Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-03-19 Min - Board REGULAR MEETING MARCH 19, 1979 The Regular Meeting of the Board of Directors of the Truckee Donner Public Utility District was called to order by President Maass at 7:03 P.M. in the Dis- trict office. ROLL CALL: Directors Hatch, Huber, Kuttel , Maass and Sutton were present. CONSULTANTS PRESENT: Lew Hiatt and Mike Glaise of Cook Associates and David A. Alden of Tudor Engineering were present. District Counsel Grumer arrived at the meeting at approximately 7: 12 P.M. EMPLOYEES PRESENT: A. Milton Seymour and Susan Craig. OTHERS PRESENT: Among those present were Bill Dornberger, Kevin Metcalfe, Scott Heckendorn, Don Strand, Melinda Smith, Earl Smith, Tim Waller, Mary Waymire, Lisa Vere, Stephen Hanns, Jason T. Cutts, Becky Reade, C1 unette Gebhardt and Don Cas ler. APPROVAL OF MINUTES In response to Director Huber's question, it was noted that typographical errors made in the final minutes will be corrected. She brought two such er- rors to the secretary's attention. D i rector Huber moved that the minutes of February 5th and 1 3th be approved with corrections to be made of the typographical errors. The motion was sec- onded by Director Hatch. ROLL CALL: Hatch, aye; Huber, aye; Kuttel , aye; Sutton, aye; Maass, aye. SO MOVED. Regarding the draft minutes of February 20, 1979, Director Sutton request- ed direction be delayed until the next meeting as she had found about three places where relatively minor corrections should be made. Hearing no objection, the Chair ordered the matter put over to the April 2, 1979, meeting. Director Hatch moved that the minutes of February 22, 1979, be prepared in final form as drafted. The motion was seconded by Director Kuttel . ROLL CALL: Hatch, aye; Huber, aye; Kuttel , aye; Sutton, abstained noting that she had not been present at the February 22nd meeting; Maass, aye. SO MOVED. STATEMENT OF GENERAL FUND AND BILLS FOR BOARD APPROVAL - FmHA STATUS REPORT AND BILLS FOR BOARD APPROVAL The bills presented for approval were briefly discussed. Mr. Seymour clarified that the reason names were listed twice under "Refunds - standby charges" on the Statement of General Fund is because one payment is for water standby, the other for electric standby. Director Sutton moved that the Board approve the three bills appearing for payment. Director Hatch seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Hatch, aye; Huber, aye; Kuttel , aye; Sutton, aye; Maass, aye. SO MOVED. Director Sutton questioned the payment to Cook Associates to the amount of $4,441 .69. After a review of Mr. Hiatt's letter concerning final payment to Jetco Construction, it was determined that $4,441 .69 was due Jetco rather than Cook Associates. Director Kuttel moved that the payment to Jetco Construction be made as presented by Cook Associates in the amount of $4,441 .69. After being advised that final payment to Jetco would be considered during the Engineer's Report, Director Kuttel withdrew his motion. Director Sutton noted that the FmHA Construction Fund Status Report dated March 14, 1979, should be corrected prior to attachment to the minutes; also, the Board is to receive a corrected copy of the report. COMMITTEE REPORTS There were no committee reports. MANAGER'S REPORT 3/19/79 Pg. l General Status of District - Mr. Seymour noted two accidents recently which caused fairly extensive electrical outages; one on Palisades Drive off Highway 267, another on Northwoods Blvd. In both instances vehicles struck and broke power poles. Both have been repaired. Procedures to be followed in order to insure payment to the District for damages were discussed. The Manager reported that the Norths i de Well is presently shut down for the purpose of steam cleaning the insides of the Donner Trails, Gateway and Town Tanks . Annual Report - Mr. Seymour reported that he met with Gail Grimes last week for the purpose of gathering information for the Annual Report. Unfortunate- ly, the layout was not received prior to the meeting. The Manager stated that he felt confident the Report would be a very useful tool to the District - it will advise what the District has done and what it is planning to do; it will briefly cover the litigation the District is involved in; also, it will contain a compendium of the essential rules and regulations affecting customers of the PUD; a brief history of the District will be included in the report. Mr. Sey- mour advised he would circulate the layout to the Board as soon as it is re- ceived. Update on Stampede Dam project - Mr. Seymour noted he received a call from the Western Power Marketing Administration of the Department of Energy. Although it hasn' t been officially announced, it is known that the Bureau of Reclama- tion is in the engineering process of designing a power plant for Stampede Dam. Mr. Anderson of the Western Power Marketing Administration told Mr. Seymour his office was in the process of corresponding with Sierra Pacific Power Com- pany to advise them that the power plant is being built, and that the Depart- ment of Energy intends to use Sierra Pacific Power lines to wheel the power to the TDPUD. The PUD and perhaps one other entity is eligible to receive the power.. Mr. Seymour reported that the Department of Energy feels that, inasmuch as Sierra Pacific's power line is close to the Dam and to Truckee, if there is capacity available on the power line, it would be environmentally better to use the existing power line rather than to build another line. Mr. Seymour advised the Department Energy m of Ener that he felt there would be no problem in dealing with Sierra Pacific - they are depending less and less on PG&E for their power and, therefore, there might be adequate capacity in the line to serve the TDPUD. SPECIAL BUSINESS Since the Special Business item was scheduled for 8:00 P.M. , the Presi- dent moved on to Unfinished Business noting that he would return to this mat- ter at 8:00 P.M. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE APPROVAL OF FERC APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY LICENSE - BOCA AND PROSSER DAMS David Alden of Tudor Engineering explained to the Board that the appli- cation would alert the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that it is the District' s desire to locate small hydro plants at Boca and Prosser Dams. The FERC will notify all agencies that may have some interest in this matter, par- ticularly the Bureau of Reclamation. If no other agencies complain, or if any complaints can be worked out, the TDPUD will be granted a preliminary permit which, for a period of 36 months, gives the PUD the sole right to develop the sites. After the application if filed, the PUD will have first rights. Mr. Alden noted that in addition to the application forms requiring Pres- ident Maass ' signature he also had the drawings for execution. Two items that were missing from material delivered to the Directors for review were present- T ed by Mr. Alden - a resolution of the Nevada County Board of Supervisors auth- orizing orizin formation of the TDPUD, and Attachment B, stating there is an unknown number of d i verters of Truckee River water numbering approximately 5,000; it also 1 i s is three major water users. The fact that the Bureau of Reclamation may be selling Boca Dam to Washoe County could make the time of filing the application critical , Mr. Alden noted. After discussion, Director Huber moved that the Board direct President Maass to sign (in black ink) the applications and maps in appropriate places. She noted two $10 checks made payable to the State Water Resources Control Board, which are to accompany the applications, had been delivered to Mr. Alden. Mr. Alden indicated the applications would most likely be mailed on Friday, March 979 (Also 23, 1presented to Mr. Alden were three certified copies of Resolution 3/19/79 pq. 2 4 No. 7907 authorizing the President to execute the app l.i cat i ons.) Director Sutton stated she thought this matter should be handled by reso- lution. She was advised that Resolution No. 7907 would suffice in this instance. Director Kuttel seconded the motion made by Director Huber. ROLL CALL: Hatch, aye; Huber, aye; Kuttel , aye; Sutton, aye; Maass, aye. SO MOVED. Mr. Alden brought up funding possibilities for future work on these pro- jects. Reverting back to Exhibit "B" relating to the preparation of an environ- mental impact report, Director Sutton wished the minutes to show the Board had taken the first step towards spending $250,000 in preliminary engineering prior to any construction. Mr. Seymour indicated cost for hydro plants would be $1 ,000,000 for Prosser and $2,000,000 for Boca. After being advised by President Maass that his middle initial is "A" rather than "El, Mr. Alden stated his office would make appropriate correc- tions to the applications prior to mailing. David Alden advised that recently groundwork for working on projects such as Boca and Prosser has been sufficiently laid with the Bureau of Reclamation. He noted that there are two kinds of funding possibilities - feasibility and construction. Funds for feasibility studies are available through the Energy Commission and Department of Energy. There are various construction fund sources available, although the Department of Energy has not received funds for 1980 and, therefore, is not a possibility unless Congress reverses their decision. The Bureau of Reclamation is willing to accept applications for funding under the PL984 Program for small hydro projects. This is 6 7/8% money at 40 years, and, probably the best funding source available, Mr. Alden advised. Another source of funding is revenue bonds; the advantage is, once money is obtained another agency is not constantly in observance. Mr. Seymour noted he thought partial funding may be available from the REA. Mr. Alden advised that, relating to Department of Energy feasibility study money, it is a ten year loan; however, if the District finds the project to be infeasible and the Secretary of the Interior agrees, the loan is forgiven. The Program Opportunity Notice (PON) program was also mentioned by Mr. Alden. The DOE administers this grant program, but does require a feasibility study prior to applying for a construction grant. The District is six months short for applying for funds this year; however, if the program is continued, it is a possibility for next year. SPECIAL BUSINESS - PUBLIC HEARING WATER AND ELECTRIC CASH FLOW BUDGET FOR 1979 It being 8:06 P.M. , the Chairman moved to discussion of the Water and Elec- tric Cash Flow Budget. He noted the Public Hearing would be continued after a presentation by Mr. Seymour. Mr. Seymour summarized the Water and Electric Cash F 1 ow Budget for 1979 for the benefit of the audience as follows. The Cash. Flow Budget is a projection of what staff believes the income of the District is going to be and also a projection of what is believed to be operating expenses for the current calendar year of 1979. The projections are based on figures available through October of 1978, also upon other fac- tors such as what the anticipated growth will be in Truckee in 1979, how many new houses wi 1 l be built, new connection fees and the amount of electricity and water that are going to be used. Some of the figures can be predicted with some accuracy - within 5 0; others are more tenuous. Actually, the income has been shaded on the conservative side so that it wouldn' t be predicted that the District has more than it actually has. Reviewing the income items, sales from usage means the actual sale of water and electricity; interdepartmental income is the sale of water and electricity to the District - $82,500 represents the amount of electricity that the Water Department has to purchase from the Electric Department to pump water. Standby charges are fees charged to the owners of empty lots who have either water or 3/19/79 Pg. 3 electricity adjacent to their property; it is an annual fee varying from $5 to $20 which pays for the maintenance of those facilities. Transfer fees are fees that the District extracts from customers who change the name of the ac- count. Connection fees and line extensions are the fees the District charges developers or individual home owners to extend either the water or electric lines to serve their property; this includes connection fees for the water and electric system. The figures are fairly substantial because they reflect what is anticipated to be the number of connections and extensions during the coming year. Tapping fees apply only to the Water Department; a fee is charged for tapping a main line. Facility fees - the current District rules do not charge a facility fee for electricity but do charge for water. In most sub- divisions in the District, facility fees were paid at the time the subdivision was formed. In the older parts of Truckee and in certain subdivisions the developer did not pay the facility fee; therefore, when a new customer con- nects to the District water system, the rates are not high enough to cover recapturing that part of capital investment that was made by the existing people to supply water, so the new customer is asked to buy into the system to pay for the source, storage and lines that wi 1 l be serving' the customer. In the case of developments , this can be a sizable amount of money. In the case of a single family residence, it is usually about $140. Fire standby revenue is from a fee that is charged water customers that have fire standby systems or have put in privately owned hydrants for fire protection. Pole contacts is revenue received primarily from Pacific Telephone and Tom' s TV for connecting their cables to the District' s power poles. Other items of income that are of interest are the restricted funds, $18,000 to the Water Department and $7,000 to the Electric Department. This is money that is restricted; its use is for very specific purposes. It is presently invested with the State of California earning interest at the rate of 8.770. Regarding surplus sales, the Water Department does not sell much surplus; occasionally, couplings or other specialized items are sold to de- velopers and other Districts. The Electric Department shows a $40,000 item which represents surplus electrical equipment that the District intends to sell to Harker and Harker for the completion of the Tahoe Donner electrical distribution system. it is Mr. Seymour's understanding that this electrical P eq ui ment was purchased when the District planned to install the Tahoe Don- ner system; it was declared surplus several years ago, but when a call for bids was issued there were no bidders. Miscellaneous income is for a variety of things - primarily when job work is done for others. Based on the Water and Electric Cash Flow Budget, income in the amount of $431 ,030 for the Water Department, and $2,762,510 for the Electric De- partment is expected in 1979. The total income,, in an approximate amount of $3, 193,000, will be spent for operation and maintenance for the Water and Electric Department. The biggest single item of expense in operation and maintenance is the cost of electricity, $1 ,8o0,000, payable to S ierra. Pacif is Power Company for the pur- chase of wholesale electricity by the Electric Department; the Water Depart- ment will spend approximately $80,000 for the purchase of electricity from the Electric Department. These expenditures cover items such as fittings, pipe, repair clamps, wire, transformers , etc. Department salaries take up a large portion of the funds - $40,600 for the Water Department and $122,200 for the Electric Department. There are a variety of smaller expenditures such as vehicle operating expense, telemetry and radio maintenance and small tools and instruments. General and Administration Expenses cover billing and office supplies (the bulk of which is in the Electric Department since there are more elec- tric than water b i 1 1 i ngs) , postage, telephone, office equipment and petty cash. Under the category entitled Outside Services, estimates of expenses for the District Engineer in the Water Department and other engineering in the Electric Department have been listed. Anticipated payments to District legal counsel , other legal counsel , financial consultant and auditor are also listed under Outside Services. Computer programming is another Outside Service. Mr. Seymour op i n i oned that the District would be doing more computer programming during 1979• Safety training is a requirement; an outside firm is hired to conduct safety meetings for District line and water crews. Advertising and legal notices probablyshould simply read, legal notices; the District' s only advertising • �� '" and public notices, Insurance - $28,000 has expense is for ''help Wanted'' n p been budgeted for insurance. This amount may be high as there has been a top slight reduction on the insurance premium for 1979. The Board of Directors fees are a fixed expense of $100 per Director, per month, if both regular monthly meetings are attended - there is no extra compensation for special meetings or committee work. Travel and meeting expenses deal with travel for the Manager and Directors - also, employees going to training seminars. Building maintenance, election expenses, utilities, sewage treatment and garbage service expenditures are housekeeping items. Management administra- tive salaries include the salaries of the Manager, Office Manager, General Foreman and the Deputy Clerk. Hourly administrative salaries include sal- aries for the clerks, bookkeeper, and those who generally fall into the bargaining unit category. There are fairly small expenditures for debt service - $13,200 to Farmers Home Administration for the loan made in 1978 to repair the Deerfield line, repair some of the District pumps and put a well into service. Yearly pay- ments are made to Sierra Pacific Power Company for the purchase in 1968 of the Donner Lake Electric facilities. Also, annual or semi-annual payments are made to the Rural Electrification Administration f o r improvements to the District that were financed in 1964 and 1968 through REA loans. Payments are made for the computer and line truck, both of which were purchased sev- eral years ago. Sewer assessments are made to Nevada County for some of the property the District owns. Sixteen thousand dollars has been reserved out of the income for future meters in the Water Department; it may be necessary to withdraw more money for pervious years. Approximately $50 out of each connection fee goes towards the cost of the meter. However, presently meters are not installed - meter idlers are put in since residential water service is not metered. The money is being placed in a restricted fund so that if residential services are eventually metered there will be funds to purchase the meters. The facility fees charged for source and storage and for buy-in to the District, Water Department, are placed in a restricted fund for the purchase of future water system facilities. Interest on restricted funds (also shown as an income item) is expensed out because it is placed right back into the restricted funds which means the restricted funds grow each year - the amount is compounded quarterly. Twenty two thousand has been allowed in the budget for unforecast items and contingencies. The total appropriations for the Water Department are $391 ,755; $2,515,069 for the Electric Department. If expenses are subtracted from the income, it shows an operating margin of $39,275 for the Water Department and $247,441 for the Electric Department. These figures represent approximately 10%, slightly less, of an operating margin; this money eventually gets used up in replace- ment of facilities and the purchase of new facilities. One thing not shown on the budget is that the Water Department will enter the year with no accumulated money to speak of - the Electric Department, however, will show the year start- ing out with approximately $600,000 in accumulated margins. At this time, it seems to be the Board's intent to spend this $600,000 in accumulated margins. At this time, it seems to be the Board's intent to spend this $600,000 on the new Martis Valley Substation which will be built this coming summer and fall . This will increase the capacity of the District to serve the growing population - the project will be paid for in cash and thus will not represent a long-term debt to the District. Mr. Seymour explained that the Electric and Water Departments operate on different theories. The Electric Department is an enterprise type of business. The District does not charge a facility fee; therefore, the revenue needed to expand the system must come from the usage revenue. If the $600,000 is invest- ed in a new substation in 1979, a return on the investment can be expected through revenues. Revenues have been increased considerably over the last sev- eral years through growth. The Manager pointed out that some District expenditures will be capitalized and add to the overall value of the plant. These items are not separated in a cash flow budget; in the final analysis, at the end of the year, when the an- nual financial statement is prepared, expenses that are capitalized will be shown as capital assets of the District. Responding to a member of the audience, Mr. Seymour noted depreciation is not shown because this is a cash flow budget - in a more formal type budget, depreciation would be shown. 3/19/79 pg. 5 Mr. Seymour advised that the Directors had been presented with a copy of the Capital Budget. He brought to their attention that the amount shown for Water Projects is greater than the amount shown in the Water Committee Report. The report shows $358,000 plus the cost of administrative and engineering ex- penses. Mr. Seymour increased the amount by 20% to a 1 1 ow for these expenses. There being no further questions from the audience, President Maass de- clared the Public Hearing closed at 8:31 P.M. Director Sutton requested that a narrative on the budget be prepared for T the next meeting. Mr. Seymour agreed. After a brief question and answer period, Director Sutton noted she would like to have a breakdown of the various benefits. No direction was given. t was noted that Mr. Seymour should provide the Board with a copy of the narrative on the budget prior to the end of next week (3/30/79) . Director Sutton mentioned that a narrative could have been included in each of the categories of the budget. Director Huber moved that the Board direct the preparation of a resolution to approve the cash flow budget including a narrative explaining the items in the budget. The motion was seconded by Director Hatch. ROLL CALL: Hatch, aye; Huber, aye; Kuttel , aye; Sutton, aye; Maass, aye. SO MOVED. President Maass noted the item is to appear on the April 2, 1979 meeting agenda for possible action. In response to Director Sutton's question, Mr. Seymour advised that as yet the December Budget Status Report has not been prepared. Director Sutton noted she would like the Water Committee, of which she is a member, to meet in order to discuss some of the items on the Capital Budget. She requested that the Manager schedule such a meeting. He agreed. Also, Director Sutton noted she would like to see the specific water projects that the District hopes to fund through loans not included in the cash flow budget. No direction was given regarding this matter. BOARD DiRECTION AND/OR ACTiON REGARDING DON CASLER'S REQUEST FOR QUITCLAIM DEED TO BLANKET EASEMENTS ON PROPERTY LOCATED BETWEEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AND GAS STATION Mr. Cook's written report on this matter was reviewed by the Board. (in his report, M r. Cook stated that the TDPUD does not have at this time any water facilities on or across the subject property; further, to his knowledge there are no wells on the property, certainly no wells that are under the ownership of the TDPUD and constructed to the State Well Standards. Speaking from the viewpoint of physical needs of the water supply and distribution sys- tem, it would appear that there is no need to retain the floating easement across the subject property and that a quitclaim deed releasing the floating easement would not be detrimental to the District's standards) Mr. G rumen stated that if the Board accepts M r. Cook' s findings (and they have no reason to believe otherwise, he noted) , the Board should direct that the resolution be drawn granting the quitclaim deed to the easement based on th is finding. So moved by Director Hatch. Director Huber seconded the motion. s negated b a motion to table -the item later in the meeting.) (The motion was g Y _ . Director Kuttel noted he had been advised by neighbors that they have objections to the PUD granting this quitclaim for several reasons. 1) There is a reason for the blanket easement, 2) Mr. Cook states in his report he is not aware of any wells on the property. Former employees of the TDPUD state there are some wells on the property.. A representative of Cook Associates, Mike G 1 a i se, advised that Mr. Cook has investigated this situation ''to the point of previous knowledge'' based g on dealings at the School District regarding wells on School property. It is Mr. Cook's belief that the wells that are supposedly on this site are, in fact, on the School District property. The well that exists is so shallow that t i could not satisfy State Well Standards and could not be used for Dis- trict purposes. 1/1Q/7Q nn 1 Director Kuttel indicated the purpose of the blanket easement was orig- inal ly for a park. Mr. Seymour did sagreed stating that this has nothing to do with the easement. Mr. Casler reported that the reason for the easement is spelled out - to protect the District for the existing water lines that are owned by the Dis- trict. The only question, he noted, is whether there is or was any water lines running through the subject property. The answer, he stated, is "no." Cook Associates ' representative agreed with Mr. Casler that there are no existing District facilities on the subject parcel . He further stated that Mr. Cook's report is based on historical knowledge; a geological survey would be required to determine if there ever were wells on the property. Director Sutton stated that at the last meeting the Board directed Mr. Cook to investigate the site. Cook's representative said that the site was investigated sufficiently to determine that there were no wells of substan- tial worth - any well that might have existed only went to the first gravel strata. Director Sutton expressed concern that if there had been a well on the property it was properly abandoned. In answer to Director Sutton' s question, Mr. Casler noted that Mr. Bez- zerides is the present of-record owner of this property. Mr. Bosco was the owner of the property when Mr. Cas 1 er's request first came before the Board. Director Sutton spoke of another problem that might be resolved along with the easement problem. Director Sutton stated she felt the blanket easement needed to be removed. She mentioned she thought perhaps the matter should be discussed in Executive Session. Mr. Casler stated that the easement had expired some time ago, but there still remained a cloud on the title. It is his desire to have this cloud re- moved whether by quitclaim by the District or the filing, on his principal 's part, of a quiet title act ion. Mr. Grumer suggested the matter be further discussed in Executive Session as requested by Director Sutton. Director Huber moved to table the item. The motion was seconded by Director Kuttel . ROLL CALL: Hatch, aye; Huber, aye; Kuttel , aye; Sutton, aye; Maass, aye. SO MOVED. REQUEST OF MRS. ROBERT GEBHARDT FOR ABANDONMENT OF RIGHT-OF-WAY ON MC FARLAND PROPERTY LOCATED AT HIGHWAY 267 AND INTERSTATE 80 Mrs. Gebhardt read to the Board information set forth in a preliminary title report concerning a right-of-way of ten feet for a buried water line on property previously owned by her. The report notes that the exact location (of the water line) cannot be determined of record. She presented maps to the Board showing the intended water line - the water line does not exist. There is another item in the report stating that there is a right-of-way for an ex- isting water line traversing a portion of the subject land as disclosed by a record of survey prepared by Raymond Vail and Associates. She presented the record of survey with an overlay of the previous water line. The later filing is an actual record map of the property. The actual water line which exists comes across the bottom of the parcel near the cemetery. It was Mrs. Gebhardt's request that the easement wherein no water lines are located be substituted for an easement for the actual location of the water 1 i nes i n order to cl ea r the deed. #mom" It was determined that this matter is not related to the Aweeka matter. n response to Mr. Seymou r's question, Mrs. Gebhardt advised the Board her interest in the matter is ,due to the fact that she was the owner of the prop- erty and is presently a 1 i enholder; she is attempting to clear the deed. After discussion, Director Sutton suggested the policy used in numerous requests for quitclaims be followed - refer the matter to the Engineer, Mana- ger and Counsel , and request they report back to the Board who wi 1 l then con- sider the matter. The party requesting the quitclaim is to bear the costs in- curred by the District. Di rector rector Sutton moved that the request of Mrs. Gebhardt in the matter of the easement for a water line on the property presently owned by Craig T. 3/12/79 Dc. 7 McFarland at the intersection of Highway 267 and Interstate 80 be referred to Counsel , Manager and Engineer for examination and recommendation at the next meeting. Further, that the applicant agree to pay costs for time of Counsel and Engineer not to exceed $100. She stated she felt a deposit should be re- quired prior to any work being done on the matter. District Counsel Grumer stated that at the time McFarland purchased the property he handled the transaction as representative for Mr. McFarland. Since that time no further business has transpired between Mr. Grumer and Mr. McFa rland. District Counsel stated he does not feel there is a conflict. yr Director Hatch seconded Director Sutton's motion. ROLL CALL: Hatch., aye; Huber, aye; Kuttel , aye; Sutton, aye; Maass, aye. SO MOVED. The Cha i rman noted that, hopef u 11 y, the mat ter w i l l be p 1 aced on the next meeting agenda. Mr. Seymour stated he thought the first order of business is the agree- ment on the part of the property owner or his agent to pay the $100. Direc- tor Sutton noted she had incorporated this matter in her motion - no work will be done until the $100 is deposited with the District. Mrs. Gebha rdt was informed that the next meeting is scheduled for April 2, 1979• DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE BOARD DIRECTION REGARDING 1 .9 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED AT HIGHWAY 89 AND DONNER PASS ROAD President Maass noted a draft advertisement re the lease of the 1 .9 acre parcel had been received through the mail . Mr. Seymour advised that M r. Bezze r i des made inquiry today regarding this property. He had been unaware that the District was attempting to lease the land. The Chairman indicated the advertisement should be published in the Sierra Sun and Tahoe World in addition to those papers suggested by Mr. Seymour (Wall Street Journal , Western Edition, Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Examiner and Sacramento Bee) . Mr. Seymour advised that Director Kuttel mentioned to him he thought per- haps the Board should review the resolution establishing the bid policy and the bid conditions - he felt they were too confining. Director Sutton recommended a review of the bid policy be placed on the agenda prior to any determinations regarding the advertising. The Chairman set the matter of review of the bid policy over to the meet- ing of April 2, 1979. REVIEW OF LAIF vs. CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT Regarding i n9 security on certificates of deposit, Mr. Seymour' noted only g 40 000 is insured. There is no guarantee on funds deposited in the LA I F. Mr. Seymour noted that at one time he had provided the Board a listing of the various types of investments and the amount of interest they earn; the best a only d one he would recommend to the Board (other than LA I F) is the six n y month certificate of deposit of $100,000 or more earning 1 1%. He proposed that for long-term investment, the restricted funds be placed where they can earn the best rate of interest. The Manager noted he believed the District could invest in Treasury Bills. Discussion ensued relating to the various forms of investments. By Board consensus , direction was given that the Manager .prepare a specific proposal osal - Certificates of Deposit for restricted funds, and LAI F for general fund monies. Mr. Grumer is to provide the Board with a copy of the proposed resolution authorizing these investments a week prior to the p next Board meeting. q/1Q/7a nn R REPORT BY COUNSEL RE LAFCo - INFORMATION ON FUNCTION AND EFFECT OF LAFCo - ENLARGEMENT OF LAFCo - CREATION OF A SPECIAL DISTRICTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO LAFCo - RAMIFICATIONS OF THE RESERVATION OR SURRENDER OF THE TDPUD'S LATENT POWERS Mr. Grumer presented to the Board a summary and various code sections re- lating to LAFCo prepared by his associate, Mark Pfotenhauer. A copy has been attached to these minutes. District Counsel noted that LAFCo has express, designated powers far be- yond those they are using. LAFCo was created and exists by virtue of the Knox-Nisbet Act; the initial function appears to be the coordination of ser- vices. However, their power is effectively awesome. They can restrict the services of the District to those it is presently providing (with exceptions as noted in the code sections) . Any service convenient to the water and elec- tric services being provided by the PUD is within its purview and is , in ef- fect, protected. However, respecting general objects (other things conven- i en t to the full exercise of the powers) , they must be indispensable. (When relying on an express power the District may do whatever is convenient to the exercise of that power, but when relying on a general object or purpose, the act must be indispensable to that purpose or object.) LAFCo has the ability to cut the District's boundaries or keep them the same, and to limit the services to those presently existing. Mr. Grumer thought it advisable for the District to retain its rights. Latent and re- served powers were discussed as well as the possibilities of mergers or con- solidations of Districts. Director Sutton stated, and Mr. Seymour agreed, that it would not be in the best interest of the District to give up its latent powers. It was her understanding, she noted, that the vote to be taken at the LAFCo meeting on March 20, 1979 wi 1 1 be decided by 51% of those voting. Mr. Seymour stated, and the District Counsel was in agreement, that the proper goal of the TDPUD is to retain its latent powers, yet have an advisory position with LAFCo. Director Sutton, representing the District at the LAFCo meeting on March 20, 1979, requested she be directed regarding LAFCo' s expansion to include special district representation. Mr. Grumer explained that, if the District votes against the Special Dis- trict Advisory Committee, LAFCo then has the power to study, report and rec- ommend on its own. President Maass pointed out that, if the District votes for the Advisory Committee, LAFCo still has the powers. The Board agreed, regarding the vote to expand to a l l ow a Special Dis- trict Advisory Committee, that if a condition was set forth that the District give up its latent powers, a "no" vote be cast. Director Sutton stated she thought that perhaps after the first ballot she should be released and allowed to use her best judgment. It was the President' s opinion that Director Sutton be allowed to "vote her conscience" as she is aware of how the remainder of the Board feels. Director Huber moved that Director Sutton be instructed to attend the meeting and "vote her conscience" with the provision that she does not vote away any of the District's latent powers. The motion was seconded by Direc- tor Hatch. ROLL CALL: Hatch, aye; Huber, aye; Kuttel , aye; Sutton, abstain- ed due to the fact that she was being instructed; Maass, aye. SO MOVED. RATIFICATION BY BOARD OF BID EXTENSION DATE FOR TRANSFORMERS AND HIGH VOLTAGE PROTECTION EQUIPMENT The President noted this item concerns ratification of action taken by the Manager based upon advice given by Special Counsel McDonough (Mr. McDonough' s opinion letter re this matter has not yet arrived) . Mr. Seymour pointed out that the extension of the bid opening date was made at the request of one of the bidders, Westinghouse Electric Company. The opening date was extended one week. However, Westinghouse did not bid. One bid was received on the trans- former; one bid was received on the circuit switcher. The bid on the trans- former from General Electric Company was $20,000 less than was quoted by letter prior -to going to bid. The circuit swi thher was bid at $19,000. Mr. Seymour questioned whether the exceptions to the boiler plate taken by GE and S&C would 3/19/79 Pg• 9 be acceptable to District Counsel . The bids were delivered to Mr. Grumer for his opinion. President Maass indicated a Special Meeting would be called when appro- p r i a to to award the bids. DISTRICT ENGINEER'S REPORT Jetco Underground Construction - final payment - Partial payment estimate No. 7 was briefly reviewed by the Board. Director Hatch moved that the final payment to Jetco Underground Con- struction in the amount of $4,441 .69 be paid. The motion was seconded by Director Kuttel . Mr. Seymour clarified for Director Sutton that, after the Board approves payment, the check isn't drawn until approval is granted by Farmers Home Ad- ministration ROLL CALL: Hatch, aye; Huber, aye; Kuttel , aye; Sutton, aye; Maass, aye. SO MOVED. Roen Construction - Mr. Hiatt, appearing in Mr. Cook' s place, requested that this item be tabled until the next meeting. The Chairman agreed to do so. Farmers Home Administration Project '77-1 - The Project Spread Sheet for P ro- J ect 77-1 , attached to the Engineer's Report which follows these minutes, was reviewed. Mr. Hiatt noted that the spread sheet does not reflect final payments to either Jetco or Roen. He noted there wi 1 l be a deficit in the budget i n the approximate amount of $1 , 100 after Roen and Jetco are paid off. Mr. Seymour advised that there were some original payments to Cook Assoc- iates made out of the General Fund - an adjusting billing or memo from Cook Associates was requested. Also, Cook Associates is to advise whether the Dis- trict has exceeded the legal amount allowed to be paid from the loan for en- gineering services. The Outlay Report and Request for Reimbursement for Construction Programs, Form AD62 and the Report of Federal Cash Transactions, Form AD627, were FmHA Fo 9, reviewed. g fie ed. The originals finals were not delivered to the District; Mr. Hiatt indicat- ed he would check into the matter and advise the Secretary. Directo r Huber moved that the President be directed to sign Form 629, the Outlay Report and Request for Reimbursement for Construction Programs and Form t y p �! 627 whi ch ch is the Report of Federal Cash Transactions when the forms are avail- able. The motion was seconded by Director Hatch. ROLL CALL: Hatch, aye; Huber, aye; Kuttel , aye; Sutton, aye; Maass, aye. SO MOVED. PLACER COUNTY ANNEXATION � DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING P L Mr. Gla i se of Cook Associates presented a graph showing the results of the poll taken in t proposed osed annexation area. The overall area that has requested p annexation is a substantial ma j or i ty of the property owners and of the gross area involved. volved. He advised that Cook Associates had been in touch with both Nevada County and Placer County LAFCo - it appears that some communication has transpired between the two LAFCos. Placer County LAFCo has written to Nevada County a jurisdiction d re uested transference. Cook Associates has written n q to Nevada County LAFCo asking that they pursue the transference prior to the District is making formal application in order to expedi te the matter. Director - Sutton questioned whether Nevada County LAFCo could really consider transfer- ring Jurisdiction t Y o Placer Count LAFCo prior to receiving a formal annexation proposal . Mr. Glaise indicated he did not believe this to be a problem. Mr. Glase pr esented resented an annexation process chart showing that question- naires and petit ions ions have been sent to the property owners and votes from the property owners have been received and tabulated. The next step is that the LAFCo jurisdictionquestion uestion be resolved. A resolution must then be passed establishing the District's desire to proceed with the annexation (a draft resolu tion ion was included in the Engineer's Report) . A title for the annexa- tion must be determined. Once the resolution has been authorized, the appli- cation is filed with LAFCo. At this point EIR considerations are taken into account. Public hearings are held by LAFCo and the TDPUD and resolutions are then passed approving the annexation. Mr. G l a i se noted that conditions to be Ilk imposed upon the property owners would probably be included in the resolution passed by the TDPUD approving the annexation prior to filing the annexation map with the State Board of Equalization. It was the Board's and Manager's opinion that the conditions should be included in the resolution of intent. Mr. Seymour suggested that the District Engineer and District Counsel work with him to prepare tentative conditions for review by the Board. No direction was given. REVIEW AND POSSIBLE DIRECTION RE WILL-SERVE LETTER FOR PONDEROSA PALISADES DUPLEXES Mr. Seymour noted that the District has already provided a will-serve letter for Ponderosa Palisades Duplexes and has accepted over $4,000 from the developer for facility fees and plan check fees, etc. There is a need in this instance (and also for New Frontier Ranchos) that there be an agreement between the developer and the TDPUD Board. The Manager advised that, before the District can provide the facts to the Department of Real Estate, a written contract between the District and develop- er i s necessa ry - a copy of the bond p rov i ded to Nevada County w i 1 l a 1 so be forwarded to the DRE. Mr. Cook's drafts regarding both Ponderosa Palisades Duplexes and New Frontier Ranchos were reviewed by the Board. Director Sutton moved that the Manager correspond with the developers of Ponderosa Palisades Duplexes regarding the District requirements in order to respond to the Department of Real Estate - the requirements being an agreement for electric and water service and taking note of the fact that they have paid a certain amount of facility fees. The motion was seconded by Director Hatch. ROLL CALL: Hatch, aye; Huber, aye; Kuttel , aye; Sutton, aye; Maass, aye. SO MOVED. Also, Director Sutton moved that the Manager write a letter to the developers of New Frontier Ranchos regarding their request (similar in nature to that of Ponderosa Pa 1 i sades Dup 1 exes) . Director Hatch seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Hatch, aye; Huber, aye; Kuttel , aye; Sutton, aye; Maass, aye. SO MOVED. The remaining items of New Business were not discussed. EXECUTIVE SESSION The President adjourned the meeting to Executive Session at 1 1 :00 P.M. for the purpose of discussing legal and personnel matters. RETURN TO PUBLIC SESSION There was no direction or action as a result of Executive Session. Director Hatch moved that the meeting be adjourned. Director Sutton seconded the motion. ALL AYE BY VOICE VOTE. SO MOVED. Vice President Kuttel declared the meeting adjourned at 1 1 : 19 P.M. - TRUC KEE DONNER PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT Bid. Y es A. Maass, President Susan M. Craig, Deputy District C rk