Nevada County Grand Jury
• 2007-2008
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Reason for Investigation The Nevada County Grand Jury (Jury) has the power to
⚠️ 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 and Recommendations 11 findings
F1
The District enjoys a virtual monopoly since, with a limited exception, there are no other entities that provide its services within its service territory.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
There were egregious delays of more than three years in reconciling the deposit and costs and in billing the Developer under the 2002 Agreement.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
The Board should ensure that staff promptly completes its reconciliation of costs and deposits and promptly bills or refunds the balance to developers.
F3
This dispute, which took ten months to resolve, was marked by acrimony on both sides.
No recommendations for this finding
F4
Developer was delinquent in promptly submitting as-built drawings under the 2002 Agreement.
No recommendations for this finding
F5
The District treated the Developer as a credit risk in spite of having his significant deposits on hand. 3
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
The Board should establish clear Board policy for resolution of any credit risk issues that may arise despite the existence of deposits.
F6
The Board was aware of the decision to withhold services under the 2006 and 2007 agreements as a way of forcing payment under the 2002 Agreement.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
The Board should ensure that the practice of holding a developer hostage, by not serving a different project, does not occur again.
F7
The District currently has no published process for resolving disputes between the District and developers, although it does have such a process for resolving disputes between the District and customers.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
The Board should set up a clear dispute resolution process for development issues, culminating in access to the Board.
F8
The new General Manager has begun a thorough and complete review of the District Code. To date, only review of Title 1, General Provisions, has been completed. Conclusions
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
The Board should enthusiastically support the complete review and revision of polices, rules, and procedures in the District Code being undertaken by the new General Manager. In light of the leverage that being the only game in town creates, the Board should make sure that the revisions address the matters set forth in this Report, as well as any other shortcomings that may be found during the review. Response Truckee Donner Public Utility District Board of Directors: October 1, 2008 5
F9
It was inappropriate to require the Developer to release the District from liability for its conduct as a condition for receiving service.
No recommendations for this finding
F10
The Board’s disengagement in this matter contributed to escalation of the dispute. The matter should have been put on the first available Board meeting agenda. A hearing 4
No recommendations for this finding
F11
The Board of Directors’ focus on the collection of the bill rather than the relationship between the District and a Developer who provides capital improvements for the District was shortsighted.
No recommendations for this finding
Conclusions 11
-
CL1 Page 4The suggestion that Developer was a credit risk was fallacious considering the amount of deposits on hand and the Developer’s previous credit history with the District.
-
CL2 Page 4It was inappropriate to require the Developer to release the District from liability for its conduct as a condition for receiving service.
-
CL3 Page 4The Board’s disengagement in this matter contributed to escalation of the dispute. The matter should have been put on the first available Board meeting agenda. A hearing 4 11. The Board of Directors’ focus on the collection of the bill rather than the relationship between the District and a Developer who provides capital improvements for the District was shortsighted.
-
CL4 Page 4This dispute, marked by acrimony and disrespect on both sides, took much too long to resolve.
-
CL5 Page 4The absence of an established process for resolving disputes between the District and developers contributed to this matter getting out of hand.
-
CL6 Page 4The Developer did not submit as-built drawings promptly upon completion of construction. Had the Developer done so and the District monitored the Developer’s account, completing the reconciliation of costs on time, this dispute might have been avoided or minimized.
-
CL7 Page 4The District, a public utility special district, that makes its own rules and regulations, needs greater public oversight to assure that its customers and stakeholders are treated fairly and respectfully.
-
CL8 Page 4The three-year gap in reconciling costs with deposits and the five month delay in providing supporting materials which had been redacted to a point where they were difficult to analyze, represented egregious performances by the District staff.
-
CL9 Page 4Delivering the magazine article about the Developer’s past to his attorney to support the suggestion of a credit risk was improper, as well as irrelevant.
-
CL10 Page 4It was immoral to hold the Developer hostage by denying services on a later project.
-
CL11 Page 5The Board of Directors’ focus on the collection of the bill rather than the relationship between the District and a Developer who provides capital improvements for the District was shortsighted.
No Responses Found 1
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
Truckee-Donner Public Utility District
Special District