Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7 Grand Jury Response Agenda Item # 7 Public Utility District CONSENT To: Board of Directors From: Steven Poncelet Date: September 179 2008 Subject: Response to the Grand Jury Report 1. WHY THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE BOARD This item concerns 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 At the July 2nd Board meeting, the Staff's reccommended responses to the Grand Jury findings were presented to the Board for comment. In general, the Board agreed with the Staff's draft responses. 3. NEW INFORMATION TDPUD Staff have reviewed the Grand Jury report and incorporated the Board's comments into a formal response. 4. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with this item. 5. RECOMMENDATION Approve the formal response to the Grand Jury report and authorize the Board President to sign the letter. 4 St ven Ponce let Michael D. Holley Public Information & Conservation Manager General Manager Truckee Donner Public Utility District ., [directors Joseph R. Aguera , . Ron Hemig Patricia S. Sutton Tim Taylor September 17, 2008 BillThomason General Manager The Honorable Robert L. Tamietti Michael 0. Holley Presiding Judge of the Grand Jury 201 Church Street Nevada City, CA 95959 Subject: 2008 Grand Jury of Nevada County report on the Truckee Donner Public Utility District. Dear Sir: Please find the following formal response to the 2008 Grand Jury of Nevada County report on the Truckee Donner Public Utility District Grand Jury Findings: Note: TDPUD Response in Bold 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 years in reconciling the deposit and costs and in billing the Developer under the 2002 Agreement. Agree. 3. This dispute; which took ten months to resolve, was marked by acrimony on both sides. Agree. 4. Developer was delinquent in promptly submitting as-built drawings under the 2002 Agreement. Agree. 5. The District treated the Developer as a credit risk in spite of having his significant deposits on hand. Agree. 6. 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. Agree. 7. 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. Agree. 8. 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. Partially Agree. The District has reviewed and adopted a revised Title 4, is in the process of reviewing Title 3, and has plans to review all remaining Titles. P.0.Box 309-Truckee,CA 96160-Phone 530-587-3896-www.tdpud.or 1 Grand Jury Recommendations: Note: TDPUD Response in Bold 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 Agreement that will result in consistent and fair treatment of all developers. 4. The Board should establish clear Board policy for resolution of any credit risk issues that may arise despite the existence of deposits. This item has been implemented. The District will now break larger projects into phases and collects, up front, deposits to cover the costs of each phase. Given this structure, credit evaluations/risks are no longer a part of the process. 5. 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. This recommendation has been implemented and the Board supports the on-going District Code revision process. This process should be completed by December, 2008. Feel free to contact me if I can be of any assistance. Regards, Tim Taylor Board President Truckee Donner Public Utility District P.n.Box 309—Truckee,CA 96160—Phone 530-587-3896—wwwAdpud.or 2