HomeMy WebLinkAboutCATT letter CAM
rwrCWMAURCM14IT INTAN
2/19/03
TO: TDPUD Board of Directors
FROM: Joe Burns, CATT
The Contractors Association of Truckee Tahoe believes the process of calculating the Facility
Fee increase is unfair to new customers. This is more than an issue affecting contractors
and developers; it is an issue of fairness to a customer base that is not represented. CATT
agrees with the District's policy of requiring new development; or new customers, to pay for
the additional burden they place on the current system.
However, because this process has been delayed several months and the Master Plan
upgrade needs to commence, CATT will not ask this board to delay this process any
further. We simply would like to go on record that we are disappointed in the following
occurrences of this process:
• The Facility Fee increase should have been presented simultaneously with the Pilaster
Plan so that the option of finding a benefit to the current customer base was still valid.
By assuming that the entire scope of work for the next 15 yrs does not enhance the
current system, the correct and fair process of allocating the cost did not occur. We
believe that the plan may have been more closely evaluated by the public had a
potential of rate increase been established at that time
• TDPUD staff originally denied completely our suggestion that current customers would
receive an enhancement from the Master Plan upgrades, in our last meeting this
denial turned to justification as the enhancement issue was offset by the "benefit" new
customers would be receiving by tapping into an established system. There is no
precedence in impact calculations that charges new customers a "buy-in" to the
current system. Only the impact of the system increase.
• This Board agreed that a 600% increase was steep and that a tiered fee plan would be
fair. Staff proposed a tiered plan that was acceptable given more discussion on
separating system enhancement and system increase. Due to financial problems this
proposal was pulled. Financial stability should not be a catalyst for fairness.
• For the past three months, we assumed TDPUD staff was considering proposals to the
aforementioned issues we had discussed in prior meetings. To come back to the table
with those proposals pulled and an action item within one week is not appropriate.
• Given the financial situation of the District, we suggest that the Board request a cost
reduction plan to the Electric Master Plan. Fiscal responsibility would dictate that
financial constraints would require a reduction in expenses. The only proposals we
have seen are forced-revenue increases.