Special Districts – Water Water Everywhere

R1

The Board of Supervisors consider adding a position or add the responsibilities to a position of monitoring JPAs which use, in some form or fashion, county funds. (F1-F3)

R1

The Board of Supervisors consider adding a position or add the responsibilities to a position of monitoring JPAs which use, in some form or fashion, county funds. (F1-F3)

R3

The date as well as the time be included on the Notice left at the residence. (F2)

R1

The Board of Supervisors consider adding a position or add the responsibilities to a position of monitoring JPAs which use, in some form or fashion, county funds. (F1-F3)

R2

Further Lake County Grand Juries investigate the financial aspects of the aforementioned JPAs. (F3) Request for Responses:  County Counsel (90 days)  Board of Supervisors (90 days) 2012-13 Resources Name Information time period encompassed: Area Agency on Aging 2012 California Association of Joint Powers Authorities 2010 (CAPJA) California Debt & Investment Advisory Commission 2012 (CDIAC) California Secretary of State, Program Analyst 2012-2013 California State Controller 2012-2013 California State Legislature 2007 Senate to Local Government Committee Report California Statewide Communities Development 2012 Authority (CSCDA) Clearlake Advisory Committee 2012 Count of Lake website 2012 Lake County Clerk’s Office 1972-2010 Lake County/City Area Planning Council 2013 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Report 2011-2012 Lake County Superior Court JPA Listing 2012 North Central Counties Consortorium website 2012 Public Agency Risk Sharing Authority of California 2010 (PARSAC) State of California/Secretary of State website 2012 The Essential Public Information Center 2012 Workforce Investment Area NAPA-LAKE 2012 2012-13 BLANK -13 Budget and Finance Committee  Complaints C-22 Clearlake Oaks County Water District H-2 Hidden Valley Lake Community Service District  Oversights Special Districts – Water Water Everywhere 2012-13 Clearlake Oaks County Water District Complaint C-22 Summary: The 2012-2013 Lake County Civil Grand Jury (LCGJ) received a complaint concerning the policies and procedures of the Clearlake Oaks County Water District (District) relative to billing and water shut-off practices. After acceptance of the complaint, it was assigned to the Budget and Finance Committee (BFC) for investigation and resolution. It was determined the complaint was unwarranted because proper procedures were followed by the District regarding the resolution of a leak on a residential property. Background: The complainant alleged that the District left a notice at an unspecified date in July of 2012 alerting him that a water leak of .5cfm (cubic feet per minute) had been detected. A second notice was left regarding the leak informing him that the water had been turned off and stated that only the District had authority to turn the water back on. The complainant stated that he and a friend repaired the leak and turned the water back on themselves. He stated his reason for doing the repair himself on a Sunday was because his disabled step-daughter needed access to the water service. The complainant later received a notice that his bill would be larger due to the leak. He stated he was required to sign a Payment Agreement for the following months or his meter would be removed and the bill turned over to the District Attorney’s office. The homeowner maintained that his water usage during the term of the leak was miscalculated by the District resulting in an exorbitant bill. Procedure: After review by the BFC of the complaint and attached documentation thereto, it was determined that a site visit to the offices of the District was appropriate. The committee met with two members of the District Board of Directors and the Administrative Assistant on November 2, 2012 at 2pm in the District board room. 2012-13 Discussion and Facts: Timeline of the actions surrounding the complaint: 1. 7/23/12: As a result of the meter reading showing excessive consumption of water, the District tried to contact someone at the residence. The crew received no answer to their knocks and since it appeared that no one was at home they left a notice stating that there appeared to be a leak on the premises and to call if there were any questions. The notice stated the leak was flowing at a rate of .5cfm. There was no date on the notice explaining when the crew was at the property. No Specific Date noted: At some point between 7/23/12 and 7/30/12, the customer went into the District offices to question his bill. In order to facilitate payment of the back charges, the District Administrative Assistant told the complainant that he needed to sign a Payment Agreement. 7/30/12: A District Payment Agreement was drawn up and signed by the customer. District personnel suggested the homeowner hire a plumber to fix the leak. The customer stated he could not afford a plumber. 8/8/12: The leak appeared to go unrepaired, so a District crew returned to the property. No one answered the door, so a second notice was left notifying the homeowner that they were shutting off the water because of continuing excessive amount of water being consumed. 8/10/12: A District crew returned to the property. They were unable to contact anyone at the home. There was no current phone number in the District files so they were unable to confirm that anyone was in residence and were unable to contact the homeowner. However, they did find that the shut-off tags had been tampered with and the water service turned back on. 8/20/12: A letter was sent to the customer regarding the failure to fix the leak and the water valve having been turned on by an unauthorized party. 8/28/12: A second Payment Agreement was drawn up to modify the Payment Agreement of 7/30/12 based on the additional water consumption and the fact that the homeowner said he could not pay the full amount of the bill. The second agreement established a payment schedule the homeowner felt he could afford. 11/02/12: According to District records, the customer is up to date on his agreed upon payments. 2012-13 2. The District has no written policies or procedures that determine under what circumstances the water service will be turned off. According to the Board, the decision to shut off water service is determined on a case by case basis. 3. During the period of July 12, 2012 through August 10, 2012 the District observed that the excessive use of water continued. The District attributed this to the homeowner not having the leak repaired. 4. The District was unable to contact the homeowner in order to determine whether there was anyone living at the location as there was no current phone number on file. 5. At no time was the District able to confirm that there was anyone in residence since no one was answering the door. If it is determined that the residence is occupied, the District must notify the Building Department before the water service is shut off. If the property is unoccupied, the District is authorized to discontinue service. 6. The homeowner wrote in his complaint, “I was told to sign a new payment agreement for the $950 or the meter would be removed and the bill would be turned over to the District Attorney’s office for collection since it exceeds $400.” However, when questioned, the District stated meter removal is a last resort. If they are unable to resolve payment issues the account is turned over to a collection agency. The District does not refer any accounts to the District Attorney’s office. 7. The District has no written policy regarding disabled residents. However, they do have a list of agencies that may be of assistance in situations of this nature. This list is made available to their customers. Findings:

R4

The District Board of Directors establish a policy requiring that a contact phone number be obtained for each account. The application would state that the customer is responsible for updating this information as necessary. (F3) Request for Responses:  Clearlake Oaks County Water District (60 days) 2012-13 BLANK -13 HIDDEN VALLEY LAKE COMMUNITY SERVICE DISTRICT Complaint #H-2 Summary: The Budget and Finance Committee investigated a complaint which claimed that Hidden Valley Lake Community Service District (District) falsified wording for a bond issue passed in 1995. The District administration does not agree with the claim. The bond in question has been paid off. The committee found that the complainant was unavailable to substantiate the claim and therefore the complaint appears to be without merit. Background: The 2011-2012 Lake County Grand Jury received a complaint on 5/3/12 and it was held over for the 2012-2013 Grand Jury due to the lateness of receipt. The complaint was assigned to the Budget and Finance Committee. The complainant stated that when the District proposed financing for upgrading the sewer and water services in 1995, the individual property owners were told that as new properties were developed their rates would be reduced. Rates in 1995 were $380.00 per developed parcel per year. The complainant stated that the assessment rate has never decreased even though the number of developed properties has tripled. Procedure: Members of the committee read the complaint and found no paperwork to substantiate the claim as indicated in the letter attached to the complaint. Members of the committee tried to contact the complainant, but his phone had been disconnected. Due to the missing documentation the committee contacted the District to review the information on the bond passed in 1995. Discussion and Facts: 1. The District contact stated that during the term of the bond, as each new parcel was developed, the assessment went to paying down the bond balance. 2. The District contact stated they did not inform homeowners that their assessments would be reduced when new properties were developed. 3. The bond in question has been paid off by the District. 2012-13 Findings: