Amador County Grand Jury
2012-2013
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
The philosophy of the current administration is to treat inmates with dignity and to provide a safe and secure environment.
F2:
Inmate classes are currently being held in the library and facility hallways. Some activities are no longer available because of staffing constraints.
F3:
Due to AB109 more Electronic Monitoring will be done to compensate for the projected over-crowding. (Facts #5 & #14)
F4:
Since 2001, the ACDF inmate population has increased due to community growth and the reintroduction of state prisoners to the county. Amador County Detention Facility
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
19 findings
F1:
AB 109 will be implemented this year and will reduce its Institutional Count by about 700 prisoners and will be eliminating the overcrowding in the gymnasiums by March 2012. (Fact #1)
F2:
Overcrowding continues to be a problem at MCSP. This is complicated by budget issues. An early release program for inmates has become necessary. (Fact #1)
F3:
As programs are eliminated, opportunities for rehabilitation are lost and will have a negative effect on inmates. (Facts #5, 6, 7 )
F4:
The wards at PGYCC must be California residents.
F5:
Certain mental and physical health requirements must be met. Medical problems can be an obstacle to being placed at PGYCC. A case management worker from the Intake Unit determines an individual's competence in advance. Pine Grove Youth Conservation Camp
F6:
PGYCC's Limitation Parole Requirements document specifies that an individual must have between 6 to 36 months remaining before release.
F7:
There is zero tolerance of gang activity at PGYCC. Each young man must make a commitment to stop all gang involvement at the time of his assignment.
F8:
The average stay for a ward of PGYCC is 13 months. Most are expected to be on a CALFIRE crew after an extensive training program. Others are there for support services.
F9:
The CDCR-DJJ has a four-point program: GROUP LIVING Individuals learn respect for the rules, staff and how to improve interaction with others. COUNSELING Participation is required. Each individual is assigned a Youth Correctional Counselor who ensures the Ward gets the counseling appropriate to his needs. The average youth-to-counselor ratio is less than 7 to 1. Case conferences are held every 30 days. EDUCATION The high school diploma program is administered by NA Chaderjian High School located at the Stockton facility. Graduation is the number one goal. Higher education can be obtained through college courses designed for incarcerated students. EMPLOYABILITY SKILLS The needs of an individual are identified and a plan is set up based upon those needs. Upon parole, each youth is provided with 3to 7 job referrals.
F10:
Staff receives training in violence prevention and control and the use of force. Mental health problems are quickly identified and a counselor referral is made. There are no psychotropic or behavior control drugs administered.
F11:
A youth count is conducted every 30 minutes, whether they are participating on strike teams, in community crews, or at the facility.
F12:
Privileges are given on a phase system; those at a higher phase get more privileges. This system encourages them to work harder, attain their educational goals, and be more productive members of their crews. Any credits or points earned on the phase system may contribute to an early parole. Pine Grove Youth Conservation Camp
F13:
The daily Physical Training (PT) program requires each individual to run, work out in the weight room and participate in evening sports. All are encouraged to participate in competitive athletic programs. A sport field is under construction and the staff hopes that other entities in the community will hold sporting events at the camp. At this time, PGYCC participates in the Pine Grove Softball and Jackson Baseball Leagues.
F14:
An individual "Corrective Action Plan" is developed for each youth to help him adjust to his program. If he is unable to adapt to PGYCC requirements, he can be returned to a higher security level institution.
F15:
The primary responsibility of PGYCC is to assist in fire fighting. CALFIRE supervises a total of four Type1 Hand Crews, consisting of 15 individuals per crew and a Captain. CALFIRE takes strike teams throughout California.
F16:
The PGYCC employability training is conducted in partnership with CALFIRE. Each youth is given a year-round employment assignment. During the summer, hand crews participate in statewide fire suppression. In winter, the crews perform tasks at the county and city level, referred to as Grade Projects.
F17:
Grade Projects are community services work. These include brush removal, creek maintenance, and other contracted projects. The community work crew can only benefit small city and county government entities.
F18:
Some agencies using the community work crew are charged for their services, but no more than $ 200/day. That amount helps PGYCC to re-coup its cost.
F19:
Crew members are paid by voucher system. One half of any money earned goes toward victim restitution. FINDINGS:
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
The Grand Jury finds that the City Manager for the fiscal period 2007-2011 did not demonstrate that she possessed the proper qualifications and expertise to perform the duties required for that position. (Facts #1-3) (Attachment 2 / Exhibits 1-8)
F2:
The Grand Jury finds that the General Plan created by the City Manager and consulting firm PMC was unrealistic based on the financial infrastructure in place at the time. (Fact #3) (Attachment 2 / Exhibits 1-8) 6
Findings & Recommendations
24 findings
F1:
The Grand Jury finds that following the 2004 embezzlement, security measures have not improved and the potential still exists for further financial loss either by misappropriation of funds or accident. (Facts #1, 2, 11, 12, 13, 14)
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Complete the SSMP in a timely manner to minimize future spills. (Facts #1, #2, #3, and Finding #1) THE CITY COUNCIL AGREES WITH AND WILL IMPLEMENT THIS RECOMMENDATION. The City is currently in the process of considering one or more professional contracts to implement and manage the SSMP. A final decision regarding the contract will be completed 120 days from this report. January 18, 2011: The City is anticipating making a final decision on the contract by February. February 6, 2012: The SSMP document was finalized by City Sewer Engineer Grant Reynolds, and was certified as complete in May, 2011. The City released a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the operations and management of the SSMP and the sewer treatment plant during July 2010. After proposals were received, the Council in June 2011opted to not contract out these functions to a private company. Instead, the Council opted to contract out for management services for the SSMP and sewer treatment plant. That contract was approved in October 2011. The contractor (HydroScience Operators) has since been working with existing City staff to ensure the SSMP is being implemented in a timely basis.
F2:
The Conservator’s Office is inadequately staffed. (Facts #2, 3) 44 Conservator's Office
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Implement an inspection and maintenance program to regulate the FOG issue. (Fact #4, Finding #2) THE CITY COUNCIL AGREES WITH THIS RECOMMENDATION. The City adopted a new FOG ordinance (Ordinance 331) in May of 2009, which provides the City authority to inspect and maintain grease interceptors. THE CITY COUNCIL AGREES WITH AND WILL IMPLEMENT THIS RECOMMENDATION. The City is currently in the process of considering one or more professional contracts to implement and manage the SSMP. A final decision regarding the contract will be completed 120 days from this report. January 18, 2011: The City is anticipating making a final decision on the contract by February. February 6, 2012: The SSMP document was finalized by City Sewer Engineer Grant Reynolds, and was certified as complete in May, 2011. The City released a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the operations and management of the SSMP and the sewer treatment plant during July 2010. After proposals were received, the Council in June 2011opted to not contract out these functions to a private company. Instead, the Council opted to contract out for management services for the SSMP and sewer treatment plant. That contract was approved in October 2011. The contractor (HydroScience Operators) has since been working with existing City staff to ensure the SSMP is being implemented in a timely basis.
F3:
Due to inadequate staffing, it is difficult to adhere to proper procedures for the verification of a client's assets. (Facts #11,12,13,14)
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Complete video inspections as specified in the SSMP to reduce raw sewage spills in the City. (Fact #5, Finding #3) THE CITY COUNCIL AGREES WITH AND WILL IMPLEMENT THIS RECOMMENDATION. The City is currently in the process of considering one or more professional contracts to implement and manage the SSMP. A final decision regarding the contract will be completed 120 days from this report. January 18, 2011: The City is anticipating making a final decision on the contract by February. City of Sutter Creek 2009/2010 Civil Grand Jury Report Response UPDATE #3 February 6, 2012 – FINAL UPDATE February 6, 2012: The SSMP document was finalized by City Sewer Engineer Grant Reynolds, and was certified as complete in May, 2011. The City released a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the operations and management of the SSMP and the sewer treatment plant during July 2010. After proposals were received, the Council in June 2011opted to not contract out these functions to a private company. Instead, the Council opted to contract out for management services for the SSMP and sewer treatment plant. That contract was approved in October 2011. The contractor (HydroScience Operators) has since been working with existing City staff to ensure the SSMP is being implemented in a timely basis.
F4:
The Conservator and Behavioral Health offices share two unsecured hallways which creates a lack of security. (Fact #12)
F5:
Transportation, including out-of-county placements, is provided by a single staff member which creates a potential risk for both client and staff member. (Facts #15, 16, 17)
F6:
Clients who are transported may have behavioral health issues and can be dangerous. (Fact #16, 17)
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
Repair or replace collection system piping, per the SSMP, to prevent raw sewage overflows at the WWTP storage basin and contamination of natural waterways (“riparian zones”). (Finding #6) THE CITY COUNCIL AGREES WITH AND WILL IMPLEMENT THIS RECOMMENDATION. The City is currently in the process of considering one or more professional contracts to implement and manage the SSMP. A final decision regarding the contract will be completed 120 days from this report. January 18, 2011: The City is anticipating making a final decision on the contract by February. February 6, 2012: The SSMP document was finalized by City Sewer Engineer Grant Reynolds, and was certified as complete in May, 2011. The City released a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the operations and management of the SSMP and the sewer treatment plant during July 2010. After proposals were received, the Council in June 2011opted to not contract out these functions to a private company. Instead, the Council opted to contract out for management services for the SSMP and sewer treatment plant. That contract was approved in October 2011. The contractor (HydroScience Operators) has since been working with existing City staff to ensure the SSMP is being implemented in a timely basis. Capital expenditures will be coordinated through the SSMP program and will be completed as required dependent on funding.
F7:
Amador County Department Heads are allowed to oversee their own expenses.
Related Recommendations (1)
R19:
Adopt a policy of promptly transcribing and presenting the Council meeting minutes to the City Council for approval. (Fact #14, Finding #7) THE CITY AGREES WITH AND WILL IMPLEMENT THIS RECOMMENDATION. The City Council will adopt a formal policy regarding the preparation of official City documents such as meeting minutes, resolutions and ordinances within 60 days of the date of this report. December 6, 2010: A formal policy regarding the preparation of official City documents will be completed by and presented to the City Council by the first meeting in January 2011. January 18, 2011: The minutes policy was approved at the January 3 City Council meeting. The associated resolution is on the Consent Agenda for the January 18, 2011 meeting. February 6, 2022: The resolution was formally approved at the January 18, 2011 City Council meeting.
F8:
While acting as interim HSD and Chief Financial Officer (CFO) and applying for the HSD license, she wrote a letter to the state on her own behalf requesting that educational requirements be waved in lieu of experience. FINDINGS:
F9:
The current controller was hired by the Agency in 2011.
F10:
The operating budget for fiscal year 2011-2012 is $10,196,450.00.
F11:
Restricted funds have been intermingled within other accounts. Restricted funds are legally required to be used for a specific purpose.
F12:
Prior to 2010, interest bearing loans made betweenthe Agency's water districts were not recorded. (Reference item #1)
F13:
The Agency contracts with Leaf & Cole LLP, an independent auditor, to conduct a yearly audit.
Related Recommendations (2)
R6:
Place a Policy Manual in each department and make City employees and City Council members aware of its location. (Fact #7, Finding #13) THE CITY AGREES WITH AND WILL IMPLEMENT THIS RECOMMENDATION. Updated copies of the City’s administrative policy and procedure manual will be prepared, distributed and reviewed by each employee within 120 days of the date of this report. January 18, 2011: The Personnel Handbook is currently being reviewed and revised by the City Attorney and will be updated by February 2011. Staff is preparing a City Administrative Manual as well, which should be completed by the end of fiscal year 2010-2011. February 6, 2012: A draft revision to the Personnel Handbook has been prepared and is currently being reviewed. The revision will be presented to the Council by the end of the fiscal year.
R20:
Update and provide revision dates for the Policy Manual and Personnel Handbook to reflect City of Sutter Creek 2009/2010 Civil Grand Jury Report Response UPDATE #3 February 6, 2012 – FINAL UPDATE current laws. Index and number the pages properly for easy reference. This will avoid confusion and establish a tracking mechanism for compliance with California State Laws and/or the Fair Political Practices Commission (Fact #7, Finding #13) THE CITY AGREES WITH AND WILL IMPLEMENT THIS RECOMMENDATION. Updated copies of the City’s administrative policy and procedure manual will be prepared, distributed and reviewed by each employee within 120 days of the date of this report. January 18, 2011: The Personnel Handbook is currently being reviewed and revised by the City Attorney and will be updated by February 2011. The City Manager will review the revised handbook with all City employees once it is completed. February 6, 2012: A draft revision to the Personnel Handbook has been prepared and is currently being reviewed. The revision will be presented to the Council by the end of the fiscal year. SANITARY SEWER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SSMP) RECOMMENDATIONS:
F14:
According to the audit prepared by Leaf and Cole LLP for fiscal year 2010-2011, the Agency’s long-term debt is $35,716,330.00 and the total liabilities are $38,314,288.00. On March 22, 2012, the audit was rejected by the Board of Directors.
F15:
The Agency requested a one-hundred fifty thousand dollar grant from the Board of Supervisors for the Camanche Water District. The Board of Supervisors made this grant contingent on a rate increase.
F16:
The Agency applied for a grant of over five million dollars and a low-interest loan exceeding eight million dollars from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) for the Gravity Supply Line (GSL) Project. (Reference item #3) There are conditions that must be met before the money can be released, according to a USDA Rural Development Letter of Conditions dated July 30, 2010. o The conditions must be completed by September 30, 2012. o On April 9, 2012, the Agency applied for and wasgranted an extension to September 30, 2013. (Reference item #4) 61 Amador Water Agency
F17:
On May 13, 2010, the Agency obtained a loan for the GSL Project of nine-hundred thousand dollars from the Amador County Board of Supervisors with a due date of December 31, 2010. (Reference item #2) The recitals for the loan state the Agency intends to use the money from the loan to reimburse itself for past work and to complete certain tasks before a funding agreement can be completed with the USDA. On November 30, 2010, the Board of Supervisors extended the due date for this loan to August 31, 2011. The Board of Supervisors subsequently agreed to a second extension, moving the due date to September 30, 2012. If the USDA grant is received, the Agency is requiredto use these funds to repay the loan to the Board of Supervisors. If the USDA grant is not received, the loan will be in default, which will require the Agency to seek other funding sources. (Reference item #2, section 5, “Repayment Obligations”)
F18:
The funds expended for the GSL Project have come from interdepartmental loans, Agency general funds, and a nine-hundred thousand dollar loan from the Board of Supervisors. On April 30, 2012, the Board of Directors voted unanimously to giveanother fifty thousand dollars from general funds to the General Manager for the GSL Project.
F19:
The ratepayers have rejected GSL projects in the past.
F20:
Per Resolution No. 2012-04, the Agency modified how it would accept Proposition 218 rate protests from the rate payers. (Reference item #5) The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association sent a letter protesting the Agency's Proposition 218 resolution. (Reference item #6)
F21:
The Agency is in the process of creating two Community Facilities Districts (CFD). A CFD district must be approved by an election of two-thirds of the registered voters. If the CFD has fewer than twelve registered voters, approval by two-thirds of property-owners is required. The CFD for the AWS district will: o Provide immediate funds to decrease the Amador Transmission Pipeline (ATL) debt. o Provide immediate funds to assist in future upgrades of water treatment plants. o Guarantee developers who participate a future connection regardless of water system capacity. Amador Water Agency o Be strictly voluntary. The CFD for the CAWP Water District will fund the GSL project and will be levied on all properties improved or unimproved located in the CAWP CFD boundaries.
F22:
Charges for water usage vary from district-to-district. FINDINGS:
F23:
City Council has, on several occasions, not followed the policies and procedures of Sutter Creek City government. (Facts #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #11, #18) THE CITY COUNCIL AGREES
F24:
Grand Jurors attending City Council meetings observed some members of the City Council managing by intimidation and being unresponsive to citizens’ concerns. THE COUNCIL AGREES IN PART WITH THIS FINDING: The City Council agrees that there have been occasions when members of the Council, staff and public have spoken in anger and/or let frustration get the better of them. Such occasions certainly can be intimidating. However, the City Council does not agree that there has been any deliberate pattern of intimation of the public by any member of the Council. The entire Council recognizes that we are responsible to set the tone of the meeting and interactions with the public and that anything less than common courtesy is unacceptable.
Additional Recommendations
18
Not linked to specific findings.
R2:
Update the SSMP on a yearly basis, and keep in compliance with it. (Facts #1, #2, #3) THE CITY COUNCIL AGREES WITH AND WILL IMPLEMENT THIS RECOMMENDATION. The city is currently in the process of considering one or more professional contracts to implement and manage the SSMP. A final decision regarding the contract will be completed 120 days from this report. City of Sutter Creek 2009/2010 Civil Grand Jury Report Response UPDATE #3 February 6, 2012 – FINAL UPDATE January 18, 2011: The City is anticipating making a final decision on the contract by February. February 6, 2012: The SSMP document was finalized by City Sewer Engineer Grant Reynolds, and was certified as complete in May, 2011. The City released a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the operations and management of the SSMP and the sewer treatment plant during July 2010. After proposals were received, the Council in June 2011opted to not contract out these functions to a private company. Instead, the Council opted to contract out for management services for the SSMP and sewer treatment plant. That contract was approved in October 2011. The contractor (HydroScience Operators) has since been working with existing City staff to ensure the SSMP is being implemented in a timely basis.
R5:
Repair or replace sewage collection system pipes to protect the WWTP’s aeration basin from potential overflow. THIS RECOMMENDATION REQUIRES FURTHER REVIEW PRIOR TO RESPONDING: The city is currently in the process of soliciting bids by outside contractors to provide a wide range of WWTP and SSMP operational, planning and supervisory services. This is a complicated process which will require months to complete. A final response will need to wait until this process is completed, expected to be within 120 days. January 18, 2011: The City is anticipating making a final decision on the contract by February. February 6, 2012: The City released a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the operations and management of the SSMP and the sewer treatment plant during July 2010. After proposals were received, the Council in June 2011opted to not contract out these functions to a private company. Instead, the Council opted to contract out for management services for the SSMP and sewer treatment plant. That contract was approved in October 2011. The contractor (HydroScience Operators) has since been working with existing City staff to ensure the SSMP is being implemented in a timely basis. Capital expenditures will be coordinated through the SSMP program and will be completed as required dependent on funding.
R8:
City Ordinances and Municipal Codes are out-of-date by 4 to 5 years, according to the Deputy City Clerk. (Fact #14) THE CITY COUNCIL AGREES IN PART WITH THIS FINDING: The City Council agrees that some of the codes are out of date. However, disagrees with the implication that all of the codes are out dated. The Council acknowledges that a thorough review of all City policies, codes and records is needed. A detailed review will be completed within 120 days of this response. January 18, 2011: The City’s Municipal Code is scheduled to be codified during fiscal year 2011-2012. Other policies are being revised on an ongoing basis as needed and should be completed by the end of fiscal year 2010-2011. February 6, 2012: The City is in the process of codifying the Municipal Code at this time. RECOMMENDATIONS:
R9:
Wastewater treatment depends on biological organisms in both the aeration basin and the “Klargester” (container) to process the wastewater. The HDR design for the City’s WWTP has organisms in the aeration basin that conflict with the Klargester organisms. If these organisms come into contact with each other, the organisms from the aeration basin could kill off the organisms in the Klargester, which could result in a complete shutdown of the treatment process. Upon discovery of this error, water flow to the aeration basin was shut off on 4/30/2010. THE CITY COUNCIL AGREES IN PART WITH THIS FACT. The City Council agrees that at the time of this report the WWTP was not operating City of Sutter Creek 2009/2010 Civil Grand Jury Report Response UPDATE #3 February 6, 2012 – FINAL UPDATE as planned. There are operational as well as technical issues affecting the plant effectiveness which are currently being addressed. The City Council disagrees with the implication that the WWTP upgrade was a failure. The final response to this finding will require completion of the ongoing review of the plant operations, expected within 90 days of this report. December 6, 2010: The City’s recently-hired consultant is continuing to improve the operational and technical issues at the plant. As of this update the plant is in full compliance with State standards. A final report from the consultant is due by February. January 18, 2011: See comment above. February 6, 2012: The Consultant’s final report is attached to this update. The consultant continued to work with City staff to improve the operational and technical issues at the plant through October 2011. HydroScience Operations (HSo) has continued working to implement the recommendations made in the final report. These improvements are ongoing.
R10:
HDR did not follow through with its Quality Control/Quality Assurance obligations. FURTHER REVIEW AND TESTING IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO RESPONDING. There are a range of issues, some design and some operational, which need to be resolved prior to responding. Response pending review by outside professional contractor, due in 90 days of this report. December 6, 2010: The City’s recently-hired consultant is continuing to improve the operational and technical issues at the plant. As of this update the plant is in full compliance with State standards. A final report from the consultant is due by February. The recently-hired City Attorney and City Manager will begin reviewing the performance of the contractors when the final report is completed. January 18, 2011: See comment above. February 6, 2012: February 6, 2012: The Consultant’s final report is attached to this update. The consultant continued to work with City staff to improve the operational and technical issues at the plant through October 2011. HydroScience Operations (HSo) has continued working to implement the recommendations made in the final report. These improvements are ongoing. The City Attorney and City Manager are continuing to look at potential legal remedies regarding the performance of the contractors used for the project.
R11:
HDR’s trial and error approach to resolving the TSS, BOD, and TCB issues should not have been at the expense of the City. HDR was hired because of its highly regarded reputation and expertise. City of Sutter Creek 2009/2010 Civil Grand Jury Report Response UPDATE #3 February 6, 2012 – FINAL UPDATE FURTHER REVIEW AND TESTING IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO RESPONDING. There are a range of issues, some design and some operational, which need to be resolved prior to responding. Response pending review by outside professional contractor, due in 90 days of this report. December 6, 2010: The City’s recently-hired consultant is continuing to improve the operational and technical issues at the plant. As of this update the plant is in full compliance with State standards. A final report from the consultant is due by February. The recently-hired City Attorney and City Manager will begin reviewing the performance of the contractors when the final report is completed. January 18, 2011: See comment above. February 6, 2012: The Consultant’s final report is attached to this update. The consultant continued to work with City staff to improve the operational and technical issues at the plant through October 2011. HydroScience Operations (HSo) has continued working to implement the recommendations made in the final report. These improvements are ongoing. The City Attorney and City Manager are continuing to look at potential legal remedies regarding the performance of the contractors used for the project.
R12:
HDRs design for the WWTP has several deficiencies: • Bacteriologic incompatibility • No PH control • High operating costs, especially in summer • High chlorine demand • Unresolved high BOD levels • Overbuilt due to Gold Rush considerations • No process manual • No follow-through on Quality Control/Quality Assurance FURTHER REVIEW AND TESTING IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO RESPONDING. There are a range of issues, some design and some operational, which need to be resolved prior to responding. Response pending review by outside professional contractor, due in 90 days of this report. December 6, 2010: The City’s recently-hired consultant is continuing to improve the operational and technical issues at the plant. As of this update the plant is in full compliance with State standards. A final report from the consultant is due by February. The recently-hired City Attorney and City Manager will begin reviewing the performance of the contractors when the final report is completed. City of Sutter Creek 2009/2010 Civil Grand Jury Report Response UPDATE #3 February 6, 2012 – FINAL UPDATE January 18, 2011: See comment above. February 6, 2012: February 6, 2012: The Consultant’s final report is attached to this update. The consultant continued to work with City staff to improve the operational and technical issues at the plant through October 2011. HydroScience Operations (HSo) has continued working to implement the recommendations made in the final report. These improvements are ongoing. The City Attorney and City Manager are continuing to look at potential legal remedies regarding the performance of the contractors used for the project.
R13:
The City Treasurer provided the Grand Jury with documents which suggest that Sewer Enterprise Funds have been transferred to the General Fund, once in the amount of $24,250, another in the amount of $220,000. There is no evidence that either of these transfers were paid back, as required by Article l3D § 6(b) of the California State Constitution (Fact #12) FURTHER REVIEW IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO RESPONDING. This issue has been referred to the new finance director to research and respond within 90 days of this report. December 6, 2010: Due to ongoing issues within the Finance Department, this issue has not been addressed by the new Finance Director. The Finance Director will research and respond to this issue by the first meeting in January. January 18, 2011: Continuing issues within the Finance Department have delayed this issue from being addressed. The Finance Department will research and respond to this issue by February. February 6, 2012: Research by the Finance Director presented to the City Council on September 19, 2011 showed that the $24,250 transfer was categorized as a loan and has since been paid back. The Finance Director’s research shows no evidence that a transfer of $220,000 had occurred. RECOMMENDATIONS:
R14:
Creation of Grants spreadsheet Sean In progress Sept. 1, 2010 with monthly status report to City Oct. 4, 2010 Council, to include deadlines and Ongoing audit timeframes.
R15:
Ensure City policy prohibits the Sean/Dennis COMPLETE June 1, 2010 city from paying for studies done on behalf of developers, without a formal reimbursement agreement and pre-approval by City Council.
R16:
Remove outdated leave-of-absence
R17:
Any ARSA issues that might Sean In progress Sept. 1, 2010 impact city budget need to be COMPLETE brought forward to council for
R18:
Add a written Workers’ Compensation procedure to the Policy Manual and Personnel Handbook. (Fact #6) THE CITY AGREES WITH AND WILL IMPLEMENT THIS RECOMMENDATION. Updated copies of the City’s administrative policy and procedure manual will be prepared, distributed and reviewed by each employee within 120 days of the date of this report. January 18, 2011: The Personnel Handbook is currently being reviewed and revised by the City Attorney and will be updated by February 2011. The City Manager will review the revised handbook with all City employees once it is completed. February 6, 2012: A draft revision to the Personnel Handbook has been prepared and is currently being reviewed. The revision will be presented to the Council by the end of the fiscal year.
R21:
Journal entries in excess of 10. FD In progress Dec. 1, 2010 COMPLETE
R22:
Update Personnel Handbook Sean In progress June, 2012 City of Sutter Creek 2009/2010 Civil Grand Jury Report Response UPDATE #2 January 18, 2011 Text in bold indicates the City of Sutter Creek’s original response to the 2009/2010 Amador County Grand Jury Report recommendations and/or findings (as indicated). The text in bold italic indicates the City’s updates to the recommendations or findings listed in the report. Only those recommendations with outstanding responses are included in this update. See Update #1 (dated December 6, 2010) for recommendations or findings that have already been addressed. FINANCE, ADMINISTRATION AND POLICY
R23:
City Council has, on several occasions, not followed the policies and procedures of Sutter Creek City government. (Facts #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #11, #18) THE CITY COUNCIL AGREES
R24:
Grand Jurors attending City Council meetings observed some members of the City Council managing by intimidation and being unresponsive to citizens’ concerns. THE COUNCIL AGREES IN PART WITH THIS FINDING: The City Council agrees that there have been occasions when members of the Council, staff and public have spoken in anger and/or let frustration get the better of them. Such occasions certainly can be intimidating. However, the City Council does not agree that there has been any deliberate pattern of intimation of the public by any member of the Council. The entire Council recognizes that we are responsible to set the tone of the meeting and interactions with the public and that anything less than common courtesy is unacceptable. RECOMMENDATIONS: THE CITY COUNCIL HAS ADDRESSED MANY OF THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DISCUSSED IN THIS SECTION OF THE REPORT OVER THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS. THESE ACTIONS INCLUDED STAFF DIRECTION GIVEN IN CLOSED SESSION, STAFF PERFORMANCE REVIEWS, AS WELL AS PRESENTATIONS PROVIDED DURING REGULARLY SCHEDULED CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS. To the SUTTER CREEK CITY Council:
R25:
Update Personnel Handbook Sean City of Sutter Creek 2009/2010 Civil Grand Jury Report Response ATTACHMENT 3 Improvements Required as a Result of Audit Issue 1: Management override of internal controls with regard to entering construction contracts and agreements beyond the scope of the city manager’s position without competitive bids, without city council approval and ratification of contracts/agreements, and without amendment to budget. Solution: On Task Spreadsheet dated 1/10 (# 4, 5, 6, 7, 19) to ensure tight financial controls in place to ensure there are no management overrides. Issue 2: Management override of hiring city employees outside the accepted city hiring practices. Solution: Hiring Policy in place and most recent hiring completed per policy. Issue 3: No documentation for written cost reimbursement developer agreement. Solution: On Task Spreadsheet dated 1/10 (#5, 6, 7, 17, 18) Issue 4: No written loan agreement between city and developer. Solution: On Task Spreadsheet dated 1/10 (#4, 5, 6, 7, 18) Issue 5: With change of finance director, ensure name removed as check signer. Solution: Completed immediately after change took place. Issue 6: Needs to be segregation of duties re signature on cash accounts. Solution: Finance working on. Issue 7: Clarify amount due Amador County for dispatch services. Solution: Identified on Budget spreadsheet. Issue 8: Number of journal entries in excess of 10. Solution: Interim finance director will address (on Task Spreadsheet #24) Issue 9: Sewer fund invoices billed every 3 months. (Earliest this could be implemented is FY 2011/2012.) Solution: Will be reviewed by Budget Committee and Interim Finance Director. City of Sutter Creek 2009/2010 Civil Grand Jury Report Response Issue 10: Send out RFPs for various consultants such as city attorney and city engineer. Solution: RFP was sent out for City Attorney. Other RFPs for city functions in the process of being developed. Issue 11: No depreciation expenses for governmental activities (on Task Spreadsheet #23). Solution: Interim finance director will be asked to advise. Issue 12: City Council Minutes not completed. Solution: Minutes and process currently being addressed (on Task Spreadsheet #22). MULE CREEK STATE PRISON 2010/2011 Follow-up Prison Site Ione Photo courtesy of Mule Creek State Prison Pine Grove Conservation Camp 2010/2011 Follow-up Camp Site Pine Grove Photo courtesy of Pine Grove Youth Conservation Camp