PUD heading in wrong direction on connection fees

To The Eagle:

In the summer of 2001, the then GM. of the PUD, Harry Paul, submitted two requests for water system grants for both Puget Island and WWW water systems. In the fall of 2002, both grants were awarded to the two water systems. The largest grant was to the WWW system, which required a 20 percent match for those residents who wished to connect to the existing water system. After years of effort by both the utility employees, commissioners and the hard work of the local Salmon Creek residents, 50 residents committed to pay $4,000 per resident to meet the grant requirements for the matching funds. Unfortunately, many residents elected not to participate in the expansion project, thereby creating the need for the $4,000 contribution from the 50 active participants. According to the latest edition of The Eagle, I read that the general manager and the fellow commissioners are considering waving the connect fee for new connections for the calendar year 2012. As a prior commissioner of this PUD, I have some serious concerns about the PUD going down this path and I believe that some serious issues need to be addressed.

1) What business plan is the PUD pursuing that allows the PUD to significantly change policies that unfairly treats prior contributors to the WWW system and Puget Island water system to the benefit of those that have not paid for and to then allow new customers to connect with no fees for their connections?

2) The grant requirements were very specific, and at no time did the grant require the PUD to offer no charge fees for future connections. The PUD established the fees for the project based solely on the number of paying hook-up fees divided into the 20 percent cost of the project.

3) Can the PUD legally require one group of ratepayers who have paid for their connect fees to subsidize the granting of no costs for the new connects in the calendar year of 2012?

4) Do the existing ratepayers on the Salmon Creek WWW system have legal recourse to the PUD if the PUD initiates the no cost connect policies for residents who failed to contribute to the projects initially?

Similar questions concerning this ill conceived idea applies to the Puget Island water system. The residents and developers who have paid for water connections in the past should not be subsidizing free connections to the Puget Island water system.

Finally, questions to the management team and commissioners, "Do you have an understanding of the value of consistent business practices? Have the commissioners and managers had a comprehensive cost analysis done by their auditor so as to be able to understand the effect of the revenue loss of no connect fees combined with the time and material cost of installing no cost connections v/s the monthly revenue that will be increased through the additional participation. A comprehensive analysis with show that this bad idea should be shelved and the commissioners would be well served to look more closely at operating expenses as a viable solution to the declining reserves of the water systems. Several years ago the two water districts operated with one employee and today it has one supervisor and two workers covering essentially the same number of accounts that one employee handled for years.

Larry Reese

Puget Island