HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Reports TDPUD STAFF REPORT
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: Mary Chapman, Administrative Services Manager
SUBJECT: Report on Proposed Operating Changes
DATE: June 15, 1995 AGENDA #FZ
Attached is a list of the programs and services that I would like to implement this summer
and fall. While some of the computer software programs were included in this year's
budget, I did not include enough money to cover the staff training. By making these
changes, we will have to postpone installing a network and upgrading the AS400
operating system software until next year. The total estimated costs could exceed my
capital budget by $16,914.
As a result of the program updates, new programs and operational changes, we will be
able to improve service to our customers and improve .staff efficient Vile will also be
p P Y
able to reduce direct charges to our customers and obtain better reporting relating to our
day-to-day operations. While these improvements will result in an increase in my budget,
the overall budget should not be affected since there will be a reduction in the Planning
Department's budget due to recent staffing changes. The Planning Department
artment will
benefit considerably from the new budget, customer contact and fixed asset program
and the updated work order accounting program.
CUSTOMER SERVICES/BILLING:
) Install Customer Contact System: All customer services staff (anyone taking a call
from a customer regarding a service request, billing question, complaint, etc.) would log
the call in the Customer Contact System. In this way, the data would be available to any
employee inquiring on the status of a customer. We had intended to implement this
system when we converted to the AS400; however, the software was not linked to the
other applications (e.g. Service Orders, Customer Inquiry or Customer Maintenance),
which made using the program cumbersome. We did not pay for the program. The link
between the systems has now been made. This program is scheduled to be installed
8f4195.
......... .............. ....
2) Customer Billing System Update: We are currently operating on a 1993 version of
the billing software. OrCom has a 1995 version. They will need to come to our office
to perform the update. We will time this update with the installation of the Customer
Contact system in order to keep the costs down. One of the great features of the
newest version of the billing program is in the way it handles landlordlthird party
transfers. It is a much more automated system. As you know, we do hundreds of
seasonal transfers at the beginning and end of both summer and winter. We currently
charge property owners $20.00 to transfer the service back into their name when their
renter moves out. The landlord/third party feature of the billing system will save us a
considerable amount of work. This update is scheduled to take place between 8/4/95
- 8/9/95. If in fact this program does save us the time that we think it will, we would like
to pass this savings on to the customers immediately upon the program implementation
by dropping the charge altogether.
3) Change in the number of billing cycles from ten cycles to four cycles: We have been
billing 10 cycles per month for many years. One of the main reasons was because the
old computer system did not have enough capacity to handle larger billing cycles. In
addition, we used to examine all of the bills before they were mailed. This took quite
awhile. In an effort to streamline our work processes, we stopped this review process
several months ago; instead, we are checking meter reading edits more closely. I have
met with Bev, Rosana and Mark to discuss this change. There are other areas of the
workflow that will be affected by this change, such as collections and payment
processing. We expect to achieve efficiencies in each area by processing larger billing
cycles. We intend to notify our customers of the change through a message on the bills
during the month of August and begin the cycle change 9/1195. We will also put an
article in the July newsletter.
4) Revision of the customer bill: We've been talking about revising our bill for some
time. Now that we have changed our rate structure, we can complete the bill design
project. Our goals are to separate the electric charges from the water charges, provide
better charge descriptions and present the billing information more clearly. We are timing
the new bill to be sent beginning 10/1/95.
5) Purchase new printer: In conjunction with the redesign of our bill, we need to replace
our printer. We purchased our current printer when we were over on West River Street
in 1986. As the years have gone by, it has become less dependable. It now requires
frequent maintenance calls and replacement parts are more difficult to find.
We have been looking seriously at an IBM model 3130 laser printer. While we could pay
less if we were to buy a line printer, we want to be able to take advantage of barcode
discounts and payment scanning technology. A laser printer will also allow us to print
more information on customer bills by giving us more font size options. While we may
be able to find another brand somewhere, we have not had the best success in finding
maintenance for off-brand printers. IBM has always been very responsive. They even
2
. replaced the last printer we bought from them with a new one, because we were not
satisfied with the print quality. In addition, we will need Orcom to do the programming
to accommodate the new printer.
6) Postal Discounts: As postage costs continue to increase, we are looking for ways to
cut those costs. With a new printer that is capable of printing barcoding on the bills and
sending out more bills in each cycle we can increase postage discounts. We estimate
the additional savings in postage costs will be at least $150 per month.
7) Electronic Funds Transfers: This is another service that we would like to offer to our
customers. Our current billing system is capable of handling this process. Customers
would be billed as usual and would have to sign up for the service. On their due date,
we would draft their checking account and credit their account with the District. These
customers avoid writing a check and paying for postage. They also get the use of their
money longer without the risk of a late payment fee or a ding on their credit record with
the District.
I spoke to another utility that has been using the electronic funds transfer feature for
payment processing. Fourteen percent of their customers use the system and really like
it. If fourteen percent of our customers used the system, we would process 1,200 fewer
payments each month. We have scheduled implementation of this program on 11/1/95.
. We will advertise the program with a message on the customer bills, a billing stuffier and
an article in the October newsletter.
ACCOUNTING RELATED SYSTEMS:
1) Budget Program/General Ledger/Accounts Payable/inventory Update: For the last
few years we have been utilizing the Orcom work order accounting system for budgeting.
At the time, Orcom's budget system would not have worked for us. Since that time, they
have modified the program substantially. The budget system would allow us to remove
our budgeting process from the work order accounting system. We will work with the
department heads to design the budget numbering system to best fit their needs. The
new system will also be tied to the financial system, which will make reconciliation easier.
When we install the budget system, we need to be on the most current versions of the
general ledger, accounts payable, inventory and payroll. The installation of the budget
system is scheduled to take place beginning 6/16/95. We will continue to use the work
order accounting system until 12/31/95 and the new budget system effective 1/1/96.
The department heads will use the new budget system when they prepare their budgets
beginning 9/1/95.
2) Payroll System Update: When we installed the AS400, Orcom was not ready to
install the AS400 version of payroll. We were scheduled to do the conversion next
3
February. To make the budget system work more efficiently, we will need to be on the
new payroll system sooner. Orcom will be able to do the conversion 7117 - 7129I95.
Since we will need to be on the most current version of payroll to operate the budget
system efficiently, we would like to go ahead with the conversion right away rather than
wait until next year.
3) Fixed Assets PrograrnMork Order Accounting update: The fixed asset system is an
area of our operation that we have never automated. This system would replace the
manually kept property ledger which is used to track installed assets and equipment. We
would use this installation as an opportunity to streamline the property records and work
order closing procedures. The work order accounting update includes converting our
records from the IBM system 36 version to the AS400 version of the software. This
installation and update is scheduled for 911 1195 - 9122/95.
RECAP OF COSTS:
Customer Contact Program/Customer Information System update $ 9,572
New System Printer 19,465
Budget Program/ General Ledger System update, Accounts Payable
& Inventory remote updates 11,215
. Payroll System update 9,387
Fixed Assets ProgramMork Order Accounting update 14,349
Total costs $63,988
Funds available in Administrative Services capital budget (47,074)
Capital budget overrun $16,914
T"DPUD STAFF REPORT
June 16, 1995
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: Peter L. Holzmeister, General Manager
SUBJECT: Monthly report
AGENDA # 9
NEGOTIATIONS WITH IBEW- 1 am continuing to meet with the Union bargaining committee
regarding changes in the MOU. There are very few issues we are still talking about, but they are
the key issues, so they take longer to resolve. The meet and confer process allows both sides
to air problems and work toward solutions. The attitude throughout this set of negotiations has
been quite positive.
HANTA VIRUS TRAINING-During the past month, we provided training to all District employees
on how to avoid exposure to Hantavirus disease. The training was arranged through Nevada
County and utilized public health professionals from the States of California and Nevada. There
was a video and question and answer period. I thought it was very informative.
MEETING WITH WAPA - Steve Hollabaugh and I met with representatives of NCPA and the
Western Area Power Administration to pursue an allocation of power for Truckee. We had some
success and are anticipating receiving a fetter from them in the next week or so. The allocation,
if we receive one, will be for only a few months, but it is a start. Western has excess capacity and
energy this year because of the extraordinary water year.
MEETING WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF HOPKINS REALTY TRUST REGARDING
ACQUISITION OF GLENSHIRE DRIVE WELL SITE- Keith Sauers, Dave Rully and l met with
Brian Mullins and Dale Creighton to discuss acquisition of the site owned by Hopkins Realty Trust
for the District's Glenshire Drive well. Brian Mullins is employed by the Hopkins Trust to manage
the real estate holdings in the Truckee area. They expressed a willingness to cooperate with the
PUD and are having an appraisal done on the land as is required by the Trust by-laws for any
land sale. I hope to hear back from Brian during the next month.
RE-ENGINEERING PROGRAM- I have appointed a committee of District staff to work with me
to re-engineer the processes in the Planning Department. The committee consists of Mary
Chapman, Scott Terrell, Susan Camara, Mark Schlessinger and me. We will utilize a specific re-
engineering process taught by the American Management Association. 1 attended a three-day
seminar on the process and am serving as the committee leader. I hope that others in our
organization will learn how to lead the process so we can do more with it over time.
ANNEXATION OF GOOSENECK RANCH - The District has filed an application with Nevada
County LAFCo for annexation of Gooseneck Ranch. DeCuir and Somach have been retained to
assist with the legal aspects of the application process. There have been numerous conversations
among me, Tim Taylor (the attorney at DeCuir handling the matter), the Gooseneck
representatives and Nevada County LAFCo staff. There is still a disagreement on the scope of
environmental review that LAFCo should engage in regarding this annexation. Attached for your
review is a letter that Tim Taylor sent to LAFCo. l will keep the Board informed as developments
occur.
PLH/smc
Attachment
DE CUIR & SOMACH
N€S W. DE CUIR PAIiL S_SIMMONS
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION SANDRA K.DUNN
DART OL, SOMACH ATrOF1NEYS AT LAW WILLtAM E.HVIDSTEN
TIMOTHY M.TAYLOR
400 CAPITOL MALT.
DO€+IALD B. MOONEY
SulTE 1900 DONALD B_GtLBERT
SACRAMENTO,CA 96814-4407 ELIZ.ABETH W.JOHNSON
ANDREW M.HITCHINGS
TELEPHONE(916)446-7979 MICHAEL E.VERGARA
FACSIMILE(916)446-8199
DRV€D S. N'
Of CdJNIVSFLSEL
May 30, 1995
REGD JUN 2 199
Ms. SR Jones
Executive Director
Nevada County Local Agency
Formation Commission
1300 East Main Street
Grass "Malley, CA 95945
Re: Gooseneck Ranch Annexation
Dear Ms. Jones:
De Cuir and Somach has been retained by the Truckee Donner
Public Utility District ("Truckee Donner PUD" or "the District") to assist with
land use and environmental issues associated with the
proposed,annexation
of Gooseneck Ranch into the District's water service area. As a result of
preliminary representations made by staff to the Nevada County Local
Agency Formation Commission ("NCLAFCO"), the District is concerned that
NCLAFCO may pursue an expanded environmental review of the pending
Truckee Donner PUD application, notwithstanding the existence of
substantial environmental analysis previously prepared for the Gooseneck
Ranch development approvals.
The Gooseneck Ranch project consists of condominium and single
family residential uses, as well as a golf course. The final administrative
approvals were granted by the Placer County Board of Supervisors in 1994.
The project site is located in Placer County, but is adjacent to the City of
Truckee in Nevada County. Truckee Donner PUD proposes to serve water to
Gooseneck Ranch.
Although the District typically does not get involved in land use
matters beyond its role as a water purveyor, there is substantial concern that
the Gooseneck Ranch project proponents may elect to establish a mutual
water company, rather than run the risk and expense of duplicating
. .. .............. ........__..
Ms. 5R Jones
May 30, 1995
Page 2
substantial portions of the environmental review previously conducted by
Placer County. Truckee Donner PUD believes that the existence of another
independent water agency within its sphere of influence would not serve the
public interest. Among other things, it would conflict with the uniform
distribution and management of valuable water resources.
As a result of these concerns, a legal opinion was requested by the
District. The following analysis addresses the appropriate breadth of
NCLAFCO's jurisdiction with respect to the District's pending Gooseneck
Ranch annexation application. In particular, the analysis sets forth a number
of legal considerations regarding the proposed application and NCLAFCO's
ability to act pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"),
Public Resources Code, § 21000 et seq. As noted above, although the
Gooseneck Ranch project approvals were granted in accordance with CEQA,
including a comprehensive environmental impact report ("EIR") certified by
Placer County, NCLAFCO has indicated its intention to examine
opportunities for subsequent environmental analysis.
A. NCLAFCO Cannot Validly Assume Lead Agency Status for Purposes of
Environmental Review
Although several nuances in this matter contribute to the level of
confusion evidenced by NCLAFCO's claim that it can undertake full
independent environmental review, on balance this interpretation cannot be
supported under the law. Title 14, California Code of Regulations, § 1500, et
seq. (the "CEQA Guidelines" or "Guidelines"), establishes criteria for
identifying the lead agency under CEQA. For projects to be carried out by
private parties, "the Lead Agency shall be the public agency with the greatest
responsibility for supervising or approving the project as a whole." CEQA
Guidelines § 15051(b). With respect to the Gooseneck Ranch project
approvals, the proper lead agency was Placer County.
Section 15051(b) provides particular insight with respect to the relative
role of Local Agency Formation Commissions by stating that:
Where a city prezones an area, the city will be the appropriate Lead
Agency for any subsequent annexation of the area and should prepare
the appropriate environmental document at the time of the prezoning.
The Local Aggn Formation Commission shall Responsible
Ate•
Guidelines § 15051(b)(2) (emphasis added).
Ms. SR Jones
May 30, 1995
Page 3
Although the current Gooseneck Ranch situation does not fit precisely
within the parameters specified under subsection (b)(2), the direction
regarding the role of LAFCO is clear. Further support regarding the propriety
of LAFCO's function as a responsible agency comes from subsection (c), which
indicates that "[w]here more than one public agency equally meet the criteria
in subsection (b), the agency which will act first on the project in question
shall be the Lead Agency." Guidelines § 15051 (c); see also Citizens Task Force
on Sohio v. Board of Harbor Comm'rs. (1979) 23 Cal.3d 812; City of
Sacramento v. State Water Resources Control Board (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 960.
Under neither the subsection (b)(2) nor (c) scenario, is NCLAFCO entitled to
assume CEQA lead agency status.l Doing so would be unnecessarily
redundant, unduly burdensome on the project applicant, wasteful of public
resources, and inconsistent with the approach to LAFCO review generally
espoused in the Guidelines.z
The inability of NCLAFCO to independently serve as lead agency with
respect to a second round of environmental review for the Gooseneck Ranch
project also comes from that agency's own environmental guidelines. As its
general policy, NCLAFCO normally requires the Conducting Authority to
serve as lead agency. Nevada County Local Agency Formation Commission
Operations Manual, Chap. 4, CEQA Guidelines ("Local CEQA Guidelines")
(1992), § ILA.1 s
The only exceptions to this policy are set forth in § iI.A.2 of the local
CEQA guidelines, but they are very narrow in scope. For example, NCLAFCO
could assume lead agency status in situations where: 1) an application is
made directly to NCLAFCO by petition and the Conducting Authority is
unable or unwilling to assume lead agency status; 2) the Conducting
Authority requests that NCLAFCO assume lead agency status and NCLAFCO
agrees; or 3) the project proposal involves the incorporation of a new city, or
the formation of a new special district, or the adoption of or revision to a
sphere of influence. Local CEQA Guidelines g H.A.2. Because none of these
lln fact NCLAFCO was not the original,but the second LAFCO involved in project review.
Previously,Placer County LAFCO examined the project.
2 Section 15051 is intended "to provide the criteria for identifying which of several competing
agencies shall be the Lead Agency for a project." Discussion following Guidelines§15051.
3Local agency guidelines that specify appropriate lead agencies can validly be used for
determining the lead agency. See People ex rel Younger v.LAFCO (1978) 81 Cal.App.3d 464,
477.
Ms. SR Jones
May 30, 1995
Page 4
circumstances apply to the proposed Gooseneck Ranch annexation, there are
no exceptions through which NCLAFCO can legitimately acquire lead agency
status.
B. NCLAFCO is a Responsible Agency
Placer County had the broadest governmental powers with respect to
the project, and had the responsibility to consider all environmental impacts
of the project. As such, it properly acted as lead agency (see Kostka, S. and
Zischke, M., Practice Under the California Environmental Quality Act, CEB
(1993), § 3.17), and appropriately prepared and certified the Gooseneck Ranch
EIR.
By contrast, the CEQA Guidelines define the term "responsible agency
as the "public agency which proposes to carry out or approve a project, for
which a Lead Agency is preparing or has prepared an EIR or Negative
Declaration." CEQA Guidelines § 15381. The term is intended to include "all
public agencies other than the Lead Agency which have discretionary
approval power over the project." Id.
The responsible agency's charge is to examine o-nl-v those aspects of the
project that are subject to its jurisdiction. Kostka and Zischke, supra, § 3.17.
In so doing, it is bound to certain decisions of the lead agency. Id. at §3.2.
NCLAFCO's role is to review, and if appropriate approve annexations to, or
detachments from cities or districts. Nevada County Local Agency Formation
Commission Operations Manual, Chap. 3, Policies and Procedures, § I.D.1.a.
Although a number of other issues are involved with overall development
of the Gooseneck Ranch project, they are beyond the reach of NCLAFCO as a
responsible agency.
C. Nevada County LAFCO Has a Specifically Defined But Limited Role
With Respect to Environmental Review of the Project
With a few limited exceptions, responsible agencies are required to rely
on the CEQA analysis prepared by the lead agency. See CEQA Guidelines
§ 15050(c) (regarding the binding nature of lead agency determinations to
prepare an EIR or a negative declaration).
Ms. SR Jones
May 30, 1995
Page 5
1. NCLAFCO Cannot Now Contest the Gooseneck Ranch EIR
Insofar as determinations regarding the adequacy of an existing
environmental document are concerned, the CEQA Guidelines provide as
follows:
If a Responsible Agency believes that the final EIR . . . prepared
by the Lead Agency is not adequate for use by the Responsible
Agency, the Responsible Agency must either:
(1) Take the issue to court within 30 days after the Lead
Agency files a Notice of Determination;
(2) Be deemed to have waived any objection to the adequacy
of the EIR or Negative Declaration;
(3) Prepare a subsequent EIR if permissible under Section
15162; or
(4) Assume the Lead Agency role as provided in Section
15052(a)(3).
CEQA Guidelines § 15096(e).
a) NCLAFCO Did Not Take the Issue to Court Within 30 Days
Obviously, NCLAFCO did not file a timely CEQA lawsuit under
§ 15096(e)(1) with respect to the Gooseneck Ranch EIR. By failing to do so, it
effectively accepted the EIR as adequate pursuant to § 15096 (e)(2). The
Guidelines do not provide any flexibility for NCLAFCO on this critical point.
b) NCLAFCO Is Not Permitted to Prepare a Subsequent EIR
Based on the existing information, NCLAFCO does not have a valid
basis for preparing a subsequent EIR pursuant to § 15096 (e)(3), or the
corresponding Local CEQA Guidelines, because the project has not fulfilled
the requirements of § 15162. Specifically, there is no substantial evidence in
the record that the Gooseneck Ranch project has undergone subsequent
changes resulting in "the involvement of new significant environmental
impacts not considered in a previous EIR . . ." (CEQA Guidelines § 15162
(a)(1); see also Local CEQA Guidelines § V.C.II.a), there have been no
"substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the
project is undertaken . . ." (§ 15162 (a)(2); see also Local CEQA Guidelines
§ VILC.2.b), nor has substantial new information arisen pursuant to
§ 15162(a)(3). See also Local CEQA Guidelines § VII.C.2.C; Laurel Heights
Ms. SR Jones
May 30, 1995
Page 6
Neighborhood Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of
California (Laurel Heights II) (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112; and Section D, infra.
Perhaps most importantly, even if NCLAFCO met the criteria of
Guidelines g 15162(a)(1), (2), or (3), it could not pursue an independent EIR.
CEQA Guidelines § 15162(c) allows public agencies with the "next
discretionary approval for [a] project" to prepare a subsequent EIR if new
impacts, changed circumstances, or new information develops after project
approval. Ordinarily, this might provide an agency such as NCLAFCO with
sufficient leeway to at least argue for lead agency status. Here, however,
NCLAFCO is precluded from proceeding because Guidelines § 15162(a) vests
full responsibility for determining the need for subsequent EIRs with the lead
agency. Thus, only Placer County can call for a subsequent EIR based on the
above-noted factors of new impacts, changed circumstances, or new
information. No matter how much NCLAFCO may desire to pursue a
particular remedy, as long as it is not a lead agency, it cannot require a
subsequent EIR.
NCLAFCO also is precluded from bringing a challenge to the adequacy
of the existing EIR pursuant to additional restrictions within its own Local
CEQA Guidelines. The only allowance for a challenge by NCLAFCO is if
grounds exist for "the preparation of subsequent environmental
documentation as set forth in Section 15162." Local CEQA Guidelines
§ VMC.I. As already indicated, no such basis exists.
c) NCLAFCO Cannot Assume the Lead Agency Role
Lastly, as cited in CEQA Guidelines § 15096(e)(4), § 15052(a)(3) addresses
the situation in which a responsible agency may assume lead agency status.
This is permissible when:
The Lead Agency prepared inadequate environmental documents
without consulting with the Responsible Agency as required by
Sections 15072 or'15082, and the statute of limitations has expired for a
challenge to the action of the appropriate Lead Agency.
Guidelines § 15052(a)(3).
This particular scenario is inapplicable to the case at issue for a few
reasons. First, there is no evidence in the record.indicating that NCLAFCO
believed the EIR to be inadequate, as required under § 15052(a)(3). Second,
Ms. SR Jones
May 30, 1995
Page 7
NCLAFCO was a participant in the CEQA proceedings.4 And finally,
NCLAFCO's very participation is conclusive evidence of adequate prior notice
as contemplated in § 15052(a)(3).
2. NCLAFCO's Comments Are Limited to Those Which Are
Within Its Expertise
Responsible agencies have authority to provide the lead agency with
substantive comments regarding project activities. Those comments,
however, must be limited to project activities or impacts that fall within the
responsible agency's area of expertise or that require responsible agency action
or approval. Pub. Res. Code §§ 21104(c) and 21153; CEQA Guidelines
§ 15096(d). In addition, those comments must be supported by specific
documentation. Pub. Res. Code § 21153; CEQA Guidelines § 15096(d).
Thus, NCLAFCO is precluded from preparing and submitting
commentary on a wide range of environmental issues that extend beyond the
agency's specifically defined and limited scope.5
D. NCLAFCO's Only Basis For Not Accepting the Adequacy of
the EIR Would Be If It Was Never Consulted by the Lead Agency
Guidelines § 15096 outlines a variety of review processes required of
responsible agencies. As noted above, subsection (e) also provides limited
remedies in the event the responsible agency is aggrieved by the lead agency's
actions. The Guidelines expressly set forth that if a responsible agency is
never consulted by the lead agency and the responsible agency determines
that the EIR is inadequate, the responsible agency may take the necessary steps
4A full discussion of NCLAFCO's inclusion within the environmental review process is set forth
in §D, infra.
'ln an interesting sidelight, it is noted that in its Response to the Notice of Preparation
provided to Nevada County, the Nevada County Planning Department specifically addressed
environmental concerns relating to the project water supply. (see the letter of Mr.Thomas A.
Parilo,dated October 26, 1990,in Appendix P to the EIR.) Nevada County did not comment on
the draft EIR from the time of its circulation to the date of final approval. One is, therefore,
left to assume that the legitimate environmental concerns of Nevada County were adequately
addressed in the EIR finally adopted by Placer County,acting as the lead agency on
February 15, 1995. This information bolsters the District's position that NCLAFCO may only
comment on those issues that are subject to its jurisdiction, in that the Nevada County Planning
Department clearly assumed responsibility for the broader environmental issues relating to
groundwater usage and affecting Nevada County.
Ms. SR Jones
May 30, 1995
Page 8
to perform an adequate CEQA review. Guidelines § 15096(e)(3) and (4); see
also § C, supra.
1. NCLAFCO Was Consulted During Environmental Review
The environmental document indicates on its face that Nevada
County "will review and comment on the Draft EIR" (FEIR, Vol. I, A-5), and
confirms County participation (Id., R-1). Although NCLAFCO is an
independent governmental body generally not constrained by limitations
upon County government (see generally Gov. Code §§ 56001 and 56325), it
cannot be ignored that direct consultation between Placer County, as lead
agency, and Nevada County, regarding the scope and content of
environmental review, did ultimately include NCLAFCO. This fact is best
evidenced by your appearance and testimony at the September 30, 1993
meeting of the Placer County Planning Commission. By virtue of your
appearance at the hearing, it is irrefutable that NCLAFCO was aware of the
environmental proceedings. Moreover, at that time and at all points
thereafter, NCLAFCO had full opportunity to comment as a responsible
agency pursuant to Guidelines § 15096(b).
Further confirmation of NCLAFCO's understanding of its specifically
defined, but limited role with respect to the Gooseneck Ranch annexation,
comes from commentary that you delivered at the September 1993 hearing.
On that occasion, you stated in part, that "Nevada, County LAFCO has
jurisdiction over that annexation . . . therefore, we would have approval
authority, making us . . . a responsible agency for the project . . ." Excerpt from
public comments, Placer County Planning Commission, September 30, 1994.
Although your subsequent comments at the hearing referred to
inadequate prior consultation, and the potential need for "different
environmental impact information," your very presence and commentary
effectively erases any further issue regarding lack of prior consultation. With
respect to your latter point, at no time did your statement give rise, either
directly or indirectly, to an assumption that NCLAFCO intended to pursue
supplemental environmental review beyond its immediate expertise. See
§ C.1, supra.
In addition to appearing at the September 30, 1993 meeting of the Placer
County Planning Commission, you wrote a letter to the Placer County
Planning Department dated November 3, 1993. (A copy of your letter is
attached as Exhibit "A".) That letter requested a copy of the draft EIR and
requested 60 to 90 days for review and comment. On November 17, 1994, the
Ms. SR Jones
May 30, 1995
Page 9
Planning Department faxed a letter inviting you to the November 18, 1994
meeting of the Planning Commission and urging you to submit substantive
comments regarding the EIR. Although certain legal Conclusions in that
correspondence appear to be in error, the primary intent was to elicit
NCLAFCO's position prior to the project going to the Board of Supervisors for
final consideration. (A copy of the November 17, 1994 letter is attached as
Exhibit "B".) NCLAFCO declined this invitation.
Although the Placer County Planning Department did not recommend
continuation of the project hearings, staff did agree to "consider any comment
you may have prior to taking final action on the project." In fact, final
approval for the project was not granted until February 15, 1994 -- some four
and one-half months after your appearance at the Planning Commission
hearing, and nearly three and one-half months following your request for a
90-day review and comment period. At the February 15, 1994 hearing, the
Placer County Board of Supervisors was still working on the "Conditions of
Approval" and could easily have incorporated proposals submitted by
NCLAFCO that the Board deemed meritorious. This entire chronology is
further evidence that Placer County's preparation of the environmental
documents did include consultation with NCLAFCO. NCLAFCO made an
independent and fully informed decision not to participate in a substantive
fashion, preferring instead to assert that it could act as a lead agency at a later
date.
Had NCLAFCO truly felt disenfranchised by the environmental
proceedings undertaken by Placer County, the remedies available were either:
1) demand that Placer County withhold its approval until the concerns of
NCLAFCO were appropriately addressed;b or 2) take administrative or legal
action in accordance with Guidelines § 15096(e), as discussed in § C, supra.
After having knowingly missed all relevant checkpoints and statutes of
limitation, NCLAFCO cannot at this late date reasonably expect that it can
demand whatever type and scope of environmental analysis that it feels is
fitting. The concept of finality in administrative decision-making dictates
that NCLAFCO's opportunity to act upon its objections to the process and/or
content of the environmental document has been permanently foreclosed.
6This also would have ensured consistency with Local CEQA Guidelines §§ILB
("Participation as a Responsible Agency") and VILA ("Participation in Lead Agency
Environmental Review Process").
Ms. SR Jones
May 30, 1995
Page 10
Conclusion
NCLAFCO does not have the legal basis for requiring a full blown
environmental analysis of the proposed Gooseneck Ranch annexation. This
determination is based principally on NCLAFCO's participation in earlier
CEQA review processes conducted by Placer County and its failure to raise
issues of concern within its jurisdiction, otherwise protest the proceedings, or
pursue litigation. Should NCLAFCO proceed with environmental review, it
must be limited in scope to issues within the Commission's jurisdiction and
deal solely with annexation impacts not previously addressed in the project
EIR. This should not rise to the level of an EIR.
If you have additional concerns about legal aspects of the pending
application, or if you would like to discuss the analysis set forth above in
greater detail, please contact me directly. For general information regarding
Truckee Donner PUD's provision of service to Gooseneck Ranch, please
contact the District's General Manager, Peter L. Holzmeister at: 916-582-3916.
Very truly yours,
Timothy M. aylor
TMT:dlp
Enclosures /
cc: Peter L. Holzmeister V/
Steven C. Gross, Esquire
Lanny Winberry, Esquire
Sas-ser s Er't-9 i near i its I of I =e rev+�34 # ram. 0==
Nevada County jLAFCo
*al
950 rylaidu Avenue
Agency Nevada City, CA 95959-�8617
Formation Phone 916 272 3882
Fax/BB S 916 2 7 2 3 884
Commission
November 3, 1993
3
Mr. Fred Yeager, Director
Placer County Planning Department
€
11444 B Avenue
13W uullamd r Auburn CA 95603
Ci ttt.1M
icw/Try nr
counry Re: Gooseneck stanch Project Environmental Impact Report 1
i
Kwhy?C;icvcr,cs i
$pedatDt.;tHcts Dear i1tlr. Yeager:
Ken SmithAt the regular LAFCo meeting in October, I informed the Commission of the
'Publio Gooseneck Ranch project. Although I have only learned of this project informally,
xoa and we have not been given the opportunity to review the Draft Environmental
Spacial Dlstrfcts Impact Report, the Cornnn ssion expressed a strong desire to review the DE t and
submit comments.
county The project as described in the ESR wilt have water supplied by Truckee Donner
Public Utility District (TDPUD). As I mentioned at the September 30 Public
'u" "�`�" 14earing on the EIltr and in a follow up letter to your department, the project site is
Publrc.4ltarnate
not presently within the District, and it will be,necessary amex-the territory to
Bob Nix
Sp.ctaflAlsutctAirrnata provide water service.
Bill Schultz TDPUD is a multi-county district for which Nevada County is the Principal
counryAttentata County. As Principal County LAFCo,under Government Code 56123,Nevada
Paul Matson County LAFCo has jurisdiction over any.Truckee Donner PUD annexation.1 As a
CttyAltemwe result, Nevada County LAFCo is a Responsible Agency under CF-QA for this
SR IanG project. I
r try ofcer CEQA,requires the Lead Agency to consult with all Responsible Agencies for a
P.Swrt Browns project:
cegatcOuasst
150$2 (a)Notice of preparation. 1'mmediately after deciding that an
Holly MW-41vey Environmental Impact,Report 1s required for a project, the
CFeri✓Jsecrctaty
Lead Agency shaft send to each Responsible Agency a Notice
of Preparation stating that an Environmental Impact Report
will be prepared j,..J -
(1) The.Notice of Preparation shall provide the Responsible
Agencies with sufficient information describing the project and
the potential environmental effects to enable the ResponsibI--
Agencies to make a meaningful response. ..)
Sewers ferns i near i nq Inc_ 9162656834 P � a
OLA-Ko staff has learned that the public hearing phase for the EIR was attended until November
18, 1993. Because Nevada County LAFCo was not included in the preparation phase of the Draft
EI.R, we request that additional time be provided for LAFCo to review the document and submit
meaningful comments. r anticipate that LAFCo will.require an additional 60-90 days to review
the]raft E]R(this allows for time to circulate the draft to the Commission, agendize the it ern,
and prepare a response).
Alternatively, if you do not wish to give us time to respond, our counsel has advised us tha}
CEQA Guidelines provide a procedure to remedy the failure of the Lead Agency to consult with a
Responsible Agency. Section is 15052 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines require a Responsible t�gency
to assume Lead Agency status for that part of the project that pertains to the Responsible Agency.
f
if LAFCo must assume Lead Agency status in order to have its environmental concerns
addressed, they will have to be addressed in the form of a supplemental ETR. This could W.
incur more time delays and expense than if LAFCo is allowed to participate at this time. I
We do not wish to delay the project any more than necessary, but if LAFCo is to fairly consider
this project it must have sufficient information on which to base its determinations.
We look forward to a response from you indicating whether we can participate as a Responsible
Agency in the preparation of the ElR for this project. please advise if 1 can be of assistanc7' in this
matter or provide further clarification.
i
Sincerely,
SR es, E cutive Officer
Nevada. aunty LA.FCo j
F
S
i
44[
F
f
i
3
F
�csuar� Ens i nca.?r i ns Inc. 91ei�&�4:3a� �'. 1 ',
FROM �MR COUNTY Puckw t NO TO
. - l
Y PLACER COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
11414 8 Avenue 1 Auburn,California 956031 Telephone(918)889-7470/Ft X(916) 889-749S
1
f
Post-It"brand tax transmittal memo 7671FrQj vt ps5e3 '
November I?, 1993 lw -
Co, Co. t„�L.v�
LA Prsane a .�.-7
LAFCO aavt.
950 Maidtt AVe. F=x iF
Fax f -A
Nevada. City, CA 95959-8617 w 3 f
Attu: S. R. Jones
Subjet:t: ,0W$dI1CVs Rar�c;lz prt ec:l I✓ttvirtr�ty iet>td3 r>� as:t ;.tnrrl
Dear S. R. 'ones:
}
Thank you for your r=nt letter regarding the Gooseneck Ranch project. We acklowiedge your
rc ucst to review the a-vironmental Impact Report for this project and have=;you ,4 complete
Copy.
As we discussed, you may submit testimony at the November 18, 1993 Planning Com i in
hearing regarding the above referenced subject. Any comments you may hake will
considered by the Planning Co=nissioners prior to their taltir>g any action.
We agree that you certainly have the ability to assume "lead agency status" for th� proposed
annexation, and thereby require any supplemental euvironmental information you may deem
necessary. We hope that you will review the E.I.R. and provide us with any com�ents prior
to the project going on to the Board of Supervisors for final consideration. Also, I re iewed the
project file and find that there has been discussion with the Truckee Donner P.U.Dt regarding
water service to this site, and that they have been involved in the review and design.
Unfortunately, due to the ext=sive amount of time that has already been devoted to mviewing
,Ind evaluating this project, we cannot recommend a further continuance as you requeft. We carp
and will, however, consider any comments which you may have prior to taldng final action on
the projcot«
Respectfully,
; ..
THOMAS 1)a IX
Assodate Pianncr
TDK;wk
° I
Truckee Danner Public utility District Board of Directors
Joseph R.Aguera
J. Ronald Hemig
0)5 Business Office Planning Services Robert A.Jones
(916) 587-3896 (916)587-3944 FAX(916) 587-5056 James A. Maass
Patricia S. Sutton
General Manager
WATER DEPARTdENT ACTIVITIES REPORT FOR MAY 1995 Peter L. Hoizmeister
June 14, 1995 Ok
WATER QUAL TY :
See attached bacteriological report .
For many years we have relied on Cranmer Labs in Grass Valley to
perform the District `s bacteriological testing. Their price for
samples has always been competitive but it has been costing the
District $195. 00 per month for their courier service.
I was approached by a California Certified lab in Reno who would
transport our samples for less than $10 . 00 a week. That is an
immediate savings of $150 . 00 per month.
This was a substantial enough savings to warrant changing to a new
service. I wrote a letter thanking Cranmer Labs Inc. and explaining
why I was discontinuing service effective May 31 .
Beginning Tuesday June 6 we are now using Sierra Environmental
Monitoring Inc. located at 2430 Faretto Lane in Reno.
MAINTENANCE, REPAIRS & NEW CONSTRUCTION:
New service connection requests are .increasing with thirteen new
hook-ups and three service upgrades in May.
Staff repaired three leaks and did twenty eight USA locations . As
of May 31, there were 12 known leaks throughout the District
service area, they will be repaired as scheduling and weather
permits . We are receiving a lot of leak reports that are actually
groundwater due to spring runoff.
Xn May staff repaired or replaced three hydrants . I have consulted
with a representative from the California Conservation Corp (CCC)
to possibly hire them to perform some routine maintenance on and
around District fire hydrants . I am awaiting their proposal. .
For the last three years during the month of May we have rented a
small trailer mounted Vactor unit which we use to clean mainline
valve boxes . This year staff accessed all valve boxes in Tahoe
Donner and were able to cleaned about 50t of them.
Past Office Box 309 11570 Donner Pass ]load 9 'Truckee, California 96160
......... .... ......... ......... ......... ......... ... ... .... ............
Crews assisted Longo Construction in installing a completely new
point of service, pressure reducing station and .meter for Coachland
Mobile Home Park.
WATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT:
The commercial construction season is underway with numerous
projects .breaking ground. See attached report from Mike Connell,
Water Dept . Planner.
PUMP OPERATIONS / PROJECTS :
The new Prosser Heights tank is under construction, the contractor
encountered a high water table on a portion of the site which
required some additional drainage work.
The Gateway Tank, site work is currently underway. The visual
impact from Highway 89 and Donner Pass Road really isn 't too bad at
this stage of construction. I recommend that after hours you take
a drive up Valley Road to the site for a personal inspection of the
magnitude of the excavation required.
All sources were brought on line in May (a month early) so that
.North,side Well could be shut down for the scheduled well pump
replacement project .
Source production is normal for this time of year. If the weather
continues to be wet and cool the demand may remain comparatively
low.
We are continuing negotiations with the Hopkins Trust for the
Glenshire Drive Well property.
See attached report from Pete Marcovich Water Operations
Specialists .
TruckeeDonner Public [utility .District soard of Directors
Joseph R,Aguera
J. Ronald Hemig
Business Office Planning Services Robert A.Jones
(916)587-3896 (916) 587-3944 FAX(916) 587-5056 James A. Maass
Patricia S. Sutton
General Manager
Peter L. Holzmeister
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 12 , 1995
From: David Rully
To: Peter Holzmeister
Subject : Monthly Bacteriological Report - May 1995
Attached is the "Summary of Bacteriological Water Quality" report
for the month of May 1995 .
The May portion of the report shows that all 41 distribution system
samples were free of coliform bacteria. The report also shows that
all 18 source samples were free of coliform bacteria .
The district has met the State ' s drinking water standards for the
month of May.
Post Office Box 309 11570 Donner Pass Road m Truckee, California 96160
TRUCKEE D*ER PUBLIC UTILILY DISTRICT
System Source
Samples Portions Percent Samples Portions Percent
Yr. /Month Collected Posi.tiv� Positive gollect�d Positive Positive
1995
April.
(Truckee) 26 0 0 8 0 0
(Prosser) 10 1 10% 4 0 0
(Hirschdale) 1 0 0 0 0 0
1995
may
(Truckee) 32 0 0 11 0 0
(Prosser) 7 0 0 6 0 0
(Hirschdale) 2 0 0 1 0 0
MEMORANDUM
Date : June 14 , 1995
From: Mike
To: Dave
Subject : Work Activities for May 1995
In addition to the everyday work related to customer complaints
and questions, I worked on the following specific projects :
1 . Truckee Pines
* 104 Unit affordable housing complex, located on Estates
Drive next to the Senior Citizens complex.
Natuz of Wflrk P rforned
Contact with project representatives and other agencies .
Improvement plan review. Prepared development agreement language .
2 . Truckee Town Square
* This project is located at the existing "SMALL MALL" on
Danner Pass Road. The project will remove the existing "SMALL
MALL" structure and replace it with 3 new buildings . This project
will also include the existing "Robertson building" . Additions to
the "Robertson building" are proposed.
Nature of Work Performed
Development agreement application review. Contact with project
representatives and other agencies . Improvement plan review.
10
Monthly .Activities Report June 13, 1995
3 . Levon Professional Building
* This project is located next to the sheriffs station,
on Donner Pass Road. The project proposes construction of a 2
story, 6600 s . f . office building.
Nature of work Performed
Development agreement application and improvement plan review.
Contact with project representatives and other agencies .
4 . Grossman Condominiums
* This is a four unit condo project located on Northwoods
Boulevard in Tahoe Donner.
Nature of Work Performed
Reviewed project application & discussed with staff . Met with Mr.
Grossman and prepared estimates for water system construction.
Revised development language .
5 . Commercial Service Upgrades
* Worked with staff in organizing commercial metering
program.
6 . Donner Lake Plaza
* This project is located in the Donner Gate area between
the Chevron station and the Beginning restaurant .This will be a
6200 s . f . commercial. building. The U-Haul rental business will be
relocated to this location.
Nature of work Performed
Inspection of water system improvements .
2 Monthly Activities Report June 13, 1995
7 . River Village
* This project is located near the Martis Valley
substation. Proposed is a 40 lot affordable housing subdivision.
Nature of Work Performed
Development agreement application review. Contact with project
representatives and other agencies .
8 . Donner Lake Plaza
This project is located on Deerfield Drive next to the
Beginning Restaurant .This is proposed as a
professional/commercial project . The U--Haul business is expected
to move to this location.
Nature of Work Performed
Contact with project representatives and other agencies .
Inspection of constructed facilities .
9 . Martis Town Houses
* This project is located on Martis Valley Drive in
Sierra Meadows . Currently there is a single family residence on
the parcel . The proposed project will have a total of two
duplexes .
Nature of Work Performed
Development agreement application review. Contact with project
representatives and other agencies . Researching of District
historical files .
10 . Truckee Falls Golf Course
* This project is located near Tahoe Donner on Northwoods
Blvd. . Proposed is an 18 hole golf course .
Ng�ure of Work Performed
Development agreement application review. Contact with project
representatives and other agencies . Coordination between the
Town, the Developer and Sauers Engineering.
3 Monthly Activities Report June 13, 1995
Truckee Donner Public !Utility District Board of Directors
Joseph R.Aguera
J. Ronald Hemig
Business Office Planning Services Robert A.Jones
(916) 587-3896 (916) 587-3944 FAX(916) 587-5056 James A. Maass
di Patricia S.Sutton
General Manager
Peter L. Holzmeister
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 14, 1995
To: Dave Rully
From: Peter Marcovich
Subject: Monthly Report for May 1995
STATION MAINTENANCE
New signs and a gate were installed on the road leading to the
Armstrong tank site .
Sanders Well was brought back on line and into the system the
last week of the month.
Ground work was completed and construction has begun on the new
tank an Prosser Heights .
Work on the well in Prosser Annex has continued and it should be
on line some time in June .
Ground work is ongoing at the Gateway Tank site.
Work continued through the month on Northside Well .
The standby generator provided power to the Ponderosa Palisades
Hydro system during scheduled outages .
The air release for Northside Weil was repaired.
I was off for two weeks of vacation in May.
Post Office Box 309 11570 Donner Pass Road Truckee, California 96160
WATER QUALITY
Water samples were taken the five tuesdays of the month. Routine
daily rounds were made, taking chlorine residuals throughout the
system.
OTHER BUSINESS
1 continued to monitor the work at Gateway Tank, Northside Well,
Prosser Annex Well and Prosser Heights Tank.
Continued to communicate with Sandel-Avery Engineering regarding
ongoing site problems and SCADA programming.
WATER PRODUCTION
SOURCE GALLONS
Airport Well . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45, 004, 000
Northside Well . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
Southside Well #1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 680, 000
Donner Creek Well . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8, 282,,000
"A" Well . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 688, 100
"B" Well . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276, 600
Prosser Heights Well . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 786, 991
Sanders Well . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1, 117, 000
Prosser Annex Well . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
Hirschdale Well . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140, 100
TOTAL PRODUCTION FOR MAY 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . 61,974,791
TDPUD STAFF REPORT
June 15, 1995
TO: Board of Directors
FROM. Scott Terrell, Director of Planning Services
SUBJECT: Staff Report for May
AGENDA #
NEW CONSTRUCTION
Development agreements - 1995 is going to be a very busy construction season. We have two
new developments this month and are continuing to work on 35 other projects.
New construction services- Staff completed the processing of 35 new applications for electric
service, 16 temporary power hook-ups and 11 permanent new construction services. Thirteen
orders for water hook-ups were also completed. Construction season is underway.
Work order processing - Staff is continuing to close work orders as they become complete.
Standby charge adjustments are being prepared for the 1995-96 tax year.
COMMUNICATIONS - EDUCATION
Newsletter- Staff is currently reviewing ideas for the mid-Summer edition planned for distribution
sometime in July.
Glenshire fetter - A letter will be mailed mid-June to all customers entering the PUD electric
system as a result of recent discussions with Sierra Pacific. This letter is to inform them of switch-
over issues and the planned July 27, 1995 service date.
End-use survey - The residential and commercial end-use survey final reports prepared by
NCPA have arrived and are currently being reviewed by staff. An explanation of these reports will
be provided to the Board at the June workshop meeting.
Business customer survey- Staff will be preparing a survey form which will be used to assess
business owners'and managers'level of satisfaction with TDPUD operations and services. This
information will also be used to determine the types of programs, services and other value-added
opportunities they desire from the District.
CONSERVATIONIDSM/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Ground Source Neat Pump Pilot Project- Seven pilot site units are currently in operation. The
Chamber GSNP loop/heat exchanger will be installed this summer. SMUD and TDPUD have
0 signed the California Energy Commission ground source heat pump monitoring and evaluation
grant contract and will be issuing a request for proposals and selecting an engineering consultant
this summer to begin monitoring the District's pilot sites.
Truckee Air Quality Management Plan- Staff has been appointed to the Town of Truckee's Air
Quality Citizens Advisory Committee. Staff will provide input as to the value of ground source heat
pumps, energy conservation and electric vehicles in helping to resolve Truckee's air quality
problems.
TDPUD competition plan- Staff is preparing a report about the different utility issues the District
is currently being challenged by. The report will include a discussion of the different approaches
TDPUD can take to meet these challenges as well as an analysis and recommendations to
respond to competition. Staff is participating in CMUA's model program competition. The District
will submit four or five programlideas applications.
Energy surveys/high bill assistance - Staff completed one commercial and two residential
energy surveys this month. Staff also responded on-site to three high bill complaints. There is
currently one commercial survey in progress.
Energy efficiency partnership- The incorporation of the energy and water efficiency measures
are expected to be retrofitted into the Chamber building by Fall 1995. Staff will be working on a
plan this year to educate customers on energy and water efficiency and using the Chamber
building as the demonstration site. a grand opening of the new Chamber facility is tentatively
planned for Fall. this will be a prime opportunity to share the partnership and the efficiency
demonstration benefits with the community.
Energy/water Showcase Program- Staff has requested the assistance of the California Energy
Commission to provide an energy survey of the water system. This will help the District identify
practical and cost-effective energy efficiency improvements to save the District and its customers
water system operational costs. The CEC has estimated they will be able to perform the survey
this Fall.
EMPLOYEE SAFETY& TRAINING
Wellness Program - health education - Staff is currently working with Tahoe Forest Hospital
to develop a schedule of health seminars. Many of the topics will be selected as a result of the
needs of employees as determined by the health screenings.
Wellness Program-healthy meals-Approximately twelve employees participate in the healthy
meals lunch program twice each month.
Wellness Program - day hikes- TDPUD employees have been invited to participate as guides
in the Chambers annual Donner party hike. This is an opportunity for employees to begin hiking
this summer and learn about some of Truckee's history.
ST1smc
TDPUD STAFF REPORT
.tune 15, 1995
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: Kathy Neus, Support Services Manager
SUBJECT: Staff Report for May
AGENDA #
BUILDING AND GROUNDS
1. Since Steve Wallace has returned, projects that have been delayed are now being
completed. A new sink and faucet were installed in the public mens'rest room; the
ladies`rest room also got a new sink.
2. Steve has also started painting the upstairs areas. We are trying to time the
painting to coincide with the Town's remodeling and their moving into the upstairs
space.
3. Sierra Landscape and Irrigation had the low quote on landscape maintenance;
they began working on May 31, 1995.
METER READERS
1. It was another busy month for the Meter Readers. May 1 there were 117 service
reports and, due to the number, it was necessary to enlist the aid of others; the
Water Crew assisted.
2. For the month of May, there were 382 service reports, 149 forty-eight hour notices
and 27 non-payment notices.
3. For the new Glenshire routes, Susan Weiler and Bev Johnson finished working on
the layouts, confirming meters on corner positions and determining whether there
are houses in certain locations.
VEHICLE MAINTENANCE
1. Tom was busy with eight service inspections, eight BIT inspections and one
monthly aerial inspection. There were several field repairs and after-hour call-outs.
2. Jim Wilson helped Tom rewire one of the electric reel trailers.
PURCHASING AND WAREHOUSING
9. Joe helped Wayne Cummings in crating the surplus electrical material for
shipment; Zeta International, Inc. is paying $2,355 plus the cost of shipping.
2. Staff has started cycle counts in the warehouse; some run smoothly and some do
not. We are confident that this system will make life easier as we became more
proficient at it.
3. Joe has delivered material to job sites.
I have begun the 1995 Job Descriptions by Objectives for my staff, have met with the Nevada
County Environmental Health Department to review the business plan which is an annual
occurrence; and have been participating in Union negotiations.
KN/smc
Truckee Donner Public utility District Board of Directors
Joseph R.Aguera
J. Ronald Hemig
Business office Planning Services Robert A.Jones
(916)587-3896 (916)587-3944 FAX(916) 587-5456 James A. Maass
Patricia S.Sutton
General Manager
Peter L. Hoiameister
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES: June, 1995 STAFF REPORT
Submitted by Mary Chapman, June 15, 1995
CUSTOMER SERVICE ACTIVITY:
Customer service has been very busy. The staff is processing many requests for summer rental
transfers.
Each day Mark and Nancy have been taking turns helping out the Planning Department. This
is a busy time for the Planning Department with their customer requests for new construction.
Since Julie Gage has left, Cindy is in need of some assistance during this busy period. We are
also using this time as an opportunity to do some cross-training.
s BILLING:
Billing is current.
ACCOUNTING:
Accounts payable and payroll are current. Financial statements, budget reports and financial
reports are complete through May. This is the earliest that we have ever been able to produce
the financial reports. Two additional reports have been added. We have included a copy of
the District's purchased power costs spreadsheet and an updated status report of the 1991
Certificates of Participation Acquisition Fund.
OTHER:
The Truckee Donner Public Utility District Financing Corporation held their annual meeting on
June S, 1995. Attached is a copy of the minutes of their annual meeting.
0695MOLY.RPT
Post Office Box 309 • 11570 Donner Pass Roar! ® Truckee, California 96160
TDPUD FINANCING CORPORATION
ANNUAL MEETING
June 8, 1995
The annual meeting of the Board of Directors of the Truckee Donner Public Utility District
Financing Corporation was called to order at 5:04 PM in the TDPUD Board Room by President
Smith.
REAPPOINTMENT AND APPOINTMENT OF DIRECTORS
Mr. Smith advised that the District Board took action on April 24, 1995 re-appointing Ruth
Frishman, Herb Gaarder and himself to the Financing Corporation Board until August 21, 1998,
and appointed Sharon Gutierrez to replace Rick Kinzer as a Director to serve until August 21,
1996. Bruce Turner's tern does not expire until August 21, 1996.
ROLL CALL: Directors Ruth Frishman, Harry L. Smith and Sharon Gutierrez were present;
Directors Herb Gaarder and Bruce Turner were absent. Others present were Mary Chapman and
Susan Craig.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS: The following officers were elected by acclamation: President, Harry
L. Smith; Vice President, Ruth Frishman, SecretaryfTreasurer, Sharon Gutierrez.
APPROVAL OF PRIOR MEETING MINUTES
Director Frishman moved, and Director Gutierrez seconded, that the minutes of the April 11, 1994
annual meeting of the TDPUD Financing Corporation be approved as presented. All Directors,
aye, by voice vote. SO MOVED.
REPORT ON STATUS OF PROJECTS
The status report as of June 6, 1995 on the 1991 Certificates of Participation Acquisition Fund
was reviewed by the Board; a copy is attached for reference. It shows projected funds available
for projects and outstanding bills in the amount of $31 T,982 and commitments in the same
amount. The report was accepted unanimously.
PUBLIC INPUT
There was no public input.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business discussed by the Board.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:09 PM.
41 smc
Truckee Danner Public Utility District Board of Directors
Joseph R.Aguera
J. Ronald Hemig
Business Office Planning Services Robert A.Jones
(916)587-3896 (916) 587-3944 FAX(916) 587-5056 James A. Maass
Patricia S.Sutton
General Manager
Peter L. Holzmeister
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES: JUNE, 1995 STAFF FINANCIAL REPORT 6t��.
Prepared 6114195
MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORTS: MAY, 1995
Attached are the various financial reports for the month ending May, 1995:
1) BUDGET REPORT:
As of May 31, 1995, we were 42% of the way through the budget year. The May budget
report shows that we have received 44% of the budgeted operating revenues (45%
electric, 41% water) and we have spent 41% of the budgeted operating expenses (43%
electric, 37% water) for the year. It is appropriate for electric revenue to be ahead of
water revenue and electric expenses to be ahead of water expenses at this time of the
year.
2) FINANCIAL STATEMENTS:
The Electric Income Statement shows a year-to-date gain of $48,395.66 and a loss of
$78,200.66 for the same period last year. The Water Income Statement shows a year-
to-date loss of $52,695.48 and a loss of$79,280.58 for the same period last year. The
main difference between the gain/loss in the year-to-date budget and the gainlloss for
the same period on the financial statements is the non-cash items such as unbilled
revenue, depreciation and amortization expenses.
3) STATEMENT OF GENERAL FUND:
As of May 31, 1995, the balance in the General Fund was $1,544,966.58. There are no
Prop 55 reimbursements outstanding at this time. As of the end of the month, the water
. general fund owes the electric general fund $12,684.04.
Post Office Box 309 0 11570 Bonner Pass Road w Truckee, California 96160
4) INVESTMENT REPORT:
The interest rates that we earn on investments deposited with the Local Agency
Investment Fund continue to increase. The rates that we earned for the last 12 months
were:
June, 1994 4.623%
July, 1994 4.823%
August, 1994 4.989%
September, 1994 5.106%
October, 1994 5.243%
November, 1994 5.380%
December, 1994 5.528%
January, 1995 5.612%
February, 1995 5.779%
March, 1995 5.934%
April, 1995 5.960%
May, 1995 6.008%
5) PURCHASED POWER COSTS:
Each month, as part of our routine work, we prepare a spreadsheet of the monthly
Sierra Pacific purchased power billings. Originally we used this spreadsheet as a tool
to verify SPPC's billing calculations. We also used the information for budget and audit
purposes. We recently modified the spreadsheet to include the Displacement Energy
Credit from SPPC and the Alternate Cost of Purchased Power billings and Shared
Savings credit from NCPA. At the bottom of the spreadsheet you will see the total of all
power costs and a calculation showing the average cost per kilowatt-hour. I've estimated
that the savings that we have received on purchased power costs for the period covering
March 1 to May 31, 1995 is $237,000. We thought that you might like having this report
added to the monthly financial reports.
6) STATUS REPORT FOR THE 1991 CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION
ACQUISITION FUND:
Attached is a copy of the most recent status report. This report was prepared in
conjunction with the information that had to be send to Rauscher Pierce Refsnes, so that
they could prepare the semi-annual arbitrage penalty calculation. As you can see, all of
the funds have been committed to various water system capital projects that have been
scheduled to be completed this summer. If all of the funds are disbursed by November
13, 1995, we should not have to pay any more arbitrage penalties.
..................._.
• � 15�-95
TRUCKEE DONNER PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT: 1995 OPERATING BUDGET REPORT 1195-5195 42%
ELECTRIC: WATER: TOTAL:
REVENUES: Budget Actual Budget Bal % Budget Actual -_- -Budget Bal %- Budget
W^� - Actual - Budget Sal _ %
Residential sales y 4,112,954 - ~-Y 2,090,111 Y -2,022,B43 51% 2,429,056- 999,217 1,429,839 41% 6,542,010 3,089.328 3,452,682 47%
Commercial sales 2,314,921 845,794 1,469,127 37% 316,530 105,197 211,3333 33% 2,631,451 950,991 1,680,460 36%
956,798 487,110 469,688 51%
Large commercial sales 956,798 487,110 469,688 51% 0 0 ° 72,395 30,683 41,712 42%
sales to public authorities 72,395 30,683 41,712 42°/° 0 0 0 00° 374,000 168,617 205,383 45%
Fuel Charge 374,000 168,617 205,383 45% 0 0 0 0%
Interdepartmental sales '491,414 159,290 332,124 32% Soo 342 458 43% 492,214 159,633 332,581 32%
Misc operating revenue 121,000 58,972 62,028 49°/° 35,OQ0 0 35,000 0% 156,000 58,972 97,028 38°/n
72,000 tfi,019 55,981 22% 600 250 350 42% 72,600 16,269 56,331 22%
Misr rents Standby revenue 72,000 20,01 18,2Q3 52% 270,435 140,053 130,382 52% 308.655 160,070 148,585 52%
Interdepartmental rent 140,210 58,420 81,790 42% 0 0 0 0% 167,800 27,781 40,019 42%
Fire protection fees 0 0 0_._ 0% --_ fi7,800_ -- 27,781 - 40,019 41%-�-67,8fl0 27,7$1 40,019 41
Total Operating Revenue 8,693,912 Y~ 3,935,032 - YY-Y4,758,880 45% 3,120,221 1,272,841 1,847,380 41% 11.814,133 5,286,107 6,683,893 51%
Interest income 70,000 40,946 29,054 5B% 100,000 --� 45,161 54839 45%---170,000-_-- 86,ig7-» _ 83893-51°/°
4,787,934 45/°p 3,220,221 1.318,003 1,902,21E 41% 11,984,133 5,293,981 6,690,152 "%Total Revenue 8,763,912 3,975,978 TRUCKEE DONNER PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT: 1995 OPERATING BUDGET SUMMARY 1195-5195 42%
ELECTRIC: WATER: TOTAL:
Budget Actual Budget Bal % Budget Actual Budget Bal % Budget Actual ^-_Budget Bal - %
93,981
Revenues from Operations 8,763,912 3,975,978 -_. 4,7B7,93 45% , 63,585- 3 220221 1 3 1,90 ,218 41%247 97% 11 9fi5,832 5 263,585 6,690,152
6�2,247 97%
0
Transfers from Restricted Funds 0 0 2- ----- - -Net Revenues 8,763.912 ~-3,975,978 - -~4,787,934 45°/a 3,286,053 1,381,588 1,904,465 42% 12,049.965 5,357,566 6,692,399 44%
Less Expenses:
Less
of Directors 39,560 12,326 27,234 31% 30,810 9,322 21,488 30% 70,370 21,648 48,722 31%
139,560 93,694 87.670 52°/a 17$,790 59,353 119,437 33% 860,154 153,047 207,107 42%
General Manager 287,756 118,378 169,378 41% 836,626 347,919 488,707 42%
Administrative Services 548,870 229,541 319,329 42% 288,439 97,809 190,630 349°
Planning Services 193,783 71,229 122,554 37% 94,656 26,580 68,076 28%
Support Services 399,705 101,952 297,753 26% 47,591 16,739 30,852 35°!° 447,296 11$,691 328,605 27°!a
ElectricMater Operations 2,423,053
972,396 43fi,794 535,602 450° 1,450,6570 542,66� 907,99� 30% 5,852,000 2,482,154 3.369,846 42%
Purchased power 5,852,g00 2,482,150 3,369,840 42/° 140,210 58,420 81,790 42%
Interdepartmental rent 0 0 0 0% 140,210 58,420 52,254 35% -
Debt service 374,836 222,876 148.960 60% 1.000,0074 _ ---_347,82Q----
-652,254_ 35%-- i,371_910-Y -�570.696 8g1.214 42°!a
6,960.217 41%
Total Expenses -8,559,514 - 3 650,566-- 4,908,948 43% 3,230,544 1.179.275 2,051,269 37% 11,790,058 4,829,841
--_=204_398=__----= -_==-- - __--- =S5_509 202313---- ==(146 804)-364%A 259µ9Q7 527-725--_===-(267,818)--203%
Net Revenue less Expenses 325_412 (121,014) 159%
TRUCKEE CONNER F X3,
ELECTRIC BALANCE u'HEET
For Period Ending MAY 31, 1995
Current Last Year
Y-T-C Amount Y-T-D Amount
ASSETS
UTILITY FLAN 9,399,074,46 7,317,224,45
RESTRICTED FUNDS
PI)MINISTRATIVE EUILCINB LEASE FUNDS 2B6,311,02 272,A29.11
EMPLOYEE DEFERRED COMPENSAT1011-ICMA 662,470.03 517,727.21
FACILITIES FEES 84,462,37 255,666.71
STORM FUND 209,630,77 199,379.90
EUILDIN FUND 932,905,96 887,287.56
------ w_-----------___
TOTAL. RESTRICTEC FUNOS 2,175,600.15 2,132,690.59
CURRENT ASSETS
GENERAL FUNDS 1,544,966,58 565,866.93
ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE, NET 483,734.79 550,222,22
CUE FROM WATER 12,684.04 572,499,B3
MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES 277,012.86 326,820.18
INEFEST INCOME RECEIVABLE 24,351.59 16,367.48
*PREPAID EXPENSES AND OTHER -----
135,363 65- ----131,951,45
TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS 2,500,113.51 2,163,728.09
UNAMORTIZEE ISSUE COSTS 389,772.38 439,974.51
PRELIMINARY SURVEY COSTS AND OTHER 2,190.66 2,190.86
MISC. DEFERREO DEBITS ,00 10,034.12
TOTAL ASSETS 14,465,551.36 14,067,842,62
* * * TPUCKEE DONNER F.U,C,
ELECTRIC BALANCE SHEET
For Pe7,iod Endlns MAY 31, 1995
Current Lsst Year
Y-T-D Amount Y-T-C Amount
EQUITY & LIABILITIES
--------------------------------------
RETAINED ---
RETAINED EARNINGS 8,736,?74,28 9,504,346.74
DEBT
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE BUILUINC 2,966„395,18 3,082,980,32
LEASE/PURCHASE EQUIPMENT 302,693,64 385,081,86
TOTAL DEBT 3,269,493,82 3,46M62,18
CUPRENT LIABILITIES
ACCCUNTS PAYABLE 987,213.37 950,152.69
CONSUMER DEPOSITS 151,053.47 118,377,37
ACCRUED INTEREST PAYABLE 47,826,12 49,239,53
CEFERRE9 STANDBY FEES 100 ,04
ACCRUED COMPENSATION & RELATED COSTS 138,440,03 138,692,38
----------------
TOTAL CURRENT LIABILITIES 1,324,533,01 1,25S,4A2,01
kSTRUCTION ADVANCES 472,860,22 321,044.43
OYEE DEFERRED COMPENSATION -- ICMA 662,494.03 517,927,21
---------------- -------_---------
TOTAL EQUITY AND LIABILITIES 14,465,551.36 14,467,842,62
* TRUCKEE DONNER P,U,E,
ELECTRIC INCOME STATEMENT
For Feriod Ending MAY 31, 1995
Current Last Year
Y--T-D Amount Y-T-D AMnunt
OPERATING REVENUE
RESIDENTIAL 1,784,292,76 1,570,684,26
COMMERCIAL 689,074.47 1,095,405,02
LARGE COMMERCIAL 465,400.57 172,463.29
SALES TO PUBLIC AUTHORITIES 30,682,80 34,244.73
FUEL CHARGE 168,617,34 170,883.53
INTERDEPARTMENTAL 159,290.46 167,801.65
TOTAL ENERGY SALES 3,297,358.42 3,211,482,48
MISC OPERATING REVENUE 57,116,71 51,045.25
MISCELLANEOUS RENTS 16,018.75 26,507.67
STANDBY REVENUE 77,133.41 72,375.25
INTERDEPARTMENTAL RENT 50,420.00 48,765.00
---------------- ------___-..____-
TOTAL OPERATING REVENUE 3,448,930.58 3,357,130,42
OPERATING EXPENSES
PURCHASED POWER 2,317,323.78 2,400,99433
�DISIRIBUTION OPERATIONS 337,308.35 293,551,91
DISTRIBUTION MAINTENANCE 65,414,90 46,648.70
CUSTOMER ACCOUNTING & INFORMATION 148,539.90 139,370,13
ADMINISTRATION & GENERAL 381,073,92 403,155,71
DEPRECIATION 177,438.40 160,744.10
OTHER OPERATING EXPENSES 40,959,80CR 43,023,92CR
---------------- --__------_---_-
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 3,386,159.45 3,399,441.76
---------------- -----_-_--__---._
NET OPERATING REVENUE 62,771,13 40,311,34CR
OTHER REVENUE (EXPENSE)
INTEREST INCOME 68,545.54 49,IV9 20
GAIN ON DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY 1,855.00 3,629,66
INTEREST EXPENSE 84,776,O1CR 90,708,18CR
---------------- ----_-_-----_---
NET REVENUE (LOSS) 48,395,66 78,200,66CR
.. ........ ..........._.
* * TRUCKEE DONNER P,U.G,
VATER BALANCE SPEET
For Period Ending MAY 31, 1995
current last Yr-ar
Y-T-E Amount Y-T-C Amount
ASSETS
------------
UTILITY PLANT 12,971,437,91 10,353,084,46
RESTRICTED! FUNDS
DATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
CERTIFICATE FAYMENT FUND 98.00 182,715,49
ACQUISITION! FUND 311,971,22 1,248,888,92
RESERVE FUNOICAP INT FUND 855,568,83 828,773.53
FACILITIES FEES 823,410.36 834,303,75
IRK SAD II IMPROVEMENT ACCT 43,105.84 39,812.01
IRK SAD V IMPROVEMENT ACCT 38,090.40 100
WEST RIVER STREET ASSESSMENT DIST 18,617,90 17,710.99
BUILDING FUND 620,646,81 650,830.13
RESERVE FOR FUTURE METERS 768,082.23 743,934,91
TAHOE DINNER DATER SYSTEM FUND 325,211.51 276,526,10
FREPAIG CONNECTION( FEES 68,666.87 67,915.41
TELEMETRY 100 .00
---------------- ----------------
TOTAL RESTRICTED FUNDS 3,878,469,97 4,891,413,29
CURRENT ASSETS
REVENUE FUND (AKA GENERAL FUND) 100 .00
ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE, NET 142,221.27 141,233,47
CUE TO ELECTRIC 12,684.04CR 572,499.83CR
MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES 118,12337 112,924,14
INTEREST INCOME RECEIVABLE 29,553,21 27,633,14
PREPAID EXPENSES 93,229.37 85,185.22
TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS 4,248,913.55 4,666,089.43
FRELIMINARY SURVEY COSTS AND OTHER 362,31 ,00
UNAMORTIZED ISSUE COSTS 401,092.10 424,21037
TOTAL ASSETS 17,621,G05,87 15,968,384,66
TFUCKEE DONNEF F.U.D.
WATER BALANCE 58EE[
For Period Ending MAY 31, 1995
Current Lsst Ye,3r
Y-T-G Amount Y-T-l! 11murt
E Q U I T Y & L I A 9 1 L I T I E 5
--------------------------------------
RETAINED EARNINGS 3,480,452.87 3,478,836.83
DEBT
WATER SYSTEM IMPROV PROJECT LEASE 10,077,931.03 10,214,165.34
DWR PROP 55 LOAN 3,404,690.63 1,467,442.52
LEASE/PURCHASE EQUIPMENT 31,154.39 40,308,09
TOTAL DEBT 13,513,776.05 11,722,415.95
CURRENT LIABILITIES
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE 175,980.26 261,393.27
CONSUMER DEPOSITS 24,663,10 40,615,81
PCCRUEU INTEREST PAYABLE 46,139.40 35,570.72
DEFERRED STANDBY FEES .00 .00
ACCRUED COMPENSATION & RELATED COSTS 50,015,68 50,711,21
__ __
TOTAL CURFENT LIABILITIES 296,998.44 388,291,01
CONSTRUCTION ADVANCES 330,578.51 378,840,82
TOTAL EQUITY AND LIABILITIES 17,621,805.87 15,968,384.66
..........................
TRUCKEE CONKER P,U,G,
WATER 1NCOME STATEMENT
For Pe,iad Ending MAY 31, 1995
Current L5st Year
Y-T-D Amount Y-T-D Amount
OPERATING REVENUE
RESIDENTIAL 880,011,03 608,055,53
COMMERCIAL 72,968.11 BB,025178
INTERDEPARTMENTAL 342,11 317.66
TOTAL WATER SALES 973,321,25 896,398,97
HYDRANTS 22,671.566 22,587,87
MISC OPERATING REVENUE 10,755.16 16,532.33
MISCELLANEOUS RENTS 250,00 250,00
STANDBY REVENUE 150,608.46 167,257.33
TOTAL GPERATING REVENUE 1,147,051,27 1,086,494.17
OPERATING EXPENSES
PUMPING - POKER PURCHASED 167,574.63 175,952.88
DISTRIBUTION OPERATIONS 252,436.21 252,823,14
GISTRIBUTION MAINTENANCE 102,462,02 94,191,89
CUSTOMER ACCOUNTING 6 INFORMATION 39,720.93 38,401.02
ADMINSTRATION & GENERAL 197,682,40 186,145.14
0 INTERDEPARTAENTAL RENT 58,420,00 48,765.00
DEPRECIATION 172,572.70 129,448,35
OTHER OPERATING EXPENSES 11,929.57 19,080.91
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSE 1,002,998,46 944,808,33
NET OPERATING REVENUE 144,052,81 141,685.84
OTHER REVENUE (EXPENSE)
INTEREST INCOME 107,182.50 102,009,94
MISCELLANEOUS INCflME DEDUCTIONS 1,862,09CR ,GAO
INTEREST EXPENSE 340,159,10CR 322,976,36CR
EXTRAORDINARY INCOME 36,070,40 .GO
---------------- -------_---------
NET REVENUE (LOSS) 52,695.4BCR 79,280,58CR
TRUCKEE DONNER PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
STATEMENT OF GENERAL FUND
May 31, 1995
History of Activity For Month
Balance in General Fund 04130195 $1,254,919.64
Receipts:
Electric Revenue $719,572.67
Water Revenue 244,086.46
Standby Revenue - Electric 16,110.78
Standby Revenue-Water 112,120.83
Misc. Billing Revenue- Electric 9,665.97
Misc. Billing Revenue-Water 156.26
Consumer Deposits- Electric 9,686.00
Consumer Deposits-Water 1,635.00
Customer Advances-Connection Fee-Electric 29,540.00
Customer Advances - Facilities Fees-Electric 10,103.20
Customer Advances- Other Electric 32,570.00
Customer Advances - Connection Fee-Water 15,800.00
Customer Advances- Facilities Fees-Water 2,666,00
Customer Advances - Other Water 6,201.00
Gain on disposition of Property- Electric 1,855.00
Misc. Revenue- Electric 218.31
Misc. Revenue-Water 383.71
Refund SPPco (Paiute Co.) 20,325.75
Reimburse G1F project cost 1991 plus interest 5,381.90
------------------------------------
Total Receipts $1,237,978.84
Disbursements:
Accounts Payable Disbursements $935,162.70
Trans to Electric Restricted Funds Facilities Fee 10,103.20
Trans to Water Restricted Funds Facilities Fee 2,666.00
Total Disbursements $947,931.90
Balance in General Fund 05131/95 $1,544,966.58
Distribution of Non-Restricted Funds At Month-End:
Petty Cash/Customer Services Operating Funds $600,00
Truckee River Bank General Fund 108,168.88
LAIF General Fund (Not Restricted) Electric 1,436,197.70
LAIF General Fund (Not Restricted)Water 0.00
$1,544,966.58
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Board of erectors
Joseph B.Aguera
J. Ronald Hemig
Business Office Planning Services Robert A.Jones
(916) 587-3896 (916)587-3944 FAX(916) 587-5456 James A. Maass
45 Patricia S. Sutton
General Manager
Peter L. Holzmeister
June 13, 1995
MEMORANDUM
TO: Peter L. Holzrneister, General Manager
FROM: Mary Chapman,Office Manager
SUBJECT: Investment report
As of May 31, 1995 the District had the following investment comprised of the funds as detailed.
INVESTMENTS YIELD AMOUNT
LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND 6.008% $5,685,999.94
-----------------
ELECTIC FUNDS
GENERAL FUND $1,436,197.70
FACILITIES FEES-PRE AB1600* 2,757.13
FACILITIES FEES-POST AB1600" 81,705.24
STORM DAMAGE FUND 209,630.77
BUILDING FUND 932,905,96
----------------------------
TOTAL ELECTRIC INVESTMENTS $2,663,196.80
WATER FUNDS
GENERAL FUND $0.00
FACILITIES FEES-PRE AB1600' 624,517,86
FACILITIES FEES-POST AB1600* 203,892.50
BUILDING FUND* 620,646.81
RESERVE FOR FUTURE METERS* 768,082.23
TAHOE DONNER WATER SYSTEM FUND* 325,211,51
WEST RIVER ST.ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
BOND REDEMPTION FUND* 18,617.90
PREPAID CONNECTION FEES* 68,666,87
TSA(SAD II IMPROVEMENT)* 43,105.84
TSA(SAD V IMPROVEMENT)* 38,090.40
ACQUISITION FUND* 311,971.22
----------------------------
TOTAL WATER INVESTMENTS $3,022,803.14
-----------------------------
TOTAL DISTRICT INVESTMENTS 5,685,999.94
Notes: -- -cWcc-aW--
1} *RESTRICTED FOR SPECIFIC USE PER BOARD RESOLUTIONS
Post Office Box 309 11570 Donner Pass Road Truckee, California 96160
13-Sun-95
CA123114 WtAUD)T951ELSSP95
TRUCKEE DONNER PU9i1C UTILITY DISTRICT
1995 POWER PURCHASE COST
SIERRA PACIFIC POWER_COST -
m BILLING CYCLES _ JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC TOTAL
FEW 26,996 21,590 22,260 18,340 14,863 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 104,049
KWF-I•Current 12,445,700 10,008,900 11,615,749 8,973,000 8,241,711 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 51,285,060
Displacement Energy 0 0 0 585,755 776,823 0 0 0 fl 0 0 0 0
KWH-Prior 8,876,800 12,445,700 10,008,900 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FUEL ADD(Corr mo.) -0.006295 -0,007341 -0,003068 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FUEL ADj(Prev mo) 0,002543 -0.001046 0,004272998 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q 0 0 0
Power Factor -3.00% -3,00% -3.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0,00% 0,00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0,00% 0.00% -3.00°!
RATES
Demand(Per KW) 8.74 8.74 8.74 8.74 8.74 8.74 8.74 8,74 8.74 8.74 8.74 8,74 8.74
Energy(Per KW" 0.04484 0.04484 0-029 0-029 0.029 0.029 0,029 0.029 0.029 0,029 0.029 0,029 0.029
BILLING
Customer Charge 1,247.00 1,247.00 1,247,00 1,247.00 1,247.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 6,235.00
Remand Charge 235.945.04 188,696.60 194,552A0 160,291.60 129.902.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 909,388.26
Energy Charge 558,065.19 448,799.08 336,856.72 260,217,00 239,009.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 1.842,947.60
Fuel Adj Current (78,345.67) (73,475.32) (30,707.31) 0,00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (182,528.30)
Fuel Adj Prior (13,165,90) (13,018,20) 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 (26.184.10)
Displacement Energy credit 0,00 0,00 0.00 (12,300,86) (16,313,28) 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (28,614,14)
---------..-.-.------------------------ .---------- --- »._.._ - _. ..----.-----------------.-.--------------------------..__-----------.-._.------------------_._._--.--------------------- --------_-_
SUBTOTAL 703,745.66 652,249,16 501,948-81 409,454.75 353,845-96 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 2,521,244.33
Powerfactorad'ustment 23( szp,31) (19,124.87) 0.00 0.00 0,00 0,00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0-00 0.04 42,945.18
'Total SPPC rose 679,925.35 53333,124.29 501,948.81 409,454.75 353,845-96 0,00 0.00 060 0,00 0.00 0.00 0•00 2.478,299.15
Less Refunds&Joumal Entries 04106/95Pac Gas (53.81)
05/02/95 Paiute Company (20,325.75)
JE562(-)1994 CHG (!64,830.40
(185,209.96) 185,209.96
TOTAL SPPC COST 2 99-,' 89.19
rNP,
NATE POWER COST
rosppower0.00 0-00 0.00 O.Ofl fl.00 28,240.00haredsavmjs NCPA �, . , . . . 0.00 0.04 0A0 fl.Ofl 5,694.91. Bi11inR 1p,315.$4 12,229.25 Q.00 0.00 O.OD 0.0b O.OQ 0A0 0.00 22,545.09
TAL POWER Sm�6 9 25.3 - 533 0.0
14.29 501.948.81 419 770.5, 0 00 -,_^ O OOW 2 315,§34 28J
i
TRUCKEE DONNER PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
1991 Certificates of Participation,Water System Improvement Project
Project payment status report as of 05/13195(Prepared 616/95)
Total Funds Received to Balance to
Status of Acquisition Fund Projects: Estimate Date Receive
Net Acquisition Funds proceeds 7,520,351 7,520,351 0
Estimated interest life of project 298,804 298,804
Interest received to date 689,314 (689,314)
Plus estimated interest income during
balance of project_ 6,000 (6,000)
Total estimated source of funds 7,819,155 8,215,665 (396,510)
Total Project Paid Undisbursed Pending Billed
Use of Funds: Estimate to Date Amounts Appoval to Date
Contract A: Original Contract 1,601,000
Change Order#1 3,825
Change Carder#2-See note 421,430
Change Order#3 600
Change Order#4 25,000
Total Contract A 2,051,855 (2,042,438) 9,417 0 (2,042,438
Contract B: Original Contract 2,338.143
Change Order#1 7,990
Change Order#2-See note 414,265
Change Order#3 1.200
Total Contract B 2,761,598 (2,775,735) (14,137) 0 (2,775,735
Contract B: Original Contract 613,330
Change Order#1 1,275
Change Order 92-See note 56,620
Change Order 93 200
Total Contract C 671,425 (598,412) 73,013 0 (598,412
SEA: Construction administration 539,500 (531,979) 7,521 (62,138) (594,117
(474,500+Bd app increase 65,000)
Pre-design photography 12,000 (10,585) 1,415 0 (10,585
Test&design work 187,000 (176,988) 10,012 (4,198) (181,186
Credit for sale of plan sets 0 2,755 2,755 0 2,755
Geotechnical investigation 25,500 (23,911) 1,589 0 (23,911
Field surveys 11,500 (2,378) 9,122 0 (2,378
Olympic Heights Pipeline($388,000) Postponed 0 0 0 0
Herringbone Booster Pumps(98,000) Postponed 0 0 0 0
Telemetry System-SCADA Project 752,500 (818,523) (66,023) 0 (818,523
Additional Projects: 1993-1994-1995
Armstrong Hi-Pressure Extension 94,081 (94,081) 0 0 (94,081
Mainline replacement @ TD/SM 739,697 (736,593) 3,104 0 (736,593
1-80 slipfining 28,612 (29,970) (1,358) 0 (29,970
Donner Trails Tank 70,800 (1,628) 69,172 0 (1,628
Hirschdale system improvement 186,350 (18,451) 167,899 0 (18,451
Highway 891I-80 bridge project(2/3 of$$60,390) 40,260 (38,767) 1,493 0 (38,767
Ponderosa Hydro 28,560 0 28,560 0 0
Total use of funds 8.201,238 (7,897,683) 303,555 (66,335) (7,964,018
t ;frl#ic ;A ... ...::..:. ........:...... (382,083
!
Lessneit 268,87 1 Projects left
17,224 Shortage
NOTE: The original estimated amounts for change order#2 on all three projects totalled$918,000. The actual
amounts came in at$892,315.
PROJ9109.WK4