X hits on this document

Word document

Annual Service Contract - page 6 / 43





6 / 43

October 17, 2003, San Joaquin County Superior Judge McNatt ruled in the Concerned Citizens Coalition of Stockton’ favor. January 14, 2004 the judgment and writ were signed which then was followed by the City and OMI/Thames filing an appeal with the State 3rd Court of Appeal, along with a writ of supersedeas to allow them to continue to build the initial capital improvements (ICI’s) while the case was pending – an action the judge forbade.

March 12, 2004 at the 11th hour Defendants filed a brief asking for new trial based on CA Code Section 5956. Judge McNatt orders new trial. March 2005 State Appellate Court sends CEQA lawsuit back to Superior Court Judge McNatt for new trial to address Code Section 5956.

Since the completion of the first Contract Compliance Review the lawsuit referenced above was returned to San Joaquin Superior Court. As of this report the hearing schedule is pending and will not be addressed in this report. Documents related to this lawsuit can be found on the Concerned Citizens Coalition of Stockton website: www.cccos.org.

The purpose of this report focuses on the performance and failings that have transpired in the day-to-day operations, since the City officially entered into what they call a "service contract" with OMI.  It does not address the contract's capital improvements.

This Second Review will again address  Water and Wastewater Rates, Customer Service, Staffing, Unaccounted For Water, Maintenance and Standard Operating Procedures. In addition Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSO’s) will be included.

The CCCoS continues the task of monitoring the Service Contract. Information provided in this report is only a small portion of the items held up for review in this second year.

The data was gathered from OMI’s monthly reports, which are required by the Contract. The reports are public information. Since OMI took over the operation and maintenance of the Municipal Utility, the monthly reports have been inconsistent in their manner of presentation. Neither OMI nor those monitoring the Contract for the benefit of the City

Document info
Document views132
Page views132
Page last viewedTue Jan 17 04:59:45 UTC 2017