City of Ione Response-Grand Jury Report 2023*

The propane tank at Howard Park was installed in December of 2020, despite Ione City Ordinance 489 prohibiting its installation. Response: Disagree. Ordinance 489 does not ban propane tanks. Ordinance 489 simply adopted the 2016 California Fire Code and updated language that previously existed in the 2010 California Fire Code.

A permit to install the propane tank was issued without all departmental approvals. Response: Partially Disagree. All departmental approvals were given as can be seen in the correspondence between department heads, however not all approvals were signed on the Departmental Routing Sheet. The city will ensure that all paperwork is in order and signed going forward. In February 2023, the City of Ione Finance Committee conducted an internal audit on a portion of the City's Purchasing & Bidding Policy, after which direction was given to staff to increase training and provide checks & balances to ensure policy is followed. The City has purchased new software that will allow staff to track all projects and maintain compliance.

Written policies and procedures for overseeing this public works project were not followed, which resulted in lack of adherence to state, county, and city regulations. Response: Disagree. The state and county allow propane tanks and the city has frequently allowed the installation of propane tanks in the past. (As stated above) In February 2023, the City of Ione Finance Committee conducted an internal audit on a portion of the City's Purchasing & Bidding Policy, after which direction was given to staff to increase training and provide checks & balances to ensure policy is followed. The City has purchased new software that will allow staff to track all projects to maintain compliance.

Turnover of the City Manager position in 2020 contributed to policies and procedures not being followed, which contributed to the propane tank installation in violation of the City Ordinance. Continued City Manager turnover resulted in further delays in correcting the violation. Response. Disagree. There was only ONE city manager during the permit application, the tank Installation, and when the objection was made (Nov 30, 2020 – Feb 4th, 2021). During the entire course of the project, the City could have remedied the objection if it had been brought to the attention of the council by the city manager or Fire Chief. However, as previously mentioned, any delay to the project could have resulted in a forfeiture of the $100,000 CARES ACT funding. We believe those involved were moving forward with no ill intent, as propane tanks were not banned. These findings appear to be pure conjecture and without merit. <b>F5:</b> The generator can be retrofitted from propane to liquid natural gas. Response: Agree. The city is currently working on the retrofit.

The generator can be retrofitted from propane to liquid natural gas. Response: Agree. The city is currently working on the retrofit.

A secure pipeline can be trenched and connected from to the generator from the existing liquid natural gas line. Response: Agree. The city is currently working on securing the pipeline. 4

The propane tank was removed on April 18, 2023, more than two years after it was installed (December 2020) and over two years after the City Council acknowledged there was an issue (February 2021) Response: Disagree. The tank was removed on April 18, 2023. The council never acknowledged there was an issue at the February 2021 meeting. The council was told there "may be issues" and the tank had been placed "in the middle of cow chip bingo" which later turned out to be false. As previously mentioned, there was confusion and claims about the tank, but the council was never presented with any documents that backed up these statements. <b>F8:</b> There was inconsistent follow-up from city staff when citizens raised concerns. Response: Disagree. According to the official minutes provided by the Grand Jury for the February 2021 meeting, there were no citizen concerns during the discussion of the tank at the council meeting. The only comments were from a councilperson as noted in the above responses. What citizens said or did not say outside of an official meeting is unknown and no correspondence with staff was included in the Grand Jury list of documents.

There was inconsistent follow-up from city staff when citizens raised concerns. Response: Disagree. According to the official minutes provided by the Grand Jury for the February 2021 meeting, there were no citizen concerns during the discussion of the tank at the council meeting. The only comments were from a councilperson as noted in the above responses. What citizens said or did not say outside of an official meeting is unknown and no correspondence with staff was included in the Grand Jury list of documents.