Nevada County Grand Jury
2007-2008
From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (2)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
11 findings
F1:
The President of the Board receives $300, the Vice-President receives $260 and the Directors receive $225 per regular monthly meeting. In addition, each director receives $100 for any other meetings. They are paid whether they attend or are excused. The monthly meetings include complimentary dinner for everyone present. The current budget includes direct Board expenses of $16,820. By comparison, the Truckee-Tahoe Sanitary Agency, operating a larger wastewater treatment plant, and whose budget is 7.5 times that of DSPUD, includes $12,000 in its current budget for Board of Directors’ fees and expenses.
F2:
Other than the licensed operating personnel, there is no engineering expertise on site to evaluate the information received from retained outside consultants. The Board members, three of whom, are in their first term, and the General Manager rely on these consultants for technical knowledge and expertise at an annual cost of $247,000 (Includes Chief Plant Operator for part of the year).
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The District should embark on an extensive training program to equip the Board and Staff with the knowledge and skills to manage the District’s future needs.
R7:
The Board should exercise greater supervision over the General Manger. This supervision should include measurable performance indicators linked to his major duties and to the District’s objectives. Required Response Donner Summit Public Utility District Board of Directors: October 6, 2008 Attachments Attachment A DSPUD – Selected Comparisons, dated 11.13.07 revised 4/13/2008 Donner Summit Public Utility District P a ge 5 Donner Summit PUD - Selected Comparisons OPERATING BUDGET ’07- 08 Expenses Employees Donner Summit PUD $ 1,592,876 8 Tahoe-Truckee Sanitary Agency (T-TSA) 11,951,855 61 (6 open) Tahoe Donner PUD 31,000,000 67 GENERAL MANAGER SALARIES ’06- 07 Donner Summit PUD $153,142* T-TSA 149,965 Truckee Donner PUD 147,430 -179,192 Tahoe City PUD 137,786 Truckee Town Mgr. 126,203 *Only benefit is Long Term Disability Insurance SALARY COMPARISON ’07- 08 Donner Summit PUD T-TSA General Mgr. $158,133 $ 149,965 Chief Plant Operator 105,000 88,608 Operations Supt. - 98,352 Field Services Supvr. 63,139 98,352 Operator II 52,000 61,176 Operator I 41,899 54,300 BOARD MEMBER MEETING FEES Regular Monthly Other Donner Summit PUD* President $ 300 $100 Vice Pres. 260 100 Directors (3) 225 100 *Paid even if excused T-TSA $100 $100 Tahoe Donner PUD $400 per month + Medical Plan BOARD EXPENSE Donner Summit T-TSA ’05-06 $10,100 NA ’06-07 12,740* $ 6,700 ’07-08 (budget) 16,820 12,000 4/13/2008 Attachment A
F3:
A comparison of salaries (Attachment A) shows that the salaries of the General Manager and the Chief Plant Operator are higher than comparable positions at T- TSA. The T-TSA has a ’07-08 Operating Budget 7.5 times larger than DSPUD, and 61 staff positions compared with six full-time and two part-time employees at DSPUD.
F4:
The District is spending $30,500 to insure property valued at $11,867,000. By comparison, the T-TSA is spending $30,000 to insure property valued at $68,000,000.
F5:
The District does not have reserve funds.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The District should develop a policy for establishment of reserve funds and create such funds.
F6:
Failure to have an operating website makes it difficult to provide stakeholders with relevant information.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The District should give high priority to developing and executing a communications strategy that will open the window for all stakeholders and interested parties. They should complete the upgrade of the web site; expand the content, include on the web site the Board Meeting Minutes, and publish a regular newsletter.
F7:
The minutes of the Board meetings are inadequate to provide a clear understanding of Board activities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The District should give high priority to developing and executing a communications strategy that will open the window for all stakeholders and interested parties. They should complete the upgrade of the web site; expand the content, include on the web site the Board Meeting Minutes, and publish a regular newsletter.
F8:
The minutes of the Board meetings indicate that with the exception of invited guests - attorneys, engineers, potential new board members, etc - almost no stakeholders attend Board meetings.
F9:
The dispute with the TFPD was a result of DSPUD staff failure to execute the contracts with Nevada County for two years to provide fire services to County Service Area 31 and other Nevada and Placer County areas outside the DSPUD. It involved approximately $63,000 claimed by DSPUD and the TFPD cross-complaint for $164,462 in damages. The settlement provided that DSPUD receive $25,000 to be spent to upgrade of the water distribution system and $5000 to upgrade the fire station to meet code. TFPD will spend $33,000 to upgrade the fire equipment serving the Donner Summit area. Donner Summit Public Utility District P a ge 3
F10:
Under the agreement between the DSPUD and SLCWD, DSPUD is entitled to 56% of the capacity of the wastewater treatment plant capacity and SLCWD is entitled to 44 %. DSPUD has 83 registered voters from which to draw Board members. SLCWD has no representation on the DSPUD Board.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Nevada and Placer County LAFCOs, together with the DSPUD and SLCWD, should explore the feasibility of a merger of the two districts. Boards of both districts should seek alternate means to provide representation to the large number of users in the SLCWD who have virtually no voice in the affairs of the District.
F11:
For ten months of the year, DSPUD discharges wastewater to the South Yuba River in the amount of 0.52 million gallons per day with the capacity to be expanded to 0.80 million gallons per day by 2010. In dry or cold years, the stream is low, and high wastewater flows can be discharged into low stream flows. Conclusions
Related Recommendations (2)
R4:
The District should investigate the extent of new technology that is or may become available to discharge wastewater - for example, year round subsurface disposal of wastewater.
R5:
The DSPUD and its related stakeholders should carefully and completely explore all potential impacts on current users of the system and others affected before entering into any agreements with Royal Gorge LLC or any other future development.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
11 findings
F1:
The District enjoys a virtual monopoly since, with a limited exception, there are no other entities that provide its services within its service territory.
F2:
There were egregious delays of more than three years in reconciling the deposit and costs and in billing the Developer under the 2002 Agreement.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Board should ensure that staff promptly completes its reconciliation of costs and deposits and promptly bills or refunds the balance to developers.
F3:
This dispute, which took ten months to resolve, was marked by acrimony on both sides.
F4:
Developer was delinquent in promptly submitting as-built drawings under the 2002 Agreement.
F5:
The District treated the Developer as a credit risk in spite of having his significant deposits on hand. 3
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Board should establish clear Board policy for resolution of any credit risk issues that may arise despite the existence of deposits.
F6:
The Board was aware of the decision to withhold services under the 2006 and 2007 agreements as a way of forcing payment under the 2002 Agreement.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Board should ensure that the practice of holding a developer hostage, by not serving a different project, does not occur again.
F7:
The District currently has no published process for resolving disputes between the District and developers, although it does have such a process for resolving disputes between the District and customers.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Board should set up a clear dispute resolution process for development issues, culminating in access to the Board.
F8:
The new General Manager has begun a thorough and complete review of the District Code. To date, only review of Title 1, General Provisions, has been completed. Conclusions
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Board should enthusiastically support the complete review and revision of polices, rules, and procedures in the District Code being undertaken by the new General Manager. In light of the leverage that being the only game in town creates, the Board should make sure that the revisions address the matters set forth in this Report, as well as any other shortcomings that may be found during the review. Response Truckee Donner Public Utility District Board of Directors: October 1, 2008 5
F9:
It was inappropriate to require the Developer to release the District from liability for its conduct as a condition for receiving service.
F10:
The Board’s disengagement in this matter contributed to escalation of the dispute. The matter should have been put on the first available Board meeting agenda. A hearing 4
F11:
The Board of Directors’ focus on the collection of the bill rather than the relationship between the District and a Developer who provides capital improvements for the District was shortsighted.