Follow-up From 2010/2011 Grand Jury Report

Additional Recommendations 18

These recommendations are not explicitly linked to specific findings.

• R2

  Page 72
  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

  Page 89
  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 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

  Page 67
  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 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

  Page 77
  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 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

  Page 84
  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

  Page 84
  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

  Page 85
  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

  Page 86
  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 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

  Page 92
  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

  Page 92
  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

  Page 67
  Remove outdated leave-of-absence
• R17

  Page 92
  Any ARSA issues that might Sean In progress Sept. 1, 2010 impact city budget need to be COMPLETE brought forward to council for
• R18

  Page 68
  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 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

  Page 93
  Journal entries in excess of 10. FD In progress Dec. 1, 2010 COMPLETE
• R22

  Page 93
  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

  Page 163
  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

  Page 163
  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

  Page 83
  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