The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About19 Streaming video Agenda Item # 19 KEE DONNER Public Utility District WORKSHOP To: Board of Directors From: Steven Poncelet Date: July 02, 2008 Subject: Review of Streaming Video Capabilities 1. WHY THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE BOARD This item was requested by the Board during the June 18, 2008 Board meeting. 2. HISTORY As directed by the Board, TDPUD staff worked with Truckee Tahoe Community Television to develop streaming video on the web for live and past Board meetings. Streaming video capability was installed in May 2008. The purpose of the streaming video project was to improve customer access to Board meetings. 3. NEW INFORMATION The test period for streaming video is now complete and the process is fully installed on the District's website. The capabilities include: • Ability to view live Board meetings on TDPUD website (-15-second delay). • Ability to view past Board meetings on TDPUD website (2-3 days after meeting date). When viewing a past Board meeting, the user can pause, rewind, or forward; select an Agenda Item and go directly to that item; and keyword search (for Agenda Item Titles) across all past board meetings. • Ability to select 'e-mail' block at any time during a current or past meeting and send an e-mail to the person(s) of your choice which will include a link to that precise spot in the streaming video. • Ability to archive past 12-months of Board meetings on TDPUD website. 4. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with this workshop item. 5. RECOMMENDATION Receive and comment on this report. teven Poncelet ichael D. Holley Public Information & Conservation Manag General Manager Agenda Item # 20 Public Utility District WORKSHOP To: Board of Directors From: Steven Poncelet Date: July 02, 2008 Subject: Response to the Grand Jury Report 1. WHY THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE BOARD This item concens the Nevada County Grand Jury report published on June 3, 2008 which requires formal response to the Grand Jury Findings and Recommendations by the TDPUD Board of Directors by October 1, 2008. 2. HISTORY On July 10, 2002 TDPUD and Developer entered into a Development Agreement which was disputed through 2007 resulting in a settlement on Nov. 13, 2007 which included payment by the Developer of outstanding balances in the amount of $32,146 and a release of liability for the District. On February 25, 2008 the Nevada County Grand Jury received a complaint concerning the District and subsequently conducted an investigation. On June 3, 2008, the Grand Jury posted their report on the Nevada County website. At the June 18, 2008 Board meeting, there was a workshop on "Development Agreement Update: Electric and Water" discussing proposed improvements to the Development Agreements which included breaking the agreements into `phases' and a dispute resolution process. 3. NEW INFORMATION TDPUD Staff have reviewed the Grand Jury report and are seeking feedback and direction from the Board on how to respond to the Grand Jury Findings and Recommendations. As required by the California Penal Code, with regards to Grand Jury Findings, the Board shall indicate one of the following: 1. The Board agrees with the finding; or 2. The Board disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. As required by the California Penal Code, with regards to Grand Jury Recommendations, the Board shall report one of the following actions: 1. The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action; or 2. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future; with a timeframe for implementation; or 3. The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report; or 4. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. Based on the above, Staff has drafted a response to the Grand Jury report (attached) to facilitate this discussion. 4. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact assocaited with this item. 5. RECOMMENDATION Receive and comment on this report with regards to the draft responses to the Grand Jury report Finding and Recommendations. Steven Poncelet Michael D. Holley Public Information & Conservation Manag General Manager TDPUD Board Formal Response to Nevada County Grand Jury report dated June 3. 2008: Note: TDPUD Response in Bold Grand Jury Findings 1. The District enjoys a virtual monopoly since, with a limited exception, there are no other entities that provide its services within its service territory. Agree. 2. There were egregious delays of more than three y rs in reconciling the deposit and costs and in billing the Developer under the, Agreement. Agree. 3. This dispute, which took ten months to resolvei, rked by acrimony on both sides. Agree. 4. Developer was delinquent in promptly „ fitting as-built gs under the 2002 Agreement. Agree. '' 5. The District treated the Developer as r rsk in spite of having his significant deposits on hand. Ag 6. The Board was aware of the r ithhol ices under the 2006 and 2007 agreements as a way of .ng t u the 2002 Agreement. Agree. � .P 7. The District c ly has ublish rocess for resolving disputes between the District and` elopers, ough it s have such a process for resolving disputes between ist m Agree. 8. They, M er has begun a thorough and complete review of the Dist '� ode. To� ' review of Title 1, General Provisions, has been co d. Partially ee. "° District has reviewed and adopted a revised Title in the pro s of viewing Title 3, and has plans to review all remaini 'ties. Grand Jury Rec ", ndations 1. The Board should set up a clear dispute resolution process for development issues, culminating in access to the Board. The recommendation has been implemented. The TDPUD Board has taken action on this issue at the July 2, 2008 Board meeting. The revised Development Agreement template now includes a dispute resolution clause that includes formal access to the Board. 2. The Board should ensure that staff promptly completes its reconciliation of costs and deposits and promptly bills or refunds the balance to developers. The recommendation has been implemented. The District has reviewed the management of Development Agreements and now assigns a Project Administrator to each Development Agreement to ensure contractual compliance and timely billing. 3. The Board should ensure that the practice of holding a developer hostage, by not serving a different project, does not occur again. The District has implemented changes to the Development Agreeme that will result in consistent and fair treatment of all developers. _ 4. The Board should establish clear Board policy f „ tion of any credit risk issues that may arise despite the existence of ; osits his item has been implemented. The District will now brea er projec ' J, to phases and collects, up front, deposits to cover th, is of each p Given this structure, credit evaluations/risks are , nger a dart of the ess. 5. The Board should enthusiastically suppo lete review and revision of polices, rules, and procedures f e District eing undertaken by the new General Manager. In light of rage tha ng the only game in town creates, the Board should make e revs address the matters set forth in this Report, as well as an er ` in t may be found during the review. This rec datio a ented and the Board supports the on-g t Cod Won pr ess. This process should be completed b ember, 08. fr