HomeMy WebLinkAboutGeneral Fund /,r/
TRUCKEE-DONNER PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
STATEMENT OF GENERAL FUND - January 11 , 1979
Bank Balance - December 28, 1979 $ 195,280.51
Truckee Electric & Water Revenue 72,477.85
Donner Lake Electric Revenue 11 ,587.43
Electric Connection Fees 4,550.00
Water Connection Fees 420.00
Standby Revenue 11 ,358.30
Refund from Sierra Pacific due to overcharge
on fuel adjustment 102,415.43
Miscellaneous Billings Revenue 892.66
Miscellaneous Revenue 2,756.32 $ 401 ,738.50
Approved Billings 169,837.35
Bank of America - General Fund LAIF transfers 210,000.00
- Federal Tax Deposit 2,995.39
T. E. Bertagnolli & Associates-Hauling fees 494.50
T. E. Bertagnolli & Associates-10% retainer 2,032.15
Petty Cash-Replenish fund 176.95
Jane Reed-Blue Cross premium reimbursement as per
court order 602.02
U. S. Postmaster - Postage Permit #1 525.00
- Postage Meter 200.00 (386,863.36)
PAYROLL
12/31/78 OT DT Standby Gross Net
Chapman 729.11 529.49
Connell 128.85 792.05 568.29
Craig 58.44 620.94 437.97
Grow 95.76 946.96 748.39
Marsh 125.75 708.95 509.66
Layton 750.88 495.88
Lopez 29.64 39.52 859.56 659.95
Reed 583.20 397.40
Reynolds 231 .84 957.60 764.90
Rose 73.26 644.46 432.03
Rully 78.39 69.68 844.87 605.24
Seymour 1 ,250.00 936.31
Silva 103.74 148.96 106.40 1 ,210.30 909.05
Slattery 750.00 567.56
Straub 63.78 167.96 98.80 1 ,120.94 820.17
Tamietti 696.80 600.61
Waltrip 64.26 635.46 469.64
Bennett 345.45 241 .16
821 .87 426.12 437.04 14,447.59 10,693.70
Temporary and Part-Time Employees
Baker 315.36 279.01
Boone 315.36 244.21
Hossack 437.04 367.31
Lyson 140.16 124.13
McCarthy 140.16 130.28
McQuary 83.78 75.83
Moore 197.10 171 .85
1 ,628.96 1 ,392.62
821 .87 426.12 437.04 16,076.55 12,086.32 (12,086.32)
Bank Balance - January 11 , 1979 $ 2 ,788.82
General Fund Balance in LAIF $737,539.81
/A.5_
TRUCKEE-DONNER PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
_ POST OFFICE BOX 309
TRUCKEE, CALIFORNIA 95734
TELEPHONE 567 3896
January 15, 1979
MANAGER'S REPORT
1 . General Status of District
No major outages of either water or electricity have occurred during the
first two weeks of January. A few minor short-term electrical outages have oc-
curred because of wires slapping together in the wind or snow falling off of
wires.
2. Report regarding Sierra Pacific's Filing and Rate Increase
No further information has been received from either Martin McDonough or
Sierra Pacific Power Company regarding their filing to increase rates. However,
the letter accompanying the refund recently received alluded to the recent rate
filing by pointing out that they apparently, during the past three years, have
made errors in computing the fuel charge by not properly reporting purchases of
economy energy that is low cost energy purchased off peak. I anticipate that a
new filing will be coming fairly shortly.
3. Report Respecting Allocation of Consultants ' Billings
Some consultants' billings are difficult to interpret as to exactly what
the billing related to.
Ordinarily, all consultant billings are reviewed by the Bookkeeping De-
partment to determine whether or not the billing relates to Truckee Water, Truckee
Electric, Donner Lake Electric, or Tahoe Donner Water, or in some cases to General
Administrative activites. Whenever the allocation of consultant billings is not
clear to the Bookkeeping Department, they refer the bill to me for a determination
of how the charges should be allocated. Sometimes, when it is not clear, a tele-
phone call to the consultant or his secretary is necessary to determine the al -
location. A typical bill that requires some research is attached. This one hap-
pens to be from Martin McDonough. Inasmuch as the letters referred to in the bill
and the telephone conversations do not identify the subject matter, we generally
have to go back to Martin McDonough' s secretary to determine what each item re-
lated to. Our own filing system does not provide a good information resource
inasmuch as Martin's letters are generally filed by subject rather than by date.
Unless we know the subject, we have difficulty locating the correspondence in
our file.
A further problem may exist with respect to consultants' billings in that
certain costs incurred by consultants may be rebillable by the District to other
entities such as Dart. For engineering consultants, such as Cook Associates and
R. W. Beck, those charges rebillable to Dart are usually easy to determine. For
attorneys, such as Grumer and McDonough, any rebilling of their fees to Dart
Industries would require careful scrutiny of existing agreements between the
District and Dart and a careful determination of the actual nature of the ser-
vices provided. Director Sutton and I will meet very soon to discuss this partic-
ular problem and see if any of our attorney fees can and should be rebilled to
some other entity.
AMS/smc
bor+oc..
Y �L.RCb C r.b
f��F go f yx A E_JNOJC=H, HOLLAND, SCHWARTZ & ALLEN A
NA -1 A PROFE5 IONAL CORPORATION ` CAPITOL MALL.SUITE 9S0
SAC R RAAM ENTO.CALIFOPNIA 95814
r:i..asEH•'' •• A'I'T'ORN E Y S TELEPHONE 916 1-A-31R00
COP l ES TO:
FILE uPl9�j
December 7, 1978
�u 1OGARTI District Engr, _
Pd-M CI': Y:I✓!�'l6•ti Y.6'i. P.U.D.
District Counsel
Truckee-Donner Public Utility Dist.ric fj"
c/o A. Milton Seymour, Mgr. _
P. 0 . Box 309 - -'—
Truckee, CA 95734
Professional services rendered and costs advanced per attached.
Fees $889. 50
Costs 22.24
$911. 74
Balance forward from
previous statement 261.
AMOUNT DUE $ , '7-3
y
saF .
ti
'CLIENT 04432 - TRUCKEE-Do�,4NER PUBLIC UTILITY DISTR
MATTER 001 - WATER AND POWER MATTERS
PERIOD 10-30-73 THROUGH 11--26-78
GATE DESCRIPTION COST HRS
11-06-78 TC GRUMER OFF LT ( 3 ) SEYMOUR 2*0
11.-08-78 LTS + OPS SEYMOUR + COOK 2*0
11-10-78 LIS + TC SEYMOUR 1 .O
11-13-78 ATTEND BD MET IN TRUCKEE P + TVL 6*0
11-13-78 GL.ENN PETTERSEN ( 2 ) 65
11-1E-78 RW RFSO + LT SEYMOUR 64
11-22-79 LT SEYMOUR RE PLANNING 05
11-P4 78 RW RATE INCR PROP LT SEEDS OPEN F 2-5
FELTS THIS PERIOD 889650 1499
1i-26-78 ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGES tl-) _�Z) 22.24
TOTAL COSTS THIS PERIOD 22.24
41,4
o
la. I/ rY.eS' �/39 SD
MT-AGREEMENT DEPO-DEPOSITION JDMT-JUDGMENT OP-OPINION RV-REVISE
Y-ATTORNEY DIS-DISCUSS LF-LETTER FROM ORO-ORGANIZE TC-PHONE CALL
-CLIENT DOCS-DOCUMENTS LT-LETTER TO P-PREPARE TVL-TRAVEL
-CONFERENCE' WITH OR-DRAFT MF_T-MEETING RPT-REPORT TRL-TRIAL
-CORRESPONDENCE F-FXL.E M-MEMORANDUM RS-RESEARCH W-WITH
-CROSS COMPLAINT HRG-HEARING OF-OFFICE RW-REVIEW +-AN(7
A-LEGAL ASST
R. W. BECK AND ASSOCIATES
ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS
PLANNING - GENERAL OFFICE
DESIGN TOWER BUILDING
RATES SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 9M
,,,,ANALYSES 206-622-5=
ALUAMONS
ANAGEMENT
IENO.WW-0000-BD-AM January 15 , 1979
204.305
Mr . James A. Maass
President of the Board
Truckee-Donner Public Utility District
Post Office Box 309
Truckee , California 95734
Dear Mr . Maass:
Subject: Stampede Hydroelectric Project
Preliminary Permit Application
In accordance with our discussions with the Board on
January 15, 1979 enclosed for your consideration are two original
copies of Work Order WTnT-1415-HG1-MA for engineering services for
the preparation of an Application for Preliminary Permit to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for the Stampede Hydro-
electric Project .
The engineering services will include the assistance to
the District in the collection of basic data necessary for the
Application preparation, preparation of the Application withre-
quired exhibits and submittal to the FERC of the required number
of copies of the Application. It is understood that the District
will provide the basic data necessary for the Application prepara-
tion, copies of legal documents required in the Application and
legal services on their behalf. j
It is estimated that the cost of providing these services
will range between Three thousand dollars ( $3 ,000) to Five thousand
dollars ( $5 ,000) . If you concur with the proposed Work Order please
return an executed copy to us . Receipt of the executed copy will
constitute formal authorization to proceed with the work.
It was a pleasure meeting with the Board and should there
be any questions you might have we would be pleased to answer them.
Very truly yours ,
R. W. BECK AND ASSOCIATES
Donald E . Bowes
Partner
DEB/bb
- Enclosures
i
RWB--202H /93
R. W. BECK AND ASSOCIATES
Engineers and Consultants
WORK ORDER AGREEMENT
Date: January 15, 1979 No. WW-1415-HGl-MA
CLIENT Truckee-Donner Public Utility District
Post Office Box 309
`1 ADDRESS Truckee, California 95734
PROJECT Stampede Hydroelectric Project - Preliminary Permit Application
Part I—Scope of Services
Preparation of a Preliminary Permit Application to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for the Stampede Hydroelectric Proj-
ect . The work will include collection of basic data necessary for the
Application preparation, preparation of the Application with required
exhibits , printing of 20 copies for submittal to the FERC, and printing
of 50 copies for distribution by the Client .
SERVICES AND DATA TO BE FURNISHED BY THE CLIENT
Provision of basic data necessary for Application preparation,
copies of legal documents required in the Application and legal services
on behalf of the Client .
Part II—Payment
For services furnished, the Client shall pay R. W. Beck and Associates, Consulting Engineer, upon submission of monthly
invoices,an amount equal to the actual hours of services furnished multiplied by the product of the Consulting Engineer's established
hourly Salary Cost, which includes an allowance for personnel benefits,and a factor of 2. 2
In addition, the Client shall reimburse the Consulting Engineer each month at cost for all out-of-pocket expenses directly
chargeable to the work, at the Consulting Engineer's then current rates for computer and reproduction facilities and at cost plus 109
for Special Consultants and Subcontractors.
Part III—Standard Provisions (see following pages)
Part IV—Special Provisions (None)
Approved for CLIENT Approved for CONSULTING ENGINEER
By: By:
Title: Title: Vartner
Registered Professional Engineer
y. State,pf Cifoinia
B
By:
Title: Title: Par`t6er and Manager
Western Design Office
s _
Hro o w 0 c+ w N r. H 0 t -c+ dHF'• w H z w 0 0 P. x w C+ aF� m H c+ H H W G H HH
N H H'ro w F" 0 U) (D MxPO C 0 0 N Ih0 0 M 0 ::r HH O 0•N (D (D (D y d
ro0 w m00 (D En P' (D c+ 5 P• H, C+ H0 (D
roc+ 0 p� a � m H < Q? C 0al m
H m c+ 0 0 0 H IMI pp�� 0 N N m H c+ N 0 < 0 N H 0 H x' C+ h" bd
n 00100 M c+ GF" (D0 0 0r p0H N0• 0000 (D 'P' tj (DF' 0 0
mc+ 00GMc+ 0 (D0S 0 c+ c+ off c+ (D � w o40Fh c+ mPH F" 0N (Dw
c+ cF : C+ o4mw00 a mH0O. Oc+ xw y (DF~ H - ►" H
(D 0 o HHc+ w w G m 0 m C+ co (D w 0 dc+c< m H" fD (+ P,
OwMc< w0ow w(Un0orc+ mpp+tGG P, ID 0 H c+ 5PF+• F" HO' c+ w0P n 0Wt4o
c+ro c< cDMm F' 0 [a (DH" c+04 +f < wa +dooc+ mmc+ H m c+ Htj , M
0 0 (D F k 0 0 (D 0 c+ d (D 04 0 c+ P, � H F" 0 H F" c+ w 0
w0 xr +hHc+ � c+ HO 0 � - • m H m � N cD m p 1� ww �" w m c+ 0 N H r w (o
CoFh (D � 0H0' CD w � OOq (D CD w c+ 00 +" c+0gwN0 c+ M°5 (D N M0Htj
c+ mHCNH F c+ m HHt P F� 0r P• m (D +i c+ 0 •• 0c+ la
m � HNn ' t�0 0 : mmED ma ✓Ea kl c+ n0H myC+ w 0 -w H
(D MO ro 0+ N 0 0 �j my � H �0 N H H NO ` 0 c+ 0 (D m Mo H 0 w c+� c+
n w 0 - w (D H W M ID p1
m �H W 0 0 P+ H HN < 0 w c+ F' H (D Hc+ P p.0 0' 14 +" N H P 5
U) c+ CD c+ La C+ m 0 (D :3- 0 0 N 0' H 0 F" N 0 N " c+' 0 F" H 0 H
(UV (D0w0H - m (DxH" P, 04 Hm (Da' MOHM � Od0 m
H 0 0 HdF" G w 0 w w +" P c+ H N 0 - 0 004 0 C+ N, c+ m 0
m n in m 0 0 c+ 0 CO c+ W 0 M In w C+ w G N EDP
0) o HP, (+ 0 c+ 0• Hm 0 (D H cD d G O c+ P N WO 7Cc( 0 H F" MM
c+ dW5 w tj5 P P 0 dpt m �a w HH 0•o w m m (D (0 0 H
0 0 Co c+ CD (D r 0 +i c+ < c+ (D F" d d 0 H m Hy w
0 c+ m � F'• O MHm - C (D H 0 HdcD x 0 H c+ am
F" 0 c+ H F' (D td 04 N CD 0 c+ c+ E w x Ul x
N.� C+Id � 0 0 (D c+ m_c+ W 0 0 0 N O CCD' ] O 0 0 +d cD : 0
0 0 0 0 � � P 0+ N 0' N• 0 P' � C+ N 0 0 � � m 0' w H0 w CD w0q
c+ (D 0 H (D m eF P) p� :J • cD 0 0 H c+ p t c+ H cD 0 '4 P N n n H
�u 0 c+ 0a0c+ (D � Oc+ Hc+ roa w {pU�
Nc+ F" c+ Hc+ c+ (DO ycDwn H0 H � c+ oq HM +t0s0'
0m0wmc+ 0 F" mc+ H (Dro 0 +'•o4 � xV0E - PF-• O N• c+ H
0 t M m H(D 0" C c+ 0 H - 0 M Hw 0 Q? ?r• H 0 F" 0 O
c+ 0 0 0 0 0 c+ F" (D 0 c+ 0' a' F` (D W < F'• c+ H+� w a N 1" c+ m - 0 HGG trJn
O w H w 0 0 5 F" c+ F° (D (D w 0 (D F'• 0 �r m c+ 0 C+ O' 0 04 w04
(D < P, m P•M H 0 0 F+• c+ m H H c+ F"ro p w (D x- P, m (p c+ 0 p) c+
coma 0• P, 0 04 (D IJ• HF` H• wH0 c+ 0w :40 C+ 0) o pmF~ nn
m 0) m N w CD 0 C+ (D (D F"- C F"(D F" F" (D ro c+ a c< 0 0 C+ 0
N P, 0 0 c++( d eq ro c+ m c+ < 0 F" n W 0 (D M 0 0 (D N m 0 m 04 '<
(DH m W (D P, (D tD - F" pry) 04 0 � 0a 0 �d
NN ° H w a0 00 °p� c+ 0tc3+ c+ x 0 (D0H (DOmmF+ Hcb m 0 nN
0 H H w m < N• c+ 0 H P 0 0 c+ w H w M 0 H 0 c+ 0 (D 04 m -
c+ Fk (D k H' (D H c+ (n - P+ 0 M w H O c+ bd (D (D P. c+ c+0 M F" F" c+ P• w
0 +d 0 (D 0' (D 0 c+ F" H 0 � 00 c+ c+0 0 0 0 0 d c+ 0• 0 H t�
ro H HF'• 0 H n ro m am y m +i Nk � 0 �+ ((DD F� c+ (D (Dnt G N (ao pw
F ww0U) (Dc+ H
fin m H - aar~ 0 < (D w P) (D N H P, 0 0C404 � c+ 0 {u
(D N C�.(D c< P, w c}r+ (D m (D a4 ° > c+ 0 p U]H F" cµ+ m
c+ p +10 + m mHd Q? m +iHnmC ° mx 05 (Dz
0 0 m Hro cC HP• +" c+ N N N Fj F" Z cF rF! w 0 < Q + co w
c+ 0 c+ w (DH mdr• m000P• m (DHO bd5c+ 0m (D c+ and
j o !5 c+ P (D c+ (D m c+ H H'• G U) N c+ H 0 0 0 0 0' m H c+
w �•+�dO R• 0
H (DHO' (Dc+ 1 0v ' t 40C+ 0) + r) + oi NP, mw0y 0 p 0MHCDV
0 O00 i ° P Ot
Dmw0 (D � � H
0 o0G F~ (D - HcxDmpO Go wmwP obdc+ p 00 (D0) �D
c°+O N t+ N q o F" (D cw+ F" a F" I" p o Id-� o 0 m N c�+ O (D cm+ Ul
N 0 O c+ (D m G m 0 c+o N 0 m c+ ° 0 +i H" c+ 0 K
cl. + p� O c+- °0 c+ c+ N a 0 0 F' (D
tDc+ c+ Nm 0) cmo 0N' °Oq � fD - a ° fD mmjxVcD0m '4Co0
c+ �0p0TiN < �roNkNONw WOaF°yc+ (D :j (dD Ho. 0
� r+ wkmf w FF" N P, F" CD HNhj o 0r d Z 04 H I" M 0 _0 0
c+ Co N H �004 (D d 0 Id : (:3 1 vj M `° o � fD w Fj � Fd 0
F" m m a.+
'� `+ a ' x \
January 15, 1979
from Sutton to Board
page 2
this is the case, but at any rate I believe any increase in capacity which
might be provided for at the time of replacement of an existing facility
should be funded by means other than a "depreciation reserve account." Ob-
viously, we would need some expert accounting help to establish the particulars
Involved with such an approach. But it does seem to me that this Board has
the opportunity in the present situation to make changes in accounting prac-
tices and fiscal policy which could have far-reaching effects on the financial
health of the District.
3. I would like to see the Board inquire more into the alternatives of
handling the summer demands on the existing substations before we proceed to
make definite commitments for upgrading or replacing the Truckee Substation.
It is my impression that there may be additional equipment or techniques, or
perhaps even load shifting, system management, or relatively minor capital
Improvements, which might allow us a little more capacity during the next year
at least. This would buy the Board some time to more fully explore the implica-
tions of the alternatives of financing a substation expansion.
4. I would like to see the Board investigate, prepare and present at least
two proposals to the voters of the District in a bond election this year:
1) a substation expansion plan which would fulfill the District's obligations
to provide power based on the existing "will serve" commitments, and 2) a
substation expansion plan which would fulfill those obligations plus .all the
possible growth potential for the next 20-30 years. If the Board decides to
finance the entire cost of a substation replacement/expansion with the "accumu-
lated cash," then the cost of the expansion is borne by the customers who have
been paying the rates over the past several years while the surpluses were
accumulating. I believe that the cost of capital expansions should be shared
by those who will benefit from and use the improvement and expanded capacity.
This requires financing provisions based on the future, not the past. I also
believe that if the cost of increased capacity is to be paid by the user (through
revenue bonds) or the property owner (through general obligation bonds), then
the community should determine which extent of capital expansion it wishes to
pay for. If the voters turn down both propositions, then the Board will have
to act responsibly to find some alternative way of financing a substation
project which will provide the capacity to serve existing commitments.
5. I would like to see the Board seriously pursue a source of hydro-power
generation at one or more of the nearby small dams. I could advocate the
Board not making a refund to the District customers of the latest rebate from
SPPC on the condition that that money is instead placed in a special trust
account for the sole purpose of funding the initial steps and providing the
"up-front" expenses of a concentrated effort to provide hydro generation facil-
ities. Since the rebate is due to an adjustment in the Fuel Charge, this
might be an appropriate and acceptable alternative to a customer refund, and
public hearings on the matter could help the Board assess the community's
opinion.
January 15, 1979
Sutton to Board
page 3
6. If the community supported the idea of underwriting a serious pursuit of
hydro-power with the rebate money, then I would also believe that any "surplus
funds" accumulated in the Electric Department beyond a "depreciation reserve
account," if such is established, could be reserved by the Board to help
finance a hydro project which could be of great long-term benefit to the
customers of the District.
This isn't the most articulate and best organized communication, but I hope
that some of this makes sense to someone besides me.
Sincerely,
PAT SUTT ON
TDPUD Director
copies provided to
Milt Seymour, Manager
Steve Grumer, Counsel
mod/
COPIES TO:
R. W BECK AND ASSCFd1Ag4sd _
RECEIVED 0 District Engr.
(� ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS �,_bistrlct COUt^.SEI __ '____
PLANNING J A N 15 1979 —_!^- GENERAL OFFICE
DESIGN 0 Suet• / I'Oremarl —___--TOWER BUILDING'
RATES LJ w SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 95101
ANALYSES D —^ 206L22 5000
EVALUATIONS L—j
MANAGEMENT
FILE NO. WW-1415-ES1-MA January 10 , 1979
3024
Mr. A. Milton Seymour, Manager
Truckee-Donner Public Utility District
Post Office Box 309
Truckee, California 95734
Dear Milt :
Subject • Contract No. 1 Power Transformers,
Voltage Regulators and Reclosers.
In response to Jim Maass ' January 3, 1979, request
we submit the following simplified summary of our December
12, 1978 .letter of recommendation concerning the bids for
Contract No. 1..
Bid Schedule A - Power Transformers
The apparent lowest . evaluated bidder is General
Electric Supply Company (GESCO) . Your attorney should
review the warranty specified by GESCO to determine if it is
acceptable to the District .
We contacted GESCO by telephone on January 9,
1979 , and they confirmed that their. quoted price will remain
firm for delivery at the job site no later than August 31,
1979 . They will confirm the earliest delivery date when an
order is placed by the District .
Assuming that the noted exceptions can be waived
by the District , we recommend that the District award Bid
Schedule A for four (4) power transformers to the General
Electric Supply Company in the amount of $166,066 . We
further recommend that , . subject to the above exceptions , the
District purchase the spare parts as quoted in the amount of
$2,46o .
Bid Schedule . B -• Voltage Regulators
The apparent lowest bidder is the General Electric
Mr. A. Milton Seymour (2) January 10 , 1979
Supply Company (GESCO) . GESCO took exception to the specified
warranty and oil as in the case of the power transformers.
Our comments and recommendations that your attorney review
the proposed warranty for acceptability are similar to those
quoted above for the Bid Schedule A - Power Transformers .
We contacted GESCO by telephone on January 9,
1979, and they confirmed that their bid price and delivery
will remain as quoted through. January 31, 1979. Assuming
that the exceptions can be waived by the District , we recommend
that the District award Bid Schedule B for three (3) voltage
regulators to the General .Electric Supply Company in the
amount of $49,050.
Bid Schedule C - Reclosers
Only one bid was received for this item and. that
was by WEDCO, Inc . quoting McGraw-Edison' s circuit reclosers .
We have to-day contacted WEDCO Inc . to verify that
their quoted price and delivery will remain as quoted through
January 31, 1979.
Exceptions that have been taken to the Contract
Documents include : progress payments, the "Contractor' s"
liabilities , cancellation, warranty and shipment . Your
attorney should review the exceptions to determine if they
are acceptable to the District .
On the basis of this evaluation and analysis and
assuming that the exceptions can be waived by the District ,
we recommend that the District award Bid Schedule C for six
(6) reclosers to WEDCO, Inc . in the amount of $43,452 .
Very truly yours,
R. W. BECK AND ASSOCIATES
Edward J. Wittman
Partner and Manager
Western Design Office
EJW/lp
Enclosure
r
t
TRUCKEE-DONNER PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
CONTRACT NO. 1 POWER TRANSFORMERS, VOLTAGE REGULATORS AND RECLOSERS
Four Power Transformers WEDCO BUCKLEY-GORE SIEMENS-ALLIS GENERAL ELECTRIC
Bid Item 1-Al
Total Evaluated $233.659 (1) $261,874 (2) NO BID $2183266 (2)
Delivery Price
Three Voltage Regulators
Bid Item 1-Bl
Quoted Price NO BID (3) $40,671 (4) $49,050 (2)
Spare Parts 1,200 N.A.
Six Reclosers
Bid Item 1-Cl
Quoted Price $43,452 (2) NO BID NO BID NO BID
(1) Bid price escalated per contract documents.
(2) Firm price through delivery.
(3) Did not quote a separate price for regulators.
(4) 6% Sales tax added to bid price in accordance
with Siemens-Allis quoted contract conditions.
0
1/9/79
ol•�i
TRUCKEE-DONNER PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
POST OFFICE BOX 309
TRUCKEE, CALIFORNIA 95734
TELEPHONE 587-3896
January 12, 1979 I
MEMORANDUM
n
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: A. Milton Seymour, General Manager
RE: Sierra Pacific Power Company Refund
The refund of $102,415.43 recently received from Sierra Pacific Power
Company is really two separate refunds. The first refund resulted from
long-term overcharges to Sierra Pacific Power Company by their- suppliers
of electricity and fuel . The refund covered portions of years beginning
in March of 1971 through June 30, 1977. The refund amounted to $45,453. 39•
The second refund covered the period from January 1976 through November of
1978. The refunds were not paid for every month of this period, only for
certain months. The, refund varied greatly with each month depending upon
the amount of overcharge on the fuel adjustment clause. The second refund
amounted to $56,962.04.
The Board should make a decision as to the disposition of this refund
money. Temporarily the Manager has had it deposited in the Local Agency
Investment Fund so that it may earn interest while the Board deliberates .
Among the options available to the Board are:
1) Place the money in the General Fund for the on-going operation of
the District.
2.) Place the money in a Special Restricted Fund for capital improve-
ments to the electric system.
3) Use the money to retire part of the existing debt for the electrical
system.
4) Attempt to make an equitable refund to the District' s users.
As Manager of the District, I prefer option number 2. 1 see very little
advantage to options 1 or 3. Further, I consider option 4 a virtual impos-
sibility. To attempt to refund the money fairly would involve determining
who were the customers during certain specific periods of time including
the period from March 31 , 1971 to November 30, 1973, October 1 , 1973 to
September 30, 1974, December 1 , 1974 to May 31 , 1976, etc. The research
required to determine who were customers during this period of time, how
much electricity they used, and what their refund would be is totally be-
yond the capability of the District staff. I do believe that records exist,
however , that would enable a special research staff to ferret out this in-
formation. However•, the amount of money involved is so small , and the num-
ber of customers involved is so large, that the amount of the refund per
customer would be miniscule.
-1-
o�0
Memo to the Board
January 12, 1978
Page 2
Our current computer records only go back to approximately March of
1976. Therefore., the earlier periods would have to be calculated manually
rather than by computer, program.
For example, one customer with whom I am quite familiar, started service
with the Public Utility District in April of 1975 and terminated service on
November 1 , 1976. This customer would therefore be entitled to a part of a
refund due from Southwest Gas in the amount of $9,831 plus a refund due from
Utah Power and Light of $252.36 plus a part of a refund due from Pacific Gas
and Electric Company of $4,299.03 plus an additional part of a refund due
from Pacific Gas and Electric Company of $16,397. 57 plus a small portion of
refunds due for the months of July, August, and October of 1976. This, of
course, is just one customer of approximately 6,000 to 7,000 customers that
would be affected. As you can see, 6,000 to 7,000 calculations of this
nature would be an overwhelming task and, indeed, might not be accurate.
Because of this problem and the inability to accurately refund the monies
due, I recommend that the entire community benefit by the use of the money
for an appropriate capital project such as the new substation.
RECEIVED
JAN 15 1979
ENGINEER'S REPORT
INDEX
January 15, 1979
Page
UNFINISHED BUSINESS, ITEM 5, EASEMENT OFFERRED TO THE
UTILITY DISTRICT BY NORTH TAHOE PROPERTIES, ADJACENT
TO UNIT 9, TAHOE DONNER 1
STATUS REPORTS
A. MARTIS WOODS ESTATES 2
B. PLACER COUNTY SERVICE AREA ANNEXATION 2
C . SANDERS WELL 2
ATTACHMENTS
Plat of Parcels A, B, C & D 3
'^ Letter to Duttweiler - will serve 4
Resolution Accepting Easement (North Tahoe Properties) 5
Plat of Parcels A, B, C & D 6
Hm aw aN rrH• dn m ri wro v+ u+ rt H bm 0 o am m o
wG GmGo �cw �' � �' N 0rmnrto wo (D � rwi � � In �' "' � cHn �
w rtaaaNrt � � It mmG � Gma`cH 0HH
Ha' n rt H o ri m m ri o o an aa � m m a � H• o o t� � z
vInIn (D P' � l� pihH. 00 (D COH' mrtmmG rN � �C mCG (n HH
mmH•rortmo cn rort ortrtGmmrt maGrt Grt t� pH• rtm 0Hx
rt WaNrt �� rm� tlmH. rt o'ro ((DDrta0PD IT � 0 U rt InrtiID z tT7
� m `� mrtmwrwr � rtp�q � � 0H. Hr�t wr8H, 0wallo tZr7r�C � H
o rh o rt c rt 11 H a rr L'• rn m u' H m H• m m m rt H• a n H• rt ri
m ' bb � wo G oo m v, m o � rrt 14 yw
oa rh av, cnww ro o o
w rt � N rh0rt
o rt
• • H. H.
t t r• im o -wri
In rt wH0 x [
ro � dm H• o rt m H• moR G � H• rt xwmoa G m w ac 0 d
wm m H �f to HG m o (DA o w Ua m CO wrooa m In
G G
G m xIn E m 0 0 G C��c vrnG' w G G E 0 H0 o wrt naw ri o z
UQh p HmrtH• rt c� h� riONm � N $ � mcrorotrh � Fh > rmi a0 m OH z
rt, � dr• ro m m H E w o n rrm rt rt rtrn H m H H
p, o H n H rt o o m w rn • goH• oo ti r o H. ti p • P• � m H.�c p. w G a
from In rt mrtro rt � w 0I- V Hmo C m mrt � arrnOm ro �
rt o rt � m m a aw I-ha m o a H W !� N b 'rt p' hrt'• � Ou, z z b
o ff C7 ri Fh rt N a n ro m (Dr+ H G tT7 G�
nH0w0 �' H rt ri � � � fthN � rtrt • m �' n rtawj0H. 9H b" td
mGnrtmo � H• o0' rtNWtmtjt -jGP p �nmm rt now bones
� rortpya � 0 0aw � 0 00 ((DD0HPrtrhow � rAmoc0xo' rtp
ri a•d w w H rt wwG Hm o+ n o G H x r � �
~ rt
rtInN 1-1 0� ' N N• P,v p7' rt HN.• m G p, �dNA m H
h rt7 rort rt m mw �m o
mc (AwmmoH ( 0 00r, U L
rr mm rnH• rtw rf 0 N 0 rt p
In t-h rt m rt
O rt G H d G 0 y HH C 7�
rtm000mt7C E mmr� Hr� w rnm 0 motdmrtowwa
a rt r�r m G rt N rt m m 0 H � P, N N n rt p HN N rni nO H rC
� wxwm Gro mHm (n mrrwpmmNm � mo� rmnw � � ul d
wrtwGrt � mri a wroma ri � .
G ca H• rto Nrtm = mmCrt H• InN ::r v' w H
mrrm art • c C' womh w �• wmxH• oH'
m H C7
(Dp gym ] H, orop H' H It mH � (n rr w a m v H
m w w c a cro wH• rnm N � H• � H' m w rt w aH• w H
H• m HHm m (D G H. rtt0 rtC � 3mC � r0 � rtro w wriN w OH
�roro G ww xa
ortortoxm Gri wcnmrnu� oH. In G �CroricmH• o 0
Hmrmroo rt 0 0nrttiroiwCCrt � � wo � omoaG, G HH
(nH• G mCJp' nmH• mH- mm Om o0rtrii H
Hm o w m H• n m o o � t-h
0 p0tIno a rrnwo -, riaa0G � o
v' rr mrtortG a� prrrt0m m0 rorn 1-h00 0tb0M � H
m pm " GrtIN Ommw G wamrtri
r rt o G H. p' ri 0 rt rt rt ro G � o rt r w rt H
HH, rto' m0 Q. rrwnxo' w H• omroH' rt � nri � Hro H
mwmmrirtrr Ho' rimmm � n ' rGr � wron �c off QAN '� � rpi H
m m � m mw o
G
I would recommend that the District accept the easement as
proposed lying along the easterly side of Parcel B. Stale
water complaints will be lessened if the line extensions that
will occur in St. Bernard and Brookstone are looped through
the easement as described. The quality of service rendered
will be improved if the system was looped prior to making
service available to any of the four existing parcels or the
parcels that will be subdivided within Parcel D.
STATUS REPORTS
A. Martis Wood Estates
During your January 2, 1979 board meeting, I provided you
with my comments and thoughts with regards to Martis Woods
Estates.
B. Placer County Service Area Annexation
The second mailings on the non-responding parcels is not
yet gone out. It is anticipated that the mailing will occur
some time during the week of January 15, 1979.
C . Sanders Well
The Sanders Well was initially started and adjustments
made January 8, 1979. Acceptance inspection and/or determination
of yield and/or testing has not yet commenced.
Respectfully submitted,
COOK ASSOCIATES
Dan J. Q ook
C ivitl_iEngineer
DJC/cab
-2-
I i. ' j
'N'
411.1
41
Id/
D
,7,
ro
"0j"00.9
"Vmv)g
N 1 014
Ld
VY.
'ef
DO If
%tJ
TRUCKEE-DONNER PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
� POST OFFICE BOX 309
tj TRUCKEE. CALIFORNIA 95734
TCLEPHONE 587 3896
i June 8, 1978
1
Mr. Jack Duttweiler _
North Tahoe Property Inc.
PO Box 57
Truckee, California 95734
Subject: NW4 of NEZ, Sec. 4, T17N, R16E, M.D.B. & M
Dear Mr. Duttweiler:
In response to your request, the Truckee-Donner Public Utility District
will serve the parcel located at the end of both St. Bernard and Brookstone
Drive, adjacent to the Tahoe Donner Subdivision, subject to the following
conditions:
1 . The applicant for service to the above-referenced property pay for
an electric line extension of as yet an undetermined length from the nearest
P.U.D. facility to the property boundary provided such line extension can be
constructed along existing utility easements or rights-of-way.
2. The applicant for service must pay all appropriate connection, tap-
ping, and facility fees as they apply to water and electric service to the
above property.
3. At the time of application, the applicant must comply with all exist-
ing and subsequent District rules and regulations.
For your information, water service is already existing at St. Bernard
Drive and Brookstone Drive.
Water connection tapping and facility fees are shown in the attached copy
of District Ordinance 7701 . Electrical connection fees are $350 for a single-
family residence which provides a maximum of 200 feet of overhead service wire
from the P.U.D. service pole to the dwelling or 100 feet of underground service
wire from the utility pole to the dwelling. Excess service wire is charged at
actual cost.
This commitment to serve expires eighteen months from the date of this
letter.
Sin erely,
A. Milton Seymou�
general Manager
AMS :mhm O
cc: Board of Directors L�
Dan J . Cook, Civil Engineer
RESOLUTION NO. 78_
OF
TRUCKEE-DONNER PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
ACCEPTING AN EASEMENT FROM
NORTH TAHOE PROPERTIES, INC.
WHEREAS, on September 28, 1978, North Tahoe Properties, Inc. granted
a non-exclusive easement for utility purposes to the Truckee-Donner Public
Utility District; and
WHEREAS, a resolution of acceptance is necessary for recording by Nevada
County.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of the
Truckee-Donner Public Utility District as follows:
That the Board of Directors does hereby accept the
Grant Deed for Easement presented by North Tahoe
Properties, Inc., a copy of which is attached hereto, and
which affects the following described real property:
A strip of land 20.00 feet in width lying
on the easterly .side of the westerly
boundary of Parcel B of Book of Parcel
Maps, Book 13, Page 4, Official Documents y
of Nevada_
The District Clerk shall send a certified copy of this
Resolution, along with the original Grant Deed for
Easement, to the Nevada County Recorder.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Truckee-Donner
Public Utility District, at a meeting held within said District on the day
of , 1978, by the following roll call vote;
AYES: > '
NOES: '
ABSENT: > >
TRUCKEE-DONNER PUBLIC UTILITY
DISTRICT
By
JAMES A. MAASS, President
ATTEST:
A. MILI—L'ONE ,
Clerk Thereof
y50.32'
i*cje 66, CLC esS
/area. J j__
n
v
�i w - - O �rt•�, r� LX[SLfLg /iCCO S Q:
o
r_ 4
January 8, 1979
� .� F1C3
MEhIORAN DUM to Board, Manager, Counsel & Engineer
From: Pat Sutton, Director '
re: Standby Charges, Exemptions, etc.
Th1s_1s_..the..first time that lists of parcels to be considered for exemption
from Electric and/or Water Standby Fees have been compiled and brought to the
Board's attention. There has been some confusion and uncertainty, and perhaps
some misinterpretation regarding procedure. I have reviewed the available back-
up information regarding the problems and proposed exemptions, and submit this
report for your information and offer some recommendations for your. consideration.
REVIEW OF BACK-UP INFORMATION
The List Dated November 6, 1978
It appears to me from the notes in the files that all of the parcels on this
list except those owned by Wolverton, Knoff, Bezecny, and Kennerson have been
confirmed to have received service between July 1976 and July 1, 1977, and that
no other questions related to Standby Charges appear to exist. Since all parcels
which received service prior to the! effective date of the Standby Charges for
that particular year should have been automatically excluded from the list of
parcels, these properties should now be deleted, the 1977-78 Charges against
them should be recinded, and any fees actually paid should be reimbursed.
The following should be handled differently:
Wolverton - I was unable to determine from the information in the files whether
or .not any of the four parcels of acreage should have been automatically deleted
because of hook-up, or which, if any, may have 'been erroneously charged fees
which were not applicable, or which, if any, should be scheduled for hearing for
exemption. Staff should clarify the problem with these parcels, and the Board
�- will need more specific information for a hearing.
Knoff - The reason for exemption given on the November list is "Service prior to
7-1-77," but the notation in the files says "garage" and "unusable land." If
there is a garage with an electric hook-up to that parcel. which took place during
the July 1976-July 1, 1977 year, the property should have been automatically
excluded. from the Electric Standby Charges. If, however, there is a garage
without an electric hook-up to the parcel or with an electric extension from
another parcel (which may be illegal under our rules or at least requires arrange-
ments with the District , then the request for exemption should come to the Board
for hearing. If there is a garage without a water hook-up, then the request for
that exemption should come to the Board. If the land is "unusable," and has no
structure, and that is the basis for the exemption request, then that should come
to the Board. Staff needs to establish more specifics on the problem,
Bezecn - The staff notation in the files says "25 year building restriction -
3 yrs old - open space - says it's recorded with County." I did not find any
back-up information substantiating what must have been a verbal claim. This
request for exemption should come to the Board for hearing; perhaps the owner
will provide more -tangible evidence at that time.
Kennerson - Note in files indicates owner claims to have been a customer since
1969but it was unclear whether customer claimed service at this location since
1969. Staff note indicates there is an account (at this location?) "since at
least 1/76." If parcel has been hooked up since January 1976, or prior, then it
appears an error was made including this parcel in the list against which Standby
Charges would be levied.
MEMO re Standby Charges
from Sutton
January 8, 1979
page 2
REVIEW OF BACK-UP INFORMATION, continued
The Dist Dated December 4, 1278
Meyer CalProp Parcel 19-250-006 - Note in files appears to show hook-up was
made 5 78 instead of 7/77. I£ so, owner should pay 1977-78 Standby Charges,
and the parcel should not have been included for the 1978-79 levy.
Yer Ca.IProp Parcel 19-230-022 - Note in files appears to confirm hook-up made
7, in which case-It should not have been included for charges in 1977-78.
Talcott - six parcels - Back-up information was provided and is in the files.
The request for exemption should be scheduled for hearing, and the Board should
have access to the maps, etc.
Joseph - I found the information in the files incomplete and confusing. Staff
should determine specifically whether parcel(s) should be deleted because of
prior service, or whether special conditions exist which are the basis for an
exemption request. Board will need specific and factual information.
Jacobson - Should be scheduled for hearing on exemption request. Board will need
.more specific information in order to make a judgement.
Croin - If parcel is located more than 100 feet from water line, Board should
take action to correct error made when parcel was included in list against which
Water Standby Charge was levied. (Ditto for Electric Standby if located more
than 200' from power line.)
Lewis - four parcels - If each parcel has an electrical hook-up, it should not be
subject to Electric Standby Charge, in which case apparently an error was made
in levying the charge, and it should be corrected by Board action. If electric
service is supplied. by internal extension from one parcel to another, such
extension should have been arranged with the District, and deletion of the charge
may not be automatic.* The situation is not clear to me from the information in
the files, and staff probably should reexamine the particulars and provide more
information before hearing on exemption request.
Nash - This praxeel is at Donner Lake so it was not charged and-cannot really be
exempted from a Water Standby because .it was not subject to such by definition of
service availability.The request for exemption is from the Electric Standby Charge,
and it should be scheduled for hearing. The Board needs more specific information
about the proximity of the parcel to power line.
Ives Property located at West End of Donner Lake; it apparently was not charged
Water Standby and no exemption is involved. A request for exemption from Electric
Standby should be scheduled for hearing. Board should receive information from
staff regarding proximity of power availability to parcel.
Scardina - same as Ives; see above.
Further recollection is that until the District purchased
the Donner Lake system, SPPC served the parcel(s) involved
with the asphalt plant-aggregate production, and the PUD
would have inherited electrical extension-service arrangements.
MEMO re Standby Charges
from Sutton
January 8, 1979
page 3
REVIEW OF BACK-UP INFORMATION, continued
The List Dated December 4. 1978, continued
Monroe - Parcel apparently received services prior to July 1977 and should have
been automatically dropped off list of parcels against which Standby were levied..
Webb - Should have automatically been dropped of list for 1978-79 charges.
Foggiato - Copy of. September 9, 1978 letter from County Sanitarian has been
provided to Board„ Should be scheduled for hearing on exemption request.
Entire page of Tahoe Donner parcels - Based on information shown on list received
by Board, it appears that some of these parcels never should have had. Standby
Charges levied, and. that other parcels subsequently received hookups and should
have been automatically dropped from list.
RECOMMEN DATI ONS s
'Since this is the first attempt by the District to handle the problems and
protests resulting from the Standby Charges, and since we are having to play
"catch up" on the 1977-78 problems while implementing the 1978-79 Charges, it
appears to me that the best approach now is to reorganize the material to the
Board in a manner which will facilitate its action.
These are my recommendations:
1. A separate list of problems & protests should be maintained for the 1978-79
charges, and it should not be intermingled with the 1977-78 list.
2. The Board should be provided with a reorganized list for 1977-78 which is
divided into three categories, according to the type of problem and the procedure
required to resolve it. The information under each category should list the
Area Number, Parcel Number, Name of Owner, the type of Standby Charge levied,
the amount of each charge, whether the appropriate service(s) is available, and
necessary facts & explanations. In the category for requested exemptions, the
information should include the Manager's recommendation on the request. There
should be a sub-total of levied fees in each category for each Standby Charge,
and totals for the levied fees in each Standby Charge at the end of the three
categories.
3. The categories should be as follows:
Groff-I - All those parcels which have been confirmed to have received
electric and/or water service between July 1, 1976. and
and July 1, 1977.
Group II - A11 those parcels which appear to have had Standby Charge levied
In error (and not related to hook-up between July 1, 1976 and
July 1, 1977).
Grou�III - All those parcels which involve special conditions, requests for
exemption, and the discretionary power of the Board.
ME140 re Standby Charges
from Sutton
January 8, 1979
page 4
RECOMMENDATIONS, continued
4. Since the Board approved a resolution implementing Standby Charges for
1977-79 with an exhibit supposedly attached which specified east: parcel by an
Identification number and by the type and amount of the levy, and since any
subsequent deletions from that list affect the total amount of money collected
or due, it would seem that Board action would be required to alter any of
these particulars.
5. The. Board should adopt a resolution which removes the Standby Charge(s)
from those parcels which are confirmed to have received service(s) between
July 1, 1976 and July 1, 1977. This is Group I, the parcels which should have
been automatically dropped off the 1977-78 list before the charges were levied
against them. The resolution should provide for reimbursement of any charges
which were paid.
6. The Board should adopt a resolution which removes the Standby Charge(s)
from those parcels which are confirmed to have had the charge levied in error
(Group II). Group II would include, I presume, the entire list of Tahoe Donner
properties contained in the December 4, 1978 list; the Kennerson parcel. if
confirmed to having been hooked up since January 1976 or prior; the Croin
parcel if located 100 feet from a water line; each Lewis paxcel which has had
prior electrical hook-up; etc. The Board's action should be a deletion of the
appropriate parcels from the Standby Charge(s) list and to correct -the erroneously
levied charges, and provide for reimbursement if applicable.
7. The Board should set for hearing those parcels where a special condition
may uas'rant an exemption, and in every instance where the owner has requested
an exemption. The following owners of parcels shown on-the November/December lists
r.� would appear to fall in this category (Group III) unless staff establishes
additional information which could shift any of them into another category:
Wolverton, Knoff*, Bezecny, Talcott, Joseph*, Jacobson, Nash, Ives, Scardina,
and Foggiato. ( parcels most likely to be shifted to another category based
on further investigation of facts)
S. The parcels in Group III should have a recommendation from the Manager as
to whether or not an exemption is justified; the Board, however, should make
its judgement on the exemption based on its evaluation of the facts and opinions
presented at the hearing and is not bound by the Manager's recommendation.
9. The parcel owners in Group III should be notified according to the Ordinance
at least ten days prior to the heaz3ng. Unless notice has already taken place,
the hearings set for January 15 should be rescheduled for February 5.
10. In the future (beginning with the 1979-80 changes), the District should
take steps to exclude all parcels which received service during the year prior
to the effective date of that year's Standby Charges. This exclusion should
take place before the list is presented for Board action levying the appropriate
charges on the specific parcels.
MEMO re Standby Charges �33
from Sutton
January 8. 1979
page 5
RECOMMENDATIONS, continued
11. I would suggest that the same ,approach to used to resolve the problems
with the 1978-79 charges; i.e., the three categories based on type of problem
and the procedure required to resolve it.
12. Since the 1978-79 Standby Charges recently went out, I would recommend that
Board action on exclusions and exemptions be planned for March or as soon as
possible thereafter;
I hope that this memo will be helpful in organizing what needs to be done in
order for the Board to take the action necessary on the 1977-78 Standby Charges.
�nc�relY.
PAT SUi'TON
copy to
Mary Chapman
Susan Craig
--
RECEIVED -
°�®�re--�
JAN � 1979 WILLIAM C. 13RANCli
I re—urer
December 29, 1978
Truckee Public Utility District
P. O.Box 38
Truckee, California 95734
Gentlemen:
We are enclosing a cheek in the amount of $102,415.43 which represents a r
refund to you, as a resale customer of Sierra Pacific Power Company, based on
the following, circumstances:
1. Sierra Pacific has received refunds from its energy suppliers which
we are passing along to our customers. Such supplier refunds were received
j from Southwest Gas Corporation, Utah Power. & Light Company, Pacific Gas and
Electric Company and Southern California Edison as a result of rate case
settlements and/or decisions rendered by FERC.
is
2. In the course of preparing for our most recent FERC rate increase .filing s,
(Docket No. ER79-85, November 30, 1978) , we reviewed and audited our actual
billings to resale customers for the years 1976, 1977 and 1978. As a result
of such review and audit-., it was found that our fuel clause had been mis-
interpreted during certain months in which economy energy sales had been
made to Pacific Gas and Electric Company and Utah Power & Light Company. We
fhave, therefore, revised the fuel clause adjustment factors in these months
and calculated the resulting refunds, including interest at the FERC authorized
9% annual rate.
A copy of our work.paper.s supporting the refunds is enclosed for your infor-
mation.
I£ you have any questions relating to the foregoing, please contact Mr,.
Jack McElwee, Manager. of. Rates and. Regulation for Sierra Pacific.
Very truly yours,
William C. Branch
M
WCB:ed 4
Enclosures
a
P. 0. BOX 10100/REND, NEVADA 89510/TELEPHONE 702/789-4537 =Pry-
` f
i
ho
_.:
76
Lit Z4,to l
y
1
tt i t
r
I _ I
hill:
' -
1
� J I f
� f
I
r
t
to S J . cAl
y
! t I !
31 nl I
'y�:j c :1i c�1�.f� f-f.; .1 ...l,. y t. 1� `�� i� Y c.; > ..:5 �'lT ctl.{ -�.• j
, J
•
!] Cam, r- < fr_ r• f 1 t r f i; >c C,,�a
r
v ; '