Inverness Public Utility District Board Meeting February … · Inverness Public Utility District Board Meeting February 7, 2018 1 Call to Order

InvernessPublicUtilityDistrictBoardMeetingFebruary7,2018

1 Call to Order


2 Roll Call


3 Public Expression


4 Approval of Minutes:

January 24, 2018

Inverness Public Utility District Fire Depa rtment * W ater Sy stem

Inv erness, Mar in Cou nty, Ca liforn ia

Board of Directors: Kenneth Emanuels, President • Dakota Whitney, Vice President • Laura Alderdice, Treasurer • Brent Johnson • David Press

Ken Eichstaedt, P.E., General Manager • James K. Fox, Chief of Operations

P.O. Box 469, 50 Inverness Way, Inverness CA 94937 • (415) 669-1414

Material that is provided in the meeting packet is available to the public by contacting the District Office. Items may not be taken up in the order shown on this Agenda.

THIS MEETING IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC

Board of Directors Meeting Minutes

Wednesday – January 24, 2018

9am at the Inverness Firehouse

1. Call to Order Director Emanuels called the meeting to order at 9:03 a.m.

2. Roll Call Directors Present: Emanuels, Whitney, Alderdice and Johnson Directors Absent: Press

3. Public Expression Resident Woody Elliott was present.

4. Approval of Minutes: November 15, 2017 Director Johnson asked about status of Accounting Manual finalization. GM stated that given current audit questions, there will be additional changes needed to the Accounting Manual. Discussion ensued on updating to reflect the roles of the GM, book keeper and CPA. M/S Whitney/Johnson that the Minutes of the regular meeting be approved. AYES 4, NOES 0

5. Resolution R230-2018: Board Compensation Coverage Reviewed SDRMA required resolution text to allow coverage of Board Members and Volunteers. Fire Chief Fox stated that he can “Ordain” disaster workers. Fire Fighters are covered by SDRMA. There is no additional costs associated with this coverage. This measure is a routine resolution for SDRMA to be sure the Board has Workers’ Compensation Insurance. M/S Johnson/ Johnson approved Resolution R230-2018. AYES 4, NOES 0

6. Tenney Tank Replacement The Tenney Tank replacement was originally approved in October 2017. GM Eichstaedt presented revised drawings for Tenney tanks replacement and is requesting Board approval for a design change because of property line incursion. Because of a 4 foot portion of the 60,000 gallon extending over the southern property line that has no legal basis, the south tank was shrunk in diameter/volume and shifted slightly north to place it fully on the District’s property. Story poles installed








in November 2017 represent a conservative layout. The revised tank is smaller and within the area encompassed by the story poles. The tank height has been previously dropped 1 foot based on discussions with Tom and Sherry Baty and are reflected by the lower ribbons installed. Tom Baty expressed concern on the tanks and would like to review other options including a single tank, a land “swap” and only replacing one tank. The current fence installed by the Baty’s is located on District property by 5 to 25 ft. GM Eichstaedt will speak to the three adjacent neighbors about the project. The Board would like to evaluate the options and possibly reconvene February 7 for approval. GM Eichstaedt will work with residents in reviewing options. Action postponed to February 7.

7. Contract with Wade Holland Reviewed contract with Wade Holland for continued billing support for 2018. M/S Johnson/Alderdice approved contract for Wade Holland. AYES 4, NOES 0

8. MAZE & Associates: Continuation of CPA contract Director Johnson asked about current performance of Maze. GM Eichstaedt stated they are providing good oversight of District’s finances and have been responding to Lisa Doran /Auditor questions. They have been reconciling bank statements and lessen the need for the Board to do a fraud check. They are used by Stinson Beach County Water District and Bolinas Community Public Utility District. Discussion was conducted costs of book keeper and CPA. GM Eichstaedt stated office administration costs are currently showing under budgeted amount. Prior GM McMorrow likely did more of the book keeping himself. M/S Whitney/Johnson that the contract with Maze be approved. AYES 4, NOES 0

9. Approval of Expenditures: Expenditures reviewed. There is a $23k expenditure that is shown. It is for the security deposit required by Bank of America for the Autopay feature. It is credited back (that is not reflected in the expenditure print out). It was noted that there is Fire Service costs associated for the period of Fire Chief Fox’s vacation. M/S Alderdice/ Johnson that the expenditures be approved. AYES 4, NOES 0

10. Report from Personnel Committee

GM Evaluation postponed.








11. Transition of Fire Chief: Update from Jim Fox. Two job descriptions being developed for a full and part time position. This would be used for a job announcement and description to post. FC Fox will be talking with Jason Weber and will report back. He is targeting to begin retirement September 2018 and is setting this date to act on. Information from CalPERS indicates he can be hired back on a consulting basis. Director Johnson reflected on the need for a critical mass needed for volunteers. FC Fox stated that the diverse personalities require a unique person to be on board.

12. Water System Report (November and December) GM Eichstaedt discussed the stream flows and rainfall for year to date that is significantly less than last year. Usage is up approximately 10%. The District received a violation notice for a delay of the sample schedule for the lead and copper sampling. This violation was rescinded because of the State Board’s own delay in notifying the District. GM Eichstaedt identified the replacement of two culverts on the access roads to F3 and D7. The cleaning procedures have been updated by McClaskey and Ken Fox. There is a tour of the treatment system that is being conducted by the manufacturer of the nano units for Norwegian and Spanish visitors.

13. Fire Department Report (November and December) Fire Chief Fox discussed the disaster council’s work. Directors Emanuels and Whitney would like a First Aid and CPR class. A wonderful thank you letter was received from the Gault’s on the great service the volunteers provide. Resident Woody Elliott asked about defensible space and programs available. A letter written by GM Eichstaedt at request of resident Gerald Meral is being reviewed for submittal to CPUC on Fire Threat Zones.

14. Manager’s Report

• CUSTOMER INTERACTIONS: Reviewed customers concerns on lead sampling, access to water and trees in right of way.

• Stockstill Tank Replacement: Starting to fill tank for testing. Related need to cover bolts and cost (up to $6,000)

• Monitoring and Control System: Adjusted antennae to Tenney to remove form Colby

• KUDOS: Inverness Fire Department Volunteers! • TOT Tax Measure: GM Eichstaedt is serving on committee chaired by

Supervisor Rodoni on tax measure. A portion of the tax proceeds will come to the firefighting agencies in Marin. GM is not committing nor representing the District in doing this.

• RATE INCREASE: No negative response received from public. One Lifeline request and processed.

• INVERNESS DISASTER COUNCIL: Jairemarie Pomo is taking DC lead








• FINANCIAL STATEMENT: Income up ($9k) and expenditures on target. • Next Board Meeting February 28, Wednesday (with possible meeting

February 7)

15. Announcements & Adjournment There were no announcements. Director Emanuels adjourned the meeting at 11:00 a.m.


5 Tenney Tanks

Replacement

Inverness Public Utility District

B o a r d Agenda I t e m S t a f f R e p o r t

1 | 5

S:\1District\2 Board Documents\Board Memorandums\2018\02 BM Tenney Tank Replacement 020718 Rev.2.docx

Subject: Tenney Water Tank Replacement Updates Meeting Dates: October 25, 2017; January 24, 2018; February 7, 2018 Dates Prepared: October 19, 2017; January 17, 2018; January 29, 2018 Prepared by: Ken Eichstaedt Attachments: Tenney Water Tank Replacement Revised Site Plan ======================================================================== Recommended Action: Accept and Approve Revised Project confirming Tank Height ======================================================================== Update (February 7, 2018): The Tenney Tank replacement project was approved at the October 25, 2017 Board Meeting. Project “story poles” representing Tanks 1 and 2 were installed at 5.5 ft. above the existing tank edge top. This height was dropped 1 foot (from 5.5 to 4.5 ft.) based on discussions with Tom and Sherry Baty in November 2017. The current “story poles” with an outline ribbon are at 4.5 ft. above existing tank tops representing replace-ment tank edge heights of 17 and 21 ft. (for Tanks 1 and 2 respectively). GM Eichstaedt presented revised layout drawings at the January 24, 2018 meeting. The southerly tank (referred to as Tank 2) extended 4 ft. beyond the District’s property line. At that meeting, there was an additional request by Tom Baty for the height be lowered an additional 1 to 2 feet. Mr. Baty requested other options be reviewed. GM Eichstaedt met with Tom Baty on January 29, 2018 to review options. The District reviewed options to lower the tank roof by “hardening” the tank to meet seismic criteria defined by AWWA D103 and ASCE 7 through the Uniform Building Code. This allows the water level to remain equal to the current level, thus providing comparable service pressures within the Tenney Tanks service area. Maintaining the equivalent hydraulic grade line is critical so that service pressures are not reduced and fire flows are not for diminished. Attached are revised drawings showing the 4.5 ft. height increase. Proposed Mitigation and Costs for Height Reduction Reducing the tank height can be accomplished by strengthening the tank (primarily the roof trusses and foundation) to resist uplift forces. Conversations were conducted with two tank manufacturers (Superior and Aquastore) who indicated that this approach, alt-hough not common, can be accomplished. The costs associated with this approach are shown in Table 1:

Tenney Tank Replacement

2 | 5


Table 1 - Tenney Tank (Tank 1 and 2) Replacement Costs

Per Table 1, the increase in costs for strengthening the tank to allow the reduction of both tank heights by 1 and 2 feet will be $38,500 and $55,450. If only Tank 2 is re-duced in height, the increase in costs will be $26,000 and $33,000 for a height reduction of 1 and 2 feet. Recommendation: The Board should discuss, hear from the public and approve one of the three height op-tions for the Tenney Tanks and approve the proposed costs. (the following is the original January 24, 2017 Memorandum with updates) Update (January 24, 2018): The property boundary survey for the existing Tenney water storage system indicates that the 60,000 gallon tank is situated approximately 4 ft. over the District’s property line. (See attached Site Plan). To understand if there was a prior agreement made (such as an easement) that allowed this incursion, research was conducted including: Discussions with former General Manager’s (Wade Holland and George Zigounakis) Research of the District’s property files located at the Fire House Title search by Stewart Title Consolation with Ed Kiernan/Deputy County Counsel, Marin County

The result of this research did not find any legal basis for the placement of the existing tank over the District’s property line other than a prescriptive right.


3 | 5


Options: 1. Rebuild tank with same footprint using a prescriptive easement. (Note: A prescriptive

easement is typically not applicable if there is 100% replacement.) 2. Negotiate with adjacent land owner for easement (this has an unknown timeline and

cost.). 3. Reconfigure tank to be fully on District’s property. Recommendation: Option 3: It is recommended that the replacement tanks for Tenney be positioned to be fully within the District’s property boundary with setback. The overall tank capacity (and size) will be reduced to under 100,000 gallons (from 118,000 gallons).

(the following is original October 19, 2017 Memorandum with updates)

Background: The existing Tenney water storage system (Heather Lane; referred to as Tenney Tanks 1 and 2) is critical for the domestic drinking and fire water supply for Inverness. Both tanks are redwood and consist of 10,000 gallon (Tank 1) and 60,000 gallon (Tank 2) tanks. The Tenney Site is the primary storage facility after the treated water leaves the F1 filter plant. In the winter period, 100% of all water in the District will go through Ten-ney tanks (and the F3 filter plant is put on stand-by). The key regulatory criteria for dis-infection of the water using chlorine (referred to as “contact time”) is measured at the Tenney Tanks. Tank 1 (over 40 years old) was drained and repaired this September; the tank continues to have significant, although reduced leaks. Tank 2 (installed in 1983) is in better condi-tion than the District’s other redwood tanks (total of six), but needs new lateral blocks and will likely see significant deterioration over the next 10 to 15 years. The District’s Capital Improvement Program considered the replacement of a single Tenney tank at a cost of $412,000 to $572,000. Review of the criticality and condition of both tanks at Tenney suggest that replacing both tanks under a single contract is the preferred option. This will reduce long-term costs, limit prolonged impact on the neigh-borhood, utilize current design criteria (that will likely become more stringent over time), and provide a more reliable storage facility overall. Project Description: The two redwood Tenney tanks would be replaced with two steel tanks designed to cur-rent seismic criteria from the American Society of Civil Engineers-7 (ASCE-7) and the


4 | 5


American Water Works Association (AWWA) D103-09 Standard for Factory-Coated Bolted Carbon Steel Tanks for Water Storage. The design criteria requires a volume to allow for “sloshing” of water in the tank in a seismic event. If the sloshing is not allowed for, strengthening of the roof and foundation would be needed. It is noted that talking with a member of the design committee for AWWA, the exception of a standard of 4.5 feet for “sloshing” will be removed in the future. Thus, the design criteria will be more restrictive and translate into a bigger tank volume for a given capacity. The tanks has been positioned (outlined with story poles) to be 3.5 higher than the ex-isting tanks. The existing volume is roughly 70,000 and will increase to 100,000 gal-lons. Projected installation date is late 2017 to early 2018. An initial loan application has been made to the California Water Board. However, the State requires a complete design and environmental permitting submittal to receive consideration. Thus, it is im-perative to proceed with the design process so the loan application is not delayed. The new construction costs are expected to be around $750,000 and it is estimated to take up to 12 months. (Note: The current Stockstill Project construction cost is $358,000 and will take 5 6 months.) Community Interaction: Although the formal public review process has not started, the General Manager de-cided to proceed with contacting the adjacent neighbors and to erect story poles (erected in November 2016 and currently up). The adjacent neighbors (Durie, Baty and Wyman) were contacted and site meetings held with each of them. Discussions raised concerns on the initial height, which was then dropped by a foot (from 5.5 to 4.5 ft. from the existing tank elevations. (Note: The District wants to maintain a similar hydraulic grade line in the system, thus, keeping the water level close to existing is important.) Environmental Review: The project is considered for a Class 2 Categorical Exemption under the CEQA Article 18 - Categorical Exemptions. This is defined as: Class 2 3 – New Construction or Con-version of Small Structures. This exemption is permissible for water storage tanks less than 100,000 gallons capacity. The District has been in discussion with the State Envi-ronmental Reviewer. It is currently proposed to undertake a bird survey and possible cultural and biological survey. This project undertakes no expansion of use by District in providing domestic and fire water for Inverness. Next Steps:

1. Awaiting Board approval to proceed with design (to be substantially completed mid-December)

2. A 30-day public notice will begin 10/26/17 and end 11/23/17.


5 | 5


3. Awaiting Board approval for revised design (1/24/18). 4. Repost updated 30 day Public Notice. 5. Drawings will be updated after the public review period. 6. Final Board approval for construction contract award will be set for mid-2018 af-

ter all environmental review has been completed and bids received.

RESPONSE: By the District 2/1/18 January 30, 2018 Tenney Tank questions and considerations: Tape on Tank 1 measures <18’ to the ground (highest tape, north side of proposed tank). Does this accurately reflect the built rim of the proposed tank? RESPONSE: Yes but this may be slightly higher. Elevation is 17.08ft. See plans It would be vastly more helpful to have a profile of the project (both tanks & pads) showing the tank rims, domed tops, parapets, vents, and antenna configurations with elevations included. RESPONSE: See Board Packet distributed Hardened tanks have been suggested as a way to reduce the seismic wave zone air space in tanks. What are the relative costs of such tanks and any additional costs to developing the pads and hold-down features? RESPONSE: See Board Packet distributed Are there other grades of tanks that can be considered other than the current two? RESPONSE: See Board Packet distributed The currently proposed tanks will apparently have to be customized in terms of height; has this been factored into the proposed budget? RESPONSE: Yes What is the range of water levels in the current #2 tank, particularly during high use periods? RESPONSE: The operational procedures are to keep the tank 100% filled. Have there been discernable decreases in system performance during these periods? RESPONSE: If the tank level drops, yes. Pressures at Miwok Way will be some of the first impacted as well as Madrone Ave. Complaints of low water pressure, detectable levels of increased pumping from relay stations to the next tank on the system, etc? How often does the board get complaints about low water pressure? RESPONSE: Per Jim Fox, his residence on Madrone is impacted as well as Miwok How new/old are the pipes that supply these pumps and household water pressures and how much does this affect the efficiency of the system? RESPONSE: Piping condition and type varies. Most is ACM and PVC Many of us don’t get any sort of pressure from the system and have to generate our own. What are the District’s legal requirements in terms of providing pressure to its customers? RESPONSE: For a new system, 40 psi per the Uniform Building Code Is it feasible to temporarily reduce the water level of Tank #2 and quantify the pressure change at the relay pumping stations or any of the households that might currently have pressure issues? RESPONSE: This is not recommended from a public safety and operational stand point With the projected water level of both tanks the same, will the water level during high-use periods rise and fall in both tanks at once or will #1 feed #2 as it does now? RESPONSE: See Board Packet distributed Can the new system generally deliver more constant water pressure than the existing ‘one and a half’ tanks? RESPONSE: Yes somewhat Can this concept be factored into an evaluation of the net effect of decreasing the water levels in a different tank configuration? RESPONSE: No because the pressure (and thus flow) are directly related to water elevation (head) Can there be a change in the basic plumbing at the Tenny site that could positively affect the water pressure? RESPONSE: Good question by no. The existing piping configuration is reasonable efficient in its routing/layout.


6 Announcements &

Adjournment • Confirm Meeting for February