web view1.increase performance and payment bond requirements from $250,000 to $750,000 each....

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THEKINGSBURY GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES

TUESDAY, JULY 17, 2012

CALL TO ORDER – The meeting was called to order at the Kingsbury General Improvement District office located at 160 Pineridge Dr., Stateline, Nevada at 6:00 p.m. by Chairperson Norman.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Norman led the pledge to the flag.

ROLL CALL – Present were Trustees Norman, Yanish, Treanor, Vogt, and Nelson. Also present was Legal Counsel Scott Brooke, General Manager Cameron McKay, Business & Contracts Manager Michelle Runtzel, Operations Supervisor Eric Johnson and Matt Van Dyne of Farr West Engineering and employee Jason Hudak. Also present were residents Greg Felton, Ed Johns, Charlena Manchester, Bob McDowell, Wayne Carlson, Gary Newhall, Dave Lewis and Tom Castenada..

PUBLIC COMMENT – There was no public comment.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA –

M-7/17/12-1 – Motion by Treanor, seconded by Yanish, and unanimously passed to approve the agenda.

APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR – The Minutes were asked to be pulled off the agenda by McKay as there were some corrections that needed to be made. The June minutes will be brought back to the next meeting.

M-7/17/12-2 – Motion by Treanor, seconded by Yanish, and unanimously passed to approve Item B. of Consent Calendar as follows:

B. Claims in the amount of $369,191.74 as represented on the List of Claims by check numbers 47584 through 47708.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS – There was no unfinished business.

NEW BUSINESS

PRESENTATION AND BOARD TRAINING BY WAYNE CARLSON, CEO OF POOL/PACT – Wayne Carlson of Pool/Pact provided a presentation on board training.

Norman asked that Mr. Carlson return at another time to finish his presentation. Mr. Carlson was okay. with this and McKay will call Mr. Carlson to schedule the rest of his presentation.

AWARD A SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACT BEGINNING SEPTEMBER 1, 2012 - At the May 17, 2012 board meeting, the Board directed staff to take the Snow Removal Contract back out to bid as opposed to renewing the contract under the contract provisions. At the June 19, 2012 board meeting, the Board reconfirmed this intent. Runtzel worked with legal counsel and the General Manager to revise and update some of the contract language. Significant changes to note include:

KGID Board Meeting Minutes 07/17/12 1

1. Increase Performance and Payment Bond requirements from $250,000 to $750,000 each. KGID’s average annual snow removal is approximately $450,000, although we budget $750,000 per year for the extreme events as seen two winters ago. Because it is likely a contractor may have problems during the significant winters, it was recommended to increase bond requirements.

2. Provided clearer instructions to Bidders

3. Clarify District’s rights/responsibilities in evaluation and award of bid

4. Included Contractor representations in the contract documents

5. Clarified what type of contractor’s license is required to perform the work. Although, the State Contractors Board does not issue contractors licenses to snow removal operators, KGID has always required a contractor’s license to contract with the District. We clarified that a minimum a Grading license is required.

6. Added a section to allow KGID to award the contract without rebidding in accordance with NRS if the contractor fails to perform

7. Removed use of the KGID Operations Yard – At this time and until a new entrance is built there is not enough room to use the yard for snow removal staging and meet KGID’s needs.

8. Added a Contractor Qualification Statement as is used on all KGID contracts.

9. Increased the Fuel Surcharge amount from $2.90/gallon to $3.25/gallon.

NRS 332.065 provides direction on award of contracts as follows:

NRS 332.065 Award of contract for which bids have been advertised or requested: Lowest responsive and responsible bidder; preference given to recycled products; awarding contract.

1. If a governing body or its authorized representative has advertised for or requested bids in letting a contract, the governing body or its authorized representative must, except as otherwise provided in subsection 2, award the contract to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. The lowest responsive and responsible bidder may be judged on the basis of:(a) Price;(b) Conformance to specifications;(c) Qualifications;(d) Past performance;(e) Performance or delivery date;(f) Quality and utility of services, supplies, materials or equipment offered and the adaptability of those services, supplies, materials or equipment to the required purpose of the contract;(g) The best interests of the public; and(h) Such other criteria as may be set forth by the governing body or its authorized representative in the advertisement or request for bids, as applicable that pertains to the contract.

Please see attached matrix evaluating the two bids received. We completed reference checks and recommend Manchester Enterprises as the lowest responsive and responsible bidder given the qualifying factors above.


Nelson asked Charlena Manchester if they had support trucks. Charlena replied that they had 10 of them.

Yanish asked about the contractor licensing limit. Runtzel said there was not a license dollar amount in the contract documents.

Gary Newell made some clarifications regarding Mr. Haase and Kingsbury Snow Removal.

M-7/17/12-3 – Motion by Nelson, seconded by Vogt, and unanimously passed to Award the Snow Removal Contract to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, Manchester Enterprises, Inc. beginning September 1, 2012 in accordance with Exhibit B - Bid Form, schedule of equipment rates and authorize the Business & Contracts Manager to execute the contract documents.

A short break was taken.

AUTHORIZATION TO COVER EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE TAHOE BEACH CLUB FOR ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF CHANGES TO EXISTING WATER TREATMENT PLANT TO MEET LT2 REQUIREMENTS - At the last meeting between the Beach Club and KGID, a point was brought up about the Beach Club would want to hire their own consultant to review the CH2MHILL plans. The cost of this review by the Beach Club would then be passed over to KGID for us to pay.

There is a reason for this. In 2004, the Tahoe Beach Club agreed to reimburse KGID the cost of an evaluation done by AMEC titled "Lake Intake Pump Station-Concept Level Planning Report" as well as work done by Ozone Systems Services Group, Inc. to "Evaluate and Make Recommendations on Issues Arising from the Proposed Development on Lake Intake Pump Station and Ozone Facility". I have included this agreement in this item. In it you can see the Beach Club agreed to reimburse KGID up to $32,471.

When contacted about setting up another meeting with the Beach Club, their attorney, Lew Feldman stated that the Beach Club was in the process soliciting an engineering firm to review our plans for the LT2 upgrades. He also stated that they do not have an engineering firm as of this date but should have one in the very near future, possibly next week. At that time the Beach Club will want to enter into a similar agreement to the one attached and make KGID pay for their expenses.

This next meeting will take place prior to the August Board meeting. Although this cost issue may be in retaliation for something that happened back in 2004, in order to keep this project on track, we will need this authorization now eliminate any possible delays by having the Beach Club wait to bring in these engineers.

M-7/17/12-4 – Motion by Treanor, seconded by Nelson, and unanimously passed to Authorize expenditure of "not to exceed" $20,000 to reimburse expenses incurred by the Tahoe Beach Club for engineering and architectural review of new plans to meet the requirements of the LT2 Water Treatment Plant Upgrade.

Runtzel said she wanted a little bit of clarification regarding the task order scope. Tom Castaneda from the Tahoe Beach Club replied that he does not like to pay engineers. He said if a reasonable conclusion could be made he would be happy to move forward.


ANNUAL EVALUATION OF GENERAL MANAGER CAMERON MCKAY – McKay’s Annual Evaluation was orally read by Nelson.

The Annual Evaluation was put together by Nelson and Norman. Nelson asked if there were any questions. Yanish thanked Nelson and Norman for their time and effort.

Nelson said they would like to do another survey in January of 2013 and hopefully the status of those areas will be improved upon at that point. Norman said he would like the January 2013 survey to involve not only the Board and the Managers, but the other employees of KGID, so we can get the full input of the issues of concern.

McKay said he was not aware of the work environment of “walking on eggshells” or the “iron-fist mentality”, because he never intended to have that kind of atmosphere within the working area. He had always maintained that there is an open-door policy here and have never discouraged anyone from coming in and discussing any issue. McKay said those two come as quite a surprise because there are a number of employees that do come through his door on a regular basis and let him know how they feel about things within the District. He was surprised and shocked by those two comments.

Norman said he appreciated McKay’s comments and hopes that he takes it to heart because it is a true assessment of what the work environment and the morale as suggested amongst the employees of KGID and they are not going to tell you to your face.

Nelson said that she felt that leadership and general management was a difficult thing to learn at any point. She felt that it was important to do further education and learn new ideas and working to increase your skills. Nelson said she felt that the happier the employees are, the happier the District should be.

Vogt asked about the information that came from the employees. Is it noted on paper somewhere, is it conversations? Where is this information? Norman said there was a requested survey of the employees. His understanding was that some of those surveys were returned and none of that information was returned to himself or Nelson prior to or during this evaluation period. The comments that Nelson made were derived from surveys obtained from management and the Board, as well as discussions with the employees verbally. Norman stated that they were not all written down and recorded. However, notes had been taken with regards to the conversations. Norman felt that this was important because they don’t get involved with all the day-to-day operations, we don’t walk the streets with these people, we don’t sit in this office and we don’t go out in the field. Getting some input was important. How do we know, as two members of the Board, what the work environment is, unless you go out and talk to people about it. He had hoped to get the employee survey back to get a broader sense and get everyone’s representation, but that didn’t happen. There was a glowing impression that the work environment was not pleasant, it was somewhat dysfunctional and people did feel like they were walking on eggshells in the environment of the workplace. That was a prevailing sentiment that came out and we could not ignore.

Treanor asked Norman and Nelson if they had interviewed all of the employees. Norman said absolutely not. He asked for an employee satisfaction survey which was sent out and the results were not given to him or to Nelson. Norman did speak with employees that came forward and wanted to speak with him or that he could talk to.

Ed Johns asked how the survey was given to the employees. McKay said the survey he gave to


them was given on flash drives. Johns asked who that was supposed to be returned to. McKay said to him. Johns said they’re going to do a review on you and give you the results. McKay said it is a random flash drive that he doesn’t know who puts it in the bag. Johns said that is probably why he didn’t get any back. McKay said he didn’t know how else to do it. Norman said in the future he hopes that it would go to an independent individual that can analyze it. There are organizations that do this sort of thing. Norman said that he felt in January this should be reassessed.

Vogt asked if the reviews were sent to everybody. Norman said everybody. McKay said Runtzel and Johnson didn’t get them because they got written ones that were given to the Board. This was a different survey than was given to the crew. Norman said then we went out and talked to people and didn’t apologize for doing that because two people was a very small representation and they needed more input from the outside. McKay said he got three surveys back and most of the comments back from the crew were that they felt that everything was fine and did not want to make any comments. Nelson said that would be a good representation if we are able to do this again in January. Nelson is not sure where we go from this after the recommendation and if that’s something to be voted on and revisit this again in six months and get a broader spectrum from surveys.

McKay asked that when they ask an employee that has just been disciplined by us for something that they have done wrong, how does that reflect against me. Norman said one of the ways surveys are done is that you send out a request to the employees for questions that they would like to be asked on a survey and then you collate the survey that encompasses many of those questions.

Norman said that McKay was wonderful in the positive aspects of his job performance. There was no question about that.

McKay asked Johns how he suggested this be done. Johns said the only way this will work is that the person filling out the survey has to feel that there is absolutely no way it could be traced back to them. Hiring a professional company may be the answer.

Norman said that with six months and some workshops they should be able to see changes.

McKay asked Norman to get the information to him regarding the professional company that could do the survey so that he may submit it to the Board for approval. Norman said he could get the information.

Vogt said there is a fine line between really knowing what’s going on and people who get upset and angry because they are disciplined for things. She is comparing between a Principal and Teachers because that is the environment that she lived in for 25 years. Somebody might not like the Principal because she/he is making you do this, this and this. There is just a fine line.

Yanish asked if McKay’s yearly evaluation was based on the criteria on the survey that the Board was given. Yanish said that when she has seen evaluations in the past, that they have more detail about all the categories and not just on the recommendation. Yanish is not seeing an overall reflection of an evaluation in this. She sees a recommendation but doesn’t see the rest of those components being addressed here. Norman said there were six components. Yansih said that what she heard Norman and Nelson saying was that they talked to a few employees and maybe the ones that are having issues are the ones that are giving the feedback. She felt that in an evaluation you might need more information than just the couple of recommendations on here.

Nelson said hopefully in six months they can get a better idea and it will increase those two


weaknesses dramatically.

Treanor said one of the ways the evaluations were done in the past, was that the manager set forth goals a year beforehand. At the end of the year the manager was assessed on whether his job performance was satisfactory according to the goals that had been set. It was not a personal interview to go interview employees on a one-by-one basis to get their opinion of whether or not they like their boss. Nelson said that would be a great way to go by setting goals beforehand and then being able to evaluate a year later. Norman said it wasn’t anything about do you like your boss. These are many issues and the two issues that stood out as being less than average and could be improved is what we have described and it’s not uniform, it’s not every employee, we admit that. If it was the vocal people that came forward then those are the passionate people that cared.

Treanor said another way would be to set forth the evaluation criteria. What should that evaluation be on and then identify those. Norman said that was what the survey did in each of those categories. Treanor said you didn’t report on any of those except and overall. Norman said that is correct. We reported on those where McKay was average or above average. We can’t say that about that two that we said were negative based on the information that we received.

Nelson asked Brooke if this Item needed action. Brooke said this was not an action item. This is an opportunity for all trustees to make their comments on any of these categories or otherwise. The purpose is to help him do his job to your satisfaction. Nelson said it would be nice to get some measurable criteria for the communication and work environment so that we can judge that a little bit easier in six months so that McKay has direction rather than just make your employees really super happy.

Yanish said there were a lot of things that they had rated and asked Norman and Nelson if they had done an average of all those numbers. Norman said yes. Yanish asked if there was a report somewhere that talks about those items. Nelson said she put that all together.

McKay asked if they got the email that he sent that had the two or three drives that came back. Norman said he had asked for those and the computer was broken and he never received them.

Yanish asked if McKay got to see the compilation of the seven surveys and their ratings and comments. Norman said no. Treanor said shouldn’t he have been able to have that information prior to this. Norman said no, not in his opinion. Yanish asked what is the point of us doing an evaluation then if McKay doesn’t get to see them. Norman said that you asked us to compile the surveys and come to some conclusions about the results of what was given to us. We’ve just done that. If you want to get into individual peoples discussions if that could help you in anyway, then maybe Mr. Brooke could figure out a way for us to talk to you. Norman said we did it based on an average, we did it based on the general feelings, general statements and tried to compile that and we did. I don’t know how that is going to help you. Yanish said she thought they were going to get a report that said these are all the comments under each of these categories and this was the average of the numbers, because it seems like that would be more specific feedback. Norman said we were not directed in that manner.

McKay said he would like to see everything as well because unless I know their exact concerns, it’s hard for me to address the problems that they’re having.

Yanish said she realized that a lot of hard work was done and she was not trying to argue, she was just trying to figure out how we can best use the information and all the hard work that you put into


it.

Treanor said this isn’t a brand new thing for the Board. It was done on a regular basis with other managers so that the criteria or that outline could exist.

Norman said that he thought that if one directed their behavior to what is written here, it is very clear. He said if those three things were worked on, that is all that has to be done. He feels that these seminars can give the Board a lot of insight in that regard. We want a pleasant work environment.

Vogt said she agrees with Yanish and that it might be helpful to see specific comments.

Yanish said she put a lot of thought as to what she was putting on the evaluation. She was assuming that these would be things that would go directly to McKay and that he wouldn’t know what I wrote about him, or he probably would once he read it, or if so, whatever. She had assumed that all that feedback would be more specific.

Vogt said she wanted to hear from Treanor on how it was done in the past and what kind of presentation was given. Vogt thought it would be good to include specific comments for McKay’s sake.

Norman said it’s very hard when you’re doing managers and employees in the field that are giving you feedback. When you start listing comments, those are so easily traceable. Norman said there were perfect surveys for McKay and there were totally imperfect surveys of McKay. Norman said they tried to be totally fair, but the things that were glowing is what we’ve mentioned and he thinks the specific comments aren’t going to make this any better.

Nelson said she could include more of the positive strength comments. Norman said they would be happy to do that, but the negative ones are written right here, word for word verbatim.

Vogt said maybe we need to relook at this process because now a part of her would like to see everything to really know. Norman asked Vogt if she did not like the results. Vogt said she would just like to see everything. Norman said he didn’t like the results. Norman asked Vogt if it would help her to see the results to come to the conclusion that they came to, then that’s what you have to ask yourself. Norman said he personally would rather not give up all the information that they have from all the different individuals, Board members, as well as employees. He would rather not do that. He didn’t feel that it would be beneficial in this particular case when you look at the negative comments. Norman said if they get everyone’s input in the field evenly, then we may have seen a slightly different environment picture. He thought that in January they can get everybody’s and we are going to see the true environment and communication picture. Norman said that we cannot ignore the two areas we brought up as areas of concern. Norman said he is willing to help McKay in any personal way he can with this. He is willing to have discussions with him. He said it’s not an affront to McKay’s ability to run the organization; it’s just the way the organizations camaraderie and moral right now feels.

McKay asked if six months was too soon. Norman said it may be. McKay said because this is a yearly evaluation, is there any reason you want to do it in six months or wait until the next year which gives us more time to grow and to change. Norman said that was a very reasonable request. Nelson felt that a year was a long time to engage McKay’s process. Vogt said if McKay wasn’t even going to the conferences until September and November, that is the six months right there. If


the conferences were in the next six weeks then Vogt thought that six months might be a reasonable number. Nelson said she was all for going forward with fixing things once she knows there is a problem. She doesn’t think this would be difficult for McKay to do. Nelson felt you can’t tell someone fix this without giving them some sort of tools to enhance that process.

Yanish said maybe at this point we could address the protocol of doing this evaluation so we know what exactly what questions were going to be asked, how the report is going to be generated. She remembers seeing goals and everything that McKay had sent over and reading through them. She was pretty sure that she saw the evaluation questions, so maybe the whole protocol didn’t happen or we need to address what specifically needs to come out in the evaluation. She asked that maybe Mr. Brooke could tell us that these are items that we can’t share or how they should be shared.

Brooke said he thought Yanish was commenting on the process and if she wanted to address a different process for the upcoming year, then that’s a separate issue and she should do that and maybe set or talk about and establish mutual goals that are set for him so that you have something to measure him against specifically in the next year. That’s a separate issue from this evaluation, which you’re doing right now. Brooke said you can get more specific and you can make whatever changes you want in the procedure. Nelson said we could make that a discussion in a future meeting. Brooke said sure. Brooke said he had no idea of the substance here, but he noted that next year hopefully you are not going to be in union negotiations either. McKay said we start union negotiations in January again.

Norman said he could ask the individual that he talked to about maybe collating this data and if they would look at the questions and maybe help hone it down so we can get a little bit more of the specific of realization of response. Brooke said these are very comprehensive categories that you’ve developed. Another approach is to talk about specific projects and results you want to achieve. These cover the job parameters of the General Manager certainly.

McDowell asked if there was an adequate survey done. It really didn’t sound like it to him. Norman said we could only deal with what we had. McDowell said, is what you had a true representation of the work force. Norman said I don’t know. McDowell said I know you don’t know.

Yanish said she didn’t realize that the evaluation should include every employee that works for the General Manager. Norman said not necessarily should, but the pervasive sentiment about the work environment and pleasantness of it. McDowell said you say pervasive sentiment, it that from two people of the eight field plus. Norman said I can’t tell you how many people, but it was more than two people. Norman said we wouldn’t act on this in this way if it was one individual griping to us or complaining. McDowell asked Norman if he felt it was a pervasive sentiment. Norman said they want to feel that McKay is on their team and they are all working together. It’s pretty darn simple and there is no reason union or non-union, we shouldn’t have those feelings. Everybody is trying to do a good job and all ought to be able to get along and enjoy their work environment.

Vogt asked if this was a typical way to do an evaluation. Norman said he didn’t think it was. Vogt said poor McKay is in the hot seat here with all this. Vogt said is this how it is. Nelson said when you’re a General Manager of a government entity, that’s how it is. Brooke said the reason you did what you did is because that’s what you decided to do. That’s how you approached it. This is the summary that you asked two trustees to put forward and they did so. Brooke would suggest that if you have questions you get them answered which I think you have, it you have other comments to make to McKay, then you make them, because this is his evaluation and anything constructive or KGID Board Meeting Minutes 07/17/12 8

constructive criticism or praise, whatever you want to do, and then move on. If you want to have a different procedure in the future, then you follow that up and you discuss that and you set something different for the next year. The sooner you do that, the better because then everybody knows instead of waiting to the last minute. Brooke said he didn’t think that the District had really had any structured evaluation procedure in the past on an ongoing basis at least that he could remember. Vogt said she wouldn’t want to sit here as the CEO of a company in public and have all these comments. Brooke said if you are the General Manager of a Public District, that’s what you have to do.

Yanish said she would suggest that it should be put on a future agenda to discuss having more specific protocol or what we feel that we want to get as far as setting goals and things for the future. Yanish said she apologized, she thought all comments would be listed on a sheet that McKay would get, so she will be happy to forward those to McKay because she didn’t have them off the top of her head as it’s been a little while since she wrote them down. The reason she wrote them down was because she thought it was important specific information that she wanted McKay to know. Yanish said while she appreciated all the work that Norman and Nelson did and she isn’t saying there aren’t problems here, but she would just like to convey all that other information to McKay. It doesn’t have to be anonymous from her and she is happy to give it McKay directly. Yanish said that she sits on a lot of other Boards in the world and sees that McKay does a lot of work and you know about a lot of other things I would want in our community like the whole watershed issues and on and on and on and she sees that McKay is paying attention which is important for us. McKay said he would like to see those comments from Yanish.

Vogt said it was hard for her to do that evaluation she basically had all positive good comments because everything she’s asked McKay about every time she’s come in, the door is open and she’s discussed things. You do have the background information to deal with all the different agenda items that come up. You seem to have a thorough understanding, so that’s Vogt’s view of McKay. Vogt said I’m not out on the street and I’m not an employee, but my realm with you has been basically positive. Vogt said she thinks it should be a future agenda item of how we handle the evaluation process.

Norman suggested that by the September meeting that we all come back with specific questions or directives that we would like to be included in a survey. Try to collate that in some meaningful way that we can give to an independent person to help us orchestrate questions that we can ask employees and staff questions that they would like to have asked and get that all put together to try to get the most information we can and improve the situation. That’s all we’re here for.

Vogt asked if it was allowable that the rest of the Board members see these other surveys and what was written on them. Brooke said he thought that if this was done after this meeting that it would be fine.

McKay asked Norman to have the person he was talking about to contact him and he will work with him to set up a protocol and get a list of questions put together, then we can bring all that back to the Board and present it to the Board and maybe tweaking can be done there instead of us sitting here and trying to compile a bunch of different questions. Norman said he would give the person a copy of the blank questionnaire that we did. Norman said he would do that right away as soon as he can get in touch with him.

Norman asked if they were finished with this for now. Norman said Scott Brooke just rendered an opinion about revealing this information afterwards. Norman said he would like to reveal his KGID Board Meeting Minutes 07/17/12 9

opinion and that he would prefer not to do that, so just consider that in your request.

ADOPTION OF NEW BOARD OF TRUSTEE GOVERNANCE POLICY AND CODE OF ETHICS – Prior to this policy, there was no explicit guiding principle for the Board to follow when dealing with the public or personnel in the District.

Governmental entities such as KGID are governed by policy. Without these set guidelines there can be no uniformity within the District. Our water and sewer enterprises have ordinances that we follow. These allow a procedure to be followed so that when a specific situation or event occurs, a fair and equitable conclusion can be reached by following these preset guidelines.

KGID has many policies in place, ranging from agenda guidelines to credit card use, to out of basin water use, sewer leaks, connection permits, and snow removal. These are all directed towards how staff deals with any given situation.

We also have a chain of authority in place. This is to ensure that all staff and crew have a direct line to follow when they have a problem or issue at their workplace. If this line is not adhered to, lack of trust becomes a concern. The last thing that management needs is to be wondering if any directive given on daily operations will be complained about to the trustees or general manager. This policy directs the trustees to report back to the general manager any questions or concerns that may come from either the public or staff.

This issue came up after I gave a set of questions to the staff and crew and one of the crew came to a trustee and asked questions about the survey. This crewmember's name was not given to me. I consulted Pool/Pact about my concerns that staff was not following the chain of authority and went to a trustee. The first question I was asked was if there was a policy in place that dealt with this issue. I stated there was not, only a diagram of the chain of authority was given to trustees and staff. It was strongly suggested that such a policy be developed and implemented as soon as possible to prevent possible future personnel issues. The biggest concern was a worst case scenario in the possibility of a crewmember taking direction from a trustee that was contrary to management's direction. If disciplinary action was taken by management for not fulfilling their directive, KGID may face a lawsuit from the person involved.I reviewed Board Policies of other General Improvement Districts and Public Utility Districts and compiled a policy based on theirs. The policy I developed has been reviewed by both the Pool/Pact and Scott Brooke. The Pool did mention they may use the KGID policy as a template for other governmental entities to copy.

This policy should also give direction to the staff in how they handle any issue that may arise. It directs them to go to their immediate supervisor instead of leapfrogging the chain of authority and going to either a trustee or directly to the general manager. I am not suggesting that my door is closed to anyone who has an issue, I am simply saying that if an employee has an issue it should first be brought to their immediate supervisor's attention, and then if they are not satisfied to bring it to me.

I attempted to give this direction to staff in the form of a memo in May. I was confronted by the union on the legality of the memo when they voted on the contract just before the last board meeting. I have included these memos and the letter the union stated they would send to the trustees if I did not withdraw the original memo.


Due to the timing of the memo with the union vote on the new contract, I withdrew the memo until this policy is approved.

With the approval of the new board policy there will be a few internal policy changes that will have to be made. They are as follows:

1. All agenda items that require action will be for approval only. E.g.; under recommended action on the agenda item cover sheet will read; Approval of Task Order #2 from CH2MHILL for $xxxxx. No designation of who will sign any contract etc. will be given unless the Board Chair is designated for certain items that may be required by the State.

2. The General Manager will sign all documents, contracts, task orders, and purchase orders. In the GMs absence the business and contracts manager can sign these documents as described in the B&CM job description. This follows the chain of authority as indicated in the drawing.

3. All reports and agenda items compiled by others will be reviewed by the General Manager prior to insertion in the board packets. A line and check box showing this review will be included on the agenda item cover sheet. (See the end of this report)

Policies similar to this are in place in most of the General Improvement and Public Utility Districts in both Nevada and California. I have included two other similar policies; one from South Tahoe PUD and one from Sun Valley GID.

This policy is essential for the operation of the Kingsbury GID. Without the proper chain of command being followed, insubordination can easily take place.

Yanish thought this was pretty well written and straight forward and she did read through the STPUD document too. There was a lot of stuff in there that wasn’t applicable to us.

Nelson asked with the approval of the new Board policy there will be a few internal policy changes. All agenda items that require action will be for approval only. No designation of who will sign will be given unless the Board Chair is designate for certain items that may be required by the State. McKay said that is because there are certain things that coming from the State require the Board Chair and the Secretary to sign instead of the General Manager. Nelson was wondering what the reason was for the change. McKay said you either just approve the agreement or authorize staff. Nelson said generally it would be McKay. He said yes. McKay said in Runtzel’s job description it says in the absence of the General Manager, she signs everything that he would sign. McKay said in the policy it states “or my designee”. Nelson asked if when they get their Board packet McKay will have signed off on that. McKay said yes.

Brooke noted that on number 2. there may be some documents that would require a signature other than the General Manager as he notes.

Nelson if these changes were going to be written. McKay said that it was just an internal policy and it is just the way they will do things internally. He can write up a memo that this is the way they will be. Nelson had a question about 1.10. Instead of “staff” it should read General Manager.

Runtzel had a comment on the staff report, on those three items that are separate from this policy.


She did talk to McKay about that today because she was kind of surprised to see that. The explanation that was given to her was that his point was that the Board giving Runtzel direct direction and bypassing McKay. Norman said McKay is ultimately responsible and so there this discussion. Norman asked if this was a problem. Runtzel said it’s not a problem.

Nelson had a question for Brooke about 1.90. Does this mean a trustee or a director? Norman said, so I can’t go to work for you guys without resigning this position. McKay said that’s right.

Nelson talked about asked about what you do in a time such as in the past when the General Manager was terminated and there was a period of interim time where the Board actually took on the management position. How does that play into this? Brooke said that is not covered in this policy. Brooke said you would most likely designate an interim General Manager who would have that authority of the General Manager and whatever policy you have and you could limit the powers as you thought appropriate at that time. Brooke said there is nothing that deals with that circumstance in this policy. McKay said there is nothing in any policies that forbids the Board from making a decision to change something for a one time only.

Nelson had a question about 2.30. Seems so narrow to her when she read it and then she saw it was the same pretty much in all the other manuals also. McKay said a lot of them is done by staff and then given to the Board.

Runtzel had a comment about 2.53. She understands the whole idea is to go directly to the General Manager, but it is in her job description to be the Safety Manager. If it is something of urgency and the General Manager is not available it should go to Runtzel. McKay said it still goes through that same chain and it does go through you if he is not there because of her job description.

Runtzel wanted to have a general comment with Treanor there because she was the only Board member that was there when the organizational structure was formed and when the job descriptions were created, her job description specifically. She asked if Treanor could recall what the purpose of her job description was and why we structured the District the way that we did. Her recollection was that a lot of the responsibilities that are in her job description and Johnson’s job description were to alleviate the General Manager from the projects and a lot of the day-to-day operations. It sound with some of McKay recommendations and changes that he is going in a different direction now and she just wondered if Treanor recalled any of that and could enlighten the rest of the Board about that.

Treanor said Candi was doing everything and not delegating anything out to anyone else. This is what she recalled. Therefore, it wasn’t that it passed through or it passed through without her knowledge, she was actually literally doing it and so in order to set that up, it was delegated that there be a person in your position and there was a person in the supervisor position, but not in this position. Everything was still her ultimate responsibility. Runtzel said it is always going to be the General Manager’s ultimate responsibility. Treanor said that the Business and Contract Manager’s responsibility was to basically do all the leg work, all the reviews and all that kind of work that would relieve the General Manager because the General Manager has a much broader scope of everything, which was overseeing that, plus all the “social responsibilities” of the job itself. Runtzel said that is McKay’s job description is laid out right now and how my job description and Johnson’s job descriptions are laid out. Treanor asked Runtzel if she felt that this is taking away from her job description. Runtzel said no, not specific to her but she just noted that on the STPUD on and she thought she saw this in our policy somewhere like “the Board of Directors


desires that public complaints be resolved at the lowest possible administrative level, and that the method for resolution of complaints be logical and systematic.” Runtzel said that this totally made sense to her. It is an efficient way to run. She thought that she read in the proposed policy that all the complaints should go to McKay. McKay said it’s not necessarily the complaints on bills or minor things like that, it’s major complaints. Brooke said to look at 2.52. McKay said that is for complaints that go to the trustees not that are handled in here. This is not complaints that come through the front desk or over the phone. This is complaints that go to the trustees. Runtzel said okay, Norman said he agreed with Runtzel and said let’s do it at the lowest possible level we can.

McKay said this is Board governance. This is for the Board, not for staff. When a complaint comes to the Board they should direct them back to McKay so that if there is a complaint or a question that he can answer.

Runtzel said McKay recently changed the mail system where he wants to see all the mail coming in now. McKay said yes. Runtzel said it seemed to her that they were starting to go backwards a little bit on eliminating some of those responsibilities from the General Manager. Runtzel said it seemed to her that McKay was getting in on a lot of the more menial tasks that should be handled by the administrative staff. Nelson said there should be some separation of duties. McKay said he wanted to see what was coming through in the mail. He would glance through it and give it back so he would know exactly what’s going on. This is internal; this isn’t something that should be coming in front of the Board. This is an internal policy.

Norman said it’s not a bad idea if people have complaints to come and make a public comment to the Board.

McKay said the trustees should say call the office, don’t call me. Norman said he doesn’t think McKay wants the environment that he doesn’t trust the employees to give him the information.

McKay said these kinds of issues should never be brought up in a Board meeting to start with. This is internal policy because there are other things that happen in here that he doesn’t bring to the Board that he has been asked for. The biggest issue on this was the details on the Board members that had to be filed and was late getting in because it never went through McKay’s desk.

Vogt had a question on 2.55. If somebody came up to her and asked her a question about negotiations or whatever else, I can’t say a word about it unless you all say it’s O.K. to discuss certain things. McKay said if it comes out in an open meeting then you can discuss it. Treanor said you are not even supposed to go home and tell your spouse.

M-7/19/12-5 – Motion by Treanor, seconded by Vogt, and unanimously passed for adoption of new Board of Trustee Governance Policy and Code of Ethics as amended.

BOARD REPORTS – There were no board reports.

STAFF REPORTS – Written staff reports were provided by the General Manager and Operations Supervisor. The Business & Contracts Manager gave a verbal report. The Bookkeeper provided a Cash Position Statement as of June 30, 2012.

General Manager – Nelson asked why the rate information was being pushed back until September. McKay said Runtzel is an important part of the rate making process and she has had


some health issues with her family so he wants to make sure everybody is on board here before it is brought to the Board. A lot of discussion about the meters. Treanor asked how long it will be before filtration is required. McKay said that has always been a worry of his. He did a feasibility study on doing a regional filtration plant in 2009. That is when everything took a dive so there was no money to do that. Nelson asked for clarification about the letters to Edgewood. McKay gave a lengthy explanation.

Operations Supervisor – Norman commented that he enjoyed reading Johnson’s reports, but he didn’t have any pictures this month. Johnson discussed a leak up on Tramway. Can’t figure out where the water is coming from. Treanor asked if it was a spring or a leak. Johnson said it was a leak.

Business & Contracts Manager – Verbal report was presented. Douglas County asked for a copy of the snow removal contracts. Runtzel completed staff performance evaluations. Her top priority is Tank 10A Review. The 2012 Paving Project started a couple of weeks ago. Runtzel did a walkthrough with Van Dyne on the NDOT Waterline Replacement. Waiting for NDOT to give approval that they will pay for that. The Jeff and Linda Project is complete. She worked with Tahoe Village on their sign proposals. The Sealing Project is starting next week. The data base for the billing software will be downloaded next week. They should go live on Monday the 30th. They will have a trainer here all that week. Treanor thanked Runtzel for her work on the snow removal bidding process. Norman reiterated Treanor’s thank you.

ATTORNEY’S REPORT – Pending matters from the WWW claim and the Rubicon claim. Haven’t heard back from Schilling. Brooke recommended an agreement instead of an easement with regards to the landscaping.

ENGINEER’S REPORT – A written report was provided to the board. Van Dyne said Runtzel pretty much summarized his report.

Nelson asked when the signs would be put up for the sealing. Van Dyne is going to discuss this with Runtzel.

CORRESPONDENCE – The following correspondence was received during the month: 1) Letter to Bureau of Reclamation, 2) Letter from NDEP to TRPA regarding the Edgewood Lodge and Golf Course EIS

The watershed was a no go as their application was submitted eight minutes late. It had to be filed online and it took them more than two hours to get through.

ADJOURNMENT


M-7/17/12-6 – Motion by Nelson, seconded by Treanor, and unanimous approval the meeting was adjourned at 9:58 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

________________________________Dan Norman – Chairperson

Attest:

____________________________Jodie Nelson, Secretary


web view1.increase performance and payment bond requirements from $250,000 to $750,000 each....

Documents