Alpine County 2009-2010 - California Grand Jury Reports

June 30, 2010 — to be published as requested by the grand jury

71 pages 11 findings 17 recommendations

Findings & Recommendations 11 findings

F1: Current TOT practices are inefficient due to the lack of accurate statistics and ACTC staff to maintain statistics regarding the actual number of TOT facilities within the County.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The County needs to amend the Ordinance to include “Operator Duties”.

F2: There is insufficient manpower to adequately oversee and enforce the existing TOT policies.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The Mitigation Compensation Fund should be renegotiated with an emboldened attitude from Alpine County, armed with the knowledge of the TRPA growth projections, the District’s stated 2028 increased effluent wastewater projections, and the Porter-Cologne Act requirement for exportation of effluent from the Tahoe Basin.

F3: The current TOT Ordinance pertaining to operator registration does not include the requirement for a business license.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: The BOS and ACWD should require the District to increase the capacity of Harvey Place Reservoir to exceed the anticipated 2028 projections of 5.8 MGD.

F4: The County does not have effective or efficient tools contained in the TOT Ordinance for enforcement of registration, operator duties, audits, and penalties.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: The BOS and ACWA should require the District to abandon the Dressler On-Farm Emergency Disposal Site within 5 years, as the District has determined it to be ineffective.

F5: The County is not currently able to identify all rental facilities. The current Ordinance only identifies hotels as TOT facilities. Many operators do not properly identify all rental spaces, resulting in a large number of private rentals not being taxed as required. Additionally, the County business license code requirements have no breakdown to address definition between hotel, motel, or other rentals.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: The BOS and ACWA require the District to supply a quantified engineering study and report, at the District’s expense, on a replacement surface area disposal facility adequate to replace the Dressler On-Farm Site, with a completion construction schedule two years prior to the abandonment of the current On-Farm Site.

F6: All County departments that have involvement with rental properties pertaining to TOT are not coordinating with the ACTC. In other counties, departments that are involved with the TOT work in conjunction with the County Tax Collector.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: The BOS and ACWA should require that newly considered surface disposal areas be identified and unequivocally quantified as to the integrity of their ability to sustain the disposal of Harvey Place Reservoir discharge.

F7: The policies concerning Transient Facility Certification (TFC), and TOT revenue collected, and business license fees, varied from county to county.

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: Deposit of a retainer by the District, to be held in trust by Alpine County, should be required to ameliorate any failure of new surface disposal sites, and to assure compliance with Lahontan quantification standards for new surface disposal sites.

F8: In the counties surveyed, the percentage of TOT assessed varied from 6%-12%. Alpine County has a rate of 10%. In Counties where the TOT is enforced needed County services enjoy the benefit of these accumulated revenues. CONCLUSION After fully investigating this issue, it is the belief of this GJ that for far too long the County has failed to follow through with the enforcement and collection of the TOT. By adopting these recommendations Alpine County could realize increased revenue. An increase to the Business License fee and a requirement that every TOT Facility operator obtain a business license is in order. New policies should be implemented to find premises not registered with the ACTC, using the assistance of several County departments. This GJ believes much can be learned about audits and enforcement of TOT codes from other counties.

Related Recommendations (1)

R8: The BOS and ACWA should require a change to the Agreement establishing a benchmark, representing the highest year of receipts commensurate to the proportionate percentage of hookups to the District system. An addendum should be added setting forth that compensation to Alpine County, based upon a percentage 16 hookups, shall not fall below this benchmark.

F9: The District plans to expand the current surface wastewater disposal areas in the County to accommodate an expanded system required by TRPA growth estimates though 2028. This added volume is purported to increase the current daily volume from 4.74 million gallons to 5.8 million gallons by 2028. This surface disposal expansion would require Lahontan to provide additional Permitted Land designations in the County over and above what the District currently owns in Diamond Valley to ensure adequate capacity for District needs.

Related Recommendations (1)

R9: The BOS and ACWA needs to conduct open, interest based negotiations with the District to define additional Lahontan permitted area(s) in Alpine County that may be deemed appropriate for surface area disposal sites, including:  Non-negotiable, currently assessed land valuation of the identified areas owned by Alpine County. In that these surface disposal sites would be in Alpine County, the County should retain ownership, entering into extended year lease agreements with the District for its use.  Pertinent Lahontan requirements as to the gallon volume per day of each identified surface disposal area.  Stipulations as to the gallon volume per day allotment for Alpine County’s use of disposal of wastewater. Alpine County’s defined allotment should exceed 50% of each defined disposal area capacity.  Pertinent stipulations as to the per day gallon volume allotted to the District for its use of new disposal areas.  An annual fee of 20% above the current $15,000 per year should be assessed, based upon every 1000 acres of any newly acquired surface disposal areas in the Alpine County. This revenue will be used for independent monitoring.  Should Alpine County choose not to utilize all, or a portion, of those newly defined surface disposal areas, Alpine County may, at its discretion, lease the respective per day gallon usage of each area to the District, at an annual rate to be determined by Alpine County.  Amend the current Agreement to increase Alpine County’s per day allotment of disposal of wastewater discharge on existing District surface disposal areas. Remove the clause(s), regarding restriction of “lands other than those used by the District” and include additional language for disposal discharge of wastewater in Harvey Place Reservoir of up to 400,000 gallons per day with an annual maximum of 4 MGD.  Remove the current Agreement language of expense to Alpine County above any current GPD discharge allotment. All disposal expenses should be borne by the District, including liability, maintenance and operation.

F10: The current Dressler On-Farm Emergency Disposal Site from Harvey Place Reservoir is not functional as originally designed.

Related Recommendations (1)

R10: The BOS and ACWA need to re-negotiate the annual mitigation compensation, based upon a proportionate percentage of hookup fees, to provide a greater compensation percentage to the County, with and an annual escalation clause. 17

F11: Due to the existence of AB885 (Exhibit A), some County residential septic tanks may be rendered unusable, leaving the resident(s) with no wastewater disposal system. CONCLUSION: As this report illustrates, this GJ used the 1995 GJ Report as its guide, with the intent of providing follow up to the 1995 GJ recommendations, including an update on the current status of the Agreement as it affects the County. Additionally, the GJ reviewed the follow through by the County and ACWA to the 1995 recommendations. The BOS has, to a conservative degree, taken proactive steps in an effort to enhance its status in the Agreement partnership for the benefit and protection of the County. Such steps include changes to the structure of the Mitigation Compensation Trust Fund, independent monitoring, and changes to utilization of Indian Creek Reservoir. That being said, several other items contained in the Agreement and the District Master Plan infrastructure contain contingencies that the GJ perceives can, and should be addressed to more aptly satiate the County’s interests as an integral, interest based partner, without fear of standing on the precipice of the “slippery slope”, as a deterrent. The “slippery slope” concept, by popular thought, caution that the County could potentially loose the mitigation compensation of $100,000.00 per year it now receives should the District arbitrarily and capriciously opt to divert the effluent to Nevada instead of into the County. At present, and at least through 2028, it would appear that the “slippery slope” concept is more a District negotiating ploy than actual reality. To disburse wastewater into Nevada, it would be necessary for the District to obtain a permit from the Nevada Environmental Water Quality Control Agency, whose requirements are much stricter than those of California. In reality the extrication and redirection of the District’s export pipeline and entire supporting effluent dispersal infrastructure in the County would constitute a major fiscal project, and it is unlikely that such would occur in the near future. Additionally, the procurement of large areas of non 14 developed land for reasonably sustainable disposal of such waste for irrigation, ad infinitum, may very well pose a significant problem to the District. Currently the District anticipates the continued use of Alpine County land for its wastewater disposal as stated in its 2008 Master Plan. Alpine County is considered a conciliatory passive, without existing reasonable compensation and reliable quality control protections regarding the profuse flow of effluent into this otherwise pristine area. This GJ, urges the County to “arch its back” concerning its relationship with the District, insisting on a more defined and active partnership. As the future holds only increased utilization of County property, the protection of its land and its residents should be of optimum concern, with the ultimate goal of maintaining the quality of life within the County. The BOS is applauded for its vigilance and foresight in maintaining the annual mitigation compensation received from the District as a “hands off” account. An argument can be made to support the BOS’s hesitance in regards to a re-negotiation of the Mitigation Compensation payment of $100,000.00, as established in 1983. One may assume that their position is one of guarded complacency in light of the possible potential loss of the entire revenue, if, in fact, a realistic potential existed for the District to either redirect its effluent waste to Nevada, or otherwise suspend future effluent waste exports from the Tahoe Basin entirely. What must be of constant focus for Alpine County is the unwavering fact that the stipulations of the Porter-Cologne Act require the District to remove effluent wastewater out of the Tahoe Basin. It is our opinion that neither is a factual based reality for the immediate or extended future. The District’s stated position, per the 2008 Environmental Report and Master Plan, is to expand the current system, and utilize Alpine County land for effluent waste disposal, as the County continues to provide the most opportune environment, with little or no impediment. This position is further evidenced by the fact that the Distinct has, to date, made costly and extensive infrastructure plans for continued expansion. Although the posturing gesture by the District is to open negotiations with the Nevada Environmental Agency for alternate disposal of effluent waste, that position seems strident, considering the machinations involved. The existing C-Line and dispersal effluent system does not move like a garden hose, nor do the slow turning cogs of the bureaucratic system when it comes to the dispersal of effluent wastewater. However, the possibility must be considered. The District intention to utilize, encroach upon, and potentially own more Alpine County land for effluent disposal purposes results in an arrangement whereby one County is expected to accept and contain the waste of another. This concept is VERY unique in California, and $100,000.00 seems a paltry sum, in today’s real estate market, for the services and product rendered. The over-arching fact remains, that by no stretch of the imagination has Alpine County ever been adequately, and/or fairly compensated for the use of its land. Alpine County has acquiesced to the District for far too long in this clichéd partnership. The following quote from Dr. Charles Goldman UCD researcher, to validate the assets of the District’s export Pipeline system, is included to empathize our point. “The District’s 26-mile Export system “the most significant environmental project ever undertaken to protect Lake Tahoe’s legendary clarity.” We include this quotation for the citizens of Alpine County to distinguish the pointed lack of reference to the continued negative impact of the export of Lake Tahoe effluent wastewater on Alpine County. RECOMENDATIONS: RI Several structural components of the Agreement should be altered to properly designate Alpine County as a true and integral partner, as opposed to the existing banality of the partnership.

Related Recommendations (1)

R11: Value based, independent assessment documentation must be provided to Alpine County, at the District’s expense, setting forth the actual numbers of system hookups per year. This documentation shall be used to verify the District’s claims of a decline in hookups, while the Alpine County continues to be a “dumping ground” of District wastewater.

Additional Recommendations 6

Not linked to specific findings.

R12: Delineation must be included in the Agreement distinguishing between residential hookups, industrial hookups and the various commercial hookups, i.e. hotels and motels. Commercial and Industrial hookups generally represent a different type of wastewater quality and quantity.

R13: Require that a classification for and identification of all different types of hookups be included in the proportionate percentage of hookup fee compensation, including residential, commercial ( i.e. motels and hotels), and industrial, with appropriate compensation being computed pursuant to class.

R14: Pursuant to the District Master Plan, and based on the anticipated increase of 1.06 MGD in wastewater levels from 2000 through the year 2028, Alpine County needs to: a) Re-negotiate the hookup fee provisions taking into consideration the anticipated 2028 growth rate. b) Begin quantified specific planning for infrastructure wastewater treatment facilities, and collection piping systems to hookup East Slope communities to the C-line and/or to new surface disposal areas.

R15: Initiate independent, qualified monitoring of the District system throughout Alpine County, with tri annual reports, paid for by the monitoring funds of the Agreement.

R16: Begin meaningful planning discussions with the residents of Alpine County concerning the need to connect East Slope communities to District facilities.

R17: The District Contract Commission should represent a stronger diversification of the residents that actually make up the populace of Alpine County.