Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
AP 05-05-11
SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT REGULAR BOARD MEETING AGENDA Chris Cefalu, Director b. Pg. 47 (Rise /Cefalu) Thursday, May 5, 2011 2:00 P.M. District Board Room 1275 Meadow Crest Drive, South Lake Tahoe, California Richard Solbri. , General Mana • er GO'n Li Dale Rise, President Paul Sciuto, Assistant General Mana • er Mary Lou Mosbacher, Vice President BOARD MEMBERS i I 1 James R. Jones, Director Eric W. Schafer, Director ALL TO ORDER REGULAR MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (This is an opportunity for members of the public to address the Board on short non - agenda items that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the District. Five minu Jimit. No action can be taken on matters not listed on the agenda.) CORRECTIONS TO THE AGENDA OR CONSENT CALENDAR ADOPTION OF CONSENT CALENDAR (Any item can be removed to be discussed and considered separately upon request. Comments and questions from members of the public, staff or Board can be taken when the comment does not necessitate separate action.) CONSENT ITEMS BROUGHT FORWARD FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION / ACTION . ITEMS FOR BOARD ACTION a. Grizzly Mountain Booster Station Pg. 43 (John Thiel) Legal Service Providers REQUESTED BOARD ACTION (1) Hold a Public Meeting to Receive any Comments on the Initial Study and Initial Environmental Checklist; (2) Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; (3) Approve the Project for Implementation; and (4) Authorize the Filling of a Notice of Determination with the State Clearinghouse and El Dorado County (1) Discuss the Report Regarding Legal Services; (2) Determine Whether the District Should Consider Solicitation of a Request for Proposal; and (3) Direct Staff Accordingly -3J31. 7. 9. REGULAR BOARD MEETING AGENDA - MAY 5, 2011 PAGE - 2 • c. Payment of Claims Approve Payment in the Amount of Pg. 59 $1,416,290.85 BOARD MEMBER STANDING COMMITTEE REPORTS (Discussions may take place; however, no action will be taken) a. Water & Wastewater Operations Committee (Jones / Rise) EL DORADO COUNTY WATER AGENCY PURVEYOR REPRESENTATIVES REPORT BOARD MEMBER REPORTS (Discussions may take place; however, no action will be taken.) GENERAL MANAGER REPORT(S) (Discussions may take place; however, no action will be taken.) w STAFF / ATTORNEY REPORT(S) (Discussions may take place; however, no action will be taken.) a. Water Meters (Paul Sciuto) 12. NOTICE OF PAST AND FUTURE MEETINGS / EVENTS Past Meetings / Events 04/27/11 - 04/29/11 - CASA (California Association of Sanitation Agencies) Conference 04/27/11 - ECC (Employee Communications Committee) Meeting 05/02/11 - Water and Wastewater Operations Committee Meeting 05/03/11 - 05/04/11 - CSDA (California Special Districts Association) Conference 05/04/11 - El Dorado County Water Agency Board Meeting 05/05/11 - Board Workshop Future Meetings / Events 05/05/11 - 6:00 p.m. - Public Budget Meeting 05/10/11 - 05/13/11 - ACWA (Association of California Water Agencies) Conference in Sac. 05/16/11 - 3:30 p.m. - Water and Wastewater Operations Committee Meeting at District 05/17/11 - 9:00 a.m. - Alpine County Supervisors Board Meeting in Markleeville 05/19/11 - 2:00 p.m. - STPUD Regular Board Meeting at District 05/25/11 - 8:00 a.m. - ECC (Employee Communications Committee Meeting (Director Mosbacher is Board representative 13. CLOSED SESSION (The Board will adjourn to Closed Session to discuss items identified below. Closed Session is not open to the public; however, an opportunity will be provided at this time if members of the public would like to comment on any item listed. Three minute limit.) a. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) /Conference with Legal Counsel Pg. Existing Litigation re: False Claims Act Case: United States, the States of California, 75 Delaware, Florida, Nevada, and Tennessee and the Commonwealths of Massachusetts and Virginia ex rel. John Hendrix v. J -M Manufacturing Company, Inc. and Formosa Plastics Corporation, U.S.A., Civil Action No. ED CV06- 0055 -GW, United States District Court for the Central District of California b. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) /Conference with Legal Pg. Counsel - Existing Litigation re: Los Angeles County Superior County Superior Court, 77 Case No. BC459943, State of Nevada, et al. v. J -M Manufacturing, et al. REGtH BOARD MEETING AGENDA - MAY 5, 2011 PAGE - 3 14. ACTION / REPORT ON ITEMS DISCUSSED DURING CLOSED SESSION 15. ADJOURNMENT (To the next regular meeting, May 19, 2011, 2:00 p.m.) Note: At 6:00 p.m., after this May 5 Regular Board Meeting, the Board of Directors will hold a Public Meeting at the District to gather public input on the 2011/12 Proposed Budget. No Board action will be taking place at this meeting. The final budget is expected to be adopted at the Regular Board Meeting on May 19. The South Tahoe Public Utility District Board of Directors regularly meets the first and third Thursday of each month. A complete agenda packet, including all backup information is available for review at the meeting and at the District office during the hours of 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. A recording of the meeting is retained for 30 days after minutes of the meeting have been approved. Items on this agenda are numbered for identification purposes only and will not necessarily be considered in the order in which they appear on the agenda. Designated times are for particular items only. Public Hearings will not be called to order prior to the time specified, but may occur slightly later than the specified time. Public participation is encouraged. Public comments on items appearing on the agenda will be taken at the same time the agenda items are heard; comments should be brief and directed to the specifics of the item being considered. Comments on items not on the agenda can be heard during "Comments from the Audience;" however, action cannot be taken on items not on the agenda. Please provide the Clerk of the Board with a copy of all written material presented at the meeting. Backup to any agenda item(s) not included with the Board packet will be made available when finalized at the District office, at the Board meeting, and upon request to the Clerk of the Board. The meeting location is accessible to people with disabilities. Every reasonable effort will be made to accommodate participation of the disabled in all of the District's public meetings. If particular accommodations for the disabled are needed (i.e., disability- related aids, or other services), please contact the Clerk of the Board at 530.544.6474, extension 6203, at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting. South Tahoe Public Utility District • 1274 Meadow Crest Drive • South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 Phone 530.544.6474 • Facsimile 530.541.0614 • www.stpud.us ITEMS a. MXU's and Water Meters Pg. 1 (James Cullen) b. Secondary Clarifier #1 Drive Pg. 3 (Ross Johnson) c. 2011 Filter Rehabilitation Project Pg. 17 (Julie Ryan) d. Headworks Replacement Project Phase 2 Pg. 21 (Julie Ryan) e. BMP and SEZ Restoration Project Pg. 23 (Julie Ryan) f. Headworks Phase 2 Financing Pg. 25 (Paul Hughes) g. Regular Board Meeting Minutes: Pg.35 April 7, 2011 (Kathy Sharp) CONSENT CALENDAR MAY 5, 2011 REQUESTED ACTION —End— (1) Authorize Exception to Bidding Procedures as Outlined in the Purchasing Policy for a Sole Source Purchase of Standardized Supplies; and (2) Authorized Purchase of Sensus MXU's and Meters from Western Nevada Supply in the Amount of $120,000 Including Tax and Freight (1) Authorize Exception to Bidding Procedures as Outlined in Purchasing Policy for a Sole Source Purchase, and Requirement for Compatibility with Existing Equip- ment; and (2) Approve Purchase of One Secondary Clarifier Drive from OVIVO Water Technologies, in the Amount of $46,667 Approve Change Order No. 1 to ERS Industrial Services, in the Amount of $13,669.68 Authorize Payment to the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency in the Amount of $32,019.50 for Water Quality Mitigation Fee Authorize Payment to Liberty Energy in the Amount of $30,282 for Utility Line Extension Authorize Chief Financial Officer to Execute an Engagement Letter with Bartle Wells Associates, in the Amount of $18,000 Approve Minutes South Tahoe Public Utility District TO: Board of Directors FROM: James Cullen, Inspections Supervisor MEETING DATE: May 5, 2011 ITEM - PROJECT NAME: MXU's and Water Meters 1275 Meadow Crest Drive • South Lake Tahoe • CA 96150 -7401 Phone 530 544 -6474 • Fax 530 541 -0614 • www.stpud.us BOARD AGENDA ITEM 4a REQUESTED BOARD ACTION: (1) Authorize exception to bidding procedures as outlined in the Purchasing Policy for a sole source purchase of standardized supplies; and (2) Authorize purchase of Sensus MXU's and meters from Western Nevada Supply in the amount of $120,000 including tax and freight. DISCUSSION: Staff would like to purchase a total of 330 water meter and 300 Mobile Reading Units ( MXU's) to replace outdated devices currently in use in the field. To ensure that all parts will perform with the District's electronic meter reading system, the District only purchases MXU's manufactured by Sensus (as authorized by the Board on May 21, 2009). Western Nevada Supply is the sole source supplier for Sensus in this area. The District is also eligible to participate in the HGAC Cooperative Purchasing Program, which completed a public bidding process for meters & parts. The program is available to government agencies nationally, and Sensus was one of the manufacturers awarded a contract; however, staff compared prices and Western Nevada was 25% less. This item has been reviewed by the District's purchasing agent. SCHEDULE: As soon as possible COSTS: $120,000 (includes tax and freight) ACCOUNT NO: 2038 -6045 and 2038 -8244 BUDGETED AMOUNT REMAINING: $115,000; $55,000 ATTACHMENTS: None CONCURRENCE WITH REQUESTED ACTT • CATEGORY: Water GENERAL MANAGER: YES NO CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER: YES NO -1- General Manager Rlotemd K Sobrig Directors .Chrts James i Jones Miry Lou GAo dur Dile Rise EricSchsfer South Tahoe Public Utilit District 1275 Meadow Crest Drive • South Lake Tahoe • CA 96150 -7401 Phone 530 544.6474 • Fax 530 541 -0614 • www.stpud.ue BOARD AGENDA ITEM 4b TO: Board of Directors FROM: Ross Johnson, Manager of Plant Operations MEETING DATE: May 5, 2011 ITEM - PROJECT NAME: Secondary Clarifier #1 Drive REQUESTED BOARD ACTION: (1) Authorize exception to bidding procedures as outlined in the Purchasing Policy for a sole source purchase, and requirement for compatibility with existing equipment; and (2) Approve purchase of one secondary clarifier drive from OVIVO Water Technologies, in the amount of $46,667. DISCUSSION: The Secondary Clarifier #1 drive unit is more than 35 years old and needs to be replaced. There is only one reasonable replacement option from a single manufacturer, OVIVO, formally EIMCO (see attachment) the C4OHT drive unit. This item has been reviewed by the District's purchasing agent. SCHEDULE: 12 -14 week lead time COSTS: $50,881.86 ACCOUNT NO: 1004 -8280 BUDGETED AMOUNT REMAINING: $50,000 ATTACHMENTS: Drive price quotes. CC*CUIMl NCE SRN �r CATEGORY: Water ODIUM MAGI: Y 11� CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER: YES NO -3- General Manager Mohair! FL Solb,ig Proctors Junes R. Jones Mary Lou Moebacher toile Rise Eric Schafer OVIVO Bringing voider t0 6Re PREPARED FOR South Tahoe WWTP South Tahoe, CA Attention: Kyle Schrauben AREA REPRESENTATIVE Coombs - Hopkins Winters, CA 95694 Dave Green (530) 795 -5066 daveg @coombshopkins.com PROJECT: C4OHT Drive Replacement & Don Oliver 48S1 Drive Unit Rebuild for 100' diameter RSR Don Clarifier Serial # 53132 PREPARED BY Ovivo USA, LLC 4255 Lake Park Blvd. — Suite 100 Salt Lake City, Utah 84120 -8201 Chad Layton Phone (801) 931 -3240 Fax (801) 931 -3090 chad.layton@ovivowater.com PROPOSAL Oliva USA, LLC 4255 Lake Past Blvd. • Suite 100 • salt Lake City, Utah 84120 -8201 USA Tel: (801)931 -3000 • Fax (801) 431 -3080 www.ovivowater c om -5- Proposal No. 04152011 — CL Proposal Date: April 15, 2011 Page 1 of 11 OVIVO Bringing miaow to We vivo In r to life !EEIMCO WATE RTECHNOLOGIES Proposal No. 04152011 — CL Proposal Date: April 15, 2011 Page 2 of 11 EIMCO Water Technologies, LLC (EWTTm) is pleased to announce that effective September 13, 2010 we have changed our name. The new name is: Ovivo USA LLC www.ovivowater.com PROPOSAL Ovivo LISA, LLC 4255 Lake Park Blvd. • Suite 100 • Salt Lake City, Utah 84120 -8201 USA Tel: (801)931 -3000 • Fax: (801) 931 -3080 www.ovivowater.com -6- OVIVO &halm water to We PROJECT SUMMARY: Ovivo USA, LLC is pleased to provide the following proposal to supply one (1) new EWTrM C4OHT drive unit as a direct replacement of existing Dorr Oliver 48S1 drive unit. This is for existing 100' diameter RSR Don Clarifier, serial #53132. Ovivo is also providing costing for a standard rebuild of existing 48S1 drive unit at our authorized rebuild center in Salt Lake City, UT. New EWTTM C4OHT drive unit: Ovivo will manufacture and supply (1) new C4OHT drive to include the following: • Basic C4OHT drive rated to match existing unit • Drive torque control unit with micro switches and actuating pin • Motor drive package (3/4 hp TEFC motor, reducer, sprockets, chain and guard) • Standard EWT paint scheme • Installation fasteners • Shim kit • Freight • Engineering • O &Mmanual • Adapter steel to mate new C4OHT drive to existing bridge, center column & drive cage • 1 year warranty • Field Service - factory trained Ovivo technician on site for (1) trip of (1) day to witness start- up, assist with check out and adjustment of the new drive and to validate the (1) year warranty Items NOT Included • No draining or cleaning of tank prior to start of installation • No finish or touch up painting • No drive lubricants • No overtime work hours or removal of old debris • No installation services Pricing for (1) new C4OHT drive unit complete as described above $ 46,787. Lead time is estimated at 14 -16 weeks Rebuild of existing Don-Oliver 48S1 drive unit to include the following: Disassembly and Iusnection • Completely disassemble drive into individual parts and components. • Steam clean and inventory all parts. • Provide an evaluation report indicating the condition of all parts and sub - components and recommendations for the scope of the rebuild. PROPOSAL °vivo USA, LLC 4255 Lake Park Blvd. • Sure 100 • Salt Lake City, Utah 84120 -8201 USA Tel: (S01)931-3000- Fax (801}931-3080 www.ovivowatercom —7— Proposal No. 04152011 — CL Proposal Date: April 15, 2011 Page 3 of 11 ovivo &Mpg water to We Pricing for pickup, rebuild & re- delivery of 48S1 drive unit as described above $ 31,052. Lead time is estimated at 6 -8 weeks. DELIVERY Standard Rebuild • Blast clean bases, main gear, housings, covers, and end cap. Machined surfaces are protected or are not blasted • Replace all wear items i.e. bearings, bearing strip liners, bearing balls, seals, gaskets, keys, retaining rings, grease fittings, gauges, piping and fasteners • Deburr and hand dress teeth of all gearing, pinions, worm gear assemblies, worms and shafts • Polish all shafts • Completely re- assemble, paint and inspect equipment. Tnemec 161 epoxy sky blue paint @ (4 mils DFT) and an SSPC -SP -6 metal prep will be applied as a standard • Replacement of drive motor, sprockets and chain • Warranty parts and workmanship for (1) year • Field Service - factory trained Ovivo technician on site for (1) trip of (1) day to witness start- up, assist with check out and adjustment of the rebuilt drive and to validate the (1) year warranty Non - Standard Rebuild items — NOT included • Replacement of gears, pinions or housings if required • Replacement of large precision bearings • Drive lubricants or special paint • New operation and maintenance manual • No overtime work hours or removal of old debris • No drive removal or installation services Drive unit must be removed and oil drained prior to pickup. Note: Price is based on a typical (standard) rebuild and does not include the replacement of major components. If any of these items are in need of replacement, they will be at additional cost to the order. Ovivo intends to ship all Products as indicated above after receipt of approved purchase order from Purchaser. However, the date of shipment of the Products represent Ovivo's best estimate, but is not guaranteed, and Ovivo shall not be liable for any damages due to late delivery. The Products shall be delivered to the delivery point or points in accordance with the delivery terms stated in this proposal. If such delivery is prevented or postponed by reason of Force Majeure, as defined in Ovivo's standard terms and conditions of sale, Ovivo shall be PROPOSAL Ovivo USA, LLC 4255 Lake Park Blvd. • Suite 100 • Salt Lake City, Utah 84120 -8201 USA Tel: (801) 931-3000 • Fax: (801)931 -3080 www.ovivowater.com -8- Proposal No. 04152011 — CL Proposal Date: April 15, 2011 Page 4 of 11 OVIVO erirging water to liFe entitled at its option to tender delivery to Purchaser at the point or points of manufacture, and in default of Purchaser's acceptance of delivery, to cause the Products to be stored at such a point or points of manufacture at Purchaser's expense. Such tender, if accepted, or such storage, shall constitute delivery for all purposes of this proposal. If shipment is postponed at request of Purchaser, or due to delay in receipt of shipping instructions, payment of the purchase price shall be due on notice from Ovivo that the Products are ready for shipment. Handling, moving, storage, insurance and other charges thereafter incurred by Ovivo with respect to the Products shall be for the account of Purchaser and shall be paid by Purchaser when invoiced. PRICING TERMS All prices quoted are in US Dollars. Prices are good for 90 days. After expiration of the pricing effective period, prices will be subject to review and adjustment. Prices quoted are FOB point of shipment, with freight included to an accessible point nearest the jobsite. Federal, state or local sales, use or other taxes are not included in the sales price. PAYMENT TERMS TAXES Proposal No. 04152011 - CL Proposal Date: April 15, 2011 Page 5 of 11 Payment terms are: One hundred percent (100 %) payment due within thirty (30) days after Purchaser's receipt of invoice. Credit is subject to acceptance by the Ovivo Credit Department. Purchaser shall remit payment for proper invoices received from Ovivo in accordance with the payment terms stated above even if the Purchaser has not been paid by the Purchaser's customer (the "Owner"), if Purchaser is not the end -user of the Products. Payments are due within thirty (30) days after Purchaser's receipt of invoice. Overdue and unpaid invoices are subject to a service charge of 2% per month until paid If Purchaser requests or causes cancellation, suspension or delay of Ovivo's work, Purchaser shall accept transfer of title and pay Ovivo all appropriate charges incurred up to date of such event plus Ovivo's overhead and reasonable profit. Additionally, all charges related to and risks incidental to storage, disposition and/or resumption of work shall be borne solely by Purchaser. Full payment for all work shall be due and payable thirty (30) days from the date work is placed into storage. Federal, State or local sales, use or other taxes are not included in the sales price. Such taxes, if applicable, shall be for Purchaser's account. BACKCHARGES In no event shall Purchaser /Owner do or cause to be done any work, purchase any services or material or incur any expense for the account of Ovivo, nor shall Ovivo be responsible for such PROPOSAL Ovivo USA, LIE 4255 Lake Park Blvd. • Suite 100 • Salt Lake City, Utah 84120-8201 USA Tel: (801)931-3000• Fax: (801)931 -3080 www.ovivowtees.com -9- OVIVO Bettigirtg water to life work or expenses, until after Purchaser /Owner has provided Ovivo's PROJECT MANAGER full details (including estimate of material cost and amount and rate of labor required) of the work, services, material or expenses, and Ovivo has approved the same in writing. Ovivo will not accept Products returned by Purchaser /Owner unless Ovivo has previously accepted the return in writing and provided Purchaser /Owner with shipping instructions. In an effort to ensure all purchase orders are processed timely and efficiently, please submit all purchase order documentation to the following department and address: Attn: Order Entry Administrator Ovivo USA, LLC 4255 Lake Park Blvd., Suite 100, Salt Lake City, Utah 84120 Fax #: 801- 931 -3080 Tel. #: 801- 931 -3000 ADDITIONAL FIELD SERVICE When included and noted in the Product pricing of each proposal item, Ovivo will supply the service of a competent field representative to inspect the completed installation and adjustment of equipment, supervise initial operation, and instruct Owner's personnel in the operation and maintenance of each proposal item for the number of eight (8) hour days. Notwithstanding Ovivo's performance of the above - referenced services, Ovivo shall not be held liable for any faulty workmanship or other defects in the Products' installation, or for other goods and/or services, performed by third parties unless such goods and/or services are expressly included under Ovivo's scope of work. If additional service is required, it will be furnished to the Purchaser and billed to him at the current rate for each additional day required, plus travel and lodging expenses incurred by the service personnel during the additional service days. It shall be the Purchaser's responsibility to provide for all necessary lubrication of all equipment prior to placing equipment in operation. All equipment must be in operating condition and ready for the Field Service Engineer when called to the project location. Should the Contractor not be ready when the Field Service Engineer is requested or if additional service is requested, the Ovivo current service rates will apply for each additional day required, plus travel and lodging expenses incurred by the service personnel during the additional service days. PROPOSAL Ovivo USA, LLC 4255 Lake Park Blvd. • Suite 100 • Salt Lake City, Utah 84120 -8201 USA Tel: (801) 931 -3000 • Fax (801) 931 -3080 www.ovivowater.com - Proposal No. 04152011— CL Proposal Date: April 15, 2011 Page 6 of 11 edr� w aeer tD nFe SURFACE PREPARATION AND PAINTING GENERAL INFORMATION If painting the Products is included under Ovivo's scope of work, such Products shall be painted in accordance with Ovivo's standard practice. Shop primer paint is intended to serve only as minimal protective finish. Ovivo will not be responsible for condition of primed or finished painted surfaces after equipment leaves its shops. Purchasers are invited to inspect painting in our shops for proper preparation and application prior to shipment. Ovivo assumes no responsibility for field service preparation or touch -up of shipping damage to paint. Painting of fasteners and other touch- up to painted surfaces will be by Purchaser's painting contractor after mechanism erection. Clarifier motors, gear motors and center drives shall be cleaned and painted with manufacturer's standard primer paint only. It is our intention to ship major steel components as soon as fabricated, often before drives, motors and other manufactured components. Unless you can insure that shop primed steel shall be field painted within thirty (30) days after arrival at the jobsite, we encourage you to purchase these components in the bare metal (no surface prep or primer) condition. Ovivo cannot accept responsibility for rusting or deterioration of shop applied prime coatings on delivered equipment if the primed surfaces have not been field painted within thirty (30) days of arrival at the jobsite using manufacturers' standard primers. Other primers may have less durability. GENERAL ITEMS NOT INCLUDED MANUALS Proposal No. 04152011 — CL Proposal Date: April 15, 2011 Page 7 of 11 Unless specifically and expressly included above, prices quoted by Ovivo do not include unloading, hauling, erection, installation, piping, valves, fittings, stairways, ladders, walkways, grating, wall spools, concrete, grout, sealant, dissimilar metal protection, oakum, mastic, field painting, oil or grease, electrical controls, wiring, mounting hardware, welding, weld rod, shims, leveling plates, protection against corrosion due to unprotected storage, special engineering, or overall plant or system operating instructions or any other products or services. The content of any and all installation, operation and maintenance or other manuals or documents pertaining to the Products are copyrighted and shall not be modified without the express prior written consent of Ovivo. Ovivo disclaims any liability for claims resulting from unauthorized modifications to any such manuals or other documents provided by Ovivo in connection with the Project. PROPOSAL Ovivo USA, LLC 4255 Lake Park Blvd • Suite 100 • Salt Lake City, Utah 84120 -8201 USA Tel: (801)931 -3000 • Fax (801)931 -3080 www.ovivowater.com o Bringing wale" to life WARRANTY AND CONDITIONS CONFIDENTIALITY Proposal No. 04152011 — CL Proposal Date: April 15, 2011 Page 8 of 11 Ovivo standard Terms and Conditions of Sale, QFORMEWT 0115 -02031 is attached and made an essential part of this proposal. These terms and conditions are an integral part of Ovivo's offer of Products and related services and replace and supersede any terms and conditions or warranty included in Purchaser or Owner requests for quotation or specifications and cannot be changed without written approval from an authorized representative of Ovivo. The contents of this proposal are confidential and shall be used by Purchaser and/or Owner only for the purpose of evaluating Ovivo's offer of goods and services in connection with the Project. Purchaser /Owner shall not disclose the contents of this proposal to any third party without the prior written consent of Ovivo. Attachments: Ovivo USA, LLC General Terms and Conditions, QFORMEWT 0115 -02031 Rev H Ovivo USA 2010 North American Field Service Rate Schedule PROPOSAL Ovivo USA, LLC 4255 Lake Park Blvd. • Suite 100 • Salt Lake City, Utah 84120 -8201 USA Tel: (801)931 -3000 • Fax (801) 931 -3080 www.ovivowater.com -12- t t OVIVO Bringing water to life Terms & Conditions PROPOSAL Ovivo USA, LLC 4255 Lake Pads Blvd. • Suite 100 • Salt Lake City, Utah 84120 -8201 USA Tel: (801) 431-3000 • Fax: (801) 931-3080 www.ovivowater -.com -13- Proposal No. 04152011— CL Proposal Date: April 15, 2011 Page 9 of 11 LAIMMELCS, The proposal of Orin USA. LLC ("SELLER"), a well es these tams and conditions of sale (collectively the "Apemen"), constitutes SELLER's contractual offer of goods and associated services, and PURCHASER'S acceptance of this offer is expressly limited to the tams of the Agreement The scope and tats and conditions of this Agreement represent the entire offer by SELLER and supersede all prior solicitations, discussions, agreements, sndadandiogs and representations between the parties. My scope or tarns and conditions included in PURCHASER's acceptancapurclume order that am in addition to or different from this Agreement are hereby rejected LIMIXFAX, My statements retains to the date of shipment of the Products (as defined below) represent SELLERS best estimate, but is not guaranteed. and SELLER shall not be liable for any damages due to lab delivery. The Products shag be delivered to the delivery point or points in accordance with the delivery tens stated in SELLER's proposal. If such delivery is prevented or mapcsed by reason of Force Mama (as defined below), SELLER shall be emitted at its option to tender delivery to PURCHASER at the point or points of manufacture, and in default of PURCHASER'S acceptance of delivery to arse the Products to be stored at such a point or points of manufacture at PURCHASER'S expense Such tender, if accepted, or such storage, shall constitute delivery for all pumas of this agreement If shipment is postponed at request of PURCHASER, or due to delay in receipt of shipping instruction, payment of the purchase price shall be due on notice from SELLER that the Products are ready for shipment Needling, moving, sewage, instance and other chaps thereafter incurred by SELLER with respect to the Products shall be for the account of PURCHASER and shall be paid by PURCHASER Mies invoiced. 1 TTIT.E AND Remf OF LOSS. SELLER shall retain the fullest right, title, and interest an the Products to the extent permitted by applicable law, including a secaity inmost is the Pro until the full purchase price has been paid to SELLER. The giving and accepting of drafts, notes ad/or trade acceptances to evidence the payments due shall not constitute as be construed as payment so as to pass SELLER's telaerab until said drafts, notes and/or trade acceptances are paid in full Risk of loss shall pass to PURCHASER at the delivery point. LithYMBNUES111, SELLER reserves the right to ship the Products and be paid for such on a pro rata basis, as shipped. If payments are not made by the due date, interest at a rate of two percent (2%) per month, calculated daily, shall apply from the due date far payment PURCHASER is liable to pay SELLER'S legal fees and all other exposes in respect of enforcing or attempting to enforce any of SELLER'S rights relating to a breach orthraaseed breach of the paynaat tams by PURCHASER.. S TAXI Unless otherwise specifically provided in SELLER's quotation/proposal; PURCHASER shall pay and/or reimbuese SELLER, in addition to the prig, for all sales, use and other taxer, excises end charges which SELLER may pay or be required to pay to any gummed directly or indirectly in connection with the production, sale, transportation, and/or use by SELLER or PURCHASER, of any of the Prologs or serials dealt with herein (whether the same may be replied as personal or real property). PURCHASER agrees to pay all property and other taxes which may be levied, assessed or charged against or spin any of the Products on or after the date escort shipment, or placing into storms for PURCHASER'S account Solely for the benefit of PURCHASER, SELLER warms that new a eapment and pare manufactured by it and provided to PURCHASER (collectively, "Products") shall be free front defects in material and worlmmship. The warmly period shall be twelve (12) monde from sunup oldie equipnent not to exceed eighteen (I8) months from shipment If any of SELLER'S Products fail to amply with the foregoing mangy, SELLER shall repair or replace free of charge to PURCHASER, EX WORKS SELLER'S FACTORIES or other location that SELLER desipates, any Product or pals thereof reigned to SELLER, which exanimtion shall show to have failed under maned we and service operation by PURCHASER within the Wintry Period; provided, that if it would be impracticable for the Product or pat thereof to be returned to SELLER, SELLER will seed a representative to PURCHASER's job site to inspect the Product If it is determined after inspection that SELLER is liable wider this warranty to repair or replace the Product or pat thereof, SELLER shall bear the transportation costs of (a) retuning the Product to SELLER for inspection or sending its representative to the job site and (b) resuming the repaired or replaced Products to PURCHASER; however, if it is determined after inspection that SELLER is not liable under this waranty. PURCHASER shill pay those costs. For SELLER to be liable with respect to this womanly, PURCHASER must make its claims to SELLER with respect to this warranty in writing no later than thirty (30) days after the date PURCHASER discovers the basis for its warranty claim and in no event more than thirty (30) days after the expiration of the Warranty y Period In addition to any other limitation or disclaimer with respect to this waranty. SELLER shall have no liability with respect to any of the following: (i) failure of the Products, or damages to them, due to PURCHASER's negligence or willful misconduct dins or improper storage, imWlatias, application or ma nsenace (as specified in any monads s or written instructions that SELLER provides to the PURCHASER). (ii) any Products that have been altered or repaired in any way without SELLER'S prior written rut eriration; (iii) The cops of dismantling and reisWlation of the Products; (iv) any Products damaged while in want or otherwise by aaidet; (v) decomposition of Products by diming action, anion or corrosion or wee to Products or due to conditions of temperature, moisture and dist or (vi) dans with respect to pats that are consumable and normally replaced during mamma= such as filter media, filler drainage belts and the like, except where such pats are not performing to SELLER'S eshnsste of normal service life. in which case. SELLER shall only be liable for lie pea tam cos of replacement of those parts based on SELLER'S estimate of what the remaining service life of thou parts should have been; provided, that failure of those pats did not result from any of the mattes listed in chases (i) t (v) above With regard to third-petty parts, equipment, accessories or components not of SELIER's design, SELLER'S liability shall be United solely to the assignment of available third. party warranties. THE PARTS AGREE THAT ALL OTHER WARRANIffi, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING WARRANTIES OF FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND MMERCHANTABHITY, WHETHER WRITMPI, ORAL OR STATUTORY, ARE EXCLUDED TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMISSIBLE BY LAW. All wanting and obiptiosa of SELLER shill termini= if PURCHASER fails to perform its obligations under this Agreement including but not limited to any failure to pay any dunes due to SELLER. SELLER'S quoted pries for the Products is based upon this warranty. Any Marie in warmly obligation may be subject to an increase in price. MI noepubhic information and data furnidned to PURCHASER hereunder, including but not limited to price, size, type and design of the Products is the sole property of SELLER and submitted for PURCHASER'S own confide ial we solely in comectim with this Agreement and is not to be made known or available to any third parry without SELLER'S prior written COMM 1, PANNING, The Products shall be painted in accordance with SELLER'S standard practice, and purdeased inns such as motors, controls, speed reducers. pumps, etc., will be painted in accordance with menufares' standard practices, esslea otherwise agreed in writing When PURCHASER requests approval of drawings before commencement of mnufacl re, shipment may be delayed if approved drawings are not returned to SELLER within fourteen (14) days of receipt by PURCHASER of such drawings for approval. SELLER will finish only general aranFsmast greed assembly, and if respired, wiring diagram, erection drawings, installation and opentan-miutma ce me m= for SELLER'S equipment (in English language). SELLER will supply six (6) complete sets of drawings and operating instructions. Addilaal sets will hoped for by PURCHASER. F.learonie filed, if requested from SELLER, will be provided in peg jpg or 4!fotmet only. ti SET OFF. This Agreement shall be co pletdy independent of all other attracts between the patios and all laymen due to SELLER hereunder shall be paid when due and shalt not be setoff or applied against any money due or clamed to be due front SELLER to PURCHASER on account of any other transaction or daim IL SOFTW4 & PURCHASER shall have a nanecdmive and ne atraeferable license to use any infamatan processing program supplied by SELLER with the Products. PURCHASER acknowledges that such propms and the infoomion contained therein is Confdemdal Information and agrees: a) not to copy or duplicate the program except for archival or security purposes: b) not to use the program on any c mpu ter other than the computer with which it is supplied; end d to tint access to the program to those of its employees who are necessary to pant aihoeized use of the program PURCHASER agrees to execute and be bound by the tams of any software ices applicable to the Products supplied SELLER will defend at its own expanse any suit instituted against PURCHASER based upon .aims that SELLER's Product hereunder in and of itself create= an ofhugmmt of a ny valid appalling claims of any United Stns part issued and existing as of the date of Ills Agreement if notified promptly in writing and given all aromatics, assistance, and solo muttony *defend and settle the same, and SELLER shall indamify the PURCHASER against such claims of isfminjaont Furthermore. in case the use of the Products is enjoined in such suit a is an SELLER otherwise deans it advisable, SELLER shall, at its owe expense and duration, (a) procure for the PURCHASER the right to essinue using the Products, (b) replace the same with now-infringing Products, (c) modify the Product so it becomes non- infinging, or (d) remove the Produce and refund the purchase price less freight charges and depreciation. SELLER shall not be iakle for. and PURCHASER shall iademity SELLER for any claim of infringement related to (a) the me of the Products for any ptpose other than that for which it was furnished by SELLER, (b) compliance with equipment designs not thrashed by SELLER or (c) aloof the Products in combination with any ether equipment The foregoing states the sole liabiity of SELLER for palest infringement with respect to the Products j3. GENERAL INDEMNITY, Subject to the rights, obligations and limitaiom of liabilities of the parties set forth in this Agreement, PURCHASER shall protect and isdannit SELLER its Mende paan, its dimes parad's subsidiaries and each of their impactive officers, iredae, employee and agents, from and against all claims, demands and causes of action asserted by any amity to the extent of PURCHASER's negligence or willful misconduct in comedian with this Agreement apilislailialdtialeri In the event that PURCHASER becomes insolvent, Commits an act of bankruptcy or defaults in the performance of any tam or condition of this Agreement. the pore unpaid portion of the purchase price shall, without notice or demand, become immediately due and payable. SELLER at its option, without notice or demand, shall be entitled to sue for said balance and for reasonable legal fees, plus out-of -pocket expenses and interim and/or to enter any place where the Products are located and to take immediate possession of and remove the Produce, with or without legal process; and/or retain all payments mode as compensation for the use of the Products: and/or reset the Produce, without notice or demand, for and on behalf of the PURCHASER, and to apply the net proceeds front such sale (after deduction from the sale price of all expenses of suds sale and all expenses of retaking possession, repairs necessary to put the Products in saleable condition, storage charges. rote, ime, collection and legal fees and all other expenses in connection therewith) to the balance then due to SELLER for the Products and to receive Son the PURCHASER the deficiency between such net proceeds of sale Ind such balance. PURCHASER hereby waives all nmprs, damage and claims resulting from any such entry, repossession, removal, retention. repair. she stion and sale The remedies provided m this paragraph are in addition to and not limitations of any other rights of SELLER tar_ CANCE,' AIIOPL PURCHASER may terminate this Agreement for convenience upon giving SELLER thirty (30) days prior written notice of such fact and paying SELLER for all costs and expenses (including overheat incurred by it in performing its work and dosing out the same plus a reasonable profit thereon. All such costs and expenses shall be paid to SELLER within ten (10) days of the termination of the Agreement, or be subject to an additional late payment penalty of five percent (5 %) of the total amount of costs and enemas owed. 14,,E The rights and roadies of the PURCHASER in connection with the goods and services provided by SELLER hereunder are exdmive ad limited to the rights and remedies expressly stated in this Agreement 12,,1131201121, PURCHASER is entitled to make reasonable impection of Products at SELLER's facility. SELLER reserves the right to determine the reasonableness of the request aid to select an app opiate time for such inspection. All costs of inspections not expressly included as an itemized part of to quoted price of the Products in this Apeman shall be paid by PURCHASER WAWRs Any failure by SELLER to enforce PURCHASER's strict performance of any provision of this Agreement will not constitute a waiver of its right to subsequently enforce sudi Provision or any other provision oldie Agreement OVIVO Bringing water to life Terms & Conditions j9. COMPLIANCE WITH LAW& If applicable laws, ordinances, regulations or conditions require anything different from, or in addition to, that called for by this Agreemnt, SELLER will such requirements at PURCHASERS written request and expense. 3S. FORCE MA.HSIRR, If SELLER is rendered unable, wholly or in material past, by reason of Force Majeuro to curry out any of its obligations hereunder, then on SELLER's notice in writing to PURCHASER with a rascnable time after die occurrence of the cause relied upon, such obligations shall be suspended_ "Force Mrjere" shalt include, but not be limited to, act of God, laws and regulations, strikes, civil disobedience or west, lightning, fire, flood, washout, storm, communication lines failure, delays of the PURCHASER or PURCHASER's subcontractors, breakage or accident to equipment or machinery, was, police actions, terrorism, embargo., and any other causes that are not reasonably within the control of the SELLER. If the delay is the resat of PURCHASER'S action or inati on, then in addition ton adjustment in time, SELLER shall be entitled to reimbursement en of casts incurred to maintain its sdwdtde. It is expressly understood that SELLER is as independent ecatraetor, and that neither SELLER nor its ea, or subarsaems are servants, agents, partners, joint va ur es or employees of PURCHASER in any Pria+P�• P+� parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, employees 32. SEVFRABI ITY, Should any portion of this a way whatsoever. Agreement, be hold to be invalid or unenforceable under applicable law the the validity of the remaining portions thereof shall not be affected by such invalidity or usastbroeability and shall remain in full force and effect. Furthermore, any invalid or unenforceable orceable provision shall be modified ifed accordingly within the confines of a taw, pennirdblo effect lo the p nes'mMneesepmaadMws +PPh� giving w 33. CHOICEOF LAW, CHOICE OP VENUE. This Agreement shall be governed and construed in accordance with the taws of the State of Utah, without regard to its rules regarding conflicts a choice of law. The parties submit to the jurisdiction and venue of the state and federal courts located in Salt Lake City, Utah. 34. ASSIGNMENT, PURCHASER shall not assign or transfer this Agrenant without the prior written consent of the SELLER. Any attempt to make such an assignment or transfer shall be null and void. SELLER shall have the authority I. assign, or otherwise transfer, its rights and Obligations in connection with this Agreement, in whole or in pet, upon prior written notice to PURCHASER jx tiarrrxrior4 ON LIABILITY TO THE EXTENT PERMISSIBLE BY LAW, SELLER SHALL HAVE NO FURTHER LIABILITY IN CONNECTION WITH THIS AGREEMENT IN EXCESS OF THE COST OF CORRECTING ANY DEFECTS, OR IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DEFECT, IN EXCESS OF THE VALUE OF THE PRODUCTS SOLD HEREUNDER NOTWITHSTANDING ANY LIABILITIES OR RESPONSIBILITIES ASSUMED BY SELLER HEREUNDER, SELLER SHALL IN NO EVENT BE RESPONSIBLE TO PURCHASER OR ANY THIRD PARTY, WHETHER ARISING UNDER CONTRACT, TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE), STRICT UABHITY, OR OTHERWISE, FOR LASS OF ANTICIPATED PROFITS, LOSS BY REASON OF PLANT SHUTDOWN, NON-OPERATION OR INCREASED EXPENSE OF OPERATION, SERVICE IPIERRUFI1ONS, COST OF PURCHASED OR REPLACEMENT POWER, COST OF MONEY, LOSS OF USE OF CAPITAL OR REVENUE OR ANY OTHER INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, PUNITIVE, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL LOSS OR DAMAGE, WHETHER ARISING FROM DEFECTS, DELAY, OR FROM ANY OTHER CAUSE WHATSOEVER. REVLSIONAim - MARCH 3, 2009 PROPOSAL Ovlve USA, LLC 4255 Lake Park Blvd. • Suite 100 • Salt Lake City, Utah 84120 -8201 USA Tel: (801)931 -3000• Fax: (801)931 -3080 www.ovivewata --.com -14- r Proposal No. 04152011— CL Proposal Date: April 15, 2011 Page 10 of 11 Standard (Travel) I Daily Rate (8 hour day) $ 1,000.00 Hourly Rate (4 hour minimum) $ 125.00 Standard (Labor) I Daily Rate (8 hour day) $1,000.00 Hourly Rate (4 hour minimum) $ 125.00 Saturday I Daily Rate (8 hour day) $ 1,500.00 Hourly Rate (4 hour minimum) $ 187.50 Sundays/Holidays * I Daily Rate (8 hour day) $ 2,000.00 Hourly Rate (4 hour minimum) $ 250.00 Overtime ** I Hourly Rate - Standard Day $ 187.50 Hourly Rate - Weekends & Holidays $ 250.00 S °VIVO firtnetrig water to life Terms & Conditions NORTH AMERICAN FIELD SERVICE RATE SHEET Effective January 2010 Proposal No. 04152011— CL Proposal Date: April 15, 2011 Page 11 of 11 * Except Christmas Day and New Years Day ** For all hours worked over eight (8) hours per day UNLESS OTHERWISE ARRANGED; EXPENSES ARE CHARGED AT ACTUAL COST PLUS 10% Please Note: • All of the rates provided are portal to portal. In addition, travel and living expenses will be invoiced at actual cost PLUS 10 % and documentation will be provided for these expenses. ff a fixed Per Diem rate is required, it will be charged at $200.00 per day (lodging and meals) with the exception of the East Coast where the price will be $250.00). Travel on Saturday, Sunday or Holidays, and after 8 hours per day will be billed at the overtime rate. • Use of Ovivo Fleet vehicles for travel will be charged at the rate of $0.50 per mite. PROPOSAL Ovtvo USA, LLC 4255 Lake Padc Blvd. • Suite 100 • Salt Lake City, Utah 841204201 USA Tel: (801)931 -3000 • Fax (801)931 -3080 www.ovivowater -.com South Tahoe Pubic Utility District 1275 Meadow Crest Drive • South Lake Tahoe • CA 961504401 Phone 530 544 -6474 • Fax 530 541-0614 • www stpud.us BOARD AGENDA ITEM 4c TO: Board of Directors FROM: Julie Ryan, Senior Engineer MEETING DATE: May 5, 2011 ITEM - PROJECT NAME: 201 Filter Rehabilitation Project REQUESTED BOARD ACTION: Approve Change Order No. 1 to ERS Industrial Services, in the amount $13,669.68. DISCUSSION: Change Order No. 1 addresses four work items that are beyond the scope of the contract, one credit for eliminated work, and a change to the contract time. 1. Staff recommends that the Contract Time be extended by 19 days to account for delays in processing submittals for valves and actuators, which are critical path items. 2. Staff recommends that the Human Machine Interface be eliminated from the contract and replaced with a District- supplied PC, for a savings to the District in the amount <$4,776.00. 3. The submittal for the filter surface wash system recommends that potable water be used for surface wash at a max pressure of 60 psi. Because the District uses non - potable water from a system that operates at around 100 psi, staff directed ERS to install a screen, a pressure reducing valve, and a flow meter on the surface wash header, for an additional cost to the District in the amount $12,078.67. 4. During the review of the valve actuator submittals, staff requested that lockout mechanisms be added so that the valves and piping can be worked on safely without shutting down pneumatic control of the entire filter system. These lockouts will be added to the pneumatic piping of more than 30 valves in the filter gallery for an additional cost of $1,012.19. 5. ERS will be installing two 12" valves in the PRV vault at Meadow Crest Drive. Because this application may become submerged, staff recommends that the actuators be upgraded for an incremental cost to the District in the amount $1,345.79. General Msmalter Richard H. Solbrig Directors .avisCsfalu James R.Jones Mary l ou MAoebadhar Dile Kiss Eric Schafer Julie Ryan May 5, 2011 Page 2 6. During surface preparation of the vessel interiors, the District's inspector discovered excessive pitting from corrosion on the vessel wall. To address this unknown condition, the interior coating system and application method was modified, resulting in an additional cost to the District in the amount $4,009.03. SCHEDULE: As soon as possible COSTS: $13,669.68 ACCOUNT NO: 1029 - 8066 /FILTER BUDGETED AMOUNT REMAINING: $ ATTACHMENTS: Change Order No. 1 CONCURRENCE WITH REQUESTED ACTIO : CATEGORY: Sewer GENERAL MANAGER: YES t NO CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER: YES -18- CHANGE ORDER NUMBER 1 Project 2011 Filter Rehabilitation Proiect Contractor ERS Industrial Services Date: May 5 201 PO # P23344 The Contract Shall Be Changed As Follows: A. Change the Contract Time, identified in Section 007200, Part 2.04, of the Contract Specifications, from one hundred thirty (130) days to one hundred forty nine (149) days as described in detail in Design Construction Memorandum #6, dated February 25, 2011. This is a no -cost change, with a net difference in cost for this item of $0. TOTAL FOR ITEM A IS $0.00 TOTAL FOR CHANGE ORDER NUMBER 1 IS A +B +C +D +E +F= $13,669.68 Original Contract Previous Change Order Current Contract THIS CHANGE ORDER New Contract Total $849,526.60 $0.00 $849,526.60 $13,669.68 $863,196.28 130 Calendar Days 130 Calendar Days 19 Calendar Days 149 Calendar Days Contractor agrees to make the herein- described changes in accordance with the terms hereof. The change in contract price and/or contract time noted is full settlement for costs incurred because of the change(s) described, unless specifically noted in individual description(s). Authorized By STPUD Board President Accepted By Contractor Reviewed By -19- Date: Date: Date: 1 B. Amend Bid Item 9 to reflect eliminating procurement of the Human Machine Interface from the Contract, as discussed in Memo #16, dated December 14, 2010. The total credit to the Contract is $4,776.00, as detailed in Contract Change Request #1, dated March 9, 2011 TOTAL FOR ITEM B IS <$4,776.00> C. Amend Bid Item 7 to include all labor, equipment, materials and subcontractor costs necessary to provide additional appurtenances on the surface wash headers, as described in Design Construction Memorandum #3, dated January 31, 2011. The additional cost for this work is $12,078.67, as detail in Contract Change Request #2, dated February 14, 2011. TOTAL FOR ITEM C IS $12,078.67 D. Amend Bid Item 7 to include all labor, equipment, materials and subcontractor costs necessary to provide lockouts at the valve actuators in the piping gallery, as described in the District comments on Submittals 43,46, 47, 48 and 49. The additional cost for this work is $1,012.19, as detail in Contract Change Request #3, dated February 14, 2011. TOTAL FOR ITEM D IS $1,012.19 E. Amend Bid Item 6 to include the incremental cost for all labor, equipment, materials and subcontractor costs necessary to provide submersible valves actuators instead of buried valve actuators defined in the Bid Documents for installation at the PRV Vault, as described in Request for Information #9, dated December 14, 2010. The additional cost for this work is $1,345.79, as detail in Contract Change Request #4, dated February 14, 2011. TOTAL FOR ITEM E IS $1,345.79 F. Amend Bid Item 4, to include all labor, equipment, materials and subcontractor costs necessary to modify the interior vessel coatings to address excessive corrosion, as required by Design Construction Memoranda #2 and 2.1, both dated January 20, 2011. The additional cost for this work is $4,009.03, as detail in Contract Change Request #5, dated February 14, 2011. TOTAL FOR ITEM F IS $4,009.03 TOTAL FOR CHANGE ORDER NUMBER 1 IS A +B +C +D +E +F= $13,669.68 -20- 2 r South Ta Public Utility District 1275 Meadow Crest Drive • South Lake Tahoe • CA 96150 -7401 Phone 530 544 -6474 • Fax 530 541 -0614 • www.stpud.us BOARD AGENDA ITEM 4d TO: Board of Directors FROM: Julie Ryan, Senior Engineer MEETING DATE: May 5, 2011 ITEM - PROJECT NAME: Headworks Replacement Phase 2 Project REQUESTED BOARD ACTION: Authorize payment to the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) in the amount $32,019.50 for Water Quality Mitigation Fee DISCUSSION: The District's Wastewater Treatment Plant facility is currently over- covered in the SEZ, according to TRPA regulations. With each project at the plant site, the District has the option of either: (1) removing coverage in the SEZ or (2) paying a fee to mitigate the water quality impact of the excess coverage. With each subsequent payment, the amount of coverage remaining to be mitigated is reduced. As a condition of approval of the TRPA project permit, staff recommends to pay a mitigation fee in the amount $32,019.50. This fee is in lieu of removing coverage in the SEZ, since the existing facilities within the SEZ are critical to District operations. The payment of this fee for the Headworks Project permit will mitigate 3,767 sf of excess coverage in the SEZ. Following completion of the Headworks Project, 3, 492 sf of excess coverage in the SEZ will remain to be mitigated. SCHEDULE: As soon as possible COSTS: $32,019.50 ACCOUNT NO: 1029 -8033 BUDGETED AMOUNT REMAINING: ATTACHMENTS: None CONCURRENCE WITH REQUESTED ACTIO CATEGORY: Sewer GENERAL MANAGER: YES NO CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER: YES NO —21— General Manager Mama Solbrlg Directors .Chris Cabal Jame Jones Marylou Moebedmr Chile Rae Eric South Tahoe Public Utility District 1275 Meadow Crest Dave • South Lake Tahoe • CA 96150-7401 Phone 530 544-6474 • Fax 530 541 -0614 • www.stpud.us BOARD AGENDA ITEM 4e TO: Board of Directors FROM: Julie Ryan, Senior Engineer MEETING DATE: May 5, 2011 ITEM - PROJECT NAME: BMP and SEZ Restoration Project REQUESTED BOARD ACTION: Authorize payment to Liberty Energy in the amount $30,282.00 for utility line extension. DISCUSSION: In coordination with the BMP and SEZ Restoration Project at the Cold Creek Filter Plant, Liberty Energy will be relocating the existing power service to provide an underground feed. This work is needed to remove the existing power pole from the restored SEZ area. To cover the cost of this work on the District's electrical system, Liberty Energy has requested a lump sum fee of $30,282.00, of which $22,456.00 may be subject to refund over the next 10 years, depending on the energy usage of the facility. SCHEDULE: As soon as possible COSTS: $30,282.00 ACCOUNT NO: 2029 -7091 /DEMOFP BUDGETED AMOUNT REMAINING: ATTACHMENTS: None CONCURRENCE WITH REQUESTED ACTI GENERAL MANAGER: YES CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER: YES -23- NO NO CATEGORY: Water General Manager Rioluud H. Solbrig Directors James R. Jones Maly Lou Mosbachar Dale Rios Eric Solutfur South Ta Public Utility District 1275 Meadow Crest Drive • South Lake Tahoe • CA 96150 -7401 Phone 530 544 -6474 • Fax 530 541 - 0614 • www.stpud.us BOARD AGENDA ITEM 4f TO: Board of Directors FROM: Paul Hughes, Chief Financial Officer MEETING DATE: May 5, 2011 ITEM - PROJECT NAME: Headworks Phase II Financing REQUESTED BOARD ACTION: Authorize Chief Financial Officer to execute an engagement letter with Bartle Wells Associates, in the amount of $18,000. DISCUSSION: The proposed fiscal year 2011/12 budget includes a $6 million borrowing for the Headworks project, which has an estimated cost of completion of $8.1 - $9.1 million including contingencies. The budget assumed a loan term of twenty -five years with an estimated 5.5% interest rate, creating annual debt service payments of approximately $447,000. Staff evaluated securing the funds through a bond issuance utilizing the California Special Districts Association Financing Authority, and a competitively bid bank loan utilizing Bartle Wells Associates as a financial advisor. See attached analysis. Due to the size of the borrowing, the cost of a bond issuance and the associated interest rate is not cost effective. If the District was able'to participate in a large pooled bond issue, the issuance costs could be shared among multiple parties, and the interest rate of a larger issue would most likely be lower. Utilizing Bartle Wells Associates as a financial advisor, working directly with interested financial institutions to achieve individual loan bids, is the most cost effective approach for a borrowing this size. The District has positive past experience with Bartle Wells Associates and staff is confident in their ability to complete this transaction in a timely, cost effective manner. General Manager Riehant It Soling anpetcrm ,CMsCeralu James R. Jones Mary Lou AAeebadrer flee rise Eric Schafer Paul Hughes May 5, 2011 Page 2 SCHEDULE: Borrowing to close approximately July 1, 2011. COSTS: Issuance costs of approximately $60,000 will be part of the borrowing and expensed over the term of the loan. ACCOUNT NO: BUDGETED AMOUNT REMAINING: ATTACHMENTS: Bartle Wells Associates Engagement Letter; Financing Alternatives Analyses CONCURRENCE WITH REQUESTED ACTIO : GENERAL MANAGER: YES NO CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER: YES NO -26- CATEGORY: Sewer a STPUO HEADWORKS REPLACEMENT PROJECT - PHASE II, FINANCING OPTIONS ANALYSIS BID AWARD AMOUNT $8.1 MILLION ESTIMATED TOTAL PROJECT COST INCLUDING CONTINGENCY - $8.9 - $9.1 MILLION AMOUNT FUNDED WITH DEBT $6.0 MILLION ASSUMED TERMS INCLUDED IN THE 2011/12 PROPOSED BUDGET: 25 YEARS @ 5.5% ANNUAL PAYMENT $ 447,300 TOTAL PAYMENTS $ 11,182,400 FINANCING OPTIONS: BOND SALE THROUGH CSDA FINANCE CORPORATION COMPETITIVELY BID BANK LOAN UTILIZING BARTEL WELLS & ASSOCIATES AS THE FINANCIAL ADVISOR BOND SALE TERMS: TERM 26 YEARS • ISSUANCE COSTS $ 237,000 RATE (APPROX) 5.80% ANNUAL PAYMENT $ 459,486.00 TOTAL PAYMENTS $ 11,716,906 DIRECT BANK LOAN TERMS: TERM 20 YEARS ISSUANCE COSTS $ 60,000 Estimated based on last direct bank loan RATE (APPROX) 5% ANNUAL PAYMENT $ 481,500 TOTAL PAYMENTS $ 9,630,000 RESULTS: ALTHOUGH THE ANNUAL PAYMENT OF THE BOND SALE IS $22,000 LESS THAN THE DIRECT BANK LOAN, THE TOTAL PAYMENTS OF THE DIRECT LOAN ARE MORE THAN $2 MILLION LESS THAN THE BOND SALE DUE TO THE SHORTER BORROWING TERM, ACHIEVING SIGNIFICANT LONG TERM SAVINGS TO THE DISTRICT'S CUSTOMERS. BARTLE WELLS ASSOCIATES INDEPENDENT PUBLIC FINANCE ADVISORS April 19, 2011 South Tahoe Public Utility District 1275 Meadow Crest Drive South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 Attention: Paul Hughes, Chief Financial Officer Subject: Sewer Financing 1889 Alcatraz Avenue Berkeley, CA 94703 510 653 3399 fax: 510 653 3769 e - mail: rschmidtObartlewells.com In response to South Tahoe Public Utility District's request, Bartle Wells Associates is pleased to submit this engagement letter to serve as financial advisor on the District's proposed $6.0 million financing of a sewer capital project. BWA has worked on water and sewer financial plans for the District and served as the District's financial advisor on several water and sewer borrowings. As independent financial advisors, Bartle Wells Associates does not represent any bank, underwriter, or other lender. We solely represent the interest of our public agency clients throughout the debt issuance process. We have found that competitive sales generate the lowest interest rates and lowest cost financings (other than subsidized grant and loan programs). Scope of Services Based on the District's financing needs, BWA believes that a competitively bid bank loan or private placement would likely be the lowest -cost financing alternative. Working in cooperation with District staff, BWA will perform the following services in connection with the sewer financing. 1. Project Orientation To initiate our work, hold a telephone conference with District staff to accomplish the following: • Identify members of the District's staff and others who will participate in the project. • Determine the roles and responsibilities of all project participants. • Establish project schedule and key milestone dates. • Confirm the key goals and expectations of the project team. • Compile financial information necessary to complete the financing. • Discuss District's current 10 -year financial plan for the sewer enterprise. i Paul Hughes, South Tahoe Public Utility District April 19, 2011 Page 2 2. Confirm Financing Method Work with the District's Chief Finance Officer to identify financing priorities and objectives. Confirm that a competitively bid bank loan is the preferable financing method in terms of interest rate, flexibility, and terms and conditions. 3. Determine Financing Structure and Terms Recommend a financing structure and term based on the District's financial objectives. Identify debt prepayment options and other legal provisions to maximize the District's future financial flexibility. 4. Solicit Bids Via a Competitive Sale Process Establish bid requirements, provide information to potential bidders, and solicit bids from prospective banks and lenders. 5. Evaluate Bids and Selection of Wining Lender Evaluate the bids received including any loan provisions or legal requirements submitted by each bidder. Account for all costs associated with each financing — including any required loan fees or legal fees — as well as the loan provisions required by each lender. Advise District staff in selecting the most favorable and lowest cost bid. 6. Coordinate Financing Team As needed, assist District in hiring a bond counsel to prepare or review financial agreements and/or issue a legal opinion regarding the tax- exempt status of the debt. (Banks and other lenders have varying documentation requirements; some have standardized legal documents that the District might be able to use. The District may need to hire a bond counsel to draft the loan agreement.) 7. Legal Documentation and Closing Work with the winning lender and/or bond counsel to develop flexible, reasonable, and favorable legal provisions. Review the legal documents used to secure the financing. Participate on the District's behalf in negotiations with winning bidder regarding final legal covenants and requirements. Work with the winning bidder to arrange the closing of the financing and help coordinate the District's receipt of funds, as needed. Additional Services BWA will remain available to provide additional financial consulting services as requested by the District. Paul Hughes, South Tahoe Public Utility District April 19, 2011 Page 3 BWA Staff BWA will assign Reed V. Schmidt, a principal consultant, and Alex Handlers, a principal consultant, to the consulting project. Reed and Alex have worked with the District on many occasions since 1993. They are very familiar with the District's finances. Availability and Fees 1. BWA is prepared to begin work upon your authorization to proceed. BWA anticipates that it will take no more than three months to complete the financing after receiving the notice to proceed. 2. All work will be performed by Bartle Wells Associates. 3. For the services stated above, the financial advisory fee is $18,000 including direct expenses, in accordance with the attached Billing Rate Schedule 2011. The fee includes attendance at one meeting with District staff and/or board, if needed. 4. In addition to the services stated in this proposal, the District may authorize BWA to perform additional services for which the District will compensate BWA based on consultants' hourly rates at the time the work is performed, plus direct expenses. Additional services may include, but are not limited to: • Changes in project scope • Delays in project schedule • Attendance at meetings at District's offices • Any other services not specified 5. Bartle Wells Associates will maintain in force, during the full term of the assignment, insurance in the amounts and coverage as provided in the attached Schedule of Insurance. 6. This engagement letter may be withdrawn or amended if not accepted within 90 days of its date. 7. BWA does not require a formal contract of employment and will consider a purchase order from the Chief Financial Officer as sufficient authority to proceed. Paul Hughes, South Tahoe Public Utility District April 19, 2011 Page 4 BWA would very much like to work with the District on this engagement and hopes that this letter will constitute a suitable basis for serving the District. If this letter is acceptable to you, please countersign a copy of the engagement letter and return it to us. Very truly yours, BARTLE WELLS ASSOCIATES Reed V. Schmidt, CIPFA Principal v. sa ,3100.1/4 Alex Handlers, MPA, CIPFA Principal Bartle Wells Associates is authorized to provide the services outlined above, at the fee stated. By: Date: For: South Tahoe Public Utility District Enclosures: Billing Rate Schedule 2011 Insurance Schedule Z:BPmposals15oi*h Tahoe PU0V011 -Apr1 Sew FlnandmAfflaw Flnandng BWA Engagement Ltr.doc BARTLE WELLS ASSOCIATES BILLING RATE SCHEDULE 2011 Rates Effective 1/1 /2011 Professional Services Financial Analyst I $95 per hour Financial Analyst II $125 per hour Senior Financial Analyst $165 per hour Senior Consultant $195 per hour Principal Consultant $225 per hour The professional time rates include all overhead and indirect costs. Bartle Wells Associates does not charge for secretarial support services and internal computer time. Expert witness, legal testimony or other special limited assignment will be billed at one and one -half times the consultant's hourly rate. The above rates will be in effect through December 31, 2011 at which time they will be subject to change Direct Expenses Subconsultants will be billed at cost plus ten percent. Word processing and computer - assisted services related to official statement production are charged as direct expenses at $60 per hour. Other reimbursable direct expenses incurred on behalf of the agency will be billed at cost plus ten percent. These reimbursable costs include, but are not limited to: • Travel, meals, lodging • Long distance telephone and fax • Printing and report binding • Special statistical analysis • Outside computer services • Bond ratings Insurance Bartle Wells Associates maintains insurance in the amounts and coverage as provided in the attached schedule of insurance. Additional or special insurance, licensing, or permit requirements beyond what is shown on the schedule of insurance are billed in addition to the contract amount. Payment Fees will be billed monthly for the preceding month, and will be payable within 30 days of the date of the invoice. A late charge of 1.0 percent per month may be applied to balances unpaid after 60 days. • Automobile mileage • Messenger services and mailing costs • Photocopying • Graphic design and photography • Special legal services • Legal advertisements TYPE OF INSURANCE COMPANY POLICY NUMBER COVERAGES AND LIMITS EXP. DATE Commercial General Liability Hartford Insurance Company Policy #35 -SBA PA6857 • $2,000,000 General Aggregate • $2,000,000 Products Comp /Op Aggregate • $1,000,000 Personal & Advertising Injury • $1,000,000 Each Occurrence 6/1/11 Automobile Liability Hartford Insurance Company Policy #35 -UEC VU2842 • $1,000,000 Combined Single Limit 6/1/11 Workers Compensation & Employers' Liability Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company Policy #35 -WEC FG7858 Workers' Compensation: Statutory Limits for the State of California. Employers' Liability: • Bodily Injury by Accident - $1,000,000 each accident • Bodily Injury by Disease - $1,000,000 each employee • Bodily Injury by Disease - $1,000,000 policy limit 6/1/11 Professional Liability Chubb & Son, Inc. BIND094045 Solely in the performance of services as municipal financing consultants for others for a fee. Limit: $2,000,000 Per Occurrence & Aggregate (including defense costs, charges, and expenses) 6/1/11 Insured: BARTLE WELLS ASSOCIATES SCHEDULE OF INSURANCE Bartle Wells Associates will maintain in force, during the full term of the assignment, insurance in the amounts and coverage as provided in this schedule. If additional insurance is required, and the insurer increases the premium as a result, then the amount of the increase will be added to the contract price. i Richard Solbri • , General Man • • er Dale Rise, President Chris Cefalu, Director STAFF: Sciuto, Sharp, Hughes, Ble s ' es, Cu Curtis, Cocking, Brown, �Gord oorda, C. Stanley, Thiel, Bergsohi^k,;torney ema. General Mana teleconferen SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT and So Eric Schafer led the pled t fig. Paul Sciuto, Assistant General Mana • er BOARD MEMBERS ary Lou Mosbacher, Vice President James R. Jones, Direc Eric W. Schafer, Director REGULAR MEETING OF TH D OF ' TORS SOUTH TAHOE PU ILITY DISTRI AP '' 011 MI BOARD OF DIRECTORS: h il` ROLL CALL President Rise, Directors Cefalu, Jones, GUESTS: Mike Dill /Aspe ironmental, fifer an /ESE, Shawn Koorn an • in Lorentze DR En ering, Craig Morgan, Day Dave Kurtzman complimente • e contractors who are installing the water tank at Echo View Estates for being very accommodating and informative. He also alerted the Board that water meter lids can be lifted by snowplows, garbage trucks, etc. leaving the pit exposed, which creates a safety hazard. Consent Items b. (Temporary Water Efficiency Technician), j. (Reserve Policy) and I. (Board Policy 2140) were brought forward for discussion prior to Board action. -35- PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE CORRECTIONS TO THE AGENDA OR CONSENT CALENDAR REGULAR BOARD MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 7, 2011 Moved Mosbacher / Second Cefalu / Passed Unanimously CONSENT CALENDAR to approve the Consent Calendar as amended: a. Temporary Help for Inspections - Approved contract with Substitute Personnel or Blue Ribbon for two temporary employees, in the amount of $45,000; b. See Consent Items Brought Forward; c. Temporary Laboratory Intern - Approved contract with Substitute Personnel or Blue Ribbon for one temporary summer employee, in the estimated amount of $11,000; d. Temporary Help for Underground Repair Sewe Approved contract with Substitute Personn e Ribbon for two temporary employees, in the ated amount of $70,000; e. Temporary Help for Underground Approved contract with Substitute Ribbon for two temporary employees, amount of $70,000; f. Luther Pass Pump St Facility - (1) Approve Nevada Construction, I calendar day ._ e con g. Luther P mp Sta Facility orized an i P21709 to ` '.te the Spill Counter -Mea Plan, in the $6,000; Water - r Blue ated ower ion hale O er ntio trol and ount o exceed h. Headworks Replace " Pro`" Certified the Mitigated Negative De r hat was prepared for the Headworks Project der to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act; i. Surplus Vehicles - Authorized Baxtin Management Group to auction District surplus vehicles; J. See Consent Items Brought Forward; k. Grant Thornton Audit Contract for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2011 - Authorized execution of an an agreement with Grant Thornton to perform audit services for Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2011; -36- PAGE -2 REGULAR BOARD MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 7, 2011 I. See Consent Items Brought Forward; m. Approved Regular Board Meeting Minutes: March 3, 2011; n. Approved Regular Board Meeting Minutes: March 17, 2011. CONSENT ITEMS BROUGHT FORWARD FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION /BOARD ACTION Director Mosbacher received clarification that the grant funding for this position was secured. Moved Schafer / Second Cefalu / Passed Unanimi to approve contract with Substitute Personnel or Ribbon for one temporary employee, in the es amount of $20,160. Director Mosbacher received clarific • that the reserve amount is based on a percen evenues and is a standard amount. Moved Schafer / Second J • • ' assed U adopt Resolution No. 2 Policy and superseding entirety. Staff reviewed Moved Sc to approve Employee Train reimbursements g a ne 801-0 Unani with the ng ods. S FOR BOARD ACTION Representatives of Echo Cre nch requested an exception be made to the District's Administrative Code and allow them to move the location of their backflow prevention device and water meter. In conjunction with the construction of new buildings at Echo Creek Ranch this summer, Echo Creek ranch will install a private waterline on their property. Based on the topo- graphy of the site, Echo Creek Ranch wishes to locate its meter and backflow prevention device on the Echo Creek Ranch property, away from the property line. Even though the District requires that a meter be installed at the service -37- CONSENT CALENDAR (continued) PORARY WATER EFFICIENCY HNICI N ent Item b.) SERVE POLIC (Consent Item j.) PAGE -3 BOARD POLICY 2140: BUSINESS EXPENSE, CREDIT CARD, VEHICLE USE & REIMBURSEMENT POLICY (Consent Item I.) REQUEST TO APPEAR RECEIVED FROM ECHO CREEK RANCH REGULAR BOARD MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 7, 2011 connection, and a backflow prevention device is to be REQUEST TO APPEAR RECEIVED FROM installed near the property line or immediately inside the ECHO CREEK RANCH building being served, staff reported granting the exception (continued would not expand the District's responsibility or frustrate its ability to fulfill maintenance, repair or inspection obligations.) Approval would be conditioned on the understanding that the District has no responsibility for the Echo Creek Ranch's private waterline itself. The area is accessible all the time, including winter time. o the ed rates be . That is wh s that wer Moved Mosbacher / Second Schafer / Passed Unanimous) to grant Echo Creek Ranch an exception to Administrati Code, Rules and Regulations regarding location of w meter, backflow prevention device, allowing Echo Ranch to install meter and device on Echo Creek property. Moved Schafer / Second Cefalu / Passed Unanim IMS to approve payment in the amount of 1,289,528.2 Paul Hughes reported the rate study pr in November, 2010. Recommendations based on input received through several workshops, and committee a• s. Although the rate study rate adjustments, the direc was to initiate, u • - e Pro year recomm percent c shift in the consumption Proposition 218 n HDR consultants sho covered the details of t 2020. The study included r I years •' a - rent fromth=' yard ce, th st initiate • ,: ATER RATE STUDY PRESENTATION ed ' DISCUSSION fight costs d ed in the t customers. t presentation that process through dations for three components: revenue requir ts, allocation between residential and commercial customers, and based on those two steps, the rate design options. In summary, future rate adjustments are necessary to prudently fund O&M and capital needs. Rates are revenue neutral in 2011/12 ; increases begin in 2013, and are spread over several years. The Proposition 218 notice that was sent is only for fiscal year 2012 and has zero percent adjustment; any future adjustments will be analyzed. Impacts will vary by individual customer's consumption each quarter. Future rate recommendations include: -38- PAGE - 4 REGULAR BOARD MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 7, 2011 - Base flat rates on average metered rate; WATER RATE STUDY PRESENTATION - Revise the rate structure for multi - family complexes AND DISCUSSION with more than four living units; (continued) - When data is available, implement tiered /block rate structures for single - family customers. HDR consultants will return to attend the Public Budget Meeting on May 19 to answer any further questions from the Board or District customers. No Board action was taken. Sarah Jones, Water Conservation Specialist, gave a PowerPoint presentation to update the Board on planned water conservation activities: rebates fu by Proposition 50, water -wise house calls will b for indoor and outdoor water use, and comme incentives. Additional conservation programs will developed, pending approval of a gr• it from Proposition 84. No Board action was taken. Director Schafer suggeste • 'at host r• mm to demonstrate the rela �' gyp • . -en rat services provided. committee m are availa Legal Service mittee met with memo to address save money. pare a ork with staff to The agency will meet April `.cuss distribution of funding for various purveyor • cts. The District stands to receive $170,000 in the first round of funding, plus $52,000 in unspent funds from last year will be rolled - over for the Keller Tank project. The new leadership at the agency has made the process much more amenable than in the past. The next round of funding will be decided in mid -June, since the agency decided to withhold some funds in case of an unforeseen event. ER CONSERVATION PROGRAM AND PRESENTATION e: Thy:.. BOARD MEMBER STANDING COMMITTEE REPORTS he com- BOARD MEMBER AD HOC Director Schafer reported on costs associated with his BOARD MEMBER REPORTS attendance at the CASA (California Association of Sanitation Agencies) conference. He brought back -39- COMMITTEE REPORTS PAGE - 5 EL DORADO COUNTY WATER AGENCY PURVEYOR REPRESENTATIVE REPORT REGULAR BOARD MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 7, 2011 PAGE - 6 informational materials for staff. Congressman Tom BOARD MEMBER REPORTS McClintock pledged to provide regulatory assistance (continued) for the District if ever needed. President Rise reported on his attendance at the City Council meeting on April 5. Two points of interest: 1) The El Dorado County Supervisors are being asked to approve something related to the Aspens project - he requested staff look into it to be sure it did not impact the District. 2) As part of the Lake Tahoe Prosperity Plan, an eleven - member board was to be appointed. The District was not invited - he requested staff inquire about the selection process. Richard Solbrig reported on two items: 1) He participated in a meeting with City staff representatives from the Lukins Water Compan;x ins is seeking a rate increase for system improvemen awaiting CPUC approval. If outside fu •'ng can be they agreed to listen to any proposal 2) Talks initiated by TRPA in response to resulted in the idea that utility districts ar could cost share a staff planning position. would be designated sole w and line projects and to uni an. OUs e has individually. This is a • ' ive ap ch fro will allow utility projects to 3:55 P.M. Clerk of the Board: Kath +rp r= ed the pricing information concerning th - i s web based agenda and video system, a uested by President Rise, was summarized in a memo from I/S staff and placed in Board members mail boxes. If any further actions are desired, the Board should direct staff accordingly. District Inform STAFF REPORTS update on W and fe • egis ° matte e are some 1,200 ` ` es of legisla ntro• - d for corrideration. AC WA and C • re monito early � , ,..• f them. The budget crisis co -s, and if a , `get is agreed to, the government wi t down on j ril 8. GE MANAGER REPORTS ADJOURNMENT REGULAR BOARD MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 7, 2011 PAGE - 7 ATTEST: Kathy Sharp, Clerk of the Board South Tahoe Public Utility Distri Dale Rise, Board President S- h Tahoe Public Utility District r South Tahoe Public Utility District Generwi Mansger Riohani H. So'brig Directors Jamie RJesse Mary Lou Moebadser Dyils Rise Eric Schafer 1275 Meadow Crest Drive • South Lake Tahoe • CA 96150 -7401 Phone 530 544 -6474 • Fax 530 541 -0614 • www.stpucl.us BOARD AGENDA ITEM 6a TO: Board of Directors FROM: John Thiel, Principal Engineer MEETING DATE: May 5, 2011 ITEM - PROJECT NAME: Griz Mountain Booster Station REQUESTED BOARD ACTION: (1) Hold a Public Meeting to receive any comments on the Initial Study and Initial Environmental Checklist; (2) Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; (3) Approve the project for implementation; and (4) Authorize the filing of a Notice of Determination with the State Clearinghouse, and El Dorado County. DISCUSSION: The District has prepared an Initial Study /Initial Environmental Checklist with a finding that the proposed project will not result in any significant adverse environmental effects as a result of implementation with the implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the document. A Notice of Completion and Notice of Intent (NOI) to Adopt a Negative Declaration was filed with the State Clearinghouse on March 23, 2011, for a 30 -day review period which initially expired on April 22, 2011, and was extended to April 28, 2011. Neighborhood meetings were held during the comment period on April 20, 2011, and April 23, 2011. The comments received and response to comments will be summarized in the Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration. No comments have been received by any public agency. At 2:30 p.m., open the meeting to receive any additional public input on the Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration. After receiving public comments and response to comments by staff, the Board may close the meeting, certify the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and approve the project for implementation. SCHEDULE: Pending Board approval COSTS: None ACCOUNT NO: 2029 - 8176 / GRIZBS BUDGETED AMOUNT REMAINING: $ ATTACHMENTS: Draft Initial Study /Draft Initial Environmental Checklist has been provided to the Board members. Due to its length, copies are available upon request to the Clerk of the Board. Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration is attached. Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration to be provided prior to and at the Board meeting. -43- John Thiel May 5, 2011 Page 2 -44- CONCURRENCE WITH REQUESTED CATEGORY: Water GENERAL MANAGER: YES NO r ----- CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER: YES NO NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR THE SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT GRIZZLY MOUNTAIN BOOSTER STATION PROJECT Project Title: Grizzly Mountain Booster Station Project Location: 1553 Grizzly Mountain Drive, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 APN 033 - 494 -10 Lead Agency: South Tahoe Public Utility District County: El Dorado County PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project consists of the construction of a new booster pump station to improve the primary water service to approximately 3,000 existing homes in the Flagpole and Twin Peaks water zones. The project increases water reliability to the Flagpole and Twin Peaks water zones by providing a second source of water to the area currently served by only one pipeline from the Arrowhead water zone (located in Meyers). The new station is being funded by the District as the matching funds for a Fire Protection Partnership Funding / USFS Forest Health Fund grant that was used for the North Apache Booster station and Grizzly Mountain water line replacement project. With a standby pump and a diesel - powered standby generator, the Grizzly Mountain Booster Station will provide a substantial improvement to water reliability and fire protection in the Tahoe Paradise area. The proposed Booster Station building is about 968 square feet and 34 feet high, and is designed to blend with adjacent residential structures in the surrounding neighborhood. The booster station will be accessed by a new driveway from Grizzly Mountain Drive. A waterline pipeline replacement (Grizzly Mountain Water Line Replacement Project) will be constructed by the District on Grizzly Mountain Drive and North Upper Truckee Road under a separate project to connect the booster station to the existing water zones. The environmental review for the pipeline replacement has been completed under a separate contract. PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD: STPUD has made this Notice of Intent (NOI), Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), and Initial Study (IS) available for public review and comment pursuant to Section 15073(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. The 30-day comment period for the NOI, MND, and IS begins on March 23, 2011 and ends on April 22, 2011. Comments should be submitted to the South Tahoe Public Utility District at: 1275 Meadow Crest Dr. South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 Attn: John Thiel PUBLIC MEETINGS: The District's Board of Directors will take comments on the IS/MND at their regularly scheduled Board Meeting on April 21, 2011 (2:00 p.m.) and will consider adopting the MND at its regularly scheduled Board Meeting on May 5, 2011 (2:00 p.m.) to which the public and all interested parties to this matter are invited. The meetings will be held at District offices (address above). DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY: The MND and IS are available for review during regular business hours at the District offices. There is also an electronic copy available online at the District's website, www.stpud.us. If you require additional information, please contact Mr. Thiel at (530) 543 -6209 or submit questions and comments by email at jthiel @stpud.dst.ca.us. South Ta Public Utility District 1275 Meadow Crest Drive • South Lake Tahoe • CA 96150 -7401 Phone 530 544 -6474 • Fax 530 541 -0614 • www.stpud.us BOARD AGENDA ITEM 6b TO: Board of Directors FROM: Legal Service Providers Ad Hoc Committee (Rise /Cefalu) MEETING DATE: May 5, 2011 ITEM - PROJECT NAME: Legal Service Providers REQUESTED BOARD ACTION: (1) Discuss the report regarding legal services; (2) Determine whether the District should consider solicitation of a Request for Proposal (RFP); and (3) Direct staff accordingly DISCUSSION: The Board retained its current general legal services provider, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, in 1996. The District and Brownstein have periodically reviewed the provision of legal services and made adjustments in the Brownstein legal services agreement. Since then, Brownstein has prepared a report to the Board which includes a copy of the survey (attached). The Ad Hoc Committee contends that the most prevalent issues the District has had to deal with pertain more to construction and engineering issues. The main thrust of issuing a RFP is to ensure the District has a firm with expertise in these areas. Staff requests a determination whether the Board should reconsider its prior direction to staff and prepare a RFP and solicit proposals for a new legal services provider. SCHEDULE: COSTS: ACCOUNT NO: BUDGETED AMOUNT REMAINING: ATTACHMENTS: Legal Services Report and Surveys CONCURRENCE WITH REQUESTED ACTI •y CATEGORY: General GENERAL MANAGER: YES NO CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER: YES" NO -47- General Manager R chand it 9obry Directors Cefatu Jarnae R Jana Marylou Moe4act+ar Dale KW Eric Schafer Memorandum PRMLEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL Attorney- Client Privilege (Evid. Code Section 950, et. seq.) DATE: April 27, 2011 TO: Board of Directors South Tahoe Public Utility District CC: Richard Sotbrig, General Manager Paul Sciuto, Assistant General manager Paul Hughes, Chief Financial Officer FROM: Gary M. Kvistad, General Counsel Bradley J. Herreina, Assistant General Counsel RE: Report on Legal Services Executive Summary. The purpose of this Memorandum is to report on the review of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck's ('BHFS ") legal services provided to the South Tahoe Public Utility District (`District "). This Memorandum summarizes the various meetings, discussions with staff and specific Board members and the direction of the Board. As more fully summarized below, in December 2010. the Board directed District staff to conduct a fee/cost survey after determining that a request for proposals was not warranted since the issue was not the quality of BHFS' legal services but whether BHFS's fees and costs were reasonable. The results of the survey confirmed that the BHFS fees/costs were within the range of fees/costs charged by other firms providing similar services, especially considering that BHFS does not charge for attorney travel time or costs and the rates charged by BHFS include specialty services which rates are typically higher than general counsel rates. Subsequently, after discussing the fee/cost survey with President Rise and Director Cefalu in March, we.agreed to consult with District staff to identify potential efficiencies and improvements in the provision of legal services to the District. in 2006, after a similar review, BHFS and the District implemented several changes including simplifying the attorney fee structure (one rate for each class of attorney) and reducing non - attorney costs, such as not charging for computerized research. Since then we have implemented a number of other cost saving measures, such as: providing budgets on larger projects and monitoring costs, assigning work to associates whenever possible, minimizing the time participating in agenda reviews, communicating directly with District project staff rather than always through management, and providing verbal advice on minor issues and preliminary matters. After similar discussions with District staff, we have identified the following additional measures that will continue to decrease the cost of legal services and provide value to the District: • Develop standardized templates for agreements and real property transactions routinely used by the District to reduce the legal services time needed to prepare them. As a result, District staff could prepare the initial drafts with legal services utilized more efficiently for review and 00702710001%58287.2 -49- addressing non - routine matters to be included in agreements and documents. Examples of such agreements are temporary construction easements, permanent easements, indemnity agreements, main extension agreements, and property access licenses; Consult with District staff during project scoping and planning to identify and address legal issues early in the process to minimize impacts during project development and avoid later discovered legal issues; • Provide in -house training regarding AB 1234, environmental regulations and compliance, and construction practices and provide regular updates regarding changing or new legal issues and laws confronting the District; and, • Work with staff to determine the appropriate level of legal consultation for matters and projects - verbal advice to written memorandum - to balance the risks versus the importance of the matter being considered. A. Introduction. In October 2010, we met with President Rise on two occasions to discuss his concerns and considerations regarding BHFS' provision of legal services to the District. Specifically, we discussed BHFS's history of providing legal services (staffing, communications, budgeting, etc.), legal fees and cost structure, review legal fee/cost history, the difference between a request for proposal and fee%ost survey, and continuing to improve our services to meet the needs of the District. Afterward, we agreed that it would be appropriate for our discussions to be brought to the entire Board for consideration to ensure that the Board was fully informed and could participate in these discussions. This item was agendized for the November 4, 2010 Board meeting for discussion of whether a comparison of legal services providers was needed at this time. This memorandum summarizes the November 4th Board meeting and the results of the subsequent activities and meeting directed by the Board. B. November 4, 2010 Board Meeting. At the November 4, 2010 Board meeting, Gary first commented that discussions and reviews of legal services are good for both the District and BHFS to ensure that we are meeting.the needs of the District at a fair and competitive price. The reviews also provide an opportunity to discuss ways to improve services and resolve any concerns of either party. These reviews have occurred periodically, both formally with the Board and informally with staff, since we first began representing the District. Gary then presented the current contractual relationship between the District and BHFS, the highlights of which included: (1) a brief history on how BHFS came to represent the District; (2) BHFS' intent to maintain a local presence in South Lake Tahoe, as a result of which, under the present contract, the District does not incur charges for attorney travel time, charges for travel costs or charges for accommodations - in other words, there are no additional costs to the District that would typically be associated with retaining a firm outside of the area; (3) the District would be represented by a full- service fine that would otherwise not be available in South Lake Tahoe, which is important since the District's needs cross -over into a number of specialty areas, such as public agency, public contracting, real estate, water, environmental, and litigation; (4) the District receives services for each class of attorney (partner, associate, etc.) at a melded rate that is closer to lower general counsel rates rather than specialty service rates, which saves the District money and simplifies accounting; (5) BHFS has agreed not to take any work from potential clients within the District's boundaries or that would otherwise conflict with the District, which was previously a major concern for the District as prior local counsel often had conflicts that prohibited them from representing the District. The legal services agreement was last revised in 2006. At that time, the Board assigned a committee to work with staff in reassessing the then current arrangements, conduct a fee survey to determine competitive pricing, and explore other options to continue to improve legal services and then to assess 007627100011578287.2 -50- whether any such options should be implemented. As a result of these discussions, our legal services agreement with the District was revised by: simplifying the attorney fee structure (one rate for each class of attorney), reducing non - attorney costs, such as computerized research (BHFS renegotiated a better rate with its providers); and establishing new slightly increased rates based on a fee survey of other comparable districts. The last rate adjustment was approximately three (3) years ago. In negotiating the last rate adjustment, we targeted a mix of partner and associate time of 15% and 85 %, respectively, withh • the goal of achieving a melded effective hourly rate for attorneys of $250 per hour, a goal which has been achieved. Since that time, BHFS has not considered a rate adjustment, due to the severe economic times facing the District and its customers. In the present discussions regarding BHFS' representation of the District, a question was also raised regarding whether the District needs to be represented by a large regional firm (Hatch and Parent merged with BHFS three and one -half (3 -1/2) years ago — expanding from 30 attorneys to approximately 225 attorneys). The concerns centered around the idea that a large firm may want to increase rates more than a small one and the importance of the District to a large firm with numerous clients. BHFS, as with Hatch and Parent, sets rates that are commensurate with each client's industry, geographic area, type of service, complexity and similar factors. BHFS has not advocated deviating from the methodology just because it is a larger firm than Hatch and Parent — this is evidenced by not raising rates. Likewise, the District remains an important client as can be seen by our regular communications with the District regarding our services, the attorneys providing services are consistently the same and we periodically meet with the District to review our services. It was suggested that the practices applicable to rotating auditors might also be appropriate for legal counsel. However, the functions and purposes of the two are distinctly different. Auditors provide oversight over the District financial activities once each year. Their purpose is to ensure that the District financial practices and records comply with applicable regulations and industry practices. The suggested recommended rotation of auditors is to ensure that District staff and the auditors staff do not get too comfortable with each other such that the auditor's objectivity is compromised. On the other hand, legal counsel represents and provides advice to the District staff on a day - to-day basis. Legal counsel is not in an oversight position, but rather in an advisory role. Further, it Is important for legal counsel to develop an overall understanding of the District many activities, contracts, relationships and functions in order to best advise the District. For these reasons, it is not advisable to change legal counsel in the same manner as auditors. The next discussion item moved to the type, if any, of review of legal services should be conducted at this point. The primary approaches for review of legal services were either a request for proposal for legal services or a fee/cost survey. Requests for proposals are typically utilized when an agency is not satisfied with its current legal services provider and wants to retain another firm. The basis for selection is the firm's qualifications, not costs. A fee/cost survey is used when an agency is satisfied with the law firm providing legal services but desires to confirm that the law firm's fees and costs are competitive. After discussion with the Board, it was determined that the District was satisfied with the legal services provided by BHFS but, since it has been awhile since the last fee/cost survey, that it would be appropriate to conduct another survey. Direction was given to staff to work with BHFS to perform a fee/cost survey of comparable districts utilizing similar legal services. Afterward, the results of the survey were to be discussed with BHFS and a report brought back to the Board. C. Fee/Cost Survey. During the first months in 2011, District staff contacted several public agencies regarding the cost of legal services, a copy of which is attached to this Memorandum. The fees for non -BHFS clients covered a large range from approximately $200 to $345 per hour for partners providing general counsel services with virtually no consistency between agencies. The actual cost of legal services was masked by many firms charging for travel time and mileage, which drives up the true cost of legal services. In our review of the survey, the BHFS partner fees of $305 per hour fit within the upper range of other firms providing legal services to the surveyed districts. More importantly, by the effective use of associates, BHFS is able to provide the District with an overall effective rate of approximately $250 per hour for all attorneys. As 00762710001578287.2 -51- noted above, this rate includes, in addition to general counsel services, specialty services such as. environmental, water and litigation for which hourly rates are typically much higher. As a result, BHFS believes that the legal fees charged to the District are competitive with legal services provided to other public agencies in northern California Sierra region. D. March 17, 2001 Meeting. After the March 17th Board meeting, I met with President Rise and Director Cefalu to discuss the results of the feelcost survey and preparation of a report to the Board. In addition, I reviewed many of the items discussed in this Memorandum as those had not been discussed in detail with Director Cefalu. There was general agreement that the fee/cost survey was not as helpful as hoped but at least it provided some general guidance as discussed in the above section. President Rise requested that we review our provision of legal services to the District to determine if there were further opportunities for efficiencies beyond those currently being implemented. We indicated that we would review our current services, search for ideas to improve efficiency, discuss those opportunities with District Staff and prepare a memorandum to the Board for their consideration. E. April 21, 2011 Board Meeting. During the April 21st Board meeting, President Rise noted that he would like to move this matter along and bring it back to the Board in May. We also understand that he raised a question about whether BHFS can serve the District's legal needs, based on President Rise's characterization of BHFS as a water rights firm, and the District's legal needs relating to its recent increase in construction projects. The purpose of this section is to dear -up some apparent misunderstandings and provide additional information regarding BHFS. BHFS is a full service law firm, not a water rights firm. The District's legal needs span a wide variety of subjects, including: general counsel, environmental, real estate, construction, water and, on occasion, litigation. BHFS attorneys have this expertise and more. While the attorneys tasked with providing primarily legal services to the District have a water right expertise, they are also experienced and regularly provide general counsel services to other public agencies. Most attorneys have one or more specialty areas of practice, the same is true for BHFS attorneys. Further, in representing the District, BHFS has developed a unique and broad understanding of the District, its staff and operations. This knowledge assists BHFS In providing timely cost effective legal services by not having to learn about each situation from the ground up. It has been our experience that the District's has always had a significant number of public works construction projects at any given time. BHFS has provided public contracting and construction advice and representation to the District since first being retained by the District. We have worked with the District to resolve claims when appropriate and, when necessary, arbitrate or litigate other claims. When the District recently completed its export pipeline projects, it retained another law firm to assist with the specific task of updating the District's front -end portion of its contract documents for construction projects. Notwithstanding, the District continues to rely on BHFS for public contracting and construction related services, not that or any other firm. BHFS' attorneys, including the attorneys providing primary services to the District, have significant experience with public contracting and public works construction projects. As with our other areas of expertise, this is one of the reasons why BHFS is qualified to represent the District. F. Current Practices, Recommendations and Conclusion. BHFS has worked cooperatively with the District to explore opportunities for improving efficiencies in order to provide cost effective legal services. Over the years, in cooperation with District staff, we have implemented a number of cost saving measures, such as: providing budgets on larger projects and monitoring costs, assigning work to associates whenever possible, minimizing the time participating in agenda reviews, communicating directly with District project staff rather than always through management, and providing verbal advice on minor issues and preliminary matters. These measures, 007627100011578287.2 -52- r t s e coupled with our travel at no cost to the District, have allowed the District to realize significant savings over the years while receiving the benefits of a full service law firm — something that is otherwise not available in•South Lake Tahoe — but which is necessary to appropriately advise the District on the broad range of issues that it routinely faces. BHFS has met and discussed with District staff further efficiency measures which may be appropriate in some situations, including: (1) Develop standardized templates for agreements and real property transactions routinely used by the District to reduce the legal services time needed to prepare them. As a result, District staff could prepare the initial drafts with legal services utilized more efficiently for review and addressing non - routine matters to be included in agreements and documents. Examples of such agreements are temporary construction easements, permanent easements, indemnity agreements, main extension agreements, and property access licenses; (2) Consult with District staff during project scoping and planning to identify and address legal issues early in the process to minimize impacts during project development and avoid later discovered legal issues; (3) Provide in -house training regarding AB 1234, environmental regulations and compliance, and construction practices and provide regular updates regarding changing or new legal issues and laws confronting the District; and, (4) Work with staff to determine the appropriate level of legal consultation for matters and projects - verbal advice to written memorandum - to balance the risks versus the importance of the matter being considered. The fee/cost survey revealed that the BHFS rates are within the upper range of the fees/costs charged by other law firms providing legal services to similarly situated public agencies. With the BHFS no -cost travel arrangements and inclusion of specialty services within our rate structure, the fees/costs charged to the District are within the mid-range of fees/costs charged by other law firms. As a result, the fee/cost survey has confirmed that the District is paying a reasonable rate for legal services. Notwithstanding, BHFS will continue to work with the District to improve efficiencies and reduce costs whenever and however possible, including implementation of additional measures discussed above. Finally, BHFS commits to maintaining the current fees and costs for the fiscal year 2011 /2012 in order to assist the District keeping reasonable rates and charges for its customers. We look forward to our continued relationship and working together for the benefit of your customers. Firm Used: References & Contact Info Rates Best Best & Kriger _ City of Woodland 530.661.5800 Email survey to: Mark Deven, City Manager _rmasarawaillsllaima . Consumes Community Services District 916.40.5.7183 Email survey to: Jennifer Smith iennvsmith@vouresd.com Best, Best & Krieger • ' Partner & Sr. Blended Rate: $192 /hr. Best, Best & Krieger Blended rate: $204/hr. (plus reimbursable costs such as mileage & copies) City of Lafayette 925.284.1968 Email survey to: Tracy Robinson TRobinson@ci.lafaveffe.pa.us Best, Best & Krieger City Attorney Rate: $225/hr. Sr. Associate: $195/hr. Jr. Associate: $175 /hr. Paralegal /Clerk: $125/hr. Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck South Tahoe Public Utility District • • Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck • Partner: $305 /hr. Sr. Associate: $275/hr. Associate: $245/hr. Legal Assistant: $130/hr. Santa Ynez River Water Conservation Dist. 805.688.6015 Email survey to Admin. Manager, Mary Marione mmartone@svrwd.orq Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck Partner: $375/hr. Sr. Associate: $320 /hr. Associate: $290 /hr. Goleta West Sanitary District 805.968.2617 Email survey to: General Manager, Mark Nations mnation@goletawest.com Brownstein Hyatt Father Schreck Partner: $375/hr. Associate: $290 /hr. No Sr. Associate Position City of Carpinteria 805.684.5405, ext. 448 Email Survey •to: John Thomber y johnt@ci.carpinteria.ca.us Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck Partner. $285/hr. Associates: $270 /hr. Law Clerk /Paralegal: $165/hr. Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard Kern County Water Agency 661.634.1457 Email survey to: Jeannie Varga ivaraa kcwa.cQJ In house Counsel: $216,810 /yr. . Placer County Water Agency 530.823.4886 Email survey to: Valerie Lord v Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard Partner: $300 /hr. . , Meyers / Nave • City of El 510.215.4300 Karen Pinkus, Assistant to City Manager Email survey to: Left another mess. 11/29 No response Fkm Used: • • References & Contact Info. Rates Mayers / Nave . Alameda County Email survey to: Ellen Duenas ells uduena acaay.or Sent 11 /23 No response ponse Central Costa Sanitary District 925.228.9500 Email survey to: Elaine Boehme 2i22thillaare.Stagi1212E2 • Meyers. Nave Riback Silver & Wilson (Reps. Since 1985) General Counsel: Kent Mm Sr. Principal (Mr. Mm) $290 /hr. . Principal $240 /hr. Sr. of Counsel $280 /hr. Sr. Associate $220 /hr. • Jr. Associate $210 /hr. Law Clerk $150 /hr: Paralegal $110 /hr. Blended Hourly Rate /Retainer $235/hr. Labor Counsel (Dan Clinton, Esq.) $365 /hr. Wulfsberg Reese Colvig and Firstman Sonoma County Water Agency 707.526.5370 Matt Vail Email survey to: Cordes Stillman cordel.stillman @scwa.ca.aov We contract with the County of Sonoma for legal • services. They have assigned three of their attorneys to our issues. The most common title of counsel that we work with is "County Counsel 1" and they make between $79,000 and $96,000 per year depending on length of service Tahoe- Truckee Sanitation Agency 530587.2525 Email survey to: C. Tohlen ctohien@ttsa.net Bartkkiewicz Kronick & Shanahan • General Counsel: Stephen Kronick Partner: $220/hr. Sr. Associate: $165 /hr. Note: Kirkwood PUD also uses this firm • County of Stares 209.525.4494 • Christine Ferraro Tallman Email survey to: John Doering iohn.d na;tOncounfy.com Stanislaus County does not contract for general legal counsel services. The Board of Supervisors appoints a County Counsel to serve that function, who becomes a County employee. They contract for outside legal services for litigation and for specialized services and use a number of different law firms for that ;6 • e. Source: References are from firms who responded to Engineering's RFP for review of their front end specs. Firm Used: Agency: Rates: Brownstein Hyatt Father Schreck South Tahoe Public Utility District • Partner (Gary): $305 Hr. . Associate (Brad): $275 Hr. Paralegal: $225 Hr. . Bartkiewicz, Kronick & Shanahan Stephen Kronick Sacramento Tahoe- Truckee Sanitation Agency Partner: $225 Hr. Associate: $165 Hr. Mileage `j $0.50 per mile; Fax and Copies @$0.20 per page; Color Copies @$0.30 per page Minasian, Spruance, Meith, Soares, & Sexton ©rvoviile, CA Tahoe City Public Utility District Partner: $235 Hr. • Additional charges for incidentals (mileage, travel, copies, faxes, etc.) Brooke, Show, Cumpft Minden, NV Incline Village GID $198 Hr. Additional charges for incidentals (mileage, travel, copies, faxes, etc.) Firm of Neil Eskind (30 year general counsel) Lives in North Tahoe . Uses the firm Best Best & Krieger for other things. North Tahoe Public Utility District $190 Hr. J. Mark Atlas who has his own firm but due to the complexities of Special Districts he is also a member of a large firm, Downey Brand Attorneys LLP out of Sacramento. When additional legal expertise is necessary, he is able to bring in other attorneys at Downey Brand for assistance (i.e. employment law, etc). Northstar Community Services District • $345 Hr. Extra for mileage and misc. other reimbursable costs if occurred. Should they use another attorney at Downey Brand they are billed at that attorney's hourly rate which is usually in the same range. . Local Comparisons Porter Simon Truckee, CA Truckee Donner PUD Partner. $200 Hr. Charges for incidentals, but not very often. They've had a difficulty in the past where he has to recuse himself as such a small town and he or his firm is dealing with someone we have some type of issue with. There have been times they have had to hire someone else as the firm is conflicted. Trujillo & Vinson, LLP Walnut Creek. Lake Tahoe Unified School District Partners: $225 Hr. Associate: $205 Hr. Paralegal /Law Clerk: $130 Hr. (With no cap on the number of hours to be provided at that rate. Agreement includes payment of any increase in hourly fees.) They pay extra for actual and necessary expenses and costs with respect to providing legal services, including mileage, lodging and travel expenses (including travel time), serving pleadings, filing fees and other charges assessed by courts and other public agencies, arbitrator's fees, court reporters' fees, jury fees, witness fees, investigation expenses, overnight delivery costs, costs of computer research outise of standard databases, consultants' fees and expert witness. In addition, .20 per page for copying and $1 per page for faxing. In house Counsel Patrick Enright, City Attorney Nira Feeley, Deputy City Attorney City of South Lake Tahoe . City Attorney $63.98 hr. / $11,091 monthly to $81.6690 hr. / $14,155 monthly (Salary range of $133,100 - $170,000 per year). Also receives some benefit package as other city employees. Deputy City Attorney $38.5490 hr. / $6,681 monthly to $49.1995 hr. / $8,527 monthly e PAYMENT OF CLAIMS FOR APPROVAL May 5, 2011 Payroll 4/19/2011 429,947.80 Total Payroll 429,947.80 ADP 2,284.87 American Express 0.00 Bank of America 0.00 BNY Mellon Trust Company 0.00 Brownstein /Hyatt/Farber /Schreck legal services 8,866.97 CDS- health care payments 74,537.85 Union Bank 0.00 Total Vendor EFT 85,689.69 Accounts Payable Checks -Sewer Fund 741,887.61 Accounts Payable Checks -Water Fund 123,542.55 Accounts Payable Checks - Self - funded Insurance 35,223.20 Accounts Payable Checks - Grants Fund 0.00 Total Accounts Payable 900,653.36 Grand Total 1,416,290.85 Payroll EFTs & Checks EFT AFLAC Medical & Dependent Care EFT CA Employment Taxes & W/H EFT Federal Employment Taxes & W/H EFT CaIPERS Contributions EFT Great West Deferred Comp EFT Stationary Engineers Union Dues EFT United Way Contributions EFT Employee Direct Deposits CHK Employee Garnishments CHK Employee Paychecks Total 4/19/2011 1,731.09 18,474.02 88,550.47 71,837.71 18,919.08 2,414.59 134.00 218,037.89 1,366.14 8,482.81 429.947.80 Vender Name ACCOUNTEMPS ACCOUNTEMPS ACWA HEALTH BENEFITS AUTHORITY AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES INC AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES INC AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES INC AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES INC AERVOE INDUSTIES, INC ALCO SERVICES ALPEN SIERRA COFFEE ai 0 I ALSBURY, MARY ALSBURY, MARY AMERIGAS AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM SERVICES AT &T MOBILITY AT &T MOBILITY AT &T MOBILITY AT &T MOBILITY AT &T MOBILITY AT &T MOBILITY AT &T /CALNET 2 User: THERESA Report: OH_PMT_CLAIMS_BK Department / Prkii Name FINANCE FINANCE GEN & ADMIN ENGINEERING - C-LINE RE -ROUTE ENGINEERING - REPL GEN, LPPS ENGINEERING - GRIZZLY MT BSTR ENGINEERING - IROQUOIS BSTR ST OPERATIONS ELECTRICAL SHOP GEN & ADMIN INFORMATION SYS INFORMATION SYS DIAMOND VLY RNCH GEN & ADMIN UNDERGROUND REP ELECTRICAL SHOP ENGINEERING UNDERGROUND REP ELECTRICAL SHOP ENGINEERING GEN & ADMIN PAYMENT OF CLAIMS D Ion CONTRACT SERVICE CONTRACT SERVICE VISION INS CLINE EVAL REPL GEN LPPS GRIZ MTN BSTR BSTR STN IROQ SHOP SUPPLIES BUILDINGS OFC SUPPLY ISSUE TRAVEL/MEETINGS TRAVEL/MEETINGS PROPANE UNIFORM PAYABLE TELEPHONE TELEPHONE TELEPHONE TELEPHONE TELEPHONE TELEPHONE TELEPHONE Page: 1 Acct# / ProjCode 1039 - 4405 2039 - 4405 1000 - 2530 1006 - 6071 1003 - 6041 1000 -6081 1037 -6200 2037 - 6200 1028 - 6360 1000 -2518 1001 - 6310 1003 - 6310 1029 -6310 2001 - 6310 2003 - 6310 2029 - 6310 1000 - 6310 Check Total: Check Total: 1029 - 8028 - CROUTE 1029 - 8933 - RGLPPS 2029 - 8176 - GRIZBS 2029 - 8967 - IQBSTR Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Current Date: 04/27 /2011 Current Time: 16:35:22 Amount Check Num Ina 873.07 873.09 1.748.16 AP-00079027 MW 2,626.33 2.626.33 AP- 00079028 MW 2,955.42 6,573.19 15,680.00 624:00 26.832.61 AP- 00079029 MW 107.76 107.76 AP- 00079030 565.75 565.75 AP- 00079031 MW 307.40 307.40 AP-00079032 MW 106.00 106.00 212.00 AP 00079033 MW 887.98 887.98 AP MW 1,096.37 1.0967 AP 00079035 MW 3.48 4.31 5.83 3.48 4.30 5.82 27,22 AP- 00079036 MW 446.88 Ylaalt Nal>n AT &T/CALNET 2 AT &T/CALNET 2 AT &T/CALNET 2 AT &T/CALNET 2 AT&T/CALNET 2 BARTON HEALTHCARE SYSTEM BARTON HEALTHCARE SYSTEM BB&H BENEFIT DESIGNS BB&H BENEFIT DESIGNS BENTLY AGROWDYNAMICS CALIF DEPT OF PUBLIC HEALTH o, 1i CALIF WATER RESOURCES CTRL BD CALIF WATER RESOURCES CTRL BD CARQUEST CARSON VALLEY CDS GROUP HEALTH CDW-G CORP CDW-G CORP CDW-G CORP CDW-G CORP CDW-G CORP CDW-G CORP COCKING, DENNIS User. THERESA Report: OH PMT_CLAIMS_BK ibREIMMILLEIMILNIMIt GEN & ADMIN PUMPS OPERATIONS GEN & ADMIN PUMPS HUMAN RESOURCES HUMAN RESOURCES HUMAN RESOURCES HUMAN RESOURCES OPERATIONS UNDERGROUND REP OPERATIONS ENGINEERING EQUIPMENT REP SELF FUNDED INS EQUIPMENT REP LABORATORY INFORMATION SYS EQUIPMENT REPAIR LABORATORY INFORMATION SYS DIO PAYMENT OF CLAIMS SIGNAL CHARGES TELEPHONE TELEPHONE TELEPHONE TELEPHONE CONTRACT SERVICE CONTRACT SERVICE CONTRACT SERVICE CONTRACT SERVICE SLUDGE DISPOSAL TRAVEL/MEETINGS REGLTRY OP PRMTS REGLTRY OP PRMTS AUTOMOTIVE ADMIN FEE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES TRAVEL/MEETINGS Page: 2 Accts / ProJ Code 1000 - 6320 1002 -6310 1006 - 6310 2000 - 6310 2002 - 6310 1022 - 4405 2022 - 4405 1022 -4405 2022 - 4405 1006 - 6652 2001-6200 1006 - 6650 1029 - 6650 1005-6011 3000 - 6741 1005 - 6520 1007 - 4820 1037 - 4820 2005 - 6520 2007 - 4820 2037 - 4820 2027-6200 Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Current Date: 04/27 /2011 Current Time: 16:35:22 Amount 31.64 191.29 30.68 446.88 138.46 Check.Nien Inn 1.285.83 AP- 00079037 MW 870.00 870.00 1.740.00 AP- 00079038 MW 624.50 624.50 1.249.00 AP- 00079039 MW 2,425.78 2.425.74 AP- 00079040 MW 100.00 100.00 AP-00079041 MW 1,008.00 1,175.00 2.183.00 AP- 00079042 MW 75.72 75.72 AP- 00079043 MW 2,874.00 2.874.90 AP-00079044 MW 236.84 15.26 55.21 236.81 15.24 55.23 614.59 AP -00079045 MW 489.97 Vendor1.m. CWEA CWEA DEAN, JOHN DELL MARKETING L P DELL MARKETING L P DIY HOME CENTER DIY HOME CENTER DOMENICHELLI & ASSOCIATES E- FILLIATE CORP c E- FILLIATE CORP EL DORADO COUNTY EMPIRE SAFETY & SUPPLY ENVIRONMENTAL EXPRESS ENVIRONMENTAL EXPRESS ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES ASSO ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES ASSO ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY TRAINING User: THERESA Report: OH PMT CLAIMS BK Department / Proj Name HEAVY MAINT LABORATORY ENGINEERING - WT METERING PRJ INFORMATION SYS INFORMATION SYS HEAVY MAINT UNDERGROUND REP ENGINEERING - DVR IRRIG IMPRVS INFORMATION SYS INFORMATION SYS ENGINEERING - GRIZZLY MT WTRLN WTRLN, GRIZ MTh/ GEN & ADMIN LABORATORY LABORATORY LABORATORY LABORATORY PROFHEAVY MAINT ERS INDUSTRIAL SERVICES INC GEN & ADMIN - FILTER ASSMNT ERS INDUSTRIAL SERVICES INC ENGINEERING - FILTER ASSMNT PAYMENT OF CLAIMS Page: 3 DssctiatlQn WTR METERING/NEW DVR IRR IMPRVMNT CONST RETAINAGE REHAB FLTR 5&6 Acct# ! Proj Code DUES/MEMB /CERT 1004 - 6250 DUES/MEMB /CERT 1007 - 6250 DIST.COMP SPPLIS 1037 - 4840 DIST.COMP SPPLIS 2037 - 4840 GROUNDS & MNTC 1004 - 6042 SMALL TOOLS 2001 - 6073 DIST.COMP SPPLIS 1037 -4840 DIST.COMP SPPLIS 2037 - 4840 SAFETY INVENTORY 1000 -0425 OTHER SUPPLIES 1007 - 4790 OTHER SUPPLIES 2007 - 4790 LAB SUPPLIES 1007 - 4760 LAB SUPPLIES 2007 - 4760 TRAVEUMEETINGS 1004 - 6200 1000 - 2605 - FILTER 1029 - 8066 - FILTER Check Total: Check Total: 2029 - 7078 - METERS Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: 1029 - 8161 - DVRIIP Check Total: Check Total: 2029 - 7092 - GRIZWL Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Current Date: 04/27/2011 Current Time: 16:35:22 Amount Check Nnm IYp4 489.97 AP- 00079046 MW 208.00 132.00 340.00 AP- 00079047 MW 340.00 340.00 AP -00079048 MW 800.36 820.35 1.620.71 AP- 00079049 MW 3.48 39.15 42.83 AP-00079050 MW 3,780.00 3.780.00 AP -00079051 MW 258.47 258.35 518.82 AP-00079052 MW 154.13 154.1a AP-00079053 MW 399.18 399.18 402.38 385.00 787.38 AP- 00079055 MW 63.30 48.95 112.25 AP- 00079056 MW 3,900.00 Check Total: 3.900.00 AP -00079057 MW - 5,353.54 53,535.48 AP- 00079054 MW FARR WEST ENGINEERING INC FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC. FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC. FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC. FGL ENVIRONMENTAL FGL ENVIRONMENTAL FGL ENVIRONMENTAL FGL ENVIRONMENTAL FGL ENVIRONMENTAL FISHER SCIENTIFIC FISHER SCIENTIFIC c' WFOSTER FLOW CONTROL FRONTIER GRAINGER GRAINGER GRAINGER GSE CONSTRUCTION CO INC GSE CONSTRUCTION CO INC HACH CO HACH CO HAEN ENGINEERING User THERESA Report: OH PMT_CLAIMS_BK PAYMENT OF CLAIMS D. ENGINEERING - ARPRT ARSNC EVAL AIRPORT ARSENIC D.o rtm.nt / Proi Name HEAVY MAINT DIAMOND VLY RNCH PUMPS LABORATORY LABORATORY - ARHD3 TRTMT EXP LABORATORY - BKRFLD TRTMT EXP LABORATORY - HERBST LABORATORY LABORATORY LABORATORY ENGINEERING - FILTER ASSMNT DIAMOND VLY RNCH ELECTRICAL SHOP HEAVY MAINT HEAVY MAINT GEN & ADMIN - HEADWORKS ENGINEERING - HEADWORKS LABORATORY LABORATORY GROUNDS & MNTC GROUNDS & MNTC WELLS MONITORING MONITORING MONITORING MONITORING MONITORING LAB SUPPLIES LAB SUPPLIES REHAB FLTR 5&6 TELEPHONE SMALL TOOLS PUMP STATIONS BIOSOL EQUP/BLDG CONST RETAINAGE HDWKS IMP PROJ LAB SUPPLIES LAB SUPPLIES DIAMOND VLY RNCH - DVR HOUSE RENOV1RANCH HS REMOD Page: 4 Acct# I ProJ Cpde 2029 - 7089 - AWAEPI Check Total: 1004 - 6042 1028 - 6042 2002 - 6050 1007 - 6110 2007 - 6110 - AH3EXP 2007 - 6110 - BKRFLD 2007 - 6110 - HERBST 2007 -6110 1007-4760 2007-4760 1028 - 6310 1003 - 6073 1004 - 6051 1004 - 6653 1007 - 4760 2007.4760 1028 - 8130 - DVRENO Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: 1029 - 8068 - FILTER Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: 1000 - 2605 - HDWORK 1029 - 8033 - HDWORK Check Total: Check Total: Amount &1&1.94 8,876.07 8.$78.07 5.74 49.57 20.31 75.12 AP-00079060 MW 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 __AWN 379.08 290.02 669.10 AP- 00079062 MW 8,776.20 8.776.20 AP -00079063 MW 183.76 j83.70. AP -00079064 MW 358.42 198.63 151.90 708.95 - 30,819.07 308,190.70 Current Date: 04/27 /2011 Current Time: 16:35:22 68.93 84.89 2,800.00 Check Nutn jyg AP- 00079058 MW AP- 00079059 MW AP-00079061 MW AP-00079065 MW 277.371.63 AP- 00079066 MW 153. AP- 00079067 MW Vender f name User: THERESA Report: OH_PMT_CLAIMS_BK Department / Proj Name PAYMENT OF CLAIMS Description Aced/ / Proj Code Amount Check Num Din HAEN ENGINEERING ENGINEERING - GRIZZLY MT BSTR GRIZ MTN BSTR 2029 - 8176 - GRIZBS 1,800.00 Check Total: 4.600.00 AP MW HANSEN, LINDA GEN & ADMIN UB SUSPENSE 1000 - 2002 2,981.24 Page: 5 Check Total: 2.981.24 AP 00079069 MW HARDY DIAGNOSTICS LABORATORY LAB SUPPLIES 1007 - 4760 63.75 HARDY DIAGNOSTICS LABORATORY LAB SUPPLIES 2007 - 4760 76.25 Check Total: 140.00 AP- 00079070 MW HARTFORD, THE GEN & ADMIN LIFE INS 1000 - 2512 2,008.13 HARTFORD, THE GEN & ADMIN LTD, UNION 1000 - 2539 2,459.94 Check Total: 4.468.07 AP-00079071 MW HAUGE BRUECK ASSOCIATES LLC ENGINEERING - DVR IRRIG IMPRVS DVR IRR IMPRVMNT 1029 - 8161 - DVRIIP 48,759.50 Check Total: 48159.50 AP-00079072 MW HDR ENGINEERING INC FINANCE - WTR RATE STUDY ADVISORY 2039 - 4440 - WTRATE 8,212.50 Check Total: 8212.50 AP 00079073 MW HUGHES, PAUL FINANCE TRAVEUMEETINGS 2039 - 6200 65.00 o► Check Total: 85.00 AP MW IA HUSSMANN, NANCY HUMAN RESOURCES TRAVEUMEETINGS 1022 - 6200 70.36 Hi/SSMANN, NANCY HUMAN RESOURCES TRAVEL/MEETINGS 2022 - 6200 70.36 Check Total: 140.72 AP 00079075 MW INFOSEND INC. CUSTOMER SERVICE SERVICE CONTRACT 1038 - 6030 155.80 INFOSEND INC. CUSTOMER SERVICE SERVICE CONTRACT 2038 - 6030 155.80 Check Total: 311.60 AP- 00079076 MW INTEGRITY LOCKSMITH UNDERGROUND REP MOBILE EQUIP 2001 - 6012 26.10 Check Total: 26.10 AP- 00079077 MW INTERSTATE SAFETY & SUPPLY GEN & ADMIN SAFETY INVENTORY 1000 - 0425 241.43 Check Total: 241.43 AP 00079078 MW J&L PRO KLEEN INC FINANCE JANITORIAL SERV 1039 - 6074 1,603.50 J&L PRO KLEEN INC FINANCE JANITORIAL SERV 2039 - 6074 1,603.50 Check Total: 3207.00 AP MW JONES, JAMES R BOARD OF DIR TRAVEL/MEETINGS 2019 - 6200 395.47 Check Total: 395,47 AP 00079080 MW Current Date: 04/27 /2011 Current Time: 16:35:22 Yaridix.Noma JONES, SARAH KOSCIOLEK, LINDA KOSCIOLEK, LINDA KUELPER, BRIAN KUELPER, BRIAN KUELPER, BRIAN LAB SAFETY SUPPLY LAB SAFETY SUPPLY LAVALLEE, SPRING LAVALLEE, SPRING LIBERTY ENERGY LIBERTY ENERGY LIBERTY ENERGY LIBERTY ENERGY LILLY'S TIRE SERVICE INC. LILLY'S TIRE SERVICE INC. MC MASTER CARR SUPPLY CO MC MASTER CARR SUPPLY CO METRO OFFICE SOLUTIONS METRO OFFICE SOLUTIONS METRO OFFICE SOLUTIONS METRO OFFICE SOLUTIONS METRO OFFICE SOLUTIONS Uses': THERESA Report: OH PMT_CLAIMS BK Deroarhnsrt / Prol Nam. CUSTOMER SERVICE CUSTOMER SERVICE CUSTOMER SERVICE GEN & ADMIN GEN & ADMIN GEN & ADMIN LABORATORY LABORATORY HUMAN RESOURCES HUMAN RESOURCES GEN & ADMIN GEN & ADMIN GEN & ADMIN ENGINEERING - DEMO FP,COLD CRK CC FLTR PLANT EQUIPMENT REP EQUIPMENT REPAIR PUMPS PUMPS GEN & ADMIN ADMINISTRATION FINANCE ADMINISTRATION FINANCE PAYMENT OF CLAIMS lluodatien TRAVEUMEETINGS TRAVEUMEETINGS TRAVEL/MEETINGS UB SUSPENSE UB SUSPENSE METER SALE LAB SUPPLIES LAB SUPPLIES TRAVEUMEETINGS TRAVEUMEETINGS ELECTRICITY ST LIGHTING EXP ELECTRICITY AUTOMOTIVE AUTOMOTIVE SMALL TOOLS BLK BRT BSTR UPG OFFICE INVENTORY OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES Page: 6 Acct# I Prol Code 2038 - 6200 1038 - 6200 2038 - 6200 1000 - 2002 2000 - 2002 2000 - 3545 1007 - 4760 2007 - 4760 1022 - 6206 2022 - 6200 1000 - 6330 1000 - 6740 2000 - 6330 1005 -6011 2005 -6011 1002 - 6073 2002 - 8169 1000 - 0428 1021 -4820 1039 - 4820 2021 - 4820 2039 - 4820 Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: 2029 - 7091 - DEMOFP Check Total: Check Total: 97.00 18,870.20 4,161.88 286.00 102.00 67,648.69 1,510.83 21,587.61 Check Total: 90.747.13 AP- 00079086 MW Check Total: 685.02 AP -00079088 MW Current Date: 04/27/2011 Current Time: 16:35:22 Amount ClackEtim Tom 136.17 138.17 AP- 00079081 MW 48.50 48.50 30,282.00 42.45 2,529.28 2.571.73 1,365.03 2.40 4.12 2.39 4.11 AP- 00079082 MW 23.318.08 AP- 00079083 MW 81.02 98.19 179.21 AP- 00079084 51.00 51.00 AP- 00079085 MW - 282.00 AP -00079087 MW 342.51 342.51 AP -00079089 MW Vendor Name METROTECH INC MID MOUNTAIN COMMUNICATIONS MID MOUNTAIN COMMUNICATIONS MID MOUNTAIN COMMUNICATIONS MORSE, DONIELLE NOLAN, LYNN OFFICE DEPOT ONTRAC ONTRAC olONTRAC o� IONTRAC ONTRAC ONTRAC ONTRAC ONTRAC ONTRAC OTTO, VICTOR W. OTTO, VICTOR W. OUTSIDE TELEVISION OUTSIDE TELEVISION P&F DISTRIBUTORS User: THERESA Report: OH PMT_CLAIMS_BK Denar / Pro) Name UNDERGROUND REP EQUIPMENT REP EQUIPMENT REP EQUIPMENT REPAIR FINANCE FINANCE GEN & ADMIN LABORATORY LABORATORY ENGINEERING ENGINEERING LABORATORY - LABORATORY - LABORATORY ENGINEERING ENGINEERING CUSTOMER SERVICE CUSTOMER SERVICE DIO - PR EXP- EXTERNAL DIO - PR EXP- EXTERNAL - DVR MONIT WELLS - DVR IRRIG IMPRVS ARHD3 TRTMT EXP BKRFLD TRTMT EXP - ARPRT ARSNC EVAL ENGINEERING - DVR IRRIG IMPRVS PAYMENT OF CLAIMS SMALL TOOLS MOBILE EQUIP REP TRK 4 REPL TRK 61 TRAVEUMEETINGS TRAVEL/MEETINGS OFFICE INVENTORY POSTAGE EXPENSES MONITORING MON WLS DVR/ALPC DVR IRR IMPRVMNT POSTAGE EXPENSES POSTAGE EXPENSES POSTAGE EXPENSES POSTAGE EXPENSES AIRPORT ARSENIC TRAVEL/MEETINGS TRAVEL/MEETINGS PUB RELATIONS PUB RELATIONS DVR IRR IMPRVMNT Page: 7 Acct# / Pro' Cods Amount Check Num ?,Xltg Check Total: 1.37&05 AP -00079090 MW 2001 - 6073 218.58 Check Total: 218 AP -00079091 MW 1005 - 6012 46.22 1005 - 8153 483.07 2005 - 8182 483.06 Check Total: 1.012.35 AP- 00079092 MW 2039 - 6200 43.00 Check Total: 43.00 AP-00079093 MW 2039 - 6200 65.00 Check Total: 65.00 AP- 00079094 MW 1000 - 0428 727.26 Check Total: 727.26 AP- 00079095 MW 1007 - 4810 8.00 1007 -6110 9.00 1029 - 8136 - ALPMWS 5.50 1029 - 8161 - DVRIIP 6.50 2007 - 4810 - AH3EXP 4.50 2007 - 4810 - BKRFLD 2.25 2007 - 481'0 8.75 2029 - 4810 5.00 2029 - 7089 - AWAEPI 12.50 Check Total: 1038 - 6200 2038 - 8200 Check Total: 1027 - 6620 - PREEXT 2027 - 6620 - PREEXT Check Total: 1029 - 8161 - DVRIIP Check Total: Current Date: 04/27 /2011 Current Time: 16:35:22 62.00 AP MW 84.60 81.60 163.20 AP MW 780.63 780.62 1.561.25 AP-00079098 MW 577.04 577.04 AP- 00079099 MW V.nd.r Ham. PRAXAIR 174 PRAXAIR 174 PRAXAIR 174 PRAXAIR 174 U,Or: THERESA Report: OH_PMT_CLAIMS_BK Department / Proj Name HEAVY MAINT LABORATORY UNDERGROUND REP LABORATORY PAYMENT OF CLAIMS n Acct& / PLpj Code SHOP SUPPLIES 1004 - 6071 LAB SUPPLIES 1007 - 4760 PIPE/CVRS/MHLS 2001 - 6052 LAB SUPPLIES 2007 - 4760 Check Total: 528.42 AP -00079100 MW PRO LEISURE ADMINISTRATION INCNTV & RCGNTN 1021 - 6621 124.61 PRO LEISURE ADMINISTRATION INCNTV & RCGNTN 2021 - 6621 124.61 Check Total: 249,22 AP-00079101 MW QUALITY ASSURANCE SOLUTION LLC LABORATORY TRAVEL/MEETINGS 1007 - 6200 465.00 QUALITY ASSURANCE SOLUTION LLC LABORATORY TRAVEL/MEETINGS 2007 - 6200 465.00 Check Total: 930.00 AP- 00079102 MW RASMUSSEN, SUSAN FINANCE TRAVEL/MEETINGS 1039 - 6200 73.50 RASMUSSEN, SUSAN FINANCE TRAVEL/MEETINGS 2039 - 6200 73.50 Check Total: 147.00 AP-00079103 MW REDWOOD PRINTING ENGINEERING - ERB LINER REPL REPLACE ERB LINE 1029 - 7581 - ERBLNR 869.46 rn Check Total: 869.46 AP- 00079104 MW ! RELIANCE STANDARD GEN & ADMIN LIFE INS MGMT 1000 - 2525 511.85 RELIANCE STANDARD GEN & ADMIN LNG TRM DIS,MGMT 1000 - 2531 1,269.48 Check Total: 1.781.33 AP- 00079105 MW SCHLANGE, PAUL DIAMOND VLY RNCH TRAVEL/MEETINGS 1028 - 6200 31.62 Check Total: 31.62 AP- 00079106 MW SCOTT THORN ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING TRAVEL/MEETINGS 1029 - 6200 300.00 SCOTT THORN ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING TRAVEUMEETINGS 2029 - 6200 300.00 Check Total: 600.00 AP- 00079107 MW SCOTT VALLEY BANK GEN & ADMIN - HEADWORKS CONST RETAINAGE 1000 - 2605 - HDWORK 30,819.07 Check Total: 30.819.07 AP- 00079108 MW SHEPPARD MULLIN HUMAN RESOURCES PERSONNEL LEGAL 1022 - 4445 168.75 SHEPPARD MULLIN HUMAN RESOURCES PERSONNEL LEGAL 2022 - 4445 168.75 Check Total: 337.50 AP- 00079109 MW SHERIDAN, JOHN OPERATIONS TRAVEL/MEETINGS 1006 - 6200 107.00 Check Total: 107.00 AP- 00079110 MW Page: 8 Current Date: 04/27/2011 Current Time: 16:35:22 Amount 17.84 199.90 108.79 199.89 Check Hum Iyg Vendor Name SHRED -IT SIEMENS WATER TECHNOLOGIES SIEMENS WATER TECHNOLOGIES SIERRA CHEMICAL CO SIERRA CHEMICAL CO SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL SIERRA FOOTHILL LABORATORY SIERRA NEVADA CONSTRUCTION SIERRA NEVADA CONSTRUCTION ONSMITH POWER PRODUCTS INC co SOUND STRATEGIES/OFC INC. SOUND STRATEGIES /OFC INC. Department / pro' Name GEN & ADMIN LABORATORY LABORATORY OPERATIONS PUMPS DIO DIO SOUTH TAHOE REFUSE GEN & ADMIN SOUTH TAHOE REFUSE GEN & ADMIN SOUTH TAHOE TOWING EQUIPMENT REP SOUTHWEST GAS GEN & ADMIN SOUTHWEST GAS GEN & ADMIN STANLEY, CHRIS UNDERGROUND REP STOP LOSS INSURANCE SERVICES SELF FUNDED INS Vier: THERESA Report: OH PMT_CLAIMS BK LABORATORY LABORATORY - IND CRK RES MONT GEN & ADMIN - REPL GEN, LPPS ENGINEERING - REPL GEN, LPPS EQUIPMENT REP PAYMENT OF CLAIMS Ddit6on OFC SUPPLY ISSUE SERVICE CONTRACT SERVICE CONTRACT HYPOCHLORITE HYPOCHLORITE MONITORING MONITORING CONST RETAINAGE REPL GEN LPPS AUTOMOTIVE CONTRACT SERVICE CONTRACT SERVICE REFUSE DISPOSAL REFUSE DISPOSAL AUTOMOTIVE NATURAL GAS NATURAL GAS DUES/MEMB/CERT EXCESS INSURANCE Page: 9 Aced/ I Proj Code 1000 - 6081 1007-6030 2007-6030 1006 - 4755 2002 - 4755 1007-6110 1005 -6011 1027 - 4405 2027 - 4405 1000 - 6370 2000 - 6370 1005 - 6011 1000 - 6350 2000 - 6350 2001 - 6250 3000 - 6744 Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: 1007 - 6110 - INDIAN Check Total: 1000 - 2605 - RGLPPS 1029 - 8933 - RGLPPS Check Total: Check Total: 64.00 50.00 50.00 Current Date: 04/27/2011 Current Time: 16:3 5:22 Amount Check Num Maw 64.00 100.00 4,255.26 1,627.86 AP-00079111 MW AP- 00079112 MW 5.883.12 AP -00079113 380.00 380,00 AP- 00079114 390.00 390.00 102,263.20 17,467.00 AP- 00079115 119.730.20 AP-00079116 1,246.76 1.246.76 AP-00079117 49.00 49.00 Check Total: 98.00 AP- 00079118 2,436.98 107.12 Check Total: Check Total: 250.00 AP- 00079120 86.25 195.94 Check Total: Check Total: 39.00 AP -00079122 31,935.20 2.544.10 AP-00079119 250.00 282 .19 AP- 00079121 39.00 MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW • r SUBSTITUTE PERSONNEL & SUBSTITUTE PERSONNEL & SUBSTITUTE PERSONNEL & SUBSTITUTE PERSONNEL & SUBSTITUTE PERSONNEL & SUBSTITUTE PERSONNEL & SUBSTITUTE PERSONNEL & SUBSTITUTE PERSONNEL & SUBSTITUTE PERSONNEL & SWAIN, CAROL SWAIN, CAROL TAHOE MOUNTAIN NEWS I TAHOE MOUNTAIN NEWS Ch TAHOE PARADISE CHEVRON TAHOE TRADING POST TERRY'S APOLLO PLUMBING & HTN TRPA TRPA U S BANK CORPORATE U S BANK CORPORATE U S BANK CORPORATE U S BANK CORPORATE U S BANK CORPORATE Deer: THERESA Report: OH_PMT_CLAIMS_BK Department I Proj Name ENGINEERING ENGINEERING - FILTER ASSMNT ENGINEERING - REPL GEN, LPPS INFORMATION SYS CUSTOMER SERVICE ENGINEERING ENGINEERING - IROQUOIS BSTR ST INFORMATION SYS CUSTOMER SERVICE INFORMATION SYS INFORMATION SYS DIO - PR EXP- EXTERNAL 010 - PR EXP- EXTERNAL UNDERGROUND REP ELECTRICAL SHOP ENGINEERING - IROQUOIS SUPPLY ENGINEERING - GRIZZLY MT BSTR ENGINEERING - HEADWORKS UNDERGROUND REP UNDERGROUND REP ELECTRICAL SHOP EQUIPMENT REP OPERATIONS PAYMENT OF CLAIMS Desadatkin CONTRACT SERVICE REHAB FLTR 5&8 REPL GEN LPPS CONTRACT SERVICE CONTRACT SERVICE CONTRACT SERVICE BSTR STN IROQ CONTRACT SERVICE CONTRACT SERVICE TRAVEL/MEETINGS TRAVEL/MEETINGS PUB RELATIONS PUB RELATIONS DIESEL PUMP STATIONS BSTR STN IROQ GRIZ MTN BSTR HDWKS IMP PROJ PIPE/CVRSIMHLS TRAVEL/MEETINGS OFFICE SUPPLIES TRAVEL/MEETINGS SHOP SUPPLIES Page: 10 A I PFQJ e.odt 1029 - 4405 1029 - 8066 - FILTER 1029 - 8933 - RGLPPS 1037 - 4405 1038 - 4405 2029 - 4405 2029 - 8987 - IQBSTR 2037 - 4405 2038 - 4405 1037 - 6200 2037 - 6200 Check Total: 1027 - 6620 - PREEXT 2027 - 6620 - PREEXT Check Total: 2001 - 4620 2003-6051 2029 - 8967 - IQWTRL Check Total: 2029 - 8176 - GRIZBS 1029 - 8033 - HDWORK Check Total: 1001 - 6052 1001 - 6200 1003 - 4820 1005 - 8200 1006 - 6071 Check Total: Check Total: Current Date: 04/27/2011 Current Time: 16:35:22 Amount Check tJtmn Maw 31.9354 AP- 00079123 MW 238.09 6.32 120.08 312.96 312.98 168.06 79.93 312.96 312.96 1,864.32 AP-00079124 MW 106.00 106.00 212.00 AP- 00079125 MW 125.00 125.00 250.00 AP -00079126 MW 94.61 Check Total: _94,61 AP-00079127 MW 18.48 Check Total: 18.48 AP- 00079128 MW 348.87 348.87 AP -00079129 MW 575.00 Check Total: 575.00 AP- 00079130 MW 32,019.50 32.019.50 AP- 00079131 MW 10.00 2,107.06 97.87 240.27 28.10 PAYMENT OF CLAIMS Vendor Name Department / PrQj Name Descrintlon Acct# I Pro Code 1 Anoint Check Num 75Cpi: U S BANK CORPORATE OPERATIONS TRAVEL/MEETINGS 1006 - 6200 1,799.82 U S BANK CORPORATE LABORATORY LAB SUPPLIES 1007 - 4760 649.50 U S BANK CORPORATE LABORATORY OFFICE SUPPLIES 1007 - 4820 185.55 U S BANK CORPORATE LABORATORY TRAVEL/MEETINGS 1007 - 6200 978.94 U S BANK CORPORATE BOARD OF DIR TRAVEL/MEETINGS 1019 - 6200 475.29 U S BANK CORPORATE ADMINISTRATION TRAVEL/MEETINGS 1021 - 6200 363.46 U S BANK CORPORATE ADMINISTRATION DUES/MEMB/CERT 1021 - 6250 55.48 U S BANK CORPORATE ADMINISTRATION SUPPLIES 1021 - 6520 93.31 U S BANK CORPORATE HUMAN RESOURCES SAFETY PROGRAMS 1022 - 6079 40.00 U S BANK CORPORATE HUMAN RESOURCES TRAVEL/MEETINGS 1022 - 6200 36.16 U S BANK CORPORATE HUMAN RESOURCES PERSONNEL EXPENS 1022 - 8670 9.98 U S BANK CORPORATE DIAMOND VLY RNCH TRAVEL/MEETINGS 1028 - 6200 40.87 U S BANK CORPORATE DIAMOND VLY RNCH TELEPHONE 1028 - 6310 59.99 U S BANK CORPORATE ENGINEERING OFFICE SUPPLIES 1029 -4820 820.09 U S BANK CORPORATE ENGINEERING TRAVEL/MEETINGS 1029 - 6200 842.26 1 U S BANK CORPORATE ENGINEERING - REPL GEN, LPPS REPL GEN LPPS 1029 - 8933 - RGLPPS 261.94 ©U S BANK CORPORATE CUSTOMER SERVICE OFFICE SUPPLIES 1038 - 4820 178.80 U S BANK CORPORATE CUSTOMER SERVICE TRAVEL/MEETINGS 1038 - 6200 510.51 U S BANK CORPORATE FINANCE OFFICE SUPPLIES 1039 - 4820 35.32 U S BANK CORPORATE FINANCE TRAVEL/MEETINGS 1039 - 6200 312.61 U S BANK CORPORATE UNDERGROUND REP TRAVEL/MEETINGS 2001 - 6200 1,340.72 U S BANK CORPORATE ELECTRICAL SHOP OFFICE SUPPLIES 2003 - 4820 97.87 U S BANK CORPORATE - HEAVY MAINTENANC BUILDINGS 2004 - 6041 167.38 U S BANK CORPORATE EQUIPMENT REPAIR TRAVEL/MEETINGS 2005 - 6200 240.27 U S BANK CORPORATE LABORATORY LAB SUPPLIES 2007 - 4760 649.50 U S BANK CORPORATE LABORATORY OFFICE SUPPLIES 2007 - 4820 185.54 U S BANK CORPORATE LABORATORY TRAVEL/MEETINGS 2007 - 6200 978.93 U S BANK CORPORATE BOARD OF DIR TRAVEL/MEETINGS 2019 - 6200 2,525.81 U S BANK CORPORATE ADMINISTRATION TRAVEUMEETINGS 2021 - 6200 363.45 U S BANK CORPORATE ADMINISTRATION DUES/MEMB/CERT 2021 - 6250 55.47 U S BANK CORPORATE ADMINISTRATION SUPPLIES 2021 - 6520 93.29 U S BANK CORPORATE HUMAN RESOURCES SAFETY PROGRAMS 2022 - 6079 40.00 User: THERESA Report: OH_PMT CLAIMS_BK Page: 11 Current Date: 04/27/2011 Current Time: 16:35:22 YandoLttoma U S BANK CORPORATE U S BANK CORPORATE U S BANK CORPORATE U S BANK CORPORATE U S BANK CORPORATE U S BANK CORPORATE U S BANK CORPORATE U S BANK CORPORATE U S BANK CORPORATE UNITED TEXTILE INC UNITED TEXTILE INC UNIVERSAL HEALTH NETWORK I USA BLUE BOOK v 'USA BLUE BOOK USA BLUE BOOK USA BLUE BOOK USDA FOREST SERVICE VWR INTERNATIONAL VWR INTERNATIONAL WEDCO INC WEDCO INC WEDCO INC WESTERN ENERGETIX INC WESTERN ENVIRONMENTAL User: THERESA Report: OH_PMT_CLAIMS_BK Department f Pro) Name HUMAN RESOURCES HUMAN RESOURCES ENGINEERING ENGINEERING ENGINEERING CUSTOMER SERVICE CUSTOMER SERVICE FINANCE FINANCE GEN & ADMIN FINANCE SELF FUNDED INS PUMPS PUMPS PUMPS ENGINEERING - ARPRT ARSNC EVAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY LABORATORY ELECTRICAL SHOP ELECTRICAL SHOP EQUIPMENT REPAIR GEN & ADMIN LABORATORY PAYMENT OF CLAIMS ihiadRURD TRAVEL/MEETINGS PERSONNEL EXPENS OFFICE SUPPLIES TRAVEL/MEETINGS SFTWR HYDRO OFFICE SUPPLIES TRAVEL/MEETINGS OFFICE SUPPLIES TRAVEL/MEETINGS SHOP SUPPLY INV INV/FRT/DISCOUNT PPO FEE WELLS PUMP STATIONS BLK BRT BSTR UPG AIRPORT ARSENIC REGLTRY OP PRMTS LAB SUPPLIES LAB SUPPLIES BUILDINGS PUMP STATIONS AUTOMOTIVE GASOLINE INV MONITORING Pare: 12 Ac / Prof Code 2022 - 6200 2022 - 6670 2029 - 4820 2029 - 6200 2029 - 8160 2038 - 4820 2038 - 6200 2039 - 4820 2039 - 6200 1000 - 0421 1039 - 6077 3000 - 6742 2002 - 6050 2002 - 6051 2002 - 8189 2029 - 7089 - AWAEPI Check Total: 1029 - 6650 1007 - 4760 2007 - 4760 1003 - 6041 1003 - 6051 2005 - 6011 1000 -0415 1007 -6110 Amount 36.15 9.97 820.08 337.24 262.00 433.80 545.51 35.31 312.60 check .Nmn IYjm Check Total: 19.7$2.07 AP- 00079133 MW 287.36 15.19 Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Current Date: 04/27/2011 Current Time: 16:35:22 282.55 AP- 00079134 414.00 414.00 147.57 1,462.39 208.52 389.81 AP- 00079135 2.208.29 AP- 00079136 1,455.32 1.455.32 AP- 00079137 454.16 425.21 8,414.05 MW MW MW MW 879.37 AP- 00079138 MW 109.85 175.18 96.35 381.38 AP- 00079139 MW Check Total: 8.414.05 AP- 00079140 MW 720.00 I v N Vendor Nama User: THERESA Report OH_PMT_CLAIMS_BK Deoarhnant I Proj Name i PAYMENT OF CLAIMS Page: 13 itundkun Acct# I Proj Code Check Total: Grand Total: Current Date: 04/27/2011 Current Time: 16:35:22 Amount Check Num Innt 720.00 AP-00079141 MW 900,653.36 South Ta Public Utility District 1275 Meadow Crest Drive • South Lake Tahoe • CA 96150 -7401 Phone 530 544 -6474 • Fax 530 541 -0614 • www.stpud.us BOARD AGENDA ITEM 13a TO: Board of Directors FROM: Richard Solbrig, General Manager MEETING DATE: May 5, 2011 ITEM - PROJECT NAME: Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation REQUESTED BOARD ACTION: Direct staff. DISCUSSION: Pursuant to Section 54956.9(a) of the California Government code, Closed Session may be held for conference with legal counsel regarding existing litigation: False Claims Act Case: United States, the States of California, Delaware, Florida, Nevada, and Tennessee and the Commonwealths of Massachusetts and Virginia ex rel. John Hendrix v. J -M Manufacturing Company, Inc. and Formosa Plastics Corporation, U.S.A., Civil Action No. ED CV06-0055 -GW, United States District Court for the Central District of California. SCHEDULE: COSTS: ACCOUNT NO: BUDGETED AMOUNT REMAINING: ATTACHMENTS: CONCURRENCE WITH REQUESTED ACTION: GENERAL MANAGER: YES NO CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER: YES NO —75— CATEGORY: Water General Manager Richard H.Sobrig Mestere James R. Jones Mary Lou Moebadber Dale Rise Eric Schafer South Ta Public Utility District 1275 Meadow Crest Drive • South Lake Tahoe • CA 96150 -7401 Phone 530 544 -6474 • Fax 530 541 -0614 • www.stpud.us BOARD AGENDA ITEM TO: Board of Directors FROM: Richard Solbrig, General Manager MEETING DATE: May 5, 2011 ITEM - PROJECT NAME: Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation REQUESTED BOARD ACTION: Direct Staff DISCUSSION: Pursuant to Section 54956.9(a) of the California Government Code, closed session may be held for conference with legal counsel regarding existing litigation: Los Angeles County Superior County Superior Court, Case No. BC459943, State of Nevada, et al. v. J -M Manufacturing, et al. SCHEDULE: COSTS: ACCOUNT NO: BUDGETED AMOUNT REMAINING: ATTACHMENTS: GENERAL MANAGER: YES NO CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER: YES NO Z CONCURRENCE WITH REQUESTED ACTION: CATEGORY: General Manager Richard K Solbrig Chris Cefalu Jamey R. Jones Mary Lou Moebacher Dab Rise Eric Schafer 1 South Tahoe Public Utility District Board of Directors 1275 Meadow Crest Drive South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 May 5, 2011 RE: Metered Rates Dear Sirs: Upon receiving the most recent STUPD bill with the second bi -annual metered water usage for reference, a concern has been identified. For my own residence, during the summer months, there is an increase in the amount of water used due to landscaping. This excess more than doubles the base amount that will be allotted for usage each quarter. During the winter months, the usage is drastically reduced to one - eleventh of the allotted amount. These facts suggest an inequity to consumers for a number of reasons. First, not everyone has a meter. The metered water rates will be implemented only for those who had meters installed to date, but others may go years before they have meters installed at their premise, and thus will not be subject to any over usage. Second, if the meter usage is billed; i.e. quarterly or semi - annual, there will be some quarters where the usage will be excessive, and others where the usage will be far less than the allotted amount. My questions to the Board are as follows: 1. Has the board considered using a yearly total metered water usage instead of quarterly, and then use that to bill quarterly? This would charge for the excess usage in the summer, but essentially credit for the decreased usage in the winter. This model would be similar, albeit a different premise, to the Liberty Energy (formerly Sierra Pacific Power Company) EPP (Equal Pay Program), where the bill is averaged over the course of 12 months and then billed monthly for an entire year's use of electricity. 2. An alternative suggestion is has the board considered offering credits for under usage in a quarter that could then be applied to the over usage in another quarter? It is understood that the implementation of this government mandated program is very complex. Designing a model that will be fair to all consumers on all levels may prove very difficult. Nevertheless, as inequities are identified, they need to be addressed. Page 1 of 2 As a property owner, I am doing my part to reduce water consumption. Sara Johnson, the water conservationist, is coming to my property in June to offer suggestions for reducing landscape water consumption. Inside my house, the plumbing in all aspects are low flow, which is reflected in the fall and winter quarter bills. I am including a copy of the most recent bill showing the usage graph for the entire year for illustrative purposes. It is hoped that the board will be receptive to these concerns and work to find a viable solution that is fair and acceptable to all parties. Thank you very much. Patricia M. Handal Email: Beakface @att.net Phone: 530- 406 -9613 Page 2 of 2 s` ;, n rnw South Tahoe Public Utility District 1275 Meadow Crest Drive South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 Phone: 530- 544 -6474 I Fax: 530-541 -0614 I http://www.stpud.us 300 250 200 2 150 u 100 50 mss_ 0 + P - 43' Q( 0 )p }�' O G Prior 013622000000207135 4 1 O C. 0 J �' J� 2 0 5 P > • Current METERREM M irons: METER SERVicE PERloD ;ACM TO 240 251 11 71544265 12/08/2010 03/02/2011 NOTE: Metered water usage is billed in arrears. All other charges are billed in advance. See Enclosed District Digest Newsletter for important information. Please remember to update your credit/debit card expiration date before submitting online payments. BILLING AMOUNTS Previous Balance Payments Adjustments Current Charges Water Sewer Current Due Total Amount Due 207.13 - 207.13 0.00 119.89 87.24 207.13 $207.13 South Tahoe Public Utility District 1275 Meadow Crest Drive South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 Phone: 530- 544 -6474 I Fax: 530 -541 -0614 l http: //www.stpud.us SLSO415A 7000000732 01.0004.0051 732/1 1 1111 1 1'1' 1 1 '1III'1" X PATRICIA HANDAL PO BOX 551406 SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96155 -1406 ACCOUNT SUMMARY FOR 013622 - 000 CUSTOMER NAME: SERVICE ADDRESS: BILLING PERIOD: Previous Batan Payment 01/31/2011, Thank You Adjustments and/or Penalties: Current Charges: Total Amount - :Due: PATRICIA HANDAL 1357 MOUNTAIN MEADOW DR 04/01/2011 to 06/30/2011 ': 207.13 - 207.13 0.00 207.13 :$207:13 Please see the reverse side for important billing information Account Number: Service Add ress: Bill Date: Payment Due: Total Amount Due: Amount Enclosed: 013622-000 1357 MOUNTAIN MEADOW DR 04/01/2011 06/30/2011 $207.13 ❑ Please check box if mailing address is incorrect and indicate change(s) on the reverse side. 11.1.11 II'I'I.11.1,111 Irl'r111 111..1'1'Ir'1'Irl SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT 1275 MEADOW CREST DR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, CA 96150 -7401 rpaa • 1/11 Grizzly Mountain Booster Station Project Hearing to Consider Certification of the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact Presentation Outline • Purpose of Project • CEQA Process • Comments and Reponses to Comments • Schedule • Open to Public Comments `� , Purpose • Improve reliability and fire flow to the Tahoe Paradise Area • Provide redundant water systems • Forest Fire • Failure of San Bernardino Pipeline • Utilize higher quality and more abundant water resources • Proactive approach to reliability and fire protection CEQA Process • Conceptual Design finalized - Feb 2011 • Draft Initial Study /TRPA IEC Prepared - Mar 2011 • Draft IS /IEC Circulated Mar 23, 2011- April 28, 2011: • California State Clearinghouse • Other local agencies • Legal Notice posted in Tahoe Tribune - Mar 23, 2011 • Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Neg Dec sent to adjacent Homeowners 5/10/2011 2 CEQA Process • Neighborhood Informational Meetings held: • April 20, 2011 • April 23, 2011 • Board Meeting held to take Comment on Draft IS /IEC - April 21, 2011 • Today - Board Meeting to consider Certification of the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact - May 5, 2011 Comments Received • Site Selection Process • Why was this site selected? • Other sites would have less impact on the Neighborhood • Adjacent CTC lots on North Upper Truckee Road may be more suitable • Could the District exchange lots with CTC? 5/10/2011 3 Response • Existing Pressure Zones and Distribution System dictated site location near Grizzly Mtn Drive and N. Upper Truckee • Other nearby lots have low capability SEZ, were not for sale, or had similar residential characteristics at a higher project cost • Other District and CTC owned lots in vicinity are low capability SEZ lots Comments Received • Residential Neighborhood Compatibility Comments • Building too tall • Building looks industrial • Building blocks a scenic vista 5/10/2011 4 Response • Building height reduced • Building set back increased from Grizzly Mtn Drive • Building entry moved to side of structure • Parking moved from front of structure to side using residential style driveway • Building materials updated to reflect more residential design Revised Site Plan /Elevations 5/10/2011 5 Revised Site Plan /Elevations Revised Site Plan /Elevations dam`s} Ow O QItrP ii12' Fxsa;? \ L.-EXISTING GRADE EA,`r?_ F LEVA7 - COITNb,0.15 1 ^ird of NT ffE •P.0 TG" Of ROOf COUP iRIRG■ a ROOF WPC CROSS WE fat 5: }7 ROOF FCCH S'12 NLOWE REM(. 7O' PROPO t) REYiA • M' -10 U+ w <80.30 WIG -- !S}fRU AT OTANERS (T.P) 5/10/2011 6 Comments Received • Noise Levels • Concern about increased noise from the operation of the booster station and emergency generator • Mitigation measures need to be identified to ensure noise levels do not impact neighborhood Response • Noise Assessment prepared to quantify noise levels based on operation at N. Apache station • Mitigation measures proposed to reduce Grizzly Mtn noise levels consistent with residential neighborhood • Post construction, noise will be monitored to ensure identified measures are adequate 5/10/2011 7 Comments Received • Increased Night Lighting and Air Quality Emissions • Proposed lighting will impact dark skies at night • Emissions from back -up generator must meet El Dorado County standards • Odors from diesel generators are not addressed Response • Exterior lighting will be dark sky compliant and set up with sensors • Proposed generator is compliant with State emission standards and must obtain El Dorado County AQMD permit for operation • Odors from back -up diesel generators are temporary and localized. District has not received odor complaints at other similar facilities. 5/10/2011 8 Schedule • Draft IS /IEC Comment period closed - Apr. 28 • Board Certification and Adoption - May 5 • TRPA Approval Process - May 2011 • Construction Contract - June 2011 • Complete Construction - March 2012 5/10/2011 9 From: John Thiel Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 1:20 PM To: Board of Directors Subject: Grizzly Booster - Final Environmental Document A i - Cow, — S — \\ C oACCI vvAth This document is for the Board Item tomorrow to certify the Negative Declaration for Grizzly Booster. The package is large but it is not necessary for you to go over everything - I will give you an overview so you can quickly go over the salient points. You have already received the Initial Study / Initial Environmental Checklist. This document includes the findings to be made for the Negative Declaration, our response to all comments received, along with 4 attachments. You may want to browse through the Response to Comments (13 pages). We have explained why we chose this site and how we have responded to concerns on building design, noise, etc. Much of this was covered at my presentation at the last Board Meeting. We are adding a sound mitigation component to the project — This is detailed in Attachment C. We were always planning to do sound attenuation; this just details the work and quantifies results. The new design is illustrated in Attachment D. We moved the building back, lowered it, and made it more residential looking. Attachment A is just a copy of the comments received - no need to review these. Attachment B shows the water zones. Sorry for the late delivery — We agreed to extend the comment period through last Thursday, and it takes time to respond accurately, especially with the noise assessment. Please call me if you have questions. John Thiel (530) 543 -6209 SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT GRIZZLY MOUNTAIN BOOSTER STATION PROJECT State Clearinghouse Number: 2011032052 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION PACKAGE May 3, 2011 STPUD GRIZZLY MOUNTAIN BOOSTER STATION PROJECT NEGATIVE DECLARATION CERTIFICATION CERTIFICATION OF THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT GRIZZLY MOUNTAIN BOOSTER STATION PROJECT Whereas a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared dated March 23, 2011 on the project which includes: A description of the Project; the location of the project; findings that the project, with mitigation, will not have a significant effect on the environment; an Initial Study documenting the potential impacts, incorporated mitigation measures and information supporting the finding of no significant impact; and mitigation measures included in the project which will avoid the potentially significant effects; Whereas the Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated through the California Office of Planning and Research, to responsible agencies and the interested public from March 23, 2011 through April 28, 2011 and six comments were received (Attachment A); Whereas the Mitigated Negative Declaration was noticed in the March 23, 2011 edition of the Tahoe Daily Tribune; Whereas the District held a hearing on the Mitigated Negative Declaration on April 21, 2011 to receive public comment; Now therefore, at the May 5, 2011 hearing, the South Tahoe Public Utility District Board finds "that upon review of the initial study and comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant impact on the environment." MAY 2011 PAGE 1 NOTICE OF DETERMINATION To: Office of Planning and Research From: STPUD 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 1275 Meadow Crest Drive Sacramento, CA 95814 South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 County Clerk County of El Dorado 360 Fair Lane Placerville, CA 95667 STPUD GRIZZLY MOUNTAIN BOOSTER STATION PROJECT NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOTICE OF DETERMINATION Subject: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code. Project Title: STPUD Grizzly Mountain Booster Station Project 2011032052 State Clearinghouse Number John Thiel (530) 543 -6209 Contact Person Phone Number Project Location: El Dorado County, APN 033 - 494 -10, located in the Tahoe Paradise neighborhood in South Lake Tahoe, CA. Project Description: The Grizzly Mountain Booster Station project consists of the construction of a new booster pump station to improve the primary water service to approximately 3,000 existing homes in the Flagpole and Twin Peaks water zones. The project increases water reliability to the Flagpole and Twin Peaks water zones by providing a second source of water to the area currently served by only one pipeline from the Arrowhead water zone (located in Meyers, CA). The new booster station is being funded by the District as matching funds for a future Fire Protection Partnership Funding / USFS Forest Health Fund grant, similar to what was used for the North Apache Booster Station and Grizzly Mountain water line replacement project. With a standby pump and a diesel - powered standby generator, the Grizzly Mountain Booster Station will provide a substantial improvement to reliability and fire protection in the Tahoe Paradise area. The new station will be located at 1553 Grizzly Mountain Drive, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150. The proposed Booster Station building is 968 square feet and 18 feet, 10 inches high, and is designed to blend with adjacent residential structures in the surrounding neighborhood. The Booster station will be accessed by a new driveway from Grizzly Mountain Drive. This is to advise that the South Tahoe Public Utility District Board has approved the above described project on May 5, 2011 and has made the following determinations regarding the above described project: 1. The project will not have a significant effect on the environment. MAY 2011 PAGE 1 This is to certify that the Negative Declaration with comments and responses and record of project approval is available to the general public at the South Tahoe Public Utility District, 1275 Meadow Crest Drive, South Lake Tahoe, California, 96150. 2. A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 3. Mitigation measures were made a condition of the approval of the project. 4. A mitigation monitoring plan was not adopted for this project. 5. A statement of overriding conditions was not adopted for this project. 6. Findings were not made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. Date Received for Filing and Posting at OPR: May 6, 2011. MAY 2011 STPUD GRIZZLY MOUNTAIN BOOSTER STATION PROJECT NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOTICE OF DETERMINATION Board President Dale Rise Title South Tahoe Public Utility District PAGE 2 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Comments in the form of letters, emails and personal communications were received from the public on the project (Attachment A). A brief summary of the comments received is provided below followed by a formal response to the comments: Commenter 1 - Paulson, 28 April 2011, 21 April 2011 and 11 April 2011 1 -1. Requests a 30 -day extension to the comment period because of inadequate public notice to affected neighbors. MAY 2011 STPUD GRIZZLY MOUNTAIN BOOSTER STATION PROJECT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Response — Noticing for the comment period for the Grizzly Mountain booster station project meets the requirements of Article 6, Section 15072(b) of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. Notices were mailed to properties located within 300 feet of the project site and was included in the Tahoe Tribune on March 23, 2011. After initial discussions with nearby property owners, the District hosted informational neighborhood meetings at the project site on April 20 and 23` and extended the end of the public comment period from April 22, 2011 to April 28, 2011. The Board is considering the information presented in this document and the approval of the project at their May 5, 2011 Board hearing. 1 -2. Did not receive notice of the project and our home is less than a block from the proposed project site. Response — Notices were mailed to properties located 300 feet from the project site. 758 Little Bear Lane is located more than 300 feet from the project site. 1 -3. Project description for the Booster Station should include the related waterline replacement project — excluding the waterline project does not allow public input on that project together with the Booster Station. These two projects should have been connected in one overall project in order to effectively inform the public and obtain integrated comments. Response — The referenced waterline replacement project was approved by the District under a categorical exemption for replacement of existing pipelines. Most of the District's waterline replacement projects are approved under categorical exemptions subject to CEQA requirements. Much of the waterline replacement project is independent of the connection required for the booster station. The approval of the waterline replacement project does not necessitate the approval of the proposed booster station project — the portion of the waterline replacement project necessary to connect the booster station could be eliminated from the waterline replacement project if necessary, because it is scheduled for completion in the third phase of construction. 1 -4. IS Section 1 -2 does not include water zone maps or other information that would adequately describe the purpose of the project and who it will serve. PAGE 1 1 -5. IS Page 13. The required land capability has not been verified by TRPA and therefore information is not ready for public review and comment. MAY 2011 STPUD GRIZZLY MOUNTAIN BOOSTER STATION PROJECT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Response — The maps included in Attachment B show the location of the water zones in the project area. The District has two different water pressure zones that pass through the intersection of Grizzly Mountain and North Upper Truckee and required a lot that was close to this intersection in order to pump water from the lower pressure zone to the higher pressure zone. As mentioned in Section 1 -2 of the Initial Study, the project will improve water reliability to the homes located in the Flagpole and Twin Peaks water zones. These zones are currently served by only one water supply pipeline from the Arrowhead water zone. Construction of the booster station will allow for movement of water from the Twin Peaks water zone to the Flagpole water zone, thereby adding a second water source to the Flagpole water zone area. Finally, the proposed booster station also allows for Twin Peaks water to be used in the Arrowhead water zone and other El Dorado County zones south and east of the project area. Response — The TRPA is in the processing of verifying land capability for the project site and must do so before issuing a permit for construction. The Initial Study assumes worst case land capability to ensure that the analysis supports the findings that may be necessary for development on low capability Class 3 lands. The project will not impact mapped SEZ located at the back of the lot based on TRPA IPES mapping. It is possible that a portion of the proposed Grizzly Mountain booster station lot (near the roadway) will be mapped as Class 5 based on a review of other land capability verifications available in the project vicinity. In this case, findings for Class 3 land coverage transfer would likely not be required. 1 -6. IS Page 14. Incomplete information was provided on the site selection process — the document does not demonstrate that the proposed site is preferred over other sites in the area. Other sites could be constructed with less impact on the environment and neighbors. Additional information needs to be provided to document the site selection process — a better alternative would be use of a nearby lot owned by CTC. Why isn't the project site located closer to the new water zone that the booster station is intended to serve? Response — The District consulted with TRPA and used Vivian Seifert at Century 21 to perform a property search, research comparable properties listed or sold, and develop a fair market value assessment - the District paid fair market value. The selected property was included on a list of properties for sale. No other relevant lots were listed for sale although Vivian contacted some and attempted to contact others with no response. Other undeveloped lots were either in stream environment zones, government owned (many of the government owned lots are also in SEZ), too far away from our target location (North Upper Truckee / Grizzly intersection), or not offered for sale. The selected lot has no backyard neighbors, just the traffic on North Upper Truckee. Based on the cost of the selected lot and the cost to connect to the existing distribution network, it was also determined to be the most cost effective solution. Subsequent to release of the Initial Study, the District contacted the Conservancy to PAGE 2 STPUD GRIZZLY MOUNTAIN BOOSTER STATION PROJECT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS discuss the availability of their lots in the project vicinity and whether they would be willing to swap one of their lots for the recently purchased District lot on Grizzly Mountain. The Conservancy acquires sensitive lots and determined that the Grizzly Mountain lot is not sensitive because of its high IPES score and high coverage capability. Their program would not allow for the purchase of the District's lot even though there is some SEZ on the back 20 feet and they cannot exchange one of their sensitive (e.g., undevelopable) lots for one that is developable. 1 -7. The diesel generators are described as clean equipment in conversations with District staff, but they will only have filters and not scrubbers. Air quality could be affected during generator use. Response — The back -up diesel generator will be tested during the normal work day for about 15 minutes per month. During power outage conditions, it will only operate when water storage tank volumes are down - not continuously. The generator will allow the District to provide fire flows for fighting fires even when the power goes down (as it quickly did during the Angora Fire). The proposed back -up generator is one of the cleanest diesel engines (EPA Tier 3) offered and, according to Steve McKinney at the El Dorado County Air Quality Management District (AQMD), must meet strict California emission standards and receive a permit for operation from the AQMD (personal communication with Steve McKinney, 5/3/11). As such, the back -up generator will comply with existing regulations without the need for additional mitigation measures. 1 -8. IS Pages 23 -24. The District proposes to use native plants for site revegetation and proposes to use minimal fertilizer. It is preferred that no fertilizer be used due to the SEZ below the project site. Response — Fertilizer use, if required to establish landscaping following installation, will be done so with measures to ensure that fertilizers do not wash offsite during watering or storm events. 1 -9. Mitigation measures are needed to ensure that hazardous fuel spills do not occur. Response — The design of the diesel fuel storage within the booster station structure includes required regulatory measures to ensure that an accidental spill does not exit the structure and contaminate soils. The fuel storage plans includes the use of a UL 142 double wall steel tank with a capacity of 300 gallons or less with a fuel leak detection system should the inner containment fail. If a catastrophic failure occurred from structural damage, the leaked diesel fuel would enter the sanitary sewer through a drain in the booster station building foundation. Therefore, additional mitigation measures are not necessary. 1 -10. Mitigation measures are needed to ensure noise levels do not impact our neighborhood from operations of the facility. Potential noise impacts are from operation, use of the back -up generator and hum from the transformer. Additional insulation should be provided in the building. Monitoring should occur to ensure the mitigation measures are adequate. MAY 2011 PAGE 3 MAY 2011 STPUD GRIZZLY MOUNTAIN BOOSTER STATION PROJECT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Response — The District has redesigned the booster station to further reduce the potential for offsite noise disturbance. As part of the redesign process, the District has contracted with jc brennan & associates to review the design plans and make recommendations for additional noise abatement measures. The study is included as Attachment C and recommends the following mitigation measures: 1. It is recommended that Kinetics (VIBRON) brand VAL/2, 12 inch deep acoustic louvers (or similar performance louvers) are installed in the air intake and exhaust openings. Appendix B of Attachment C shows the acoustical louver cut - sheet. This louver will provide noise level reductions ranging from 22 dB at 500 Hz to 30 dB at 4000 Hz. When air flow requirements and safe pressure drop information is available, the size of the louver opening can be determined by the manufacturer. 2. Any passive air intake through sheet metal plenums and gable vents should include a lining of fiberglass duct liner on the interior of the sheet metal duct work. In addition, Acoustical Duct Lagging material provided by Sound Seal should be wrapped around the duct work. 3. It is recommended that all proposed windows should either be removed from the plans, or boxed on the inside using 2x6 framing with a minimum R11 insulation in the stud cavities and 5/8" gypsum board. 4. The ceiling should be insulated and covered in 5/8" gypsum board to keep noise from flanking through eve vents. 5. Minimum building construction shall be similar to that which is in the Apache Pump Station. This includes concrete block framing, exterior siding, 2x4 interior framing. Siding should be furred out from the walls. Insulation should be included in stud cavities of the interior walls, and 5/8" gypsum board installed on the interior. All penetrations of the roof and facades should be caulked and sealed tightly. 6. All doors should be steel with a minimum density of 4 lbs./square foot, and fitted with thresholds and tightly sealed on all edges with gaskets. 7. It is also recommended that walls opposite of the air intake and exhaust be lined with an acoustically absorptive material. It is recommended that the Illbruck Sonexcurtain QA is used. This material can be hung from grommets on the walls. The District proposes to adopt these measures as part of the proposed project (see modifications to the IS on page 13 of this document) and will monitor to ensure the recommended measures effectively reduce noise levels consistent with agency standards and noise levels found in a quiet residential neighborhood. 1 -11. The document does not adequately address potential impacts to nighttime views. More information is needed regarding proposed exterior security lighting, which should be minimized. Response — The District has redesigned the booster station with the main entrance now PAGE 4 STPUD GRIZZLY MOUNTAIN BOOSTER STATION PROJECT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS located on the side of the structure. Exterior lighting is proposed near the side door entrance — no exterior lighting is proposed for the remaining sides of the building, including the front of the structure. In addition, to ensure minimal impact to night lighting in the area, exterior lighting will be set up to come on only when District staff approach the entrance to the building. 1 -12. The project may block an existing view of a scenic vista including forest, Angora Ridge and Mt Tallac. Some modifications proposed to the building by the District may address this concern. Proposed landscaping plans are not detailed enough to ensure that industrial design features will be screened. Response — Based on input from the neighbors to the proposed project, the District has made revisions to the design and layout of the proposed booster station. A revised site plan and elevations are included in Attachment D. The redesigned booster station will be 18 feet, 10 inches tall calculated from low point to high point of the ridgeline (a reduction of 14 feet, 10 inches compared to the previous proposal of 33 feet, 8 inches). 1 -13. IS Page 46. Impacts to cultural resources have not been adequately described — the Washoe Tribe was known to frequent the area and many sites are located in nearby Washoe Meadows State Park. Response — A record search was conducted to identify the results of previous cultural resources surveys in the area. No known resources were identified. However, to ensure that no resources are present on the site, a pre - construction cultural resources pedestrian survey of the site will occur. If resources are identified during the pre - construction survey, measures are in place to ensure the resources are studied and if necessary, mitigated through consultation with the CA Office of Historic Preservation. 1 -14. The proposed design of the booster station does not fit with the residential neighborhood. Materials are too industrial, mechanical equipment like the transformer will be visible, and the building is too close to the street. Some changes proposed by the District will help reduce the inconsistency with residential homes, but need to be formalized in the environmental document. Response — Please see response to comment 1 -12. The District has revised the plans based on input from neighbors. The revised plans include a shorter structure set back further from the road, and design features typically found on single family homes (e.g., front door, front windows, gabled roof, shingle roof, residential driveway, wood or wood - simulated siding). 1 -15. IS Page 31. The project site is identified as a high priority for SEZ restoration, but the project does not include any such restoration. Response — The project site does not include any previous disturbance to mapped SEZ, nor does it include disturbance to the SEZ located at the back of the lot. As such, no SEZ restoration is required. MAY 2011 PAGE 5 Commenter 2 - Butler, 28 April 2011 STPUD GRIZZLY MOUNTAIN BOOSTER STATION PROJECT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 2 -1. Project Details. Based on District meetings with neighbors, we note the proposed changes to the project including: changes to the exterior of the station to better blend with the existing homes, setback of the building further from the street so that it is less obtrusive, removal of fewer trees than the original plan, addition of many new trees that will further screen the station from view, and the use of a snowblower for snow removal. Response — These requested design changes are consistent with the District's proposed design revisions included in Attachment D. The District is looking into purchasing a vehicle- mounted snowblower to plow our sites, but it is uncertain when that new equipment will be available. However, with the proposed design revisions, there won't be a large pile of dirty snow pushed up in the front of the structure, which is the basis of the concern from the neighbors. 2 -2. Noise and Air Quality. Our major concerns remain the amount of noise and the potential for diesel fumes emitted during operation of the pumps. An important part of the quality of life in our neighborhood is the fact that it is exceptionally quiet and has fresh, clean air. We expect that these attributes will not be degraded by the booster station. We request to see the provisions in the plan to prevent noise and fuel pollution, both through fumes in the air and potential spills. Response — Please see response to comment 1 -10 regarding proposed measures to control noise from the booster station. Please see response to comment 1 -7 regarding potential emissions from operation of the diesel back -up generator. 2 -3. Water Pressure. We understand that a Booster Station is necessary to be built somewhere within the Twin Peaks and Flagpole areas to improve water pressure and increase fire protection. We would like to know why water pressure on our two streets of Grizzly Mountain and Little Bear Lane is so low to begin with, at 60 pounds per square inch (psi). Why will it only be increased to 75 psi by this project when Zuni, the next street over, is rated at 115 psi? Response — Residential homes typically have (or should have) a pressure reducing valve (PRV) to limit pressure to 75 psi to protect water heaters and home plumbing. Zuni is at the bottom end (low elevation) of the Flagpole Zone. Operating pressures are lowest at the top (actually zero at the free water surface in the tank) of a water zone and highest at the bottom. The homes on Zuni should each have a PRV that limits their home pressure to 75 psi. The higher pressure in the distribution pipes in the street will generally allow higher fire flows. The District's new pipe systems are designed for 150 psi or more. We have ongoing problems with old pipes with high pressure, however, and have an ongoing waterline replacement program to replace old, problem pipes over time. 2 -4. Alternative Sites. At the meeting on Saturday, April 23rd, it was proposed that there are several lots on North Upper Truckee Road that may be equally or more suitable for locating the Booster Station. Is it possible for STPUD to exchange the lot on Grizzly Mountain for a lot owned by the Conservancy? This, in our opinion, is the best possible compromise. MAY 2011 PAGE 6 2 -5. We remain concerned that the proposed Booster Station brings an industrial facility into our quiet, clean residential neighborhood. Response — Please see responses to comments 1 -12 and 1 -14. 2 -6. Since the current EIR does not contain the changes agreed to by STPUD staff verbally and in email, we must reserve our acceptance until we can be officially assured that they will be implemented. MAY 2011 Response — Please see response to comment 1 -6. Response — Comment noted. STPUD GRIZZLY MOUNTAIN BOOSTER STATION PROJECT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Commenter 3 - Klimaszewski, 27 April 2011 3 -1. Project description for the Booster Station should include the related waterline replacement project — excluding the waterline project does not allow public input on that project and creates an atmosphere of undue bias toward approval of the proposed booster station. Response — Please see response to comment 1 -3. 3 -2. IS Question 2A and 2B. The report does not document air pollutants that would be expelled into the neighborhood during use of the back -up diesel generator. The generator must comply with El Dorado County Air Pollution Control District Rule 233. Response — Please see response to comment 1 -7. The purpose of El Dorado County Air Quality Management District Rule 233 is to limit the emissions of oxides of nitrogen and carbon monoxide from stationary internal combustion engines that operate on a continual basis. Emergency standby engines operated either during an emergency or maintenance operation (limited to 50 hours per calendar year) are exempt from this Rule. 3 -3. IS Question 2C. The report does not address odors from the diesel generators during monthly tests or during power outage operations. Scrubbers should be added to the project. Response — The generation and severity of odors is dependent on a number of factors, including the nature, frequency, and intensity of the source; wind direction; and the location of the receptor(s). Odors rarely cause physical harm, but can cause discomfort, leading to complaints to regulatory agencies. Typical facilities known to produce odors include landfills, wastewater treatment plants, manufacturing plants, and certain agricultural activities. Diesel emissions from construction equipment and the back -up generator may create odors during construction and operation of the emergency generator. These odors would be temporary and localized, and they would cease once diesel powered equipment is shut off. Thus, it is not anticipated that the construction or operation of the booster station would result in odor impacts. The District has not received odor complaints from the operation of similar emergency generators located at other District facilities. PAGE 7 STPUD GRIZZLY MOUNTAIN BOOSTER STATION PROJECT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 3 -4. IS Question 2E. Increased use of diesel fuel is not addressed in the report. Response — The Initial Study discloses that the project would use diesel fuel during construction and during use of the back -up diesel generators. However, because normal project operation does not include the use of diesel fuel, the increase is not considered substantial or a significant impact. 3 -5. IS Question 3F. The analysis does not consider the trenching required for the final project, which invalidates the stated conclusions. MAY 2011 Response — Please see response to comment 1 -3. Environmental documentation for the waterline replacement project is addressed in the District's Categorical Exemption. Potential groundwater interception on the booster station site is addressed in the Initial Study and measures are provided to handle groundwater should it be encountered during project construction. 3 -6. IS Question 6A. In order to be consistent with the existing neighborhood noise levels, additional measures are required to achieve a lower dB level than the PAS standard of 50 dB CNEL. Response — Please see response to comment 1 -10. 3 -7. IS Question 6B. The analysis does not consider the noise levels from the back -up diesel generator testing nor during power outages (which are common in the neighborhood). Measures to control noise from the diesel generators need to be identified and included in the project — measures should control noise from the generators in a similar manner as they will control noise from continuous operation of the booster station. Response — Please see response to comment 1 -10. 3 -8. IS Question 6C. The analysis is inadequate — see comment 3 -7 above. Response — Please see response to comment 1 -10. 3 -9. IS Question 7. Introduction of a light source can disrupt the existing night sky conditions in the neighborhood. Design measures for controlling security lights are required to minimize light pollution. Response — Please see response to comment 1 -11. 3 -10. IS Question 8A. The design of the proposed booster station is not consistent with the residential classification — the architectural features of the building are more commercial than residential. Building redesign and landscaping referenced by the District during recent community meetings need to be officially entered into the final environmental report. Response — Please see responses to comments 1 -12 and 1 -14. PAGE 8 STPUD GRIZZLY MOUNTAIN BOOSTER STATION PROJECT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 3 -11. IS Question 10A. The analysis does not adequately address diesel fuel storage for the back- up generators. Response — Please see response to comment 1 -9. 3 -12. IS Question 17. The analysis does not consider the fumes from running the back -up diesel generators. Scrubbers are required to protect air quality in the neighborhood. Response — Please see response to comment 3 -3. 3 -13. IS Question 18C. The structure will take away a scenic vista on the Angora Ridge and replace it with a stark looking building, impacting scenic resources. Response — Please see response to comment 1 -12. 3 -14. IS Question 18E. See comment 3 -10. Response — Please see responses to comments 1 -12 and 1 -14. 3 -15. IS Question 21D. The analysis does not consider the sound, light and air pollution impacts — sufficient mitigation of these issues is not provided at present. Response — Based on proposed modifications to the building design and additional mitigation measures outlined in this final environmental document (e.g., noise measures), the conclusions outlined in the Initial Study remain unchanged. 3 -16. Economic Impact. The analysis does not address economic impact to neighborhood property values. Response — Based on proposed modifications to the building design and additional mitigation measures outlined in this final environmental document (e.g., noise measures), the conclusions regarding impact significance outlined in the Initial Study remain unchanged. CEQA does not require analysis of economic impacts, however, the District has not seen evidence of reduced property values from facilities such as the proposed booster station during informal discussions with members of the Board of Realtors. 3 -17. Time Extension. Due to the number of issues and need for additional mitigation measures, more time should be provided for public comment and review of design revisions. Response — Please see response to comment 1 -1. 3 -18. Alternatives. Alternate sites should also be evaluated that would have less impact on residential neighborhoods. Response — Please see response to comment 1 -6. MAY 2011 PAGE 9 Commenter 4 - Martin, 21 April 2011 and 15 March 2011 4 -1. Project Details. Concerned with the location of the proposed booster station and the process of selecting the site. Why was a view lot chosen for the site of a utility building? 4 -2. Document states that no residents would be adversely affected by the building and no visitors on a highway or bike path would be negatively impacts. However, no nearby neighbors were notified until about a month ago. The wildlife, flora and fauna were considered but not the human residents. Disappointed with the District planning department. Response — Comment noted. Please see response to comment 1 -1 regarding the District's efforts to coordinate with area residents. 4 -3. We appreciate the scenic vistas in our neighborhood. The Grizzly Mountain lot proposed for the booster station is more suited for a single family home than a utility building. Response — Please see responses to comments 1 -12 and 1 -14. 4 -4. Will the pump station alter the clean air and absence of city noise in our neighborhood? Will security lights have a negative impact on night time aesthetics in the area? Response — Please see response to comment 1 -7 regarding potential emissions from operation of the diesel back -up generator. Please see response to comment 1 -10 regarding proposed measures to control noise from the booster station. Please see response to comment 1 -11 regarding security lighting. 4 -5. How was the building approved on a steep grade above a stream zone? Response — The proposed booster station would be located near Grizzly Mountain drive outside of delineated stream zone boundaries. TRPA must ultimately permit the building location and confirm that measures are included to protect adjacent stream zone areas. 4 -6. Why was the site selected, property purchased and environmental review completed without notification to any surrounding residents? The booster station will impact a dozen neighboring homes. It will have a negative effect on real property values and dramatically modify scenic vistas enjoyed from the adjacent residences. How do you mitigate these impacts? Response — Please see response to comment 1 -1 regarding the District's public notification process. Please see response to comment 1 -6 regarding the site selection process. Please see response to comment 1 -12 regarding potential effects to scenic vistas. Mitigation measures are built into the design of the facility and have been more clearly described in responses above related to noise (1 -10) and air quality impacts (1 -7). 4 -7. Why is the facility to be located so far from the area it will serve? Can the District reconsider plans presented on their website and build this facility in a location closer to the area it MAY 2011 Response — Please see response to comment 1 -6. STPUD GRIZZLY MOUNTAIN BOOSTER STATION PROJECT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS PAGE 10 will serve? Response — Please see response to comment 1 -14. STPUD GRIZZLY MOUNTAIN BOOSTER STATION PROJECT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Response — Please see response to comment 1 -4. 4 -8. Will the District consider building a lower profile facility that will have less impact? Is it possible for the building to have wood siding to blend in with neighboring homes? Response — Please see responses to comments 1 -12 and 1 -14. Commenter 5 (Conversation Record) - Paul, 14 April 2011 5 -1. Building is located in an SEZ. Response — The proposed lot includes SEZ at the back end. The building is not located in the delineated SEZ. 5 -2. The environmental assessment was done with snow on the ground — how can a real assessment be completed with snow on the ground? Response — Background data from the District and TRPA files was used to prepare the environmental assessment. Two assessments will be completed prior to construction operations including a cultural resources survey and TRPA verification of the land capability. For the Initial Study, a worst case land capability assumption (e.g., Land Capability Class 3) was used to support the necessary findings. 5 -3. The look of the building is not consistent with homes on the street. Building should look like the nearby homes. 5 -4. A different design is needed for the booster station because of cheap pumps purchased by the District. Response — Please see response to comment 1 -10. A noise specialist has reviewed the proposed equipment and building design and has recommended measures to ensure noise levels are consistent with a quiet residential neighborhood. 5 -5. Concerned about the back -up generator. Generator will run for 3 hours per month for resting and will smell like diesel. Doesn't want diesel stored onsite. 5 -6. Wants a drive way installed and plowed like other driveways on the street — does not want a loader used that creates big piles of dirty snow. 5 -7. Thinks the District paid too much for the site. MAY 2011 Response — Please see responses to comments 1 -7, 1 -10 and 3 -3. Response — Please see responses to comments 1 -14 and 2 -1. PAGE 11 STPUD GRIZZLY MOUNTAIN BOOSTER STATION PROJECT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Response — Please see response to comment 1 -6. 5 -8. Was noticed of the project on April 1 The Board can't approve the project on April 21 because it does not allow for 30 days of public review. Response — Please see response to comment 1 -1. 5 -9. The District should move the booster station to the burn area since that is what it will serve. Response — Please see response to comment 1 -4. 5 -10. Requested public records of the site investigations and options considered prior to selecting the Grizzly Mountain site, and correspondence related to the site selection. Response — Comment noted. Commenter 6 - Kahn, 11 April 2011 6 -1. The purpose stated for the facility is to increase water available for fire suppression and to increase water pressure in the community but we don't have an issue with low water pressure in our home on 727 Zuni Street. Response — Please see response to comment 2 -3. 6 -2. Noise levels are guaranteed to not exceed TRPA's 50 dBA requirements. However, the facility will result in constant noise levels in a neighborhood where sound travels great distances? Our homes is located behind the home directly across the street and we will hear the noise 24 hours a day. Response — Please see response to comment 1 -10. 6 -3. Lights are to be on a timer as well as motion sensors — light in the area shines a great distance and our bedrooms face the proposed facility. This means we will be facing the lights all night long. Response — Please see response to comment 1 -11. 6 -4. The facility is proposed to be 34 feet high and will supposedly blend with the surrounding homes. Why choose the vacant property when there are others in less intrusive areas — and others that previously had development on them? Response — Please see responses to comments 1 -6 and 1 -12. 6 -5. The environmental document does not indicate how this facility will impact property values. Who will want to purchase our home when it is so close to a pump station? MAY 2011 Response — Please see response to comment 3 -16. PAGE 12 STPUD GRIZZLY MOUNTAIN BOOSTER STATION PROJECT MODIFICATIONS TO THE IS /NEG DEC MODIFICATIONS TO THE INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION DATED MARCH 23, 2011 The following changes will be made to the Initial Study dated March 23, 2011. Underlined text is new text that has been added to the Initial Study. Text that is shown in stfikeeat has been removed from the Initial Study. Section 6. Noise, page 29: Revise mitigation measure 6.aii as shown below. Mitigation Measure 6.ai — Construction Noise Reduction Techniques. In order to reduce construction related noise, the following measures shall be implemented: • All equipment shall be adequately muffled and maintained. • No piece of equipment which generates maximum noise levels greater than 85 dBA measured at 50 feet shall be allowed on site. Mitigation Measure 6.aii — Operational Noise Reduction Techniques. In order to reduce operational- related noise, the following measures shall be implemented: • It is recommended that Kinetics (VIBRON) brand VALJ2 12 inch deep acoustic louvers (or similar performance louvers) be installed in the air intake and exhaust openings. Appendix B of Attachment C shows the acoustical louver cut - sheet. This louver will provide noise level reductions ranging from 22 dB at 500 Hz to 30 dB at 4000 Hz. When air flow requirements and safe pressure drop information is available, the size of the louver opening can be determined by the manufacturer. • Any passive air intake through sheet metal plenums and gable vents should include a lining of fiberglass duct liner on the interior of the sheet metal duct work. In addition. Acoustical Duct Lagging material provided by Sound Seal should be wrapped around the duct work. • It is recommended that all proposed windows should either be removed from the plans, or boxed on the inside using 2x6 framing with a minimum RI insulation in the stud cavities and 5/8" gypsum board. • The ceiling should be insulated and covered in 5/8 "gypsum board to keep noise from flanking through eve vents. • Minimum building construction shall be similar to that which is in the Apache Booster Pump Station. This includes 2x6 framing with 5/8" plywood sheeting on the exterior. Siding should be firred out from the sheeting using a 2x4 frame. Insulation should be included in stud cavities of the interior walls, and 5/8" gypsum board installed on the interior. All penetrations of the roof and facades should be caulked and sealed tightly. • All doors should be steel with a minimum density of 4 lbs ✓squarejoot, and fitted with thresholds and tightly sealed on all edges with gaskets. • It is also recommended that walls opposite of the air intake and exhaust be lined with an acoustically absorptive material. It is recommended that the Illbruck Sonexcurtain OA is used. This material can be hung from grommets on the walls. MAY 2011 PAGE 13 April 28, 2011 To: John Thiel Principal Engineer South Tahoe Public Utility District 1275 Meadow Crest Drive South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 Subject: Comments on Draft Initial Study /Draft Initial Environmental Checklist, STPUD Grizzly Mountain Booster Station Project, dated March 2011 Reference: Email from John Thiel to Distribution list of residents near project, dated April 24, 2011, Subject: Grizzly Booster- Redesign The following are my comments on the subject document. Thank you for your review of these comments. This is to request a 30 day extension in the comment period on the project due to lack of public notice to affected neighbors and due to the time needed to review, request and receive the necessary project information. The recent extension of the comment period by a total of 4 business days is not adequate, especially in light of the delay in receipt of some of the requested information related to the project. Public Review I did not receive notice of this project even though our home is less than a block from the proposed project site at 1553 Grizzly Mt. Drive and is within sight of this lot. I only found out about the project accidentally from someone who did receive the notice. Members of the public who are impacted by the project need to receive adequate notice in order to review the project. The waterline pipeline replacement was handled as a joint project with the booster pump station for the purposes of the geotechnical investigation (Grizzly Mountain Water Line Replacement and Booster Pump Station Project). However, for public review purposes, the two features were treated as separate projects, impeding public understanding of the overall nature of the project and its impact on the neighborhood. Purchase of the land for the booster station and then contracting for the pipeline replacement prior to public review and input on the booster station seemingly negate full consideration of public comments. These two projects should have been connected in one overall project in order to effectively inform the public and obtain integrated comments. Inadequate information on orojectpurpose. The description in Section 1 -2 does not include water zone maps or other information that would adequately describe the purpose of the project and who will be served by the project. 1 Inadequate information on land coverage (page 13) The required land capability has not been verified by the TRPA and therefore the complete information is not ready for public review and comment on the conclusions for the project or on any exceptions that may be requested for the project. Site Selection Incomplete information was provided on the site selection process (page 14). It has not been demonstrated that this site is preferred over other sites in the area where a booster station could be constructed with less impact on the environment and less impact on residences. A list of additional sites examined and the justification for eliminating them from consideration was requested and should be provided along with a list of site selection criteria. This information was first requested on April 12 and the request was clarified in a meeting on April 20. Only a map with some unclear notations was provided on April 23. The preferred alternative would exchange the current lot with a lot more suitable for siting the booster station. Many nearby lots are owned by other agencies such as CTC and these could be potential booster stations sites. The project was described verbally as intended to support creation of a new water zone from existing zones. If so, why isn't the project sited in or closer to the new water zone area? Air Quality The project diesel generators are described verbally as clean equipment. However, they will have particulate filters but no scrubbers. There is a concern that air quality could be affected during diesel generator use. The environmental document needs to address this issue. Vegetation (page 23 -24) It is commendable that any revegetation is planned to be native to the project area. It is mentioned that excessive fertilizer will not be used. It is preferred that no fertilizer be used due to the SEZ below the project site. Hazardous materials Adequate mitigation measures for protection against spills of hazardous materials such as diesel generator fuel are not provided. Only spills during construction are addressed (page 43). Some provisions should be made to allow for handling / mitigation for both leak and break of piping or container with resultant diesel spill. Noise The project has the potential to significantly affect the noise in the neighborhood and the mitigation measures proposed are not adequate. The environmental impact of noise from the operating project has not been fully considered nor have fully adequate mitigation measures been outlined. 2 It is not appropriate to place equipment with continual noise in this residential environment. The referenced automobile traffic is sparse and doesn't occur continually like the base noise of the booster station. One mitigation measure proposed would direct noise away from the closest neighbors but directs the noise instead towards the street, which will affect other houses in the vicinity (page 29). The noise generated by monthly diesel testing and during power outages is mentioned but not described nor is the impact fully addressed. The volume of the hum from the transformer is not quantified. Additional insulation should be provided in the building to minimize noise. A plan for monitoring compliance with noise limitations is not provided. This is important to the neighborhood in order to make sure any mitigation measures have been effective. Light The document mentions that there will be no offsite glare and that it will not affect day or nighttime views in the area. However, no details are provided in the environmental document and we are concerned that there will be an impact on nighttime views in the area A reduction in the time and amount of exterior security lighting would also reduce energy and greenhouse gas generation. Sonic reso des The project has the potential to block an existing view of a scenic vista including arrest, Angora Ridge and Mt. Tallac. Some modifications proposed in the referenced document may minimize this concern. The station will have industrial type features that are visible from the street. The environmental document mentions that some additional landscaping will be provided to improve the aesthetics of the project site (page 45). However, details are not provided so we cannot determine if this mitigation measure is adequate. Cultt raj Resources The potential impact on cultural resources has not been adequately described (page 46). The Washoe tribe was known to frequent the area and many identified cultural sites are located in nearby Washoe Meadows State Park. Land Use The proposed booster station will be an industrial facility in a quiet residential neighborhood. The attempts at architectural design in order for the building to blend in with the neighborhood are not adequate. There will still be industrial type metal doors in front as well as mechanical equipment (such as transformer ?) outside of the main building. Metal poles for protection of the equipment add to the non residential appearance. 3 The siting of the building is too close to the street and adds to the impact on the neighborhood as far as views, noise and lights. Some of these issues have been addressed in the referenced document but are not included in the draft environmental document. The area is of high priority for SEZ restoration (page 31). However, the project did not include arty such restoration. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Lynne Paulson Email LCPa4ison@comcast.net 6331 Contessa Ct. San Jose, CA 95123 4 STPUD Board Meeting April 21, 2011 Grizzly Mt. Booster Station For the Grizzly Mt. Booster Station project I have concerns on the process and on the findings in the draft environmental document. I was not noticed on the Booster Station project even though our home is less than a block away. Because of that and because of the need for additional information, I am requesting that you extend the public comment period for 30 days. The recent extension of the comment period by one business day is not adequate. I would like to give you some preliminary comments on my concerns. The site selection process is not clear to us. The selection of this site for an industrial type facility in a quiet rural residential neighborhood isn't acceptable. We believe there are other sites in the proposed area that would have less impact on residential neighborhoods. We ask that this issue be re- examined. in contrast, the Twin Peaks Booster Station is in a commercial /industrial area. The Apache Station is close to Highway 50 and commercial sites. Even if it was not intended, the purchase of the land prior to project review and approval combined with the planned contracting for the pipeline to this location has resulted in the impression that the Booster Station project is being steam rolled over us. This doesn't provide the transparency and accountability needed for open government processes. The draft environmental document states that "the District has met with neighbors to explain the purpose of the project and to entertain comments and questions" but I am not aware of any such meeting taking place prior to yesterday. Only one day's notice was provided for a neighborhood meeting. While 1 appreciate yesterday's meetings as well as the quick responses from several District staff members to my initial questions, we still don't have all the information needed to understand the project details and adequately comment on the impacts to our neighborhood. Based on the information provided to date in the environmental document, the project has the potential to significantly affect the environment in the areas of land use, noise and lighting. Mitigation measures proposed are not adequately identified or addressed in the environmental document. The basic equipment will be running continuously in our quiet neighborhood. Confirmation is needed regarding the noise levels of this equipment during normal operation.. One proposed mitigation measure directs noise towards the street, which will affect houses in the vicinity. The noise generated by monthly diesel testing and during power outages is not quantified nor is the impact addressed. A plan for monitoring compliance with noise limitations is not provided. I appreciate attempts to design a building that is not as stark as the booster station on Lake Tahoe Blvd., but I still find that the proposed building is sited too close to the street, and has many features of an industrial nature that don't fit in our residential neighborhood. 1 STPUD Board Meeting April 21, 2011 Consent Calendar Item on Grizzly Mountain Waterline project Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. I was surprised to see that the Grizzly Mountain Water Line Replacement Project is listed on the Consent Calendar. I appreciate the District's efforts to improve the reliability of our water supply but I am wondering how you can approve the outlay of over a $1M for a project that serves the separately proposed Grizzly Mt. Booster Station project when the Booster Station project has not yet had public comment or been approved? This seems out of order to me. Even if it was not intended, the separation of the pipeline project from the Booster Station project has resulted in inadequate public understanding of the overall plan and its potential impact. Does it make sense financially to approve the piping project when there may need to be changes in the contract because it includes piping to connect to a Booster Station project that is under public review and TRPA review and which has not yet been approved? Shouldn't this item be removed from the Consent Calendar and discussed after the Booster Station project itself has been reviewed and approved? At the very least, the contract needs to be examined to make sure that the contractor will not take unfair financial advantage of the District if changes need to be made. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Lynne Paulson Email LCPaulson @comcast.net John Thiel From: LCPaulson <LCPautson @comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 7:42 AM To: John Thiel Cc: John blackberry Subject: questions on project To: John Thiel We have some initial questions regarding the STPUD Grizzly Mountain Booster Station Project. We just found out about this project from a friend. Why didn't we receive a notice? We are at 758 Little Bear Lane. What additional information is available other than the document posted at the website? What were the criteria for selection of a site for the pumping station? What other locations were considered? Where are pumping stations located with similar equipment so we can visit them? Thank you, Lynne Paulson Email LCPaulsonacomcast.net 1 April 28, 2010 Mr. John Thiel, Principal Engineer South Tahoe Public Utility District 1275 Meadow Crest Drive South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 Subject: Comments on Draft Initial Study /Draft Initial Environmental Checklist, STPUD Grizzly Mountain Booster Station Project, dated March 2011 Our property at 741 Little Bear Lane, including our adjacent lot, is directly across the street from the proposed Booster Station on Grizzly Mountain Drive. We appreciate the effort that Mr. Thiel, Board Members and other employees of STPUD have made to meet with residents in our neighborhood to answer questions and address concerns. We note the proposed: • changes to the exterior of the station to better blend with the existing homes • setback of the building further from the street so that it is Tess obtrusive • removal of fewer trees than the original plan • addition of many new trees that will further screen the station from view • the use of a snowblower for snow removal Our major concerns remain the amount of noise and the potential for diesel fumes emitted during operation of the pumps. An important part of the quality of life in our neighborhood is the fact that it is exceptionally quiet and has fresh, clean air. We expect that these attributes will not be degraded by the booster station. We request to see the provisions in the plan to prevent noise and fuel pollution, both through fumes in the air and potential spills. We understand that a Booster Station is necessary to be built somewhere within the Twin Peaks and Flagpole areas to improve water pressure and increase fire protection. We would like to know why water pressure on our two streets of Grizzly Mountain and Little Bear Lane is so low to begin with, at 60psi. Why will it only be increased to 75psi by this project when Zuni, the next street over, is rated at 115psi? At the meeting on Saturday, April 23 it was proposed that there are several Tots on North Upper Truckee Road that may be equally or more suitable for locating the Booster Station. Is it possible for STPUD to exchange the lot on Grizzly Mountain for a lot owned by the Conservancy? This, in our opinion, is the best possible compromise. We remain concerned that the proposed Booster Station brings an industrial facility into our quiet, clean residential neighborhood. Since the current EIR does not contain the changes agreed to by STPUD staff verbally and in email, we must reserve our acceptance until we can be officially assured that they will be implemented. Thank you for your consideration of our comments. Bill and Shirley Butler 741 Little Bear Lane South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 and 2705 Portsmouth Lane Modesto, CA 95355 April 27, 2011 John Thiel South Tahoe Public Utility District 1275 Meadow Crest Drive South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 Subj: STPUD Grizzly Mountain Booster Station Project Initial Study / Initial Environmental Checklist Dear Mr. Thiel, I own a home at 758 Little Bear Ln., several houses down from the proposed Grizzly Mountain pump station. I was informed about the project by a neighbor and have reviewed the subject report, and have the following comments, which should be considered before approval of the final design. This project has been separated in this EIR checklist from the waterline replacement project. Since the waterline project is an integral part of this project, the public were not allowed to review the joint project even though the geotechnical review considered this as a single project. Moving forward with just a portion of the project before another portion of the project has even received TRPA review will create an atmosphere of undue bias toward approval of the currently designed booster station. I feel that artificially created financial implications due to previous approved / expended funds will influence the final decisions. This is in direct conflict with transparency we expect from a public utility organization. Since I started my discovery process on this project, you have held several meetings with the neighborhood and have offered to make design changes to address what I believe are shortcomings in the subject report. Since these changes have not been finalized, I will be making my comments based on the subject report. I do not agree with a number of conclusions made in the subject report. The following represents comments to the subject checklist. Air Quality 2A and B — The report does not address the amount of air pollutants that would be expelled into the neighborhood during monthly tests of the back -up diesel generator nor during operation during a power outage. Rule 233 of the El Dorado County Air Pollution Control district list limits for the pollution and back -up use. This facility must meet those guidelines. Air Quality 2C — creation of objectionable odors. The report does not address odors from the diesel generators during monthly tests or during power outage operations. The statement made that no odor causing sources are located on -site is incorrect. Scrubbers should be added to the project to prevent air pollutants from entering our pristine neighborhoods from the diesel generators during testing and extended use during the multiple long duration outages this area experiences. 2E Increased use of Diesel Fuel — Diesel Fuel is obviously required for testing and power outages. This increased use is not noted in the assessment. 3F This section states that an analysis of trenching for a complete final project has not been completed, therefore invalidating the conclusion of this section. 6A Noise — This commercial building is planned for a very quiet neighborhood, the site is one block away from North Upper Truckee Road which is 20 feet or more lower in elevation. North Upper Truckee has a low level of traffic which does not affect our neighborhood. In order to retain the quiet Page 1 of 3 neighborhood setting, additional measures to achieve a lower DB level beyond the minimum 50 db should be employed. Engineered direction of the noise down a street will result in noise pollution for long distances in this neighborhood and must be avoided. 6B The response does not consider the noise levels introduced by diesel generator testing nor during power outages, and does not accurately respond to the actual situation. This neighborhood area is prone to long periods of power outages. This winter alone had several outages including an outage of over 24 -hour duration. The noise levels of the diesel were not described, and this response is inadequate until measures to address the mitigation of this noise are included. The expectation is to employ the same level of noise abatement measures for the diesels as for continuous operation. 6C This response is also inadequate and does not consider the diesel generator use. See my comment on 6B. 7 Lighting — The introduction to this section is misleading. Comparing our neighborhood which is located in a sparsely populated county (as described early in this document) to an urban or casino environment and using that information to draw conclusions is just wrong. In our neighborhood, you can look out in the night sky and see the milky way. Introduction of a light source can potentially disrupt this environment. Design considerations must be employed to minimize the field of view of the security lights. If neighbors light disturbs you, you can ask them to turn them off. That is not the case with this facility. Design changes must be introduced to minimize the light pollution. 8a The statement that this project will not change the character of the neighborhood and is consistent with a residential classification is incorrect. STPUD provided the address of a similar Pump station currently under construction. The design of the building has more elements resembling a commercial building than a residential house. There are no commercial buildings within miles of our neighborhood, as opposed to a block away at the Apache site. Stating that no mitigation is required is not consistent with the documented description of the project. As a minimum, the following mitigation techniques should be employed. The straight walls of the building need additional architectural features over and above the Apache site. The doors look like a commercial warehouse and use of false windows should be added to make this facility look more residential. Significant landscaping / planting should be added to mask the 3 -inch poles, transformers, and warehouse looking doors that adorn the commercial building. Plantings should also help diffuse the sound. The statement made that "District has met with neighbors" appears to be spotty based on my initial communication with neighbors. We appreciate the opportunity that was provided by the set of meetings two days before the end of the initial comment period on a Holiday weekend. However, this was a belated start for the adequate communication to neighbors regarding this project. I was not able to attend due to the short notification time, but many of my neighbors reported that a good dialogue resulted from these meetings. The design change suggestions discussed at those meetings and in subsequent emails needs to be officially entered into the project report. 10a — The response does not address the fuel storage for the back -up diesel generators. The amount of fuel storage is not described and mitigation measures such as sprinkler systems to minimize fire risk are not described. In addition, adequate measures to address diesel fuel spills need to be addressed. 17 Human Health — The response to this section does not consider the fumes introduced when running the diesel generators. This type of air pollution is not consistent with a neighborhood environment, and insufficient information is provided to be able to evaluate. Scrubbers would be required to maintain the air quality in this pristine neighborhood. Page 2 of 3 18c Scenic Vistas - This structure will take away a scenic vista of the Angora Ridge, and replace it with a stark looking building. The statement that there is no impact is not accurate. 18 e My comments on the proposed design and changes in order to truly make this project look like a residential building are described earlier. 21 d — The response does not consider the sound, Tight and air pollution mentioned earlier in my letter. Sufficient mitigation of these issues is not described in this report and must be added to the project. 2 -5 The mitigations described in this report do not support the conclusion reached in this section additional measures and further information needs to be provided to be able to draw this conclusion. The document does not describe the economic impact to the neighborhood property values. Does STPUD plan to reimburse nearby residents for the decrease in property value? Initial indications are for a 20% property value reduction. STPUD has the obligation to do what is needed to the design to assure the minimum impact on our property values. Due to the large number of issues with the checklist and the lack of sufficient mitigation. I respectively request additional response time to allow for a revised checklist to be prepared and for design changes to be incorporated for this project to address the additional mitigations. Alternate sites should also be evaluated that would have Tess impact any residential neighborhood. Approval of this checklist without these additional required changes does not provide assurance that this commercial facility will be integrated in our neighborhood with minimum impact as stated in this checklist. Sincerely, John Klimaszewski PE, MSME PO Box 8787 South Lake Tahoe, CA 96158 John. Klimaszewskicomcast.net Page 3 of 3 John Thiel Principal Engineer South Tahoe Public Utility District 1275 Meadow Crest Drive South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 Jerry & Cathy Martin 721 Zuni St. South Lake Tahoe, CA 4-21-2011 Ref: Grizzly Mountain Booster Station: We have been residents of South Lake Tahoe for almost 40 years and owned our home on Zuni St for 26 years, We understand the need for STPUD to build a booster station in order to better serve the residents of the area. However we are concerned not only with the location of the proposed Grizzly Mountain Booster Station but the process of selecting this site. It is quite puzzling why a view lot would be chosen for the site of a utility building. The proposal states that "no residents would be adversely affected by the building' and no visitors on a highway or bike path would be negatively impacted'. However no nearby homeowners were notified until about a month ago. The wildlife, flora and fauna were considered but no human residents. This lack of consideration by STPUD planning dept is very disappointing. We understand the need to keep construction cost down however we should keep in mind our beautiful mountain surroundings and the very reason most of us live here at Lake Tahoe. We ail appreciate these scenic vistas in our own neighborhoods. This Grizzly Mountain view lot Is more suited for a single family home not a utility building. John Thiel Principal Engineer South Tahoe Public Utility District 1275 Meadow Crest Drive South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 Ref: Grizzly Mountain Booster Station Sincerely, Jerry & Cathy Martin 721 Zuni St. South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 530 - 577 -2167 3 -15 -2011 We have a few concerns and questions regarding the STPUD Booster Station proposed for Grizzly Mountain Drive. Our home is located on Zuni overlooking the site of the proposed pump station. We have enjoyed living in this beautiful and quiet neighborhood for over 25 years and are concerned that this utility building will have a negative effect on the area. The proposal states there will be no adverse impact on existing residents, however no one ask the residents. This is a well established residential neighborhood enjoyed for the clean air and absence of city noise; will this pump station in any way alter these important qualities? Should neighboring residents be concerned about noise from the electrical box which will be on site or by possible diesel fuel odor? Will the security lighting have negative impact on night time aesthetics ofthe area? How was this building approved on a steep grade above a stream zone? Most importantly we wonder why this project was planned, property purchased and environmental review completed without notification to any surrounding residents? This 968 square foot, 34 feet high utility building will have a dramatic impact on a dozen neighboring homes. The adjacent properties and those directly across the street are fully impacted by the building. This will have a very negative effect on real property values and dramatically modify the scenic vistas enjoyed from these residences. How do you mitigate significant loss in property value and diminishing the scenic vistas of the affected properties? We understand the need to continually improve water service to the community, however why is this facility to be located so far from the area it will serve? Is it possible for STPUD to reconsider the plans presented on their website and build this facility at a location closer to the area it will serve? Will STPUD consider building a lower profile facility which would have less impact on the nearby residences? If that is not possible the building should have wood siding to blend in with neighboring homes. Kathy Sharp To: Subject: Paul Sciuto Grizzly Booster Stn. & Russell Paul Conversation of 04-14 -11 Russell Paul stopped by with another PRA request (I will put a copy in your box). While here, he made these allegations: - Building is being built in a SEZ area. A TRPA staffer lives nearby and agrees with him, and is angry that a booster station could be built at that site. - Environmental assessment was done in the snow (so how could a real assessment be performed if it was covered up). - The look of the building does not fit in with others on his street. Wants it to look like a cute residential looking house with a front porch railing, windows, driveway, etc. It should look just like all the other houses nearby. -' .-Since we purchased cheaper pumps, a different design will be required other than the one he was told about. - I asked him if it were to look more residential, would that take care of his concerns? He said no, the generator is also an issue. - Generator will run for 3 hours per month while staff is testing it. - Generator will smell like diesel. Also doesn't want diesel stored on site. - Wants a driveway installed, and can't be plowed with a loader which creates big piles of dirty snow. It must be snowblown by a person just like all the other driveways on his street. - Has talked to several board members including Dale and Mary Lou - has been friends with Dale 30 years, Mary Lou 30 years, knows Chris since Chris was a kid and has known his dad forever. They plan to have a meeting with him. He plans drive around with Mary Lou tomorrow to view other stations, and said he has talked to Date extensively about this too. Was told that we paid $140,000 for an $80,000 lot. Alleged that staff is friends with the past property owner and that's why we paid so much. Showed me John Thiel's business card and said this is the staff he wants to deal and implied no other staff was trustworthy except for John. That John would look him straight in the eye and give him a real answer. Said Dale told him that. Mad that John Thiel is gone on vacation which is during the 30-day comment period. Isn't so sure if John is all that great considering. He was given a notice of this project on April 1. The Board can't approve it on the 21st since 30 days have not passed. Complained that Jimmie was disrespectful (who he had to deal with because John was gone). Booster station does not serve or benefit him in any way. Serves the burn area, so move it down into the bum area. Submitted a Public Record Request for site investigations and options considered prior to selecting this site, and all related correspondence, including any from Vivian Seifert concerning all other locations considered. - 1lasr.lawyo 1 April 11, 2011 John Thiel South Tahoe Public Utility District 1275 Meadow Crest Drive South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 Dear Mr. Thiel, We are in receipt of your notice of plans to build a booster station in our neighborhood. In reviewing Ale information available regarding this we would like to raise the following questions and issues: The purpose stated for this facility is to increase water available for fire suppression and to increase water pressure in the community. We have never had an issue with low water pressure in the 19 years we have owned this home. The noise levels. are guaranteed not to exceed the 50 dBA requirements. However, this is a facility where there will be a constant noise - not just occasional spikes in noise. In this neighborhood sound travels quite some distance. Our home is located behind the house directly across the street from the proposed. site. This means that we will hear this noise 24 hours a day. Lights are to be on a timer as well as :motion sensors. As with noise, Tight in this area shines a great distance. Our bedrooms are on the back side of our house facing this facility. This means we will be seeing these Tights all night long. The facility is going to be 34 feet high and supposedly blend with the surrounding. homes. This is a piece of virgin land that has wonderful views and sits in a well established residential neighborhood. Why choose this particular property when there are others in less intrusive areas where this facility could be built. There are lots in the immediate area that were previously developed, but are currently free of buildings. Nowhere in the report does it indicate how building this facility in our beautiful residential neighborhood viiikithpact the property values. I realize the market is soft and property values are currently low, however in the future - who will want to purchase our home when it is so close to a pump station? Richard & Lynn Kahn Richard and Lynn Kahn 727 Zuni Street S. Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 530 - 577 -7615 +akin kaii. c kalitt4) . cd M ATTACHMENT B STPUD Water Zone Maps STPUD GRIZZLY MOUNTAIN BOOSTER STATION PROJECT ATTACHMENTS ".."..,4 It, Ott * , . .... ' „ 41111.1 7T ' :7"- ..-"-'.-- • " . 1 .-- ---/ I • i". ':7-7. ' * ' 1-71- - - -----, , ----- -.... / 1 . -•-..-- t.... 1'1- 1"•-r„.._, : .. c ., ... .1 I I : i 1.....1.. :. ... ......-m„. , ........ 1,....r.;.:;77...._ _ ■ i p .1,-- 1 „ . a . • I: t r ... *# \■-/ l' '•:"Ata ler *SSP 1 4:1114: 5 1 4 .,.,.. i , z , • ., e 1 4 1*- tr. -,...„ /.. I &-• - "Vit 1 . J ' Pressure: Goes to 75 psi Fire Flow: Goes to 1,800 gpm or more ,v.; Environmental Noise Assessment STPUD Grizzly Mountain Booster Pump Station El Dorado County, California Job # 2011 -127 Prepared For: Hauge Brueck 310 Dorla Court, Suite 209 Zephyr Cove, NV 89448 Attn: Mr. Rob Brueck Prepared By: j.c. brennan & associates, Inc. Brennan President Member, Institute of Noise Control Engineering May 3, 2011 III j.c. brennan & associates C\7\"/Consultants in acoustics P.O. Box 6748 - 263 Nevada Street - Auburn, Califomia 95603 -p: (530) 823 -0960 4: (530) 823 -0961 INTRODUCTION j.c. brennan & associates, Inc. has been retained by the South Tahoe Public Utility District (STPUD), to conduct an environmental noise analysis of the proposed Grizzly Mountain Booster Pump Station. The project site is located in TRPA Plan Area 132 (Mountain View). The site is located within the residential neighborhood in the unincorporated area know as Tahoe Paradise. The project site is accessed by Grizzly Mountain Drive. The closest residence is located on the adjacent parcel to the west. Figure 1 shows the project location. The project proposes to construct a concrete block building with exterior siding and interior framing, insulation and drywall, which will house three 40 horse power vertical turbine variable frequency drive (VFD) motor pumps. Up to two pumps may be operating at a given time, with one pump designated as a back -up pump. In addition, the project includes an emergency generator set (MTU model: 150 kWE 60 Hz Generator). The generator is located inside of the building, and has a critical grade exhaust system which can either exit the roof or north side of the building. Fundamentals of Noise: Acoustics is the science of sound. Sound may be thought of as mechanical energy of a vibrating object transmitted by pressure waves through a medium to human (or animal) ears. If the pressure variations occur frequently enough (at least 20 times per second), then they can be heard and are called sound. The number of pressure variations per second is called the frequency of sound, and is expressed as cycles per second or Hertz (Hz). Noise is a subjective reaction to different types of sounds. Noise is typically defined as (airborne) sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected or undesired, and may therefore be classified as a more specific group of sounds. Perceptions of sound and noise are highly subjective. Often, someone's music is described as noise by another. Measuring sound directly in terms of pressure would require a very large and awkward range of numbers. To avoid this, the decibel scale was devised. The decibel scale uses the hearing threshold (20 micropascals), as a point of reference, defined as 0 dB. Other sound pressures are then compared to this reference pressure, and the logarithm is taken to keep the numbers in a practical range. The decibel scale allows a million -fold increase in pressure to be expressed as 120 dB, and changes in levels (dB) correspond closely to human perception of relative loudness. The perceived loudness of sounds is dependent upon many factors, including sound pressure level and frequency content. However, within the usual range of environmental noise levels, perception of loudness is relatively predictable, and can be approximated by A- weighted sound levels. There is a strong correlation between A- weighted sound levels (expressed as dBA) and the way the human ear perceives sound. For this reason, the A- weighted sound level has become the standard tool of environmental noise assessment. All noise levels reported in this section are in terms of A- weighted levels, but are expressed as dB, unless otherwise noted. /.c. brennan & associates, Inc. Job Number — 2011 -127 Environmental Noise Analysis STPUD — Grizzly Mountain Booster Pump Station Page l of 9 24 "P / \6448 / \ / I \ 6446 — TREE TO BE REMOVED (TYP) FFE 47. BUILDING 968 SF 14• -10' DRIVEWAY DRIVEWAY 0 DRIPLINE TRENCH BMP A SEE, tc`37 1 W TREE PROTECTION, 9 LOT 1 2 6142 � _ ' i0 , SHOWN, ADDITIf1IAL IOCAT IONS WILL 1 0 10 P / BE REQUIRED IF CONSTRUCTION I V ACT THREATENS OTHER TREES. 6 "P 1 � I� 14 "F - 6444 -- 6450 _. N 50'24'00" E 90.00' 6 4 5 a "LP 6" W 2" GAS SEE, L\ 20' SETBACK 6" W EXISTING EOP 2" GAS 5Y -4' POWER POLE The decibel scale is logarithmic, not linear. In other words, two sound levels 10 dB apart differ in acoustic energy by a factor of 10. When the standard logarithmic decibel is A- weighted, an increase of 10 dBA is generally perceived as a doubling in loudness. For example, a 70 dBA sound is half as loud as an 80 dBA sound, and twice as loud as a 60 dBA sound. Community noise is commonly described in terms of the ambient noise level, which is defined as the all- encompassing noise Ievel associated with a given environment. A common statistical tool to measure the ambient noise level is the average, or equivalent, sound level (L which corresponds to a steady -state A weighted sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given time period (usually one hour). The L is the foundation of the composite noise descriptor, L and shows very good correlation with community response to noise. The day /night average level (L is based upon the average noise level over a 24 -hour day, with a +10 decibel weighing applied to noise occurring during nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) hours. The nighttime penalty is based upon the assumption that people react to nighttime noise exposures as though they were twice as loud as daytime exposures. Because Ldn represents a 24- hour average, it tends to disguise short-term variations in the noise environment. Table 1 lists several examples of the noise levels associated with common noise sources. Effects of Noise on People The effects of noise on people can be placed in three categories: • Subjective effects of annoyance, nuisance, and dissatisfaction • Interference with activities such as speech, sleep, and learning • Physiological effects such as hearing loss or sudden startling Environmental noise typically produces effects in the first two categories. Workers in industrial plants can experience noise in the last category. There is no completely satisfactory way to measure the subjective effects of noise or the corresponding reactions of annoyance and dissatisfaction. A wide variation in individual thresholds of annoyance exists and different tolerances to noise tend to develop based on an individual's past experiences with noise. Thus, an important way of predicting a human reaction to a new noise environment is the way it compares to the existing environment to which one has adapted: the so- called ambient noise level. In general, the more a new noise exceeds the previously existing ambient noise level, the less acceptable the new noise will be judged by those hearing it. j.c. brennan & associates, Inc. Job Number— 2011 -127 Environmental Noise Analysis STPUD — Grizzly Mountain Booster Pump Station Page 3 of 9 Table 1 Typical Noise Levels Common Outdoor Activities Noise (dBA) Level Common Indoor Activities - -110 -- Rock Band Jet Fly -over at 300 m (1,000 ft) - -100 -- Gas Lawn Mower at 1 m (3 ft) - -90 -- Diesel Truck at 15 m (50 ft), at 80 km/hr (50 mph) _ __ -80 Food Blender at 1 m (3 ft) Garbage Disposal at 1 m (3 ft) Noisy Urban Area, Daytime Gas Lawn Mower, 30 m (100 ft) --70-- Vacuum Cleaner at 3 m (10 ft) Commercial Area Heavy Traffic at 90 m (300 ft) --60-- Normal Speech at 1 m (3 ft) Quiet Urban Daytime - -50 -- Large Business Office Dishwasher in Next Room Quiet Urban Nighttime --40-- Theater, Large Conference Room (Background) Quiet Suburban Nighttime - -30 -- Library Quiet Rural Nighttime __20__ Bedroom at Night, Concert Hall (Background) - -10 -- Broadcast/Recording Studio Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing - -0 -- Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing Source:Caltrans, Technical Noise Supplement, Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. October 1998. With regard to increases in A- weighted noise level, the following relationships occur: • Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a change of 1 dBA cannot be perceived; • Outside of the laboratory, a 3 dBA change is considered a just - perceivable difference; • A change in level of at least 5 dBA is required before any noticeable change in human response would be expected; and %.c. brennan & associates, Inc. Job Number - 2011 -127 Environmental Noise Analysis STPUD - Grizzly Mountain Booster Pump Station Page 4 of 9 • A 10 dBA change is subjectively heard as approximately a doubling in loudness, and can cause an adverse response. Stationary point sources of noise — including stationary mobile sources such as idling vehicles — attenuate (lessen) at a rate of approximately 6 dB per doubling of distance from the source, depending on environmental conditions (i.e. atmospheric conditions and either vegetative or manufactured noise barriers, etc.). Widely distributed noises, such as a large industrial facility spread over many acres, or a street with moving vehicles, would typically attenuate at a lower rate. CRITERIA TRPA Criteria: The TRPA has adopted Environmental Thresholds for the Lake Tahoe Region. The noise standards, or Thresholds as they are commonly referred to, are numerical Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) values for various land use categories and transportation corridors. As a form of zoning, the TRPA has divided the Lake Tahoe Region into more than 175 separate Plan Areas. Boundaries for each of the Plan Areas have been established based upon similar land uses and the unique character of each geographic area. For each Plan Area, a Statement is made as to how that particular area should be regulated to achieve regional environmental and land use objectives. As a part of each Statement an outdoor CNEL standard is established based upon the Thresholds. The CNEL standard for PAS 132 is 50 dBA. It is important to note that the CNEL descriptor was originally developed by the California Department of Transportation Aeronautics Division for the evaluation of aircraft noise and land use compatibility. The CNEL is intended to be an annual daily average sound level. In addition, the TRPA Code of Ordinances Chapter 23, Section 23.8 provides exemptions for certain emergency activities. The Code states the following: The standards of this chapter shall not apply to safety signals, warning devices, or emergency pressure relief valves and other similar devices. El Dorado County: The El Dorado County General Plan Noise Element contains goals and policies relating to noise. The following goals and polices would likely apply to the proposed project. Policy 6.5.1.7 Noise created by new proposed non - transportation noise sources shall be mitigated so as not to exceed the noise level standards of Table 6 -2 (of the General Plan) for noise - sensitive uses. Note: Table 2 of this report. j.c. brennan & associates, Inc. Job Number - 2011 -127 Environmental Noise Analysis STPUD - Grizzly Mountain Booster Pump Station Page 5 of 9 TABLE 6-2 NOISE LEVEL PERFORMANCE PROTECTION STANDARDS FOR NOISE SENSITIVE LAND USES AFFECTED BY NON - TRANSPORTATION` SOURCES Noise Level Descriptor Daytime 7 a.m. - 7 p.m. Evening 7 p.m. - 10 p.m. Night 10 p.m. - 7 a.m. Community Rural Community Rural Community Rural Hourly L dB 55 50 50 45 45 40 Maximum level, dB 70 60 60 55 55 50 Notes: Each of the noise levels specified above shall be lowered by five dB for simple tone noises, noises consisting primarily of speech or music, or for recurring impulsive noises. These noise level standards do not apply to residential units established in conjunction with industrial or commercial uses (e.g., caretaker dwellings). The County can impose noise level standards which are up to 5 dB less than those specified above based upon determination of existing low ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project site. In Community areas the exterior noise level standard shall be applied to the property line of the receiving property. In Rural Areas the exterior noise level standard shall be applied at a point 100' away from the residence. The above standards shall be measured only on property containing a noise sensitive land use as defined in Objective 6.5.1. This measurement standard may be amended to provide for measurement at the boundary of a recorded noise easement between all effected property owners and approved by the County. `Note: For the purposes of the Noise Element, transportation noise sources are defined as traffic on public roadways, railroad line operations and aircraft in flight. Control of noise from these sources is preempted by Federal and State regulations. Control of noise from facilities of regulated public facilities is preempted by California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) regulations. All other noise sources are subject to local regulations. Non - transportation noise sources may include industrial operations, outdoor recreation facilities, HVAC units, schools, hospitals, commercial land uses, other outdoor land use, etc. PUMP STATION NOISE LEVELS Pump Noise Levels: j.c. brennan & associates, Inc. Job Number — 2011 -127 Table 2 To establish the interior and exterior noise levels associated with the VFD pump operations, j.c. brennan & associates, Inc. conducted noise level measurements of the identical VFD pumps which currently have been installed at the Apache Road pump station. The composite interior noise level, with both pumps operating, was 81.1 dBA. A detailed frequency analysis of the pump motor will be described later in this report. However, based upon the frequency analysis conducted for the pump motor operations, the majority of sound is in the 200 Hz to 4000 Hz octave center frequencies. Based upon the proposed pump house configuration, the air intake for the generator set and the pumps is through the north facing facade (south elevation). Each air intake enters behind a false front which acts to shield noise. Based upon noise measurements conducted at the Apache pump Environmental Noise Analysis STPUD — Grizzly Mountain Booster Pump Station Page 6 of 9 Table 3 Measured Pump Noise Levels @ Apache Pump Station Used for Determining Grizzly Mountain Pump Station Noise Levels Site # Location Measured Noise Level 1 Inside the Pump House 81.1 dBA Leq 2 Exterior @ 1 foot from Gen Set Intake Louver 73.7 dBA Leq 3 Exterior @ 1 foot from Rear Door* 57.0 dBA Leq 4 Exterior @ 1 foot from Gen Set Exhaust Louver 65.3 dBA Leq 5 Exterior @ 1 foot from Front Double Doors* 54.3 dBA Leq 6 Exterior @ West Property Line 45.0 dBA Leq Source: j.c. brennan & associates, Inc. , 2011 * Currently the Apache Pump Station does not include thresholds and seals for each of the doors. Therefore, the noise which is exiting the pump station through the doors needs to be controlled at the Grizzly Mountain Pump Station. station the following noise levels shown in Table 3 were collected at the Apache pump station during operations of the two pumps. As a means of reducing noise levels to less than 50 dBA CNEL at all property lines, while assuming continual operations of the pumps, an overall noise level reduction of 10 dBA is required. However, due to the rural nature of the area, it is recommended that the pump house achieve a noise level performance standard of approximately 35 dBA Leq. The goal of the noise mitigation is to reduce overall noise levels from the Grizzly Mountain Booster Pump Station by 15 to 20 dBA dBA. To accomplish this noise level reduction, acoustical louvers should be included in the project design. The performance of acoustical louvers varies by frequency. Therefore, the frequency analysis of the pump house noise levels is critical when determining the appropriate acoustical louver. Emergency Generator Noise Levels: To determine the exterior and interior noise levels associated with the emergency generator operations, j.c. brennan & associates, Inc. conducted noise level measurements of the emergency generator at the existing Apache pump station. This is the same generator which is proposed for the Grizzly Mountain pump station. The proposed exhaust system is a critical grade engine exhaust which will provide noise level insertion losses ranging from 25 dB in the low and high frequencies to 34 dB in the mid range frequencies. Table 4 shows the measured noise levels associated with the emergency generator set conducted at the Apache pump station. j.c. brennan & associates, Inc. Job Number — 2011 -127 Environmental Noise Analysis STPUD — Grizzly Mountain Booster Pump Station Page 7 of 9 Table 4 Measured Emergency Generator Noise Levels @ Apache Pump Station Used for Determining Grizzly Mountain Pump Station Emergency Generator Noise Levels Site # Location Measured Noise Level 1 Inside the Pump House 101.4 dBA Leq 2 Exterior @ 1 foot from Gen Set Intake Louver 94.2 dBA Leq 3 Exterior @ 1 foot from Rear Door* 76.2 dBA Leq 4 Exterior @ 1 foot from Gen Set Exhaust Louver 103.1 dBA Leq 5 Exterior @ 1 foot from Front Double Doors* 72.6 dBA Leq Exterior @ West Property Line 67.9 dBA Leq Source: j.c. brennan & associates, Inc. , 2011 * Currently the Apache Pump Station does not include thresholds and seals for each of the doors. Therefore, the noise which is exiting the pump station through the doors needs to be controlled at the Grizzly Mountain Pump Station. The emergency generator is expected to operate during power failures, and would be exempt under the TRPA Code of Ordinances. However, the generator is exercised once per month for approximately 15 minutes. The noise levels during the monthly exercising would result in an hourly noise level of 62 dBA at the nearest property line, and would not comply with local El Dorado County daytime noise level criterion of 50 dBA Leq. The goal is to reduce the emergency generator noise levels by a minimum of 12 dBA Leq. MITIGATION 1. It is recommended that Kinetics (VIBRON) brand VAL /2, 12 inch deep acoustic louvers (or similar performance louvers) are installed in the air intake and exhaust openings. Appendix B shows the acoustical louver cut - sheet. This louver will provide noise level reductions ranging from 22 dB at 500 Hz to 30 dB at 4000 Hz. When air flow requirements and safe pressure drop information is available, the size of the louver opening can be determined by the manufacturer. 2. Any passive air intake through sheet metal plenums and gable vents should include a lining of fiberglass duct liner on the interior of the sheet metal duct work. In addition, Acoustical Duct Lagging material provided by Sound Seal should be wrapped around the duct work. 3. It is recommended that all proposed windows should either be removed from the plans, or boxed on the inside using 2x6 framing with a minimum R11 insulation in the stud cavities and 5/8" gypsum board. 4. The ceiling should be insulated and covered in 5/8" gypsum board to keep noise from flanking through eve vents. j.c. brennan & associates, Inc. Job Number — 2011 -127 Environmental Noise Analysis STPUD — Grizzly Mountain Booster Pump Station Page 8 of 9 5. Minimum building construction shall similar to that which is in the Apache Pump Station. This includes 8" concrete block framing with exterior siding furred out from wall. Interior 2x4 framing with insulation in stud cavities, and 5/8" gypsum board installed on the interior. All penetrations of the roof and facades should be caulked and sealed tightly. 6. All doors should be steel with a minimum density of 4 lbs. /square foot, and fitted with thresholds and tightly sealed on all edges with gaskets. 7. It is also recommended that walls opposite of the air intake and exhaust are lined with an acoustically absorptive material. It is recommended that the Illbruck Sonexcurtain QA is used. This material can be hung from grommets on the walls. All acoustical materials, including duct lagging, duct liners, acoustical louvers and absorptive curtains can be obtained through: j.c. brennan & associates, Inc. Job Number - 2011 -127 West General Associates, Inc. 1475 Saratoga Avenue, Suite 120 San Jose, CA 95129 Phone: 800 - 801 -9378 Attn: Tavius Dyer Environmental Noise Analysis STPUD - Grizzly Mountain Booster Pump Station Page 9 of 9 Appendix A Acoustical Terminology Acoustics The science of sound. Ambient Noise The distinctive acoustical characteristics of a given space consisting of all noise sources audible at that location. In many cases, the term ambient is used to describe an existing or pre- project condition such as the setting in an environmental noise study. Attenuation The reduction of an acoustic signal. A- Weighting A frequency- response adjustment of a sound level meter that conditions the output signal to approximate human response. Decibel or dB Fundamental unit of sound, A Bell is defined as the logarithm of the ratio of the sound pressure squared over the reference pressure squared. A Decibel is one -tenth of a Bell. CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level. Defined as the 24 -hour average noise level with noise occurring during evening hours (7 - 10 p.m.) weighted by a factor of three ( +5 dB for TRPA calculations) and nighttime hours weighted by a factor of 10 (or +10 dB) prior to averaging. Frequency The measure of the rapidity of alterations of a periodic signal, expressed in cycles per second or hertz. Ldn Day/Night Average Sound Level. Similar to CNEL but with no evening weighting. Leq Equivalent or energy - averaged sound level. Lmax The highest root- mean-square (RMS) sound level measured over a given period of time. L(n) The sound level exceeded a described percentile over a measurement period. For instance, an hourly L50 is the sound level exceeded 50% of the time during the one hour period. Loudness A subjective term for the sensation of the magnitude of sound. Noise Unwanted sound. Peak Noise The level corresponding to the highest (not RMS) sound pressure measured over a given period of time. This term is often confused with the "Maximum" level, which is the highest RMS level. RT The time it takes reverberant sound to decay by 60 dB once the source has been removed. Sabin The unit of sound absorption. One square foot of material absorbing 100% of incident sound has an absorption of 1 cabin. Threshold of Hearing The lowest sound that can be perceived by the human auditory system, generally considered to be 0 dB for persons with perfect hearing. Threshold of Pain Approximately 120 dB above the threshold of hearing. Impulsive Sound of short duration, usually less than one second, with an abrupt onset and rapid decay. Simple Tone Any sound which can be judged as audible as a single pitch or set of single pitches. li j. c . brennan & associates /\/''./\/consultants in acoustics Acoustical Louvers (Model VAL for Maximum Sound Attenuation Home P:' u s Submittal Drawings Installation Guides Specifications literature Home > Duct Silencem Silencer Pte b;i s and uzi > Fixed Blade Acoustical Louvers Kinetics TM Acoustical Louvers Model VAL Kinetics Fixed blade Acoustical Louvers are economical, effective and attractive. They are designed for maximum sound attenuation when space is limited. They are aesthetically pleasing and available in various material types. Applications: • Building Vents • Generator Room Vents • Barrier Wail Systems • Acoustical Enclosure Ventilation • Commercial and Industrial Duct Systems Accessories: • Flanges • Bird Screen • Powder -Coat Finish • Structural Design of Large Louver Banks Acoustical Louvers are used as part of the intake /exhaust air system of buildings, structures, or equipment to help reduce noise produced by the system equipment. They have a relatively large surface area which compensates for their lack of depth. Acoustic Performance: Type 'Thickness (in.} Noise Reduction* (dB) r ___. -- ..__ ____. 125Hz _ 250Hz, 500Hz1000Hz?2 "000Hzi4000Hz;8000Hz, VAL/1 : 6 , 5 ; 7 ; 9 . 10 . 10 ' 10 12 VAL /2 ; 6 7 11 , 15 : 16 , 17 ; 18 " 18 r - _. . VAL/1 ` 12 7 . 9 i 13 ? 16 I 18 -.. ___. _,f 17 18 ;VAL/2 12 8 14 i 22 t 27 i 30 30 31 VOW ar 141104 vanuille .Ili alls ..■r w.l"'"K` �ilr Our Coinpa:iy Cate a Rep http:/Avww.kineticsnoise.com/industrial/acoustical Logi:r. Web Programs • Silencers Online Acoustical Coiiwitart Contact AutoCAD Seismic Design Manual ' STC/IIC Test Data Acoustic Louvers Noise.Qrdinancg NEW! Low Freq erxy ACOUStk i Louver Page l of 2 Egoineering r Case Histories Foaigirgrit Yard Barrier Wall Svsteirn - Sound Contmi Outdoor Air- c„poleg chiller Acoustical Elarnet Will Systems Photo Gallery Pricing and Quotations X1i _Kinesis Gommerciat market representative will assist you wall Pr'icina a auotatjons Int Tell a Friend Click here to ti Mai this Page link to d :fr n 5/3/2011 Acoustical Louvers ! Model VAL for Maximum Sound Attenuation Page 2 of 2 Aerodynaric Performance: a Kinetics Noise Control, Inc. • P.O. Box 655, Dublin, OH 43017 • Toll Free: 1 -877- 457 -2695 Fax: 614-889-0540 Type ' Thickness (in,) : Pressure Drag ("W.6L) _.._. _ ___ . r . Horne can= i Privacy Statement . 1.0B - states 0.05 0.1 0.15 : 0.2 . 0.25 = 0.3 1 0.35 0.4 • Yew ' VAL / t ` 6 i t -- I 333 , 471 577 667 745 1 1 882 : 943 ` YAL /2 • 6 ; 206 292 358 413 1 462 i 506 547 '585 VAL/1 ' 12 ; 327 , 462. 566 654 ; 731 801 8651 925 ' VAL /2 12 200 283 346 400 1 447 1 490 ; 529 1 566 ; *Noise Reduction of a louver is the difference between the sound pressure level on the noise source side of the louver and the freefield sound pressure level on the receiver side of the louver. Standard > (Width >i Height) 2'x2' ` 3'x2' i 4'x2' 5'x2' 6x2' • 2`x3' ; 3'x3' 1 4•x3' l 5`x3' 6'x3' i 2'x4' , 3'x4' ± 4'x4' :' 5'x4' • 6'x4' 2•x5' i 3'x5' 4'x5' 5'x5' 6'x5' Note: For lamer size's then listed contact us. Acoustical Louvers shalt be Model VAL. Kinetics Acoustical Louvers are available in aluminum, baled enamel and stainless steel at ads tionai cost. Ana Acoustical Louvers as shown on the contract drawing, or as tabulated shalt be installed to reduce sound transmission to occupied areas. Acoustical Louvers shalt be modular, and shall consist of (lega) steel outer casing and (22ga) perforated steel foil liner, all of which have been rnl l galvanized. The acoustical absorption media shall be glass fiber packed under compression. The fiberglass shall be a density cacutated to provide the published acoustical and aerodynamic performance, fill material shall be class 1, as tested in accordance with ASTM E -84. http://www.ldnetiesnoise.comfindustrialfacoustical louvers.html 5/3/2011 Sid Seot's' lag Series combines a loaded vinyl riche barrier with a fibrous glass scrim reinforced aluminum fog facing on one side, 8 -10 LAG is commonly used for wrapping noisy iron, steel, and ploslic pipe, ducts, valves, and heat exchangers in a wide variety of indoor and outdoor applications. The entire series has excellent corrosion and outdoor weathering resistance, high strength and excellent conformability. The reinforced foil facing readily epos a matching tope for quick and easy installation. *SIT ratings of 26 -30 f Easy to cut and install ► Actas matching tape • Goof corrosion resistance 3u1 et;r SS -105 8-10 LAG is available in combination with a nominal 1" thkk (8 -10 LAG /QFA -3) or 2" thick (8 -10 LAG /QFA -9) quilted fiberglass decoupler on the bock of the product to form a tight fitting `floating" noise barrier. The quilt decouples the loaded vinyl barrier from the noise emitting surface achieving greater noise reductions. The one -step installation of both decoupler and barrier offers substantially lower installation costs. This composite combination is also designed to provide thermal insulation to reduce energy consumption. i Passes FMVSS 302, UL -94 ♦ High and low temperature applications ♦ Quilted fiberglass decoupler available • Meets Class A flammability rating per ASTM E -84 Model fk►. 11-10 LAG 8.10 L4G/OFA -3 8.10 UG /OFA -9 tAG Tope * Less Mon fed length rod available * Custom size foturcat wok& 6J99 48 ides 48 inches 48 inches 4 lodes 16 koie Sff bet 30 feet 30 feet T00 feet Distributed By SOUND SEAL Ergineeting Solutions for Noise Control United Process, Inc. P.O. Box 545 Agawam, MA 01001 -0545 Tel: (413) 789 -1770 FAX: (413) 789-2248 err soes@sou .com http://www.sotalseel.ccon Fiberglass Duct Liner, Fiberglass insulation, Fiber Glass, Air Handling - Industrial Insulat... Page 1 of 1 Fiberglass Duct Liner, Duct Insulation, Acoustical Insulation, Thermal Insulation, Owens Corning, Johns Manville, Air Handling, Industrial Insulation Fiberglass Duct Liner Features & Benefits: • Enhances indoor comfort and more • Easy fabrication • Clean cutting • Comfortable handling • Lasting performance • Discreet appearance • Virtually damage -proof construction • Bacteria and fungi protection • Code compliance • Professional support INDUSTRIAL INSULATION SALES, INC. Insulation Distributor & Fabricator Your insulation specialists - Proudly serving our customers for over 50 years! phone: (716) 874 -7278 • fax: (716) 871 -3498 email: infoaindustrialinsulation.com Fiberglass Duct Liner Fiberglass duct liner is designed for sheet metal ducts in air conditioning, heating and ventilating systems. Fiberglass duct liner offers outstanding durability and superior acoustical and thermal performance. Submittal Sheets: • Owens Corning • Johns Manville MSDS • Owens Corning • Johns Manville • Back to Home Page Email Us: info( industrialinsulation.com Main Office: 2101 Kenmore Ave. Buffalo, NY 14207 Phone: (716) 874 -7278 Fax: (716) 871 -3498 Home 1 Pipe Insulation' Blanket Insulation I Board Insulation Duct Insulation' Firestop Products Spray Foam Insulation I Jacketing & Fitting Covers I Pre Insulated Pipe Supports' Application Accessories Fabricated Insulation' Clear -outs 1 Manufacturer Links' Insulation Comparison Chart' Request Credit Application l Contact Us http:// www. industrialinsulation .com/fiberglass ductliner.htm 5/3/2011 1 25 kz 250 HZ 500 .z :K Hz 2KHz :KHz ''.RC OA - 1 09 .28 74 58 38 25 50 OA 2 14 55 96 73 30 125 .05 SONEXcurtain QATM Manufactured by United Process, Inc. SONEXcurtain QV" (QUILTED ABSORBER) panels are the newest addition to the SONEX product line. They combine the best features of the FIBER -FREE willtec® material with the advantages of acoustical curtain systems. Impressive acoustical performances, rugged construction and the availability of custom colors, fabric facings and sizes make SONEXcurtain QA' the perfect solution for your fiber free acoustical applications SONEXcurtain QAm Product Specifications Core Material: Single or double layer quilted open cell willtec'' Facing Material: Standard: Vinyl — Coated — Fabric (Gray, White, Tan, Black) Optional. Hi -temp silicone-cooted - fabnc or decorative cloth fabric In diamond -quilt or straight - stitch pattern Density: 0.7 lb. /cubic ft. Flammibiliy. Under testing ilibruck Sound absorption coefficients Type 8 Mounting ASTM C423.90 illbruck Specifications TYPICAL APPLICATIONS • fabricated with edges finished and grommets at top as sound absorption wall panels • sound absorption overhead baffles • suitable for a variety of environments • available in 48 wide rolls for large applications Industrial Acoustic Products 3800 Washington a■,e N • Minneapolis. MN 5541 2 • eicx 6' 2 S • f 2 5^ e � � ....�Y • :elECh,na L� �..'r62Q • Toil rr t i8er't a62' ... =.G3 :990 , .c a.1 g r s = eser.ed '',ried .r JS.A ;G= '30 =:r 6446 TREE TO BE REMOVED (TM) 411. _ I111 A• _ . - 1 ,1 _ BUILDING 968 SF T , ,•J' 20' SE7BAC t I t le sr 11• DRIVEWAY f• • 1 - 0 "F 18 "P 12 "F \� N 5024'00" E 90.00' 0 1D 0 6 "P (61\8"P ®/ {$ 14 "F 6444 6" W TREE PROTECTION, 9 LOCATIONS 6' W EXISTING EOP 2" GPS 1$ "P POWER POLE 1 :3 nr ■ t■ r..■ t■ n.■ r■ m■ t■ l■ r■ t■ n.■ t■n r■ t■ ��.■ t■ r r■ t■ r■ t■■ r■ t■ nr■ t■ i■ nt■ ■r■t ■r.r■t■nr■t■�u ■t■r.r■tam■tt ■ 11111 1111111111111111 11111 / X11111111111 I ■II ■11111 ■111111111111111111111111.111 11111111111111 ■11111■11�r�• "4111111111111111111111111111111111111 I1t111111111■11111■11111■1•111 ■11111111111111111 ■111 111■1111111111111110"- "MI 11■11M, 1 1 1 11111111■11111��''' -4 111111094111110111111111 `���,� 1111111 ■11111 ■11111■111/1��' r - 1/ ■11111 11111 ■11111111100" to 1111111111P0•- . "-- �!`�i1111111 ■11111111 ■11111/ MOM' MEM __ elm Niiire_.41 Imo a 111.11 FIFE 47.0 ,SOUTH ELEVATION O 0 (I) r� n it ; Zia MIN 0 O �, � rl ■IIr �IuIIIuIuIll /I .AIento111�I unit <fn... .•iiI11SIUIL�,�I11I11uIr Illllllllflll� a ifl�Intsinctintaintil!!1111 UIIIIf1 dIfI111111Ir1111/I111M1: r1 ,11 ���� 212 - :a ri��(�I11 /I%111/1�111/I/IIl 1: + °�IrI11 /111 �nw■ur�r ■r�rn� '` n O 11�111/(�111/1�111/1�11i r�.uurIn !1aI11/1aI ! 1111/111111/111111/I11Ir� 111111111111111111111111"" ilimillim MN ��� M ® MI III MU I 0 � NM MI MIN III _NM M SAM WPM 0 6' -6" SEE NOTE 1 TRIM 0 DRIP EDGE FASCIA TRIM EXISTING GRADE EAST ELEVATION CONTINUOUS RIDGE VENT EL 40.5 FINAL GRADE EXISTING GRADE TOP OF ROOF HEIGHT CALCULATION. SLOPE ACROSS SITE ■ 8% ROOF PTItH = 5:12 ALLOWABLE HEIGHT =32'-0" PROPOSED HEIGHT = 18' -1 O" 18' -10" LAP BOARD SIDING TRIM AT CORNERS (TYP) . ONSET VENTS PER MFG EXISTING GRADE CONTINUOUS RIDGE VENT COMP ASPH SHINGLE 6i li1finnl ns11111 1111 )' ' ' r1t1111th. ;r{ ■- .�drin rimi ■Irnl... i�I�IIi�ll�lyll1�l11�1�1 PIIIEai>✓1IIUIIIIId�p'' . .liiuiinrk��l■nlmnlrlu�rnl■m..._ 4 71111111111E31 11 /16r■1■Ial 11111111111111111 ■'' �rliurrl■am■i.m ■nm■mm■Irm■umb'° 'rr111I1111rI111111111111 _dcalo Itnmm unnam aiiintti ism ultn�.,. a. . A 0 1111 0 e-e --FFE 47.0 '111 0 0 FINAL - EXISTING GRADE TRIM FOUNDATION WHERE EXPOSED. COAT WITH SOUD COLOR CONCRETE STAIN. TYP ALL AROUND WEST ELEVATION TRIM 0 DRIP EDGE O FASCIA SEE NOTE 2 EXISTING GRADE mmummIur1mummimumm1mnanumm1mumum■Ir•ummunnlr IsumI.I.uuI.IIu , 11■iu.■I.1■u■I.Iu..0 r1r11I1nimir111rr11flr1r11Ir IER111m1r11i r1111Ir01Ilrlr111lr1r111111 1 : UIMIBIAMILBIMMI01Itrlr11 1tr1M11Ir11111r 1r111Ir11111r1111111110Irrrlllrll1/ IrIr11IrIM11ir1111i /11111111IIlIr1ulrlijIIIIM1 1! iirllrrrwmir 11IIr1rlm1rMllrlr1llrlr ir1m011lrM111rlr11rlllr1l1m111111r1mil1llrP - .n,, , 2 1111111111111 i1�1lr�r�llr�l�llrir�llri�nlrrlrirrlirir�Itr�r�llril��Irrl�m�r�1i >,irlr�•. -�:�5 mrrtrrrr ■I111Ir1111I�11111 1111IrI1111r1111IrI1I11r111/ INIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIir P nl /Irr1f rnMrimi��fl/ iil/ f/ iritT/ i��mli�mir�flli�imi���� /i�fiiilf���1►�� "'fin J FFE 47 0 1 :3 NORTH ELEVATION L J' 1 COMP SHINGLE ROOF PLUMBING VENT STPUD Board Meeting May 5, 2011 Agenda Item 6a. Grizzly Mountain Booster Station For the Grizzly Mt. Booster Station project we have appreciated the additional meeting and communications that have occurred since the April 21 Board meeting. It is apparent that progress is being made towards resolving our concerns about the project. I would like to thank you and the District staff for your responsiveness to our questions and concerns. Thanks also for listening and for being courteous and professional. I would like to make two requests. First, because some detailed responses were only issued yesterday and there are still questions on a few items, we ask that the communications with District Staff continue so that we can confirm that any remaining concerns such as operational noise levels are fully resolved. Second, we ask that you review your policies so that future projects can avoid the situation of direct conflict that occurred last month as we first found out about this proposed project. Lynne Paulson Email LCPaulson @comcast.net