STPUD board expected to increase sewer, water rates
By Kathryn Reed
With the percentage of protests to the proposed sewer and water hikes in single digits, the South Tahoe Public Utility District board can go forward with raising rates.
On the May 17 agenda is an item to raise sewer rates by 5 percent and water by 2 percent. At the May 10 budget hearing the board did not request staff to come up with another scenario. However, the board can vote for these rate increases, any lower percentage or for no increase.
About 15 people attended last week’s budget session, with a handful of people speaking and others asking questions from their seats. Several people were concerned about the changes for metered water customers. The proposal is to increase the base rate and decrease the rate based on usage.
“It is still less than the flat rate. We have never argued at all that this law is equitable. It is not,” South Tahoe PUD spokesman Dennis Cocking told Lake Tahoe News. “California is famous for the law of unintended consequences and this is one of them.”
The state is mandating water districts have meters in by 2025, but did not provide a funding mechanism to purchase them or get them installed. That means districts throughout the state have people on meters and some who aren’t. With this comes water rates that are not the same for all customers because the state mandates metered customers be billed with a usage component.
The entire 2012-13 STPUD budget, which takes effect July 1, is on Thursday’s agenda. For now, employees are not getting a salary increase or having a change to health benefits. This is because negotiations are ongoing.
“Our goal is to have a new contract by July 1. I don’t know at this time if we will be able to hit that deadline,” CFO Paul Hughes told Lake Tahoe News.
The board will have to approve any contract. If monetary issues were part of the contract, an addendum to the budget would have to be made.
The main reason staff wants the 5 percent sewer increase is to move forward with the Diamond Valley Ranch Irrigation Project.
The estimated cost of the project is $5.5 million. STPUD can secure a 2.7 percent loan through the state to pay for it. The rate increase would pay back the loan.
Treated wastewater in the Lake Tahoe Basin must be pumped off the hill per federal law. STPUD’s goes to Alpine County where it irrigates hay and alfalfa fields.
With upgrades to Alpine County’s electric grid in the past five years, it can now buy back power. South Tahoe PUD wants to create a hydroelectric facility that would be used to transport the water over Luther Pass and then be able to sell power to the grid.
Smaller sewer projects in the district’s service area would also be funded by the rate increase.
The water rate increase – which is estimated to bring in an additional $180,000 per year – will also be used to pay back debt, as well as installation of water meters. Three projects in the next three years should amount to 1,000 meters being installed.
STPUD wants to borrow another $5 million for various water line projects.
Cocking said, while water meters are important, the district’s emphasis is on replacing old, small water lines that are not optimum for fire suppression.
“Our biggest threat is catastrophic wildfire,” Cocking said.
If any rate increase were approved, July 1 would be the start date for the new rate.
People will have an opportunity to comment at this week’s meeting as well as the ability to make a formal protest via Proposition 218 even though the mandated 45-day protest period is over. If 50 percent plus one ratepayers were to file a protest to the proposed rate increases, the district could not go forward no matter what the board wanted to do.
As of May 14, about 1,400 protests had been filed – or just more than 8 percent of ratepayers.
——
Note: South Tahoe Public Utility District board meeting May 17 2pm, Meadow Crest Drive, South Lake Tahoe.
This isn’t even news, it is just sad. Nonetheless, the story must be told.
Eight percent sounds like a small amount of protests to the proposed rate increase.
1,400 does not.
It makes me want to scream. Dennis Cocking is a straight up a liar. He knows darn well that while California mandates metered rates, they do not mandate the base rate. STPUD is CHOOSING to lower the base rate and create a high varible rate based on usage. STPUD cannot argue that the base rate covers the fixed costs of having a hook-up. So now with the rates set the way they are us locals get to subsidize the second homeowners. That is STPUD’s choosing.
70% ARE SECOND HOMES.
John-
“The proposal is to increase the base rate and decrease the rate based on usage”
Third paragraph, last sentence.
As of the 2010 Census there were 15,087 housing units of which 8918 were occupied and 6169 vacant.
I will concede that the article is unclear on the point. However, Cocking has repeatedly and consistently avoided discussing the point that STPUD set the rates for base rate and usage rates. He continues to only talk about how California is making us meter. WHICH IS NOT THE POINT. Yes we are required to meter. But the base rate never had to change and the useage rate was set by a consultant.
One more point about STPUD. They are replacing lines to get fire flow. Yet the fire departments want people to have well irrigated and lush vegetation within 30 feet of houses. The current rate was solely created to discourage locals from irrigating lawns. So do they really care about fire?
Establish a cap price for those customers who have been switched to a meter. Don’t charge them any more than if they didn’t have a meter. Once everyone has a meter then set the base and usage rates to cover the cost of running the business.
Tahoeadvocate, I do disagree with that. People should pay if they are going to irrigate an acre of land. But the base rate should cover a family of 4-6 with a dog and a normal amount of lawn for defensible space. I am not saying to give away the boat. I understand STPUD has to reduce use of water or risk losing grants. But, and this is where Cocking will lie to avoid answering, local residents should not be subsidizing second homeowners. That happens today because the fixed costs of having a hook-up exceed the base rate charged today. California had nothing to do with setting that rate. Although, if you listen to Cocking you wont ever know that.
John, My suggestion is meant to cover the time period while some people have meters and others don’t. STPUD doesn’t seem to have a good plan on how to distribute their costs through 2 rate structures (metered and unmetered) so use the unmetered one until everyone is the same.
The Porter/Cologne Act needs to be amended. The ability to have some form of a grey water system would be advantages. This is mandated in the state of California along with meters. We are exempt because of the P/C act. This would cut clean water usage and in our case the power it takes to pump some of the waste water over the hill. At the minimum, an open discussion and a pilot project should be started for a reassessment of this policy.
Dear STPUD I do not feel i should pay more for the water preassure i get.
My sprinklers dont work half of the time
because the water preassure is so low ,we were the 3 house on my street and the preassure was acceptable never great, but now the street has built up with only very few lots left……the water preassure has never been corrected….
I feel a new tank should be built so we at the top of the hill will get enough preassure to at least water our yards.
what can be done about this???
PLEASE REPLY
STPUD is ripping us off! Built a new house at the end of the boom. Paid very high hook up fees and paid for my own meter. My lawn is greenish yellow because I water at a very minimal amount. My neighbors have green lush yards and pay a third of what I do. They have no intention of making the system equitable. We have fewer and fewer permanent residents and that number is only going to shrink. All the time claiming infrastructure improvements. That is a laugh! Cut employees, cut benefit packages, do something that shows you care about your rate payers and an increase might be a little easier to swallow. Until then, you are a top heavy self serving organization that has no clue of what the residents needs are. I hope that those of us can form a class action suit and sue for the inequitable rate scale.
Shiela kolos,
I do recall a mega home up by the Palisades that burnt down due the lack water pressure and I also recall that the bridge that was built to get to the homes driveway was too narrow for a fire truck.
Go figure?
People who have had Spud do repairs on lines in the street that were leaking lost pressure as they patch leak narrow the line.
Not knowing the year the house was built you might want check the water pipe dimension,Lot the older 50’s, 60’s homes,cabins had smaller sewer pipes, water feeds.
+
++