Sonoma County Grand Jury • 2018-2019 • Agency Response
Response to: Water Report

Office of the County Administrator Sheryt Bratton County of Sonoma CoUNTY ADMTNTSTRAToR

Published: December 31, 2019 5 pages
Ver PDF original

Note: Missing finding numbers detected: F8, F9, F11

Findings and Recommendations 7 findings

F3 Page 2
There is no formal requirementthat County departmentaladministrators inform the Board of Supervisors regarding current-yeardeferred maintenance decisions on capitalassets including cost to the County budget.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
Page 3
The County Administratorwork with department headsto evaluate and take advantage of the EFS Capital A5set Management module to avoid duplication, consolidate data, provide cost savingB, and report updates to the Board of Supervisors by December 3L,2019. IF4 F5] Response: The recommendotion requiresfurther anolysis. The County purchased and implemented EFS Asset Management county-wide in July 20'J.4in order to provide a centralized accounting system to trackcapital assets. Additional asset management modules for lT, Maintenance Management, and RealEstatetrackingwere not purchased or implemented. The County Administrator will direct the Generalservices Director to work with ACITC staff to determine if additional services are needed. Staff will provide an update to the Board of Supervisors through the Budget development process by June 30,2020.
F4 Page 2
Real asset records are scattered over an excessive n umber of record keeping and asset management systems. We disagree partiallywith this finding. All physicalfinancial asset records are maintained in the EFS Asset Management (AM) module. EFS AM has been implemented county-wide. Some departments use other systems to maintain data not needed for financial reporting of assets, such as maintenance planning for buildings.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
Page 4
TheCountyAdministratorandtheBoadofSupervisorsbudgetregularlyforfacilitymaintenance at tevels consistent with recommended industry standards by December 31, 2Ot9.1F6,F7l Response: The recommendotion has been implemented. ln order to avoid significant increases in deferred maintenance costs for County facilities, the Board of Supervisors adopted a Facility Maintenance and lnvestment/Deferred Maintenance Funding policy during the Fiscal Year 2OI7-18 Budget Hearings. As the policy states, the Board of Supervisors will appropriate,fora 5yearperiodcommencingwith FiscalYear201-7-2O!8, fortypercent(4O%) of allnew property taxgrowth, which is above the growth needed to keep up with inflation for existing levels of generalfund services, tothe CapitalProjects Budgetto be used towardsaddressing deferred maintenance of County facilities. Following Board adoption of the policy, the County Administrator's Office established a process for Generalservices to request use of the Deferred Maintenance fund. Since the creation of this fund, a number of critical deferred maintenance projects have been mitigated ln light of the current status of deferred maintenance on the County camput the Board of Supervisors have directed staff to evaluate options to replace existing County buildings or relocating to a new location. Funding in support of this project has been appropriated from both the annualCapitalBudget and in the Facility Maintenancefund over multiple fiscal years.
F5 Page 2
Generalservices, as well as other department$ have yet to take advantage of integrating with the Enterprise Financialsystem's (EFS) Asset Management module which providesassettracking, acq uisition, maintenance, inventory, and cost-sharing. We disagree partiallywith this funding. The County purchased and implemented PeopleSoft Asset Management in July 2O'J.4to provide a centralized system to trackcapitalassets for the purpose of financial accounting. EFS Asset Management is currently the centralized system of record for recording and reporting allasset acquisitions, transfers, cost adjustments, retirementsand depreciation for all County departments. Maintenance and work orders are tracked in a separate module called PeopleSoft Maintenance Management. The Maintenance module was not purchased by the County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
Page 4
The Directorof Health Services reduceemployeeand publicexposureto hazards,minimizerisksof OSHA and tiability exposure by enforcing a higher levelof maintenance by December3l, 2019. IF10] Response: The recommendation will not be implemented becouse it is not worronted. Generalservices has been working closely with the Risk Management Division of Human Resources Department to identify and mitigate employee and public exposure to hazards, minimize risks of OSHA and liability exposure. Risk Management and not Health Services is responsible, in addition to General Services, to trackand monitor toresolution allOSHA complaints and consults and informs Health Services staff of issues, resolution and completion.
F6 Page 3
The true cost of maintaining the County's facilities has been su bsantially understated fo r over a decade by deferring needed maintenance. We disagree partiallywith this finding. As the amount of funding for maintenance had remained flat since the economic downturn of 2006, unfunded maintenance projects have been identified and valued in the Annual Capital lmprovement Plan (ClP).
No recommendations for this finding
F7 Page 2
Facility maintenance is persistently underfunded, at levels substantially below recommended industry standards. We d isagree wholly o r partially with these fi nd ings :
No recommendations for this finding
F10 Page 3
Public and employee safety are adversely affected by deteriorating build ing co nd itions brought about by deferred maintenane. We disagree partiallywith this finding. Building conditions are not the only factor in public and employee safety. ln large part, worn or outdated finishes are merelyaesthetic issues. However, there may be some cases where health and safety of employees and the public could potentially be compromised by deteriorating building conditions, such as leaking roofs or tripping hazards.
No recommendations for this finding
F12 Page 3
The Cou nty lacks in-house capabilities for determin ing and setting deferred maintenance valuations. We disagree wholly with this finding. GeneralServices Facilities Development and Management includes staffwho are licensed architects, engineersand generalcontractorsthat have extensive experience in cost estimating.
No recommendations for this finding