Nevada County Grand Jury • 1999-2000

Consolidated Final Report for Fiscal Year*

Published: June 28, 2000 43 pages Consolidated Report
Ver PDF original

Findings 1 findings

F14 Page 28
RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The California Department of Health Services should take a more rigid position with Del Oro Water Company regarding compliance with deadlines and should refrain from granting further extensions for completion of the new water treatment facility. Further violations of the compliance schedule should be dealt with under Section 116725(b) of the California Health and Safety Code and maximum penalties levied as allowed under the Code. 2. The Nevada County Health Department should be more assertive in its responsibility for protecting the health of Nevada County residents. It should bring maximum pressure to bear both on the California Department of Health Services and on the Company to assure full compliance with the construction schedule included in the Compliance Order for the new water treatment facility. 3. Del Oro Water Company should do a better job of keeping its customers informed of the construction progress, and assure them that it is fully meeting the conditions of the Compliance Order. Until such time as the new water treatment facility is operational, it should do everything possible to make certain that the present system supplies its customers without interruption, adequate, dependable, pure, wholesome, safe, and potable water. REQUIRED RESPONSE Nevada County Health Department, September 30, 2000 <b>REQUESTED RESPONSES</b> State of California, Department of Health Services, September 30, 2000 Del Oro Water Company, September 30, 2000 State Of California, Public Utilities Commission, September 30, 2000 DONNER SUMMIT PUBLIC UTILITIES DISTRICT REASON FOR INVESTIGATION The Grand Jury received two citizen complaints in July, 1999, regarding the bulk sale of Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs), also called "sewer hook-ups", to several ski resorts within the Donner Summit Public Utilities District, hereafter called "Donner Summit." Complaints alleged: (1) The possibility of Conflict of Interest among Donner Summit Board of Directors, hereafter called "the Board", and the General Manager; (2) The bulk sales to ski resorts resulted in denial of individual sewer hook-up permits; The bulk sales were in violation of existing Donner Summit policies; (4) The bulk (3) sales were approved in closed Board meetings; and (5) A possible breach of contract between Donner Summit and Sierra Lakes County Water District, hereafter called "Sierra Lakes" - a Placer County district. PROCEDURES FOLLOWED The Grand Jury: (1) Visited Donner Summit facilities on a number of occasions between August and December, 1999; (2) Requested, received and reviewed copies of appropriate Donner Summit operating procedures, financial records and minutes/tapes of the Board open and closed meetings; and (3) Interviewed the complainants, the Donner Summit General Manager, and several Donner Summit Board members. <b>FINDINGS</b> 1. Bulk sales of 115 sewer hook-ups were conducted between Donner Summit General Manager and three ski resorts through a Conditional Sales Contract in January, 1999. 2. Bulk sales of 25 sewer hook-ups were conducted in like manner with a fourth ski resort in June, 1999. 3. These bulk sales were reported by Donner Summit General Manager to the Board in open, regular meetings on January 19 and June 15, 1999. 4. Suspension of a portion of Donner Summit Ordinance 81-09, and supplemental changes thereto, which regulated sales, maintenance, repair and debt service of sewer hook-ups, were recommended by Donner Summit General Manager and approved by the Board in the January 19, 1999, regular meeting. This action allowed negotiation of referenced bulk sales to continue pending a new ordinance, 99-01. 5. This new Ordinance modified Ordinance 81-09 authorizing new financial arrangements for sewer hook-up bulk sales. It was approved and adopted by the Donner Summit Board at the regular meeting, March 16, 1999. 6. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and an Agreement were signed by Donner Summit and Sierra Lakes in mid-April, 1999. Agreement was reached that Sierra Lakes and Donner Summit had 30 sewer hook-ups and 15 hook-ups respectively remaining for individual use. Any further need by Sierra Lakes prior to plant expansion was to be negotiated. 7. The MOU included redrafting of the existing Donner Summit/Sierra Lakes contract, commencement of plant expansion, the need for coordination regarding future capacity, and the need to develop a process to share plant expansion expenses. 8. The Donner Summit General Manager negotiated bulk sales with several ski resorts. However, evidence suggests that he did not complete a bulk sale with Donner Ski Ranch, the only ski resort in which he had an economic interest as reflected on his California Form 700, Statement of Economic Interest. Two Donner Summit Board members stated on their Form 700's an economic interest in ski resorts which did complete bulk sales of EDUs with Donner Summit. The Grand Jury found no evidence that these members influenced these sales which were conducted solely by the General Manager and subsequently reported to the Board in open meetings. 9. The Donner Summit sewer ordinances are outdated and confusing. Over the years, individual ordinances (examples: 81-9, 84-2, 85-3. 86-1. 86-4. 90-4. etc.) have been enacted which modify sections of previous ordinances. In some cases, modified sections are again modified by a more recent ordinance. There is no indication that any of these ordinances have been rescinded. The current system requires that individuals must research through a large number of ordinances to insure they have the correct, up-to-date, information regarding a specific section of the Donner Summit sewer ordinances. <b>CONCLUSIONS</b> The Grand Jury concludes: There is no evidence that referenced bulk sales were negotiated or completed in closed Board meetings. 2. There is no specific proof that any individual applicant to Donner Summit was denied a sewer hook-up. 3. There is no evidence that bulk sales were in violation of Donner Summit policies existing at the time of sales. 4. There is no specific proof that the Donner Summit General Manager or Board members engaged in Conflict of Interest regarding the bulk sales of EDUs to ski resorts as alleged. 5. Donner Summit sewer ordinances and Donner Summit/Sierra Lakes contracts are outdated and confusing. This has resulted in incorrect interpretation among individuals and between Donner Summit and Sierra Lakes regarding available capacity, contractual requirements and appropriate procedures.

Recommendations 1

Conclusions 42

Comments 5

No Responses Found 2

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

Nevada County County
Nevada County Board of Supervisors Elected County Office

* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.