📋
Extracted from Consolidated Report

This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.

Santa Cruz County Grand Jury • 2009-2010

Up a Creek without a Financial Paddle ∫ 179 recommended “a public dialogue concerning some combination or coordination

Published: November 23, 2009 27 pages
View PDF View Full Original

Note: Missing finding numbers detected: F3

Findings 9 findings

F1 Page 204
The implementation of Recommendation 5 to reinstate the School Resource Officer was delayed due to staffing and budgetary restrictions but no timeframe was provided for the reinstatement.
F2 Page 204
The responses to Recommendations 9 and 12 indicated the District would conduct further analyses of the suggestions in the recommendations but there were no explanations, no descriptions of the scope and parameters of the analyses or studies, and no timeframes. Continuity…The Beginning of the Never-Ending Report ∫ 193 2008-2009 Recommendation Respondent 2008-2009 Response 5 SVUSD should work with the Scotts SVUSD SVPD Has not been Valley Police Department (SVPD) to implemented but will be reinstate the School Resource Officer to implemented in the future the high school campus when budgetary restrictions allow. All staff members who teach or counsel SVUSD Requires further analysis students regarding alcohol prevention should be part of the planning team that addresses prevention and intervention solutions. The many resources provided through county agencies should be available for use by staff. SVUSD should involve students in self- SVUSD Requires further analysis help strategies such as peer counseling and conflict resolution, as well as county-wide programs such as Friday Night Live and the Together for Youth collaborative. Current Recommendations
F4 Page 191
Through a review of district records and interviews with past and present directors, the Grand Jury determined that the boards of directors have failed to adequately perform some of the basic duties of a governing board. • LCWD directors indicated that they had little or no training to be board members. In addition they have not taken sufficient advantage of opportunities to educate themselves, nor have they created a training manual or handbook to appropriately educate successive boards. • The LCWD board has not created rules or guidelines for its proceedings, such as district bylaws, as required by the California Water Code section 30530. • The Board Policy Manual created in 2009 was duplicated from San Lorenzo Valley Water District. • Interviews and documentation reveal that the LCWD consistently failed to hold regular board and committee meetings. • LCWD board members stated that the agenda for meetings did not reflect items board members requested to be placed on the agenda. • The Grand Jury observed that some LCWD board members were not familiar with using Sturgis’ Rules of Order and that they sometimes failed to treat each other and members of the public with civility when conducting their meetings. • The Grand Jury’s review of meeting minutes from 2006 to the present revealed that the LCWD board did not monitor minutes for completeness or accuracy. 180 ∫ Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report 2009-2010 • Letters from the District Attorney’s office in 2008 and 2009 indicated that citizens filed complaints about alleged violations of the Brown Act. The District Attorney did not find sufficient grounds to warrant criminal charges. Response: Lompico County Water District Board of Directors – AGREE, with updates. In 1964, the Board of directors of Lompico County Water District adopted Ordinance 2, which defined when and where the board would meet to conduct meetings, the order of the agenda, and that the board of directors shall use Robert's Rules of order. The Board of directors reviewed Ordinance 2 at a special meeting on June 8, 2010. The board of directors has been improving its compliance with Robert's Rules of order in conducting meeting. Within 72 hours of the regular board meetings, the District Secretary writes up the minutes from the meeting, and emails the minutes to each director for review. The corrections, if any are transmitted back to the District Secretary for update. The Board conducted a special meeting on June 8, 2010 to review Ordinance 3 Rules and Regulations of Water Service and enhance their understanding of those rules and regulations. The original Ordinance 3 was passed in 1964. In the 45 1/2 years since, Ordinance 3 has undergone numerous additions and changes. While these changes have been available in the district's files, it was difficult to know all the rules, as they where found in more than 40 different ordinances. The board has produced a single document containing all of Ordinance 3, complete with additions and changes from the last 45 1/2 years. The board members are in the process of providing needed updates for consideration by the board. The resulting ordinance will contain updates needed due to a reorganization of the staff positions and duties, reorganization of the ordinance to improve its readability, as well as clarifications, and other changes needed to reflect county policies. The board will be reviewing and consider for adoption the resulting codified version. The result will be one document that defines the rules and regulations of water service. The board recently adopted a budget for fiscal 2010 - 2011 with revenue excess of $32,675. This includes one time large expenses for forensic audits. These numbers are based on reasonable forecasts of income. The board has scheduled a workshop on planning and rate setting with a professional in small water districts from the California Rural Water Association. The board and District Secretary have aggressively pursued collection of delinquent water charges and the board is in pursuit of placing delinquent water charges on the tax rolls to recover long delinquent accounts receivable. The delinquent water charges have not been included in the income forecasting. The pursuit of delinquent water charges has brought $13,524.00 in funds to the district. The 5 day disconnect notices for remaining delinquent charges for water services have been sent, and the district expects additional collection of delinquent charges for water service as a result. By the end of the billing cycle for May- June 2010, any remaining accounts that are delinquent will be either making payments under an agreed to payment plan, or will be locked off for non-payment. Up a Creek without a Financial Paddle ∫ 181 The board has educated themselves on the billing and collection procedures described in the Rules and Regulations of Water Service, and has brought action to bring enforcement of collection of delinquent water charges through disconnection of water service. The board’s enforcement of the disconnection process is now current. Per Ordinance 3, Rules and Regulations of Water Service, Accounts that are delinquent will be disconnected within 60 days from billing of charges not paid (if not under payment arrangements). Response: Santa Cruz County LAFCO Directors – AGREE to the extent that LAFCO does not have any information that contradicts the findings. In its role as a boundary regulatory agency, LAFCO gathers information for its periodic preparation of service reviews and agency spheres of influence. When a boundary change application is filed, LAFCO prepares a detailed staff report that analyses the proposed boundary change. LAFCO has not received a boundary change application concerning the Lompico County Water District in many years. Therefore, LAFCO does not have first-hand information concerning any of the subsections of Finding F4. LAFCO does maintain a file of district bylaws that special districts in Santa Cruz County voluntarily submit, and any public agency is welcome to use these samples when drafting a set of bylaws.
F5 Page 193
The board of directors failed to adequately oversee the financial activities of the water district and to verify that operations were conducted according to good business practices, and they made questionable business decisions. • LCWD board did not set rates and charges at a level sufficient to provide for repairs and depreciation of works owned or operated by the district as required by California Water Code section 31007. • LCWD directors did not set rates and charges sufficient to cover the operational expenses of the water district, in part because they lacked the background or knowledge of bookkeeping and budgeting procedures in general, and they did not demand the information specific to the district that would allow them to set rates reasonably. In interviews, board members stated they were reluctant to impose higher rates on their friends and neighbors. • In 1998, the LCWD board made a voluntary $100,000 CalPERS retirement payment on behalf of the district manager for ten years he had worked for the district prior to the adoption of the retirement program. • LCWD boards ignored or did not know about a 1999 resolution to cap the accrual of vacation and overtime pay to two years. The Grand Jury was unable to find any official action to rescind the limits. However, the board did re-impose the limits in 2009. 182 ∫ Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report 2009-2010 Response: Lompico County Water District Board of Directors – AGREE Response: Santa Cruz County LAFCO Directors – AGREE to the extent that LAFCO does not have any information that contradicts the findings. As a boundary regulatory agency, LAFCO does not gather detailed information such as retirement system payments or employee vacation accrual rules. LAFCO does not have information that verifies or counters the Grand Jury’s findings.
F6 Page 194
The past and present board of directors failed to provide adequate oversight of the personnel and personnel functions and activities of the district. • The original Personnel Manual was rewritten and approved in early 2010. The approved manual is still incomplete because there are no job descriptions. • The LCWD board did not conduct adequate due diligence to confirm the qualifications of new hires, specifically the district secretary. • The LCWD board did not systematically conduct in-depth performance evaluations for the district manager. • The LCWD board did not hold the site management adequately accountable for day-to- day activities, long-term planning, and financial tasks. Response: Lompico County Water District Board of Directors – PARTIALLY AGREE The current board, when made aware of the Personnel Manual, took steps to enforce and update these policies. The board met with extreme resistance from the manager and secretary on day-to-day activities, long-term planning and financial tasks. Governance Conclusions C6. The boards of directors consistently demonstrated a lack of knowledge and oversight of all aspects of the district’s operations: governance, finances, management and facilities. C7. The directors often appeared to disregard the California Water Code, the Director’s Guide for Setting a Budget, the Lompico Water District Manual, the Board Policy Manual, and resolutions passed by preceding boards. C8. Members of the board of directors appear to lack the financial knowledge necessary to develop and oversee a balanced budget and consequently may not be adequately prepared to guide the district in a financially sustainable direction. C9. Because agendas are poorly developed and meeting minutes are incomplete and inaccurate, there is a lack of reliable records to allow consistent governance of the district’s business. C10. Board policies pertaining to personnel matters have at times not been followed. Up a Creek without a Financial Paddle ∫ 183 C11. The board of directors did not hold the site management and staff sufficiently accountable from day-to-day activities to long-term planning. Management The LCWD district manager is an at-will employee reporting to the board, and management duties are outlined in the Personnel Manual and referenced in the Board Policy Manual. The district manager is responsible for the business activities and the day-to-day operations of the district. The other employees (two at the time of this investigation: the district secretary and the operations technician) report to the manager, who also serves as the safety officer for the district. While there have been many members of the board of directors through the years, there has been only one district manager over the past 20 years. Management Findings
F7 Page 195
The board of directors depends on the LCWD staff for accurate information delivered in a timely manner. • The LCWD board did not receive timely and accurate board meeting agendas. Furthermore, protocol and board requests regarding the preparation of the agendas were at times disregarded or altered. • For the last five years, management did not provide complete and realistic budgets for review and approval by the board. • The urgency of infrastructure repairs was evident upon inspection of the physical plant. However, board members stated that management did not stress the importance of the need for immediate repairs. Response: Lompico County Water District Board of Directors – AGREE
F8 Page 195
The business and personnel activities of the district were not always conducted in a professional and appropriate manner. • The district’s independent auditor recommended hiring a bookkeeper in 2008; however, the district did not hire one, citing the lack of funds. • In 2009, a district secretary was hired who had no bookkeeping experience, which was a specific qualification for that position. Selection protocol established by the board, such as posting the position in the newspaper, was not followed. • Performance reviews for the secretary and the operations technician were not performed annually as specified in the Personnel Manual. • Daily work logs sometimes were not completed and were not given to the board even when requested. 184 ∫ Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report 2009-2010 • The office file of customer work was not updated on a daily basis. • Creditors’ bills were not always paid in a timely fashion. Board members revealed that checks were written and then stored in the district office safe until adequate revenues arrived to cover the checks. Consequently, in July 2009 the board of directors asked the Santa Cruz County Auditor-Controller’s office to take over payroll and other accounts payable functions. • LCWD received a letter dated February 1, 2010, from the State Controller’s Office Division of Accounting, informing it that the Annual Report of Financial Transactions had not been filed for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2009. The State imposed a $5,000 penalty for non-filing. • The Santa Cruz County Auditor-Controller’s office performed an Independent Accountant’s Report on Applying Agreed-Upon Procedures at the request of the LCWD board of directors and presented the report on December 3, 2009. The report revealed that sufficient and accurate data on payroll procedures was not provided to the County despite multiple requests. • Communications and unresolved complaints from customers sometimes were not recorded in the minutes or addressed, nor were they always reported to the board. • The main and satellite offices, and the records and files associated with the district’s business, were not maintained in an organized, orderly fashion. Response: Lompico County Water District Board of Directors – AGREE The current board is addressing all items.
F9 Page 196
The infrastructure was not maintained in good and working order. • The California State Public Health Department (CSPH) shut down the LCWD water treatment plant from May 6, 2010 to May 14, 2010 because the water treatment filters (Memcor filters) in the plant were no longer viable. The filters dated from 1996 and the effective life span of the filters, according to their manufacturer, was seven years. New Memcor filters were installed on May 12, 2010. • The monthly reports to the CSPH documenting the turbidity of the drinking water in LCWD were not accurate. The chart wheels that record daily turbidity provide the information that is transferred to the report form that is submitted to the CSPH. The information on the chart wheels should be exactly the same as information on the reports. Grand Jury members compared the two and noted that they did not match. • A written capital improvement plan (CIP) was not found. Up a Creek without a Financial Paddle ∫ 185 • There was no immediate systematic replacement plan for the faulty lateral pipes; consequently, failing pipes needed emergency repair, causing customers inconvenience and resulting in additional expense in overtime pay. • Facility maintenance was not done on a routine basis; for example, the fire hydrants had not been flushed annually nor had the gate shut-off valves been checked regularly. • There was no plan for the repair or replacement of the three finished water storage tanks that have severe leaks. Water tanks are leaking so seriously that pumps from the four district wells are being overworked to keep up with the loss of water. In addition, there is extra expense for the chemicals and power to treat additional water. Response: Lompico County Water District Board of Directors – AGREE
F10 Page 197
The safety of LCWD staff and the Lompico community was put at risk. • Frequently just one employee responded alone to night emergencies, regardless of the weather. • Employees failed to shore up the sides of the trench and walls of a deep excavation pit. • The fire hydrants had not been flushed for several years, although they should be flushed annually. • Zayante Fire District was not always notified of low water conditions that were a consequence of the tank leaks. • Zayante Fire District was not always notified when LCWD was doing repairs or maintenance on the tanks and there was low water pressure or no water at all. Response: Lompico County Water District Board of Directors – AGREE Management Conclusions C12. There often was poor communication between the board of directors and district management, and the board consistently lacked the accurate and complete information necessary to help it govern the district competently. C13. The condition of the district’s finances is so poor that the district is near collapse. Additionally, the infrastructure has deteriorated almost to the point of failure, and the board of directors was not properly apprised of the true condition of either the finances or the facilities. C14. The lack of water or water pressure puts the residents of the community at risk of serious fire damage, particularly when the Zayante Fire District is not informed of conditions. 186 ∫ Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report 2009-2010

Recommendations 3