Comments on this page were submitted to the District either by email, comment form, or at one of the public workshops. NOTE: Although we are still accepting and encouraging Public Comments and Questions, comments and questions submitted after the September 12th Board Meeting will not be posted on the District's website.
As a government agency, NTPUD is subject to the California Public Records Act, California Government Code section 6250 et seq. Information provided to NTPUD through its website and by email is subject to the same disclosure laws as information provided to NTPUD on paper. Therefore, all information collected on or from NTPUD's website may become a public record and subject to inspection by the public, unless exempted by law. This may include names, email addresses and telephone numbers. This acknowledgement does not and is not intended to waiver any applicable exemption to the public release of such information as provided by law.
- Ellie Waller - Comments for the Record 8/20/17
- Ellie Waller - Comments for the Record 8/20/17 - Loren Holt, Administrative Manager Response
Good afternoon -
I am a full-time resident and homeowner in Kings Beach, and would like to extend my support for the draft final lease and public private partnership between the NTPUD and Laulima for the operation and management of the North Tahoe Event Center.It sounds like the proposal being considered for the Event Center would be a good idea. We utilize that facility quite a bit and I understand NTPUD is currently losing money on it.
Please put me down as being in support of the proposal.
After reviewing the information available about the proposed lease, I believe the NTPUD has done its due diligence in finding a partner who will not only invest in the facility, but make it better for our entire community. I understand the NTPUD has been operating the facility at an incredible financial loss, and this appears to be a valid, reasonable solution to “stop the bleeding.”
I am in support of the lease as outlined, and am encouraged by the investment Laulima wishes to make in our community. Kings Beach is on an uphill trajectory following the completion of the “Core” project, and I believe this will only continue the efforts to enhance the offering available to locals, visitors and second homeowners.
Thank you for your consideration -
Public Comments from August 23, 2017 Public Workshop:
Laulima has been vetted by a local business.
Change can be good.
Make sure it’s going to be better.
Laulima has the greatest ability to make a positive change, a large opportunity to make a positive change, if done properly.
I’m excited that NTPUD may have a legitimate parks and recreation department.
People are continuing to participate and he is happy about the process.
Be cognizant of the recreation survey, and the results of the survey be mapped into these results.
Happy for the opportunity for the community to sharpen its wits.
Happy for potential of renovation and deferred maintenance being done.
This was a positive thing for our community when it was renovated and excited about going to the next level.
Excited that the community is finally showing up to public meetings.
Relieved to hear that the negotiated lease includes ongoing nonprofit activities.
Glad that everyone is here, and is inspired by the community.
Glad to have local jurisdictional agencies are here. Hopeful that Laulima will be at the next one.
Design renderings need to be clear and as close as possible to the final project
Concerned about it not happening. Like at south shore where there is a giant hole in the ground. Screwed the retailers.
Brian Helm is associated with the defaulted Boulder Bay, I am concerned that Laulima is really thinking about Northstar.
Concerned that Laulima will sublet to Northstar.
Concerned about parking for the regular beach users.
Concerned about huge development going on here and the impact on traffic.
Concerned about time for having feedback in time before next meeting.
Concerned about affordable housing needed for new employees.
Concerned about use of local contractors and sub-vendors vs. out of county out of state.
Sounds too good to be true. Spending millions and turning it into a profit center.
PARKING! Transportation of people for the events , storage area for the event's trade fixtures, loading and unloading of trucks and equipment and handicap access. There is no parking for the Event Center The high use proposed will encroach on present limited business parking spaces with no time parking enforcement. We are already being negatively impacted by the beach all day parking and other present businesses taking our limited parking spaces for long time periods.
I applaud the district's efforts to review the deal structure and obtain community feedback on the La Lema agreement regarding the event center. I had a general point of concern and a suggestion. My concern, kind of related to the false concern of Northstar taking over, is that the lodging community may not get equal access to the event center and the events that are going to be held there. What I would not be happy with is if ANY lodging facility had or developed an unfair advantage in soliciting group business that will be attracted to the remodeled facility. Specifically, the Crown or what ever it will be named in the future, should NOT have a competitive advantage in booking rooms given their owners will also be running the event center. That is not to say that they can not compete on their own merit which will be a strong competitive advantage given their proximity to the event center, but it should be only on those market advantages and not due to the fact that they own the facility. That is to say, a solicitor should receive proposals from all interested lodges in the area and all lodges should compete equally and fairly based on their own competitive advantages and pricing. Ownership of the event center will not lead to advance notice of leads or selective responses to leads that come in.
My suggestion is a general "Guiding Principle" be included in the document, possibly along with others are as part of the preamble that states "Where as....", that would clearly state the districts intentions in this area. There might also be specific terms to prevent an un fair competitive advantage for La Lema holdings or any other lodging provider. For example, a guiding principle might read:
Where as the NTPUD seeks to make the event center open and available to all lodging providers in the region to bid on group and event opportunities in a fair an equitable manor. the parties agree that no single lodging provider should be allowed a competitive advantage in the promotion and booking of group business at the event center as a result of entering into this agreement.
Specific terms might be restrictions or assurances that a mechanism be put in place that will distribute all leads to all lodging providers in the area (who sign up to be a lodging provider who bids on group opportunities, a possible "pay to play" structure) at the same time and with the same information so as to establish a level playing field on all event promotions involving lodging providers.
This language might be extended to include catering and other suppliers.
Basically, I am looking for assurances and guarantees that the facility will be available for all businesses in our community to have the opportunity to compete for the business that will be generated as a result of this investment.
On another note, I would be happy to provide input on the question "Why can't we run this place and do the same things La Lema is proposing?". After working on the marketing efforts in the past, I think I have a good grasp on what the real challenges have been to a successfully managed event center being run by the District. It starts with a lack of capital but is really based on the complexities of operating a market facing conference facility that needs to be flexible and nimble to price, skilled staffing, innovative marketing and configuring offers that the district could not address and/or would require considerable changes to the NTPUD entity to enable these capabilities that a private operator can easily overcome. Start with the need for flexible pricing then talk about incenting sales people with commission based compensation and end with the separation of duties between Event center marketing and operations from that of the balance of the district.
Thanks for the opportunity to provide input.
Dear NTPUD Board,
Please answer the following questions tonight:
70 Year proposed lease (30 years plus two 20 year options) of the North Tahoe Events Center to Laulima LLC or any of their many affiliates/managers create huge District liabilities for North Tahoe Public Utility District (NTPUD) rate payers in the following ways:
1. $43,600 NTPUD Attorney’s fees already spent to 8/31/17. How much income/expense relief has been lost had we in entered into a management agreement with Granlibakken or Boulder Bay in mid 2016?
2. Long term lease, really a disguised sale will require a legal validation action with the State of California which is estimated at $40-60k additional and there may be appeals that the rate payers will be on the hook for. How much will appeals run?
3. It may be over two years before rent commences (in two years it begins at 22 cents/sq.ft.-what a deal) and a further unknown amount of legal fees during that period. How much more in legal fees is estimated to be spent separate from the validation?
4. What about the years of losses due to poor existing NTPUD management and two more years of the same during Laulima’s attempt to develop the Event Center? How much does that amount to?
5. “Laulima LLC” is also associated with “Laulima Northstar LLC” which begs the unanswered question of who will ultimately benefit from the lease, NORTHSTAR or some other unknown principal or subdivision? The loss of our lakefront venue is priceless. Why isn’t our legal counsel advising the Board to have Laulima name designated affilitates now?
6. Once the lease is signed before vetting financial capability, experience or design, rate payers are already on the hook for future litigation when the agreement fails to go as promised. How much is estimated for litigation to cancel the lease?
7. Rate payers may have to finish an unfinished project or pay off mechanic’s liens. A 110% performance bond won’t cover the penalties and interest from a bankrupt LLC and an unfinished closed structure. How much would fighting the Lessee’s bankruptcy cost the District?
8. Laulima or whoever they designate claim they will spend $5.6m on the Events Center. Don’t ask me or the board how as Laulima has not provided a design to review. Is Laulima considering adding another story? Otherwise there is no way they can spend $5.6m on a known or currently unknown design.
9. The NTPUD is not considering the financial responsibility of a California Environmental Quality Analysis which could be required for the traffic impacts alone. How much will that cost the rate payers?
The $90k/year loss from a poorly run Events Center will pale against the huge liabilities the NTPUD board is proposing with this misguided association.”
Thank you in advance,
The final hearing on Laulima must be delayed until the following is disclosed to the public and the public is given adequate time to digest the information:
1. The legal peer review by an entity other that the BBandK is supplied.
2. A legal opinion of the District’s liability and potential financial legal obligations regarding the Event Center today and once the Board approves and signs the Lease with Laulima.
3. The affiliates, members and managers of Laulima’s associated 9 LLCs today are disclosed, including:
1 Laulima Northstar LLC
2 Highway 1 Hospitality LLC,
3 23240 Highway 1 LLC
4 LLC Contrada Sf, LLC,
5 Laulima Partners, LLC,
6 Laulima Kings Beach LLC,
7 H1H Propco LLC,
8 LKKB Management LLC,
9 Laulima KB Events Center, LLC
4. Who are the responsible parties that will be vetted and automatically allowed to assume or sublet the new lease without Board approval?
5. The Board must disclose what they consider adequate experience in the First Class Event Center business and what responsible party meets that qualification?
6. A second story deck addition may trigger a discretionary approval which triggers CEQA. Where is that handled in the lease?
Letter from CA State Parks dated 9/11/17 The concerns stated in the letter from CA State Parks dated 9/11/17 are addressed in the Draft Final Lease under Section 5, Paragraph 5.4.
Thank you for including the public for input on the Laulima lease of the Event Center in Kings Beach.
Two items of note: first, I support the Laulima as the operating partner of the Event Center.
Second, I do not think that the community access clause is strong enough. I appreciate that local ratepayers will be able to obtain a 25% discount, but it needs to go further. That discount must not preclude a local from getting a booking; there must be no favoritism in booking based on whether or not that individual is receiving a local's discount. Second, and more importantly, even with the discount, the new rates are likely to be too steep for locals. For that reason a deeper discount for non-peak time rentals should be added to the lease. This deeper discount could be tied to the existing rental rates and adjusted for inflation. The deeper discount should be extended to meetings for local groups and fitness classes.
Thank you for your consideration.
Public Comments from September 7th Public Workshop:
Concerned that Laulima-Northstar LLC will have access to the venue and should not.
Concerned that Laulima’s name is too big, taking on too much in KB and some things won’t be completed.
There are 9 Laulima LLC’s right now. Who has the ultimate responsibility for this property?
Concerned there won’t be renderings of the remodel until after the contract is signed.
Concerned about Northstar privatization and privatization of the beach and parking surrounding the center.
Concerned about Ferrari Property low income housing being torn down and the transition for the residents into the new low income housing.
Concerned that 110% is not enough for a performance bond.
Concerned that after $5.6 million in renovation, the cost will be significantly higher for a local even at a reduced rate.
Concerned that the makeup of the citizens’ advisory committee. Too small.
Concerned about where people go in an emergency.
Excited about having a nicer event center for family events.
Very excited to live in a community with people who are excited to do the right thing. Also to have a space to meet with these people. Excited about the possibilities of having an out of town developer being a part of the community.
Excited about having a remodeled commercial kitchen available.
Excited that there may be a financial solution for this community that results in the salvation of the recreation department.
Excited that Laulima attended this evening and is looking forward to better understand the people leasing this building.
Excited that we are getting to have this conversation.
Public Comment from Board Meeting held 9/12/17:
The LLC’s involved must be vetted.
Level the building and do not lease this multi-use asset.
Make this a park.
We have heard these promises from many developers over the years.
There is no reason to approve the lease before these people are vetted.
It is misleading to say that the operator will offer 25% off without providing a rate.
The Citizens Advisory Committee has no teeth.
All economic failures are because of government. If you do not sign the lease, you will have “what is”. The District and the public have an unknown future. Take the riskto have a future that is established and part of an entity which will invest a lot of money in the town.
This is not development, it is redevelopment.
This building is our Kings Beach Ahwahnee Hotel.
This would be the best wedding site on the north shore.
The building is a better asset to the community run by someone else’s effort who is willing to invest. Government has nothing to do with the Ahwahnee hotel.
All big real estate deals are LLC’s. This is standard practice.
Ensure an enforceable and speedy disengagement if the lessee does not perform.
Focus on a better survey.
Everything will be considered by the lessee’s dictionary.
NTBA Lease is posted on the Public Comments page of the www.ntpud.org website.
NTBA supports the NTPUD entering into the agreement for the following reasons: Renovation is needed. A renovated and privately managed center may act as a catalyst to spur redevelopment in Kings Beach and give an economic boost to neighboring businesses. It will generate funds to invest in the Parks Department and eliminate the deficit. NTBA acknowledges the risks of moving forward, but no action also includes risks.
This is a rare opportunity with a partner who has a vested interest in the success of the community.
Concerned that Laulima has not shown the bottom line.
Concerned that people see the community as an easy target.
Questions if Laulima really has the money needed.
We need for this to happen.
The NTEC Building is very versatile, and the amount expected to be spent on the renovation is substantial and will redo the entire structure.
The terms of the lease are very long.
I would be willing to pay more to maintain control over the facility.
We could find a competent management company to promote the building’s income potential.
$50,000 for the first ten years for income seems like giving this away.
Willing to volunteer time.
The deficit experienced in running the NTEC has continued to increase.
Consultant in 2006 advised that the lodging in the area is not adequate to support the event center.
Issues are well documented for running the building.
We can’t spend enough o the building to increase business.
If we are afraid to move forward, we are going to rot in our tracks.
By being fearful, we are destined to fail.
Look critically at the financials of the lessee and do not finalize the agreement until the Board is satisfied.
By eliminating the deficit, a $50k income adds $250k to the budget for Recreation. This will have a ripple effect on the whole community.
Ensure that the agreement has an easy out.
Wants the business information for Laulima.