“time for a Change: a Report on the Relationship Between the

The Finding states that the agreement between the City and District (June 24, 1955) allowed the District to use the City’s treatment plant. The agreement states that both bodies concluded based on the review of the costs, present and future needs and feasibility that joint facilities would best serve the inhabitants of both the City and District. The agreement required both parties to construct and pay for separate facilities up to designated monetary limits and the parties would participate in the costs exceeding these monetary limits. This is beyond the City “allowing” the District the use of the WWTP. The Finding states that the District’s obligation pursuant to the Agreement between the City and District (June 24, 1955) only involved paying for the costs to install the necessary north south trunk sewer. The District was responsible for constructing the trunk sewer to Ford Road up to a financial limit of $300,000 and any expense above that would be shared by the City and District (2/3 City and 1/3 District). The First Supplemental Agreement (July 7, 1958) confirms that the use of the facilities was joint and the facilities were independently constructed. This response is provided for clarification purposes.

The Finding states that the District negotiated with the City to provide various services one of which being the “Operation and maintenance of its (District) sewer collection system in accordance …”. This service is to include maintenance of the District’s trunk sewer. The agreement clearly states that the title, management and control of the sewer plant remains with the City and that the “City agrees to service and maintain the trunk 1 lines”. The agreement does not specifically address title and control of the trunk sewer but because the District constructed and paid for the trunk sewer the District claims that the trunk sewer is under the title and control of the District. This response is provided for clarification purposes.

The Finding states that the “District has sought increasingly detailed information from the City.” The Finding does not state if the detailed information so requested is information the City should have in order to properly carry out its duties and obligations pursuant to the requirements of the 1995 Participation Agreement. The District Manager believes the information the Board has requested is information that that should be provided or available to it pursuant to the Agreement.

The Finding states in part that “Some argue that the City is not sufficiently staffed to provide all information that the District may desire and that more detailed accounting would not be cost effective in terms of ratepayer benefits”. The District Manager does not agree with this finding. The inability of City staff to track labor hours spent by crews and administration staff that are assigned to and shared by to two distinct Enterprise Funds (Water and Sewer) is a function of inadequate accounting software. The detailed accounting is necessary to determine the expenses that should be assigned to the Sewer Fund and shared by the City and District.

The Finding states in part that “This practice has been publicly criticized”. It is not clear if the District’s separate audit process has been criticized or if not having a separate audit has been criticized. The District Manager does not agree or disagree with this part of the Finding.

The Finding states in part “the auditors reported that because the City did not allocate costs between the District and City, available data were inadequate to support an independent audit report for the District”. The Finding does not make reference to the unavailability of financial records that were the result of records destruction in accordance with the City’s Record Retention Policy.

2 The Finding states “the District and City have not engaged in adequate joint long range planning. They have been largely reactive in actions taken regarding major maintenance and capital improvements, new sewer services, project planning and annexation”. This Finding does not take into consideration the dependency the District had and still has on the City. Until the assignment of a County Deputy Executive Officer to assist the District Board and until the hiring of its District Manager, the District Board was totally dependent on City staff for long range planning. The District continues to be excluded from long range planning related to the WWTP. SUMMARY DESCRIBING IMPLEMENTED ACTIONS