation was less than my home. Craig: What does that have to do with our meeting? Sutton: I am just not sure that we should be persuaded that trailer parks are a good investment for a community necessarily and therefore we owe it to the dev- eloper to help him recapture his investment cost. If he wishes to invest in the community, that is fine. In the industry, I would also welcome. I am not sure. . . Waters: We should be the same way with any industry that moves in here, then. Craig: I think that is getting off the subject of the water and the power and lets stick to the water and power. Sutton: These were arguments offered by Mr. Moskovitz at the beginning. Wilson: I had a question presented to me, in a theoretical sense and it is a hostile question. But I would like to ask it literally. The question was given that anyone else who had come into the community and think of building a trailer park and would do a feasibility run on this project, and would not have the situation we are presented today in front of them, the question is, a possible competitor of Mr. Bright. . .any possible competitor. . .wouldn't assume that the Public Utility District will make special rules for them. The question as it was phrased, is why should we make special deals to this trailer park that haven't applied before and pre- sumably won't again. Moskovitz: I will let Mr. Bright answer as to how he came in and became interested in what planning he did, because I don't know that. But I do understand in the past in this district there has been sale of power to a master meter to a park of this sort with resale within them by the renter. ..the owner of the park and the renter of the pad. Sutton: I think you heard that at the last meeting of this Board. Moskovitz: That is right, I did. Yes, exactly. I think this is something that probably was understood by Mr. Bright when he was first considering and was first negotiating for purchase that this was something he could work out. have Wilson: If so, he would/understood that the District had changed its policy. Bright: I didn't inquire myself personally, but I was told that this District would master meter the electricity. That was part of my deal when I bought the pro- perty. Page 14 - June 3, 1975 Bright Mobi l ehome Park . . . continued Sutton: Well now, who told you that, a representative of this District? or somebody else? Bright: Mel Hutchinson. Sutton: Oh, he was the previous owner or something. Bright: He said he had been up here and he had checked it out. Sutton: But you didn't have any assurance from any employee or director of this district. Moskovitz: But apparently this has been a practice in the past in the district, your secretary. . . Wilson: It has been discontinued, however. Sutton: Even SMUD indicates that when they had a survey ten years ago and decided to do away with master metering, there was a grandfather clause that allowed those trailer parks that already existed with the master meter to continue, except some of those have, by their own choice or by the choice of the tenants, have gone on to the direct ser- vice from SMUD rather than the master meter. So I would presume that there may be some justification if we really look into what trailer parks, if we are able to establish this, that there may be some exception because they existed before the rule was changed and that certainly is an ordinary circumstance. But we are talking about tonight is not under some sort of grandfather clause but a new approach which requires a rule change. Craig: When you first began. . . Bright: When I was at a meeting two or three meetings ago, Mr. Joynt questioned whether or not. . .maybe it was Mr. Craig. . ,maybe both. . .questioned whether or not it was legal to master meter and remeter and I believe Mr. Craig asked me to see if I couldn't try to unravel the gality of the thing. And when you asked that question, I certainly assumed tha it was legal , you would look on it with favor. Now, it certainly been established that the system is legal , The things that we are asking is simply that we will buy electricity for 126 pads which I assume that you are going to sell it at a profit, if you are not going to sell it as profit, you ought to raise your rates, or lower your costs, or both. Craig; We are not a profit organization. Bright: Okay, but it would be nice to be able to do it. Craig: Mr. Moskovitz recommended that the Board adopt the proprosed rule change to Rule 10. Is that what you said? Moskovitz: No, what I said was that the way I read the rules, I think that you can enter into a contract with Mr. Bright to provide for what he is asking without a rule change. That is my interpretation of the rule. It is questioned, and if a rule change in your view is what is necessary to satisfy you that you are properly following rules, that is perfectly alright with me. I am not recommending that you make a rule change, I am recommending that you take the action that you think is necessary in order to ,.allow this project to go ahead feasibly. Craig: Excuse, me, I think it was Mr. Joynt, then that recommended that we revise the rule ,i f we were going to proceed. Joynt: That is correct. Mr. Moskovitz and I disagree there. One of the points that has been raised is the exception for an automobile trailer campsite. But if you assume that to be an exception, and I guess it is, but even if you read that exception, it says only after the district determines that it is unreasonable or unfeasible even in an automobile trailer campsite. So I still feel that Rule 10 should be changed. That could be done very easily. Craig: Maybe to move things along or to get some kind of indication from the Board, does any. . .do any of the Directors want to make a motion to adopt the change in Rule 10. Sutton: HOw about another kind of motion. We will see what happens to it. To re- affirm Rule 10. Or do you want to do that? Craig: It is up to you, you are making the motion. Page 15 - June 3, 1975 4 .33 l Bright Mobilehome Park . . . continued Sutton: Maybe I won't make lot. Craig: Do any of the Directors want to make a motion to revise Rule ]D? Any of the Directors have any comments on what. .. Waters: Yes, I would suggest we make everyone adhere to Rule 10, the Southern Pa dfic and everyone else. Ibelieve we master meter the Southern Pacific and they in turn sell it to their trailers. Craig: Do we have a second to that motion that we stick to Rule 10. And enforce it. Sutton: That was Roy's motion? I think at the last meeting we indicated that we wanted some kind of a report on what the situation is. Until I get something in a report that gives me details about who is served other than the way Rule 10 reads. ,,, Craig: And why. Sutton: .. .how can I make any kind of a judgment on it. I mean, right now, I don't know other than what Merrilyn said at the last meeting. Craig: Do we have a second to Roy's motion? Anderson: Are you willing to make any decision? Wilson: Can I interrupt with a comment? It will clear the air a little bit. If the vote of last week were retaken, I would vote no. Specifically, the strongest point being that it would be'a`specific rule change at the last moment for Mr. Bright's project not allowed for any other project. You know, bending a rule that was made just a couple of years ago for a specific issue. Craig: Mr. Anderson. If you will take over the chair, I will step down to second Roy s motion. Anderson: The motion has been made and seconded that Rule 10 be stri ckly enforced? Waters: I would like to include all of the rules. We bent the rule about a month ago for a man by the name of Dedrick. So let's include all the rules, live by the rulebook. Craig: I don't know if I would second that. I am not quite sure what all our rules are. Waters: Neither am I. I don't think anybody is. We go bending one rule but we don't bend any others. Anderson: What is your motion, then. Waters: Let's get a set of rules. . .set up the rules first. Wilson: I think Mr. Joynt has been asking that for a year. Sutton: I have been asking for it, too. Anderson: Are you then withdrawing you motion? Waters: I will withdraw it. Anderson: Will you withdraw your second. Craig: Sure Anderson: The Chair is turned back to you. Waters: You are going to have a fight if you bend the rules for anybody else, including people of Dedri ck's nature. Craig: Equality for all. Mr. Moskovitz, does that tell you anything. I think the Board is reaffirming Rule 10 as it stands. That is my impression. Page 16 - June 3, 1975 �3y ram. Bright's Mobilehome Park . . . continued Moskovitz: I guess I would like to have a vote for the record. I want to tell you this. And I do so reluctantly. I had hoped that the situation and the dilemma that Mr. Bright finds himself in and it is entirely good faith. I think he has been caught maybe in a pipeline when the rules were being changed or atleast an understanding of the rules are being changed. Craig: Are you talking about the Sanitary District? Moskovitz: No, no. I am talking about now this District. When I said pipeline, I didn't mean sewage pipeline. That is another problem, we won't try to sell that one here. But Mr. Bright came in here in good faith with an understanding of what he would be able to expect. Sutton: But from the party he purchased the property from. Moskovitz: And also from the fact that he understood what was going on here generally. That this was the kind of thing that was done. That master metering was the norm. Perhaps it was an unintended exception of what was written in the books, but appar- ently this was what was being done. Your secretary. . . Sutton: But you didn't even know this until last week. Moskovitz: I didn't know it. But Mr. Bright wasn't even here last week. Mr. Bright had an understanding, Mrs. Sutton, otherwise he wouldn't have been pursuing this so far. Wilson: Mr. MOskovitz, if he had an understanding, his understanding would have included the fact that there were fairly severe problems of master metering and the _trend was away from it, Moskovitz: I just want to. . . Sutton: We have three drafts of a contract that never proposed a master meter. That were hammered out with Mr. Bright and somebody representing the District. This was last fall and last summer. Moskovitz: What Mr. Bright understood to be standard procedure throughout the State and he understood it .here and that is that you have two alternatives both of which allow for recovery investment. One is for the District to undertake and participate. The other is if the Developer is expected to put out all the money himself, that there is some way he can get it back. Now, Mr. Bright has had this understanding throughout. He is caught in a situation where he has made a substan- tial investment and has no way, no feasible, practical way, of getting that back without some kind of cooperation from this Board. Again, I want to stress it is not a particular formula, it is the concept that we are interested in and we will work out the details if the concept can be accepted. But if the Board takes the decision that you don't care what happens to him, that you are not interested in the economics or the feasibility because that is not your statutory concern. . . Craig: It is not our j uri sdi cti on. Moskovitz: It seems to me you have a responsibility and I would say that you have a duty to try to work things out in a way so that power can be reasonably and economic- ally distributed and used and that people don't go broke trying to do it. i Wilson: That is what we are trying to do. Moskovitz: And Mr. Bright's situation, you can question him on details or we can provide further details if you want it, but Mr. Bright's situation is such that if you adhere to the way you appear to be going, he is in a box. He is trapped. Sutton: I think Mr. Bright first became involved in this piece of property just 18 months ago, a year ago, 15 months ago? There have been two previous owners to that property since the zon-ing thing. Moskovitz: He says over two years ago. Sutton: Well , we never saw you until a few months ago, did we? I mean, I know that last summer you were working with. . . Bright: No, when you came here, Mrs. Sutton, you and Mrs. Jones were here violently protesting to the Board when they were considering the situation about the easement. You sat right about here. And you were saying that this was all wrong. You gave a very good protest of it, I would say. (Sutton: Thank you). You were saying that Page 17 - June 3, 1975 M /JC Bright Mobilehome Park . . . continued this thing shouldn't be in town. Craig: The Director at that time, Mr. Duane Anderson, was working for you as project engineer? Sutton: Yes, he was your engineer. Bright: Yes. Moskovitz: I just want a complete statement and then you go ahead and take the action or non-action, as you see fit. My point is that Mr. Bright is in a box, he has a substantial investment, he is going to have to explore all possible alternatives, all possible courses of action to see if he can get out of this with his body whole. Craig: ARe you speaking of litigation? Moskovitz: I don't want to foreclose litigation. Because realistically he has to look at that. Put yourself in his position. I wish you would do that. Craig: I don't have that much money. I am sorry, Sutton: Everybody else goes through this, so, welcome. Maybe that is the only way this whole thing will be resolved. I mean, if you think you have the -right to certain things that are exceptions to the rules of this District, then let's find out. - Moskovitz: My feeling is that it really is a failure when- litigation has to be used. It is a failure of understanding and communication and cooperation. And as a lawyer, I always regret it. Sutton: Okay, but Mr. Moskovitz, last year we formed an assessment district to deliver fire flow to West River Street to property owners who had plans for consid- erable investment in money. They are paying the assessments that were necessary to build that line. Now, why should we do something different for Mr. Bright. It was a shared cost of about eight property owners in an industrial zoned area. What Mr. Bright is asking is just not consistent with what. . .I mean, I don't know who gave him the wrong impression and you the wrong impression. But it certainly hasn't -consisted in the last eighteen months. Craig: I think the Board has reaffirmed rule 10. You do not see a possibility of working within Rule 10? Moskovitz: Mr. Bright has informed me from his economics feasibility standpoint, he does not see a way. Craig: I don't know what more the Board can do. Sutton: Maybe he can buy the utilities and solve everybody's problem. Craig: If he wins the suit, he will have the utility. Then you will have free power, if you win the suit. Moskovitz: I take it then that any proposal other than Mr. Bright installing at his cost the entire system, turning it over to the district without consideration and allowing the District to serve and to charge and to collect and maintain the system is rejected by the Board's action today. Craig: One item there was no consideration. I think there is a great deal of con- , sideration. The idea of serving power to the property. Moskovitz: Well , this is your statutory obligation. I am talking about consider- ation which will reimburse or help to reimburse Mr. Bright, Bright: We are talking about $100,000 investment. If we were talking about SMUD we would pay $100 per unit, $12,600 and SMUD would put in the rest of it. Now understanding your economic condition in the District, I understand that we won't even talk about that. Wilson: Is that a correct statement, that under Rule 10, there is zero options other than Mr. Bright building and turning title over, is that a correct state- ment of fact. Page 18 - June B, 1975 /3G Bright Mobilehome Park .. . continued Mr. Joynt did not see that there was any alternative to Rule 10. Mr. Bright proposed having electricity delivered to the master meter and then presenting the pad renters with a bill monthly for water and electricity, which would vary from one trailer to the next. This system would be added to the monthly pad rent. Mr. Joynt did not thing that this complied with Rule 10. The Board ultimately decided to adhere to Rule 10, of which Mr. Bright's trailer park must conform to. ;... BILLS FOR BOARD'S APPROVAL There being no bills presented, the directors voted on approving the payroll . It was moved by Director Anderson and seconded by Director Wilson that the bills be paid. ROLL CALL: Waters, aye; Sutton, aye; Wilson, aye; Anderson, aye; Craig, aye. There was a typographical error made in the listing of the bill for Telecommuni- cations Counsel ; it showed parentheses around the $30 figure, and it should not have been a credit. The approval of the bills was subject to this change. Director Sutton asked that there be changes made in the Statement of Accounts Payable and that the one presented be voided. She wanted to see the Sierra Pacific Power bills placed in the months that they were received rather than the month they were incurred. The Pacific Telephone bill may also have a conflict according to Mrs. Sutton. The Chairman asked that the bills listed under "Prior" have a specific date---that is the month they were for. The other Board members agreed with this procedure. Another procedure the Board agreed with is showing a "net due" which would come from the Bank Balance after Payment of Bills listed less the total amount in the Accounts Payable Statement. This would give the Board an idea of the out- standing payables. The Board asked for a proposal from the manager on purchases. The Chairman asked for a cost-breakdown on the forms requested by Arthur Young in their accounting proposal and has not yet received it. Mr. Hobensack said that we are adapting the forms to the recommended forms by Arthur Young, in some ways with a rubberstamp. The purchase orders_ , for example, had the additions stamped on them because there were approximately a year's supply stocked up. Mr. Craig asked if the accounting system has been instituted that was recommended by Arthur Young. Mr. Hobensack said it had been. Mr. Hobensack said that some of the recommendations have not been initiated because of lack of man-power. The Board asked for the manager to report on what the average cost per electric hook- up is coming out to be. They wanted to determine if the $350 connection fee was equitable. Director Sutton requested that something be done with the 3M copier to dispose of it. Mr. Hobensack said there were some questions on the maintenance contract and he will be looking into it. Mr. Hobensack reported that the Special District's Survey Report which appeared on the Bills for Board's Approval several meetings ago was for lobbying. The $50 payment can be returned if the Board requests it. Director Sutton moved that the $50 paid for the Special District's Survey be returned. Seconded by Fosten Wilson. ROLL CALL: Waters, aye; Sutton, aye; Wilson, aye; Anderson, aye; Craig, aye. SO MOVED. Discussion resumed on the Statement of the Accounts Payables. Director Sutton wanted the summary retyped and submitted to the Board. The Directors agreed that they wanted an up-dated report by the next meeting showing the proper pl aces for the Sierra Pacific bill and the questioned Pacific Telephone bill . The Chairman asked if there could be a special meeting set up for next week to finish the agenda. Some of the directors felt that too much time is allotted to subjects that can be taken care of quickly. This matter was deferred to a later time. DISTRICT COUNSEL REPORT Mr. Joynt asked that the vacation and sick leave pay-outs be tabled until another time. BLASTING Mr. Hobensack anticipated that there might be some blasting that would be done this week. Mr. Joynt advised that even if the blasting were contracted out to someone else, it would still mean the district could be sued if there were any problems. Insurance coverage would still be needed. Mr. Joynt recommended that we do have coverage for this. Page 19 - June 3, 1975 t.3 7 l t Blasting . . . continued Mr. Joynt said that without the insurance coverage, the insurance company would not even defend the District. Mr. Hobensack was directed to contact Cal-OSHA to see what their rules are on blasting, and find out where the District's explosives are stored and if we have permission from the property owner to store it on their prop- erty. Mr. Hobensack was also asked to know what the legal and insurance requirements are to perform the blasting. Mr. Hobensack said he would hold up all blasting until these answers are found. DOWNTOWN ALLEY UNDERGROUNDING Mr. Hobensack reported that the undergrounding in the Alley of Downtown Truckee is not taking place because Dan Cook did not feel the price was equitable. The other District involved had some objection to the Public Utility District joining in on their construction contract. The Pacific Telephone Company did not antici- pate placing their telephone lines underground in the alley until sometime in July when they felt the price would be better. This would mean that the District would have to be responsible for the entire cost of the project. Nevada County has written and requested that "subject poles" in the Alley be moved as they are in the County Right-of-Way. Mr. Hobensack does not know what poles they are referring to and has asked that they be more specific; he is now waiting for their response. Mr. Joynt and Mr. Hobensack agreed that if the alley undergrounding was not done as a change order to the Sanitary District's contract (which would have meant that the electric conduit would go in the same trench as the sewer and opposed by the Sanitary District), the PUD would have to go to bid on the work. The Board of Directors, manager, and legal counsel remained for an executive session to discuss the Union Negotiations and the Atkinson Suit while the public and secre- tary were excused. Following the executive session, it was decided that there would be a special meeting on Thursday, June 12 to take up the remaining items on the agenda. The meeting was then adjourned. TRUCKEE-DONNER PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT BY• Joh A. Cralig, Preside t f the Board r ' r t; Merri yn Kinzi ecor ing Se etary i i i I Page 20 - June 3 1975 ,I 1975 ELECTRIC BUDGET ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGETED 1973 1974 1975 364 Poles, Towers & Fixtures 379517.00 70,926.00 24,000.00 365 Overhead Conductors 379715.00 429876.00 46,200.00 366 Underground Conduit 15680.00 367 Underground Conductors 355431 .00 3,072.00 152996.00 368 Line Transformers 463793.00 672164.00 54,475.00 369 Services 8,249.00 42,539.00 4.8,000.00 370 Meters 11,379.00 10,935.00 91000.00 373 Street Lights 21906.00 39000.00 391 Office Furniture 347.00 392 Transportation Equipment 29620.00 85320.00 302000..00' 393 Stores Equipment 19200.00 394 Tools, Shop & Garage Equip. 15003.00 39084.00 42800.00 395 Lab Equipment 472.00 65000.00 397 Communication Equipment 398 Misc. Equipment 98.00 TOTAL ADDITIONS TO PLANT ACCOUNTS 1809707.00 2522739.00 2449351.00 554 Storm 49435.00 1,409.00 69000.00 low- 555 Purchased Power 5059053.00 7235519.00 190852278.00 581 Goodwill 283.00 425.00 583 Overhead Line Expense 122865.00 12,276.00 14,117.00 584 Underground Line Expense 421.00 33000.00 585 Street Lighting Expense _ 51.00 363.00 960.00 586 Meter Expense 63275.00 143010.00 83880.00 588 Misc. Expense 65.00 25288.00 590 Maintenance Supervision 5,697.00 59538.00 Page One 1975 Electric Budget . .. continued BUDGETED • 1973 1974 1975 591 Maintenance of Structure 33,000.00 592 Maintenance of Station Equipment 86.00 45415.00 65000.00 593 Maintenance of Overhead Lines 125995.00 192671.00 225000.00 594 Maintenance of Underground Lines 25385.00 19405.00 29200.00 595 Maintenance of Line Transformers 348.00 313.00 600.00 596 Maintenance of Street Lighting 19024.00 19550.00 29100.00 597 Maintenance of Meters 17.00 600.00 599 Snow Removal 12075.00 66.00 902 Meter Reading 125934.00 165202.00 175822.00 903 Customer Records & Collection 222123.00 262407.00 195047.00 909 Advertising Expense 277.00 115.00 4 00.00 904 Uncollectable Accounts 89237.00 41533.00 45740.00. . TOTAL OPER, MAINT. & 5965225.00 832,638.00 191992032.00 CUST. ACCTS. EXPENSE 920 General Administrative -Salaries -- 95488.00 - - 159671 .00 17,550.00 921 Office Supplies & Expenses 279238.00 219663.00 152830.00 923 Outside Services Employed 252287.00 45,037.00 67,000.00 924 Property Insurance 79473.00 69500.00 5,150.00 926 Employee Pensions & Benefits 29064.00 29938.00 32720.00 930 Misc. General Expenses ls064.00 149000.00 932 Maintenance of General Plant 29940.00 52821.00 4,480.00 950 Transportation Expense 259773.00 17,298.00 189680.00 224 Debt Service 395377.00 13,130.00 427 Interest on Long--Ter Debt 205315.00 132271.00 149472.00 TOTAL GENERAL & ADMI EXPENSES------- 1213642.00 1675576.00 - 1742012.00 TOTAL EXPENSES 898,574.00 152523953.00 1 ,6175395.00 Paae Two 1-975 Electric Budget continued BUDGETED 1973 1974 1975 440 Residential Sa 1 e.s 398,909.00 481,457.00 770,331.00 442 Commercial Sales 5101,102.00 5229707.00 ' 8369331.00 444 Public Street Lighting 39118.00 45539.00 7,262.00 445. 1 Sales to Public Authorities 129246.00 109820.00 17,312.00 454 Misc. Rents 29537.00 459 Fees for Changing & Connecting 6s256.00 6 9844.00 10 9950.00 456 Miscellaneous 17,136.00 23,086.00 369937.00 TOTAL OPERATING REVENUE 9500304.00 120495453.00 196792123.00 LESS EXPENSES (8989574.00) (19252,953.00) (196175395.00) i 515730.00 ( 203,500.00) 619728.00 - 403 Depreciation 989411.00 1019313.00 1239240.00 972 General Salaries 1719262.00 1849550.00 294,000.00 i Page Three mhk-June 27, 1975 j 1 BALANCE OF ACCOUNTS PAYABLE MAY 28, 1975 CURRENT INV. NO STATEMENT VENDOR PRIOR- MARCH APRIL MAY REC'D YET TOTAL ACE HARDWARE 35. 56 47.66 83.22 ALEXANDER GRANT 60.00 60.00 ALLIED AUTOMOTIVE 15.99 19. 37 35.36 ALPHA HARDWARE 15. 17 , 121.45 136.62 ALPINE BUSINESS SERVICE 135.47 3.22 138. 69 AMER. PUB. POWER ASSOC. 175.00 35.00 210. 00 ANIXTER PRUZAN 4.27 68.96 164.90 238. 13 ARMANKO 121.20 77.63 141.20 340. 03 ARTHUR YOUNG 21400. 00 4,600.00 7,200. 00 14,200. 00 ATLANTIC RICHFIELD 50.00 154.77 615.97 820.74 BANCROFT WHITNEY 23.85 23.85 BARTLETT FORD 1,086.54 1,086. 54 BEARING SPECIALTY 6.83 6. 83 R. W. BECK 8 ASSOC. 11762.43 11762.43 E. J. BROOKS 571.02 571. 02 BRUNING DIVISION 42.40 31.80 74.20 CALIF. ASSOC. OF EMP. 75.00 695.45 770.45 CAL WESTERN LIFE 614.80 524. 27 11139. 07 CAMELIA VALLEY SUPPLY 98.58 98. 58 A.B. CHANCE 2.07 2. 07 CONSOLIDATED ELEC. DIST. 360.71 167.90 528. 61 ,"•" COOK ASSOCIATES 3,764.79 1,441.53 1,518.56 6,724. 88 .,VIA COUNTY OF NEVADA (6-75)1,394.24 1,394.24 CROWN LIFE INSURANCE 112.59 112. 59 THE DRAWING BOARD 7.06 7. 06 ELECTRONIC CALCULATOR COMPANY 12.72 415. 10 427.82 GRAYBAR 320.65 116.40 437. 05 GORDON HUBER 195. 50 174.99 206.99 95.32 672.80 HYDRO-SEARCH 5,328.08 300.00 5,628.08 INNER TITE 59.05 59. 05 JOE'S TRUCKEE AUTO REPAIR 80. 08 80.08 KENN'S TIRE CENTER 15.05 15. 05 THEO KOHLER, NEV. CO. RECORDER 239.58 239. 58 WESTERN NEVADA SUPPLY CO. 7.69 67.63 1,471.33 1,546.65 ►- ZELLERBACK PAPER CO. 34.66 34.66 0 PAGE TWO ENT INV. NO STATEMENT VENDOR PRIOR MARCH_ APRIL MAY REC'D YET TOTAL MAYDWELL & HARTZELL 110. 14 110. 14 MARTIN MC DONOUGH 768.74 883. 73 538.32 178.51 2,369. 30 ..., MC GRAW-EDISON 233.60 233.60 METERMASTERS 662. 50 662. 50 MINNESCO DIVISION 80.83 80. 83 161.66 NEVADA CO. PLANNING DEPT. 6..00 6. 00 NEVADA RUBBER STAMP 5. 52 5. 52 NEVADA TANK & CASING 25.88 25.88 NEVCO MACHINERY 11.05 11. 05 0.B. 'S BOARD 8.30 8. 30 P.E. O'HAIR & CO. 145.52 145. 52 OLLIES TEXACO 74. 31 48.82 123. 13 OSBURN'S GARAGE 6.28 3.91 10. 19 PACIFIC TELEPHONE 308.00 321.07 629. 07 PITNEY BOWES 36.57 36.57 ROBERTS 19.03 .29 19. 32 ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL 415. 10 415. 10 RTE 87.93 87.93 SAFETY LIVE LINE TOOL COMPANY 14.27 14.27 SANGAMO 695.36 728.81 1,424. 17 SIERRA PACIFIC POWER COMPNAY 91p 213.00 116,676.08 104,088.41 229,977.49 SIERRA SUN BONANZA 109.25 109.25 STANDARD OIL 15.45 15.45 SUN PRINTING 140.87 45.62 186.49 SUNRISE CLINICAL 8.25 16.50 24.75 T & T ENGINEERING 14.00 .21 14. 21 TAHOE TRUCKEE AGENCY 20.00 20. 00 TAYLOR'S TIRE SHOP 85.60 12.50 98. 10 TOM'S T.V. SYSTEM 19.50 19. 50 TRUCK SIGN SERVICE 6. 18 6. 18 TRUCKEE AUTO & PARTS 22.48 6.75 29. 23 TRUCKEE-DONNER DISPOSAL 22.50 22.50 45. 00 TRUCKEE TAHOE LUMBER COMPANY 58.80 3.81 62.61 USDA-REA 7,275. 16 7,275. 16 US LEASING 25.26 25.26 GEORGE WAHN 31394. 15 37.80 11350.00 41 781.95 WALT'S EXXON 7.81 7.81 WEDCO 281.83 64. 12 222.58 568. 53 WESTERN AUTO ASSOC. 1.98 1.98 WESTERN BEARINGS, INC. 19. 11 19. 11 WESTERN HARDWARE _ _ 62.28 62.2 21,730. 11 129,984. 17 112,1266.64 22,669. 10 2,905.57 289, 555.59 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE MAY 28, 1975 COMMENTS ATLANTIC RICHFIELD, $820 . 74 -- $50 . 00 OWING FOR MARCH BECAUSE PAYMENT OF TOTAL INVOICES FOR THAT MONTH WAS $50 . 00 SHORT COOK ASSOCIATES, $3, 764. 79 -- $1, 192 . 97 BILLED TO DART 1, 441 . 53 949 . 54 BILLED TO DART 1, 518 . 56 1, 391 . 66 BILLED TO DART MARTIN MC DONOUGH, $768. 74 -- 526 . 05 BILLED TO DART 883. 73 737 . 65 BILLED TO DART 538. 32 411 . 38 BILLED TO DART lq& STATEMENT OF GENERAL FUND MAY 30 , 1975 Bank Balance - May 20, 1975 832602 . 80 Truckee Electric Revenue 192310. 25 Water Revenue 22227. 25 Donner Lake Electric Revenue 6 , 486 . 33 Miscellaneous Billings Revenue 143. 65 Miscellaneous Revenue 350. 00 Allowances (5. 00) Approved Billings (11212 . 07) Utilities Telecommunications Council , voided check 30. 00 j j 1109933. 21 i PAYROLL 5-31-75 DT OT STANDBY GROSS NET Hobensack 985. 50 708 . 31 Silva 62. 64 47. 00 117. 4S 916. 13 669. 51 Grow 29. 12 800. 80 602 . 27 Lopez 58. 24 43. 68 72 . 80 815. 36 577. 44 Krajewski 686. 26 516. 48 Reynolds 640. 64 497. 98 Kinzie 214. 20 663 . 00 480. 91 Straub 640. 64 424. 88 Drace 513. 60 376 . 86 Barry 462. 88 369 . 07 Connell 496. 32 351. 98 Kirchner 426. 80 303. 91 Chapman 376. 64 285. 07 Rich 38. 52 258. 94 200. 30 POMM Rose 110. 00 98. 36 (69463. 33) 150. 0 343. 40 190. 2S 8793. Sl Bank Balance - May 30, 1975 104,469. 88 i i I � LI