AP 10-03-02SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
"Basic Services for a Complex World"
REGULAR BOARD MEETING AGENDA
Thursday, October 3, 2002
2:00 P.M.
City Council Chambers
1900 Lake Tahoe Boulevard, South Lake Tahoe, California
~, Baer General Richard ,'
Duane Wallace, President BOARD MEMBERS James R. Jones, Vice President
Cathie Beckeq Director Ma~ Lou Mosbacher Director Eric W, Schafer Director
I I1'111 '1 i I II I I I Ill I I I I [I I I ] T I
CALL TO ORDER REGULAR MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCF
COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (Short non-agenda items that are within the subject matter
jurisdiction of the District. Five minute limit. No action will be taken.)
CORRECTIONS TO THE AGENDA OR CONSENT CALENDAR
ADOPTION OF CONSENT CALENDAR(Anyitamcan be discussed and considered sepamtaly
upon request.)
CONSENT ITEMS BROUGHT FORWARD FOR ACTION / DISCUSSION
PRESENTATION
a. District GIS Progression (Presented by HSI Geotrans - Alex Johnson, Scott Flory,
and Jeff Bausch)
ITEMS FOR BOARD ACTION
a. South Upper Truckee Water Main
Extension
(Lisa Coyner)
REQUESTED BOARD ACTION
Authorize Installation of a Water Main
Extension on South Upper Truckee, in
the Amount of $18,279, Subject to
Execution of a Main Extension Agreement
with the District and Review and Approval
by Staff and Legal Counsel
REGULAR BOARD MEETING AGENDA - OCTOBER 3r
PAGE-2
Johnson Sewer Pump Station Upgrade
(Rick Hydrick)
(1) Authorize Exception to the Bidding
Procedures as Provided in the District
Purchasing Policy for Standardized
Equipment; and (2) Approve Purchase of
Two Krogh Pumps from the Representative
in this Area in the Estimated Amount of
$16,000 Each (Plus Tax)
TRPA Building Allocations
(President Wallace)
Direct Staff Regarding Position Letter to
TRPA
District's Public Records Policy
(Kathy Sharp)
Adopt Resolution No. 2747-02 Amending
the District's Public Records Policy
Superseding Resolution No. 2604 in its
Entirety
Payment of Claims
Approve Payment in the Amount of
$894,200.26
BOARD MEMBER COMMITTEE REPORTR
a. Executive Committee (Wallace / Jones)
b. Finance Committee (Wallace / Schafer)
c. Water & Wastewater Operations Committee (Jones / Becker)
d. Planning Committee (Mosbacher / Schafer)
BOARD MEMBER AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORTR
a. Legislative Ad Hoc Committee (Wallace / Jones)
10. EL DORADO COUNTY WATER AGENCY PURVEYOR REPRESENTATIVES REPORT
11. BOARD MEMBER REPORTS
12. GENERAL MANAGER I STAFF REPORTR
13. NOTICE OF PAST AND FUTURE Mr=;TINGS I EVENTR
Past Meetin,qs / Events
09/20/02 - ACWA Meeting Plus Tour of District's Advanced Oxidation System
09/26102 - Meeting w/Heavenly Valley Representatives re: Snow Making System
09/26/02 - Administration Building Needs Meeting
09127/02 - Executive Committee Meeting
09/30102 - Operations Committee Meeting
10/01/02 - Finance Committee Meeting
10~02~02 - Meeting w/Dennis Crabb re: Alpine County Agreements
15.
16.
REGULAR BOARD MEETING AGENDA - OCTOBER 3, 2002
PAGE-3
Future Meetings / Even*-
10/09/02 - 10:00 A.M. - El Dorado County Water Agency Board Meeting
10/10 -11/02 - Special District Administration Seminar at Caesars
10/09/02 - 5:00 P.M.- Lahontan Regular Board Meeting at Lahontan Office, then at
7;00 P.M. Lahontan Meeting Reconvenes at City Council Chambers
10/10/02 - 8:30 A.M.- Lahontan Meeting Continued at City Council Chambers
10/14/02 - 4:00 P.M.- Operations Committee Meeting at District Office
10/15/02 - 9:00 A.M. - Alpine County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting in Markleeville
10/15/02 - 6:00 P.M. - City of SLT Regular Council Meeting at City Council Chambers
10/16/02 - 8:00 A.M.- Tentative ECC (Employee Communications Committee) at District
Office - Note: This meeting is tentative only. If it is he/d,
Director Schafer will be the Board Representative.
10/17/02 ~ 2:00 P.M.- STPUD Regular Board Meeting at City Council Chambers
10/28/02 - 1:00 P.M. -Alpine County Contract Commission Meeting in Markleeville
14,
CLOSED SESSION
a. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) Conference with Legal Counsel-
Existin.q Liti.qation: STPUD v. John Breese Mumford, et, al. El Dorado Count;
Superior Court Case No. SC2002003n
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a)/..Conference with Le.qal Counsel-
Existinq Liti,qation: F. Heise Land & Live Stock Company vs. STPUD and Does I
throu,qh 10, Inclusive; Alpine County Superior Court Case No. C18~ ~
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a)/Conference with Le.clal Counsel-
Existincl Liti43ation: STPUD vs. F. Heise Land & Live Stock Coi~pa~y Inc.,
William Weaver, Eddie R. Snyder, Crockett Enterprises, Inc. CIV. S-02-0238 ML~
JFM United S~a~es District Court for the F~,~tem District of California,
Sacramento CA
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a)/_Conference with Le,qal Counsel-
Existincl Lific3afion re: Meyers Landfill Site: United States of America vs. El
Dorado County and City of South Lake Tahoe and Third Party Dcfc~da_~L~, Civil
Action No. S-01-1520 LKK GGH, United States District Court for the Ea__~t_em
Di~,[,ict of Califomia
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a)/Conference with Le.clal Counsel-
Existinq Lift.clarion: STPUD vs. Lakeside Park Association, et al, County o[
El DoraGo, Superior Court Case No. SC20010165
ACTION / REPORT ON ITEMS DISCUSSED DURING CLOSED SESSIOP
ADJOURNMENT (To the next regular meeting, October 17, 2002, 2:00 p.m.)
SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
"Basic Services for a Complex World"
Amendment No. 1
REGULAR BOARD MEETING AGENDA
Thursday, October 3, 2002
2:00 P.M.
City Council Chambers
1900 Lake Tahoe Boulevard, South Lake Tahoe, California
Robert G. Baer, Gan,
Duane Wallace, President
BOARD MEMBERS
Ri,
James R. Jones, Vice President
Eric W. Schafer, Director
CORRECTION TO THE AGENDA
Note: This agenda item has been amended to read as follows.
All noticing requirements for this item have been met.
ITEMS FOR BOARD ACTION
South Upper Truckee Water Main
Extension
REQUESTED BOARD ACTION
Authorize Installation of a Water Main
Extension on South Upper Truckee, and
the District will Pay the Cost of Upsizing
the Main Line Extension from a Six-Inch
Line to an Eight. Inch Line in the Amount
of $18,279, Subject to Execution of a Main
Extension Agreement with the District and
Review and Approval by Staff and Legal
Counsel
TO:
FR:
RE:
SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
BOARD AGENDA ITEM
AMENDMENT
Lisa Coyner, Customer Service Manaqer
BOARD MEETING
October 3, 2002
AGENDA ITEM:
ACTION ITEM NO:
7,a
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO:
ITEM-PROJECT NAME: SOUTH UPPER TRUCKEE WATER MAIN EXTENSION
REQUESTED BOARD ACTION: Authorize installation of a water main extension on South
Upper Truckee, and the District will pa}/the cost of upsizinq the main line extension from
a six-inch line to an eiqht-inch ~irler in the amount of $18,279, subiect to execution of a main
extension agreement with the District and review and approval by staff and legal counsel
DISCUSSION: Four property owners located on South Upper Truckee have been notified by
the Department of Health Services (DHS) to discontinue use of their wells due to high levels of
arsenic in their well water. Consequently, the property owners must connect to the District's water
system. The property owners are Robert William Olsen, Steven and Lucinda Anderson, and
Jerry Svensson and Wayne Hosman.
The property owners propose extendinq the District's water main approximately 1,551 feet,
utilizing a six-inch line. A copy of a drawing is attached, depictinq the location of the main
extension. The property owners will be responsible for desiqn and construction of the main
extension in accordance with District standards and subiect to District inspection durinq
construction. The District desires to up-size the proposed main line extension from six-inches
to eiqht-inches in order to provide for future connections, and to install two additional fire
Continued on Paqe 2
SCHEDULE:
COSTS: $18,279
BUDGETED AMOUNT REMAINING:
ATTACHMENTS: Map
Unbudqeted
ACCOUNTNO:
CONCURRENCE WITH REQUESTED ACTION:
GENERAL MANAGER: YES. NO.
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER: YES NO
CATEGORY:
GENERAL
WATER X
SEWER
Continued from Paqe 1:
hydrants. The District would pay the cost of up-sizing the main line extension, includinq the
costs of two additional fire hydrants and connection valves for future use.
The property owners will be required to execute a main extension aqreement obligatinq
them, among other things, to: construct the main extension per District standards, pay for the
cost of the main extension (except for the costs as outlined above), dedicate the main
extension to the District after construction, pay a connection fee for each hook-up, and obtain
all associated permits and approvals for the construction.
Funding for this proiect will come from the Capital Outlay Reserve.
TO:
FR:
RE: BOARD MEETING October 3, 2002
ACTION ITEM NO: 7. a
SOUTHTAHOEPUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
BOARD AGENDAITEM
BOARD OFDIRECTORS
LisaCovner, CustomerServiceManager
AGENDAITEM:
CONSENT CALENDARITEM NO:
ITEM-PROJECT NAME: SOUTH UPPER TRUCKEE WATER MAIN EXTENSION
REQUESTED BOARD ACTION: Authorize installation of a water main extension on South
Upper Truckee, in the amount of $18,279, subiect to execution of a main extension aqreement
with the District and review and approval by staff and legal counsel
DISCUSSION: Four property owners located on South Upper Truckee have been notified by
the Department of Health Services (DHS) to discontinue use of their wells due to high levels of
arsenic in their well water. Consequently, the property owners must connect to the District's water
system. The property owners are Robert William Olsen, Steven and Lucinda Anderson, and Jerry
Svensson and Wayne Hosman.
The property owners propose extending the District's water main approximately 1,551 feet,
utilizing a six-inch line. A copy of a drawing is attached, depicting the location of the main
extension. The property owners will be responsible for design and construction of the main
extension in accordance with District standards and subiect to District inspection during
construction. The District desires to up-size the proposed main line extension from six-inches to
eight-inches in order to provide for future connections, and to install two additional fire hydrants.
The District would pay the cost of up-sizinq the main line extension, includinq the costs of two
additional fire hydrants and connection valves for future use.
Continued on Paqe 2
SCHEDULE:
COSTS: $18,279 ACCOUNT NO:
BUDGETED AMOUNT REMAINING: Unbudgeted
ATTACHMENTS: Map
CONCURRENCE WITH REQUESTED ACTION:
GENERAL MANAGER: YES~ NO.
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER: YE~F~¥~-~-~',
CATEGORY:
GENERAL
WATER X
SEWER
Continued from Paqe 1:
The property owners will be required to execute a main extension agreement obligatinq
them, among other thinqs, to: construct the main extension per District standards, pay for the cost
of the main extension (except for the costs as outlined above), dedicate the main extension to the
District after construction, pay a connection fee for each hook-up, and obtain all associated
permits and approvals for the construction.
Funding for this proiect will come from the Capital Outlay Reserve.
NOISN31X3 NW~ W3_L~M
OW 33XO~WI W3ddn HI,OS
z
SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
BOARD AGENDA ITEM
TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS
FR: Rick Hydrick, Manaqer of Water Operations
RE: BOARD MEETING
October 3, 2002
AGENDAITEM:
ACTION ITEM NO: 7. b
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO:
ITEM-PROJECT NAME: JOHNSON SEWER PUMP STATION UPGRADE
REQUESTED BOARD ACTION: (1) Authorize exception to the biddinq procedures as provided
in the District Purchasing Policy for standardized equipment; and (2) Approve purchase of two
Kroqh pumps from the representative in this area, in the estimated amount of $16,000 each (pluc
tax)
DISCUSSION: The Johnson Sewer Pump Station pumps are 30 years old and need to bo
replaced. Staff would like to replace the existing Fairbanks-Morse pumps with Krogh pumps, in
order to standardize these pumps with the pumps at the other large pump stations (Tahoe Keys,
Upper Truckee, and Al Tahoe Pump Stations). All of the pumps at these stations will then havn
intemhangeable pads.
Standardizinq the pumps will result in:
(1) The highest reliability possibly and the lowest chance of a sewaqe spill. No Krogh pump
in the Tahoe Keys, Al Tahoe, and Upper Truckee Pump Stations has ever plugged up in 30 yearn
of operation. All other pumps have plugged up at times. Non-clogging pumps are essential tn
operating large, spill-free sewage pump stations1 especially those near the shore of the Lakn
Tahoe.
(2) Interchanqeable pads resulting in quick repairs from a basic inventor,/.
(3) A hiqher level of operator familiarity with pump performance, maintenance, and repair.
SCHEDULE: Upgrade installations will be done this winter
COSTS: Estimated $16,000 each (plus tax) ACCOUNT NO: 1002-8304
BUDGETED AMOUNT REMAINING: $134,587
ATTACHMENTS: Quote will be presented at Board Meeting
CONCURRENCE WITH REQUESTED ACTION: CATEGORY:
GENERAL MANAGER: YES~::~ NO
GENERAL
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER: YES~.'~,_^ ,~,~,~IQ_~ WATER
SEWER X
TO:
FR:
RE:
ACTION ITEM NO: 7. ¢
SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
BOARD AGENDA ITEM
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Duane Wallace, Board President
BOARD MEETING
October 3, 2002 AGENDA ITEM:
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO:
ITEM-PROJECT NAME: TRPA BUILDING ALLOCATIONS
REQUESTED BOARD ACTION: Direct staff re,qardin,q position letter to TRPA.
DISCUSSION: TRPA is proposin.q criteria for sin,qle family home allocations. The District
should consider whether a position letter should be sent outlinin,q the District's concerns.
SCHEDULE:
COSTS:
BUDGETED AMOUNT REMAINING:
ATTACHMENTS:
ACCOUNTNO:
CONCURRENCE WITH REQUESTED ACTION:
GENERAL MANAGER: YES ~ ~ NO
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER: YES i NO
CATEGORY:
GENERAL X
WATER
SEWER
Sout¼ Tahoe
Public Utility District
Rober~ G. Baer, General Manager
Board Members
Cathie B~cker
James R. Jones
Mary Lou Mosbacher
Duane Wallace
Eric Schafer
Memorandum
Date:
October 1,2002
To:
Board Members
From: Kathy
Subject: Backup to Agenda Item 7c. - TRPA Building Allocations
Duane asked that you review these items for discussion at Thursday's meeting.
1 ) TRPA agenda item and attachments (from their 9/25 Governing Board meeting).
2) Letter of opposition from Dan Holler, Douglas County Manager, in response to
TRPA's proposed amendments.
South Tahoe Public Utility District .1275 Meadow Crest Drive, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 · Phone 530.544.6474 oFacsimJle 530.541.0614
Sep-$B-O~ 16:3~ From-DOUGLAS COUNTY MANAGER
T-~6i PO1/G5 F-19Z
DOUGLAS
;OUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
t594 £smeralda Avenue, Room 307, Minden, Nevada 89423
Daniel C. Holler
COUNTY MANAGER
775-782-9821
FAX: 775-782.6255
COMMISSIONERS
Donald H. Miner, CTL~RMAN
Steve Weissinger, VICE-CHAIRMAN
Beraaxd W. Curtis
Jacques B~chegoyhcn
Kelly D. Kite
September 24, 2002
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
Governing Board
Dean Heller, Chairman
P.O. Box 1038
Zephyr Cove, NV 89448-1038
RE: COMMENTS ON CHAPTER 33 ALLOCATION OF DEVELOPMENT
Dear Chairman Heller:
I am writing ro express Douglas County's opposition to the proposed amendments to Chapter 33
Allocation of Development, as presented to the Advisory Planning Commission (APC) and
proposed for action by Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Governing Board (TRPA).
Overall, the performance based system for the allocation of dwelling units throughout the Basin
creates an additional layer of goverrm~em bureaucracy and places addflional expenses and burden
on local agencies for enforcement and implementation of various requirements that are more
appropriately placed under TRPA's authority rather then local government.
Applying uniform criteria to five dissimilar jurisdictions is inappropriate. The available
resources To implement the system are also dissimilar across the various agencies creating a
greater imbalance for development potential tN'oughout the Tahoe Basin. The cost of
implementing the proposed Allocation System is not only disproportionate but places unfunded
mandates on local government. The Basin's jurisdictions have linle or no authority over some of
the proposed process or requirements.
By placing these performance standards upon the five jurisdictions, TRPA is in effect abdicating
its responsibility to insure environmental improvements are met. The proposed system of
dwelling unit allocations is predicated upon the presumption that each jurisdiction will be
motivated to facilitate the construction of more, (rather than fewer), new homes. Ti-ds assumption
is flawed. It is unlikely that eachjm-/sdimion will become a strong advocate for the construction
of as many new homes permitted within its allocation range. Total allocations have not been used
in the past in all agencies. Based upon the revenue structure established in both California and
Nevada, counties and cities have a greater incentive to facilitate new cormmercial and industrial
development, not residential.
Realistically, the jurisdictions are inclined to be neutral toward new residential development.
However, it is entirely possible that the costs necessary to each jurisdiction to achieve a handful
MAILING ADDreSS; P.O. BOX 238, Minden, Nevada 89423
S~p-D~-g2 1G:~2 From-DOU~LAS COUNTY ~NA~£R 702-782-G255 T-GG1 P g2/05 F-lB2
TRPA Governing Board
September 24, 2002
Page Two
of additional residential allocations will become an impediment to IILPA'~ envirormaental
obi ectives.
Further, the proposed allocation system has a number of potential unintended consequences. For
example, non-compliance property owners maybe tempted zo continue substandard
envirommental practices as a means of eliminating potential development next to their property.
The process may force individuals wishing to build a home to pay additional costs in order ro
secure an incremental building allocation. The system also allows fa/lures by TRPA to serve as
a means of penalizing local agencies.
Specific concerns with the proposed Ordinance are as follows:
· Section 33.2.A (4) Allocation Pool - Allocations to the Pool by TRPA may have an
adverse impact on the orderly development of projects throughout the Basin. Rely/ng
only upon unused allocations from the previous year may encourage individuals to secure
that allocation even if they are not ready to move forward, due to the uncertainty of
whether or not they will be able ro secmre an allocation from the Pool. Additionally, the
Allocation Pool saffers because the potential allocation may be substantially reduced
based on the lower number of irdfial allocations and the potential ro incremental
decreases. Lack of local funds etc. will place greater pressure on the Pool to be sm
effective tool in meeting needs in the Basin.
· Section 33.2.B (3) (g) Fertilization Management Program- The Fertilization
Management Program needs to move for-,vard and be put in place, however linking it to
the release of the residential allocation places the whole program at the will of TRPA. If
The Board fails to adopt a program, individual property owners will be penalized.
The following comments relate to the Performance Review System and requirements
placed on Local Government:
· 33,2.B (S) and related subsections - The structure of the Performance Review
Committee should include the participating Counties and City with TRPA providing
staff support but not serving as a "voting member" unless one of the Goverrdng Board
members serves as a representative for TRPA, The guidelines to establish consistent
evaluation shoald be created through the Perfom'~ance Review Committee not by TRPA
staft~
· The change in how allocations are assigned to the various cormnunities is not supported
by Douglas County. While there is recognition of the desire to create linkages between
the allocation of residential building units and various programs, the linkage is based on
a negative approach. The "incentive" only brings the jurisdictions back to where they
should start. This approach denies the County a cost benefit component to be an active
player in the overall program unless there are other additional benefits outside of the
residential unit allocation. In other words TRPA has created a stick approach verses a
carrot approach in attempting to enhance environmental improvements through the
Sop-SO-02 16:3~ From-DOUGLAS COUNTY BANAGER 702-?82-6255 T-661 PO~/05 F-lB2
TP--P A Governing Board
S~p~ember 2.1, 2002
Page Three
residential building permtt allocation system. Given the differential between the various
jurisdictions, the equal treatment in the enhancements or deductions will be challenged
on a regular basis. The review process will no doubt end up with some level of
subjectivity regardless of efforts to do otherwise.
There
are a number of problems in each of the review areas:
The first being in the permit monitoring and compliance section. The section will
require additional effort by cities and counties to provide monitoring and compliance
services at a cost to those agencies. While TRPA is listed as one of the agencies to also
perform this, there is little or no way for Cities or Counties to insure that TIaA is doing
their job. The're is no penalty to TRPA should they fail to perform or incentive to
perform, the pressure is placed on local government.
Ely implementation again impacts jurisdictions. In Douglas County, a substantial
number of the Ely projects are undertaken and monitored by General Improvement
Districts (GIDs). OI~Ds are ineligible for the allocation of bu.ilding fights; however their
performance may negatively impact the County as a whole, thereby unjustly penalizing
ail of the County's citizens who have no authority over the GIDs. The program s oudm
to create the ElY and to establish the Ma/nrenance Efficiency Plan again will require
added expenditures by the local agencies. The shifting of the preparations of the E2
plan from TRPA to the local agencies is paramount to the passing of a significant
unfunded mandate and tying building allocations to that unfunded mandate. The process
requires that the EIP implementation plan is to be received and approved by TKPA in
addition to a maintenance efficiency plan. Should TR.PA fail to act on these items, the
local jurisdictions are penalized for the a ency's failure to act appropriately. The
g
program provides no incentive for TRPA to act in a pro-active manner or to the benefit
of the local jurisdictions, rm fact the process allows TI~A to set extremely stringent
standards and again to utilize a stick approach to requiring jurisdictions to do additional
work.
The other problem with the BIP section is that it assumes funding for EIP projects is
available. Throughout the processes there is the general assumption that Counties have
adequate funding to implement, maintain, monitor, and enforce TRPA requirements as it
relates to permits and the development of capital improvement projects. In reality this is
not the ca~e and outside of grants and Federal funding sources there are limited dollars
available to meet these TP,-PA imposed obligations.
The BMP retrofit requirements have many of the same problems as the EIP program.
The more significant one is the ability of the local jurisdictions to enforce BMP retrofits
on developed property without the consent of the property owner. The system actually
establishes a very significant way for existing property owners to limit development in
their area by simply failing to implement Blvlys on their property. Faiture to do so
would result in the reduction in the number of units that could be allocated to a
jurisdiction thereby effectively limiting development in an area. The ordinance is silent
Ssp-30-O~ 16:3~ F~om-DOUGLAS COgNTY ~AttAG~R ?~-?~-8~5~ T-661 P~4/05 F-19~
TRPA Governing Board
September 24, 2002
Page Four
on how to fund the BMPs with the assumption being made that it would be up to the
local jurisdiction and private proper~y owners. It appears that under the BMP sections
those TRPA requirements are simply being passed on ro local jurisdictions for
implementation and enforcement.
· The required level of service under the transit program is unacceptable. It makes no
linkages between the level of developmem and the need for transit. The system ties to
the budget and not the level of actual success of a transit system, which could be
accomplished through lower expenditures rather than more. To dictate that a local
budget must grow by a given percent is not acceptable to Douglas County and frar&ly
may well serve as a detriment to securing additional funding for transit. Funding sources
that are not ongoing may create more of a problem then a beneftt in the future as
buildthg allocations are denied due to the failure to secure replacement funding. For
Douglas Comity, the transportation system relies heavily on the Tahoe Transportation
District (TTD) and the TM'PO, la/lure of their agencies to address transportation needs
co'aid result in the County being penalized, which reduces the County incentive in
being involved at that level for transportation services.
· The transit requirements may also jeopardize the concept of a coordinated transit system,
as resources allocated across County and State lines may impact the various indicators
resulting in a decrease in development allocations. A county or city may wish to keep
services within their jurisdictions, even though it may be a disservice ro the riders, to
enhance their allocation of development rights. The tying of increments to the proposed
matr/x tortures on a number of ~eas that may or may not provide any benefit to the
Tahoe Basin. The addition of veh[cles, routes, and service hours may or may not
actually increase passengers carried, which one would assLune is the goal of the transit
system. Also depending on where development occurs, the linkage ro the transit system
may be marginal at best.
· Douglas County has some concerns regarding the allocation of commercial floor area
No justification is offered for the reduction of 200,000 to 150,000 square feet allocated
for special projects. Projects that bring substantial environmental benefit with them
should be encouraged. The modification to the evaluation criteria is also a concern. To
require that the project address a threshold s~andard found not ro be in attalrrment might
well shift the project away from other ongoing improvements. It would seem
appropriate that if a threshold is in attainment, that all e£forrs would be made to enhance
the level of arta/nment, rather then seeing projects redirected ro areas not in attaim'nent at
the expense of those that are.
Overall, the system as proposed serves as a punitive approach to requiring local jurisdictions to
implement progrmrm and projects d~legated to TKPA. The approach will be costly for local
agencies to implement and in Douglas CountY's case may not be worth the additional
allocations. Th/s will require individual property owners to determine whether or not their
project can handle the additional expenses to do the work on behalf of the local jurisdictions in
Sep-30-O~ 16:34 Fro~-OOUGLAS COUNTY MAN^GE~ 70~-78~-6255 T-661 PO5/Q5 F-192
TRnA Governing Board
September 24, 2002
Page Five
order to gain additional allocationS. Considering that the maximum allocation of 2I dwelling
units for Douglas County, it is only reasonable to question whether or not the human and
monetary resources required from the County to go beyond our assigned 13 unit base is justified
in order to pick up an additional 8 units or to keep from losing 4 units. With more than 80% of
our constituents residing outside the Basin, we fail to see any real inctmtiv¢ for Douglas County
ro go through the efforts reqaired to increase our allocations. In fact, the opposite may be tree.
From a cost benefit analysis standpoint Douglas County may be better off by not implementing a
number of the items outlined in the proposed ordinance, unless other benefits accrue to Douglas
County outside of the development right allocations.
In smnmary, the proposed allocation ordinance is irresponsible for the following reasons: 1, it places a substantial, unfunded mandate on the backs of local jurisdictions,
2. it defers the responsibility of TP,-pA to local agencies,
3. 4t creates a more competitive and expensive process for projects,
4. it does not guarantee any of the desired enviromnental benefits for the Basin,
5. it provides no means for holding TP,.PA accountable under ~e ordinance.
and
For these reasons Douglas County ~ges the TP,.PA Governing Boa.rd not to adopt the proposed
ordinance. We propose that the draft ordinance be remanded back to staffto be redesigned in a
manner that provides a greater level of benefit to local agencies providing real incentives to
support TRPA efforts to preserve the environmental quality of Lake Talxoe without placing an
undue burden on local jurisdictions.
Sincerely,
Daniel C. Holler
Douglas County Manager
cc: Doug]as County Board of Commissioners
Mimi Moss, Douglas County Planrfing Manager
U:DC ~de/9-02zTRP A.dec
TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY
308 Dorla Court P.O.Box 1038 Phone: (775) 588-4547
Elks Point, Nevada Zephyr Cove, Nevada 89448-1038 Fax (775) 588-4527
www.trpa.org Emaih trpa@trpa.org
MEMORANDUM
September 17, 2002
To:
TRPA Governing Board
From:
Subject:
TRPA Staff
Amendment to the TRPA Code of Ordinances Chapter 33 and Goals &
Policies Chapter VII Amendments to Allow for Residential, Commercial
(Community Plan Reload) and TAU Allocations Through 2006
Proposed Action: Amend Chapter 33 of the Code of Ordinances and Chapter 7 of the
Goals and Policies relative to the allocation of additional residential units, commercial
floor area (CFA) and tourist accommodation units (TAU).
The proposed amendments to the Code of Ordinances (Code) and Goals and Policies
(Goals) to allow for the consideration of additional development are based upon
recommendations from the 2001 Threshold Evaluation and are linked to increased
efforts for: 1) BMP retrofit; 2) EIP implementation (Water Quality CIP already linked to
allocations); and 3) increased transit services, in addition to permit monitoring and
compliance (4, already linked to allocations). The increase or decrease in efforts relative
to these programs would be evaluated based upon performance criteria. The specific
Regional Plan elements are as follows:
· Residential Unit, Commercial Floor Area (Community Plan Reload), and Tourist
Accommodation Unit Allocations, Code Chapter 33 (see Attachment A, Exhibit 1)
· Goals and Policies, Chapter 7, Implementation Element (see Attachment A,
Exhibit 2)
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Governing Board conduct the public
hearing as noticed and adoption of the proposed amendments.
Advisory Planninq Commission Recommendation: On September 11, 2002 the APC held
an extensive public hearing on this item and, after suggesting language changes included
in the ordinance, recommended adoption of the amendments to Code Chapter 33 and the
Goals and Policies, Chapter 7, implementation Element with a vote of ten in favor, two
opposed, and one abstention.
Backqround: In December 2001, TRPA allocated 299 additional Residential allocations
(divided among the five jurisdictions) for calendar year 2002. The Regional Plan
amendments contemplated by this proposed action are for calendar years 2003 through
2006. The structure of the proposed Code language will establish allocations in the fall of
calendar years for the subsequent years' use (Fall of 2002 for 2003 allocations, Fall of
2003 for 2004 allocations, etc.). The establishment of the allocations will be based upon
the proposed allocation program elements of Code Chapter 33.
AGENDA ITEM X.A
LFB/dmc 119
Memorandum to TRPA Governing Board
Amendments for Residential, Commercial and TAU Allocations
Page 2
Discussion: During the month of February, TRPA held hearings on the 2001 Threshold
Evaluation Report at the APC and Governing Board Meetings. In addition to those
workshops, there were two additional public workshops on the Evaluation
recommendations on February 20 at the Kings Beach Conference Center and February 28
at the City Council Chambers in South Lake Tahoe. Along with these workshops, TRPA
staff sponsored four stakeholder-focused workshops on both North Shore and South
Shore. The purpose of these hearings and workshops was to review the documents and
provide input to the TRPA to assist in the preparation of the final documents and Regional
Plan amendments. Since discussing this agenda item at the July APC meeting, TRPA has
sponsored another round of meetings (six total). The proposal..set forth in this summary is
a direct result of all of the public input and meetings.
The overall result of these meetings as it relates to the allocation of additional development
was agreement that additional development should be linked to: Increased efforts in the areas of BMP retrofits
Water Quality/Air Quality/SEZ Restoration EIP implementation
Increased transit level of service (TLOS)
Permit monitoring and compliance
Prior to the release of 2003 allocations, TRPA must take positive action on a
Revised Fertilizer Management Program.
Additionally, the Governing Board adopted the 2001 Threshold Evaluation in July, which, as
a poticy, provided direction to staff to develop a system that links environmental programs
to the allocation of additional development units (residential units, CFA and TAU).
Furthermore, the direction was to develop a residential allocation system that ranged from
a possible minimum of 78 to a possible maximum of 294 annual residential allocations.
TRPA staff proposes amendments to Code Chapter 33, Allocation of Development, and
Chapter 7 of the Goals and Policies relative to the allocation of additional development. A
brief discussion of the proposed amendments follows:
Residential Unit Allocations, 2003-2006
Staff considered the above bullets, the actual use of allocations, the status of vacant lots
(see Attachment B), the existing allocation system, and other factors to develop the
proposed system. Starting in 2003 and continuing through 2006 staff is proposing to
establish a baseline allocation of 150 total residential units divided among the five
jurisdictions, with provisions to increase the allocations to a maximum total of 294 per year
or to reduce the allocations to a minimum total of 78 per year, based on local jurisdiction
performance in the linked program areas. The allocation distribution will be established in
the fall of 2002 for 2003 and in the fall of 2003 for 2004, and so on until 2006. The
Performance Review Committee (PRC), comprised of representatives from the local
jurisdictions and TRPA, will rate the performance of the jurisdictions on the proposed
program criteria, as has been done previously, and recommend specific allocations to the
Advisory Planning Commission for recommendation to the Governing Board.
The proposed Allocation performance Table found in Code Chapter 33 is as follows:
AGENDA ITEM X.A
LFB/dmc 120
Memorandum to TRPA Governing Board
Amendments for Residential, Commercial and TAU Allocations
Page 3
Allocation Performance Table
~-~ [ Minimum Deduction Base !nhancement Maximum
Jurisdiction Allocation with increments Increments Allocation with
Deductions (x 4) Allocation (x 8) Enhancements
Douglas 9 -1 13 1 21
Washoe 13 -3 25 3 49
El Dorado 27 -7 55 7 111
CSLT 11 -3 23 3 47
Placer 18 -4 34 4 66
Total I 78 150 I 294
The proposed performance criteria is based upon the following elements:
1. Permit monitorinq and compliance: As has been done for past allocations
evaluated by the PRC, each jurisdiction and TRPA shall have residential permit
monitoring and compliance audits. An average score of 70% is expected, with many
jurisdictions currently scoring near 90%. Jurisdictions receiving scores belo? 65%
the allocations shall be incrementally decreased. Jurisdictions scoring above 75%
and 90% shall be awarded one and two additional increments, respectively. See
subsection 33.2.B (5) (a) of Attachment A, Exhibit 1. The incremental adjustments
are jurisdictionally specific as shown in the table above. Refer to Attachment C for
the Permit Monitoring and Compliance Audit Guidelines.
2. EIP Implementatioq.: In an effort to increase the rate of implementation of air and
water quality EIP projects (including SEZ restoration), jurisdictions shall be
rewarded with additional allocations or allocations shall be decreased for surpassing
or failing to meet approved lists of projects and established implementation targets.
See subsection 33.2.B(5) (b) and (c) of Attachment A, Exhibit 1. This performance
criteria is similar to the existing performance review water quality ClP list
requirement (submission of the currently required maintenance efficiency
plan will still be required), however, it has been expanded to include air quality
capital, and SEZ restoration EIP projects. Refer to Attachment D for the EIP Project
Implementation Audit Guidelines.
3. BMP Retrofit Implementation: In an effort to increase the rate of implementation of
BMP retrofit of properties, jurisdictions shall be rewarded with additional allocations
or allocation shall be decreased for surpassing or failing approved BMP
implementation programs and targets. See Subsection 33.2.B (5) (d) and (e) of
Attachment A, Exhibit 1. Refer to Attachment E for the Parcel BMP Targets Audit
Guidelines.
4. Increase Transit Services: in an effort to increase the level of service for transit
operations, jurisdictions shall be rewarded with additional allocations or allocations
shall be decreased for surpassing or failing approved Transit Level Of Service
(TLOS) targets and increased or decreased funding levels to me~t the targets. The
TLOS targets are jurisdiction specific although the criteria are common to all. In the
development of the Transit Level of Service (TLOS) Matrix, staff reviewed and
proposed numerous transit performance indicators and criteria. Staff selected
criteria that could be applied across the board and quantified to measure TLOS and
performance, because the transit systems operate in different jurisdictions and
provide different services. The 2003 allocation base and increments of increase will
be based on establishment of TLOS and targets for 2004-06, and a commitment for
,AGENDA ITEM X.A
LFB/dmc 121
Memorandum to TRPA Governing Board
Amendments for Residential, Commercial and TAU Allocations
Page 4
~ -h~creased funding Future a ocat ons will be dependent on how many of the TLOS
~ ~/¢~-..'"~' ',;*ori,~n i,~-r,,ase ;or decrease and by what percentage. After extensive review of
'~J ~'~h ~urisd ctions' transit syStem performance over the past five years, sta
~;~ie~es the proposed TLOS targets are attainable. With the commitment to
increase TLOS, the goal of reducing dependency on the private automobile by
providing frequent and dependable transit service within the respective jurisdiction
can be realized. An example jurisdiction specific TLOS Criteria Matrix (Audit
Guidelines for Performance Review Committee) is attached herein as Attachment F.
To review the proposed Code language, see subsection 33.2.B (5) (f) and (g) of
Attachment A, Exhibit 1.
Individual owner options. It is important to note that this proposed allocation methodology is
not the only means of procuring a residential allocation. Other means of acquiring an
allocation exist for the property owner through the retirement of a sensitive parcel from the
allocation rollover pool. Additionally, affordable housing bonus units, transfer of existing
units, and conversion of TAUs are all exempt from the residential allocation requirements.
Commercial Floor Area (CFA) Allocations
150,000 square feet of CFA has previously been held in reserve until completion of the
2001 Threshold Evaluation. The proposed distribution of 50,000 square feet of the total
reserve of 150,000 square feet is as follows.
St~ff proposes to allocate 50,000 square feet of CFA for Community Plan reloads
according to the apportionment ranking previously established in Code subparagraph
33.3.D (1)(b). The apportionment based upon ranking is as follows:
Ranking Allocations
1 20,000
2 5,000
3 8,000
4 5,000
5 2,000
The allocation will be distributed as part of the performance Review process in 2004. See
subsection 33.3.D (1) (c) of Attachment A, Exhibit 1.
Staff proposes to reserve the remaining 100,000 square feet of CFA for future distribution
based on criteria to be adopted in October 2002.
Tourist Accommodation Unit (TAU) Allocations
The remaining 100 Tour st Accommodation Un ts (TAU) previously held in reserve until
(L~'~'- after the completion of the 2001 Threshold Evaluation sha not be immediately a located.
,~. 78 TAUs remain available from the 1996 Threshold Evaluation allocation in addition to
t~ff¥ numerous privately banked TAUs. These remaining 78 TAUs are still limited to special
projects (in accordance with Code subparagraph 33.3.D (3)) and shall only be permitted
when matched by transfers of existing units from sensitive lands that have been restored.
Additionally, the projeot must score a minimum of 75 out of a total of 100 points based upon
the score received from the Special Projects Evaluation Criteria for TAUs. The remaining
100 TAUs shall be allocated upon the use of the 78 TAUs discussed above. See Code
subsection 33.4.A (3) of Attachment A, Exhibit 1.
AGENDA ITEM X.A
LFB/dmc 122
Memorandum to TRPA Governing Board
Amendments for Residential, Commercial and TAU Allocations
Page 5
Effect on TRPA Work Proqram.: The continued allocation of development rights witl
require the processing of residential, commercial and tourist development permits by the
Project Review Division, in addition to the processing of various permits by our MOU
partners. Should the allocation of development rights cease, there are other means for
development rights to be gained. Therefore, Project Review staff would still have permits
to process, albeit at a reduced rate.
The proposed allocation methodology will require significant annual time commitments
from various divisions of the TRPA. Project Review will incur time requirements to manage
the annual PRC process. The EIP Division will be required to assist in annual EIP project
~ist development and implementation audits. The BMP team will need to spend annual
hours in tracking and reporting on BMP Targets. The Transportation Division will also
spend annual hours in tracking and reporting on TLOS targets.
Environmental Assessment Relation to Proposed Action: in addition to the required findings
found below, an Environmental Assessment (EA) has buen prepared to further analyze the
potential environmental effects of continuing the allocation of the three types of development
rights (residential, commercial and tourist units). While this summary and the findings below
only address staff's proposed allocation methodology implemented through the amendment
of Code Chapter 33, the EA further analyzed two other options (a no action alternative, and
two alternative methods for residential allocations) and supports the proposed allocation
method contained herein. An important note to make, which is not contained herein, is that
various mitigation measures have been identified in the EA which will be implemented
through the TRPA work program, project review and development conditions in order to
ensure that the Environmental Threshold Carrying Capacities are not harmed by the further
allocation of development rights.
Required F nd nqs: the following section provides findings for the proposed Regional
Plan amendments, Chapter 33 of the Code and Chapter 7 of the Goals and Policies.
Chapter 6 Find nqs
1. F ndin.q:
.Rationale:
2. Finding.:
Rationale:
LFB/dmc
The proiect is consistent with, and will not adversely affect
implementation of the Reqional Plan, includinq all applicable
Goals and Policies, Plan Area Statements and Maps, the Cude,
and other TRPA plans and proqrams.
The amendments to Chapter 33, Allocation of Development, will
not adversely affect implementation of the Regional Plan. The
proposed amendment is consistent with the Regional Plan and
TRPA plans and programs. This amendment furthers the ideals
of the EIP by providing incentives to gain additional development
allocations by implementing EIP projects at a rate faster than if
these incentives were not in place.
The proiect will not cause the environmental thresholds to be
exceeded.
The amendments to Chapter 33, Allocation of Development, will
not cause the environmental thresholds to be exceeded. The
allocations contemplated for release with this amendment are
consistent with the total basin build-out numbers analyzed in the
AGENDA ITEM X.A
123
Memorandum to TP, PA Governing Board
Amendments for Residential, Commercial and TAU Allocations
Page 6
1987 Regional Plan ElS and further provides incentives aimed at
implementing E[P projects at a rate faster than if these
incentives were not in place.
3. F ndin.q: Wherever federal, state, and local air and water quality
standards applicable to the Reqion, whichever are stricter, must
~e attained and maintained pursuant to Article V (d) of th~
Compact, the proiect meets or exceeds such standards.
Rationale: Any proposal that may come forth due to this provision will be
required to meet air and water quality standards as set forth in
the TRPA Compact.
4. Findin,q: The Reqional Plan, as amended, achieves and maintains the
thresholds.
Rationale: See findings 1 and 2 above.
5. F ndin~q: The Reqional Plan and all of its elements, as implemented
throuqh the Code, Rules and other TRPA plans and proq~ams,
as amended, achieves and maintains the thresholds.
See findings 1 and 2 above.
Rationale:
Ordinance 87-8 Findinqs
1. F ndin~q: That the amendment is consistent with the Compact and with
the attainment or maintenance of the thresholds.
Rationale: See Chapter 6 Findings. The amendment is consistent with the
Compact and with attainment or maintenance of the thresholds.
The allocations contemplated for release with this amendment
are consistent with the total basin build-out numbers analyzed in
the 1987 Regional Plan ElS and further provides incentives
aimed at implementing EIP projects at a rate faster than if these
incentives were not in place.
2. F ndin,q:
One or more of the fo owin.q..
a) There is demonstrated conflict between provisions of the
Regional Plan Package and the conflict threatens to
preclude attainment or maintenance of thresholds;
b) That legal constraints, such as court orders, decisions or
Compact amendments, require amendment of the Goals
and Policies or Code;
c) That technical or scientific information demonstrates the
need for modification of a provision of the Goals and
Policies or Code;
d) That the provision to be amended has been shown,
through experience and time, to be counter-productive to
or ineffective in attainment or maintenance of the
thresholds;
_AGENDA ITEM X.A
LFB/dmc 124
Memorandum to TRPA Governing Board
Amendments for Residential, Commercial and TAU Allocations
Page 7
e) That implementation of the provision sought to be
amended has demonstrated to be impracticable or
impossible because of one or more of the following
reason:
1) The cost of implementation outweighs the
environmental gain to be achieved.
2) Implementation will result in unacceptable impacts on
public health and safety; or
3) Fiscal support for implementation is insufficient and
such insufficiency is expected to be a long-term
problem.
f) That the provision to be amended has shown through
experience to be counter-productive or ineffective and the
amendment is designed to correct the demonstrated
problem and is an equal or better means of implementing
the Regional Plan Package and complying with the
Compact.
Rationale: Finding d) is the most appropriate. The allocations contemplated
for release with this amendment are consistent with the total
basin build-out numbers analyzed in the 1987 Regional Plan ElS
and further provides incentives aimed at implementing
projects at a rate faster than if these incentives were not in
place. The past methods of allocation did not do enough to spur
the development of environmental infrastructure or research
necessary for Threshold attainment, as identified in the EIP.
Environmental Documentation: Staff has completed an Environmental Assessment (EA,
enclosed with the packet) and proposes a Finding of No Significant Effect (FONSE)
based on the Chapter 6 and Ordinance 87~8 findings, the EA and information contained
therein.
Requested Action:, Staff requests the Governing Board take the following actions: 1. Motion to make a finding of No Significant Effect.
2. Motion to adopt the implementing ordinance.
If you have any questions about this agenda item, please contact Peter Eichar at 775-
588-4547 or recreation@trpa.org.
Attachments:
LFB/dmc
A. Adopting Ordinance with Exhibits
1. Code Chapter 33
2. Development and Implementation subelement of Chapter 7,
Implementation, of the Goals and Policies
B. Status of Vacant Lots
C. Permit Monitoring and Compliance Audit Guidelines
D. EIP Project implementation Audit Guidelines
E. BMP Targets Audit Guidelines
F. Example TLOS Criteria Matrix (Audit Guidelines for performance
Review Committee)
~AGENDA ITEM X.A
125
Memorandum to TRPA Governing Board
Amendments for Residential, Commercial and TAU Allocations
Page 8
Enclosure: Environmental Assessment: For Amendments to the Code of Ordinances
Regarding 2003 -2006 Residential Allocations and 1997 -2006
Commercial and Tourist Allocations
AGENDA iTEM X.A
LFB/dmc 126
ATTACHMENT A
9/17/02
TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY
ORDINANCE 2002 -__
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 87-9, AS AMENDED, TO IMPLEMENT
THE 2001 THRESHOLD EVALUATION REPORT; BY AMENDING THE REGIONAL
PLAN OF THE TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY; BY AMENDING CHAPTER
Vii OF THE 1986 GOALS AND POLICIES PLAN; TO AMEND CHAPTER 33 OF THE
CODE OF ORDINANCES RELATING TO RESIDENTIAL UNIT ALLOCATIONS,
COMMERCIAL FLOOR AREA ALLOCATIONS AND TOURIST ACCOMMODATION
UNIT ALLOCATIONS, AND PROVIDING FOR OTHER MATTERS PROPERLY
RELAT NG THERETO.
The Governing Board of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency does ordain as
follows:
Section 1.00
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.50
1.60
.Findinqs
It is necessary and desirable to amend TRPA Ordinance 87-9, as
amended, which ordinance relates to the Regional Plan of the
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) by amending the Goals
and Policies Plan, Chapter 7, and by amending the Code of
Ordinance Chapter 33, in order to further implement the Regional
Plan pursuant to Article VI(a) and other applicable provisions of
the Tahoe Regional Planning Compact.
These amendments have been determined not to have a
significant effect on the environment, and are therefore exempt
from the requirements of an environmental impact statement
pursuant to Article VII of the Compact.
The Advisory Planning Commission (APC) has conducted a public
hearing on the amendments and recommended adoption. The
Governing Board has also conducted a noticed public hearing on
the amendments. At those hearings, oral testimony and
documentary evidence were received and considered.
Prior to the adoption of this ordinance, the Governing Board made
the findings required by Chapter 6 of the Code and Article V(g) of
the Compact,
The Governing Board finds that the amendments adopted here
will continue to implement the Regional Plan, as amended, in a
manner that achieves and maintains the adopted environmental
threshold carrying capacities as required by Article V(c) of the
Compact.
Each of the foregoing findings is supported by substantial
evidence in the record. ·
127
Section 2.0q
2.10
_Amendment of the Code of Ordinances
Code of Ordinances as adopted by Subsection 6.60, of Ordinance
No. 87-9, is hereby further amended as set forth on Exhibit 1,
dated September 10, 2002, which attachment is appended hereto
and incorporated herein.
Section 3.00
3.10
Amendment of Goals and Policies
Subsection 6.10 of Ordinance 87-9, as amended, does hereby
further amend Chapter 7 of the Goals and policies Plan to add the
underlined language and delete the crossed-out language as
shown on Exhibit 2, dated September 10, 2002.
Section 4.00
4.10
Interpretation and Severabili~.v.
The provisions of this ordinance and the amendments to the
Goals and Policies and Code of Ordinances adopted hereby shall
be liberally construed to effect their purposes. If any section,
clause, provision or portion thereof is declared unconstitutional or
invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this
ordinance and the amendments to the Goals and policies and
Code of Ordinances shall not be affected thereby. For this
purpose, the provisions of this ordinance and the amendments to
the Goals and Policies and Code of Ordinances are hereby
declared respectively severable.
Section 5.00_
5.10
Effective Date
The provisions of this ordinance amending the Goals and Policies,
Chapter 7 shall be effective immediately upon adoption. The
provisions of this ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances
Chapter 33 shall be effective 60 days from date of adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Governing Board of the Tahoe Regional
Planning Agency at a regular meeting held September 25, 2002, by the following vote:
Ayes:
Nays:
Abstentions:
Absent
Dean Heller, Chairman
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency,
128
EXHIBIT 1
9/10/02
is .,t ..... red.
New language is underlined_ in blue; language to be deleted ' ¢ .... ~, out in
Chapter 33
ALLOCATION QF DEVELOPMENT
33.2 Allocation Of Additional Residential Units: TRPA shall allocate the development
of additional residential units as follows:
33.2.A Requirement Of Allocation: No person shall construct a project or
c~mmence a use, which creates one or more additional residential
units, without first receiving an allocation approved by TRPA. This
requirement does not apply to affordable housing units approved after
January 1, 1986, but shall apply to conversions of such affordable
housing to nonaffordable status. In order to construct the project or
commence the use, to which the allocation or the exemption therefrom
per[ains, the recipient of the allocation or exemption shall comply with
all other applicable provisions of this Code.
(1) A~oplicable Residential Uses: The following residential uses
referred to in Chapter 18 contain residential units: secondary
residences; employee housing; mobile home dwellings; multiple
family dwellings; multi-person dwellings; nursing and personal
care facilities; residential care facilities; single family dwellings;
and summer homes.
(2) Definition Of "Additional Residential Unit": Residential unit is
defined in Chapter 2. A residential unit is considered "additional" if
it is to be created pursuant to a TRPA approval issued on or after
January 1, 1986. The conversion of an existing nonresidential use
to a residential use constituting a residential unit is an additional
residential unit requiring an allocation under this chapter. The
following are not "additional" residential units:
(a) The reconstruction or replacement, on the same parcel, of a
residential unit legally existing on or approved before
January 1, 1986;
(b) The reconstruction or replacement, on the same parcel, of a
residential unit which was allocated and approved pursuant
to this Code;
(c) Legally established additions and accessory uses to an
existing residential structures, that do not create additional
residential dwelling units;
(d) A residential unit constructed on a foundation, the use of
which is authorized by Chapter 11.
(e) The relocation of residential units legally existing on January
1, 1986, other than mobile home dwellings, through a
transfer approved by TRPA;
(f) The relocation of a legally established mobile home dwelling
with existing water, sewer, and electrical services to a mobile
home development or to a multi-family dwelling of five units or
more, pursuant to a transfer approved by TRPA; or
TRPA Code of Ordinances 33-'/
CHAPTER 33- ALLOCATION OF DEVELOPMENT I 29
(3)
(g)
An existing, legally established mobile home pad with water,
sewer and electrical services, whether or not a mobile home
is located thereon.
Maximum Number Of Units And Distribution Of Allocations Amonq
Jurisdictions: From January 1, 4997 2002 to December 31, 200~
2006., a maximum of 1,475 1,504) additional residential units may
6e authorized to receive permits for construction. The allocation
and distribution of allocations each year shall not exceed the
following, except for assignment of allocations from the allocation
pool administered by TRPA:
BASE MAXIMUM YEARLY ALLOCATIONS
YEAR 2002 2003-06
111
EL Dorado County
T'T, SA 14
S-T-F~gD 78
~ SLT 38 47
Placer County 88 66
Washoe Coun~ 59 49
22 21
Douglas County_
' kqitiaI-AIIocation Pool TOTAL 299 294
(a) A total of 1400 additional multi-residential development
rights shall be available for the 20-year life of this Plan as
bonus units in conjunction with transfer of development
rights and/or other TRPA incentive programs designed to
attain the goals and objectives of this Plan. Multi residential
units shall be subject to the foregoing allocation limitations.
(b) Unused allocations from years prior to 1997 shall not be
added to a jurisd'ct'ons successive year's allocations.
Unused allocations from 1997 and beyond shall be assigned
to the allocation pool.
(c) Allocations assigned to the City of South Lake Tahoe and
the STPUD service area within El Dorado County may be
assigned to parcels within either jurisdiction provided the
sending jurisdiction approves the reassignment. Such
reassignment shall not be considered an allocation transfer.
(d) Allocations shall not be distributed to a ~ocal jurisdiction if
TRPA determines, based on reliable facts, that the
jurisdiction lacks sufficient water or sewer capacity to serve
new residential development, if the jurisdiction demonstrates
to TRPA's reasonable satisfaction that there is sufficient
capacity, the TRPA shall distribute the affected allocations to
the jurisdiction.
(e) In the event a lack of water and sewage capacity results in
an imbalance of allocations to a jurisdiction, a program to
recognize the imbalance shall be developed if capacity
becomes available.
TRPA Code of Ordinances
CHAPTER 33- ALLOCATION OF DEVELOPMENT I 30
33-2
33.2.B
(4) Allocation Pool: At the beginning of each year, unused allocations
from the previous year or ..u,..-..,~..,..- ~u ........... j ............ ,
shall be assigned to a allocation pool administered by TRPA.
......... tlon .....
(a) TRP.^, ch~!! in!tio!!~, ...... ~,, ~o pool '"'~*~' ~ n~ ..,.,,--, '
initio! 3!!cc~ticnc she!! be .~..ocod by unused or
a!locatic,~s sc spec!fled
(b a)TRPA may assign allocations to parcels throughout the
Region providing the recipient retires a sensitive parcel
within the Region.
add~ ....... ,,,,re ,~,,~ t~, thc ~"~
pursuant to subparagraph 33.2.B(5);
Distribution And Administration Of Residential Allocations: Residential
allocations shall be distributed and administered in accordance with the
Goals and Policies, this Code, and the Rules of Procedure.
(1) Distribution of Annual Allocations: Distribution of allocations for
1993 and beyond shall be by a method or system which permits
the participation of parcels with scores below the numerical level
defining the top rank in the applicable jurisdiction.
(a) TRPA shall reserve ten percent of each junsd ct on s annua
allocations for distribution to parcels below the IPES line.
The reserved allocations shall be distributed by a method of
random selection by TRPA. A county or city may elect to
distribute the reserved allocations, or may be exempt from
the set-aside requirement, provided TRPA finds the
substitute system or the city/county distribution system, as
the case may be, provides an equal or superior opportunity
for participation of parcels below the IPES line.
(b) Allocations distributed by TRPA under this subsection may
either be transferred or returned to TRPA for reissuance to
the jurisdication of origin. Unclaimed reserved allocations
after June 1, shall be qiven to the appropriate jurisdiction for
issuance.
(c) A complete application for transfer of a reserved allocation
shall be filed no later than June 1 of the year it was
distributed.
(d) Upon transfer of a reserved allocation, a complete application
for an additional residential unit shall be filed no later than
December 31, of the year in which it was distributed. Failure
to submit a complete application for a transfer by June 1, of
the year in which it was distributed, or to file a complete
application for a new residential unit by December 31, of the
year in which it was distributed, shall result in the forfeiture of
the allocation to the jurisdiction of origin.
(2) Distribution of the Allocation Pooh TRPA shall distribute
allocations from the allocation pool as follows:
TRPA Code of Ordinances 33-3
CHAPTER 33- ALLOCATION OF DEVELOPMENT 131
(3)
(a)
Owners of eligible parcels may apply to TRPA on a first-
come, first-serve basis for available allocations in the
allocation pool.
TRP,^. m .... ~ ...... ;~,,~-',, ~,,oc3t ..... in ~h" '~tocat!on poo
to the counties 2~d city basod on tho rosu!ts cf th~
~r-~-o~ot forth in ~ubp~,~,~ph (5)
Distribution Requirements: Distribution of allocations, within the
limits set in Subsection 33.2.A and consistent with subparagraph
(1) above, shall be determined by the counties and city. If any
county or city chooses not to distribute allocations within its
jurisdiction, then TRPA shall distribute the allocations pursuant to
an allocation system adopted by TRPA.
(a) Each county and the city shall notify TRPA, in writing, of its
election to not distribute allocations for a given year or
years. Notification must be received by TRPA no later than
December 31 of the preceding year. The Governing Board
may waive this deadline for good cause.
(b) TRPA shall deliver allocations to the counties and city no
later than January 15, of the year for which the allocations
are reserved, or within 15 days of the effective date of an
ordinance providing for residential allocations for that year,
whichever is later.
(c) Delivery of allocations shall be accomplished by providing
each county and city with the number of allocation forms
which corresponds to the allocations available to each
county and city in that year. The counties and city shall
determine the receiving parcels pursuant to their respective
allocation systems and shall indicate the assessor's parcel
number (APN) of the receiving parcel on the allocation form.
The counties and city shall provide TRPA with a list of
assessor parcel numbers which received an allocation. The
original allocation forms shall be delivered to the owner of
record of the receiving parcel and shall, in addition to the list,
constitute evidence of receipt of an allocation.
(d) TRPA shall number each allocation as follows:
(i) The first set of letters shall signify the county or city of
origin (e.g., WA, DG, PL, EL, SLT);
(ii) The first set of numbers shall signify the year of
issuance (e.g., 87, 88, 89, 90, 91);
(iii) The second set of letters shall signify the type of
allocation (e.g., O for original, R for reissued, LS for
litigation settlement, AP, allocation pool);
(iv) The second set of numbers shall signify the sequence
of the allocation (e.g., for Douglas County the
sequence will be 1 through 23).
(Example PL - 87' - R - 56;County-Year-Type-Number)
TRPA Code of Ordinances 33-4
CHAPTER 33- ALLOCATION OF DEVELOPMENT I 3 2
(4)
(e) The counties and city shall notify each owner of a parcel
receiving an allocation.
(f) In the event an allocation is returned or forfeited for any
reason, the county or city shall notify TRPA by returning the
original allocation form and requesting a reissued allocation
for assignment to another parcel If the original allocation
form cannot be returned to TRPA, the county or city shall
notify TRPA of the reason therefor, and the allocation shall
be cancelled by depositing in the U. S. Mail, first class,
postage prepaid, a notice of cancellation addressed to the
last known address of the owner of the receiving parcel.
(g) TRPA shall adopt a Revised Fertilization Management
Proqram in accordance with section 81.7 and thu
recommendations of the 2001 Threshold Evaluation, prior tu
the release of 2003 residential allocations.
Administratioq: An allocation shall entitle the owner of the
receiving parcel to either apply for a TRPA permit to construct an
additional residential unit or to transfer the allocation to another
parcel pursuant to Chapter 34. Distribution of, and other
transactions concerning allocations, shall be tracked, accounted
for and otherwise treated in accordance with Chapter 38.
(a) Upon receipt of the allocation form from the county, TRPA,
or city, the owner of the parcel may file an application with
TRPA to either construct a residential unit or transfer the
allocation. Failure to either file a complete application or
complete a transfer by the deadlines set in subparagraphs
(b) and (c) below, shall result in the forfeiture of the
allocation to the county, TRPA, or city of origin.
(b) Except as set forth in Section 33.2.C, Multi-Residential
Allocations, and sub paragraph (d), below, complete
applications for construction of additional residential units
shall be filed with TRPA no later than December 31 of the
year in which the allocation was distributed.
(c) Transfer of allocations shall be complete no later than
December 31, of the year in which the allocation was
distributed. Transfers of allocations shall be deemed
complete when the applicant has received a TRPA notice of
eligibility for the transfer, the conditions of transfer have
been fulfilled, and the original allocation form has been
signed by the owners of the transferor and transferee
parcels, the county or city which issued the allocation, and
TRPA. The signatures of the receiving and sending county
or city shall be required for intercounty transfers.
(d) Upon transfer of an allocation, a complete application for an
additional residential unit shall be filed no later than June 1
of the year after the issuance of the allocation. Failure to file
a complete application by June 1 shall result in the forfeiture
of the allocation to the city or county of origin.
TRPA Code of Ordinances 33-5
CHAPTER 33- ALLOCATION OF DEVELOPMENT 133
(5)
(e) All unused and deducted allocations previously distributed to
each iurisdiction as of January 1 of each year shall be
assigned to the allocation pool. Potential allocations not
earned pursuant to (51 below do not exist and shall not be
placed in the allocation pool.
performance Review System: Star~inq January 1, 2003, each.
jurisdiction shall receive a base allocation accordinq to thu
Allocation performance Table below. The base allocation may bu
enhanced or reduced incrementally accordinq to subparaqraph~.
~a) throuqh (~) below. Startinq October 1, 2002, and every year
thereafter, the performance Review Committee (PRC) shall
review the performance of the local iudsdictions and TRPA. Tho
review committee shall consist of representatives of tho
Earticipatinq counties, City and TRPA and shall review thu
performance criteria contained in subparaqraphs (a) throu,qh (.q)
below. TRPA may establish quidelines to establish cons sten~
evaluations and/or audits for (a'~ throuqh (q) to assist thq
performance Review Committee's review. No iurisdiction shall
receive more allocations than the maximum or fewer allocations
than the minimum allocations for that jurisdiction shown in tho
Allocation performance Table below:
Allocation Performance Table
Minimum Maximum_
AlLocation Deduction Base Enhancement Allocation with
wit__~_h increments:Allocation I_ncrements Enh~ancements
urisdicti°n Deducti°ns : - ...... 2'[
El Dorado 27 -7 55
3
'ota~l 7_~8
Note: One deduction or enhancement increment equals the number of
~llocations shown for individual iurisdictions.
(a) Permit Monitorin~ and Compliance: Startinq October
2002, TRPA shall conduct a representative sample audit o.f.
residential permits issued, and compliance inspectionu
performed the prior year, bv the counties, City, and TRPA. A
passin,q score of 70% for both permit monitorinq and
trackinq is expected. The base allocation shall be enhanced
or reduced as follows:
(i) A iurisdiction shall receive one increment of
enhancement for a 75% to less than 90% score for.
both the proiect review portion and the compliance
Dortion of the audit,
TRPA Code of Ordinances
CHAPTER 33- ALLOCATION OF DEVELOPMENT
134
33-6
(b)
(ii) A iurisdiction shall receive two increments of
enhancement for scores qreater than 90% for both thc
Eroiect review portion and the compliance portion of
the audit, or
(iii) A iurisdiction shall be penalized one increment of
deduction for audit scores below 65%.
EIP Implementation 2003; TRPA must receive from each
Lurisdiction, a Water Quality and Air Quality EIP Project list
(EIP Component List) that includes proiect components and
their schedule of completion for years 2003-07, in addition tu
a Maintenance Efficiency Plan (MEP) for water quality.
proiect maintenance by October 2002. The base allocatio~
shall be enhanced or reduced as follows:
(i) A iurisdiction shall receive one increment of
enhancement for TRPA approval of the Ell'
Component List and MEP, and
(ii) A jurisdiction shall receive one increment of
enhancement for performance qreater than 30% abow .~///-
the yearly CIP performance tarqet in implementation of
the local iurisdictions Water Quality CIP/EIP 2000-03
iist previously submitted in 2000, o~
(iii) A iurisdiction shall be penalized one increment of
deduction for not submittnq and qaininq TRPA
approval of the EIP Component List and MEP.
(c) EIP Implementation 2004-06: TRPA must receive and
approve an updated 5 year EIP Component List for yea~u
2004-09, in addition to a Maintenance Efficiency Plan (MEP)
by the October prior to the allocation year. The baso
allocation for years 2004 throuqh 2006 shall be enhanced o~
reduced as follows:
~ A iudsdiction shall receive one increment of
enhancement for a 71-110% completion of proiec.t.
component scores for the EIP Component List, or
A iurisdiction shall receive two increments of
enhancement for performance ,qreater than 110%
completion of proiect component scores for the EIP
Component List, or
~ A iudsdiction shall be penalized one increment of
deduction for performance 50% below completion of
proiect component scores for the EIP Component List,
or not havinq an approved EIP Component List ar~].
MEP.
(d) BMP Retrofit Implementation 2003: TRPA shall establish
BMP Retrofit Tarqets for 2003-06 for all parcels in need u[
retrofit by iurisdiction. The minimum tarqets for parcelu
retrofitted/parcels in need of retrofit shall be 5 percent for FY
02-03, 25% for FY 03-04, 65% for FY 04-05. and 85% for
FY 05-06. The base allocation shall be enhanced or reduced
as follows:
TRPA Code of Ordinanoes
CHAPTER 33- ALLOCATION OF DEVELOPMENT
135
(e)
(f)
(i) A iurisdiction shall receive one increment
enhancement for developinq a TRPA approved
Broqram to assist the implementation of the
retrofit tarqets, and
(ii) A iurisdiction shall receive a second increment of
enhancement for adoptinq a TRPA approved proqram
and demonstratinq an adequate resource commitment
based on the annual tarqet (e.~. fundinq, sta[.[
resources} to the pro,qram to assist in thu
implementation of BMP retrofit tarqets, or.
¢ii} A iurisdiction shall be penalized one increment of
deduction if baseline tarqets for BMP retrofit are nut
established by October 31, 2002,
BMP Retrofit Implementation 2004-06: The base allocation for
years 2004 throuqh 2006 shall be enhanced or reduced au
;follows:
(i) A iurisdiction shall receive one increment of
enhancement for maintaininq the iurisdiction specifiu
BMP Retrofit Implementation proqram and makin.q.
proqress toward meetinq established tarqets equal tE
50% to 100% compliance, or
(ii) A iurisdiction shall receive two increments of
enhancement for qreater than 100% compliance wit!.!
the established annual retrofit tarqets for
implementation of BMPs for years 2003 throuqh 2002.,
(iii) A iurisdiction shall be penalized one increment
deduction for not maintaininq the lurisd'ct'on's specifiu
BMP Retrofit Implementation proqram or not making]
proqress toward meetin.q established tarqets.
Transit Level Of Service 2003: TTD, in consultation with
TRPA staff, shall establish baseline Transit Level of Servicu
£TLOS) for each iurisdiction as well as establish tarqets for
increasinq the TLOS for 2004-06. Failure to comply will bE
deducted from the next year's allocation. The 2003 basu
allocation shall be enhanced or reduced as follows:
(i) A local jurisdiction shall receive one increment of
enhancement for committinq by resolution to
increasinq FY 2003-04 total levels for
proiect(s)/proqram(s) to increase TLOS selected frou~
TRPNTTD adopted transportation plans. The
shall provide input reqardinq theso
proiects(s)/proqram(s). Washoe County shall wor!~
with the Washoe County Reqional Transportatio~,
Commission for the purpose of securinq additiona!
fundinq. The fundinq source and proiect(s)/proqram(s)
shall be for the purpose of increasinq TLOS and.
agreed to by the PRC, or.
TRPA Code of Ordinances
CHAPTER 33- ALLOCATION OF DEVELOPMENT
136
33-8
local iurisdiction shall receive two increments of
enhancement for committinq by resolution to
increasinq FY 2003-04 total transit operatina funds by
at least 10% above FY 2002-03 total fundinq levels for
project(s)/proqram(s) to increase TLOS selected from
TRPA/TTD adopted transportation plans. The TTD
shall provide input reqardinR these
proiect(s)/proqram(s). Washoe County shall work with
the Washoe County Reqional Transportation
Commission for the purpose of securinq additional
fundinq. The fundinR source and proiect(s)/pro~qram(s)
shall be for the purpose of increasinq TLOS and
aflreed to by the PRC, or
A iurisdiction shall be penalized one increment of
deduction for any decrease in FY 2003-04 transit
operatin,q fundinq levels below that from FY 2002-03 if
it results in a decease in TLOS.
(g) Transit Level Of Service 2004-06: The base allocation for
years 2004 throuqh 2006 shall be enhanced or reduced as
follows:
(i) A jurisdiction shall receive one increment of
(ii)
enhancement for exceedinq the previous year's five of
eiqht TLOS criteria by 5-20% as determined by the
jurisdiction specific TLOS Criteria Matrix to be
established in the implementinq quidelines, or
A jurisdiction shall receive two increments of
enhancement for exceedinq the previous year's five of
eiqht TLOS criteria by qreater than 20%, as
determined by the iurisdiction specific TLOS Criteria
Matrix, or
A iurisdiction shall be penalized one increment of
deduction for a 5% or qreater decrease in the previous
year's four of eiflht TLOS criteria as determined by the
iurisdiction specific TLOS Criteria Matrix.
(5)
re ........... ,. .............c
or ........e, t..~ ............ ~, ,~ ,, .. ~w
cn ........... ~.~,-~, ~.., ,~ ~ .... ~z ........ h ................. ~
........................ ~ ..... D or
thc ~ ......... ,~¢~,~.o ¢~- *h~* jurisdiction Thc .... ~ ....
TRPA Code of Ordinances
CHAPTEF~ 33-ALLOCATION OF DEVELOPMENT .~ ~"1 33-9
I
(~) Comp![;nee ~ ........ ~u"~'~"'~''°' ~-~o ,~.,n .............
(i) ~erm!t Tracking:
critsda a
~hal[ bc ~scd + ..... m,,~+~ +~c ~ ........ ~ tha~
JUF
(b) ~a~+~ ~,,~;+,,
(i) w~+~ ~,,~+,, C~D-
Target
th0ir
~;,~+~o~ Fa!!urs
for oath
TRPA Code of Ordinances
CHACTER 3S - ,~U-OCA T/ON O? DEVELOPMENT
(6)
Monitorinq Requirement: TRPA hereby establishes a monitoring
fee of $100 which shall be collected by the entity issuing the
allocation from each allocation recipient. The fee shall be used to
monitor water quality impacts and permit conformance.
33.3.D Maximum Amount And Distribution Of Allocations For Additional
Commercial Floor Area For Years 1997 throuqh 2007: A maximum of
400,000 square feet of additional commercial floor area may be
permitted from January 1, 1997, through December 31, 2006. The
allocation and distribution of this floor area shall be as follows:
(1)
Within Adopted Community Plans: A maximum of 150,000
4nn, vv,w~nnn square feet of commercial floor area may be permitted in
an adopted community plan in which all irrevocable commitments,
as defined in the applicable community plan as a requirement to
release allocations, have been satisfied. The applicable local
jurisdiction shall distribute the allocation subject to the adopted
allocation system for that community plan. The distribution of this
floor area shall be as follows:
(a) TRPA shall apportion 10,000 square feet of commercial floor
area to Washoe County, Douglas County, Placer County, El
Dorado County and the City of South Lake Tahoe.
Allocations not assigned by December 31, 1998 shall be
reassigned to the Special Projects as set forth ih (3) below.
(b) By January 1, 1999, TRPA shall apportion 50,000 square
feet of commercial floor area allocation to Washoe County,
Douglas County, Placer County, El Dorado County and the
City of South Lake Tahoe. The allocation assignment shall
be based on a ranking comparison of the jurisdiction's
accomplishment of environmental improvements set forth in
the adopted community plans within that jurisdiction. The
performance review committee (referred to in subparagraph
33.2.B.(5) shall recommend the ranking to TRPA by October
31, 1998. The apportionment shall be according to the
following table: cc
(c) By January 1, 2005, TRPA shall apportion 50,000 square feet
of commercial floor area to Washoe County, Douqlas County,
Placer County, El Dorado County and the City of South Lake
Tahoe. The allocation assiqnment shall be based on a rankinq
comparison of the iurisdiction's performance on the approved
Five-Year Water Quality and Air Quality EIP Lists within the
jurisdiction between January 1, 2002 and October 1, 2003.
The apportionment shall be accordin,q to the followinq table:
Ranking Allocations
1. 20,000
2. 15,000
3. 8,000
4. 5,000
5. 2,000
TRPA Code of Ordinances
CHAPTER 33-ALLOCATION OF DEVELOPMENT .~ ~.~ a3'~1
I
(2)
(3)
Outside Community Plans: Allocations permitted in (1) above may
be distributed outside community plans subject to the limitations
in subparagraph 33.3.C.(2) and the local jurisdiction has adopted
a commercial allocation system that assists in implementing
Environmental Improvement Program projects outside CP areas.
Special Projects: A maximum of 150,000 square feet of
commercial floor area may be permitted in adopted community
plans or adopted TRPA master plans, in which all irrevocable
commitments have been made. TRPA shall administer the special
project allocations. The distribution of this floor area shall be as
follows:
(a) Goals: The program goals are to promote major projects
that result in the construction of threshold-related
environmental improvements, to promote transfer of
development that results in substantial environmental
benefits, and to rehabilitate substandard development.
(b) Eliqibility: All projects in adopted community plan or adopted
TRPA master plan areas are eligible for special project
allocations.
(c) Evaluation Criteria: Approval of special projects shall be
evaluated and conditioned upon the implementation of
environmental improvement projects or transfers of
development out of sensitive lands. These projects shall:
(i) Assist in the attainment of the environmental
thresholds by constructing projects listed in the TRPA
Environmental Improvement Program that address a
Threshold standard found not to be in attainment per
the 2001 Threshold Evaluation, and
(ii) Provide substantial environmental benefits or mitigation
in excess of TRPA's project mitigation requirements.
(d) Public Assistance: Public and private partnerships are
encouraged. Public assistance through redevelopment
agencies, conservancies, local governments, and other
means may be considered in evaluating special projects.
(e) Maximum Amount: The maximum allocation that may be
approved for a special project area within a calendar year is
50,000 square feet of floor area.
(f) Time Limit: Initial assignments of allocations shall expire in
one year unless extended by TRPA upon a showing of
adequate progress toward a project approval.
(g) Applications: Each year, TRPA shall consider applications
for available special project allocations. Applications shall
include a project prospectus that includes site plans,
elevations, and preliminary environmental documentation.
(h) .Notifications: TRPA shall give adequate public notice 90
days in advance of any action assigning allocations.
Notifications shall include the general criteria by which the
special project will be evaluated.
TRPA Code of Ordinances
CHAPTER 33-ALLOCATION OF DEVELOPMENT "i II l~ 33-'/2
I
33.4
(4)
(i) APC Recommendation: The Advisory Planning Commission
shall review the applications for special project allocations
and make a recommendation to the Governing Board on the
awards of commercial and tourist allocations. The
performance review committee, referred to in subparagraph
33.2.B(5), shall assist the Advisory Planning Commission
and staff in developing review criteria.
Reserve: A maximum of 150,000 100,000 square feet of
commercial floor area allocation shall be reserved for future
distribution based on the ......... ~ m ......... criteria to be
adopted -r~.,~ ,4;o,~;~.,,,;~.,. ,.~ ,h ........,4 ~n nnr~ ....... ~,~
Allocation Of Additional Tourist Accommodation Units: TRPA shall allocate the
development of additional tourist accommodation units as follows:
33.4.A
Requirement Of Allocation: No person shall construct a project or
commence a use, which creates additional tourist accommodation
units, without first receiving an allocation approved by TRPA. In order to
construct the project or commence the use, to which the allocation
pertains, the recipient of the allocation must comply with all other
applicable provisions of this Code.
(1) Applicable Tourist Accommodation Uses: The tourist
accommodation uses set forth in Chapter 18 contain tourist
accommodation units.
(2) Definition Of "Additional" Tourist Accommodation Units: A tourist
accommodation unit is considered "additional" if it is to be created
pursuant to a TRPA approval issued on or after January 1, 1987
in accordance with Section 33.4. The conversion of an existing
nontourist accommodation use to a tourist accommodation use
constituting a tourist accommodation unit is an additional tourist
accommodation unit requiring an allocation under this chapter.
The following are not "additional" tourist accommodation units:
(a) The reconstruction or replacement, on the same parcel, of a
tourist accommodation unit legally existing or approved on
January 1, 1987;
(b) The reconstruction or replacement, on the same parcel, of a
tourist accommodation unit, which was legally allocated and
approved pursuant to this Code;
(c) Modifications to legally existing tourist accommodation
structures and accessory uses thereto;
(d) The relocation of a legally existing tourist accommodation
unit, through a transfer approved by TRPA, pursuant to
Chapter 34; or
(e) The conversion of legally existing multi family dwellings of
six units or more, allocated and approved pursuant to this
TRPA Code of Ordinances
CHAPTER 33- ALLOCATION OF DEVELOPMENT ~i .~1~1 33-13
I
Code, to timesharing (residential design) units, provided the
conversion is provided for in the relevant plan area
statement or adopted community plan.
(3) Maximum Number And Distribution Of Allocations For Additional
Tourist Accommodation Units: A maximum of 300 400 additional
tourist accommodation units may be approved for construction
through December 31, 2006. The assignment and distribution of
100 units shall be limited to special projects (in accordance with
sub-section 33.3.D.(3))§ and shall only be permitted when
matched by transfers of existing units from sensitive lands that
have been restored. The assignment and distribution of 100 units
shall be determined .,¢,,,,
Ev3!u3tion or upon use of the first 100 units above. The allocation
and distribution of the other 200 units shall be limited to adopted
community plans in conjunction with transfer of existing tourist
accommodation development pursuant to Chapter 34. TRPA shall
allocate the 200 units, as bonus units, to projects within adopted
community plans in accordance with Chapter 35. Distribution of
units within the community plan shall be pursuant to the
provisions of the adopted community plan and the following
criteria:
(a) The additional concentration of tourist accommodation units
is consistent with the TRPA Regional Transportation Plan
and would better promote transit and pedestrian forms of
transportation;
(b) The additional units are part of an overall program to
rehabilitate and upgrade existing tourist accommodation units;
(c) The existing infrastructure capacity, such as sewage
disposal and highway capacities, are sufficient to
accommodate the additional units; and
(d) A demonstration of need for additional units is shown
pursuant to Chapter 14.
§ Amended 12/20/00
TtRPA Code of Ordinances
CHAPTER 33-ALLOCATION OF DEVELOPMENT ,~ II. 33-14
I
New lanquaqe, , underlined in blue; deleted language ~.,.~,,o*-, ,,'~- ~,,,w~,, *~- ..... *' in red
CHAPTER WI
IMPLEMENTATION ELEMENT
EXHIBIT 2
9/10/02
The implementation Element provides for commitment and coordination of effort,
development of management and financial programs, and incorporation of a monitoring
program to measure progress of Plan implementation. It is also a function of this
Element to indicate a schedule for attaining environmental thresholds consistent with the
programs, strategies, and costs specified by the goals and policies of this Plan. The
Subelements are: 1) Institutional, 2) Development and implementation Priorities, 3)
Financing, and 4) Monitoring and Evaluation.
DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION PRIORITIES
GOAL #2
MANAGE THE GROWTH OF DEVELOPMENT CONSISTENT
PROGRESS TOWARD MEETING ENVIRONMENTAL THRESHOLDS.
WITH
POLICIES
A MAXIMUM OF 400,000 SQUARE FEET OF ADDITIONAL GROSS COMMERCIAL
FLOOR AREA MAY BE PERMITTED DURING THE SECOND TEN YEARS OF THE
PLAN. DEVELOPMENT OF ADDITIONAL COMMERCIAL FLOOR AREA SHALL BE
ALLOCATED AS FOLLOWS:
The commercial floor area allocation for the second ten years of the Regional
Plan shall focus on the implementation of projects listed in the Environmental
Improvement Program (EIP) and promotion of the transfer and rehabilitation of
substandard development.
A. A maximum of 100,000 square feet of commercial floor area may be
permitted in adopted community plans. A portion of this allocation may
also be permitted outside community plans when used to replace
commercial allocations used in the first ten years for outside community
plans and if it is linked to environmental improvements.
B. A maximum of 150,000 sq. ft. may be allocated to special projects in
community plan areas or adopted master plan areas. These projects shall
be evaluated on their implementation of environmental improvement
projects.
C ,~, ......... ~ ~nn nnn ....... ~et of ....... ~..i ~l ........ ~.~11 be
TRPA - Goals and Policies
/
A maximum of 150.000 square feet of commercial floor area may be
allocated after 2002. 50,000 square feet may be allocated to proiects
within adopted community plans. A maximum of 100,000 square feet of
commercial floor area allocation shall be reserved for future distribution
10.
based on criteria to be developed.
A MAXIMUM OF 200 ADDITIONAL TOURIST ACCOMMODATION UNITS MAY BE
PERMITTED DURING THE SECOND TEN YEARS OF THE PLAN FOR SPECIAL
PROJECTS THAT RETIRE TOURIST UNITS FROM SENSITIVE LANDS. ONE
HUNDRED OF THESE UNITS SHALL BE RESERVED UNTIL THE COMPLET!O.N OF
THE 299! THRESHOLD EVALUAT!ON OR UPOH USE OF THE FIRST ONE
HUNDRED TOURIST UNITS.
A M.~-vJ.MU.M OF 300 ADDIT!ONAL RES!DENTL^.L UNITE .MAY ~-E AUTHORIZED TO
RECE!VE PER.MITS FOR CONSTRUCTION DURING THE YEAR 2902. TH~
L~TAT!ON SHALL NOT APPLY
SHALL BE ...... NED
10.
J~ 2002
TTSA 44
STPUD ;q~
City cf South Lake Tahoe 38
Doug!cs Count)' ~
A MAXIMUM OF 1475 ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL UNITS MAY BE AUTHORIZED TO
RECEIVE PERMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION DURING THE YEARS 2002 THROUGH 2006.
THIS LIMITATION SHALL NOT APPLY TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS AS
DESCRIBED IN THE HOUSING SUBELEMENT. ALL UNUSED DISTRIBUTED
ALLOCATIONS AS OF JANUARY 1 OF EACH YEAR SHALL BE ASSIGNED TO THE
ALLOCATION POOL ADMINISTERED BY TRPA. ALL UNALLOCATED OR DEDUCTED
ALLOCATIONS SHALL NOT BE PLACED INTO THE ALLOCATION POOL. THE
ALLOCATIONS ASSIGNED YEARLY TO EACH JURISDICTION SHALL BE LINKED TO THE
LOCAL JURISDICTION'S PERFORMANCE ON PERMIT COMPLIANCE~ IMPLEMENTATION
OF WATER QUALITY AND AIR QUALITY EIP IMPROVEMENTS~ AND MONITORING AND
INCREASED TRANSIT OPERATIONS. THE ALLOCATION POOL SHALL BE USED TO
ALLOW PROPERTY OWNERS WHO RETIRE SENSITIVE PARCELS TO RECEIVE AN
ALLOCATION. THE ALLOCATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF ALLOCATIONS EACH YEAR
SHALL NOT EXCEED THE FOLLOWING, EXCEPT FOR ASSIGNMENT OF ALLOCATIONS
FROM THE ALLOCATION POOL ADMINISTERED BY TRPA.
§ Amended 12/19/01
TRPA - Goals and Policies
CHAPTER VII- IMPLEMENTATION ELEMENT .~ Ii ll VII~2
I
MAXIMUM YEARLY ALLOCATIONS
YEAR 2002 2003-06
EL Dorado County 9._~2 111
City of SLT 3._~8 4._~7
Placer County 88 6.__~6
Washoe County 5__.9 49
Douqlas County 2._~2 21
TOTAL 299 294
TRPA - Goals and Policies
CHAPTER VII- IMPLEMENTATION ELEMENT .a ~.. VII-3
I
ATTACHMENT B
9/4/02
RESIDENTIAL ALLLOCATIONS
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Douglas 23 (1) 23 (6) 23 (6) 23 (0) 22* (0)
Washoe 59 (6) 59 (21) 59 (39) 59 (27) 59 (12)
ElDorado 92 (12) 92 (11) 92 (7) 92 (4) 92 (6)
CSLT 38 (8) 38 (3) 38 (3) 38 (2) 38 (3)
Placer 88 (38) 88 (39) 88 (34) 88 (37) I 88 (33)
Total I 300 (65) 300 (80) 300 (89) 300 (70)I 299 (54)
* Douglas County was assessed a 5% (one allocation) deduction in 2001 as part of the 2000
Performance Review evaluation per Subsection 33.2.B(5) of the TRPA Code of Ordinances.
The number in parenthesis indicates the number of residential allocations that were unused in the
identified year. Beginning if~ 1997, the unused allocations are rolled into the allocation pool. Allocations
can be assigned from the allocation pool provided the recipient retires a sensitive lot in the basin. The
allocation numbers in brackets represent allocations returned to TRPA from the local jurisdiction.
RESIDENTIAL ALLLOCATION TRANSFERS
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Douglas 1 0 [ 0 0 0
Washoe 6 0 0 0 0
El Dorado 2 3 2 6 3
CSLT 1 1 1 2 1
Placer 0 0 0 0 0
Total J 10 4 3 8 4
RESIDENTIAL ALLOCATION ASSIGNMENTS FROM POOL
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Douglas 0 0 0 0 0
Washoe 0 0 0 0 0
El Dorado/CSLT 0 0 I 5 15
Placer . 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 1 5 J 15
NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL ALLLOCATIONS IN POOL
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Allocations in Pool 100' (65) 100 (80) 145 (89) 233 (70) 298 (54) !
of Allocations Assigned 0 0 1 5 15
Remaining 100 145 233 298 338
Allocation pool was initially stocked with 100 allocations that were required to be replaced with
allocations rolled-over from previous year starting in 1997.
() Unused allocations. ~, ~ ~
VACANT PARCEL STATUS
Jurisdiction Total Active Above Line Below Line Number of Parcels with
Parcels
297
Douglas County
Washoe County 348
Placer County 1553
El Dorado County 2823
City of SLT 1467
Basin Totals 6488
Parcels
267
341
867
2129
1175
4778
146
Parcels
3O
7
686
694
292
1710
"0" Scores
4
6
76
221
135
442
ATTACHMENT C
308 Dorla Court
Elks Poinl Nevada
www.ceres.ca.gov/trpa
TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY
P.O.Box 1038 Phone: (775) 588M.547
Zephyr Cove Nevada 89448-1038 Fax (775) 588-4527
Email: trpa@trpa.org
November 8, 2000
MEMORANDUM
To;
From:
Subject:
TRPA performance Review Committee
TRPA Staff
Recommendation for 2001 and 2002 Residential Allocations
2001 AND 2002 RESIDENTIAL ALLOCATIONS
Proposed Action: Vote to recommend that the TRPA Advisory Planning Commission recommend that
the TRPA ,.Governing Board approve the distribution of 200I and 2002 residential allocations as set
forth below.
'Staff Recommendation: TRPA staff recommends that the number of 2001 and 2002 residential
allocations for each local jurisdiction per year as follows:
City of South Lake Tahoe .......... 38 allocations
Douglas County ....................... To Be Determined
El Dorado County ..................... 92 allocations
Placer County ........................ 88 allocations
Washoe County ...................... 59 allocations
Backqround: In May 1997, the TRPA Governing Board adopted amendments to Chapter 33
(Al ocations) of the TRPA Code of Ordinances, These amendments created the Performance Review
~;ommitt~ee (PRC), made u'p of a representative from each local jurisdiction receiving allocations and a
TRPA representative. The TRPA Performance Review Committee was charged with developing
specific performaqce criteria to assign allocations based on the general code amendments approved
by the Governing Board in May 1997. The amendments to Chapter 33 created compliance review
and water quality guidelines to be used when determining performance of local jurisdictions.
Compliance review criteria included permit tracking and permit monitoring requirements. The interim
permit tracking system required that each MOU jurisdiction transmit substantially complete project
logs and data forms to TRPA on a monthly basis. (The adopted MOU and Chapter 38 of the TRPA
Code of Ordinances also require this data.] The PRC criteda required deductions from the base year
allocation amount if monthly reports were not submitted for all months in the audit period. The PRC
also developed criteria for evaluating MOU performance on project review and permit compliance
(permit monitoring). Because Douglas County does not have an MOU with TRPA, TRPA's
performance was used to determine performance fdr the County.
147
Water Quality criteria includeo the submission of a five year Capital improvement Project (ClP) list
which meets the 1996 Water Quality Threshold Interim Target and is consistent with the
Environmental improvement Program. The criteria also include demonstration of adequate
maintenance plans for water quality projects. All jurisdictions submitted lists of projects which met the
above criteria.
The criteria for maintenance plans requires that each county and the City submit plans to TRPA for
review and approval which demonstrates adequate effort toward the maintenance of water quality
facilities located within their county or city boundaries, excluding state highways. All jurisdictions
prepared and submitted Maintenance Efficiency Plans (MEP). However, Douglas County was
requested to make revisions to the maintenance efficiency plan in order to meet the required criteria.
To date. the revised MEP has not been submitted to TRPA for review. TRPA staff will be meeting
with Douglas Count')' staff in order to assist in revising the MEP. TRPA staff will update the PRC at
the November 17, 2000 meeting on the status of the Douglas County MEP and provide a final
recommendation on the distribution of 2001 and 2002 residential allocations to the County.
Discussion:
City of South Lake Tahoe
Permit Trackinq. The City of South Lake Tahoe met the minimum requirements of the interim
permit tracking system for the audit period. The City has continued to improve significantly in
their effort to submit project data sheets on a monthly basis.
Permit Monitorin~q. The City of South Lake Tahoe scored 91.5 percent on the project review
portion of the performance audit and scored 90 percent on the compliance portion, exceeding
the minimum passing score of 70 percent in both cases.
CIP Proiect List. A CIP Project List for the City of South Lake Tahoe was submitted to TRPA.
Water Quality Proiect Maintenance, The City of South Lake Tahoe has submitted a
maintenance efficiency plan.
SUmmary, The PRC recommends that the City of South Lake Tahoe receive 38 residential
allocations in 1999 and 2000 (full base year allocations amount with no deductions).
Douglas County
Permit Trackinq, Because Douglas County lacks an MOU with TRPA, TRPA's performance
on permit tracking was used for Douglas County. TRPA's permit tracking was determined to
meet the requirements of the interim permit tracking system for the audit year.
148
'S
Permit Monitor ri,q, Again, TRPA's performance was use to determine Douglas s County
~erf~)rmance score. TRPA scored 83.5 percent on the project review portion of the
performance audit and scored 90 percent on the compliance portion, exceeding the minimum
· h cases. It should be noted that the audit of TRPA's
assing score of 70 percen_t m bdt o ad(~ Count Building Department staff member and
~efformance was conductud by an El D r Y
not by TRPA staff.)
CIP Proiect List: A CIP Proiect List for Douglas County was submitted to TRPA-
Water Quality proj~.t Maintenance. To date, Douglas County has not submitted a
_ . -- ' the review cnter a. TRPA staff will De meeting with
· nance ettlc~ency plan that me.et, s ....... **c~ staff will update the PRC at
malnte - - -- ,- ~-,~,-. to ass st ~n revising u~ w,~--. TRPA
Douolas County stab
the November 17. 2000 meeting on the status of the Douglas County MEP and provide a final
recommendation on the distribution of 2001 and 2002 residential allocations to the County.
Summary... TRPA staff will be meeting with Douglas County staff in order to assist in revising
'the ~EP. TRPA staff will update the PRC at the November 17, 2000 meeting on the status of
· , al recommendation on the distribution of 2001 and
cunt MEP and provide a.fin ...... ;~ ,.~,.~h~ to receive 23 residential
the Douglas ~ Y . ._ ~... r.~,.n[v uouglas t. ouuLy ,o ~,,~,~,e
2002 residenbat atlocauons
allocations in 2001 and 2002 (full base year allocations amount with nc deductions). Failure to
submit a MEP, which meets the review criteria, will result in a five percent deduction (one
allocation) of the base year allocations.
El Dorado County
Permit TracKIncL El Dorado County met the minimum requirementS of the interim permit
~racking system for the audit period.
Permit Monitofinq._ El Dorado Count'~ scored 90.9 percent on the project review portion of the
performance audit and scored 89 percent on the compliance potion, exceeding the minimum
passing score of 70 percent in both cases.
CIP Project List. A CIP Project List for El Dorado County was submitted to TRPA.
Water Quality Proiect Ma ntenance. El Dorado County has submitted a ma~menance
efficiency p~an.
Summary, The PRC recommends that El Dorado County receive 92 residential allocations in
2(~(~1 and 2002 (full base year allocat ons amount with qo deductions).
Placer County
Permit Trac_kin,q~ Placer County met the minimum requirements of the interim permit tracking
~ystem for the audit period·
2.25 ercent on the project review portion of the
performance audit and scoreu y
passing score of 70 percent, in both cases.
C~P .Proiect List.._: ~, CIP list for Placer County has been submitted to TRPA.
i 49
~Water Quality Proiect Main_tenance_. Placer County has submitted a maintenance efficiency
plan.
Summary.. The PRC recommends that Placer County receive 88 residential allocations in
%001 and 2002 (full base year allocations amount with no deductions).
Washoe County
Permit Treckin,q~ Washoe County met the minimum requirements of the interim permit
tracking system for the audit period.
~ Washoe County scored 95.25 percent on the project review portion of the
performance audit and scored 99 percent on the compliance potion, exceeding the minimum
passing score of 70 percent in both cases.
CIP Proiect List; A CIP Project List for Washoe County was submitted to TRPA.
Water Quality Proiect Maintenance_. Washoe County has submitted a maintenance efficiency
plan.
~ The PRC recommends that Washoe County receive 59 residential allocations in
2001 and 2002 (full base year allocations amount with no deductions).
If you have any questions or comments on this matter, please contact Paul Nielsen, at (775) 588-
4547.
Attachments: Permit Monitoring Results
Compliance Monitoring Results
Water Quality performance Results
150
TRPA RESIDENTIAL DELEGATION MOU AUDIT INSPECTION FORM
APN
County/City
ApplicantJFile Name
project Address
MOU Database Record Number
nspector
Date of Audit inspection
Pregrade Inspection
Temporary Erosion Control Devices in Place
Vegetation Protection in Place
Footprint Laid Out
Trees to be Removed Identified
-- Plans and Permit On-Site
-- Excavation for Utitities Laid Out
Address and APN Posted On-Site
3O%
20%
15%
15%
10%
5%
5%
intermediate/Winterization Inspection
Construction At Site Is:
Temporary Erosion Control Devices Maintained
Vegetation Protection Maintained
-- Stabilization/Mu~ching of Disturbed Areas
Cleanup/Removal of Const. Slash & Debris
-- Removal of All Dirt Spoil Piles
installed Mech. Stabil. & Drainage Imps.
(where feasible and appropriate)
Paving of All Driveway and Parking Areas
Parking and Mat. Storage on Paved Areas
Active
t0%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
3O%
10%
(Inactive) ___
(20%)
(to%)
(20%)
(2o%)
(20%)
(to%)
Final inspection
Coverage Per Approved Plans
Infiltration Devices Installed
Vegetation Establishment as Necessary
Dimensions/Height of Structure as Shown on Plans
Slope Stabilization Complete
Tree Removal in Conformance with Approval
-- Elevation: Colors, Sqenic Requirements
Other Special Conditions of Approval
15%
15%
15%
15%
10%
10%
10%
10%
(or more for non-compliance with substantial requirements)
151
ATTACHMENT D
9/17/02
Allocation Link to EIP Performance
Proposed Evaluation System
EIP Project Implementation Audit Guidelines
Revision History:
1. Draft document presented by El Dorado County at Allocations Workshop on Friday,
August 23, 2002. Discussed with City of South Lake Tahoe representative and other
stakeholders present.
2. El Dorado County (Bruce Lee) proposal discussed at Allocation Stakeholder meeting on
August 26th. Draft distributed to other local jurisdictions for comment and included in
APC Packet distributed on September 4, 2002.
3. Draft revised September 5, 2002 to reflect comments from TRPA management and staff,
reflecting some of the comments made at earlier Stakeholder meetings.
4. TRPA revisions presented and discussed and comments and suggestions solicited at
the September 5, 2002 Stakeholder meeting.
5. Revised draft document e-mailed/faxed to subgroup September 9, 2002, to be followed
up with telephone calls to get final comments from all local jurisdictions. (Revisions
shown in bold italic on attached draft.)
Notes to explain revisions proposed by TRPA:
(shown in bold on attached draft)
Purpose - Rewritten to better define the Transportation/AQ projects included in the evaluation
process and to make the terminology consistent with the EIP threshold categories.
Methodology - Rewritten to apply to all jurisdictions and to reflect the additional components
recommended by TRPA (Funding Commitments, Post Construction Monitoring, and Final
Report)
Procedure - Revised to reflect additional components recommended ~by TRPA. Process for
TRPA approval of 5-year list added. Criteria for amending 5-year list added.
Exhibit A - Components recommended by TRPA added. Pre- and post-construction monitoring
plan (if applicable) added to Preferred Design Alternative Plan component.
Exhibit B - Components recommended by TRPA added. Construction component 9ivan added
weight to provide a better balance between planning and construction components.
Actions Needed:
1. Receive and incorporate comments/suggestions from all local jurisdictions.
2. Discuss and review document with state and federal funding agencies
3. Prepared revised drafts for presentation at APC (Wednesday 9/11)
4. Refinements and current draft in TRPA Governing Board attachment
152
UNITS OF ENHANCEMENT
EIP PROJECTS (proposed)
Purpose
To establish a model to be used by TRPA to evaluate implementation of the WQ,
Transportation/AQ and Soil ConservationlSEZ projects within the EIP by local jurisdictions,
where Transportation/AQ is intended to be only capital improvement projects, such as bike
lane/bike trail and transit facilities, and not including transit system improvements, such as
purchase of buses, etc.
Methodoloqy
To establish a procedure that recognizes work in progress, each project was reduced to nine
(9) components, relatively equal in effort and time required with some additional weight given
to the construction phase. These components are presented in Exhibit A, with a definition of
each including the relationship to the CTC Planning Grant and Site Improvement Grant process.
Additional information may be added to incorporate State of Nevada definitions· It is
recognized that not all components will apply to all jurisdictions or necessarily to all
projects. The performance score will not be determined by the number of components,
but will be based on the percentage of planned components actually completed within
the scheduled fiscal year.
Procedure
Included in each annual 5-year plan submitted to TRPA would be a table shown as Exhibit B.
This Exhibit shows all projects expected to be worked on over the next 5-year period broken into
the nine (9) components described in Exhibit A. The FY that each component will be completed
is shown. All components to be completed within each FY are totaled at the bottom. This
represents the expectations, and the level of completion to be monitored by TRPA.
The 5-year plan for each jurisdiction will be reviewed and approved by TRPA using the
following process and/or criteria:
· EIP partner agencies expected to provide funding for the listed projects will be
consulted.
· The list should be consistent with the most current EIP update and be ambitious
and inclusive, rather than conservative.
· The list should demonstrate a balance between environmental thresholds, and the
listed projects should be relatively balanced by scale and complexity of project
implementation.
· The lists for all jurisdictions should present comparable levels of anticipated
performance.
· The lists should reflect an appropriate proportion of construction components for
each fiscal year.
Prior to the end of each FY, jurisdictions may seek TRPA approval to amend the 5-year
plan to reflect project delays clearly beyond the control of the local jurisdiction,
including:
· Withdrawal of funding commitments by state or federal agency.
· Permitting delays beyond regulatory agency published timelines.
Unanticipated environmental constraints not identified in the project planning
process.
· Court injunctions or pending lawsuits that prohibit construction activities.
The potential for other project delays (such as acquisition problems, public opposition,
and technical debate) is reflected in the scoring percentages shown in the table below,
For example, completion of 71% of the scheduled work qualifies a jurisdiction for
enhancement unit.
At the end of each FY, each jurisdiction will be required to complete a form similar to Exhibit B
to show what was actually completed and submit it to TRPA along with qualifying backup (TAC
meeting notes, Board action, Notice of Determination, Notice to Award, etc.).
Units of Enhancement will be awarded on the basis of the work completed compared to the
expectation in accordance with the following table:
% oTW
__C°m~pleted __
< 50%
50 - 70%
> 110%
Units of
Enhancement~
-1
0
+2
For example, if the ten (10) components shown on Exhibit B for FY 2002-2003 are all
completed, the jurisdiction receives +1 Unit of Enhancement. If only four (4) components are
completed (40%), the jurisdiction receives a - 1 Unit of Enhancement. If eleven (11) or more
components are completed (i.e., work completed on a project shown in future years or new
project added), the jurisdiction receives + 2 Units of Enhancement.
EXHIBIT A
Funding Commitments
Demonstrate funding availability for project implementation through grant awards from
state and/or federal agencies, justification for use of mitigation funds, or commitment
from other sources.
Site Walk (Planning Grant)
This component occurs early in the planning process and is important to define the project. It
includes preliminary hydrology calculations, aerial photogrammetry (to produce the base map),
initial field visits by staff to identify the project limits and problem areas within the project, a site
walk by all TAC members to insure an adequate evaluation of all design alternatives, and a
public scoping meeting.
Preferred Design Alternative Plans (Planning Grants)
The preparation of these plans includes determining the range of alternatives to investigate for
each subwatershed, the determination of whether a pre- and post-construction monitoring
plan is appropriate, traditional hydrology and preliminary hydraulic calculations, preparation of
rough draft (conceptual) plans, preparation of a project report, review of report and plans, by
TAC and "buy-in" of the preferred alternative.
Environmental Documents (Planning Grant)
included are all special studies necessary to prepare, circulate, comment, respond and adopt
CEQA and/or NEPA documents.
Pre Final Plans (Planning Grant)
This component develops the preferred design alternative plans into a set of plans identified as
"draft construction plans in final plan format" in the CTC guidelines. Included in this work are
final hydrology and hydraulic calculations, site-specific field topographic surveys, and fight-of-
way engineering.
Final Plans and Permits (Site Implementation Grant)
This includes finalizing the construction plans, preparing the specifications, obtaining all permits,
right-of-way acquisition, status report on pre-construction monitoring (if appropriate) and
all activities to secure bids, award the contract and obtain Board of Supervisors approval.
Construction (Site Implementation Grant)
Project construction, inspection, quality assurance materials testing, as-built plan preparation,
and other construction related work.
Post-Construction Monitoring
If applicable, Implementation of post-construction monitoring plan, including collection
of samples, recording and analysis of data, and monitoring report,
Final Project Report
Preparation and distribution of final project report, including before and after photo
documentation; financial information, units of environmental benefit, monitoring results,
lessons learned, and operations & maintenance plan.
UNITS OF ENHANCEMENT
EIP PROJECTS (proposed)
~RO,)ECT A
COMPONENTS
Commitment
! Walk
Alternative P~ans
~nvironmental Documents
=inal Plans
Final Plans and Permits
nstruction
~ost-Construction Monitoring
=ina1 Report
JECT B
COMPONENTS
unding Commitment
;ire Walk
'referred Design ALternative Plans
Environmental Documents
Pre Final Plans
Final Plans and Permits
Construction
Post-Construction Monitor/n9
Final Report
~ROJECT C
COMPONENTS
Commitment
,ite Walk
Alternative Plans
nvironmental Documents
Pre Final Plans
:inal Ptans and Permits
Construction
~ost-Construction Monitorin.(
=/eat Report
ECT D
COMPONENTS
,Commitment
;ite Walk
Alternative Plans
nvironmental Documents
e Final Plans
:inal Plans and Permits
:onstruction
Post-Constructior
2002-03
1
I 1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
TOTAL COMPONENTS/FY
Dorado County/City of Sou~h Lske Tahoe
156
ATTACHMENT E
ESTIMATE OF BMP NEEDS BY JURISDICTION
TOTAL PARCELS PARCELS NEEDING # of Priority 3 Parcels_
JURISDICTION TOTAL BMP EVALS Needier s
PARCELS NEEDING S - --'-'-
11828 2644
15564 12137 3796 2644
City Douglas SLT 4979 4049 374
EoDolas County 8437 8214
El Dorado County 14888 9066 6022
14892 9451 848
Placer County 6159 4246
Washoe County 8953
40233
37150 13159
TOTAL
59276
TARGETS
based on all Priority one, two and three properties estimated as needing BMPs as of September 820� October 2006
JURISDICTION 5% October 2003 25% October 2004 65% October 2005 4th veto Target
First Year Tara et 2nd Year 3rd Year Target —� t
CUMULATIVE
CUMULATIVE CUMULATIVE (includes year 1) (includes year 1 & 2) (includes year 1, 2 & 3)
City of SLT 607 10316
3034 7889 331
2632
202 1012 3442
Do
Douglas County 2109 5484
El Dorado County 422 6143 8033
473 2363 6143 8033
Placer County 308 1540
VV County 34197
TOTAL
2012 10058 26151
This Program and UNR's Homela dscap ng Program through h we
ll as data from effort in
eels receiving BMP Retrofit curriity rreturns in the past R eUyea s. This information does not
9
estimate BMPs installed voluntarily by residents or installed as a result of parcels receiving security returns from local jurisdictions.
Information based on queries run 9/3/02
BW /TRPA
Draft
FY 01/02
*Passeng
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
Transit Level of Service Table
TLOS Criteria Matrix
Vehicle
Service Hours
Vehicle
ServiceeMiles
;:Daily Service
?Hours
(Avg):
ATTACHMENT F
Jurisdiction: Placer
Miles of Service Area
Linear Miles Square,Miles
(Fixed `r, (Demand
Route Only), Response:8 ,=
Tralle
Residential Allocation Distribution Process (TRPA Code of Ordinances Chapter 33)
In accordance with the TRPA Code of Ordinances Chapter 33 the following table represents the methodology of the annual release of
residential building allocations by jurisdiction based on transit level of service.
:. =3003
Commiting by resolution to a 10% or greater increase in FY 03
04 Total Transit O.s. Funds above FY 02 -03
Commiting by resolution to a 5% or greater increase in FY 03-
04 Total Transit O.s. Funds above FY 02 -03
Any decrease in FY 03 -04 Total Transit Ops. below FY 02 -03
Future,Years'.:
20 %+ increase in 5 of 8 Criterion above Prior FY
5 % -20% increase in at least 5 of 8 Criterion above Prior FY
rI Ivi
5% or more decrease in 4 of 8 Criterion below Prior FY
SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
BOARD AGENDA ITEM
TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS
FR: Kathy Sharp, Clerk of Board / Executive Secretary
RE: BOARD MEETING AGENDA ITEM:
ACTION ITEM NO: ?. d CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO:
ITEM-PROJECT NAME: DISTRICT'S PUBLIC RECORDS POLICY
REQUESTED BOARD ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. 2747-02 amendin.q the District's Public,
Records Policy supersed n.q Resolution No. 2604 in its entirety
DISCUSSION: The District's Public Records Policy has been amended to incorporate
chan.qes to the California Public Records Act that will ensure sound, e.qa ,qu delines are followed
when respond n.q to public records requests. The policy was prepared with le,qal oversite from
Hatch and Parent.
SCHEDULE:
COSTS: ACCOUNT NO:
BUDGETED AMOUNT REMAINING:
ATTACHMENTS: Resolution No. 2747-02, includ n.q Public Records Policy
............... rr~rrrr
CONCURRENCE WITH REQUESTED ACTION:
GENERAL MANAGER: YES /~ ~., NO
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER: YE~c~~O,
CATEGORY:
GENERAL X
WATER
SL=WER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9;
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 2747-02
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
THE SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT AMENDING THE DISTRICT'S
PUBLIC RECORDS POLICY SUPERCEDING RESOLUTION NO. 2604 IN ITS ENTIRETY
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Directors of the South Tahoe Public Utility District, County
of El Dorado, State of California, as follows:
WHEREAS, the Califomia Public Records Act (Government Code Sections 6250, et seq.,
hereinafter "the Act") requires that public records in the custody of the Distdct shall be available for
public inspection with the exception of specific document protected from disclosure by the ACt; and
WHEREAS, the District's Records Policy has been amended to incorporate changes to the
Act that will ensure sound, legal guidelines are followed when responding to Public Records
Request.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors hereby directs Distdct
staff to comply with the ACt by conforming to the guidelines listed in the District's Records Policy,
which becomes a part of this Resolution by reference herein.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of South Tahoe Public Utility District at
its duly held regular meeting on the 3rd day of October, 2002.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
DUANE WALLACE, BOARD PRESIDENT
SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
ATTEST:
KATHY SHARP, CLERK OF THE BOARD
SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
PUBLIC RECORDS POLICY
General
Public records maintained by the District shall be available for inspection during the
regular business hours of the District. The General Manager, or his or her delegate,
shall be the official custodian of District records and shall make any nonexempt records
freely available to the public in accordance with Government Code section 6250 et seq.
The District may refuse to make available records that are exempt from disclosure
pursuant to Government Code section 6254.
Guidance For District Employees
Employees shall not make any promise or statement assuring confidential treatment of
any record given to the District. All requests for inspection or copies of public records,
other than forms and documents routinely distributed to the public, shall be forwarded
to the General Manager or his or her designee. District employees shall not provide to
anyone who does not work for the District any record deemed exempt from disclosure
by the General Manager or his or her designee without express authorization from the
General Manager. The General Manager shall have the sole authority to disclose
exempt documents. All records created by the District's legal counsel are protected by
the attorney/client privilege and are exempt from disclosure. The General Manager or
his or her designee shall not disclose such records to anyone not employed by the
District without first consulting with the District's counsel.
All Proposals submitted in response to a request for proposal (RFP) become the
property of the District and under Government Code § 6250 et. seq. are public records
which may be subject to public review. The RFP should generally provide that except
for price or other portions marked confidential (such as trade secrets when applicable)
the public will have access to a submittal. However, in special circumstances where the
public interest in the confidentiality of submittals outweighs the public interest in
disclosure, the RFP may provide for confidentiality of submittals for that particular
project. In such special circumstances, the General Manager or his or her designee
shall consult with the District's counsel for assistance in preparing the RFP.
Requests for Inspection or Copies of District Records
Members of the public who wish to inspect or obtain copies of any public record must
submit a written request to the General Manager specifying the desired records.
Requests should be specific, focused and not unreasonably interfere with the ordinary
business operations of the District. The request should sufficiently describe records so
that identification, location and retrieval of the records can be achieved in a timely
manner by District personnel, and should include a telephone number where the
requestor can be reached for questions of clarification that will help to identify and
locate the appropriate records for retrieval. If the member of the public is unsure how to
phrase the written request, he or she may request assistance from the District in
drafting the request.
The District's Search for and Review of Responsive Records
A reasonable effort will be made to locate requested records. If the document
requested cannot be located after a reasonable search, the requesting party shall so
be advised. The District shall, within 10 days of receipt of the request, determine
whether the request, in whole or in part, seeks disclosable public records that are in the
possession of the District and shall promptly notify the requestor of the determination
by sending the requestor a letter of determination.
In unusual circumstances, the District may extend the 10 days for the determination by
up to 14 additional days by written notice, setting forth the reasons for the extension
and the date upon which the determination will be made. "Unusual circumstances"
include instances where the records are located off site, the request is for a voluminous
amount of separate records, the District needs to consult with another agency having a
substantial interest in the determination, or where there is a need to compile or extract
data.
If the District determines that the request seeks disclosable records, the District will
state an estimated date and time when the records will be made available in its letter of
determination. The District will not delay in producing the disclosable records but may
designate an estimated date for production which is later than the 10 or 14 days
permitted by law for the initial determination in order to review, redact as necessary and
copy responsive documents. If the District determines that the records requested are
not disclosable, it will state the reasons therefore in its letter of determination and the
name and title of the person responsible for the denial.
Inspection of Distdct Records
A member of the public requesting inspection of District records shall be assisted by
the General Manager or his or her designee during regular office hours at a time
arranged between the District and requestor. The operational functions of the District
will not be suspended to permit inspection of records during periods in which District
personnel in the performance of their duties reasonably require such records. Physical
inspection of the records shall be permitted within the District's offices and under the
conditions determined by the District. District employees shall not provide records
deemed to be exempt from disclosure by the General Manager or his or her designee
to members of the public. Upon either the completion of the inspection or the oral
request of department personnel, the person conducting the inspection shall relinquish
physical possession of the records. Persons inspecting District's records shall not
destroy, mutilate, deface, alter, or remove any such records from the District office. The
District reserves the right to have District personnel present during the inspection of
records in order to prevent the loss or destruction of records.
Advance Payment Required for Copies of District Records
After the District has completed its search for records that are responsive and
disclosable, District personnel shall notify the requestor that the records are available.
The notice of availability shall include the number of pages and total cost for copying.
District employees shall promptly provide copies of the records to the requestor upon
the advance payment of ten cents ($.10) per page to cover the direct costs of
duplication. Postage fees incurred in mailing such copies shall also be charged to the
requestor.
Copies of maps, or blueprints will be supplied at the actual cost to the District for
reproduction by an outside service including the hourly wage for actual staff time spent
delivering and picking up the copies. Expected costs of reproduction will be collected in
advance of reproduction.
Records Prepared and Filed In Accordance With the Political Reform Act
Records prepared and filed in accordance with the Political Reform Act (conflict of
interest code, statements of economic interest, campaign statements) are public
records subject to inspection and reproduction during the District's regular business
hours, commencing as soon as practicable, but no later than the second business day
following the day the request for inspection was received. Copies shall be provided at a
charge of ten cents ($.10) per page. Pursuant to Government Code Section 81008, a
retrieval fee of five dollars ($5.00) per request shall be charged for copies of reports
and statements which are five years old or more.
Postinq of the Public Records Policy
A copy of this policy shall be posted in a conspicuous public place in the office of the
South Tahoe Public Utility District and a copy thereof shall be made available free of
charge to any person requesting such copy.
Adopted by Resolution No. 2747-02
10~03/02
Action Item 7.e
Payment of Claims
FOR APPROVAL October 03, 2002
Payroll 09/25/02
Payroll 09/18/02
Total Payroll
1,636.39
281,854.42
$ 283,490.81
Cost Containment - health care payments
IGI Resources - natural gas
Bank of New York - loan payment
Total Vendor EFT
Accounts Payable Checks Sewer Fund
Accounts Payable Checks Water Fund
Accounts Payable Checks Self-funded Ins
Accounts Payable Checks Grant Funds
Total Accounts Payable
42,030.14
11,850.93
$ 53,881.07
304,529.30
212,488.35
25.42
39,785.31
$ 556,828.38
$ 894,200.26
Grand Total
Payroll EFTs & Checks
09/18/02
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
CHK
EFT
EFT
CHK
AFLAC Medical & Dependent Care
CA Employment Taxes & W/H
Federal-Employment Taxes & W/H
Hartford Deferred Comp
ManuLife Pension
ManuLife Pension Loan Payments
Orchard Trust Deferred Comp
Stationary Engineers Union Dues
United Way Contributions
Employee Direct Deposits
Employee Paychecks
Adjustments
Sub-total
846.18
11,282.98
66,912.17
1,484.99
22,835.82
6,431.50
11,142.28
1,444.84
77.18
129,640.20
29,756.28
0.00
$ 281,854.42
26-Sep 02
Payment of Cl@im$.wb3
S o u t h T a h e P.U.D. 09/26/02 PAYMENT O F CLAIMS REPORT 09/20/0902-10/03 /2002 id: C1Q2FP SF1
THU, SEP 26, 2002, 11:18 AM --rag: DOUGLAS—leg: GL 3L- -lo: CNS1iE - -- -Job: 258835 #J6836 - - -pr . QSCeS 7/ rgnt
Default Selection: Check
Vend= Nane
Stcck ID: AP ; Check Types: NW,HW,RV,VH
Amt # Departffent
Description
Pncunt Check # Type
AWWA
A W WA CAL -NEW SE TTCN
A -1 CHEMICAL INC
AFLAC
10 -06 -6250 OPERATIONS
20 -38 -6250 CUTRIDMER SERVICE
10 -00 -0422 GOAL & POLNTISIRATICN
10 -00 -2538 GENERAL & ALMINISTRAITCN
ALPEN SIERRA COFFEE COMPANY 20 -00 -6520 GENERAL & ADVENTSIRATICN
ARANARK UNIFOW SERVICES
ARNJLD MACHINERY
ASCSM HASTEIR IEnSINU
AVAYA FINANCIAL SERVICES
AVISIA =TIES
10 -00 -2518 COAL & AENMNISIRATTCN
20 -05 -6011 EQUIPMENT REPAIR
10 -38 -5020 CUSTOMER SERVICE
20 -38 -5020 CUSTOMER SERVICE
10 -39 -6709 FINANCE
10 -39 -6710 FINANCE
10 -00 -6350 GENERAL & AFNIINISIRATTCN
20 -00 -6350 GENERAL & AEMI ISIPATICN
DJES /NENEERS IEFS /CERTIFICATI
Check 'Total :
DUES /NEMBERSFIIPS /CERIIFICATI
Clack Totl:
JANTIOIRTAL SUPPLIES IlWEJIOR
Clack Total :
AFLAC FEE D flEI'ICN
Check Total:
SUPPI U S
SUPPLIES
Clark Total:
LEEFORM/R GS /TMELS PAYABLE
Clack Total:
ALTICM TIVE
Check Total:
EQJIWNT RIIJPAL /LASE
Ecuipmwr REninilLEAsE Total
LC AN PRINCIPAL PAi t 1ENIS
ITT EREST EXPENSE
Clack Total:
NATURAL CAS
NATURAL CAS
Clack Total:
53.00
53.00 00051248 NW
00051247 NW
00051249 NW
125.00 00051250 NW
90.00
90.00
129.76
129.76
125.00
87.00
58.00
145.00
1,087.62
1,087.62
215.47
215.47
14.68
9.78
24.46
628.34
61.64
689.98
4,990.73
5.50
4,996.23
00051251 NW
00051252 NW
00051253 NW
00051254 NW
00051255 NW
00051256 NW
S a a t h T a h o e P.U.D. 09/26/02 PAYMENT O F CLAIMS REPORT 09/C[02002 - 10/03/2002 2
THU, SEP 26, 2002, 11:18 PM - -req: A GL JL - -1o: QEI1E-- - -job: 258835 #J6836-- -prcg: 09 <1.07>--report id: CIMPC
L'efai:lt Sel ion: Check Stock ID: AP ; Check Types: MN,HW,RV,VH
Vendor Nam AccoLmt # Department
B M H OCCUPATIONAL MEDICINE
B0CCASES
HAY TOOL & SUPPLY INC
BERRY- IIIIVCZQEY ThUETRIFS
BIND NATEREAIS
BLDE RIBF.3;N TEMP PERSONNEL
MOAN, LINEA
an BRIAN
Description
Amxmt Check # Type
10 -06 -6075 OPERATIC
10 -07 -6075 LABOR Y
20 -07 -6075 LAB31RATORY
20 -02 -4790 PUTS
10 -00 -0422 GENERAL & ALMI ISIRATICN
10 -00 -0421 GENERAL Sr AIINIrIISIRATICN
10 -00 -0415 COAL & AA"IINISIRATI N
10 -02 -4630 FUME'S
10 -00 -0416 COAL & AENENISIRATICN
10 -28 -6042 ALPINE COUNTY
20 -01 -6052 TIRa_ND REPAIR
10 -39 -4405 FINANCE
20 -39 -4405 FINANCE
10 -39 -6200 FINANCE
20 -39 -6200 FINANCE
10 -39 -6250 FINIAIEE
20 -39 -6250 FINANCE
10 -07 -6075 LABORATORY
20 -07 -6075 LABORATORY
SAFETY E2JIFMQVP / /PHYSICALS
SASI
EQUIFPII\TTIV YSICALS
Check Ibtal:
GIBER SUPPLE
Check Ibtal:
JANIIORTAL SUPPLIES INVE \TIOR
SEDP SUPPLY INVIENNIORY
Check Total:
C_9SLINE INVENTORY
DIJESEL INVENTORY
Check Total :
GROUNDS & MAINIIINANCE
PIPE, COMERS, & MANHOLES
Check Total:
(?TLIAL SERVICES
CZNIRACICIAL SEM/ICES Eck mta1 :
TRAVEL is 1 e ,'Erx ,JITICN
IRA M 1 e. /F TTCN
EVES /N ERSFIIPS / /CERITFICATI
CCheck Total:
� Y KJIFPHC /PHYSICILS
Check Total :
53.42
32.05
21.37
106.84 00051257
546.98
546.98 00051262
296.81
61.78
358.59 00051258
2,114.11
172.72
3,694.31
5,981.14 00051259
2,422.47
1,455.27
3,877.74 00051260
579.14
164.26
743.40 00051261
WI
WI
MR
WI
60.00
40.00
15.00
10.00
125.00 00051263 NW
3.00
2.00
5.00 00051264 144
S o u t h Tahoe 09/26/02 PAYMENT O F CLAIMS , REPORT 09/20/2002 - 10/03/2002 P� 3
THU, SEP 26, 2002, 11:18 PM - -req: DOUGLAS - - -1a: GL JL - -lcc: CNSI!E- - - -job: 258835 #J6836-- -pro?: 09 <1.07 > - -r port id: PL'
Default qelection: Check Stock ID: AP ; Check Types: Ma,HW,RV,VH
verrbr Nam
Account # Lpartrrent
Descripticn
PIT nKIt Check # Type
CSMFO
CSRMA
CWEA
10 -27 -6620 DISTRICT INEU'ATICN
20 -27 -6620 DISIRICT INFO1v4\TICN
10 -01 -4521 LEIDIRGRaND REPAIR
10 -01 -6200 UNEERCR2ND REPAIR
10 -03 -6250 E EC"IRTC71L S[EP
20 -01 -6250 i.NDE GThaND REPAIR
10 -04 -6250 HEAVY NYS
CALIF LEP1 OF HEALTH SERVICES 20 -02 -6650 PUMPS
CALIF EMPLOYMENT EEV DEPT
10 -01 -4303 UNEERCRCUND REPAIR
CALIF WATER RESOURCES CTRL BD 10 -06 -6250 OPERATIONS
CALIFORNIA OVERPTIGE
10 -29 -4810 EMS
20 -07 -4810 LABORATORY
20 -29 -4810 EN3BNISERIND
20 -29 -8157 EMINEERINE
20 -29 -8264 EWIlVEERJN3
10 -39 -4810 FINANCE
20 -29 -8290 ENGINE=
20 -39 -4810 FTNMNNE
CALIF IA SURVEY & tRAFTTN 10 -01 -6073 UNEEMECUND REPAIR
PUBLIC RELATICNS EXPENSE
PUBLIC RELATICNS EXPII\ISE
Clack Total :
CSRNA ISAB= CLAIMS
Check Total
TRA
ILES
WEB
WEB
D e es /FpL7CATICN
is i:r-i 1 PS /CERTIFICATI
PS /CEIZI IF:CAT:
PS /CER TIFIC ATI
Check Total:
a ie {y-i 1
iaa• -i 1
Check Total :
LNEI"PS INSURANCE
E]ES /NHE IIPS /CERTTFICATI
Check Total:
P = PO6= EXPENSES
Mg= EXPENSES
PCS= EXPENSES
WELL GWXO RE7RELL �
LR
POS*4E EXPENSES
=MINI ARROWIEAD WL #3
RE'TPLE SE= Check Total :
SMALL TOOTS
Check Total:
60.00
40.00
100.00 00051265 Ma
00050956 RV
00051266 M4
00051267 Ma
00051268 Ma
190.00 00051270 Ma
- 2,840.11
- 2,840.11
880.00
184.00
67.00
92.00
1,223.00
9,933.99
9,933.99
989.86
989.86
190.00
8.00
169.00
8.50
8.00
27.50
3.00
13.00
2.00
239.00 00051271 Ma
412.26
412.26 00051272 Ma
South Thhx P.U.D. 09/26/02 PAYMENT O F CLAIMS 8ORT 09/ 5 01/03/2002
jlJ, SEP 26, 2002, 11:18 PM - -req: mE[AS -- e3: TL lQVSCTL J Mb 2583E #J6836---p1: Q00 <1.07>--report : CTFC
Default Selection:
Vendor Narre
Check Stock ID: AP ; Check Types: NW, HW, RV, VH
Account # Dapartrrent
Tpacriptian
Pnai it Check # Type
CAROLLO ENUIINEERS
90 -98 -8828 EXPORT PIPELSNIE GRANT
10 -06 -8328 OPERATIONS
10 -29 -8235 Fh)3INEEM1C
CENTIME BUSINESS FaREAS INC 20 -38 -4920 OBEYER SERVICE
CENIRAL ASST CONCRETE Ir 10 -01 -6052 TDIDIIdu_1c REPAIR
aT , BRIAN
COBRA PRO
10 -07 -6200 LABORATORY
20 -07 -6200 LABORATORY
10 -22 -4405 KHAN RESJJRCES
20 -22 -4405 FLMAN RESIJRCES DIRFI"IOR
COST CM CENCIERIS INC 30 -00 -6741 SELF RN ID INSURANCE
CULLFN, JAMES W
C RTIS & SORTS, IN
D & L ECUNERY & SUPPLY :NC
FBARA INIEk 1TTCNAL CRP
10 -01 -6200 UNEERCRaIND REPAIR
10 -06 -6042 OPFRATTCNS
20 -01 -6052 TBIR3UJMD REPAIR
10 -02 -8340 AMPS
EL,7NE E S III IPPS-CAMPOLN
PLANT SCADA SYSTEM
SIIM1 F]AND NG FACTLflY
Check Total.
PR1TII'IIG
IRINITIE
Check Total •
PIPE, COVERS, & MANHOLES al •
Check TRAVEL / /EarATTCN
Cheeck Total :
c2 IRAC'IL1AL SERVICES
CaTIRACIUAL SERVICES
Check Total :
AINIINISIRATICIQ FEE
Check Total:
TRAVEL /MEETTNS /EM TTCN
Check Total:
GROUNDS & MA Total:
PIPE, CSJ<IIDS, & M?WEDLBS
Check Total:
FLI1P REJTJID, LPPS
Check Total:
39,552.81
10,261.94
21,010.16
70,824.91 00051273 NW
775.35
512.55
1,287.90 00051274 NW
2,024.00
2,024.00 00051275 NW
75.60
50.40
126.00 00051276 NW
00051277 NW
25.42 00051278 M4
102.00 00051279 NW
90.17 00051280 NW
1,595.88
1,595.88 00051281 NW
14,376.05
14,376.05 00051282 MW
24.00
16.00
40.00
25.42
102.00
90.17
South T a h o e P.U.D. 09/26/02 PAYMENT O F CLAIMS REPORT 09/20/2002 - 10/03/2002 5
au, SEP 26, 2002, 11:18 AM D AS -- -leg: JL - -10c: CIZIIF - -- -fob: 258835 #J6836-- -prcg: 09 <1.07>--report id: CI SC
Default Selection: Check
verrbr Nane
E7 DORADO COUNTY
EL DORADO CLYNIY
ELEvENII' K JCUFNALS
ELEMENT K 3O T S
ENVIPLPENTAL EGRESS
F G L ENVIRCIWENTAL
FAST FABRICATORS r
FIDEX
Stock ID: AP ; Check es: M4,HW,RV,VH
Account # Departrrert
10 -02 -6650 PUMPS
20 -02 -6650 AMPS
10 -06 -6650 OPERATTIE
10 -06 -6650 OPER7ITICNS
10 -37 -4830 TAIECRIvATICN SYSTEMS
20 -37 -4830 INF1R"ATICN SYSTEMS
10 -37 -4830 I EI W\7SCN SYSTEMS
20 -37 -4830 INFCE&ATICN SYSTEMS
10 -07 -4760
20 -07 -6110
20 -29 -8264
10 -07 -4810
20 -07 -4810
10 -37 -8361
10 -29 -8235
10 -02 -8303
LABORATORY
LABORATORY
TABORA:CRY
LABORATORY
:TON SYSTEM'S
EMINEERINTh
AMPS
Description
Arrant Check #
OPERATIM PERMITS
OPERATING PERMTIS
OPERAIZN3 PERMITS Check Total:
OPERATE PERMTIS Check lbtal:
Verrbr Total :
SURSCRIP11CNS EXPENSE
SUBB RIPl'1CNS EXPENSE
Check Total •
SUBSCRIPI'1Q S EKRENEE
SUBSCRIPtiCNS EKPENSE
Check Total:
Vendor Total:
LABORAICRY SUPPLIES ck Total:
MY�]IIORIl�
Check Total:
WELL, , G T'FTd'TTT
Check Total
POSIPGE EXEENEES
POSMGE EXPE 5
ST1mp E FPCILTIY
RErLT 3VALL @ LPPS
633.00
1,186.00
295.00
2,114.00
200.00
200.00
2,314.00
- 117.60
-78.40
- 196.00
34.20
22.80
57.00
- 139.00
1,380.71
1,380.71
1,980.00
1,980.00
2,772.41
2,772.41
19.79
13.20
19.55
108.76
15.14
TYPe
00051283 Mai
00051284 Mr]
00051148 RV
00051285 NW
00051286 NW
00051287 MST
00051288 NW
B a r t h T a h o e P.U.D. 09/26/02 PAYMENT O F CLAIMS , REPORT 09/20/2002- 10/03/2002 Pie 6
THU, SEP 26, 2002, 11:18 AM - -rte: DOUGLAS—leg: GL JL - -lo: CNS11E-- - -jdb: 258835 #J6836- - -prog: C1 09 <1.07 > - -rep rt id: PC
Default Selecticn: Check Stek ID: AP ; Check TH:es: M^1,HW,RV,VH
Vendor Nane Account # Depart-rent
Ids riptic
Arcunt Check #
Tie
FED X FREIGHT WEST
WIRD COMPANY, GENE
C;EOIRANS INC
CaLIAFC/LffiFL'
GRANT THORNICN TIP
GROVE- MosDEEN IIVGLSIR S IN`
I]ACII COMPANY
HATCH AND PARENT
HENCE .S; N, DEBBIE
20 -29 -8157 El\UNEFRTJ3
20 -21 -4810 AINI IISIRATICN
20 -39 -4810 FINANCE
20 -01 -6052 UNDERGRaND REPAIR
10 -02 -6051 AMPS
10 -37 -8262 INECRNATICN SYSTEMS
20 -37 -8224 INFORMATION SYSTEMS
20 -01 -6073 IN _U REPAIR
10 -39 -4470 FINANCE
20 -39 -4470 FINANCE
10 -03 -8281 ELECIREC L SHOP
10 -06 -4760 OPERATTCNS
10 -39 -4480 FINANCE
10 -39 -6200 FINANCE
20 -39 -6200 FINANCE
TANK, GARDNER MIN #1, REPJAC
FC IAA EXPENSES
POETDIAGE DOMES Check Total:
PIPE, COVERS, & MANHOLES
Check Total:
REP STATIONS
SOFTWARE GIS
GIS ETI�7QVT
3KSLL TOOLS
AUDITING
AUDIT IM
480V SWITIIPIR
Crack Total:
Check Total :
clerk Total :
Chick Total:
Check abtal:
LABORATORY SUPPLIES Check TY tal
la- RII11AR
Check Total :
TRAVEL /EllEAT'ICN
Check Total:
20.29
13.99
16.86
227.58 00051290 NW
319.79
319.79 00051289 MN
1,473.07
1,473.07 00051291 NW
5,961.44
3,974.29
9,935.73 00051293 fW
1,167.41
1,167.41 00051294 Ma
600.00
400.00
1,000.00 00051295 PW
106,177.50
106,177.50 00051296 Ma
423.00
423.00 00051292 NW
9,211.77
9,211.77 00051297 NW
52.75
35.16
87.91 00051298 NW
South Tahoe P.U.D.
T HU, SEP 26, 2002, 11:18
Default Selecticn: Check
Vendor Name
HERTZ FURNITURE SYSTEMS
HI -TECH SALES
09/26/02 PAYMENT O F CLAIMS REPORT 09/20/2002-10/03/2002 7
AM - -re: ICUCLAS- - -leg: GL JL - -lcc: CNSnE-- - -jcb: 258835 #J6836-- -pnxJ: 0609 <1.07 >-- LepjLL id: CKRETC
Stcck ID: AP ; Check Types: Md,HW,RV,VH
pmt # DEpartrrent
D:scripticn
Amount Check # 'Type
IIICH SIERRA BUSINESS SYSTEMS
ErzLRICK, RICK
10 -02 -4820 PUMPS
20 -02 -4820 PIMPS
10 -01 -6075
10 -02 -6075
20 -02 -6075
10 -03 -6075
20 -03 -6075
10 -06 -6075
UNDERGROUND REPAIR
PUMPS
PUMPS
ELECTRICAL TRICIL SHOP
E FC ERICAL SHOP
OPFRATICNS
10 -38 -4820 CUSTOMER SERVICE
20 -38 -4820 CUSTOMER SERVICE
10 -38 -6030 CUSTOMER SERVICE
20 -38 -6030 CUSTOMER SERVICE
20 -19 -6200 BARD OF DIRECIURS
IM P AC GOVIIRLNF NI SERVICES 10 -07 -4760 LABORATl Y
20 -07 -4760 LABORATORY
10 -07 -6200 LABOMZPY
20 -07 -6200 LABORATORY
INIERSIATE SAFETY & SUPPLY
J &LRDKLEENINC
10 -00 -0421 GENERAL & AENENISIRATICN
10 -39 -6077 FINANCE
10 -39 -6074 FINANCE
20 -39 -6074 FINANCE
OEE'10E SUPPLIES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
Ctrk Total :
SAFETY EQYJIFMQvI /PHYSICALS
SAFETY PHYSICALS
SAFETY I /PHYSICALS
SAFETY E TIHNEb7S PHYSICALS
SAFETY EQUITIvaTIVPHYSICALS
SAFETY EQUIPMENT /PHYSICALS
Check Total:
OF'F'ICE SUPPLIES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
SERVICE =RAGS
SERVICE =RAMS Check Total :
TRAVEL /MEEPIISS /DxPOATTEN
Check Total:
LABORATORY SUPPLIES
LABORATORY SUPPLIES
TRAVEL c. /parA laT
TRAVEL i� 1 c. /E>TICN
Creek Total:
SHOP SUPPLY INVENIL Y
INVLN CRY FREIC C aSOCNIS
Total:
JANITORIAL SERVICE'S
JANITORIAL SERVICES
Check Tbtal:
198.69
198.70
397.39 00051299 MST
53.61
144.77
144.76
48.26
48.25
96.51
536.16 00051300 NW
125.37
83.58
603.20
402.13
1,214.28 00051301 M^1
80.30
80.30 00051302 NW
3.84
2.56
1,211.29
807.53
2,025.22
971.14
19.00
990.14
1,708.20
1,138.80
2,847.00
00044952 HW
00051303 MW
00051304 Ma
S o u t h T e h c e P.U.D. 09/26/02 PAYMENT O F CLAIMS , REPORT 09/20/2002-10/03/2002 Pace 8
'HIUU, SEP 26, 2002, 11:18 AM - -ra3: D [AS -- -169: GL JL - -lo: CN511E- - - -job: 258835 #J6836- - -prog: C 09 <1.07>--report id: C[42EL'SFC
Defer: it t ,Selection: Check Stock ID: P2 ; Check Types: MAL HW, RV, VH
Vendor Nare suit # Department
Description
Aro nt Check # Type
JOB'S PEAK PRIMARY CARE
10 -01 -6075 UNCERGROLND REPAIR SAFELY
10 -02 -6075 PUMPS SAFETY
20 -02 -6075 PUMPS SAFETY
10 -04 -6075 HEAVY MAINIENANCE SALEM'
10 -06 -6075 OPERATIONS SAFETY
10 -22 -6075 HENAN RCS SAFETY
20 -22 -6075 HU4ZN RESOURCES DIRECTOR SAFETY
ICnivVN INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES 10 -04 -6024 HEAVY MSINIENAN E
KENNEDY /JENKS CONSULTANTS INC 10 -28 -8168 ALPINE COUNTY
10 -28 -8285 ALPINE MINTY
10 -28 -4476 ALPINE CLNIY
I,TISY'S TIRE SERVICE INC.
MWHLA>ES
NE MASTER CARR SUPPLY W
NN NnNAR, WEL
20 -01 -6012 U.I DER:330_ED REPAIR
10 -01 -6052 IIID ROUND REPAIR
20 -05 -6011 EJJIRv NI' REPAIR
20 -29 -8290 ENGINEER=
10 -06 -6042 OPERATIONS
10 -06 -6073 OPERATIONS
10 -04 -6042 HEAVY MAINTENANCE
10 -02 -6051 AMPS
10 -02 -6048 AMPS
20 -01 -6071 TNCERGROIND REPAIR
10 -01 -6200 IND1HRGRaND REPAIR
EITIA 1wt /PHYSIC�ILS
EQUI PTv1 W/ SIC7ALS
E JI PHYSICALS
IIUJI - �PHYSICILS
EQUI
EQJI /PHYSICALS
Check Total:
FIENACE Tbtal
ICR STUDY
ALPINE CNIY MASER PLAN
LEGAL InenTiON CtNE'I ENTIA
Check Total:
NCBTIF E LER/EITT
PIPE, COVERS, & NANHOLES
AUICKETVE
Clerk Total:
TREATMENT, AFRONSSADWL #3
Check Total :
CROWDS SMALL
CROWDS & MAINIENANEE
LUTHER PASS PUMP STATION
SRDP SUPPLE
Check Total:
'IRAVEL/MEE'TITJSS /ETICN
210.00
105.00
105.00
210.00
265.00
72.00
48.00
1,015.00 00051305 Ma
109.97
109.97 00051306 Ma
2,607.63
5,387.14
3,438.75
11,433.52 00051307 Ma
15.50
13.02
1,058.40
1,086.92 00051308 Ma
450.00
450.00 00051309 Ma
160.30
292.72
31.86
401.51
165.21
230.59
1,282.19 00051310 Ma
102.00
South 'Lace P.U.D. 09/26/02 PAYMENT O F CLAIMS R E P O R T 09/20/2002-10403/2002
THU, SEP 26, 2002, 11:18 PM --rest!: D�LAS- - -leg: GL JL - -loo: CNSIIE-- - -jdb: 258835 #J6836-- -prog: 09 <1.07 >- -retort id:
Default Selection: Check Stock ID: AP ; Check Types: M41,HW,RV,VH
Vendor Nacre Acaamt # Department
Descriptiai
Amxmt CYrrk # Type
MEZRCIECH INC
MID FOUNT:l>T1 MOBTL F COMM.
VELLIFCRE
MIN= CHAR
20 -01 -6073 UNDERGROUND REPAIR
10 -02 -6056 PUMPS
20 -02 -6056 PUMPS
10 -07 -4760 LABORATORY
20 -07 -4760 LABORATORY
10 -38 -6310 =TENDER SERVICE
20 -38 -6310 CIbTCMER SERVICE
10 -02 -6310 PUPS
20 -02 -6310 PUPS
10 -21 -6310 ALNIINISIRATICN
20 -21 -6310 AIIITISIRATTCN
10 -29 -6310 IIMIIlffi IM3
20 -29 -6310 E INEERTC
10 -01 -6310 ENCERGROUND REPAIR
20 -01 -6310 uttacrcum REPAIR
10 -27 -6310 DISTRICT INFERNATTCN
20 -27 -6310 DISTRICT IITCN
10 -07 -6310 LABORATORY
20 -07 -6310 LABORATORY
10 -05 -6310 EI JIWENT REPAIR
20 -05 -6310 EXITT REPAIR
10 -03 -6310 EL>~CTRIC71L SHOP
20 -03 -6310 ELECTRICAL SHOP
10 -28 -6310 ALPINE COUNTY
10 -39 -6310 FTIPNO
20 -39 -6310 FINANCE
SMALL ICOT S
Check Total:
Check Tot-1:
RADIO REPAIRS/
RADIO REPAIRS /REPLACEMENT
Check Tot-,R1:
LABORATOFE SUPPLIES
LABORATORY SUP Check Total
TELEPHONE
TEL EPH NF
TETFPHENE
IFT F'PILNF
TELEPHONE
NE
TEL PH NE
TFT EPEE 1R
TELEPHONE
TELEPHCNE
TEET R-INE
`TEL PE NF
TEIFFHCNF
l FPHCNF
TEL PHCNF
TELEPHONE
NE
TFL FPHO\ F
TEEEPHCNE
102.00 00051311 144
201.72
201.72 00051312 144
30.00
30.00
60.00 00051313 144
53.26
35.51
88.77 00051314 144
11.86
7.90
23.04
28.42
25.79
17.20
109.85
73.22
22.25
33.14
3.23
2.16
6.01
4.00
4.29
4.28
3.75
3.74
13.34
3.23
2.16
South M i r e P.U.D. 09/26/02 PAYMENT O F CLAIMS REPORT 09/20/2002 - 10/03/2002 Paces 10
THU, SEP 26, 2002, 11:18 PM - -�: IOU:AS- - -leg: GL OL - -loc: QEIIE-- - -3cb: 258835 #J6836- - -prop: CK509 <1.07>--report id: CPFCSLC
Default Selection: Check Stock ID: AP ; Check Types: NW,HW,RV,VH
Vendor Nam Acoocmt # Departbrent
Description
Amxuit Check # Type
ML NPAAIN TEFMETE CCNIROL
MILLER, =Y
10 -02 -6042 HIES
10 -06 -6200 OPERATIONS
NB S OOVEIRNP'IENT FINANCE CROUP 10 -39 -4405 FINANCE
NEVAEk DIV OF FNVEM..
NCLAN, LYNN
20 -02 -6250 REPS
20 -29 -8393 EUMERI U
90 -98 -8829 EXPORT PIPELINE GRANT
10 -28 -8285 ALPINE COUNTY
10 -39 -4405 FINANCE
20 -02 -6051 PUMPS
Or'r'10E DEPOT aEINESS SERV DIV 20 -29 -8264 EN INIEERJN3
10 -02 -4820 AMPS
20 -02 -4820 AMPS
10 -29 -4820 EN3IIffiING
20 -29 -4820 E DD
10 -39 -4820 FINANCE
20-39 -4820 FINANCE
10 -22 -4820 RYAN REDS
20 -22 -4820 FI[MYN RESCL RMS DIREETDR
10 -22 -4920 HUNAN RCS
20 -22 -4920 HMPN RESOURCES DIRECTOR
10 -37 -4820 IN- 1MM SYSTEMS
20 -37 -4840 INIECRITCN SYSTEMS
Check Total:
GRCUNES & NAINIFTAIKE
Check 'Total :
TRAUEL /MEETIIV /Ecumn
Check Total :
Cal RACIUAL SERVICES Check Total:
DUES /NENEEIZSEEPS /Cr TIFI=
Check Total:
TAHOE RESTC7RAITCN ACT PROMO
BLINE PEASE II DIP TO ED
ALPINE CNTYNASIER SERVICES
RMMP SIATTCNS
Check Total:
WELL GLEN WOOD REZRl7 r
OFFA SUPPLIES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
OFF10E SUPPLIES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
OF'F'ICE SUPPLIES
OF'F'ICE SUPPLIES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
PRINT=
PRINTIM
OFFICE SUPPLIES
DISTRICT COMPUTER SUPPLIES
402.86 00051315 NW
185.00
185.00 00051316 NW
00051317 NW
00051318 MW
00051319 NW
91.25
91.25
1,007.83
1,007.83
100.00
100.00
82.50
232.50
45.00
315.00
315.00
990.00 00051320 NW
245.68
2.44
2.43
12.31
8.20
52.36
34.90
11.78
7.85
83.21
55.47
8.09
50.82
S o u t h T a h c e P.U.D. 09/26/02 PAYMENT O F C L A I M S R E P O R T 09/20 2002 - 10/03/2002 p 11
'DU, SEP 26, 2002, 11:18 PM - -req: D CAS -- -lei: (L CL - -lc : CNS1'IE-- - -jcb: 258835 #J6836-- -pio3: 09 <1.07 > - -report id: CEQ2ECSPC
Default Selection: Check
Vendor Name
Stock ID: AP ; Check Types: M ,HW,RV,VH
Account # Dapartrrent
CNE CN CNE
PAC MACHINE CD
PACIIFIC BELL
PACIFIC BELL/WORLD:CM
PARSCLE HEA
PARIS ENGINEERING CD
EHE SEN WEEfl [.ND PAVIIC
10 -37 -4840 I ECEVATICN SYSTFNS
10 -00 -0428 GENERAL Sc ALNINISIRATICN
10 -37 -4830 II'FITICN SYSTEMS
20 -37 -4830 IlNFORNRITICN SYSIENS
10 -06 -6041 OPERATIONS
10 -00 -6310 GENERAL & AtMINISIRATICN
20 -00 -6320 COAL & AUVENISIRATICN
10 -00 -6310 GENERAL & ALNIINIISIRATICN
10 -02 -6310 AMPS
10 -05 -6310 EQJIM"E TT REPAIR
20 -05 -6310 EQUIPMENT REPAIR
10 -21 -6310 AEMINISIRATICN
20 -21 -6310 AEI NISIRATTCN
10 -39 -6310 FINANCE
20 -39 -6310 FII\P‘NCE
10 -28 -8285 ALPINE COUNTY
10 -29 -8828 EI\UINEERINE
10 -04 -6023 HEAVY MUNIFNPItE
20 -01 -4520 UNEER2KUND REPAIR
Descripticaa
Arrant Check 44 Type
DISTRICT CCMPUIER SUPPLIES
OEr'iCE SUPPLIES INVENICRY
Creek Total :
SUBSCRIPITCNS EXPENSE
SUPSCRTPl1CNS EXPENSE
Check Total :
BUILDINGS
Cock Ibta1 :
TEIEFFENE
SIG\AL CHAR ES
Check Total:
TFf F'LTENE
IELEFFENE
TEEFTh0NE
TFT FPrCNE
TELEPHCNE
TELEPHONE
TELER pP,
Check Total:
ALPINE CNIY M�SIER PLAN
SLIbE H3S III LPPS-CPMEGRaN
Chock Ibtal :
•'J.LTER E7QIIP /EDS
Check Total:
NIISC LIABILITY CLAIMS
68.14
496.71
1,140.39 00051321 NW
83.40
55.60
139.00 00051322 Nod
654.23
654.23 00051323 NW
248.06
31.92
279.98 00051325 VW
961.15
29.06
7.33
7.33
10.82
7.21
9.31
6.20
00051324 NW
841.67
10,774.93
11,616.60 00051326 NW
75.79
75.79 00051327 NW
3,451.77
South T a p e P.U.D. 09/26/02 PAYMENT O F CLAIMS REPORT 09/20/2002 - 10/03/2002 Pale 12
TEN, SEP 26, 2002, 11:18 AN - -req: =LAS—leg: GL 3L- -loc: QS1'1E-- - -job: 258835 #J6836---pr cg: C[<509 <1.07>--report id: C[ FC
Eefault Selection: Check Stock ID: AP ; Check Types: NW,HW,RV,VH
Vendor Nacre AcaRmt # Departtrent
I�.sa ptic 1
Pmznt Check # Type
PE US SATELLITE ITE TV r
10 -27 -4830 DISTRICT INFORNATICN
20 -27 -4830 DISTRICT TRITON
PERKS PILLING & HEST INC, L A 10 -04 -6042 HEAVY NAINTIENANCE
PETTY CPSH
PETTY, IXN
PIONEER AMERICAS INC
10 -00 -6520 CORRAL & AtMLNISTRATTCN
20 -00 -6520 GENERAL & Al:M NISIRATICN
20 -02 -4810 PIMPS
10 -21 -6200 ALNIINTISIRATICN
20 -21 -6200 ALMIDTISTRATICN
10 -21 -6621 ATMIINISIRATICN
20 -21 -6621 ALMTNISIRATTCN
10 -22 -6079 HINAN RES ROES
20 -22 -6079 HUNAN RESJURCFE DIRECT3R
10 -29 -6200 ENGINE=
20 -29 -6200 EICINEE INU
10 -37 -4405 INEOFMTTCN SYSTEMS
20 -37 -4405 INFOR ATTCN SYSTEMS
10 -38 -4820 QEILMER SERVICE
20 -38 -4820 CILTEMER SERVICE
10 -39 -4820 FINANCE
20 -39 -4820 FINANCE
10 -01 -6200 LIND REPAIR
10 -06 -4750 OPERATIONS
Check Total:
SUES RIP1'1CNS EXPENSE
SURSCRIP11CNS EXPENSE
Check Total:
CROUN S & NA metal
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES_
TRA/ETICN
TRAVEL, 0 1 !. ES RTICN
INCENTIVE & RamimTICN PRSR
SAFETY PROGRAMS
SAFETY
CN
S CES
OET'l TIAL SERVICES
SUPPLIES
OE1.10E SUPPLIES
OE1.10E SUPPLIES
OEFICE SUPPLIES
Check Total :
TRAVEL/MEETINas /Ea TICN
Check Total:
1 111:
CHLORINE
Check Total:
3,451.77 00051328 NW
16.79
11.20
27.99 00051329 140
1,513.75
1,513.75 00051330 140
4.37
2.91
5.30
15.00
10.00
15.00
10.00
2.70
1.80
15.00
10.00
18.00
12.00
3.34
2.22
7.69
5.13
140.46 00051331 140
102.00
102.00 00051332 VW
2,419.15
2,419.15 00051333 NW
South T a h o e P.U.D. 09/26/02 PAYMENT O F CLAIMS , REPORT 09/20/2002-10/03/2002 Fade 13
T U, SEP 26, 2002, 11:18 PM - -rrq: I731GLAS- - -leg: GL 0L- -lcc: ONISIIE- - - -job: 258835 #J6836-- -prrg: 09 <1.07>--report id: QKRTh 3IC
Default electicn: Check Stock ID: AP ; Check Types: M4,HW,RV,VH
Uethor Narre Accc.,mt # Department
Descripticn
Pint Check # Type
POLLARD 03, J G
PCNERS, PHYLLIS TQNIBE
RADIO SHACK
RFNVER EQUIPMENT CD
RENO GAZETTE-JOURNAL
SAFETY CENTER IIQC
SCHULTZ, ROBERT
SCOTT SPECIALTY C3niSES
SECRETARY OF STATE
SELTEK
20 -01 -6073 TNDERSR ND REPAIR
10 -21 -6621 AUv1I IISIRATIQN
20 -21 -6621 AUvItIISIRATICN
20 -03 -6071 ELEcEREcAL SBJP
10 -05 -6012 E3UIHNENT REPAIR
10 -06 -8328 OPEi2ATTQUS
20 -29 -8264 ENGINEER=
10 -02 -8303 AMPS
10 -05 -6200 EQUIPMENT REPAIR
10 -01 -6200 UNDERGROUND REPAIR
10 -06 -6075 OPERATIONS
10 -06 -8112 OPERATIONS
10 -21 -6200 AU NISIlRATICN
20 -21 -6200 AENENTSIRATICN
10 -02 -6051 PLMPS
3V14LL TOOLS
INCENTIVE &
INCENTIVE &
Check Ibtal:
RECOGNIlIM PRGR
RECCGNITICNT MGR
Check Ibtal:
SHOP SUPPLIES
Check Total:
MNTT F El TIMVENT
Check Total:
PESMDA SYSTEM
GLENWOOD REERE L
RAT 3K51L TNK @ LPPS
Check Total:
TRAVEL / / TIN
Check Total•
SAFELY EQUIPMENT /PHYSICALS
Qneck Total:
OCNTINUOUS E ISSICNS MNIRNG
Check Total:
TRAVEL /MEETINa'S /EELEATTCN
Check Total :
HMP STATIONS
Check Ibtal:
256.69
256.69 00051334 M4
30.00
20.00
50.00 00051335 MAI
4.27 00051336 M4
63.18 00051337 M4
4.27
63.18
117.02
97.58
87.86
302.46 00051338 Mr]
945.00
1,260.00
2,205.00 00051339 M4
00051340 VW
52.12 00051341 Ma
5.00
5.00
52.12
24.00
16.00
40.00 00051269 M4
814.05
814.05 00051342 MAT
South T a h oe P.U.D. 09/26/02 PAYMENT O F CLAIMS REPORT 09/20/2002 - 10/03/2002 P14
TEN, SEP 26, 2002, 11:18 PM - -req: DQGLAS- - -leg: GL JL - -loc: Q�15TIE-- - -jcb: 258835 #J6836- - -prog: 09 <1.07 >-- iep CuiL id: FC
Default Selection: check Stock ID: AP ; Check Types: NW,HW,RV,VH
vendor Nave Acccnnt # Department
Description
Arcunt Check # Type
SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL
SIERRAFOOTHILLLABORATORY
10 -07 -6110 LABORATORY
10 -07 -6110 LABORATCRY
20 -07 -6110 LABORATORY
SIERRA NEVADk NEDICAL IMAGING 10 -06 -6075 OPERATICNS
SIERRA PACIFIC RYNFR
SIERRA SPRINGWATER CO
S"IPIH, QRFG
SPIESS CONLSIRCETICN CO INC
STATEL]EE OnilCE SUPPLY
10 -00 -6330 CES]QRAL & AHMLNISTRATICN
20 -00 -6330 GEERAL & ALNIINIISIRATICN
10 -01 -6520 LEND REPAIR
20 -01 -6520 UNIRGROUND REPAIR
10 -02 -6520 P[.MPS
10 -03 -6520 ELECTRICAL SHOP
20 -03 -6520 ELECTRICAL SHOP
10 -04 -6520 HEAVY MOE
10 -06 -6520 OPERATTCNS
10 -05 -6520 E1JTIEMEHT REPAIR
20 -05 -6520 EQUIPMENT REPAIR
10 -06 -6200
20 -29 -8157
20 -00 -2605
10 -22 -4820
20 -22 -4820
OPERATTCNS
EIUNEERINE
GENERAL & AEMINISIRATION
HLVAN RESOURCES
HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR
WENTIT IINE
Check Tbtal:
M NrI
NEVER
Check Tbtal:
SAFETY EI; JIPNENT PHYSICALS
Check Tbtal:
EfEC'TRICTIY
ELECTRIC=
Check Tbtal:
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
Check Tbtal:
TRAVEL /ME FMCS /ELL =CN
Check Total:
TANK, C;AIRU1ER MIN #1, REPLAC
ACCIRID COAST RETNGE
Check Tbtal :
OFFICE SUPPLIES
OFF'IC'E SUPPLD S
316.00
316.00 00051343 NW
150.00
498.00
648.00 00051344 NW
51.00
51.00 00051345 NW
58,556.09
51,401.31
109,957.40 00051346 NW
48.35
48.35
32.23
16.12
16.12
64.45
64.45
16.12
16.12
322.31 00051347 NW
162.06
162.06 00051348 NW
117,250.00
- 6,967.50
110,282.50 00051349 NW
256.79
171.20
South lace P.U.D. 09/26/02 PAYMENT O F CLAIMS , R E P O R T 09/20/2002 - 10/03/2002 Paces 15
m A
O, SEP 26, 2002, 11:18 PM - -r94: D�AS- - -1e3: GL JL - -loo: CNSIIE - -- -Job: 258835 #J6836- - -pro3: 09 <1.07 >- -report id: C[4�.5P
Default t Selection: Check Stock ID: AP ; Check Types: MAL HW, RU, VI I
Vendor Nacre Amount # Departrrent
Descripticn
Arrant Check # Type
T C M DIGITAL SDLUI'IC NS
TRPA
TRPA
TMIOE BI JEPRINT
TAHOE CARSON AREA Na&E
T RTE IKiNMIN NS
INCE VALLEY F7 FC IRIC SUPPLY
10 -37 -4820 WENATIGN SYSTEMS
20 -37 -4820 INECRvALTICN SYSIEI
10 -38 -4820 CUSII 'ER SERVICE
20 -38 -4820 (SE1tIFR SH2VICE
10 -39 -4820 FINANCE
20 -39 -4820 FINANCE
10 -21 -6030 PENENISIRATICN
20 -21 -6030 AUv1I IISIRATS(N
10 -02 -6051 RI"1PS
10 -04 -6042 HEAVY w mIF VANI
20 -29 -8264 IIIlU
10 -29 -4820 EMINEERING
10 -27 -4930
20 -27 -4930
10 -29 -8235
20 -27 -6660
10 -02 -6051
DISTRICT INFCRNATICN
DISTRICT IIl i4nT T "
anNEFER
DISTRICT IITICN
AMPS
OF'F'iCE SUPPLIES
OFF10E SUPPLIES
OFF'iCE SUPPLIES
OF'F'iCE SUPPLIES
Or'N10E SUPPLIES
OF'F10E SUPPLIES
Check Total
SERVICE CXNIRFLTS
SERVICE aNTRACTS Chec.k Total :
AMP STATIONS
Check Total:
GRCUNDS&MAINIENANCE Crack Total:
Vendor Total:
VOL, GLENWJID REERIL
OFF'10E SUPPLIES
Check Total:
ADS /LPL NOTICES
ADS LEGAL
HANELINU
Check Total :
DATER CS1 7ATICN EXPENSE
Check Tbtal:
RNP =ME
Check Total:
5.11
3.40
120.38
80.26
56.43
37.62
731.19 00051350 M4
36.88
24.59
61.47 00051351 Ma
314.00
314.00 00044953 HW
314.00
314.00 00044954 HW
628.00
96.53
12.87
109.40 00051352 Mr]
32.06
21.38
83.42
136.86
225.00
225.00
69.71
69.71
00051353 M4
00051354 MI
00051355 M4
S o u t h Tahoe P.U.D. 09/26/02 PAYMENT O F CLAIMS REPORT 09/20/2002 - 10/03/2002 Page 16
THU, SEP 26, 2002, 11:18 AM - -re4: DCW AS -- -leg: GL JL - -kx- CEISITE-- - -job: 258835 #J6836-- -pro3: C[(509 <1.07>--report id: Q(EE PC
1-IQ-Fault Selection: Check Stock ID: AP ; Check Types: NW,HW,RV,VH
Vendor Nacre Aca nt # Department
TRELTA, PHILIP
TRIOLET SYSTEMS INC.
=IN LOCK AND SAFE
\IDERSCHER, RICEARD E
10 -06 -6250 OPERATTCNS
10 -37 -6030 INFcHPTICN SYSTEMS
20 -37 -6030 INECRM211CN SYSTEMS
10 -04 -6042 HEAVY MAINTENANCE
10 -29 -6200 ENG:1 IIh
20 -29 -6200 EN INEERJ NT?
WATER ENVIRNVRTE F IPATrEN 20 -29 -6250 RDIINIEERIIM
WEECO INC
WESIIl=NN NEVADA SUPPLY
WTImi' OXYGEN SERVICE
10 -03 -6051 E ECIRTCAL S EP
10 -03 -8281 F[ECRIcYL S[DP
10 -02 -6051 PIMPS
10 -28 -6042 ALPINE COUNTY
10 -29 -8235 ENGINEERIM
20 -01 -6052 L1 NJ REPAIR
10 -01 -7035 UNDERGROUND REPAIR
10 -04 -6022 HEAVY MUNIIE E
20 -01 -6071 UNDERGRaND REPAIR
10 -02 -6071 AMPS
20 -02 -6071 PIMPS
10 -04 -6071 HEAVY NAIIVIE
10 -05 -6071 EtJJIH ENTT REPAIR
Descripticn
Amount Check # Type
DUES /MEMBE=PS /CEd IFICATI
Check Total :
SERVICE aNIRACIS
SERVICE CONTRACTS Check Total:
Cris & YAINTIENANCE 'Total :
Check TRAUIIaS /EMIAITCN
Check Total:
LuEs/as/cEEriFicAn
Check Total:
RMP STATIC NS
480V SWITr1AAR
Check Total:
PIMP ns
C ams && MAIIVIEN NI
Sfirnp HANDL:NU FPC1LTTy
PIPE, COVERS & N1A LES
TAHOE N -LATERAL LINING
SMEARY EQUIPMENT
Check Total:
SDP SUPPLIES
SHOP SUPPLIES
SHOP SUPPLIES
SHOP SUPPLIES
SHOP SUPPLIES
100.00
100.00 00051356 NW
390.00
260.00
650.00 00051357 Nod
136.27 00051358 NW
00051359 NW
148.00 00051360 NW
19.34
4,579.58
4,598.92 00051361 NW
100.30
661.58
2,069.93
2,250.23
368.01
17.12
5,467.17 00051362 NW
57.96
22.75
22.75
446.91
7.46
136.27
25.97
17.31
43.28
148.00
South Tahoe P.U.D. 09/26/02 PAYMENT OF CLAI REPORT 09/,2102002-10/03/2002
I15, SEP 26, 2002, 11:18 PM --req: D�LAS- - -leg: - -1o: CNSZIE -- -] 258835 # 3686-- -prog:09<1.07ieport CIWCSFC
refault Selection: Check Stok ID: AP ; Check 'Ii1Pes: M4,HW,RV,VH
Uerrbr Matte
ZIM IlUEIRIES I■E
ZYNI9X ENVIRSTECHNDLOGY
Account # Department
Tbs ription
Pnumt Check # Type
20 -05 -6071 ETIFM NT REPAIR
10 -07 -4760 LAECRATC7RY
20 -07 -4760 LAS
20 -00 -2605 GENERAL & ATMINISIRAIZCN
20-29-8290 EICINTEERINU
SHOP SUPPLIES
LABORATORY SUPPLIES
LABORATORY SUPPLIES Check 1btal:
A IRD CLI15T RETRACE
Check Tbtal:
THE TMEITI, Qk 'Ductal:
Grand Total:
7.45
244.84
163.22
973.34
8,962.55
8,962.55
522.00
522.00
556,828.38
00051363 1M
00051364 NW
00051365 Nbd
TO:
FR:
RE:
ACTION ITEM NO:
ITEM-PROJECT NAME:
SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
BOARD AGENDA ITEM
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Robert Baer, General Manager
BOARD MEETING October 3, 2002 AGENDA ITEM:
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO:
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL- EXISTING LITIGATION:
STPUD vs. JOHN BREESE MUMFORD, ET. AL EL DORADO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
CASE NO. SC20020030
REQUESTED BOARD ACTION: Direct staff
DISCUSSION: Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a), Closed Session may be held
for conference with leqal counsel reqarding existinq litiqation.
SCHEDULE:
COSTS:
BUDGETED AMOUNT REMAINING:
ATTACHMENTS:
ACCOUNT NO:
CONCURRENCE WITH REQUESTED ACTION:
MANAGER: Y ES~_.~__ NO.
GENERAL
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER:
CATEGORY:
GENERAL
WATER
SEWER X
TO:
FR:
RE:
ACTION ITEM NO:
ITEM-PROJECT NAME:
SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
BOARD AGENDA ITEM
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Robert Baer, General Manager
BOARD MEETING
October 3, 2002 AGENDA ITEM:
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO:
14 .b
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION:
F. HEISE LAND & LIVESTOCK vs. STPUD and DOES 1 THROUGH 10; INCLUSIVE; ALPINE
COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CASE NO. C18644
REQUESTED BOARD ACTION: Direct staff
DISCUSSION: Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a), Closed Session may be held
for conference with legal counsel reqardinq existinq litiqation.
SCHEDULE:
COSTS:
BUDGETED AMOUNT REMAINING:
ATTACHMENTS:
ACCOUNT NO:
CONCURRENCE WITH REQUESTED ACTION:
GENERAL MANAGER:
NO,
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER: YE~q~
CATEGORY:
GENERAL
WATER
SEWER X
SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
BOARD AGENDA ITEM
TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS
FR: Robert Baer/General Manager, Gary Kvistad/District General Counsel
RE: BOARD MEETING
October 3, 2002
AGENDA ITEM: 14. c
ACTION ITEM NO:
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO:
ITEM-PROJECT NAME: CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL- EXISTING LITIGATION:
STPUD VS. F. HEISE LAND & LIVESTOCK COMPANY, INC., WILLIAM WEAVER, EDDIE R.
SYNDER, CROCKETT ENTERPRISES, INC. CIV S-02-0238 MLS JFM UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DiSTRiCT OF CALIFORNIA, SACRAMENTO, CA
REQUESTED BOARD ACTION: Direct staff
DISCUSSION: Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a), Closed Session may be
held for conference with legal counsel regardinq existinq litigation.
SCHEDULE:
COSTS:
BUDGETED AMOUNT REMAINING:
ATTACHMENTS:
ACCOUNT NO:
CONCURRENCE WITH REQUESTED ACTION:
GENERAL MANAGER: Y E S/~"2~-'''-~
NO.
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER:
CATEGORY:
GENERAL
WATER
SEWER X
TO:
FR:
RE:
ACTION ITEM NO:
ITEM-PROJECT NAME:
SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
ADDENDUM TO BOARD AGENDA
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Robert Beer, General Manager
BOARD MEETING
October 3, 2002 AGENDA ITEM: 14. d
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO:
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL- EXISTING LITIGATION
RE: MEYERS LANDFILL SITE: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA V. EL DORADO COUNTY AND
CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE AND THIRD PARTY DEFENDANTS, CIVIL ACTION NO. S-01 -
1520 LKK GGH, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA
REQUESTED BOARD ACTION: Direct staff
DISCUSSION: Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a), Closed Session may be
held for conference with leqai counsel regardinq existing litiqation.
SCHEDULE:
COSTS:
BUDGETED AMOUNT REMAINING:
ATTACHMENTS:
ACCOUNT NO:
CONCURRENCE WITH REQUESTED ~CTION:
GENERAL MANAGER: YES~ NO
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER: YES~¢
CATEGORY:
GENERAL X
WATER
SEWER
TO:
FR:
RE:
ACTION ITEM NO:
ITEM-PROJECT NAME:
SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
BOARD AGENDA ITEM
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Robert Baer, General Manaqer
BOARD MEETING October 3, 2002 AGENDA ITEM:
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO:
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION:
STPUD VS. LAKESIDE PARK ASSOCIATION, SUPERIOR COURT CASE NO. SC20010165
REQUESTED BOARD ACTION: Direct staff
DISCUSSION: Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a), Closed Session may be held
for conference with legal counsel reqardinq existinq litiqation.
SCHEDULE:
COSTS:
BUDGETED AMOUNT REMAINING:
ATTACHMENTS:
ACCOUNT NO:
CONCURRENCE WITH REQUESTED ACTION:
GENERAL MANAGER: YES ~ NO
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER: YES~c~--~
CATEGORY:
GENERAL
WATER X
SEWER
CONSENT CALENDAR
OCTOBER 3, 2002
REQUESTED ACTION
Glenwood Well Reconstruction Project:
Electric Service
(Nick Zaninovich)
Solids Handling Facility and Odor Control
Project
(John Thiel)
Recycled Water Facilities Plan Environmental
Impact Report (EIR)
(Hal Bird)
Johnson Sewer Pump Station Upgrade
(Rick Hydrick)
State Highway Utility Potholing
(Richard Solbrig)
Regular Board Meeting Minutes:
September 19, 2002
(Kathy Sharp)
Authorize Execution of Utility Facility Agree-
ment with Sierra Pacific Power Company
in the Amount of $235
Increase Existing Purchase Order No.
12360 with GS Concepts from $3,000 to
$10,000
Approve Additional Funding to Complete
the EIR in the Estimated Amount of
$35,OOO
Authorize Staff to Advertise for Bids for Two
75 Horsepower VFDs (Variable Frequency
Drives)
Authorize Execution of Agreement with
Caltrans to Allow for the Positive Location of
Underground Utilities
Approve Minutes
South Tahoe Public Utll~ District * 1275 Meadow Crest Drive, ,South Lake TahOe, CA 96150 * Phone 530.544 6474 · Fane mle 530.541-0614
SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
BOARD AGENDA ITEM
TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS
FR: Nick Zaninovich, Senior Engineer
RE: BOARD MEETING October 3, 2002 AGENDA ITEM:
ACTION ITEM NO: CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO:
ITEM-PROJECT NAME: GLENWOOD WELL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT: ELECTRIC
SERVICE
REQUESTED BOARD ACTION: Authorize execution of Utility Facility Agreement with Sierra
Pacific Power Company, in the amount of $235
DISCUSSION: The attached agreement must be executed with Sierra Pacific Power Company
to obtain electrical service for this proiect. Under the terms of the agreement, the District is
responsible for any non-refundable cost associated with the electric extension. The non-
refundable cost is the tax on the trench and substructure installation cost that will become Sierra
Pacific Power Company property once the job is completed, as mandated by the California Public
Service Commission. The amount of the non-refundable cost is $235.
SCHEDULE:
COSTS: $235 ACCOUNT NO: 2029-8264/GLWOOD
BUDGETED AMOUNT REMAINING: <$21,020>
ATTACHMENTS Sierra Pacific Power Company Aqreement, Budget Analysis
CONCURRENCE WITH REQUESTED ACTION: CATEGORY:
GENERAL MANAGER: YES~.~.~,.~ NO
GENERAL
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER: YES~'C~¢~c~,--t2~IO WATER X
SEWER
Sierra PacificTM
www. sierrapacific.com
933 Eloise Avenue · South Lake Tahoe, California 96150 · 530.544.5775 · Fax 530.544.481 l · 1.800.782.2498
September 6, 2002
South Tahoe Public Utility District
1275 Meadow Crest Drive
South Lake Tahoe, CA. 96150
Attn. Nick Zaninovich
Electric Service To:
Glenwood Well
1484 Glenwood Way
South Lake Tahoe, California
Contract 02-26401-5 Work Order 02-26401-55
Dear Nick:
To provide increased service at the above referenced location will require the removal of the existing
overhead transformer bank and the installation of approximately 140' 3-1/0 underground primary, 1-225kVA
· 5' 350QX underground service to feed one
padmounted 14.4kV Delta, 277/480V transformer, and approxamately 2
(1) 400ApaneL See Exhibit "A" enclosed.
Also enclosed please find the necessary Rule #15 Line Extension Agreement to provide the electric
service. Thc cost to Sierra Pacific Power Company to provide service to your facilities is $14,959.00. Under the
terms of this agreement, you will be granted a "construction allowance" equal to 2.5 times your additional projected
annual revenues. Your "construction allowance" is calculated in the mount of $14,959.00. Therefore, a
refundable cash advance is not required at this time.
Also under the terms of the agreement you will be responsible for any non-refundable cost associated with
this electric extension· The non-refundable cost is the tax on the trench and substructure installation cost that will
become Sierra Pacific Power Company property once the job is complete, as mandated by the California Public
Service Commission. This non-refundable cost is $235·00.
If the enclosed agreement meets with your approval, please sign and remm with a check in the amount of
$235.00 to this office to my attention. A copy of the executed agreement will be returned to you for your files.
If you have any questions, please call me at (530)541-1949. Thank You.
Sincerely,
Jeff Matthews
Senior Utility Designer
South Tahoe Office
Enclosures
#98-0016 {RE~L 5/99)
Sierra Pacific
AGREEMENT #: 02-26401-5-55
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this __ day of September , 20 02, by and between SIERRA PACIFIC POWER
COMPANY ("Sierra Pacific"), a Nevada corporation, PO Box 10100, Reno, Nevada 89520 and
South Tahoe Public Utility Distdct ("Applicant").
Applicant desires electric service for
1 unit(s) at the following location(s):
1484 Glenwood Drive, South Lake Tahoe
hereinafter referred to as ("Project").
To provide the requested service, it is necessary for Sierra Pacific to extend and/or modify its facilities as described in
Exhibit "A" attached hereto.
Now THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties
agree as follows:
I.
APPLICANT'S REFUNDABLE & NON-REFUNDABLE COST RESPONSIBILITY, APPLICANT CREDITS AND BASE
DATA:
LINE #
REFUNDABLE ADVANCE:
1. COST
2. FREE ALLOWANCE
3. TAXABLE TOTAL (Line 1 minus 2)
4.
5.
DESCRIPTION
TAX GROSS UP ON TAXABLE TOTAL (Line 3)
TOTAL REFUNDABLE
ELECTRIC
$14,959.00
$14,959.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$
$
$
$ 235.00
$
$ 235.00
$
$
$
$
$ 235.00
31%
$42,334.00
2.5
$ 758.00
NON.REFUNDABLEADVANCE
6. NON-TAXABLE COST
7. TAXABLE
8. TAX GROSS UP ON TAXABLE COST (Line 7)
9. TAX GROSS UP ON CONTRIBUTED FACILITIES (Line 20)
10. TOTAL NON-REFUNDABLE
11. TOTAL APPLICANT COST (Lines 5 plus 10)
APPLICANT CREDITS
12. APPLICANT INSTALLED FACILITIES
13. OVERSIZED FACILITIES
14. SERVICE REIMBURSEMENTS
15. TOTAL CREDITS
16. TOTAL ADVANCE/CREDIT DUE (Line 11 plus 15)
BASE DATA USED IN CALCULATIONS
17. TAX LIABILITY FACTOR
18. pROJECTED ANNUAL REVENUE
19. REVENUE MULTIPLE
20. VALUE OF CONTRIBUTED FACiLITiES
II.
TOTAL COST (Section I, Line 1 plus Lines 6 & 7)
The total cost for which Applicant is liable, shall be Sierra Pacific's estimated cost, refundable and non-refundable, to
provide the requested service. Sierra's estimate includes all costs associated with providing the requested service
hereunder and shall include all regulatory, environmental and other fees, engineering, inspection, material, labor,
transportation, costs for removal of existing facilities less their salvage value, associated overheads and other charges
which are related to the installation or alteration of the required facilities.
itl.
TOTAL ADVANCE/CREDIT DUE (Section I, Line 16)
A. Applicant agrees to pay Sierra Pacific's total estimated cost for which the Applicant is liable (Section I, Line 1 plus
Lines 6 & 7).
Less any applicable free allowance (Section I, Line 2) as determined by Sierra Pacific for the Project.
Plus Tax Liability (Section I, Lines 4, 8, & 9).
Less the estimated cost of the facilities, provided and installed by Applicant, inclusive of facilities oversized at
Sierra's request (Section I, Lines 12 & 13).
Less the estimated cost of the service(s) provided by Applicant, that is Sierra Pacific's cost responsibility (Section I,
Line 14). This cost will be adjusted to actual installed footages upon project completion, and Applicant will be billed
or refunded the difference.
Applicant agrees to pay, at the time of the execution of this Agreement, the amount(s) set forth hereunder (Section I,
Line 16) or to provide an acceptable surety bond or letter of credit. The bond or letter of credit is to be replaced with
cash not less than thirty (30) days prior to construction. However, the cost of materials not normally stocked by Sierra
Pacific in the type and quantity required shall be paid for in cash, prior to the ordering of such materials.
If the total due (Section I, Line 16) is a credit due Applicant, Sierra requires that a performance bond for that amount,
plus Sierra's project costs and the federal tax credit, be collected prior to issuing a check. Applicant may elect to take
payment upon completion and acceptance of the installation of the facilities and eliminate the requirement for a
performance bond.
B. If the total estimated cost of construction to extend the line(s) and/or main(s) to the project exceeds $5,000, the cash
advance/credit in Section I, Line 16 will be adjusted to reflect Sierra Pacific's actual cost of construction. The adjustment
is limited to that portion of the total cost of the main/line extension pertaining to facilities installed by Sierra Pacific. The
cost of those facilities installed by Applicant will not be adjusted. Sierra Pacific shall review its actual cost of construction
within four (4) months of completion of said facilities and shall either bill or refund Applicant the difference between the
total estimated cash advance/credit and the adjusted cash advance/credit. If such adjustment results in an increased
total cash advance requirement, Applicant agrees to pay Sierra Pacific such difference within thirty (30) days of written
notice.
C. If at any time after twelve (12) months following the date of this Agreement there has been no construction activity on
the electric facilities by the Applicant for a period of six (6) months, Sierra Pacific shall not be held to the provisions of
this Agreement. Sierra Pacific may return all advanced dollars not required to cover Sierra Pacific's expenditures on the
project. To reinstate the project, a new Agreement will be required with updated costs.
#98-0000-¥PW Temp. form
-2-
IV.
FREE ALLOWANCES
The free allowance is calculated on the projected annual revenue and the revenue multiples in Section I, Lines 18 &
19. The projected annual revenue will include only the revenue from monthly billings for basic service, excluding
balancing account adjustments, late charges, and tax adjustments. Should actual revenues fall substantially short of the
projected revenue used for the free allowance granted, the customer may be required to pay to Sierra Pacific in cash any
portion of the free allowance granted but not justified by actual revenues. Such payment will be increased by the tax
liability factor noted in Section I, Line 17. The payment shall be made within 30 days of written notification of the
revenue deficiency and request for payment by Sierra Pacific.
REFUNDS (Section I, Line 5)
A. ELECTRIC EXTENSIONS
1. All advances and/or contributions made by Applicant under the previsions of this Agreement, which are not
classified as a non-refundable by Sierra Pacific, shall be subject to refund, to the party or parties entitled thereto as
set forth in this section.
(a) Except as indicated in Section V.A.I(b) of this Agreement, all refunds shall be made without interest.
(b) Refunds based on estimated usage levels shall be paid by the utility within ninety (90) days of the date service
is initiated. In the event that refunds are not paid in accordance with this section, Sierra Pacific shall pay interest
for the period the refund is delayed at the rate currently specified in Section 704.655 of NRS.
(c) Refunds hereunder shall be made for new customer connections during the period not to exceed ten (10) years
after the date of this Agreement.
(d) Except for refunds from customer connections made within ten (10) years of the date of this Agreement, any
portion of the advance which remains unrefunded ten (10) years after the date of this Agreement, will be forfeited
by Applicant and become the property of Sierra Pacific.
2. Refunding will be based on revenues in excess of the level used as the basis for determining free allowance,
derived from the following customers, who initiate service within ten (10) years of the date of this Agreement.
(a) Those served directly from the subject extension or alteration, as long as subject extension or alteration is the
first in a series from the original point of supply for which a portion of an advance remains refundable.
(b) Those served from subsequent extensions of or additions to the original extension. Refunds based on
revenues in this section shall be made to the Applicant having the first extension in series from the original point
of supply, for which a portion of an advance remains refundable.
The following previsions apply to the refunding process.
(a) In those cases where two or more parties make a joint advance/contribution on the same extension, Sierra
Pacific shall distribute refundable amounts to such parties in the same proportion as their individual
advance/contribution bear to the joint refundable total, unless otherwise directed by all parties.
-3-
(b) Refundable amounts may be accumulated before refunding to twenty-five dollars ($25.00) minimum or to a
total refundable balance if less than twenty-five dollars ($25.00).
(c) The total amount refunded hereunder shall not exceed the total amount subject to refund (Section I, Line 5).
VI.
TAX GROSS UP
All applicable Applicant costs, cost adjustments and refunds will be increased to reflect the appropriate tax liability
factor indicated in Section I, Line 17.
VII.
MISCELLANEOUS
A. This Agreement has been made by Sierra Pacific pursuant to its rules and regulations governing all matters contained
herein, filed with and approved by the Public Service Commission of Califomia, and this Agreement is subject to any
changes or modifications by the Public Service Commission of California as said Commission may from time to time
direct in the exercise of its jurisdiction.
B. All facilities constructed hereunder shall become property owned, maintained, and controlled by Sierra Pacific.
C. The parties agree and understand that Applicant is not in any way an agent, representative, employee, or contractor
of Siena Pacific during the installation of facilities required hereunder, and Applicant agrees to indemnify and save
harmless Sierra Pacific from any and all claims which are a result of, or arise out of, construction activities including,
but not limited to, trenching and backfill undertaken by Applicant in accordance with this Agreement.
D. Applicant agrees that it will grant, or if not the owner, represents that the owner will grant and execute, to and in favor
of Sierra Pacific, all necessary easements, conveyances, deeds, rights-of-way, or other documents required or
relating in any faction to the placement, installation, operation, maintenance, repair, and replacement of facilities
required hereunder or any portion thereof.
If any portion of said facilities will be located on property other than that owned by Applicant, Sierra Pacific shall not
be obligated to commence construction unless and until permanent rights-of-way therefore are granted to Sierra
Pacific that are satisfactory to Sierra Pacific both as to location of easement and form document. All rights-of-way
shall be obtained without cost to Sierra Pacific.
E. All facilities installed by Applicant shall be in accordance with Sierra Pacific Construction Standards, as contained in
the "Electric Distribution System Guide," and details as shown on the work order drawings, and applicable local, state,
and federal laws and/or regulations. All work performed and all matedal furnished by the Applicant and his contractor
shall be guaranteed against defects in materials and workmanship for a pedod of one (1) year following final
acceptance of work by Sierra Pacific.
Applicant agrees that Sierra Pacific may, at its option and upon written notice to Applicant, either (1) repair any defect
in materials or workmanship which may develop during the one-year pedod, or (2) require Applicant to make good any
defect in materials or workmanship which may develop dudng said one-year period. The option and obligation to
repair shall extend to any damage to facilities or work caused by the subject defects in materials or workmanship or
the repairing of same. All repairs hereunder, whether undertaken by Sierra Pacific or Applicant, shall be done solely
at Applicant's expense.
-4-
Applicant also assumes all responsibilities and liabilities for ten (10) years for facilities installed by the Applicant or
facilities installed by Sierra Pacific based on survey and staking provided by the Applicant or Applicant's engineer that
are found to be located outside the recorded easement or right-of-way granted for such facilities.
F. For Applicant installation of facilities in addition to those normally provided at no expense to Sierra Pacific:
1. Applicant shall provide public liability and property damage insurance coverage in amounts satisfactory to Sierra
Pacific and naming Sierra Pacific as an additional insured.
2. Applicant shall provide worker's compensation and unemployment compensation insurance in the form and
amounts required by the State of California.
3. Applicant shall perform in accordance with all laws, ordinances, rules, regulations, standards, and codes
applicable to the types of installation being undertaken.
G. Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless Sierra Pacific from and against Applicant's failure to conform in any
respect to the requirements set forth in Sections E and F above.
H. Applicant may assign its right to receive a refund under this Agreement only upon written notification of the
assignment to Sierra Pacific. Wdtten notification shall consist of a document transferdng the dght to receive refunds,
signed and notarized by the Assignor and the Assignee. Sierra Pacific may refuse to accept an assignment that is not
signed and notarized by the Assignor and the Assignee. No obligation or duty owed by the Applicant to Sierra Pacific
may be assigned unless Sierra Pacific consents to such assignment in writing. Under no circumstances shall Sierra
Pacific be liable under any contract between the Applicant or Assignor and any Assignee.
t. Notices or inquiries concerning this Agreement should be directed to:
SIERRA PACIFIC POWER COMPANY
Attn. Plant Accounting
PO Box 10100
Reno, NV 89520
-5-
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto execute this Agreement (Pages 1 through 6 inclusive plus Exhibit A) the
day and year first above wdtten.
APPLICANT(S)
By:
PdntedFryped
Name:
SIERRA PACIFIC POWER COMPANY
By:
Typed Name: Jeff Matthews
Title: Senior Utility Designer
printed/Typed
Name:
Mailing Address:
Tax identification Number (Required)
(Individual) Social Security Number
(Business) TIN
Bus. Type: Corporation
Tax Exempt __ Partnership .__
Governmental Agency
Please be advised that we have selected
Other
NOTE: We request your Tax Identification Number and nature of
your organization, Due to IRS regulations and under certain
situations, if we do not have this information, we are required
to withhold 20% of any refund due you.
as our Applicant Installed Contractor.
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY:
Excess revenues generated from this project shall be subject to refund under previous agreement number
Planner: Jeff Matthews
-6-
GLENWOOD WELL
Account: 2029-8264
BUDGET REMAINING ANALYSIS:
Spent to date
02/03
All Years
169,428 261,821
Outstanding Purchase Orders-
D T N Engineering Inc.
Fast Fabricators Inc.
Haen Engineering
Western Botanical Services
Nimbus Engineers Inc.
Tustin Lock and Safe
Zim Industries
2,891 2,891
445 445
1,200 1,200
1,500 1,500
2,099 2,099
1,065 1,065
0 0
Total Encumbrance 9,199 9,199
Total Spent & Encumbered 178,627 271,020
Bud~let FY 2003 157,607 250,000
2003 Amount Exceeding Budget -2t,020 -21,020
Note: During the budget process the expected costs for the drilling of Glenwood Well were $400,000.
Of that amount, $'150,000 more was estimated to be spent by June 30, 2002, and as such, was not included
in the 2003 budget.
TO:
FR:
RE:
ACTION ITEM NO:
ITEM-PROJECT NAME:
SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
BOARD AGENDA ITEM
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
John Thiel, Senior Engineer
BOARD MEETING
October 3, 2002 AGENDA ITEM:
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO: h.
SOLIDS HANDLING FACILITY AND ODOR CONTROL PROJECT
REQUESTED BOARD ACTION: Increase existinq Purchase Order No. 12360 with GS Concepts
from $3,000 to $10,000
DISCUSSION The increase is requested due to expanded survey needs for the detailed layout
of the access road, solids handling buildinq, sludqe storage tank, and related facilities.
SCHEDULE:
COSTS: $7,000
BUDGETED AMOUNT REMAINING:
A'I-I'ACHM ENTS
ACCOUNT NO: 1029-8234-8236 & 8349, 2029-8130
<$2,724,290>
CONCURRENCE WITH REQUESTED ACTION:
GENERAL MANAGER: YES, ~ NO
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER:
CATEGORY:
GENERAL
WATER
SEWER X
SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
BOARD AGENDA ITEM
TO:
FR:
RE:
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Hal Bird, Land Application Manager
BOARD MEETING October 3, 2002
AGENDA ITEM:.
ACTION ITEM NO:
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO: c.
RECYCLED WATER FACILITIES PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL
ITEM-PROJECT NAME:
REQUESTED BOARD ACTION:. Approve additional funding to complete the EIR in the_
estimated amount of 35 000
DISCUSSION: As a result of the additional time and effort necessary to revise the Draft EIR.
~nal time and effort to
~n increase to the bud et
~1 ud et amount needed is
~ EIR throu h Au ust 2002 an
~om leted the final EIR.
SCHEDULE:_
COSTS: $35,000 (estimated) ACCOUNT NO: 1028-8285
BUDGETED AMOUNT REMAINING:_ $5,406,787
ATTACHMENTS:_ Pa~ln throu h Au ust 31 2002
CONCURRENCE WITH REQUESTED ACTION:
GENERAL MANAGER: YES~ NO_
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER: YES~~Y~'¥~'-''J~ ~"~Q;
CATEGORY:
GENERAL~
WATER_
SEWER_
X
MEMORANDUM
September 13, 2002r~
To: HAL BIRD
FROM:
RE:
BOB DUCHEK
RECYCLED WATER FACILITIES MASTER PLAN EIR (PURCHASE ORDER
Pl1056)
Enclosed is the progress report through August 2002 and billing through the period ending
August 31, 2002. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me at 626/440-6224.
RECYCLED WATER FACILITIES EIR PROGRESS REPORT
PARSONS
--'~-~--~-'-~"~PROGRESS REPORT NO. 8
through August 2002
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Past accomplishments have included:
· Task I - Completed NEPA Lead Age~( Analysis
· Task 1I - Completed Pre-Scoping act~wt~es.
· Task III - Completed Open houses and related scoping activities.
· Task 1V - Completed preparation of the Biological Evaluation.
· Task V - Completed ADEIR
· Task VI - Completed and circulated DEIR.
· Task VII - Completed Public Hearings on the DEIR
· Task VIII- Completed Administrative Final EIR
· Task IX - Completed FEIR revisions based on comments received to date
BUDGET ANALYSIS
Budget Billed Remaining Billed
-- $263,3'~5 $288,678.65 109.61
$25,303.65
SCHEDULE
Task
NEPA Lead Agency
Pre-Scoping
Scoping/NO1
Biological Evaluation
ADEIR
Draft E1R
Public Hearings
Admin Final EIR
Final EIR
Project Management
Date Due
Complete
Complete
Complete
Complete
Complete
Complete
Complete
Complete
September 2002
September 2002
%
Complete
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
80%o)
98%
TOTAL
(l) Comments from District's legal review of the AFEIR
of effort to complete the Final EIR is uncertain.
%of
Project
1.75%
12.11%
6.15%
7.47%
31.70%
8.96%
3.72%
6.43%
7.18%
14.53%
100.00%
%of
Project
Complete
1.75%
12.11%
6.15%
7.47%
31.70%
8.96%
3.72%
6.43%
5.74%
13,81%
97.84%
have not been received, and therefore the
remaining level
PAGE I
pARSONS.
RECYCLED WATER FACILITIES EIR PROGRESS REPORT
PROBLEMS/RESOLUTION
· Completion of the Final EIR is pending receipt of comments from the D~stnct legal
review- When the comments are received, the Final EIR can be completed and submitted
to the District.
· As a result of the additional time and effort necessary to revise the DEIR in light of the
changes in alternatives for the Master Plan, as well as additional time and effort to review
DEIR comments with the Lahontan RWQCB and Alpine County, additional budget is
necessary for the overall project. Through July, 2002, the additional budget amount
needed is $24,547.34. Based upon the estimate of completion for the FEIR through
August, an additional $4,000 to $5,000 could be required to complete the Final EIR.
TO BE ACCOMPLISHED iN THE NEXT MONTHLY PERIOD
· Complete Final EIR when comments are received from District's legal review.
........ ~gr~j~4t M~nagdr
Date ~-~' ~'~) Z~~
Office Manag,
Date. cf. ! / -
PAGE 2
pARSONS.
SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
BOARD AGENDA ITEM
TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS
FR: Rick Hydrick, Manaqer of Water Operations
RE: BOARD MEETING October 3, 2002 AGENDA ITEM:
ACTION ITEM NO: CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO:.
ITEM-PROJECT NAME: JOHNSON SEWER PUMP STATION UPGRADE
REQUESTED BOARD ACTION: Authorize staff to advertise for bids for two 75 horsepower
VFD's (Variable Frequency Drives)
DISCUSSION: Johnson Sewer Pump Station was constructed in 1972. Since that time it has
controlled pump flow using Flowmaster technology. The Flowmasters are old and obsolete and
need to be replaced with new VFD's.
SCHEDULE: Upqrade installations will be done this winter
COSTS: Estimated: $30,000 (plus tax) each ACCOUNT NO:
BUDGETED AMOUNT REMAINING: $134,587
A'I-FACHMENTS:. None_
1002-8304
CONCURRENCE WITH REQUESTED .~TION:
GENERAL MANAGER: YES_/~Cr_~..--- . NO
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER: YES~/)~¢~,J2,.~-I~Q~
CATEGORY:
GENERAL
WATER
SEWER.
X
SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
BOARD AGENDA ITEM
TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS
FR: Richard Solbrig, Assistant Manager/Engineer
RE: BOARD MEETING October 3, 2002 AGENDA ITEM:
ACTION ITEM NO: CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO:
ITEM-PROJECT NAME: STATE HIGHWAY UTILITY POTHOLING
REQUESTED BOARD ACTION: Authorize execution of agreement with Caltrans to allow for
the positive location of underground utilities
DISCUSSION: Potholing to locate utilities in the State Highway is a necessary part of hiqhway
improvement proiects. In the past, Caltrans has asked the District to perform this function, at our
expense. Due to proiect scheduling delays, and potential damage to the road surface, Caltrans
has initiated a program in which they perform, at their cost, the potholing activities utilizinq the
vacuum extraction method. In order for them to pothole our utilities, they are requesting that we
sign the accompanying contract. We will still need to provide the best information we have in
terms of utility locations.
District staff recommends that we sign this agreement.
SCHEDULE: First potholinq scheduled for second week in October
COSTS: None ACCOUNT NO:
BUDGETED AMOUNT REMAINING:
ATTACHMENTS: Caltrans letter and aqreement
CONCURRENCE WITH REQUESTED ~C_TION:
GENERAL MANAGER: YES~ NO
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER: YE/,~ ¥~,~-~'
CATEGORY:
GENERAL
WATER X
SEWER X
STATE OF CALIFORNIA--BUSINESS. TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 3
723 D STREET
P. O. BOX 911
MARYSVILLE, CA 95901-0911
PHONE (530) 740-4857
FAX (530) 741-4490
TTY (530) 741-4509
September 9, 2002
Mr. Richard Solbdg
Assistant General Manager
South Tahoe Public Utility District
1275 Meadowcrest Drive
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
GRAY DAVIS. Governor
Flex your power!
Be energy efficient!
Dear Mr. Solbrig:
Pursuant to our conversanon this afternoon about the Department's pohcy on positive location activities
.~ please find, attached two original counterparts of the "Agreement for the Positive Location of
Underground Utilities that South Tahoe Public Utility District must execute in order for the Department
to perform and pay for positive location services. ~ -- ~_
At present, as addressed in the "Recitals" section of the agreement, positive locating is generally
performed by the utility owner with the cost determined either by real estate law, by transportation law
(Streets & Highways Code) or by Departmental policy (usually encroachment permit provisions).
Prompt scheduling and performance of this work has been a challenge for a number of utility companies.
Once South Tahoe Public Utility District executes the agreement, the Department will take on the
responsibilities for performance and payment per the provisions in the agreement.
As we discussed, although we are happy to explain the terms of any provisions, we are not anticipating
any negotiation on this matter, as the agreement represents what we feel is a true win/win situation that
addresses the needs of all parties. However, it must be executed before we can begin operation of this
service, and replace the current procedure. As you can see, it creates virtually no obligation on the part
of the utility owner, but does make the positive location process more simple and economical for
everyone. Among other features, the vacuum extraction or "non-destructive excavation" process has
made everyone more comfortable.
We are pleased to have an approach like this, which will benefit us both. If you have any questions,
please feel free to call me at (530) 740-4857.
Sincerely,
Mark Fain
Contract Manager
Enclosure
"Caltrans improves mobility across California"
AGREEMENT FOR THE POSITIVE LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
Date: September 9, 2002
PARTIES:
1. State of California, acting by and through the Department of Transportation ("Department"). "Department" includes the
Department, its officers, agents, employees and contractors.
2. South Tahoe Public Utility District ("Owner"). "Owner" includes the Owner, its officers, agents, employees and contractors.
RECITALS:
A. Owner owns, operates or maintains underground utility facilities in the State of California.
B. In order to facilitate the planning, design and construction of Department's projects and to ensure the safety of the traveling
public, the horizontal and vertical location and/or apparent visual condition of underground utilities must periodically be
confirmed. These activities and their results are known as "positive location", and are more commonly referred to as
"potholes". Where referred to in this agreement, such positive location operations include but are not limited to: vacuum
extraction excavation, electronic detection, probing, external and internal video inspection.
C. In general, utility owners have been responsible for performing such positive location activities, with the cost of such
activities apportioned as provided by California law, Master Contracts or Department's policies.
D. Department's needs frequently require the positive location of underground utilities more expeditiously than Owner can
readily or economically provide.
E. Department is willing to assume control of the operation and cost of such positive location of underground utilities on a test
basis to facilitate Department's needs from time to time as provided herein; and to determine if assuming the cost and
operation of this work creates sufficient benefit to the Department to justify continuing the practice.
THEREFORE:
1. This agreement is made and executed by the parties hereto pursuant and subject to the provisions of Sections 680.5 and 707.5 of
the Streets and Highways Code. It shall govern exclusively the determination of the obligations and costs to be borne by each
party hereto in regard to work described herein in lieu of determination under the provisions of Sections 673, 680 and 700 to 707,
inclusive, of said Streets and Highways Code, as now or hereafter existing, or under any other laws applicable to said subject
matter. This agreement shall apply throughout the State of California to all of the Department's projects and related activities. It is
not intended to, and shall not, establish any precedent, principle, rule or guide to interpretation, as between the parties hereto after
its termination or as between either of the parties hereto and any third party at any time, and may be terminated at any time as
provided herein.
2. The work to be performed under this agreement is limited to the work necessary to positively determine the horizontal and
vertical location and/or apparent visual condition of the Owner's utility facilities with the degree of accuracy necessary to meet the
Department's requirements. All work under this agreement shall be preceded by the delivery of a written notification to Owner by
Department.
3. This agreement does n°t applyto the rel°cati°n' rearrangement' rem°val °r pr°tecti°n °f utility facilities'
4. When the work described in this agreement is performed by the Department, the cost of the work shall be borne by the
Department. The Owner shall provide confirmation in the field of the identity and typical characteristics (including size, material,
contents, pressure or capacity) of Owner's exposed utility facility and related activities, including but not limited to, inspection
services at no expense to the Department, in accordance with the Department's time schedule.
5. It is anticipated that the work described in this agreement will be performed by the Department through the services of a
contractor. In those instances when the Department chooses not to perform the work, the Department will issue a "Notice To
Owner" ordering the Owner to dd~gently perform the work in accordance with Department's reasonable time schedule included in
the Notice To Owner, and the Department will bear the cost of the work per separate agreement if the work is completed within
the Department's time schedule. The Owner shall allocate sufficient staff and resources to meet all schedules established for the
project design and construction work. Should the Owner not meet Department's schedule, Department shall have the right and
option to perform such work to maintain Department's schedule.
~Ao_g,~o.m~m.~en[ For The Positive Location Of Underground Utilities
Page 2
intention. When the Owner so elects to perform such work the cost of the work shall be borne by the Department in the same
amount as the unit cost for such work by the Department's contractor for the District area. If no such contract exists at the time,
cost shall be the most recent such contract cost for the District area. Department will issue a Notice to Owner ordering the
Owner to diligently perform the work in accordance with Department's reasonable schedule included in the Notice to Owner. The
Owner shall allocate sufficient staff and resources to meet all schedules established for the project design and construction work.
Should the Owner not meet Department's schedule, Department shall have the right and option to perform such work to maintain
De artment's schedule. P
7. It is intended that all work under this agreement performed by the Department shall be performed using the vacuum extraction
method, hand excavation or comparable methods acceptable to the Owner and the Department. Electronic detection may also be
used in conjunction with, and when confirmed by, vacuum extraction at the Department's option. Other machine methods may
only be used to remove paving materials. Machine methods used by Department for any other purpose will require the
concurrence and on-site observation of Owner.
8. Owner grants to Department, immediately upon receipt of notification, in accordance with the Department's time schedule,
permission to perform positive location of Owner's facilities within Owner's private rights of way, wherever located. Owner
retains the right to require reasonable controls and restrictions. Such controls and restrictions shall be promptly provided to the
Department in writing.
9. Upon the completion of the work performed under this agreement, Department shall restore the work site to as good a condition
as that found when the work commenced.
10. Department shall defend, indemnify and hold Owner harmless from any death, injury, or property claims made by any person
which materially arise from work performed by the Department, its employees, agents and contractors pursuant to this agreement.
Owner shall defend, indemnify and hold Department harmless from any death, injury, or property claims made by any person
which materially arise from work performed by the Owner, its employees, agents and contractors pursuant to this agreement.
11. This agreement eliminates and replaces any previous agreement between the parties, or portions thereof, regarding positive
location activities Cpotholing").
12. This agreement may be amended, changed or altered by mutual consent of the parties hereto in writing.
13. This agreement may be terminated by either party upon ninety (90) days written notice.
t4. Time shall be of the essence of this agreement.
Title -
Date
LORRIE WILSON, Chief
Utility Relocation Branch
Right of Way
Department of Transportation
Date
DISTRIBUTION:
Two Original Counterparts: One Counterpart to Department - Right of Way H.Q.
One Counterpart to Owner
Consent Item
SOUTH TAHOE pUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
"Basic Services for a Complex World"
Robert
Duane Wallace, President
BOARD MEMBER
James R. Jones, Vice President
Cathi
REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
SEPTEMBER 19, 2002
The Board of Directors of the South Tahoe Public Utility District met in a regular session, September
19, 2002, 2:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, 1900 Lake Tahoe Boulevard, South Lake Tahoe,
California.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS.:
V-ice President Jones, Directors Becket, Schafer.
Directors Wallace and Mosbacher were absent.
ROLL CALL
STAFF:
Solbrig, Sharp, McFarlane, Cocking, Schroeder,
Henderson, Zaninovich, Swain, Brown, Attorney
Kvistad
Moved Schafer / Second Becket / Wallace and
~osbacher Absent / Passed to approve the Consent
Calendar as submitted:
a. Glenwood Well Reconstruction Project - Approved
Task Order No. 4 to Haen Engineering to perform
additional design work and construction consultation
services in the amount of $1,200;
b. Surplus Vehicles - Authorized Nationwide Auction
Systems to sell District surplus vehicles;
QONSENT CALENDAR,.
REGULAR BOARD MEETING MINUTES -SEPTEMBER 19, 2002
PAGE-2
c. Approved Regular Board Meeting Minutes:
August 15, 2002;
d. Approved Regular Board Meeting Minutes:
September 5, 2002.
ITEMS FOR BOARD ACTION
Ken Schroeder reported the Underground Repair
Water Department is in need of another vacuum truck.
Currently, the water and sewer departments each have
one vacuum truck. The water vacuum truck is used daily.
The District has two water repair crews, and on many
occasions, both are in need of the vacuum truck at the
same time.
For over ten years, Lahontan has required the District
to vacuum up the water from leak repairs and will not
allow any water to be pumped onto the street way and
drainage way. When the water vacuum truck is unavail-
able, which has become a weekly occurrence, the normal
procedure is to use the sewer vacuum truck. The
Department of Health Services has instructed that it is
· " se
"absolutely not advisable to u the sewer vacuum
truck on the water system. Although crews use extreme
care when using the sewer vacuum truck on water spills,
the potential for a cross contamination of the water
system exists. As of September, the District has dis-
continued the use of the sewer vacuum truck in the repair
and maintenance of the water system, which limits the
District's ability to keep up with the workload of the water
department.
Due to the high cost for this unbudgeted item, the Board
agreed to authorize advertising for bids for a new truck,
but directed Schroeder to research options other than an
outright purchase in the meantime.
M~oved Becket/~Second Schafer / Wallace and Mosbache~r
A~bsent / Passed_ to authorize staff advertise for bids (only).
Moved Becket / Second Schafer / Wallace and Mosbacher
A~nt / Passed_ to approve payment in the amount of
$902,996.95.
CONSENT CALENDAR
(continued)
PAYMENT OF CLAIMS_
PURCHASE OF ADDITIONAL
~VVATER VACUUM TRUCK _
PAGE-3
REGULAR BOARD MEETING MINUTES -SEPTEMBER 19, 2002
Water and Wastewater Operations Committee: The BOARD MEMBER STANDING
committee met September 16. Minutes of the meeting COMMI-I'TEE REPORTS
are available upon request.
Assistant Manager / En.qinee{: Richard Solbrig reported
on the September 13 B-line Aoute selection meeting that
was attended by District, CalTrans, TRPA, USFS, and
Lahontan representatives. The topic of the meeting was to
determine what the District needs to do to finish the draft
EIR, with focus on risk analysis, which needs to be
incorporated into the environmental document. The group
did not reach consensus regarding the scope of the risk
analysis. Solbrig explained there is only a two month
window in which to complete an EIPJrisk analysis; if not
completed in that time frame, the project will be delayed
another year (until 2005 construction season).
Staff has been working with the various agencies for
several months now, to no avail. The Board's Executive
Committee was assigned to work with staff to determine
which course of action should be taken in order to resolve
this issue.
Solbrig reviewed the route alternatives and costs for each.
The Technical Advisory Committee's (TAC) guaranteed
no-leaks life-span of the existing pipeline expired in 1999.
Any further delays in replacing the pipeline could result in a
significant spill. The TAC may be reconvened to review and
report on a risk assessment of the pipeline, and on the route
alternatives.
Director Schafer stated a refueling facility for alternative
fuel vehicles may be installed at the airport. The Finance
Committee will discuss the feasibility of alternative fuel
vehicles for the District.
District Information Officer:. Dennis Cocking reported on
four items:
1 ) District staff has been researching CalPERS. Repre-
sentatives from CalPERS will be present at a meeting on
September 26 to answer questions.
2) The District won TRPA's The Best In Basin award for
its horizontal drilling project.
3) The District hosted an open house at its Arrowhead Well
treatment facility on September 18.
A~SSISTANT MANAGER REPORT
BOARD MEMBER REPORT
STAFF REPORT
PAGE-4
REGULAR BOARD MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 19, 2002
4) An ACWA meeting will be held at on September 20,
and will include a tour of Arrowhead Well treatment
facility.
2:50 - 3:00 P.M.
3:00 P.M.
4:00 p.M.
STAFF REPORT
(continued)
MEETING BREAK
ADJOURNED TO CLOSED
_SESSION
RECONVENED TO REGULAR
_SESSION
ACTION / REPORT ON ITEM DISCUSSED DURING CLOSED SESSION
No reP_~able Board action~.
Pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.(a)/Conference with
Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation:
STPUD vs. John Breese Mumford,
et al, El Dorado County Superior
_Court Case No. SC20020030
No~rtable Board action.
Pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.(a)/Conference with
Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation:
F. Heise Land & Livestock Com-
pany vs. STPUD and Does I - 10
Inclusive; Alpine County Superior
Court Case No. C18644
No_gzg_portabl_e Bo_ard action.
Pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956(a)/Conference with
Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation:
STPUD vs. F. Heise Land & Live
Stock Company, Inc., William
Weaver, Eddie R. Snyder, Crockett
Enterprises, Inc., CIV. S-02-0238
MLS JFM United States District
Court for the Eastern District of
California, Sacramento, CA _
PAGE-5
REGULAR BOARD MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 19 2002
_No reportable Board action_..
Pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.9(a)/Conference with
Legal Counsel - Existing Litigat!.on
re: Meyers Lan. drill Site: Umted
States of America vs. El Dorado
County and City of South Lake
Tahoe and Third Party Defendants,
Civil Action No. S-01-1520 LKK
GGH, United States District Court
f_or the Eastern District of Califom~
~B.gard a~on~
Pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.9(a)/Conference with
Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation:
STPUD vs. Lakeside Park Associa-
tion, et al, County of El Dorado,
Superior Court Case N_o..S. C2001016_5
4:00 P.M.
ADJOURNMENT
Duane Wallace, Board President
South Tahoe Public Utility District
ATTEST:
Kathy Sharp, Clerk of the Board
South Tahoe Public Utility District