Sonoma County Grand Jury • 2009-2010

Slippery Costs and Rising Fees in the Graton Community Service District

Published: June 29, 2010 4 pages
View Original PDF

Findings and Recommendations 8 findings

F1
The initial capital plan for a low cost treatment of sewage was based on the assumption that natural filtration through the root system of a redwood grove would result in zero discharge. This led to the conclusion that treating effluent to reach tertiary standards was unnecessary. While there are examples of successful effluent filtration through redwood trees, serious early planning was not done to develop alternative methods of filtration should the redwood grove process fail. a. Some GCSD Directors felt the redwood grove natural filtration did not succeed because of capricious decisions by the NCRWQB. b. The Grand Jury found that the redwood trees had a layer of clay just below their roots which impeded successful filtration. The resulting need to treat sewage to meet tertiary standards has led to a project that will now cost over $7 Million. c. Management is actively seeking outside grants, in addition to those mentioned in BACKGROUND, to help fund the project.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
That the GCSD contract for a management audit of its current policies and procedures. A determination should be made to ensure sufficient checks and balances are in place to avoid unnecessary expenses. The management audit should be in addition to financial audits conducted by the Sonoma County Auditor’s office.
F2
Management continues to explore both conventional and unconventional means to treat sewage. Environmentally friendly options receive attention, but don’t always work. The cumulative billings of the engineering firm that evaluates treatment options to ensure compliance with Title 22 of the California Water Code is a major expense to the rate payers.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
That the GCSD periodically review their rate structure, preferably at an open community forum, to ensure that fees charged users are realistic and meet the goals set during the LAFCO investigation prior to formation of the GCSD.
F3
The assertions that a portion of the high costs are due to poorly maintained and/or inappropriate equipment turned over to the GCSD by the SCWA display an eagerness to finger point, obscuring inadequate initial planning. SCWA had a well publicized plan, which was included in the West County Sanitation Report, to consolidate regional systems in West Sonoma County by shipping effluent to a state of the art treatment facility in Guerneville. This plan included pumps designed for that purpose, which were turned over to the GCSD who subsequently had to replace them as they were not the proper design for their needs. It was alleged that representatives of the GCSD were not allowed to fully inspect the facility and equipment prior to its formation. As individuals involved with the formation of the GCSD, including the current General Manager, had worked at the facility and also with the SCWA, along with NCRWQB inspections of the Graton facility being in the public domain, these circumstances cast doubt on some of the assertions.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
In cooperation with either the SCWA, the NCRWQCB, and/or one or more local educational institutions, schedule training conferences relating to new industry developments and trends, and cost effective management. Ideally, as there are many small districts such as GCSD in Sonoma County and elsewhere in Northern California, the conferences should be open to any who would benefit from attendance. Small districts such as the GCSD have well intentioned members who do learn from experience, but the lack of training does cause mistakes that can be expensive.
F4
The Graton general manager is the owner of Industrial Wastewater Solutions and also teaches water treatment at Santa Rosa Junior College He previously worked for Sonoma County Department of Public Works and the SCWA, with experience operating West Sonoma County sanitation facilities. He has served and been paid as an expert witness in law suits organized by Northern California River Watch that claim to protect water quality by suing SCWA projects. He is a paid consultant for operating treatment systems both locally and internationally. With the ready, if expensive, track record of the GCSD in continually trying alternative approaches, he has acquired a wealth of knowledge which he is able to use in his consulting activities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
The GCSD should routinely arrange outside independent peer review of its professional staff rather than simply using its limited expertise to make evaluations.
F5
Engineering support paid since inception averages over $250,000 a year. Payment to the general manager is based on the number of hours worked, including activities related to FEMA and Proposition 50. Records indicate that remuneration as been as high as $19,000 for a 3 month period including FEMA related reimbursements. Add to that the full time salaried staff of the plant operator, 2 assistants, a bookkeeper and routine operational costs make it clear that the rate payers face the potential for additional rate increases based solely on operating costs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
Job announcements should include full job descriptions emphasizing experience and the ability to work cooperatively with neighboring districts and agencies. Joint appointments with adjacent districts should be considered as they can both save money and institutionalize cooperative work.
F6
Cease and Desist Order R1-2008-1009 was issued by the NCRWQCB requiring the GCSD to meet tertiary treatment standards by October 2010. The Cease and Desist Order actually increases their priority ranking for obtaining outside funding.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6
Serious consideration should be given to a joint venture with the FWD! The pipeline between the 2 facilities combined with irrigation and frost protection in the areas served by the GCSD and FWD indicate such a venture would be mutually beneficial. A good starting point would be to open negotiations with SCWA to assign the title of the pipeline’s valve jointly to the GCSD and FWD.
F7
GCSD will save significant R&D expense by contacting and developing working relationships with other wastewater treatment facilities in the area. Other facilities sharing their experiences with various tertiary treatment methods will assist the GCSD in finalizing their plans to meet the Cease and Desist Orderrequirement.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
The GCSD Board should ask the California Fair Political Practices Commission to give an opinion whether the activities described in F-4 amount to a conflict of interest under State law. Required Responses to Findings: Graton Community Service District: F-1, F-2, F-3, F-4, F-5, F-6, F-7, F-8 Sonoma County Water Agency: F-3, F-8 North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board: F-1a, F-6 Requested Responses to Findings: General Manager, Graton Community Services District: F-3, F-4 Required Responses to Recommendations: Graton Community Services District: R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, R-5, R-6, R-7 Forestville Water District: R-3, R-6 Requested Responses to Recommendations: Sonoma County Water Agency: R-3, R-6 Sonoma County Auditor: R-1 Forestville Water District: R-5 North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board: R-3
F8
GCSD was charged a $25,000 fee for opening the valve controlling the pipeline between their facility and FWD’s in order to provide frost protection to vineyards near Forestville. The dissolution agreement with the SCWA called for a $25,000 per use fee to be charged to both the FWD and GCSD, but at no time was the FWD charged the fee. In May 2009 the SCWA requested that the agreement be amended to waive past fees and institute a fee based on volumetric use and not to exceed a combined fee of $25,000. CONCLUSIONS While there was strong pressure from within for the citizens of Graton to maintain local control over their wastewater treatment facility, it is evident that economic feasibility was not given sufficient consideration. In all probability, if the consolidation of smaller districts and zones had been implemented, GCSD rates would not have increased over $500 in 5 years, and their tertiary treatment plant would be up and running, having been completed for as much as $2 Million less than the current projected cost. Although regulatory approval was not received, the use of a redwood grove for filtration in order to reach the zero discharge requirement was a conceptually viable approach. However, not having alternative plans has had an extremely negative impact on the GCSD. Too much emphasis has been placed on experimenting with unconventional filtration means rather than investigating proven means and determining which best meets GCSD’s unique requirements. While well intentioned, utilizing a part time consultant as general manager is not cost effective or efficient. The operation would be better served with a full time licensed sanitation plant operator acting as both general manager and plant operator. COMMENDATIONS Both complainants are to be commended, not only for bringing this most important matter to the attention of the Grand Jury, but also for their well documented and informative complaint submissions. The Board of Directors, General Manager and staff of the GCSD for their continuing efforts to develop environmentally friendly wastewater treatment and disposal solutions. Also the SCWA’s Deputy Chief Engineer and the President of the engineering firm contracting with the GCSD for their most appreciated “above and beyond” efforts in providing invaluable documentation, insight, and details relative to the complaint. RECOMMENDATIONS
No recommendations for this finding

Conclusions 1

Commendations 1

No Responses Found 4

Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.

Forestville Water District Special District
Graton Community Services District Special District
Sonoma County Auditor-Controller Elected County Office
Sonoma County Water Agency Special District