⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings 5 findings
F1
Page 8
The agreement was entered into as a supplement to earlier agreements between SMUD and the County in 1957 and 1961 regarding the use and operation of the Upper American River Project (UARP) for electric power and water.
F2
Page 8
In 2005, SMUD had to be re-licensed by the Federal Energy Regulation Commission (FERC) to continue operating in the UARP. Under the agreement, SMUD obtained assurances that the County and certain water agencies and districts within the County would not object to the re-licensing. SMUD would continue to plan the building of the Iowa Hill Pumped Storage project.
F3
Page 8
The County was, and is, to receive from SMUD certain different amounts of money pursuant to the agreement. The monies agreed to are as follows: $2,600,000, payable in two installments; the second installment to be paid not later than August 1, 2012 (already paid) $590,000 per year after issuance of the new license (already paid). $250,000 upon SMUD issuing a “Notice of Intention to Proceed” with the Iowa Hill project. $50,000 per year after the issuance of the “Notice to Proceed.” An amount not to exceed $2,000,000 for socioeconomic impacts of the building of the Iowa Hill project; such money not to be paid prior to construction.
F4
Page 8
The County has received payments under items 3a and 3b above, but as SMUD has not issued a Notice of Intention to Proceed with the Iowa Hill Development, no funds have been paid under items 3c, 3d, and 3e.
F5
Page 8
The agreement describes, relative to items 3 and 4 above, to whom and on what such monies should be spent. Section 4.4 of the contract addresses those issues with the following language: “SMUD’s payment as described in Section 4.3 are to be utilized by the County in order to minimize, avoid, or mitigate socioeconomic impacts attributable to the construction of the Iowa Hill Development within those areas of the County affected by such construction. The determination of which specific uses of payments by SMUD under Article IV and consistent with the limitations of the Section are to be made by the County in its sole discretion.” EVALUATION OF FINDINGS Because the monies under items 3c and 3d have not yet been paid, but presumably will be paid, the Grand Jury believes it is important to render its opinion as to the meaning of the quoted contract language above to help avoid confusion after the project has been constructed and the socioeconomic impact monies are to be distributed. The Grand Jury understands that all sentences within a contract have meaning and importance. This leads to the conclusion that the agreement does not simply call for the County to spend this money in any way it sees fit as some have suggested. This sole discretion language is clearly tempered by the sentence indicating that the money is to recompense for socioeconomic impacts within the affected area. Iowa Hill is within the Camino/Apple Hill area of El Dorado County. The Grand Jury understands that no funds have been paid relative to item 3e above, and no funds will be paid until after completion of construction and assessment of socio economic impact pursuant to Exhibit I of the El Dorado-SMUD Cooperation Agreement. At that time an amount up to $2,000,000 will be paid by SMUD to the County for the socioeconomic impacts of the construction of the Iowa Hill project.
Recommendations 1
-
R1Page 22The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors no longer waive or reimburse permit fees unless they are specifically allowed by a Board Policy, California Constitution or State statute. Waving fees in an ad hoc manner gives the impression of collusion and favoritism. RESPONSES Responses to both findings and recommendations in this Report are required by law in accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05. Address responses to: The Honorable Suzanne N. Kingsbury, presiding judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court, 1354 Johnson Blvd., South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150. This Report has been provided to the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors. The Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court additionally requests that the responses be sent electronically as a “Word” file or “PDF” file to facilitate the economical and timely distribution of such responses. Please email responses to the El Dorado County Grand Jury at: [email protected] ATTACHMENTS [ Adobe Reader is required to view attachments ] El Dorado County Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 180-2007 El Dorado County Board of Supervisors Policy B-2 El Dorado County Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 45-2008 El Dorado County Board of Supervisors Agenda Item 11-1161 El Dorado County Board of Supervisors Agenda Item 12-1103 -07 REASON FOR REPORT There have been many news stories and much media attention over the past expressing concern regarding the lack of treatment and housing for mentally ill people in the United States. Members of the El Dorado Grand Jury wanted to identify the types of programs and facilities available in this county for individuals manifesting signs of mental illness. BACKGROUND Grand Jury members visited the El Dorado County Out-Patient Mental Health Facility on November 11, 2013. This facility handles both juvenile and adult clients, and provides counseling services, as well as medication. This facility is newly leased (October, 2013) space for the county. It is located at 768 Pleasant Valley Road in Diamond Springs. The prior facility was located at 670 Placerville Drive in Placerville. A review of relevant financial material regarding the new and old leases indicates that the county will save approximately $682,000 over the10 year term of this new lease. At the time of our visit, the county mental health group had been in this new facility just 2 weeks. We interviewed two staff members who were on site at the time of our visit. We were escorted throughout the entire building to inspect the new facility, and discussed the space as well as the various programs available for clients. There are 48 people on staff.
No Responses Found 1
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
El Dorado County Board of Supervisors
Elected County Office