Loading...
05-29-91 SpecialMINUTES SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT MAY 29, 1991 The Board of Directors of the South Tahoe Public Utility District met in a special meeting, May 29, 1991, 4:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 1900 Lake Tahoe Boulevard. Chairman Sinclair, Directors Mason Pierini, Onysko, Mosbacher ROLL CALL STAFF: Baer, Solbrig, Fischer, Mamath, Knight, Gilbert, Hydrick, Attorney Sare GUESTS: Brian Taylor/Tahoe Daily Tribune Ty Baldwin, Marilyn Birmingham, Larry Solsnes, Barbara Coleman Chairman Sinclair called the meeting to order & reviewed the this year's budget process and the detailed analysis (8 budget changes which included the public comments) completed by the Board and staff. 1991-1992 FISCAL YEAR SEWER AND WATER BUDGETS Barrie Fischer, Finance Officer, noted the version submitted to the Board this date reflected the comments and concerns of the Board, public, and staff over the last four (4) months. Barbara Coleman - Expressed her concern of rate increases in general (of all utilities) and our District's specifically. She requested the Board freeze all Management wage increases. She also requested the Board re-negotiate its Agreement with the City & have the City pay for all water used by the City. Marilyn Birmingham - Requested the Board consider a low-income rate. She also requested a meter and felt her rate would be lower. ST055365 SPECIAL BOARD MEETING MINUTES - MAY 29, 1991 PAGE - 2 Discussion followed regarding the Public Utility Code, rates, fixed incomes, meters/metered rates, legal expenses, management audit and "water cops/educators". BOARD DISCUSSION Director Pierini commented on the water budget revenue increase and explained State mandated require- ments. He noted the Tribune re- ported on salary increases for E1 Dorado County's Administrative Staff. Director Pierini also noted Manager Baer had suggested making the option available to people who know they use less water to go on meters which might decrease their water bills significantly. The problem to resolve is the installation of the meters and who pays for them & the installation. Chairman Sinclair told the members of the audience we were investigating a change in the billing procedures and may implement an annual billing with the option to pay on a monthly basis. He also stated the District was investigating collecting its own bills (which now appear on the County Tax bills) rather than paying the County $155,000 to do it for us. 5:05 PM MEETING BREAK MEETING RESUMED 5:15 PM Moved Mason/Second Onysko/Passed Unanimously to adopt Resolution No. 2546. RESOLUTION NO. 2546/SEWER ENTERPRISE FUND BUDGET Moved Pierini/Second Onysko/Passed Unanimously to adopt Resolution No. 2547. RESOLUTION NO. 2547/WATER ENTERPRISE FUND BUDGET Moved Onysko/Second Pierini/Passed Unanimously to enact Ordinance No. 434. ORDINANCE NO. 434/PROVIDING FOR SEWER RATE SCHEDUES Moved Mason/Second Pierini/Passed Unanimously to enact Ordinance No. 435. ORDINANCE NO. 435/PROVIDING FOR WATER RATE SCHEDULES SPECIAL BOARD MEETING MINUTES - MAY 29, 1991 PAGE - 3 Presented by Richard Solbrig, who reviewed the tasks/services involved with Groundwater Technology's Task Order No. 3. GARDNER MOUNTAIN VOC TREATMENT SYSTEM Solbrig answered questions regarding bids, bid bonds, insurance, and sub- contractors. Moved Onysko/Second Pierini/Passed Unanimously to approve Groundwater Technology Task Order No. 3 in an amount not to exceed $19,500 to include a clause that this Task Order would be null and void, should Groundwater Technology be the low bidder on the con- struction portion of the project. 5:25 PM ADJOURNMENT NAT ~INCLAIR, CHAIRMAN OF BOARD SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT PAT MAMATH, CLER~ OF BOARD SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT May 29, 1991 - Special Board Meeting Mosbacher - I haven't gotten clear yet, that when this Board accepts a report, they accept that it's going to be done in that report or they're just accepting the report. Because I found that we accepted a report that Rick Hydrick made on water a few months ago, but I didn't intend that we should be hiring water cops, but I find out that that was the understanding. So now if we adopt something like this (budget) and there is something I disagree with in here, do I make it known now and refuse to vote on this or make in known when it might be asked for? Pierini - The appropriation that's in the current budget by Dept. Heads for part-time labor is the amount they budget for that dept. It's up to them, then, whether they're going to hire for that position, for the summer or whatever that is going to be - the part-time or temporary help. So, I think you're talking more of a policy issue, of whether those positions should exist or not. And whether those positions exist or don't exist are apparently determined by need by each Dept. head. Mosbacher - See, I understood you to say last week when we were at the Library hearing, that we would adopt the budget and then some items we would delete as come before us. Is that only Capital Outlay? Pierini - That's on expenditures that exceed $4,000 - any expendi- ture that exceeds $4,000 comes before the Board. The positions that you're talking about do exceed $4,000, but it's over a period of 4 - 5 months. So those kinds of positions, in terms of personnel, do not come before the Board; just any other hard costs come before the Board, if they exceed $4,000. Mosbacher - O.K., then getting back to my question, because that really is not the answer to my question, yet - The question was: When we adopt something like this, do we automatically agree to - and I'm using that as an example; here was a report came in. I thought when we accepted, that was accepting the report, not approving everything that was in it. The reason that I bring that up, is on Page 2, at the beginning of Maintenance & Operations - it says, "Professional Services increasing by $83,000 to provide for a Management Audit". I don't agree with that this year. As some future time... Sare - That will come back to the Board, Mary Lou and it will be a request by staff to have an audit. If three members of the Board say, "No, we do not want that.", then that $83,000 will go over to Capital Improvements/Maintenance and would not be spent out of this budget. As far as the extra part-time help during this summer, if you feel that you disagree with a policy of hiring these water educators, then any Board member can bring that issue and put it on the Agenda and bring it back to the Board. If there are three ST055366 members that do not want a water educator hired, I am certain that staff will not hire a water educator. Mosbacher - I thought they were already hired. Sare - No, the budget isn't finalized, so they haven't been able to hire anyone under that budget. Mosbacher - Didn't your Letter-to-the-Editor say 2 were already hired? Sare - But that was from your last action and that isn't involved in this budget. You can change it by simply having 3 votes to bring it back before the Board or you can bring it back before the Board and then have 3 votes. The people that were hired were hired out of this current year's budget for temporary help. Mosbacher - They were hired out of 90-917 Sate - Yes. Mosbacher - Well, I still wonder that when we vote for something - see I voted, "Yes", and I thought it was, yes to accept the report thing. Sare - It was, "Yes", to carry out the program - you supported the program and they were going to carry it out, was my recollection of what happened. You voted, "Yes" to support the program and staff was directed to carry the program out. Sinclair - But we never voted for water cops. I didn't. Sare - I think the program included, the program that was present- ed, included water educators, water cops and I don't believe they were ever intended to having a citation power or anything like that. It was a matter of, if there was water running down the sidewalks, they were going to go up and tell the people they were wasting water. Mosbacher - The point is, I can't, if accepting a report, we accept that everything in it is going to be done, then I can't accept this report from Mr. Fischer, because it says in here that we are going to accept a Management Audit, and I can't do that. Pierini - Well, it doesn't mean that you're going to accept a Mgmt. Audit. That issue will come before the Board and any issue that you want you can put on the Agenda to come before the Board. So on the Water Educator issue, if you want that issue to come before the Board, you can do that and then we iron out the details. But there is some misconception here in terms of what their job responsibili- ties are and maybe that would be a good time to discuss it. But, from my understanding, their enforcement was going to be from complaint generated. In other words, if someone calls up and says, "Hey, my neighbor's wasting water," then they go out and ST055367 investigate. They will not initiate enforcement, unless there is a complaint about excessive use or negligence. Mosbacher - I don't want to spend all afternoon going into that one issue. What I'm trying to clarify, if I accept this am I accepting the audit? Because, I don't want to accept the audit. Sare - The audit issue will come back to you. Mosbacher - I thought the cops situation was going to come back to us, too. Sare - That was a misunderstanding. Mosbacher - They were already hired before I knew anything about it and you don't un-hire somebody because one Board member says, "Gee, I didn't know this was in the report or I didn't know I accepted this under the report." Sinclair - Two Board members; do we have a third? Discussion continued regarding the $83,000 related to the Mgmt. Audit and other budget items.