📋

Extracted from Consolidated Report

This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.

Calaveras County Grand Jury • 2008-2009

Murphys Sanitary District Report 2006-2007 Responses

8 pages

View PDF View Full Original

⚠️ 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 47

The District has a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) to address long-term infrastructure issues; the District still does not have a plan in place to address district-wide future needs.

F2 Page 48

While conducting interviews with district and plant management, the Grand Jury learned two separate policies and procedures manuals (aka operations manuals) exist. One manual contains policies and procedures regarding operation of the wastewater treatment plant while the other is for the pump station (headworks). These two manuals are dated 2000 and 2002 respectively and are out of date. Contact personnel and contact phone numbers are incorrect. Although a new employee handbook, dealing with personnel issues within the district, was adopted in 2006, a comprehensive, combined policies and procedures manual has yet to be written by district management and adopted by the board of directors. The CIP and employee handbook do not adequately address the specifics of day-to-day operations, job definitions, emergency procedures, etc.

F3 Page 48

The wastewater treatment plant was upgraded in 2002-2003. Originally intended to operate in an automatic mode, the plant still has to be run manually because the upgrade was not completed as originally specified. According to the district engineer, he has received no direction from the district Board to rectify this deficiency.

F4 Page 49

The Grand Jury finds that little or no progress has been made on obtaining additional sources of discharge. This problem has been known and studied for a number of years without being resolved.

F5 Page 50

The district received a Notice of Violation (NoV) from the CRWQCB in January 2007 identifying violations from 2005 and 2006. Correction of the NoV is very expensive and time consuming. Since the district has a part-time manager it has limited resources to deal with the NoV. 46

Recommendations 3

R1
Page 43

The Foothill Fire Board of Directors feels it would be irresponsible to only annex in those areas where development is proposed, and leave the remaining areas under the old contract. A more logical approach to the issue is to simply annex the entire service area at this time.
R2
Page 43

Calaveras County Planning will continue to receive development requests for projects within the New Hogan Lake service area. This is a desirable location: the land is open and easier to plan for various types of development. Foothill Fire will continue to work with County departments and other agencies to assure that fire and public safety standards are addressed in these proposals prior to approvals, and that those developments do pay their fair share cost to help mitigate any impact their project may have on Foothill Fire's ability to provide services within its jurisdiction. 40
R3
Page 43

The Mutual Aid and Automatic Aid agreements between local, county, state, and federal agencies currently address the unique service needs of in this area during fire protection or emergency response incidents. GRAND JURY DETERMINATION 2007-2008 The Grand Jury determines this response is adequate. RESPONSE FROM JENNY LIND FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT The Grand Jury has exercised wisdom in their recommendation relevant to the provider of fire protection to the area accessed by and through Milton Road. It is absolutely nonsensical to send another fire district through the Jenny Lind Fire Protection District in order to provide emergency services. The proposal of LAFCO to allow Foothill Fire Protection District to annex the area accessed through Milton Road is shortsighted and opens the door to potential problems as evidenced by (1) prolonged response times by Foothill Fire to the subject area; (2) multiple agencies responding code three to multiple incidents at the same time in the same geographically area thereby increasing the possibility of an accident; and additionally (3) fails to take into account the desires of the citizens that live in the at-issue area as to which fire district should provide services. The proposal also fails to address the ability of Foothill Fire to respond in a timely manner when time is of the essence especially during a medical emergency. The geographical failures of the proposal further serves to place the citizens of the at-issue area at additional risk of loss of property based upon the response time from Valley Springs by Foothill Fire when contrasted to that of Jenny Lind Fire Protection District wherein our average response time in our district is less than six (6) minutes from time of dispatch to time of arrival. The response time by Jenny Lind Fire to the at-issue property would clearly fall within the average response time as articulated above. It is impossible for the Foothill Fire Protection District to respond to the same area within the same time period. Public safety should be the primary and only concern when deciding which district is best suited to serve the at-issue area. The Grand Jury states on of their report that "LAFCO need reconsider its procedures for annexation of the New Hogan Dam area". We concur. As to the recommendation by the Grand Jury of immediate incorporation of all un-annexed areas into a fire protection district; this district proffers the following opinion. If additional funding to provide fire protection is made available to this district to annex unincorporated areas presently not within our protection scheme than this department wholeheartedly stands by ready to respond. If, in the alternative, an annexation comes at a cost to the district without an offset (additional funding), the feasibility of providing additional and/or new services becomes a detriment in correlation to costs and expenses associated with any fire protection services being contemplated. As to the planning recommendation; this district has incorporated a five (5) year plan into our planning process and has developed a comprehensive 41 schedule in addressing the infrastructure needs of our department. We additionally are intricately involved in all new building(s) and plans being contemplated in our district and take a proactive approach as to our needs in mitigation relevant to future services, equipment, and personnel. Our current five (5) year plan is subject to review at any time and most specifically will be addressed in the next few months to determine the success and shortcomings of the plan that was first developed in the early part of 2006. This district believes that all funding resources need be considered relevant to providing fire protection services including, but not limited to, financial support by future development. The Grand Jury recommendation that the annexation of an area could be funded by development rather than by a district and its current taxpayers is prudent and should be considered for incorporation by LAFCO. The consideration need not stop there; however, in that mitigation costs associated with new development (purchase of equipment, the hiring of personnel and other related issues relevant to providing fire protection to the annexed area), and the direct and indirect costs to the district, should be addressed as well. This district also concurs with the Grand Jury report that it is incumbent to plan for growth; that being said the district requires the cooperation of LAFCO in order to implement the recommendation’s proffered in the Grand Jury report. GRAND JURY DETERMINATION 2007-2008 The Grand Jury determines this response is adequate. MURPHYS SANITARY DISTRICT REPORT 2006-2007 RESPONSES REASON FOR INVESTIGATION The current Grand Jury elected to investigate Murphys Sanitary District (MSD) based on unresolved issues in the 2005-2006 Grand Jury report and complaints alleging disorganized management and its inability to deal with critical issues facing the district both the short and long term. PROCEDURES The Grand Jury interviewed past and present district engineers, District Counsel, and district management. In addition, County Counsel was consulted. A private party with an ongoing contract to accept treated effluent with the district was interviewed. Relevant documents were requested and reviewed. The California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) was consulted. Site visits were made to the wastewater treatment plants in both Murphys and Angels Camp. RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION