07-06-00SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
"Basic Services for a Complex World"
Robert Baer, General Mana er Richard Solbri , Assistant Mana er.
Christopher H. Strohm, President BOARD MEMBERS Pembroke Gochnauer, Vice President
James Jones, Director Ma Lou Mosbacher, Director Duane Wallace, Direct...o..~ .....
REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
JULY 6, 2000
MINUTES
The Board of Directors of the South Tahoe Public Utility District met in a regular session, July 6,
2000, 2:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, 1900 Lake Tahoe Boulevard, South Lake Tahoe, California.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS:
President Strohm, Directors Wallace, Jones, Gochnauer,
Mosbacher.
ROLL CALL
STAFF:
Baer, Solbrig, Sharp, McFarlane, Hydrick, Cocking,
Bergsohn, Powers, Johnson, Thiel, Zaninovich,
M. Alsbury, Henderson, Attorney Kvistad.
GUESTS:
Catherine Abel/Tahoe Mountain News, Donna Barked
South Y Shell, Bob and Mark Witters/Meyers Shell, John
and Chris Cefalu/Fox Service Station, Virginia Huber and
Valerie Kauffman/EI Dorado County Environmental Man-
agement Department, Al and Scott Moss/Al's Chevron,
Chuck Curtis/Lahontan RWQCB, Steve Arita/Western
States Petroleum Association, Christine White and Aura
Mattis/Equiva Services LLC, Margie Daum/Meyers Chevron
Perry Pineda, David Kelly, Joyce Blackstone.
Staff requested Consent Item a. (water disconnection
procedures at APN 26-690-091) be removed, as the
situation has been satisfactorily resolved.
CONSENT CALENDAR
STl10969
REGULAR BOARD MEETING MINUTES - JULY 6, 2000 PAGE - 2
Consent Item c. was brought forward for discussion prior
to Board action.
Moved Gochnauer/Second Jones/Passed Unanimously
to approve the Consent Calendar as amended:
a. Item removed;
b. Surplus Equipment - Authorized public auction of
portable welder by EWE Salvage Pool and Auto
Auction, Inc.
c. See Consent Items Brought Forward;
d. Biosolids Hauling and Disposal - Authorized staff to
advertise for bids / proposals for biosolids hauling and
disposal services;
e. Sewer Enterprise 2001 Appropriations Subject to
Limitation - Adopted Resolution No. 2707-00 setting the
limitation on appropriations for fiscal year 2000-01;
f. Approved Regular Board Meeting Minutes:
June 1,2000;
g. Approved Special Board Meeting Minutes:
June 20, 2000.
CONSENT CALENDAR
(continued)
CONSENT ITEMS BROUGHT FORWARD FOR DISCUSSION / ACTION
Director Mosbacher received clarification regarding this
item.
Moved MosbachedSecond Wallace/Passed Unanimously
to authorize repair of restraint hardware in the amount of
$20,182.55.
GARDNER MOUNTAIN / USFS
WATERLINE PIPE RESTRAINT
REPAIR
ITEMS FOR BOARD ACTION
John Thiel reported two sentinel wells are proposed in
the Bakersfield and Airport areas to serve as early
warning detection systems to MTBE. (Sentinel wells
are small, shallow wells used to sample for contaminates.)
SENTINEL AND TEST WELL
DRILLING
STl10970
REGULAR BOARD MEETING MINUTES - JULY 6, 2000 PAGE - 3
Three test wells are proposed to search for new water
supplies. Three priority sites will be selected from
seven areas currently under consideration. These areas
include: the Lodgepole area in Montgomery Estates, the
east Mountain Trout area, the area near Washoan and
Tabira Ct., the District's Henderson lot, Upper Truckee
River near Barbara, east Seneca area, and State Parks
area south of Amacker Ranch. Staff is currently evaluating
specific drilling sites in these areas, negotiating access,
and preparing environmental documents.
Moved Jones/Second Strohm/Passed Unanimously
to authorize staff to advertise for bids to drill two sentinel
wells and three test wells.
Moved Jones/Second Wallace/Passed Unanimously
to approve payment in the amount of $1,661,512.63.
SENTINEL AND TEST WELL
DRILLING
(continued)
PAYMENT OF CLAIMS
2:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING
Public hearing notices were published in the June 12
and 19, 2000 Legal Notices section of the Tahoe Daily
Tribune.
Written comments received in advance of the hearing
were distributed to Board members and are on file at
the District office.
GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT
PLAN ORDINANCE: CONDUCT
PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING
THE ADOPTION OF THE GROUND-
WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA
WATER CODE 10750, ET. SEQ.
President Strohm opened the Public Hearing at 2:30 p.m.
Open Hearing
The District has developed a Groundwater Management
Plan for the purpose of regulating, managing, conserving
and protecting the local groundwater resources. On
August 13, 1998, the Board, following a public hearing,
directed staff it was in the best interest of the District to
draft a Groundwater Management Plan (Plan). A SAG
(Stakeholders Advisory Group) was developed at that time
to include participation by interested members of the public.
Since that time, several meetings have been held and a
draft plan was developed.
Staff Report
The Plan's primary focus relates to the early detection and
immediate response to the uncontrolled release of petro-
leum products which may threaten the quality of ground-
STl10971
REGULAR BOARD MEETING MINUTES - JULY 6, 2000 PAGE - 4
water within the District's jurisdiction. The District-
controlled monitoring program is a key aspect of the
prevention program. Although initially the implemen-
tation phase will focus on petroleum product monitoring,
the Plan will also set in place the monitoring and data
collection protocol necessary to support a broader source
water assessment program.
The Plan is designed to monitor, analyze, and implement
effective management practices in order to utilize and
protect our valuable groundwater resources. The Plan
will be funded from a combination of general water rates,
special rates, penalties, and fines. Provided there is not
a majority protest, the Plan is scheduled for adoption on
August 3, 2000.
Rick Hydrick, Ivo Bergsohn, and Gary Kvistad gave an
overhead slide presentation that covered the following:
background, participants in the Plan's development, the
Plan's components under AB 3030, additional powers,
Plan area, groundwater sub-basin, hydrogeologic units,
geologic materials, recharge/discharge, general water
quality, natural contaminants, man-made contaminants,
well vulnerability, drinking water source protection areas,
early detection / immediate response (EDIR), EDIR plan,
agency coordination, leak detection monitoring network,
prioritization of UST facilities, release and prevention and
response plan, EDIR response, UST inspection, interim
remedial action, enforcement, coordination with other
agencies, Plan maintenance, public information and
education plan, operator education and training, cost of
Plan, sewer and water AB 3030 projected five-year costs,
funding sources, procedural requirements, and the future
with the Plan.
Attorney Kvistad recommended that this Public Hearing be
continued to the July 20, 2000 Regular Board meeting to
allow additional time for public input and participation.
4:20 P.M.
4:30 P.M.
PUBLIC HEARING
(continued)
MEETING BREAK
MEETING RESUMED
STl10972
REGULAR BOARD MEETING MINUTES - JULY 6, 2000 PAGE - 5
Steve Arita, Western States Petroleum Association
requested additional time to review the proposed
ordinance prior to adopting any requirements.
PUBLIC HEARING
(continued)
Christine White, Equiva Services, LLC made the
following comments:
* Please consider her a stakeholder and include her
in the process.
* Agrees with concept of the Plan (early detection/
immediate response).
* Some information covered in the presentation is not
included in the Plan.
* Concerned the Plan will go into effect without the
cooperative agreement of different environmental
agencies in the region. Working with several agencies
can be difficult when determining who to look to for
direction.
* The action levels that the chemicals of concern - how
does that respond to what actions need to be taken. It is
unclear in the Plan what needs to be done and what action
levels will cause specific actions.
* The Plan is extremely broad in scope and gives the
District far-reaching regulatory authority. The Plan lacks
details on how it will actually be implemented. Would like
to see more details, especially in the area of when the
interim response plan is actually carried out, and what
agency is going to be responsible for what at that point
in time. There are also timeframes given whereby there
will be fines if certain requirements are not implemented -
there needs to be some give and take in that based on the
individual circumstances at the locations. There needs to
be cooperation with agencies on timelines. Often there are
permitting requirements that need to be followed. Concerned
that some timelines cannot be adhered to and would result
in fines.
* Plan does not have enough detail regarding fines and
enforcement. There is potential for arbitrary and
capricious actions by people within the District. Needs
to be written out clearly with details.
STl10973
REGULAR BOARD MEETING MINUTES - JULY 6, 2000 PAGE - 6
* Plan does not address in writing if there is already
remediation activity occurring at a facility - there are
many monitoring wells in place and sampling is required
on a monthly basis by Lahontan and their results are
turned in promptly. There is also a groundwater contain-
ment system in place. Will it be necessary for an operator
to sign up for the Plan and pay the fees when everything
required by the Plan is already in place?
PUBLIC HEARING
(continued)
*Look at funding issues - will there be different funding
rates depending on whether the operators will do their own
sampling or if the District does the sampling. Not clear if
everyone does their own sampling and the Plan is adopted,
what the costs will be.
Chuck Curtis, Lahontan RWQCB commented regarding the
following items:
* In favor of concept - early detection/immediate response.
* Plan is lacking in some areas: lacks flexibility to give District
ability to deal with specific site conditions.
* Plan does not address sites that are already undergoing
investigation/cleanup under order by Regional Board.
* How does section 7.10.11 differ from section 7.10.27 They
are both remedial action plans and is not sure how they
differ.
* Staff stated that based on the cooperative agreement that
has yet to be produced, that the District, County, or Lahontan
can shut down a facility if they felt it was necessary. He
pointed out that only Lahontan has the authority to shut
down a station only if there is an immediate threat to human
health.
* Presentation indicated a cleanup plan must be submitted
within 60 days. Yet in section 7.2.2, it says it's required
within 45 days.
* There is potential for duplication of efforts in what's
required by the Plan and what the Regional Board requires
regarding investigation/remediation at UST sites. Work
required by Lahontan at leaking UST sites can be reim-
bursed by the California State UST Cleanup Fund. Many
STl10974
REGULAR BOARD MEETING MINUTES - JULY 6, 2000 PAGE - 7
activities required by the Plan publically may not be
eligible for reimbursement from that fund.
PUBLIC HEARING
(continued)
Virginia Huberl El Dorado County Environmental
Management made the following comments:
* Supports clean water supplies. Her department regulates
both water systems and UST systems. Have the same goal
of protection in mind.
* El Dorado County (EDC) is moving forward with ordinances
to protect water supplies. They have banned the sale of
MTBE and have been checking the gas stations for com-
pliance. They are also working with the State of California to
make UST regulations stricter under SB 989.
* Section 7.9.6 - concerned about saying that monitoring
wells need to be no farther than 10-feet from the tank system.
There needs to be some discretion in that area as there may
be a reason why that won't work. Put somewhere in the
ordinance that someone can make discretionary changes.
* Page 18, Section 7.10.2 - Remediation plans must be sent
to her agency. That is not included - add EDC Environmental
Management.
* Pages 19 and 20, Section 7.10.5 - Would like the first
paragraph to end with the last sentence reading: "During
the storage system inspection, the EDC Environmental
Management division shall be responsible for directing
all testing, as needed, of the storage tank system components
using the best available technology." She also requested
items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 be deleted - EDC knows the
components of an UST system. What is listed may not be
the best tests available for those systems.
* Page 20, Section 7.10.6 - The District may request that
her department order a facility be shut down, but they will
make that final determination and have that right under
Title 23.
* Page 21, Section 7.10.9 - District may request that her
department shut down a facility, but again, that will be
their decision. There could be instances where a one-time
source of a spill or release cannot be identified. Could
STl10975
REGULAR BOARD MEETING MINUTES - JULY 6, 2000 PAGE - 8
not justify shutting down a station if they cannot find the
source of release in all instances. The last sentence
should state that El Dorado County Environmental
Management is the only agency who should be able
to reopen a station that has been shutdown for any time
period. There is a procedure they must follow. Remove
the District as having any authority to reopen stations.
PUBLIC HEARING
(continued)
* Huber stated she will provide the comments stated
above in writing.
Mark Witters, Meyers Shell made the following
comments:
* Most concerns covered by previous speakers. Agree
there needs to be a comprehensive plan, but doesn't
know if this is the way to go about it. There are lots
of effective things in place already. 1998 upgrades
have changed a lot of stations.
* Witters questioned how the fees involved were arrived
at. He asked how they apply to stations who already have
many of the things in place at their sites.
* He takes exception to paying for other sites who have
nothing on site and who do not currently have the wells,
testing, monitoring, etc. in place.
* Need a concerted effort by all the agencies and service
station owners to keep these problems from happening
in the future. Some of the rules for station owners are
not tight enough (i.e., tank monitoring, reporting requirements
related to fuel variations, temperature corrections, ect.).
* Witters felt left out of the process. District also needs to
be sure the Plan is received by the property owner, not
just the tenant.
Al Moss, Al's Chevron stated the following:
* He encouraged other station owners (about 1% years
ago) to participate in meetings. Only two people attended
and they were concerned that due to the District's lawsuit,
they felt it was in their best interest not to become involved.
STl10976
REGULAR BOARD MEETING MINUTES - JULY 6, 2000 PAGE - 9
* He asked the Board and staff not to build this program
on the back of service station owners. He agreed a Plan
is necessary, but pointed out that many owners have
remediation systems in place. Layering the program with
more complicates the issue.
PUBLIC HEARING
(continued)
John Cefalu, Fox Service Station stated the following:
* What are the true costs to the station owner? Do they
pay for the monitoring wells, detection systems, equipment
for remediation if they already have systems in place?
The Plan states they pay only $4,100. Owners already
bear a significant amount of costs. Supplying MTBE-free
gas is more expensive due to additional freight charges.
* There seems to be a lot of duplication in the Plan
with authority of Lahontan and the County - remove
the duplication.
Bob Witters, Meyer's Shell voiced the following concerns:
* The 18 sites that are included in the fee portion of the
Plan were not represented at the Stakeholder Advisory
Group meetings.
* He attended two meeting sponsored by Al Moss. It was
indicated at those meetings that this proposed ordinance
was being dropped.
* Meyer's Shell already complies with quite a few of the
requirements listed in the Plan.
* He is extremely concerned about the costs. The economics
of operating a service station are already severely impacted.
* He received clarification regarding the rights of property
owners to appeal this ordinance.
Donna Barker, South Y Shell made the following
comments:
* Many of the problems occurred prior to the 1998
UST upgrades. Being involved with the Stakeholders
Advisory Group was difficult due to the pending
lawsuit.
STl10977
REGULAR BOARD MEETING MINUTES - JULY 6, 2000 PAGE - 10
* Fees - 33% of the costs are to be borne by 18
station operators. This is a significant impact to them.
* She is now fearful of ethanol - it has been found on
their property even though Shell's gas does not contain
ethanol.
* Her Veeder Root system accomplishes that the Plan
requests.
* She encouraged the Board to reconsider the Plan
and requested she be included as a participant in the
program.
(A short meeting break was held to provide staff time
to discuss and respond to several comments received.)
5:45 P.M.
5:50 P.M.
Director Gochnauer made the following comments:
* The aquifer is unusually permeable and pollutants move
very quickly through it. The Board feels that if there had
been a management plan in force years ago, it would have
saved the public what will prove to be a very expensive
response. The aquifer is badly polluted and the District
has abandoned a major source of water supply. The great-
est risks come from UST sites.
* He is in favor of extending the Plan's adoption to allow
additional public participation, and is in favor of adopting
a Groundwater Management Plan.
Director Wallace stated the following:
* Staff is following direction from the Board. This is
new ground. The Plan will fill gaps where Lahontan
and EDC have no authority.
* Does not like that the station owners must pay - he
asked if there was any way the District can pick up the costs.
* Reduce duplication. Make the District's powers specific
to those that Lahontan and EDC does not already cover.
PUBLIC HEARING
(continued)
MEETING BREAK
MEETING RESUMED
Board Member Comments
ST110978
REGULAR BOARD MEETING MINUTES - JULY 6, 2000 PAGE - 11
Director Jones reported the following:
* The Plan is a living document that can be adjusted
as needed. It includes an appeal process. He is not in
favor of slowing down the process. Costs should not
be paid by other ratepayers who did not cause the
problem. The District is working on legislation to fund
a good portion of the Plan.
* As far as accusations of duplications - the reason
the Plan is being considered is that Lahontan did not
respond a few years ago. That sentiment is backed up
by the California State Auditors report.
Director Mosbacher had the following concerns:
* She asked for and received clarification regarding several
slides from the overhead presentation.
* She does not want the District to have "policing" powers.
* The plan hones in on a certain segment of the community
that is singular. Seems like all sources of contamination are
not included (i.e., private individuals).
President Strohm made the following statement:
* The District is being proactive and that is good. He never
thought the District would become regulators, but needs to
be proactive. He empathizes with the people that the Plan
affects and encouraged that fairness be built in to the Plan.
Moved Strohm/Second Jones/Passed Unanimously to
continue the Public Hearing to the July 20, 2000 Regular
Board meetings, and to direct staff to present one draft
Groundwater Management Plan to all interested parties
that will incorporate staff's comments, Board member
concerns, and public comments.
President Strohm closed the Public Hearing at 7:10 p.m.
7:10 P.M.
7:30 P.M.
PUBLIC HEARING
(continued)
Board Action
Close Public Hearing
ADJOURNED TO CLOSED SESSION
RECONVENE TO REGULAR
SESSION
STl10979
REGULAR BOARD MEETING MINUTES -JULY 6, 2000 PAGE - 12
ACTION I REPORT ON ITEMS DISCUSSED DURING EXECUTIVE SESSION
The Board directed legal counsel and staff regarding
this matter.
No Board action.
Legal Counsel was directed regarding this mater.
No Board action.
This item was not discussed.
No Board action.
This item was not discussed.
No Board action.
This item was not discussed.
No Board action.
This item was discussed during the Special Board
Meeting held earlier on this date.
Pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.9(a)/Conference with
Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation:
STPUD vs. Sierra Cai Lodge, U.S.
Bankruptcy Court, Sacramento
Division, Case No. 96-25693-C-11
Pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.(a)/Conference with
Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation:
South Tahoe Redevelopment Agency
vs. STPUD, El Dorado County Superior
Court, Case No. SC20000090
Pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.9(b)/Conference with
Legal Counsel: Anticipated Litigation
(one case)
Pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.9(a)/Conference with
Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation:
Mountain Cascade Inc., and Valley
Engineers, Inc. vs. STPUD Board of
Directors and STPUD, County of
El Dorado, Superior Court Case
No. SC20000050
Pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.9(a)/Conference with
Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation:
Schwake vs. STPUD, Federal Court
Case No. CV-N-93-851-DWH
Pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.9(a)/Conference with
Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation:
STPUD vs. ARCO, et al, San Francisco
County Superior Court Case
No. 999128
STl10980
REGULAR BOARD MEETING MINUTES - JULY 6, 2000 PAGE - 13
7:30 P.M.
ADJOURNMENT
Christopher H. Strohm, Board President
South Tahoe Public Utility District
Sharpz/,~,lerk of the Bo~lrd
Kathy
South Tahoe Public Utility District
STl10981
REGULAR BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
GUEST SIGN-IN SHEET
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE BROWN ACT:
COMPLETION OF THIS INFORMATION IS VOLUNTARY, NOT MANDATORY,
AND IS NOT A PRECONDITION FOR ATTENDANCE.
STl10990
DATE:
REGULAR BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
GUEST SIGN-IN SHEET
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE BROWN ACT:
COMPLETION OF THIS INFORMATION IS VOLUNTARY, NOT MANDATORY,
AND IS NOT A PRECONDITION FOR ATTENDANCE.
STl10991
SENT*BY: ASSOC MGMT SERVS; 7- 6- 0 11:26AM; 7753482011 => ; #1/2
NPM & CSA
Nevada Petroleum Marketers
& Convenience Store Association
P. O. Box 12431
Reno, Nevada 89510
Phone (775) 348-1888 Fax (7'75) 348-2011
nv fuel(~a mspr. reno.nv.us
TO:
FROM:
Ms. Kathy Sh~~ /
Peter D. Kmeger [/~ ~/
SUBJECT: Letter of Concern
2 pages via fax
DATE: July 6, 2000
Please make the attached letter part of the public record concerning proposed
ordinance 476-00. Thank you.
STl10992
SENT BY: ASSOC MGMT SERVS; 7- 6- 0 11:26AM; 7753482011 => ; #2/2
City
DIRECTORS
[~¢ecr. o¢ - District 1
~',:'C~ ol~Llrll
'~ Jorm~on
,'ec~or · Di~trk.~ 2
~Zerry Fqh',cM%, Industries
FS~no
/,~qon
D~recO3r - Dis[ri<:[ 4
Director - District 5
,Morton'S 51yu3g J Travel Plaza
PAST PReSIDeNTS
Don ~oi~o~ .............. t ~4,~&
Ir~l Co~ell ....... 1992~4
J,'n ~mit~en ................ 1986/88
D;u~vir~ bigot ..... 1983/85
Jif'fl KUr,~iS;~ ....... 1982/83
E!,~r Hayr:r~c~ 1981~2
· A~( hie Lani .... f 980/81
C c:,r~ 8~2nop .............. T 979/B0
/'d',' h~< t.ar, ........ 1
NEVADA PETROLEUM MARKETERS
& CONVENIENCE STORE ASSOCIATION
Illlllllllllll I I
July (5, 2000
Mr. Rick I tydrick
District Manager, Water Operations
South Tahoe Public UtilKies D/strict
South I.akc Tahoe, California 96150
page via fax
Dear Mr..(lydrick:
'l"hc Nevada PcLroteum Marketers and Convenience Store A ssocmt]on (NF'M&,C'S/%~
just learned of your proposed Groundwater Managernent Plan Ordinance No.
Many of ottr members provide petroleum products in thc La ke Tahoe B~tsm and arc an
tmportant link in the petroleum distribution network servm,,x thc South l.ake Tahoe
region. Providing a dependable and economic supply of pelroleum products is critical
to fine public, tourism and the many small businesse~ that operate in the region.
Our members are supportive of:'your continued ctt'oi'ts to insure t.hat petroleum products;
arc not thc source of continued groundwater contamination. However, wc LCd that your
proposed Ordinance No. 476-00 does not adeqm~tcly consider thc true ccoDol3)tc m3pact
on ~crvicc stations not owned and operated by fl'lajOr oil companies. These typ~crally arc
thmily-owned small businesses that must pay the entire cosl of upgrades, tank
monitoring and any assessments ~mposed by ordinance.
On behalf of our members, NPM&CSA respectJully rcquex{, that thc l)ixtr~ct
the true economic impact on small service stations bet'ore adopting thc.
ordinance. If adopted as cun:ently written, this ordinance w ~1t most likely remove man5
small service stations in thc South Lakc Tahoe mm'kd. Thhq would result, m reduced
competition and higher prices at the pump tbr both tocal~ a~td tourists.
Thank you for your consideration of our request.
t
Pcter D. Krueger ,//
Slate Executive
JI
t' <) B,~x l.:-l. I · I'~.cno. Nevada 895[0
STl10993
(702) :!.48-1888 · (:7(')2)348-2011 I:,.\X
J'JN-30-O0
17:36 FROM-CIO~A/POC
383~ Norm Freeway BlvCl Su,~e 130
Sacramento C~ 95834-3928
Pn 9't6-646-59~9 Fa.~.. 9'16-6¢6-5985
T-010 P.OI/OZ F-574
To: Ms. Kathy Sharp, STPUD Board staff From: Marilyn L. Sarantis
Fax: 530-541-0614 PaBes: 2
Phorm: Date: June 30, 2000
Re: July 6 hearin9 CC:
[] Urgent [:::] For Review ["J Please Comment [] Please Reply
· Comments:
I wish to submit this letter to your Board for consideration at the July 6 hearing. 1
am unable to attend since we became aware of the hearing only yesterday
afternoon. But our inability To participate in person should not be taken as an
indication that we are not seriously concerned about the effects of this
groundwater management proposal. So I thank you for providing a copy of our
commenm to the Board members a. nd to Mr. Hydrick.
Sincerely,
M L Sarantis
STl10994
JUN'30-OO 1T:3B
FRO~-CiOUA/POC
9188485985 %010 P OZ/OZ F-574
CALIFORNIA INDEPENDENT OIL MARKETERS ASSOCIATION
June 30, 2000
FAX: 530-541-0614
Christopher H. Srrol'u'n
lames R. Jones
Mary Lou Mosbacher
Duane W',.d. lace
Pembroke Gochnauer
Members of the Board, South Tahoe Public Utilities District
12'75 Meadow Crest Drive
South Lake Tahoe CA 96150
Members of the Board:
It is our understanding that STPUD Js considering a proposal to reqtiSre all'UST
owners/operators to construct moa/toting wells near USTs and cannecmd piping, and
that those wells be =o constructed as to be convertible into extraction ~ells. This
would be prohibitively expensive ro small ~usiness. Further, that a fee o~ $4,500
would be assessed on these companies or individuals to help the disrric~ fund the
early detectiordimmcdiare response program.
Water quality is primary tmportunce to 'all of us. However, I must urge you ro make a
careful assessment of the financial burden you are imposing on =mall business. The
owners and operators of USTs ha,~e already sustained an enormous debt in
complying with the up~ade requirements of December 1998, and for many small
businesses this debt v, ill not be amortized for many years. The legislature has
enacted SB 989{,Sher) which creates further upgrade requirements. Many basinesses
are stretched to their credit limits to comply with these upgrades, and their volume of
bas/ness simply will not support further credit extcnsioa. For many small businesses
in your district, this could be the requirement that drives them out of business.
1[ is of ~avest importance that yoa weigh the cost to your locM businesspeople,
banks and economy before you impose a regcdation that is predicated more on the
most extreme side of cagt~or~ than on immediate need.
i urge ~ou no.._~t ro adopt d~is proposal. Let us work together to find safeguards that
will accomplish their purpose without crippling or destroying sm'all business. Thank
you.
Sincerely,
Marilyn L. Sarantis
ClOMA Government Relations
Cc: Mr. Rick Hydrick,
D~strict Manager of Water Operations
STl10995
TAHOE SHELL
O2
June 29, 2000
Mr. Rick Hydrick
Somh T~oe Public Utility Distrie~
1275 Meadow Crest Drive
South l,ake Tahoe, CA 96150
Dear Rick,
Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to address the Groundwater Management Plan. After our discussion on
June 20, I contacted our Equilon Representative, David Keith, to discuss the specifications regarding our station's
monitoring system. He reiterated that the current Simplicity monitoring system is managed by an outside
management group. Veeder Root Systems. The system continually monitors and tests tanks, lines, fill risers, and
dispensers 24 hours a day. lfthe system goes into alarm, it shuts the entire gasoline operation dorm and does not
allow for any bypass. The Simplicity s).~tem team then notifies Equilon and immediately dispatches a contractor to
the site. The groundwater wells, managed by Cambria Environmental, continue to monitor ground water for
contamination.
As 1 stated in our conver~tion, our propo.~l to the Utility Di.~iet is that Veeder Root and Cambria Environmental
add the District to their notification process for any irregularitie~ or alarms regarding these monitoring systems.
This would be accomplished at our cost and of no financial consequence to the Utility District or rate payer. Our
review of the Groundwater Management Plan is that ifa station operator or owner can support their own
monitoring program and comply with the request for information that the Utility District desires, the requirements
of the Groundwater Managenaent Plan plan would be met. If, however, an owner/operalor cannot provide this
information, the Utility District should be fi-ee to imi:x~se monitoring and compliance on that operator.
Of added concern to us is the realistic cxms to us, and profit to others, for this program. Not only are we paying
permit fees, we as district water users will pay for the increase in water rates a~ well. A~ the Plan delineates, the
permit fee of $~500/year alone would cost the average operator .005 to .015 per gallon of fuel (depending upon the
volume ot'gasoline that a dealer sells yearly). These costs would be pa.~ed onto to the consumer in gas price
increases. It appears to be of small consequence, however, it does two harmfi~l things to our business: It
selectively adds to the street price for some but not all operators, and in an already very competitive marke~ place
even one to two cents in price increase on the street creates a shift in where a consumer will purchase fuel; thus a
loss of business to some operators and a gain to others. It additionally creates a sizeable windfall for those
operators not affected by the PIan. To an o~rator that is presumed to pump between 75,000 to 200,000 gallons of
fuel a month, and is not affected by the Plan, it creates a minimum $4,500 to $36,000 yearly in profit windfall.
This is a sizeable profit for gasoline operators like Ski Run Chevron, Swiss Mart, and Lake Tahoe Car Wash who
are not affected by the Plan. I urge you to reconsider the design and implementation of the Ground Managemtmt
Plan and look Ibrward to the Utility District Board's consideration of my letter at their June 6 meeting.
Sincerely,
Donna and Chuck Barker
South Tahoe Shell
1020 Emerald Bay Road
P.O. Box g787
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96158
STl10996
SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
1950-2000 50 YEARS OF EXCELLENCE
1275 Meadow Crest Drive · Sout,h Lake Tahoe,California 96150
Phone (530) 544-6474 Fax (530) 541-0614
Mrs. Donna Barker
South Tahoe Shell
1020 Emerald Bay Road
Box 8787
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96158
BY FAX
Dear Donna,
Thank you for your letter concerning the District's proposed Groundwater Management Plan. As
you requested, I am responding to the three points made in your letter of June 29, 2000.
With regard to UST monitoring systems, even the most advanced systems can release up to a
tenth of a gallon of gas undetected. We have learned from past experience that these systems can
not be trusted to protect our drinking water aquifer.
With regarding to existing monitoring wells and programs at UST sites in town, they are not
designed to accomplish the early detection of and immediate response to a gasoline release.
There may be some wells and or current monitoring that will fit into the proposed program, but I
believe they will be few. Nevertheless, we plan to do site by site visits to UST facilities to
determine what existing wells and sampling might be used in order to cut costs to the UST
owner/operator.
Your concern about the costs of the program creating competitive advantages to some UST
owners and not others is of concern to the District and that is why we have tried so hard to keep
the costs of the program as low as possible. I am sure our Board of Directors will be giving very
serious consideration to this issue. I encourage you to communicate your concerns directly to
them.
Again, thank you for your letter and please know that we are doing our very best to balance your
concerns with the need to protect our drinking water quality.
Sincerely,
Rick Hydrick ~
Manager of Water Operations
STl10997