Draft Response to Grand Jury Report:

The City has a web site, www.cityofpointarena.com, which is “user friendly”. CITY RESPONSE: The respondent agrees with the finding. o GJ

City Council meeting agendas and minutes are available on the web site. CITY RESPONSE: The respondent disagrees wholly or in part with the finding. CITY COMMENTS: While the City of Point Arena desires to have all agendas and minutes easily accessible on our website at www.cityofpointarena.com, we have only partially reached our goal. Agendas are not available on the city website. Minutes are mostly available for 2008–2010, though some meeting dates have broken links and these minutes are unavailable. Prior to 2008, the minutes are unavailable. In addition, the side bar on the homepage should list Agendas and Meeting Minutes, rather than the public having to access what material we do have through the link Council Meeting Information. • GJ

Council meetings are held monthly, on the fourth Tuesday, at 6:00 p.m., at the Veteran’s Hall in Point Arena and often last in excess of three hours. CITY RESPONSE: The respondent agrees with the finding. • GJ

The City operates under a Mayor-Council system of government. CITY RESPONSE: The respondent agrees with the finding. 1 • GJ

The City is governed by a five member elected City Council, who serve a four year term, and are elected on a staggered basis every two years. CITY RESPONSE: The respondent agrees with the finding. • GJ

New Council members receive a handbook, which includes job descriptions. Training in the Brown Act, ethics, and sexual harassment is provided by the City’s attorney. CITY RESPONSE: The respondent disagrees wholly or in part with the finding. CITY COMMENTS: New Councilmembers now receive the handbook City of Point Arena’s Working Guidelines for Councilmembers, which was adopted on 2-27-2007 (Smith, Cross, 5/0) as a primer. The 2-27-2007 Minutes state: “Attorney Brecher reminded the Council that this is a primer for how we conduct business; it’s a directory, not mandatory structure.” The Working Guidelines was presented to new councilmembers in January, 2009, after the election of November, 2008. The handbook provides descriptions of duties and responsibilities for the positions of Clerk/Administrator, City Attorney, and Council members among others. It outlines the city’s powers and structure, as well as issues of conflict of interest and liability. The Handbook does not include specific employee job descriptions. Job descriptions for Pier Facilities Manager, Pier Attendant, Maintenance Supervisor, Main Street Maintenance Person, Used Oil Recycling Program Director, Wastewater Treatment Plant Supervisor, City Clerk/Administrator, Grant administrator, Bookkeeper and Administrative Assistant were adopted in 2003 (Resolution No. 2003-29, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Point Arena Establishing Employee Policies, in which they constitute Appendix A Position Descriptions.) This Resolution is not available on the City website, nor are other current Resolutions, though the City intends for them to be accessible online in the near future. (The Position Descriptions are attached at the end of this Response, as supporting documents.) Additional responsibilities and authorities applying to the City Clerk, Wastewater Plant Supervisor (and Wastewater Plant Operator) are detailed in various California Codes and Regulations. (See also response to Finding #13.) The City Attorney is charged with advising the City Council on legal matters and assisting the members in complying with all applicable laws while pursuing the best interest of the City. The Attorney advises Council on the Brown Act, ethics and sexual harassment matters as they arise. The Attorney participates in an orientation for new and returning members, but formal training in these areas, as required by law, are administered by professional entities as sources of formal training and certification. Councilmembers participate in these trainings. • GJ

The Council members select a Mayor from their ranks for a two year term. CITY RESPONSE: The respondent agrees with the finding. • GJ

Each Council member is appointed by the Mayor as a Commissioner for one of the five City departments: Safety, Roads, Utility, Administration, and the Pier. CITY RESPONSE: The respondent disagrees wholly or in part with the finding. CITY COMMENTS: While essentially true, the FINDING slightly misstates the City Council of Point Arena’s Commissions, reconfigured in 1989 from fire, police, streets and sewer to the following which are part of the Municipal Code under TITLE 2: Administration: 2.10.020 Commissions established. There are hereby established the following commissions with their duties and responsibilities as therein set forth: (1) Public works commission, whose function is to encompass matters pertaining to streets, sidewalks, curbs and gutters; buildings and grounds; parking and traffic control; and parks and recreation; (2) Utility commission, whose duties shall encompass matters pertaining to sewers and sewer treatment plant; water company; electric utility and undergrounding districts; telephone company; cable television service; satellite television antenna inspection; garbage disposal service; and solid waste management; (3) Public safety commission, encompassing matters pertaining to the administration of justice; fire protection; municipal insurance; risk management; and emergency services; (4) Pier commission shall encompass matters pertaining to the city’s responsibility at the municipal pier and the surrounding waterfront area; (5) Administrative commission, whose duties shall be dealing with issues of a general administrative nature coordinating the council with city clerk/administrator; handling general administrative matters not otherwise assigned to any other commissioner; dealing with matters of intergovernmental liaison and making

Commission appointments are made at the discretion of the Mayor and recent changes appear to the GJ to have been punitive in nature, and made irrespective of job performance, knowledge, or experience in the department. CITY RESPONSE: The respondent disagrees wholly or in part with the finding. CITY COMMENTS: As set forth in Point Arena’s Municipal Code: TITLE 2: Administration 2.10.060 Appointments – Vacancies. The above commission appointments shall be made by the mayor and vacancies shall be filled within 30 days. [Res. 6-89 § 7, 1989.] The Mayors of Point Arena take these appointments very seriously. Appointing commissioners is one of the few special powers granted the position of Mayor apart from the powers of the members of the body. There are two very different forms of the Mayor-Council municipal government: the Strong-Mayor system and the Weak-Mayor system. In the Strong-Mayor system, typical of large US cities, the Mayor is elected directly by the voters and has broad executive power, with the ability to appoint and dismiss department heads without Council approval and minimal official public input. The Weak-Mayor system is more common in smaller cities, whether the city has a Manager or an Administrator. In these cities, including all four of Mendocino’s cities, the (weak) Mayor is chosen by the City Council from among its members and has few extraordinary powers. It is each City Council as a whole that has both legislative and executive authority. In Point Arena the Mayor acts as chair of Council meetings, serves as the official face of the City for ceremonial purposes, in matters of public relations and promotion and the Mayor appoints commissioners. Commissions typically are assigned after an election and also must be filled within 30 days when any vacancy occurs, including a vacancy due to Councilmember resignation. Sometimes this gives rise to a reassignment of others as well, as a new Councilmember comes on the scene with a new set of qualifications. The assignments during the past year and a half have been most frequently made in response to 4 departmental/employee requests or because of particular abilities on the part of the Councilmember. In another case a Councilmember with extensive personnel experience was assigned because the multi-person department would benefit more from that type of support and had no need of technical help. In rare but serious cases, an assignment might be made to a commissionership with no associated employees because a Councilmember had taken individual unauthorized action that could expose the City to legal action. The reasoning behind these choices is often clear and stated, but sometimes it must remain veiled to protect the City itself and its employees. The current Mayor sought input from supervisors of all departments that underwent a change in commissioner, as well as the counsel of the current Vice-Mayor, who supported the reasoning behind the assignments. • GJ

The City organizational chart has no City Manager or department heads. (See Appendix A) CITY RESPONSE: The respondent disagrees wholly or in part with the finding. CITY COMMENTS: The FINDING is largely in error, although it is entirely correct that the city has no City Manager. First, the City has no official organizational chart. The organizational chart referenced in this Grand Jury Report as Appendix A does not exist in any adopted Resolution or Ordinance. It is a matter of concern that such an unauthorized illustration should appear in this report. It is perhaps related to another puzzling chart that is present currently on the City’s website as part of an apparently unapproved version of the above-referenced Working Guidelines for Councilmembers, dated 11-10-2008, which has been altered in a few significant ways from the 2-27-2007 original. The original contained no such chart. Neither chart reflects the organizational structure of the City of Point Arena, but we will focus on the chart in the Grand Jury Report Appendix A. Minutes from the Special City Council Meeting on January 6, 2009 reveal that the city’s organizational structure neither underwent change at that time nor at any other in recent years: Minutes 1-6-2009 Item 7. Discussion / Action regarding new Organizational structure – Dahlhoff said this chart reflects comments that came up by staff during employee evaluations, which had to do with clerk/administrator being the equivalent of a personnel supervisor so there would be one person who coordinates the personnel issues. Instead of the employee feeling like they didn’t have anyone else to go to except the Council the City Administrator would coordinate that. The Council as a whole will remain the ‘boss’ of staff, but the Commissioners are not the bosses of anyone individually. Another item that came up during reviews was the question of whether staff reports should continue to be made by employees, or perhaps the Commissioner would be better to make the staff report after meeting with staff. This keeps the commissioners in the loop which would improve communication between employees and Council; it would also provide a buffer between staff and public. Staff would still be invited to attend 5 meetings to better respond to questions. Important for the Commissioner to be communicating with employees so if employees need to attend they will coordinate with employees. Safety Commissioner will meet with Chief Suddith and Sergeant Stefani to make reports to Council. Safety should also be the liaison with PARSAC. Treasurer should go from citizens with 2-way arrows. Bogdahn would like to see a closer relationship with the commissioner. Employees really appreciated being able to talk with Council during reviews. If commissioners were having regular meetings with staff the communications would be improved. Next Council should consider having staff reports being done by the Commissioners. Council decided there will be no change to the organization structure. Subsequently, at the City Council Meeting of 1-27-2009 which included an afternoon-long orientation of new and returning members conducted by the Clerk/Administrator and the City Attorney, the Clerk/Administrator presented a power-point lecture. Slides 15 and 16 caused consternation among several of us who pointed out factual errors. Slide 15 stated “Since there are no department heads or real supervisors in Point Arena, all City Staff report to and are managed by the Council as a whole.” This is incorrect, as is borne out by our Position Descriptions of 2003 (Resolution 2003-29 Appendix A), by daily operations and the practice of years. Slide 16 was a third unapproved organizational chart that bore some resemblance to that of Grand Jury Appendix A and to the unapproved online chart. All three misrepresent the structure of Point Arena’s staffing, failing to convey that the city has four departments, each of which has an employee in a supervising role with one or two employees working at their direction. The city’s four departments are the Wastewater Treatment Plant (Supervisor and Operator), the Pier (Facilities Manager and Pier Attendant/s), Public Works (Maintenance Supervisor and Street Maintenance Worker) and Administration (City Clerk/Administrator and Bookkeeper). These four departments are equals and none directs the other as to the operations for which they are responsible. The City Council as a body is the employer of the departments. It is puzzling that the power point slide show with such inaccurate portrayals of our structure would ever be seen by the Grand Jury, let alone be relied upon, especially in the apparent absence of interviews with supervisors (or anyone) from Wastewater, Pier or Public Works and in the face of the official, adopted Position Descriptions of 2003. It is accurate that the City of Point Arena has no City Manager. As the 2003 Position Descriptions, numerous published notices and adopted minutes, as well as the adopted Working Guideline for Councilmembers and multiple mentions in City documents reveal, the City of Point Arena has a City Clerk/Administrator. The position description is over one page long and is specific and detailed. (See attached supporting documents at the end of this Response.) The Position Description includes duties mandated by CA Government Code 40801-40814. The City has used this definition of this position since its passage and prior to 2003, the position was also that of City Clerk/Administrator, as revealed in minutes going back more than ten years. The previous Clerk/Administrator held the position for seventeen years, from 1989 to 2006. In fact, the Grand Jury Report is fraught with inconsistencies and misunderstanding regarding the position of Point Arena’s City Clerk/Administrator. The third sentence of the first paragraph of the Grand Jury summary is a case in point: “The organization is weakened by the lack of a designated City Administrator causing unrealistic and inappropriate responsibilities being placed on City Council members and the city clerk” when in fact, of course, the city does have an Administrator and furthermore, the City Clerk and the Administrator are one and the same person. Another problem with

The City Clerk performs the work of a city manager without the authority or the compensation for that position. CITY RESPONSE: The respondent disagrees wholly or in part with the finding. CITY COMMENTS: The City Clerk/Administrator’s job description and duties are clearly delineated. (Resolution 2003-29, Appendix A) The City Council has repeatedly, clearly and publicly affirmed its adherence to this job description and to its requirement that these duties be fulfilled. The City Council has not sought a City Manager and emphatically does not wish its City Clerk/Administrator to attempt to take on management of other departments. The City considers its independent but linked departments staffed by conscientious employees to be an excellent structure considering our size and the size of our budget. The City has a number of long-time employees who support the structure. Supervisors in three out of four departments feel that this structure works well for us and that adding a manager over them who had no 7 technical expertise in their realms would be an unnecessary expense for the city and would not enhance their ability to perform. The City Clerk/Administrator position is currently set as salaried and full-time, paid at a rate equal to $27.00/hr., which amounts to $56,000/year. Although this compensation does not match that of a similar position in a larger city, it is a very good pay rate for our area, where professional white collar jobs are scarce. For example, a full-time, salaried Director at the Pacific Community Charter School earns about $46,000/year. With regard to this subject, it is informative to review a little history: o The long-time previous City Clerk/Administrator performed this job as a slightly more than ¾ time hourly employee whose rate of pay at the end of 17 years was $19.00/hour. o Minutes of the Special Meeting on 6-17-2006 describe a discussion of budget amounts for City Clerk and Bookkeeper wages (Item 3) and the report from Closed Session recommending the offer to hire a bookkeeper candidate at a rate of $15.00/hr. and a City Clerk/Administrator candidate at a rate of $20.00/hr. (Item 5) o Minutes of the City Council Meeting of 7-25-06 report the appointment and giving of the oath of Office to the current Clerk/Administrator, as recommended. o The Agenda, packet materials and Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of 3-27- 07 describe the following: Agenda Item 20. “City Clerk increase in pay and hours.” The packet material for the item requests that the pay be moved from $20.82/hr. to the “top of range - $23.93/hr.” and that the hours paid for the job be changed from 33.3 to 40. During the course of the ensuing discussion the Council agreed to raise the pay even higher, to $25.00/hr., and agreed not only to go to 40 hours/week (full-time), but also to change the position from hourly to salaried. Councilmembers voiced concern over whether the budget could support this increase and concern over whether such a large increase for one employee was fair to grant without examining the pay rates of all others. The request was nonetheless granted and the position of City Clerk/Administrator, whose duties remained unchanged, went from an annual amount of approximately $36,000 to an annual amount of $52,000, an increase in over-all pay of about 43%. o Currently, the position is paid at $27.00/hr. for an annual amount of $56,160. Additionally, the rate of pay for the position of City Clerk/Administrator at $27.00/hour is much higher than that of any other employee of the City. Until recently, all supervisors made a maximum of $19.00/hr., such that the Clerk’s position earned about 42% more than the equivalent positions in other departments. Now, the position of Wastewater Supervisor is paid at $22.31/hr., but this is still significantly less than that of the Clerk/Administrator. The Pier and Public Works supervisor positions are paid at $19.04/hr. Other employee pay rates range between about $14.00 and $16.75/hr. The City of Point Arena finds that the position of City Clerk/Administrator is paid adequately given the circumstances of our unique tiny size, small budget and the over-all proportionately lower average pay/wage scale typical of the city’s remote, rural location. 8 • GJ

The City has nine employees: two in administration, one supervisor and one staff member at the waste water plant, one supervisor and one staff member for public works, one supervisor and two staff members at the Pier. CITY RESPONSE: The respondent disagrees wholly or in part with the finding. CITY COMMENTS: Although the city has at times had nine employees, currently (and at the time the Grand Jury Report was issued), the city has eight employees, two in each of the four departments. • GJ

All City staff report to their Commissioner, who reports to the Council. Personnel evaluations are made by the entire Council, not by their immediate supervisor. Supervisors appear to be figureheads without real authority. CITY RESPONSE: The respondent disagrees wholly or in part with the finding. CITY COMMENTS: The FINDING is almost entirely in error. As has been described above, the Commissioners are liaisons with their departments and in no way have they been interpreted – at least since their reorganization in 1989 -- to be supervisory. All employees either report to a departmental supervisor or are a departmental supervisor. The four supervisors have concrete, specific responsibilities and duties which are set forth in the Position Descriptions. (Resolution 2003-29, Appendix A) The City does not consider the four supervisors to be “figureheads without real authority.” Not only do they direct their departments as the foremost technical expert in each of their areas, but they also report directly to the Council rather than to a management layer with authority but no expertise. Each has either one or two employees under their direction. In addition, the supervisors have serious, legal responsibilities, such as state-mandated wastewater requirements, fiscal reporting duties, and the oversight of a public facility where nature is the real boss and ocean conditions are a constant concern. The state, the county and the City of Point Arena have vested these employees with the authority to effectively carry out their duties. Regarding performance evaluations, the City Municipal Code states the following: TITLE 2: Administration – Chapter 2 Personnel Policies 2.40.230 Annual review. Employees will be evaluated by the city council, annually at their anniversary date. Prior to the evaluation, employees will be reviewed by their commissioners utilizing the employee evaluation form provided for in the appendix. The council will consider the

Employees establish their own schedules without supervision. There is no shared work calendar that would allow for work schedule coordination and communication. CITY RESPONSE: The respondent disagrees wholly or in part with the finding. CITY COMMENTS: The FINDING is almost entirely in error. As outlined above, the city’s four departments are independent, but interlinked equals. Perhaps the Grand Jury misinterpreted the lack of a single over-all supervisor to mean a lack of scheduling and failed to perceive the scheduling, coordination and communication that occurs within each department: o At the Pier, the Pier Facilities Manager (supervisor) sets his department’s schedule in coordination with his employee/s. The Pier has official hours (7am to 4pm, with 12-1pm closed for lunch), which are maintained unless inclement weather would prevent boat launches and permit the Pier office to close, saving the City money. The Facilities Manager works with his employee/s to keep track of over-all hours worked by each for insurance purposes. All department-relevant meetings or appointments are recorded on the Pier calendar and phone messages are noted. The department maintains a daily log book with a page for each day that includes a checklist of tasks and an area for comments regarding what he/she accomplished, how and when, so each employee knows what is going on and can look back throughout the month and beyond. An example of the Daily Log is included in the Appendix of this Response for your reference. o At the Wastewater Treatment Plant, the plant supervisor establishes a schedule with his employee. All department-relevant meetings or appointments are recorded on the Wastewater calendar. The plant’s functioning is guided by the Point Arena Wastewater Facility Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Manual. Many tasks are performed daily, while others including long-term maintenance are on a different schedule worked out between the supervisor and the operator. The Wastewater Supervisor directs has department with care since his responsibility and state-mandated requirements are great. o At Public Works, the department supervisor sets the department’s schedule and works with the employee under his direction. Daily, monthly, yearly and seasonal tasks are well understood by these two veteran employees. o In the Administrative Department, the supervisor (the City Clerk/Administrator) directs the administrative affairs of the city in accordance with the Position Description. The supervisor directs the activities of the City Bookkeeper and works closely with the City Treasurer, as well as with the Mayor, Vice-Mayor, other Councilmembers, and with the City’s employees within the scope of the job’s administrative assistance to the other departments. The City Clerk/Administrator coordinates relevant activities among departments when they arise and is charged with advising the departments of Council 11 actions and directives. This supervisorial position, like the others, enjoys a large amount of autonomy within the scope of assigned duties. • GJ

Employees fill out their own timecards and are issued payroll checks by the clerk without supervisorial verification. CITY RESPONSE: The respondent disagrees wholly or in part with the finding. CITY COMMENTS: Employees work with their supervisors regarding scheduling. Supervisors approve any changes to the schedule of each department. Employees do submit their own timecards to the City Bookkeeper at the Administrative office. Commissioners may approve time cards, but this is not a requirement, since many commissioners may not be present consistently at the office throughout the month. The Bookkeeper tracks employee hours with regard to benefits requirements, holiday pay, sick time, etc. The City Clerk/Administrator has developed a graphic presentation of each employee’s hours worked, paid and budgeted for inclusion in the monthly Clerk Report at Council meetings. If there were a misstatement of hours or false inflation of time worked on the part of an employee, it is at the administrative level that it would probably first be detected, especially with the clear visual evidence of the monthly chart in which the “worked” and “paid” bars for that employee would quickly extend past the “budgeted” bar. (See an example of the City Clerk/Administrator’s monthly Budgeted Personnel Update in the Appendix - Supporting Documents which follows this Response.) In general, the City of Point Arena understands the high level of trust bestowed on senior employees and enjoys the benefit of these employees’ work ethic and honesty. Actual verification of hours worked is not a practical endeavor, unless the City hires someone simply to drive around checking on employee activity every day. Our departments and Council rely on the more effective measure of whether the work is getting done. However, the City also recognizes that the current process could be improved by submitting to departmental supervisors a related monthly tally and total of each employee’s hours budgeted, scheduled, worked and paid. In addition, the Pier supervisor has suggested a punch-clock as a simple way to accurately record employee hours at his facility. Findings – Finance •

Budgets are often adopted three to five months after the beginning of the fiscal year. CITY RESPONSE: The respondent disagrees wholly or in part with the finding. CITY COMMENTS: This has certainly happened before, as it does with other entities, including the state of California, the volatility of whose budgetary process has partly been the cause of our own delays. Yet we strive to pass each year’s budget, which is necessarily a moving target 12 and a roadmap rather than a binding contract in the sense that realities contained within it may change, before the beginning of the fiscal year (July 1). This year we have already passed our budget, at the Regular City Council Meeting on May 25, 2010 (Item 17 M/S/C (Oropeza, Sinnott 4/0)). As usual, we made adjustments so that we are working with a balanced budget. The budget discussion is always a complicated one and often takes place over the course of several meetings. One recent change which has made these discussions smoother is the formation of an advisory Finance Committee (Resolution 2009-14 approved on July 28, 2009) consisting of the Pier, Wastewater and Public Works supervisors, the City Clerk/Administrator (who is charged within the scope of her job description with preparing the budget), the City Treasurer and the Mayor. The Finance Committee meets quarterly and provides an informal setting where department heads can come to a better understanding of the budget as a whole and can discuss the needs of their areas. Forming a finance or budget committee was a desire among several Councilmembers and our past Treasurer for a period of years. Now that it is up and running, it has helped smooth the budget process. •

The auditor, contracted by the City, has been the same individual for over 20 years. CITY RESPONSE: The respondent agrees with the finding. •

The current revolving loan fund manual is unclear and contradictory. The loan application states that the maximum is $150,000, whereas, the manual states the maximum amount is $50,000. CITY RESPONSE: The respondent disagrees wholly or in part with the finding. CITY COMMENTS: Whereas the accumulated material relating to the City of Point Arena’s loan funds and the history of the funds is certainly confusing, the city does not have a single “loan fund manual.” The Grand Jury is possibly referring to the packet of materials which prospective borrowers receive. In 1988, the City of Point Arena, working with the Mendocino Development Corporation (MDC), set up a Revolving Loan Program for Small Business loans and for Housing Rehabilitation loans. The money ultimately originated from the state’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. Over quite a few years, many loans were issued and the money was “cycled” and “recycled” many times. Most loans were good, but some were failures and were granted partly in the face of community pressure. This included the worst loan, to a local restaurateur using restaurant equipment as collateral for a $43,000 loan as his business was near collapse. (Reference: former Mayor and Councilmember Dahlhoff’s Report regarding this loan.) 13 In 2003, the city updated the program income plan and its guidelines in anticipation of applying for a micro-enterprise grant. Normally these guidelines would supersede the older ones, but upon analysis of the requirements of the grant, the city decided it could not reasonably perform the necessary functions and did not take the grant. It has been determined that legally the original money has been used for its intended purpose and is now available for other purposes in addition to making loans. It has also become apparent to the other Mendocino City Councils as well as to some among the Point Arena City Council that carrying out these loan programs is complicated and often an emotional ordeal. Fort Bragg recently contracted with an outside entity to administer its loan program. Ideally the city would reapply for new funds from the Department of Housing and Community Development for the purpose of loans. Findings – Services • GJ

Water is provided by Point Arena Waterworks, Inc., a private company. CITY RESPONSE: The respondent agrees with the finding. • GJ

There are 198 parcels within the city limits. CITY RESPONSE: The respondent disagrees wholly or in part with the finding. CITY COMMENTS: There are 291 parcels within the city limits. • GJ

The wastewater treatment plant serves 149 connections, with 50 undeveloped lots. CITY RESPONSE: The respondent disagrees wholly or in part with the finding CITY COMMENTS: The subject of

There is a $4,400 connection fee for new wastewater service. CITY RESPONSE: The respondent disagrees wholly or in part with the finding. CITY COMMENTS: Though substantially correct, the FINDING is not entirely accurate. The $4,400 fee is an “impact fee” rather than a “connection fee.” The $4,400 sewer impact fee applies to each usage unit -- Equivalent Single Family Dwelling (ESD) -- when a connection permit is required for a use not currently served. A connection to the wastewater system for one single family residential development for example would cost $4,400, a single connection serving a two family residential development would cost $8,800, and commercial and institutional hook-ups would be charged according to formula. (Point Arena Municipal Code 13.10.010 – 13.10.080) •

The City’s wastewater plant is approximately 30 years old. The sludge pond, which has never been dredged, is as much as 85 percent full. The wastewater plant has been out of compliance with State regulations for many years. CITY RESPONSE: The respondent disagrees wholly or in part with the finding. CITY COMMENTS: The wastewater system of Point Arena dates to the 1930s, when – according to anecdotal accounts – it was built as a WPA project with hand-dug sewer mains during the Great Depression. The system was very simple and, in the manner of those days, discharged directly into Arena Creek. There were more inhabitants of the City at that time, including many along the cove road, adjacent to the creek, where there was a thriving trailer park. The system was modernized in 1979. The old ponds were dredged and the sludge cleaned out. The ponds were enlarged and lined with first clay and then bentonite, and contained by concrete walls. The aerators, chlorination system, percolation ponds and the 15 modern central facility were built/installed. Sewage was now treated and effluent no longer flowed into any body of water. This engineered upgrade and extension project was funded by a Clean Water grant and the system thence forward was regulated by the State Water Resources Control Board. The plant’s O&M Manual guides daily and long-term operations, tests, maintenance, and compliance measures. It is regularly updated to comply with Water Quality requirements. Current staff has been working on a new computerized program that will help structure and schedule maintenance and operational procedures. The removal of sludge from the ponds has become an increasingly expensive prospect over the decades during which the process has been delayed. Sludge removal should happen every ten years and ours has not been dredged in about 30 years (since the 1979 rebuild), due in part to the reluctance of past Councils to raise rates sufficiently to fund the process. It is incorrect to state that “The sludge pond, which has never been dredged, is as much as 85 percent full.” There are two ponds, and currently, the primary pond (E) is 30-33% full of sludge. The secondary pond (W) is approximately 20% full. If the Grand Jury had consulted with any employee from the wastewater department, this might have been understood. It is also incorrect to state that “The wastewater plant has been out of compliance with State regulations for many years.” We are occasionally out of compliance seasonally, particularly during dry months or years. We have had more trouble in the last few years because they have been draught years and our system did not receive the flush-out effect of heavy rains, which keeps us in compliance. It’s important to note, as well, that when we are out of compliance, it is a suspended solids measure, which frequently will elevate due not only to waste solids, but also to the naturally occurring algae in our ponds which is “consuming” the actual waste. So the failed test is sometimes due to the solution itself. In actual fact, our plant is a small, simple and efficient system appropriate to the tiny size of our community. Its most urgent need is the long overdue sludge removal, after which chlorine consumption will go down and pond efficiency will go up. The collection system (of mains and laterals) is partly modernized, but also largely old and unimproved, especially where laterals are located on private property and are the responsibility of the parcel holder. Improvement of this system is a long-term goal. • GJ

The City is seeking a $3.77 million grant/loan from the United States Department of Agriculture, (USDA), to fund pond dredging and plant remediation. The urgently needed dredging is estimated to cost $200,000. CITY RESPONSE: The respondent disagrees wholly or in part with the finding. CITY COMMENTS: While the city is seeking to fund its wastewater improvement project with this possible loan/grant from USDA Rural Development, assisted by the firm of Winzler & Kelly, it is important to clarify the FINDING. The sludge removal is an absolute commitment on our part and will occur whether or not this application is granted. Also, the term “remediation” is most accurately applied to the project of lateral replacement, which is complicated because 16 laterals are owned by each private property owner. Sewer line repairs and replacement are also needed, but another important component of the project is the acquisition of land or an easement for the existing spray fields. The city is moving forward with this project and has selected the above-mentioned consulting firm for their success with small utilities across coastal California and for their track record in finding funding. • GJ

The wastewater rates were raised effective April 1, 2006, June 22, 2007, and November 11, 2008. The current monthly rate is $45.00. CITY RESPONSE: The respondent disagrees wholly or in part with the finding. CITY COMMENTS: Although the FINDING was accurate at the time of the Grand Jury Report, the City is compelled to clarify that as of the Regular City Council Meeting on 5-25-2010, with the approval of Ordinance 211, the sewer monthly rate per ESD is now $49.00, in accordance with the 2006 Coastland Wastewater System Study

Residential wastewater fees are collected through the Mendocino County Tax Collector’s office. CITY RESPONSE: The respondent agrees with the finding. • GJ

The City has complied with Proposition 218 requirements for notice of rate changes. CITY RESPONSE: The respondent agrees with the finding. • GJ

The wastewater enterprise system had an operating loss of $19,737 1 for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008, the latest audit available. The operation of the wastewater enterprise is reported to be breaking even in 2009. Generates its own revenue from rate payers, development impact fees, grants, and loans. CITY RESPONSE: The respondent agrees with the finding • GJ

The City owns the local pier, also an enterprise, which operated at a loss of $88,863 for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008. CITY RESPONSE: The respondent disagrees wholly or in part with the finding. CITY COMMENTS: The figure is confusing and does not represent the financial health of the City-owned and operated Pier Facility. The figure arrived at by the Grand Jury may be related to the fact that payroll for Pier employees is paid out of the General Fund (GF) for reasons of efficiency, cost savings and clearer accounting. The Pier reimburses the GF for these funds. There was a period, prior to current accounting staffing, when the “Due To” amount owed by the Pier to the GF for payroll was allowed to accumulate for far too long and appeared to put the pier in the red. This has been paid off and current accounting and administrative staff as well as the present and the previous Treasurers have designed a system of fund transfer which is kept current and is easier to understand. Accumulated depreciation has occurred which also could account for the figure arrived at in the FINDING. The City understands the need to set aside funds for capital improvement, much of which may also be funded through state and federal grant sources. In general, the Point Arena Pier, one of the city’s two Enterprise Funds (that is, the separate City facilities which earn money, along with the Wastewater Treatment Plant), is in good financial health. The staff is efficient and conscientious about not working when weather precludes boat launching and daily tasks are done and long-term projects do not require attention. The 2009-2010 budget total for Pier wages and benefits was only $47,350, while the actual outgoing amount for wages and benefits was $36,050 for the entire year. This is a lean operation, staffed by talented and qualified employees who do most of their own equipment maintenance, rebuilding and repair themselves at a cost savings to the city. They also deal with the public and handle our recycling facility. During the 2009-2010 fiscal year, the Pier budgeted income was $96,350, with $102,120 actually coming in during the fiscal year (largely due to an excellent urchin season and other fish poundage). Budgeted expenses for the year were $138,350 and actual expenses for the year were $84,118. Thus, it was a very good year, during which the Pier also saw the rebuilding and upgrade of its main hoist from a 5 to 6 ton capacity. It is a reality that the fishing industry is not what it used to be, but our Pier Facilities Manager has been and continues to be dedicated to finding ways to maintain this important regional ocean access point.