NCSD Meeting on 11/16/11
REVIEW SUPPLEMENTAL WATER PROJECT FINANCING OPTIONS
11/16/11 Board packet with item E-2 on Water Tie Project (WIP)/Supplemental Water funding options
Public Comments made:
John Snyder's General Public comments made on GSWC, RWC and WMWC representation
John Snyder's Public comments made on E-2
11/16/11 Audio for meeting item E-2
| h:mm:ss | Notes on Comments made |
| 0:00:07 | 11/16/11 Item E-2 |
| 0:00:14 | Mike Lebrun presentation |
| 0:14:03 | Lebrun, What we have on Schedule: December 14th for basis of assessment |
| 0:14:23 | Lebrun, January 2012 Assessment engineer will be back with draft report, draft letter to property owners |
| 0:15:02 | Lebrun, 30 day period to review letters |
| 0:15:25 | Lebrun, back to board March 2012 with final assessment report |
| 0:15:43 | Lebrun, Out with ballot in March 2012 |
| 0:15:46 | Lebrun, finish 45 day ballot period on May 9th |
| 0:15:55 | Lebrun, Final engineering estimate on project at the end of this month |
| 0:16:32 | Lebrun, Questions? |
| 0:16:36 | Ed Eby, Questions on option 2 |
| 0:19:30 | Lebrun, comments on Eby questions on option 2 |
| 0:24:16 | Lebrun, Board direction to use 2000 AF not 3000 AF to base rates on |
| 0:25:35 | Mike Winn, asks about amount and settlement requirements |
| 0:29:12 | Jon Seitz, Settlement does not say when water must be brought in |
| 0:32:23 | Mike Winn, Wording around saying NCSD should consider taking parcels out of the assessment |
| 0:34:40 | Jon Seitz, Board will deal with parcels on the assessment report meeting |
| 0:34:57 | Mike Winn, I have been asking for two years to find those maps in such detail so you can look at those parcel by parcel |
| 0:35:21 | Lebrun, you will not be asked to approve the maps with out seeing the parcels |
| 0:35:43 | Lebrun comment on numbers today being estimates |
| 0:36:06 | Jon Seitz, we won't know the amount of the assessment until bid accepted, can't be over vote amount |
| 0:36:54 | Mike Winn, do we have an analysis how this would work if Rural Water Company is excluded? |
| 0:37:56 | Ed Eby, can we handle more then 2000 AF/Year? |
| 0:44:30 | Lebrun, All three require Prop 218 |
| 0:47:53 | Lebrun, on public utility and PUC |
| 0:53:59 | John Snyder, Public Comment |
| 0:57:48 | Ed Eby, Numbers here are not exact, but are relative |
| 1:00:34 | Larry Vierheilig, Light a fire under the PUC |
| 1:08:54 | Vote on selecting option 2, Winn No, Others Yes |
| 1:10:32 | Mike Winn, will support motion if there is an analysis with our Rural |
| 1:12:32 | Mike Winn, if doing it in January means we fail, we should not do it |
| 1:12:49 | Mike Winns point 1. We exclude Rural Water Company we exclude a large majorly of the No Votes. |
| 1:13:02 | Mike Winn, point 2. customers nor owner is willing to fund pipe to connect |
| 1:13:15 | Mike Winn, point 3. With out a physical connection, argument no direct benefit |
| 1:13:34 | Mike Winn, point 4. Not impressed with the professional level of Rural Water Company |
| 1:13:49 | Mike Winn, point 5. Rural Water Company Not a solid partner |
| 1:14:01 | Mike Winn, point 6. Reduce PUC application from 2 to 1 |
| 1:14:08 | Mike Winn, A stronger partnership and more likely to pass with out Rural Water |
| 1:14:15 | Mike Winn, Rural Waters Inclusion is a poison pill that will kill the project. |
| 1:14:27 | Mike Winn makes motion to do 3 partner analysis. |
| 1:25:11 | James Harrison will second motion to do a 4 and 3 analysis |
| 1:27:57 | Vote to do 4 and 3 partnership analysis: Michael Winn, James Harrison: Yes, Ed Eby, Larry Vierheillg, Dan Gaddis: No |