Shirley Clark, Vice -Chair William Daly, Commissioner Frank D. Gomez, Commissioner

Transcription

1 Utility Customer Advisory Group Minutes for the Meeting on Friday, February 10, 2017 Utilities Center Conference Room 225 Utility Customer Advisory Group UCAG) Members Present: Shirley Clark, Vice -Chair William Daly, Commissioner Frank D. Gomez, Commissioner Robert Snyder, Commissioner UCAG Members Absent: Eugene Suttmiller, Chair City Staff Present: Marcy Driggers, Senior Assistant City Attorney Jorge A. Garcia, Utilities Director Jose Provencio, Business Services Administrator Domonique Rodriguez, Rate Analyst Senior Carolynn Rouse, Office Assistant Senior Alma Ruiz, Office Manager Senior Adrienne Widmer, Water Administrator Other: Suzanne Michaels, Public Outreach Consultant Vice -Chair Clark called the regular meeting to order at approximately 3:59 p. m. 1. CONFLICT OF INTEREST: S. Clark: Is there any member of the Committee or member of City staff that has any known conflict of interest with any item on the Agenda? Seeing none. None from staff. S. Clark: Thank you. There were none. 2. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA S. Clark: I will take a motion to accept the Agenda. Gomez: So moved. Seconded. S. Clark: All in favor? Gomez: Snyder: UTILITIES

2 Utilities Customer Advisory Group Page 2 of 10 The Agenda was Accepted Unanimously ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES S. Clark: Did everybody have an opportunity to read the Minutes? I' ll take motions to accept the Minutes as written. I' ll make the motion. Snyder: I' ll second it. S. Clark: All in favor? Gomez: Snyder: The Minutes were Approved Unanimously PUBLIC PARTICIPATION S. Clark: Is there any public participation? Seeing none. There was none. 5. REPORT FROM TWO UCAG MEMBERS ELECTED TO PARI S. Clark: We'll go to Item 5, Report from the Two UCAG ( Utility Customer Advisory Group) Members Elected to Participate in the SAC ( Selection Advisory Committee), which is myself and Mr. Daly. I have not prepared a report, but can answer questions if you guys have comments to it or presentations. I know Domonique took a lot of notes. Madam Chair, Board Members, I' ll have Domonique give you an update of the changes that were made, which were directive of the SAC. There was a question that we can address that Madam Chair had that we discussed earlier, so I can discuss that. It is the dollar amount that I think was a matter of debate with the SAC. S. Clark: It was. We can discuss it in a minute, but I want her to go over the changes that were implemented in the RFP ( Request for Proposal) that was already forwarded. S. Clark: Good, I' m glad she is coming to do it for us, because she took all the notes.

3 Utilities Customer Advisory Group Page 3 of 10 Regular Meeting Minutes She will answer questions about the changes, and then we can discuss the whole issue of the dollar amount. I believe it's important and it is in there. S. Clark: Very good, thank you. We had the SAC meeting on January 31s'. The Committee had questions regarding a section in there that discusses the recent acquisition of Jornada and Mesa Grande. They had questions about that, so we added a revision to include the number of active customer accounts that were received by each small utility. They also asked what language to include within the body of the RFP, for which rate review was going to come first, second, third, and fourth. The new one says Rate Review 1, Water Utility; Rate Review 2, Wastewater; and so on. That way, the consultant can have an idea of the order we would like to go for each utility. We did make a note that the Utilities Board will make that final determination as approved in our Rate Making Process. S. Clark: Thank you. There was discussion as to why this RFP was going out for all four Utilities. There was a big debate as to why we did it this way, as opposed to putting an RFP out for each individual Utility. We agreed that there could be a possibility to get a more competitive bid, but we would like to see it as one RFP because there could be consultants who may have the expertise in more than one Utility; and then we could also go from to see what we get back. In the future, we can always take it out again for an RFP, so we just left that option and continued as we had originally to do. There was discussion about a mandatory pre -conference meeting. At first, it was non -mandatory; we did move it to mandatory with the option of consultants calling in for a telephone conference, and I know Purchasing is looking at doing a GoToMeeting or a conference Skype-type of meeting as well. They are going to work on that additional language to the RFP. S. Clark: Good. We also made the determination to put the RFP out for four weeks. The normal RFPs go out for two weeks, but because of the magnitude of what we're asking for, we thought four weeks would be better suited. I think that's pretty much it. Weren' t there a few minor typos fixed as well? Yes, there were. We did include some punctuation or minimal changes that were brought up, but those were the bigger points of that meeting. S. Clark: Thank you, Domonique, appreciate it UTILITIES

4 Utilities Customer Advisory Group Page 4 of 10 Regular Meeting Minutes You' re welcome. Also, Madam Chair, on Page 4 of the RFP is what you asked earlier, the anticipated budget. I think, like I told you earlier in the training, the SAC has gone back and forth over time having sometimes the budget, sometimes not wanting to give the budget. I think you need to have the budget because it provides an expectation and that is the true budget that we expect it should cost as a maximum per rate review, per Utility. That is in the RFP right now in this last version. That's usually our option, but sometimes it will require you doing that and there' s no clear rule in the SAC as to you shall or shall not put it in. I think it' s a good idea to have it, because that is the expectation that we have as staff, and the expectation of my Board, is that the whole point of going through this more streamlined process is to spend less money, so if we' re going to be entertaining proposals of $ 200, 000 or $ 300,000, we' re back to square one. We need to give the anticipation because we' ve learned over time that consultants in the rate reviews and cost of service, you saw how complicated it could get, or it could get simpler. We don' t want somebody thinking, " I' m going to do this perfectly and in so much detail," like in the Electric Utility trial before the PRC ( Public Regulation Commission). I think it' s a good idea to put the expectation out there of the maximum amount. S. Clark: One of the comments that was made at the SAC Committee Meeting was, " If we get a highly -qualified consultant that is willing to do one or two different Utilities, and their cost is like $ 125, 000, would we consider those?" They wanted to leave that open to where it was not mandatory that you can' t go over that $ 120, 000, but use it as, "This is our base budget, this is what we' re looking at; but k' s not etched in stone," type of thing. The way it reads right now is that it' s the anticipated budget. Not that it shall be or it's a maximum of, but it is an anticipated and someone can say, " Hey, I' m going to charge a little more, but I' ll include Water and Wastewater," for example, because that' s my expertise. S. Clark: Yes. That's what we' re going to get in the interviews. S. Clark: That's what we need to look at, too, is somebody that's highly qualified and even if we have to go 10-15% higher, even up to 25% higher, if we've got good qualified people that we know we can get a good quality project, that might be a good idea to look at. Madam Chair, Board Members, I think I' m expecting those types of questions on cost, based on my experience with prior interviews in the SAC. That question comes up. Usually it's for the technical expectations, scope of work, but then the cost. You have this and I may be able to fit three Utilities as my

5 Utilities Customer Advisory Group Page 5 of 10 expertise, and I can do it for another 25%, then we will have the flexibility of awarding that and then recommending to the Board the hiring of that consultant. Nothing here precludes that. S. Clark: That's what we wanted to make sure. Is there anybody else on the Committee that has any questions on this? No. One more comment on this item. After the month, the next process will be Purchasing scheduling. You' re going to be in the loop in terms of when we're going to have these conference calls, and so forth. S. Clark: Will we be involved in those conference calls also? Yes. S. Clark: Very good. The two of you ( Clark and Daly) are involved in the whole process, all the way to sitting in here, when we get with the Board and say, "We recommend this consultant, the SAC recommended," and at least two of you attend the meeting and say, "Yes, we all agree that' s the best consultant, and you should award it to this firm, firms or firm with a sub -consultant," whatever we' re going to get. The other recommendation from the SAC is going to be that if we' re going to award maybe for just the Water, we may find out that we will award to two consultants because one has no experience in Solid Waste, and we have another one that has the expertise in Solid Waste. S. Clark: Okay. I don' t know what we' re going to get. It' s wait- and- see now until we get those RFPs, the responses. S. Clark: I' m looking forward to that. Is there a formal date when you expect to have all of them? No. Let me ask Domonique, the month starts this week or next week? You submitted it this week. I did submit it, and I asked Kelly [ Covert] to send the complete document once it' s ready to go out. She said she will, so as of yet, it is not out. Because they' re going to tweak a couple of things? UTILITIES

6 Utilities Customer Advisory Group Page 6 of 10 Yes. We assume, that sometime next week, it will be a month from next week before we get everything in. Then, what we do is Purchasing will set up a meeting, they send copies of the proposals, and they will be reviewing those, and then the SAC meets. We review the RFPs first, there' s an initial review, and then we invite them to a conference call, Skype, or whatever we' re going to do. There' s an initial review where we all look at the hard copies of what was submitted. At that point, do we shortlist it to three or five, assuming there were 20 applicants? Let me ask Domonique, because I didn't find that. There is no prohibition to invite all of them, or just the top three or five. There isn' t, right? No. I believe that we' re going to meet before the closing date. My point is, the RFP does not preclude inviting the top two, or inviting them all. I didn' t find any prohibition, but I wanted to verify that. That' s a decision of the SAC, you will review who' s in and who's not, or if they' re all good, let' s bring them all in on a conference call or Skype. If there' s a clear distinction, then that' s a committee discussion after you've reviewed what is submitted. S. Clark: The hard copies. We may find out that we have six, we invite three, because with the other three there' s a clear separation of experience and things like that. S. Clark: Okay, good. That' s all we have from Staff on this item, Madam Chair. S. Clark: It' s not an action item, we take no action on that. Correct, just a report, yes 6. OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST S. Clark: Are there any items of interest that anyone else would like to discuss? Yes, Alma will tour you through the web page. Madam Chair, Members, at the last meeting there was a request to have a website for the UCAG and an address for the City to have for the UCAG. That has been established. This is the Utilities webpage, their home page, and when you launch here, this is the opening page. As you will see, it has all of our Utility services as well as Administration, Administrative Services, even the J PO GRVO SLA it unr

7 Utilities Customer Advisory Group Regular Meeting Minutes 2/ Page 7 of 10 Board of Directors. Here is your link, so the UCAG is linked in the first page that opens up in the Utility page. You click here. We thought it was appropriate to add the Water tanks, since our first review will be Water. Here' s a brief description of the UCAG and its members, as assigned by the Mayor, with a little information on your first meeting, who was voted in as Chair and Vice -Chair. Here is your address. What happens is, citizens will have this , which is UCAG@las- cruces.org. My staff and I will monitor this and forward it to the Committee as a whole; that way, you' ll be able to address the citizens' concerns and we can reply to them on your behalf. S. Clark: I have a question, Alma. On the , are you going to take critical -type questions and get them out to us by , and then we can respond back without a meeting so that we don' t hold up? That is correct, yes. correspondence, so long as you all reply as a group, so that we' re all on the same page, could be immediately. S. Clark: Good idea. Part of your page is a Meetings link. Currently right now, we have the December, January and even today's Agenda on our website so that people can see what has been discussed, as well as the Minutes. This is currently what you just approved today from the January meeting, therefore, once its sign it, it will go from being a draft to just Minutes. What we've also created is a UCAG Resources page, and this gives all the documents that we' re currently reviewing at this stage. Once the consultant has been identified and provides reports, those reports will also be loaded onto this page so that it' s public information and all the public can have access to it. The other last thing that we may have is just a brief description of the UCAG duties. This was part of the initial Resolution that the City Council approved. It also identifies the membership eligibility and qualifications, so that if any of the members of the community are interested in knowing what was required of you to be on the Board, they' ll have this information here as well. I assume when we have public information meetings planned, the dates, times, and locations of those will be here? Yes, sir, those will be exactly listed in the Meetings tab here, and it will be listed as Public Meeting. Thank you. Great. Any other questions? GRQ0

8 Utilities Customer Advisory Group Page 6 of 10 S. Clark: No, it looks good. Looks wonderful. S. Clark: It looks easy to navigate, too. It' s very easy, yes. Nicely done, thank you. I saw one question. It is common practice with a City webpage that, let' s say that we have a critical thing coming up, a public meeting, we can always request that they put a link on the main page so that someone doesn' t even have to go the Utility page. The front banner of the City can show UCAG right there in Hot Topics, but we don't do that every time. It has to be something that we want to elevate the webpage to the front of the City because there' s a meeting coming this week, public meeting, etcetera. S. Clark: A public meeting, everybody is invited. We can elevate that to the front if we only prioritize when it's something like a meeting is coming and we really want people not to have to dig into the Utility page, which is where you are. That' s available and we can discuss that as we move forward. S. Clark: Very good Excellent. This is a rotating banner, so every few minutes they switch. This is where the Hot Topics are and the public meetings can be announced here. If there are not any questions, Suzanne [ Michaels] is also going to give you guys an update. Michaels: Good afternoon. I just wanted to let you know what was happening with the article that we had promised, the first one on. The information that was given today and the photos that I took today about the training was a very important component, and I think it adds not only a lot of interest, but importance to this article. I' m going to move that to the front of it and before the next meeting, I' ll have a draft to you that you can look at and make any changes that you like, and get back to me. What I' ll do, Alma, I' ll send the draft article once it's gone through all of the approvals here, and then you can forward it to them for any changes that you guys have. We' re moving forward with that, and I just wanted to give you a little update. Do you have any questions about the articles that we'll be doing? UTILITIES

9 Utilities Customer Advisory Group Page 9 of 10 S. Clark: Have you done anything on doing some publicity on the webpage or the address? Michaels: No, this has just been completed over the last couple of weeks. In reality, right now, we' re sort of waiting for slots. We've got so many topics out there and articles that are going in, so we're waiting for an opening. We publish every other week in the Sun -News on Wednesday, and we' re just starting to work with the Bulletin, so we hope that will be ongoing so that we can have information there too. S. Clark: Every week in the Bulletin? Michaels: It will probably be every other week in the Bulletin, as well as every other Wednesday in the Sun -News. S. Clark: Very good. Michaels: Excellent. Thank you. S. Clark: Anyone else have any other business with this Committee? 7. COMMITTEE MEMBER DISCUSSION: S. Clark: Is there any Committee Member discussion? I' d really just like to commend staff on having done such a wonderful job on this webpage and this outreach effort. It' s very well done, thank you. S. Clark: Our next meeting will be March 8t1, which is the second Wednesday of the month. Everybody put in on your calendars, March 811. Snyder: 3: 00 p. m.? S. Clark: 3: 00 p. m. 8. ADJOURNMENT: S. Clark: If there is no other business, I will take a motion to adjourn. Gomez: So moved. Second. S. Clark: All in favor? UTILITIES

10 Utilities Customer Advisory Group Page 10 of 10 Snyder: Gomez: Meeting was adjourned at approximately 4: 19 p. m Eugene Suttmiller, Chairman Utility Customer Advisory Group Date '