STPUD, Chateau developers resolve water line issue

An agreement regarding the water lines has been reached between South Tahoe Public Utility District and Tahoe Stateline Ventures, the developers of the Chateau project.

The issue was discussed at the June 6 STPUD board meeting and the board unanimously approved it.

“The district’s inspection of the existing sewer lines built in 2007, showing them to be in good condition, helped to achieve an acceptable agreement to all, since any repair obligations to TSV were taken off the table,” STPUD General Manager Richard Solbrig told Lake Tahoe News after the meeting. “TSV has agreed to provide as-built drawings to the District. Once these drawings are submitted and accepted, dedication of the existing lines to the district will occur.”

The issue of who owns the water lines was first publicly discussed at last month’s board meeting.

Solbrig said when the next phase of the water line along Highway 50 is put in that will require a future dedication.

In other action:

Ad hoc committees from STPUD and the South Lake Tahoe City Council will meet to discuss water service for the T.J. Maxx building.

— Lake Tahoe News staff report

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

About author

This article was written by admin


Comments (8)
  1. 4-mer-usmc says - Posted: June 9, 2013

    A little bit of good news toward getting that hole at least partially filled. In the words of Bob in “What About Bob”: ‘Baby Steps’. Let’s hope that some construction activity beginning at the TSV owner’s portion of that site will provide the impetus for another developer to come in with something for the remaining parcels on this very valuable chunk of land.

  2. tahoeadvocate says - Posted: June 9, 2013

    The Chateau is being presented as the “SAME” as was permitted years ago. It is those permits which are about to expire which is the issue. The decision the City Council has to make on Tuesday needs to be based on the question, Is this the same project or not?

    If it is, then the City needs assurance the original project will be built. They need an assurance bond between the owners, not the developer, and the city. Right now only 1 of the property owners is involved with this first 6 parcels being developed and an assurance bond is being proposed between them and the developer, not the city. Also, if it is the same project, then all 29 of the parcels need to be consolidated into 1. The way it is proposed now, they are only going to consolidate the 6 to be built on. That way they can start selling off the rest and not build the development for which the permit was issued. There is no assurance they will do anything else.

    If it is not the same project, then the city and TRPA need to demand that new permits be issued.

    The City needs these 29 parcels to be developed but don’t make the same mistakes which were made before.

  3. Alex Campbell says - Posted: June 9, 2013

    tahoeadvocate !
    Please explain your term “assurance bond” In the past Mr.Contractor Hal Cole seemed confused with the various Surety Bonds available.

    The Chateau, requires a professional Surety Bond Agent and or Broker in order to submit this case to a Surety.
    If the city is going to issue a permit to the developer, a surety bond covering the permit specs should be required. Why would the city issue a permit without a Surety Bond.
    Has anyone in the city reviewed the agreement between the owners and the developer? Who are the owners.?

  4. lou pierini says - Posted: June 9, 2013

    Tahoeadvocate, I couldn’t agree more.

  5. tahoeadvocate says - Posted: June 9, 2013

    Alex–I’m probably misusing the terminology about the bond. I would like to see the city have some type of financial agreement that once the new project is started that it will go all the way to full completion.

    Don’t leave us with another unfinished development because the developer defaults for whatever reason.

  6. Alex Campbell says - Posted: June 11, 2013


    Who is behind this fiasco ? Name all of the owners, the developer and his cohorts. Then check out their
    relationship with the good old boys past and present
    that have served on the City Council. Then check with
    Lawyer Feldman for advice on how to fix the problem.
    Better yet the city should retain Neasham&Kramer Attorneys At law. Folsom Ca.

  7. Old Long Skiis says - Posted: June 11, 2013

    I had to look up surety bond in my trusty and well worn Websters Dictionary. “A bond guaranteeing perfomance of a contract or obligation”.( Forgive me,I didn’t pay much attention in english class, but can you blame me? There was often 2 feet of fresh powder at the top of sky chair!).
    So I agree with 4-mer-usmc, at least it’s a start. I would like to see the whole place developed as one project but I guess we have to start somewhere.
    A string of retail shops like the ones that were there years ago, and while we’re at it bring back the Tahoe T’s steakhouse with Doug and Roger sweatin’ over the grill as seen thru the large windows fronting hwy 50. Will the La Baer motel make a come back? LOL, of course none of that will happen but if Tahoe Stateline Ventures can put this together I’m all for it.

  8. 30yrlocal says - Posted: June 11, 2013

    I think we’ll find that a bond isn’t needed now since it is not a redevelopment project. Mr. Owen can pretty much do what he wants with his parcels as long as they pass the planning process.