Opinion: South Tahoe PUD sets the record straight
By Dennis Cocking
The board of directors of the South Tahoe PUD, going back to 2006, has made its position crystal clear on the purchase of Lukin’s Water Company. It has been discussed many times in open session, has been part of annual public budget presentations, has been reported on by the local media, and has been discussed in the district’s quarterly newsletter. It is not confusing nor is it a secret. But, just for the record, here it is again.
The district has never sought to buy the Lukins Water Company. The district’s board of directors has taken the position that the district had no interest in purchasing the Lukins system if the cost of upgrading the system would be borne by the district’s current customers. If a funding mechanism, other than the district’s customers, could be secured, the district would consider the purchase.
Dennis Cocking
Before Sept. 30, 2011, the district will be submitting, after consultation and agreement with Lukin’s Water Company and the city of South Lake Tahoe, a pre-application for a California Department of Public Health consolidation grant. This grant would allow for purchase of the system and funding to construct the necessary improvements to provide adequate fire protection in the current Lukin’s service area. Should the pre-application make the first cut, we would be invited to submit a full application. This grant process is a very competitive one and many hurdles must be cleared before the district could be awarded the grant.
If the district were to be successful in obtaining the grant, it would be impossible, due to the conditions and controls the state places on grant administration, to use the funds for any other project or “other expenses.” It just can’t happen. Nor can any entity, including the state of California, “force” the district to purchase anything. No such mechanism exists.
The district has mutual aid water interties with Lukins, Tahoe Keys, Lakeside Mutual, and Edgewood water companies that provide two-way emergency water supply. Lukin’s Water Company recently had water supplied through such an intertie due to a pump failure within their system. Lukins does not receive free water; they are being charged the same rate as any other water user. Since these interties are for emergency water supply, no connection fees apply, since water can potentially flow both ways. This arrangement is not unique to STPUD; it exists virtually everywhere within California. This type of operational information is very easily obtained with a phone call or, in many cases, with a visit to the district’s website.
Finally, while I am dispelling rumors, district employees never have nor never will receive free water and sewer service. It is considered a gift of public funds and is expressly forbidden by law.
Dennis Cocking is public information officer for South Tahoe Public Utility District.
That’s the way. Let all the taxpayers of the state pay for the upgrades. Maybe an assessment district for Lukins should be created so the water users pay for the improvements. Is it not true that Lukins customers paid less for their water than STPUD customers therefore Lukins didn’t have money for proper maintainance and upgrades?
Taxpayers can only hope for an end to the costly government grants, subsidies, stimulus payments, and loan guarantees that are aimed at people and businesses simply not wanting to pay their own way.
If the Lukins system could be acquired without ANY increased cost to STPUD ratepayers in any way shape or form and if the 25 million plus in expenses needed to upgrade the system will be paid for by the State without any cost borne by STPUD ratepayers, then if elected to the board, I would support its acquisition.
In this time when grant funding is scarce to non existent I think this application is mainly a way to justify the Districts failure to layoff employees in the departments which seek grant funding and the engineering department which designs and implements these projects, which are still operating at the levels when grant funding flowed freely.
STPUD needs to contract its workforce as other districts have done to adapt to the changing economic times and demands upon you the ratepayer.
Increased Efficiency Not Rates
The Lukins is worthless. That means they should pay someone to take it over. The meter Mr. Cocking refrences was put in so Lukins could meet fire flow requirements for a building the mayor, Mr. Woods was building in Luking district. Water meter are not accurate because they run both ways, so Lukins uses STPUD water when they need it and then run the pump backwords so they end up having no use so no charge. Mr. Jones, of the district board, is well aware of this. He received $5000,00 from Lukins to run against me in 1993. The Lukins system is WORTHLESS? Mr. Cocking who last read that meter for usage?
Mr. Cocking, Lukins has received free water for years and many people know it but don’t talk about it. Weather it’s no conection fee or running the meter backwards their stealing district resources, and the district should do something about it!
Why would our water district pay an employee to write such a grant? That cost should be borne by Lukins Water Company customers – they’re the ones who are looking to be bailed out from their failure to maintain their water system.
It begs the question: Does the LTPUD have an employee with too much free time on his hands? Wouldn’t it be a better use his time to work on behalf of LTPUD ratepayers instead of Lukins customers?
While other sewer and water districts have cutback and eliminated positions (EID, TCPUD, etc.) STPUD has done little but protect its own. Laying off idle employees rather than trying to create work for them will result in increased efficiency and lower the need to raise rates.
Lou,
You need to prove your comments with facts, documents or in some other manner. Sorry, but your word is not enough.
Kathryn Reed, LTN publisher
Thanks Kae lol. Kenny.
Kae, These are facts. They are available to Mr. Cocking at district offices. Maybe he will dig them out at the district office or maybe you believe his statements are more truthfull than mine. The campaign records are public, $5000.00 to Jim Jones from Lukins in 1993 Fact not rumor. The city building dept. should have records of the building permit that requires the tie in for Lukins.
Let me know where to look for your facts? that dispute mine, I am waiting.
Lou it just sounds like you are still bitter about losing. You haven’t shown any facts. Go have a beer with the Bum, Runnels and Rise.
No one likes to lose, but my facts are available in previous post check it out. Curious, you can join us for a beer, even at the white house.
I have lived with Lukins water for 28 years.. pressure has varied..at times a flush upstairs took 30 minutes to fill the tank! A neighbor told me Lukins bought WWII used pipes.. I know our pipes are too small for fire hydrants and we have all suffered. Rumor has it the money we pay for water is used to subsidize Lukins Construction..??? Now, Lukins has asked for a huge loan to make improvements and we customers will be charged. When I owned a business, I paid for any and all improvements and did not charge my customers. HELP!!!
Curious, bitter are we? Being someone who knows me you should know I do not drink alcohol. Thanks for the rumor though but you shouldn’t use the computer on company time. Lou, the district is used to putting out articles at various papers and internet sites but they are not used to being caught as they were in the recent Mountain News Article. Here is the e-mail I recieved from them. Kenny,Thank you for the opportunity to respond to your inquiry prior to posting your article. During this year’s budget season, staff presented a spreadsheet to the Board of Directors which illustrated the change in budgeted salaries and benefits over the time period of fiscal year 2010, 2011 and the proposed budget for fiscal year 2012. The change in total budgeted salaries and benefits for this time period is projected to be an increase of 4.15%. In the June addition of the Tahoe Mountain News, Dennis Cocking stated “In the last three years, the District experienced a 4.1% increase in salaries and benefits.” Dennis was referring to the same three year period as I was. The District could have been clearer in the article by stating exactly which years were used for the comparison. We are sorry if this has caused any confusion. The three year period you are referring to is fiscal years 2008, 2009 and 2010. The information recently provided by the District auditors Grant Thornton, presented a change in wages, not inclusive of compensated absences, of 15.9% over the three year period of 2008, 2009 and 2010. In 2007 a Board approved salary and benefit survey performed by Koff and Associates illustrated that several union represented positions within the District were well below the median of the comparators used in the survey. Adjustments were made to those positions over the fiscal years 2008, 2009 and 2010 to bring the salaries to the median of all the comparators used in the survey.Please let me know if you have any questions.
p.s. The reason my figure of 15.9% differs from your figure of 15.3% is because you have to account for the total change during 2008, 2009 and 2010 as a percent of 2007 wages. You can’t just add up the percentages. $9,330,936 – $8,044,822 = $1,286,114/$8,044,822 = 15.9%.
Paul Hughes, Chief Financial Officer
South Tahoe Public Utility District
1275 Meadow Crest Drive
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
Direct Line: 530.543.6211
Fax: 530.541.4253
phughes@stpud.dst.ca.us
At least Bum, Runnels, and Rise are open enough to post under their own names when criticising STPUD.
Skibum. Ken Curtzwiler
Just so there is no question as to who i am. Thanks, TFF
Proof of your “facts” is what we want to see.
Well Curious, you can get the hard copy of the facts from STPUD and ElDorado county elections. I was elected to know the facts, and who are you, cuz you don’t know the facts, just curious.
Lou, no one doubts the elections issue. I didn’t even say I doubted you on anything. What I was looking for was proof of the reverse metering.
Bought with a grant from the Government.
More crony capitalism.
When the state fails and the people take it back from the unions many of these grants need to be revisited.
Crimes behind the closed doors. I am sure of it.
Stinks around here.
As a STPUD customer and a former employee (CFO) I would like to add to the discussion.
I was responsible for putting in place the very successful grant program that the customers of STPUD have benefitted from. A record of the millions and millions of dollars obtained on behalf of the community is documented on the STPUD website. This money flows into our community directly to benefit STPUD customers and indirectly to benefit many small businesses in SLT that are patronized by contractors and employees of STPUD. Some of those contractors, by the way, are owned by and employ workers that live in SLT, thereby helping them stay employed during this devistating recession.
Like many of you, I am a fiscal conservative as far as my political philosophy. While it would be nice to be able to refuse grants based on philisophical principles, it would not be in the best interests of our community. So while grant money is being passed out nationwide by our governments, I believe STPUD should be in there advocating for all of us.
For those of you that are throwing around percentages, how about figuring out how much higher our rates would be right now without the grant money.
Knowing how these blogs work, I am prepared to be attacked for expressing my opinion. So for those of you reading this, please know am not a candidate for any office, and have no motive to frame my views in a way that will obtain your votes. (Please know I am not saying this to be demeaning to the STPUD candidates for office, but rather as a headsup to the voters to be skeptical of some of what you see on this blog and to vet the facts for yourself).
Lastly, thanks LTN for giving us all this forum to discuss these important issues for our community.
Good information, Rhonda. Thank you.
Commonsense, I have a basic question. If Lukens wrote the grant, and it was awarded. Then Lukens would go away, so who would administer the grant? Wouldn’t filing the grant in Lukens name create the ultimate catch 22?
Second, yes STPUD filed the grant, but how do you know who wrote it? Lets pretend STPUD wrote it, how would they get the information about Lukens?
Rhonda, if she has kept current in the years since she left STPUD should be aware that Government grant funding as well as those grants from private sources have for all intents and purposes dried up. When public and private sources of grants have to decrease their spending to make ends meet they are not apt to be giving out free money now or in the foreseeable future.
In 2008 STPUD needed to begin to take steps to deal with this in terms of employees who are no longer being fully utilized, delayed capital improvement projects and increased efficiency. They can not simply wait for the economy to improve. Unfortunately this “recession” we all are feeling is not predicted to end anytime soon. Failing to adapt and adjust for the economic downturn is expensive and a disservice to ratepayers as the only viable alternative is increasing rates to users. Raising rates along with the higher bills most residents will see when they receive and are billed off their water meters, will only serve to further distress residents economically, continuing their flight from our community and thus increasing the financial burden on the residents that remain. We have already seen a double digit decrease in our population as of the last census.
STPUD needs to concentrate on what is best for those they serve. Increasing efficiency and productivity while holding rates down is what is needed and best for our community.
What savings are achieved for ratepayers via grants are ultimately wiped out by the higher taxes they pay to fund these grants. In fact, the net effect is more money spent (and collected) overall to achieve the same purpose, as the grants require massive, costly, cumbersome government bureaucracy to administer them.
Despite what some may believe, money simply does not grow on trees. Ultimately, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Somebody has to pick up the tab.
Grants have strings tied to them. What those strings cost down the road nobody knows.