HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-01-19, TDPUD minutes
REGULAR MEETING
January 19, 2011
In accordance with District Code Section 2.08.010, the TDPUD minutes are action only
minutes. All Board meetings are recorded on a digital format which is preserved perpetually
and made available for listening to any interested party upon their request.
The regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the Truckee Donner Public Utility District was called
to order at 6:00 PM in the TDPUD Board room by President Bender.
ROLL CALL: Directors Joe Aguera, Jeff Bender, Ron Hemig, John Hillstrom and Tony Laliotis were
present.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Steven Poncelet led the Board and public in the Pledge of Allegiance.
EMPLOYEES PRESENT: Nancy Waters, Bob Mescher, Steven Poncelet, Neil Kaufman, Kathy
Neus, Michael Holley and Barbara Cahill
CONSULTANTS PRESENT: Steve Gross, Kappy Mann and Jennifer Boehm
OTHERS PRESENT: Juanita Schneider
CHANGES TO THE AGENDA
General Manager Holley stated there were no changes to the agenda.
PUBLIC INPUT
Steve Gross stated he was speaking tonight on behalf of the Truckee Tahoe Community Foundation
to remind everyone about the Civility Project-Speak you Peace engaged in about a year ago. Al-
most all public agencies in the north Tahoe region and over a 1,000 individuals pledged to abide by
the Nine Norms of Civility that were identified under this project. We wanted to take this opportunity
to remind those who have signed on and pledged their support to remember, to participate, to prac-
tice these norms. These norms are not designed to end, but to encourage safe healthy debate, vi-
brant debate where participants are respectful to each other in the hopes that the community as a
whole will be civil to one another. Those Nine Norms of Civility are:
Pay Attention
Listen
Be Inclusive
Not Gossip
Show Respect
Be Agreeable
Apologize
Give Constructive Criticism
Take Responsibility
The PUD is the only entity that I am aware of that has published these norms on the back of their
agenda, and I think it wonderful they have done this as it is a visual and physical reminder, and
I would encourage others to follow. As we move forward into 2011, don’t give up your passions, be
vibrant in your debates, but you don’t have to be disagreeable.
1 Minutes: January 19, 2011
DIRECTOR UPDATE
Director Hillstrom said he would be attending the NCPA Conference next week. Directors Aguera,
Hemig, Laliotis and Bender also said they will also be attending the Conference.
Director Hemig complimented Juanita Schneider for coming to the PUD Board meetings eve with
some health challenges. She has the best attendance record. We don’t want to miss her at the
meetings.
CONSENT CALENDAR
RECEIVE AND ACCEPT ANNUAL REPORTS
a) Safety activities for the past year
b) 2010 Easements Recorded in favor of the TDPUD
c) Use of the Board room by outside organizations in 2010
d) Encroachment Permits
CONSIDERATION OF A PROVIDER FOR REAL ESTATE LISTING SERVICES This item in-
volves contract for real estate sales and marketing for 14630 Glenshire Drive, APN 49-011-31.
Director Hillstrom moved, and Director Aguera seconded, that the Board approve the consent
calendar. ROLL CALL: All Directors aye, by voice vote. SO MOVED
ACTION ITEM
CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTING AN NCPA COMMISSIONER This involves the appointment
of a commissioner to attend Northern California Power Association meetings.
Director Hillstrom moved, and Director Aguera seconded, that the Board appoint Director Tony
Laliotis as the NCPA Commissioner; and assign Director John Hillstrom and Stephen Hollabaugh as
the Alternate Commissioners. ROLL CALL: All Directors aye, by voice vote. SO MOVED
WORKSHOPS
DISCUSSION REGARDING A LOCAL PROCUREMENT POLICY This items involves a discus-
sion about a local procurement policy.
Bob Mescher gave a presentation:
Purchasing procedure defined in District Code Chapter 3.08
o Types of procurements
o Commodities or equipment
o Service contracts (Public Works and other service contracts)
o Joint purchasing with the State and other public agencies
o Special services
o Consulting services
o Emergencies
o Annual procurements are about $10 million
Board requested staff to investigate the possibility of a local preference procurement policy
Eligible procurements (about $2 million annually)
o Commodities or equipment up to $10,000
2 Minutes: January 19, 2011
o Public works contracts up to $15,000
o Other service contracts
o Special services
o Consulting services
o Emergencies
What are other agencies doing?
o California counties and cities offer a local preference, expecting sales and property taxes
to increase
o Counties typically offer preference of 5% of contract cost including: Nevada County, Placer
County, Sierra County
o Town of Truckee offers preference based on contribution to local sales tax
o Nine neighboring local agencies do not have written local preference procurement policies
Alpine Springs County Water District
North Tahoe Public Utility District
Northstar Community Service District
Placer County Water Authority
Squaw Valley Public Service District
Tahoe City Public Utility District
Tahoe Truckee Sanitation Agency
Truckee Fire Protection District
Truckee Sanitary District
Challenges
o Ensuring the rate payers benefit
o Defining “local”
Geographic parameters
Business license location
Location of residence of employees/owner
Rate payer: Business, Business owner, Employees
o Defining the preference adjustment
Percentage of contract cost of bids
Additional qualification points when scoring proposals
No fiscal impact associated with this workshop
Potential annual cost to the District could add up to $100,000
o Based on a 5% preference adjustment on $2 million awarded to local businesses
Indirect fiscal impact difficult to determine
o Reduced competition due to a local preference adjustment
o Administrative costs could vary, based on complexity of defining “local”
There was no public input.
Board and General Counsel discussion:
This came up because of a service contract where a local provider of service bid slightly
higher than one in Nevada and lost. It made me think this local preference policy may have
made a difference. I was really involved with Sierra County and actually wrote their local
preference policy. What I heard there was it is really complicated, and there are some issues
about doing this. But I think we ought to try and make it work. Make a really strong effort to
see if there is some way that we could come up with a policy that would give direction where
contracts are pretty much equal to the local party.
If you look at the macro in the presentation, here are the dollars available and here is the
worst case. The chances these cases fitting into this are rather small. It will be little contracts,
and it will be locals against someone out of the area who may have a chance because of the
3 Minutes: January 19, 2011
policy. It won’t be the big things. It won’t be common, it will be uncommon. Therefore, it
should not be a big fiscal issue. Maybe a legal one. I think a lot of the other districts have
heard about this, and decided it is not defensible. So maybe we could make an extraordinary
effort to try to make this work.
In Sierra County, a couple things we did to try and make it a little easier. We limited the
contract amount and after that amount, we phased out in percents. It tends to benefit smaller
providers of service, which is what I hope we are trying to do. We also put some qualifiers on
the types of businesses. For example, if we said they had to be a customer in Sierra County,
they had to be in business for six months. We also said it may not be a vendor in the area,
but it may be a producer of a product in the area, sold by someone else, but produced locally.
So we had several qualifiers.
I don’t think it has to be phased out by 5%, it could be 1%. I just think we ought to try and
figure out a way to make this work as long as our attorneys will let us, and then for tie
breakers, that is what we are looking at where we have a tie breaker, and we feel they are so
close and we could pick the local instead of going out of the area. I think there is case you
can make as to rate payer benefits. There may be a way for us to do something the other
districts do not do.
Agree with Director Hemig about the philosophy of it being a tie breaker. And there being
some set the precedent if that is what needs to happen. The justification of counties and
towns to improve a tax base is why they claim they can offer the local discount. This does not
apply to us, but that is not the only reason. This is a good citizen thing. There is something
about a dollar spent locally multiplies out to be seven dollars. Bob’s worse case is clearly so
unlikely that it is not worth considering. To get to that worse case, local contractors would
have to bid to the maximum amount above the next highest bid, and the bids are closed bids.
It would be a very unusual case that triggers this, So the fiscal impact is small in dollars. Do
not want to put a crazy paperwork burden on staff to not award many contracts differently.
Need to do this simply and understandably.
Agree with Directors Hemig and Hillstrom. I like to go the 5%. Cost to us if give all contracts
locally would be $100,000 to the District per year. Where does this figure come from? I
thought there was a state code that special public districts had to take the lowest bidder. Ap-
parently there are leeways. We have a limit on our bids where the Board does not have to
vote on bids. When it comes to bids under $10,000, it would not matter as code does not ap-
ply because the Board does not vote for lowest bid. But anything $10,000 and over, we must
go out to bid and award to the lowest responsible bidder.
Contracts that we do not have to go to bid on, we have some latitude with respect to a local
preference for professional services such as engineering, architecture, construction project
management, financial administrative, and accounting. Contracts can be awarded based on
demonstrated competence and professional qualifications. Where demonstrated competence
and professional qualifications are basically equal, we may be able to use a local preference
tie breaker.
Using the local preference as a tie breaker- are we opening ourselves up to being chal-
lenged. The Board could adopt a policy that is suggested through government code. It sets a
level of protection. Not just based on qualifications.
Rate payer benefit. Our revenue is solely on rates. Any time you enhance the viability of a
community, it benefits all rate payers of a district. It is not a direct tie, not black and white like
tax dollars. Good to support the economic viability of a community. The community members
will benefit- full time or part time property owners.
Supportive of the 2-1/2 to 5% range in general. Fallout from this will also help some local
businesses to sharpen their pencils, bring in bids that are more competitive – in general keep
all our costs down. Fallout from local preference makes it a positive thing to keep local busi-
nesses to bring in good bids.
4 Minutes: January 19, 2011
Torn about the possible financial impact- does everyone want to pay? We are benefitting only
a couple contactors or agencies or consultants at cost to all of rate payers. So what if the 7 or
8 times the dollar goes around. Everyone is going to pay $8 year to get local services. What
do rate payers want, do they want to pay additional each year for a local preference policy. It
could be up to $8 at the worst case scenario if the $2 million of contacts eligible for local pro-
curements with a 5% allowance happened. Like the tie breaker aspect.
Rarely be used, but something for rare occasion. Will be small.
Encourage local people to try and create competition. Maybe overall costs could be lower.
There could be a nexus with rate payer benefit if there is a lot going on.
Logic behind potential reduction in competitive bidding
Local preference- nothing specific in the code that authorizes it. Talked about how we are not
required to award based on lowest bid, but on demonstrated competence and professional
qualification. Codes do provide authority for agencies to give preference to minority, women
owned business, and small businesses (as defined by each agency). If the Board is inclined
to move toward this type of policy, give thought to these other areas. May want to limit the
idea to local, because small does not always equate to local.
Keep the dollars in the community
Is there any promotional value to the Conservation Department which comes back to us
What are some of the other Director’s thoughts – bringing out what do the rate payers think.
We did not advertise this workshop- do our outreach to get input on this local procurement
policy- what are the thoughts and concerns of the rate payers
Great idea to get feedback always- how would we do this
How do we draw the lines- North Lake Tahoe or TDPUD service area, rate payers
There is a lot of promotion in the community as to where you spend your dollars on local
services and a lot of people in the community are trying to buy local
Do we want to spend up to the worst case scenario of $100,000 a year to buy local
It would be helpful if we picked the 5% number where this local preference policy would have
applied over the last two years. The reason we are talking about this is the janitorial contract
that was so close. I do not remember another instance where there was that closeness
occurring that the Board heard about.
Believe if used 5% that local preference contracts would constitute a difference of less than
$10,000 per year
Need to discuss how to put together a criteria
Look at what others have done
In putting together the policy for Sierra County, I went to Nevada County, Placer County and
Town of Truckee. Took three good, proven, time tested documents, used them as models.
Not that hard to adapt to our District, but I also acknowledge there is no other District like
ours that does this. Empower staff to come back to the Board with a draft policy and put it out
to the public for a test
Provide staff with parameters to define local in the policy
We do serve customers in Placer County- so should local is not just limited to Nevada Coun-
ty- need to be a rate payer
Only owners need to be rate payers- or go so far as employees also which would add one
more layer of complexity
Local could be businesses with a valid resale license, rate payer or located within service ar-
ea of the District
Bidders need to be located in the District service area
How do business licenses work
Local means in the service area, office and or owner within the District, rate payer or physical
location served by the PUD
5 Minutes: January 19, 2011
Use a sampling of 10 businesses that this policy might apply to or fit into our criteria
Policy can evolve over time
Proceed cautiously and in small steps
Do a public forum at the third workshop; second workshop will be defining the policy and
defining local
A few examples of businesses would be helpful
Simple number of local vendors that would fit in this policy- existing District vendors we have
used before to understand what kind of wide spread impact this could have
See draft policy based on comments, opportunity to patch through at Board level and then
public forum at another meeting
Make special effort to reach out to the Truckee Chamber as they are the messenger who can
make this work
And contact any other organizations who can provide input- get as much public input as pos-
sible before the second workshop
DISCUSSION REGARDING THE DISTRICT HEADQUARTERS BUILDING ENERGY AUDIT This
item involves a discussion regarding the Enovity Report and the Headquarters building.
Kathy Neus gave a presentation:
District has many energy efficiency programs for customers
Enovity hired in November 2009
Goals of the Report
o Identify opportunities to save energy and money
o Identify operational /maintenance improvements
o Identify cost effective capital improvements
Enovity completed assessment April 2010
Main focus areas of the assessment
o Energy Efficiency Measures (EEM)
o Capital Measures (CM)
o Operations and Maintenance Measures (O&M)
o Occupant Comfort Measures (OCM)
Energy Efficiency Measures (EEM)
o EEM 1-3 Improve building heat
Isolate non-operating boiler
Install automatic stack damper
Adjust gas pressure
EEM 4Insulate garage doors
EEM 5-8 Install occupancy sensors
• Occupancy lighting control in warehouse
• Occupancy lighting control in garages
• Occupancy lighting control in O&M offices
Energy Efficiency Measures (EEM)
o EEM 9-10 Install programmable thermostats
Garages and warehouse
o EEM 11Install circulation fans in warehouse
Capital Measures (CM)
o CM 1 Replace boilers
o CM 2 Install whole building control system
Operations and Maintenance (O&M)
o O&M 1-6 Repair & operational control of fan coils
6 Minutes: January 19, 2011
Repair Taco valves
Repair actuators, install gravity dampers/ventilation grilles
Insure operation during occupied hours
Designate single person for thermostat control
Repair fan coils in Exercise Room and warehouse offices
o O&M 7 Repair boiler controls
o O&M 8 Repair warehouse dampers
o O&M 9 Re-enable CO2 sensor control
Occupant Comfort Measures (OCM)
o OCM 1 Install building exhaust system
o OCM 2 Repair & rebalance air delivery system
o OCM 3-5 Install building cooling system
Install evaporative cooling in Administrative offices
Install mechanical cooling equipment
Install evaporative cooling in warehouse
o Roof replacement and installation of additional insulation
There was no public input.
Board discussion:
Enovity is a good report that highlight opportunities and equipment broken
Summary of issues is linked to measures
Predictive versus preventative
Rebalance of air and water
Will more be done for additional ventilation- building exhaust system
Why aren’t certain things not working
Gravity dampers- do now or after work on cooling design
What about stratification fans in warehouse
Infrared heaters are efficient
Keep the Board in the loop with progress
WATER METER PROJECT PROGRESS REPORT & WATER USAGE TRENDS This item
involves a discussion regarding the water meter project report and water usage trends.
Neil Kaufman gave a presentation:
AB 2572 requires that the District begin reading all water meters installed since 1992 and
commence billing on a volumetric basis by January 2010
AB 2572 also requires that all connections be equipped with water meters and billed on a
volumetric basis by January 1, 2025
In Summer of 2008, the District issued a request for proposals to provide an automated
meter reading system (five proposals received)
In September 2008, the Board awarded a contract for the Pilot Program (Phase 1) to
Measurement Control Systems (MCS)
In June of 2009, the Phase 2 contract was awarded to MCS
o Installation of about 6,750 meters
o Total contract authorization was $2.44 million
o In May of 2010, the Phase 3 contract was awarded to MCS
o Installation of about 4,735 meters
o Total contract authorization was $1.62 million
Both contracts were completed in November 2010; a total of 10,777 meters installed
7 Minutes: January 19, 2011
o 651 commercial
o 10,126 residential
o 86 percent of customers
There were 1,637 locations where a meter could not be installed. Locations are the “Red
Flag” list
o Meter box was buried and/or could not be located
o Meter box was paved over or located under a deck, large rocks, tree, fence or similar
obstruction
o No meter box, only a curb stop
o Meter box was too small, too deep or damaged
o Excessive groundwater
o Broken/inoperable valves
Red Flag list locations
Area Quantity
Armstrong/Gateway 122
Donner Lake 46
Downtown/Olympic Heights 155
Glenshire/Hirschdale 627
Prosser/Northeast 134
Sierra Meadows/Ponderosa Palisades 146
Tahoe Donner 388
Commercial (Various Locations) 19
Red Flag list
o Create three-person meter box installation crew with Water Department field staff
o Issue bid documents for procurement of meter boxes, pipe materials & other hardware
o Begin work in Glenshire in Summer 2011
o Goal of 350 to 400 installations per year
o Anticipated completion in 2014
Lessons Learned
o About 600 customers do not have meter boxes
o About 125 customers where the meter box could not be located
o About 800 customers where condition of existing facilities prevented installation of meter
After initial installation, significant number of customers had a leak somewhere after the
meter box
o Leaks were as large as 10 gallons per minute
o Leaks typically occurred in four areas
Irrigation systems
Stop and drain valves
Toilets
Customer-owned service laterals
o Some leaks pre-dated installation of the meter
o Others occurred after installation of the meter
Currently, about 6.5 percent of customers have a lea
Stop & Drain Valves
o Largest cause of leaks in Winter
o Valves have a 90° rotation
Full open (0° position)
Full closed (90° position)
Partially open (anyplace between 0° and 90°)
o A partially open valve will create a leak of up to 5 gpm
o Considerable staff time required in dealing with this issue
8 Minutes: January 19, 2011
o Water Department has developed a handout explaining how a stop & drain valve works
Broken Pipes
o New AMR system allows District to be pro-active in regards to pipe breaks & large leaks
o Leaks are often identified during the following work day
o Customers are notified by telephone if possible
o Leaks as large as 20 gpm have been found on residential properties
o Prior to AMR system, leaks could go undetected for weeks
Customer Information System (CIS) corrections
o Significant problems with multi-unit residential buildings
Multiple meters feeding a single residential structure
Developer/builder often provided erroneous information regarding which meter serves
which unit
Resolution required lengthy telephone conversations and/or field verification
198 out of 687 meters (29 percent) were assigned incorrectly
o About a dozen illegal irrigation connections were identified
o Billing was started or the connection was disconnected
Significant reduction in Winter-time water usage
Year Jan-Feb Water Usage
2007 4.11 mgd
2008 3.57 mgd
2009 3.42 mgd
2010 3.08 mgd
This reduction is attributed to two main factors
o Replacement of about 54,500 feet of old pipeline
o AMR system has allowed identification of customer side leaks
Fiscal Impact
o Phase 2 contract authorization was $2.44 million
About $2.06 million has been spent
o Phase 3 contract authorization was $1.62 million
About $1.39 million has been spent
o For 2011
Direct expenditure of about $880,00 is anticipated
400 installations at $2,200 each
Cost includes parts, materials, District field labor & equipment
Additional costs for administration, engineering & management
Total cost of about $1,000,000
o For 2012 through 2014, similar cost of about $1,000,000 is expected
o Total project cost of about $7.5 million
Funding Sources
o Reserve for Future Meters Fund
Balance of $1.3 million at start of project
All funds have been spent
o Water Meter Surcharge
$5 per customer per month
Expires at end of 2013
To date, $1.5 million has been collected
Additional $2.3 million is anticipated
Total of $3.8 million
o Remaining $2.4 million cost to be funded from rate monies or reserves
No public input
9 Minutes: January 19, 2011
Board discussion:
Change in water use: 1 million gpd/694 gpm- great reduction- successful
For the upcoming water meter install project, may be a good idea to use 3 crews: excavation,
pipe fitting, restoration
Are there multi-unit structures served by one meter- are these part of the last phase
Good to see only 6-1/2% on leak rate; Tahoe City PUD was in the 25% range initially and
after two years, were down to 6%
Many customers do not understand the Stop & Drain- some older models should be replaced
with a newer one
300 to 400 meters installed per year is ambitions- good goal
Looking forward to see progress report at the end of the year
State mandate impact on the District customers is positive and a benefit to the community
Original staff estimate for the water meter project was 10 million; it is now 7.5 million; am very
pleased as under the original projection; faster, better and cost less
Summer water consumption- recall high point versus current; we are saving 2 to 4 million
gallons per day
If save 2 million gallons per day, how much does that save on electricity
What is the typical well production
What is the horsepower of medium well
How did you figure the order of the Red Flags- hard ones first or last
What about the ones with no meter box
What is a stop & drain life span
How much money does this project need to finish
Should we slow the project down to match the revenues
District staff will do the remaining installs
How long does it take the District to contact someone about a leak
If there is a leak, why not put a notice in a red box on the bill
Future cost to install Red Flags is about 1 million per year- this should not create additional
labor costs
ROUTINE BUSINESS
TREASURER REPORT: DECEMBER 2010
Approval of disbursements: Director Hemig moved, and Director Laliotis seconded, that the Board
approve the December 2010 disbursements report.
ROLL CALL: All Directors by a show of hands. SO MOVED.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 15, 2010
Director Laliotis moved, and Director Hillstrom seconded, that the Board approve the minutes of
December 15, 2010. ROLL CALL: All Directors by a show of hands. SO MOVED.
CLOSED SESSION
CLOSED SESSION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8, CONFERENCE
WITH REAL PROPERTY: 14630 GLENSHIRE DRIVE APN 49-011-31; DISTRICT NEGOTIATOR:
GENERAL MANAGER; NEGOTIATING PARTIES: APPOINTED AGENT; UNDER NEGOTIATION:
PRICE AND TERMS
10 Minutes: January 19, 2011
RETURN TO OPEN SESSION
Report from Closed Session
There was no reportable action.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 8:55 PM.
TRUCKEE DONNER PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
_________________________________________
Jeff Bender, President
Prepared by ______________________________
Barbara Cahill, Deputy District Clerk
11 Minutes: January 19, 2011