📋
Extraído del Informe Consolidado
Esta investigación fue publicada originalmente como parte de un informe consolidado más amplio que contiene múltiples investigaciones. Consulte el PDF consolidado para ver el documento completo.
Sutter County Grand Jury
• 2011-2012
• Agency Response
Endorsed Filed Sep 27 2012 Superior Court of California County of Sutter Clerk of the Court July 6, 2012 Sutter Butte*
⚠️ Aviso de traducción: Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings 4 findings
F1
Page 3
During the public outreach meetings there were concerns for the right-of-way easements, property owners had not been approached by SBFCA prior to testing being done on their property. Response The respondent agrees that there is concern for project right-of-way impacts, and the Agency has continued to meet and communicate with landowners to address this concern. The respondent also agrees that a single property owner voiced concerned that levee vegetation survey activities were being conducted without advanced notification. However, these visual surveys were conducted from the top of the levee, not in the landowners’ backyards. The respondent wholly disagrees that property owners were not contacted prior to right-of-way activities being conducted on their properties, as right-of-entry agreements were authorized by property owners prior to the commencement of work. Moreover, the respondent conducted small group meetings with property owners to address specific concerns and to alert property owners of upcoming activities. These meetings took place in December 2011 and January 2012.
F2
Page 3
The ED’s resignation has put additional responsibilities on the interim ED and SBFCA staff. To date the position has not been filled. Response The respondent agrees that a full-time Executive Director and a full-time Director of Engineering are needed to effectively manage increasing workloads related to project planning, engineering, environmental permitting, construction, state and government regulations, as well as Agency operations. In January 2012, SBFCA’s then-Executive Director Bill Edgar was appointed to the Central Valley Flood Protection Board by Governor Brown. This appointment necessitated his resignation from SBFCA, since the Central Valley Flood Protection Board regulates the planning, design, construction, operation and maintenance of flood protection projects such as those currently being undertaken by SBFCA. Director of Engineering Mike Inamine was named Acting Executive Director and assumed the duties of both positions, pending the Board’s decision on permanent staffing. At the May 2012 SBFCA Board meeting, Mr. Inamine was appointed Interim Executive Director, and the Agency subsequently conducted a recruitment and interview process for a Director of Engineering to replace Mr. Inamine. At the June 2012 SBFCA Board meeting, Mr. Inamine was appointed Executive Director and authorized to negotiate an employment contract with the preferred candidate for the Director of Engineering position. Those negotiations are underway, but a contract has not yet been finalized. SBFCA expects a full-time Director of Engineering to be under contract by the end of July 2012.
F3
Page 4
SCBOS approved funds to be moved from the Flood Control Fund for purposes other than flood control. Response The Agency is unclear as to why an action of the Sutter County Board of Supervisors is included in the Grand Jury's report. SBFCA is a joint powers authority of which Sutter County is a member. However, Sutter County is a governmental organization independent of SBFCA and with distinct and separate responsibilities, governance and policies. Regardless, SBFCA wholly disagrees with the finding. While SBFCA has no influence or bearing on the administration or governance of the Sutter County Board of Supervisors, the respondent believes that, based on publicly available information, the transfer of funds by Sutter County referenced in the SCGJ report was both allowable and prudent. First, the source of the County funds is a grant from Calpine for the purposes of flood and drainage control activities. Those funds are to be allocated at the discretion of the Board of Supervisors after consultation with Calpine. Second, the expenditure directly relates to the County's responsibility for overall flood control, which includes activities related to the mapping of County floodplains by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for the purposes of assessing risk and rating flood insurance. <b>F4.</b> Annual audit findings show deficiencies including lack of certain policies. Additionally, liability insurance coverage has not been in place since SBFCA's inception. Response The respondent agrees that the auditor recommended the Agency, which at the time of the report had only recently hired its first full-time employee, put into place some additional labor policies to govern employee computer use, purchasing, and fraud reporting. A disaster recovery plan for the office was also recommended. With regard to liability insurance, the audit report states, "During our audit, we noted that there was not liability insurance in place from the Agency's inception to June 30, 2008." SBFCA was formed in September 2007 and purchased a liability insurance policy that took effect July 1, 2008. The policy was purchased after all Agency formation documents had been finalized and as soon as the policy could be negotiated. Liability insurance has been consistently maintained since that time (documentation of the original purchase is attached). Also, all SBFCA contractors are required to carry liability insurance covering their activities with the Agency. It is important to note that the auditor gave the Agency a "clean" audit report. As reported in the February 8, 2012 SBFCA Board Meeting minutes, the Agency Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer for the City of Yuba City stated that the unqualified report is the best and highest report an agency can receive. Two separate audits, one for three fiscal years preceding the formation of the Agency's assessment district (2008-2010) and another for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2011, were conducted by the accounting firm Moss, Levy & Hartzheim, LLP. According to the audit reports, the Agency successfully demonstrated its compliance with sound governmental accounting practices and conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. As importantly, the auditors did not identify any material weaknesses in the Agency's internal financial controls. 3
F4
Page 4
Annual audit findings show deficiencies including lack of certain policies. Additionally, liability insurance coverage has not been in place since SBFCA’s inception. Response The respondent agrees that the auditor recommended the Agency, which at the time of the report had only recently hired its first full-time employee, put into place some additional labor policies to govern employee computer use, purchasing, and fraud reporting. A disaster recovery plan for the office was also recommended. With regard to liability insurance, the audit report states, “During our audit, we noted that there was not liability insurance in place from the Agency’s inception to June 30, 2008.” SBFCA was formed in September 2007 and purchased a liability insurance policy that took effect July 1, 2008. The policy was purchased after all Agency formation documents had been finalized and as soon as the policy could be negotiated. Liability insurance has been consistently maintained since that time (documentation of the original purchase is attached). Also, all SBFCA contractors are required to carry liability insurance covering their activities with the Agency. It is important to note that the auditor gave the Agency a “clean” audit report. As reported in the February 8, 2012 SBFCA Board Meeting minutes, the Agency Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer for the City of Yuba City stated that the unqualified report is the best and highest report an agency can receive. Two separate audits, one for three fiscal years preceding the formation of the Agency’s assessment district (2008-2010) and another for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2011, were conducted by the accounting firm Moss, Levy & Hartzheim, LLP. According to the audit reports, the Agency successfully demonstrated its compliance with sound governmental accounting practices and conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. As importantly, the auditors did not identify any material weaknesses in the Agency’s internal financial controls.
Recommendations 4
-
R1Page 5Landowners need notification prior to any levee work being done on or near their property. Response This recommendation was implemented and is an ongoing activity. SBFCA conducts a comprehensive public outreach program to coordinate communications on all project-related activities that impact property owners adjacent to the levees. SBFCA makes every attempt to contact impacted property owners prior to any project-related work. To ensure easy identification, the Agency also requires that all contractors wear high-visibility SBFCA vests while working on or near levees. Contact with property owners is attempted via direct communication through mailings, small group meetings, and by phone and email, when such contact information is available. Examples of letters sent to property owners are attached. <b>R2.</b> SBFCA needs to actively look for a permanent Executive Director. Response This recommendation was implemented. Mr. Mike Inamine, the Agency's Director of Engineering, was named Executive Director on June 13, 2012. However, a full-time Director of Engineering is also needed to relieve the Executive Director from the increasing workload and responsibilities of both positions. Toward that end, the Agency recently conducted a recruitment and interview process for a Director of Engineering to replace Mr. Inamine. On June 13, 2012, the Board authorized the Executive Director to negotiate an employment contract with the preferred candidate for the Director of Engineering position. Those negotiations are underway, but a contract has not yet been finalized. SBFCA expects a full-time Director of Engineering to be under contract by the end of July 2012. <b>R3.</b> SBFCA and the SCBOS should carefully consider use of designated Flood Control Funds for purposes other than flood control or levee repairs. Response As a special purpose agency, SBFCA may only use funds for the purpose for which they are raised. The SBFCA Board scrutinizes and votes on every project-related task order to ensure authorized activities are directly tied to the ability of the Agency to construct levee repairs and improvements. However, not all such activities are directly related to the physical task of repairing levees. For example, both an emergency response plan and an operations and maintenance plan are required to obtain State funding for levee repairs and improvements; both require institutional changes and funding. Since Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the state and federal regulatory environment has been highly dynamic; in addition, funding requirements and administrative policies are also rapidly changing. These factors present tremendous challenges and cost escalation if not properly managed. Against this backdrop of evolving regulations and policies, the complex issues of design, construction and project management are relatively straightforward in comparison. Without the Agency's direct and proactive involvement in policy and regulatory issues, the project cannot be constructed.
-
R2Page 5SBFCA needs to actively look for a permanent Executive Director. Response This recommendation was implemented. Mr. Mike Inamine, the Agency’s Director of Engineering, was named Executive Director on June 13, 2012. However, a full-time Director of Engineering is also needed to relieve the Executive Director from the increasing workload and responsibilities of both positions. Toward that end, the Agency recently conducted a recruitment and interview process for a Director of Engineering to replace Mr. Inamine. On June 13, 2012, the Board authorized the Executive Director to negotiate an employment contract with the preferred candidate for the Director of Engineering position. Those negotiations are underway, but a contract has not yet been finalized. SBFCA expects a full-time Director of Engineering to be under contract by the end of July 2012.
-
R3Page 5SBFCA and the SCBOS should carefully consider use of designated Flood Control Funds for purposes other than flood control or levee repairs. Response As a special purpose agency, SBFCA may only use funds for the purpose for which they are raised. The SBFCA Board scrutinizes and votes on every project-related task order to ensure authorized activities are directly tied to the ability of the Agency to construct levee repairs and improvements. However, not all such activities are directly related to the physical task of repairing levees. For example, both an emergency response plan and an operations and maintenance plan are required to obtain State funding for levee repairs and improvements; both require institutional changes and funding. Since Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the state and federal regulatory environment has been highly dynamic; in addition, funding requirements and administrative policies are also rapidly changing. These factors present tremendous challenges and cost escalation if not properly managed. Against this backdrop of evolving regulations and policies, the complex issues of design, construction and project management are relatively straightforward in comparison. Without the Agency’s direct and proactive involvement in policy and regulatory issues, the project cannot be constructed.
-
R4Page 5SBFCA should carry liability insurance and continue the process of developing and implementing the policies recommended in the Audit findings. Response This recommendation was implemented. On February 8, 2012, the Board received audited financial statements covering all prior years of the Agency's operations and a management report on the internal controls of the Agency prepared by the independent audit firm Moss, Levy and Hartzheim, LLP. In the management report, the 4 auditor noted that the Agency did not have liability insurance coverage from its inception in late 2007 through June 2008, and recommended that the Agency "have sufficient insurance coverage at all times." The report also stated that the agency purchased liability insurance that took effect in July 2008, a coverage that has continuously been maintained since that time (document attached). Given the Agency's recent hiring of its first full-time employee, the auditor also recommended the Agency implement seven policies covering: 1. Capital assets 2. Fraud reporting 3. Purchasing policy 4. Computer use 5. Disaster recovery plan 6. Drug free workplace 7. Labor regulation policies associated with grants Of the seven recommended policies, two, Computer Use and Drug Free Workplace, were immediately developed and incorporated into the Agency's employee handbook. The handbook was initially developed in June 2012 in preparation of hiring the Agency's first full-time Director of Engineering. One recommended policy, Labor Regulation, is needed only in the event it is required by grant conditions and requirements. None of the Agency's current grants require such a policy at this time. The remaining four policies – Capital assets; Fraud reporting; Purchasing; and Disaster recovery plan (hereby referred to as a Business Disaster Resumption & Preparedness Plan) - were developed and adopted by the Board on May 9, 2012. The policies and Staff Report are included in the Appendices. CORRECTIONS TO THE SUTTER COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT The SCGJ's report on the Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency contained a number of inaccuracies. The bolded text on the left is the incorrect information published in the SCGJ report. The column to the right provides the necessary corrections or clarifications. Page <b>Text of Grand Jury Report</b> Correction 27 The correct name is the "Sutter Butte Flood The Sutter Buttes Flood Control Agency (SBFCA) is responsible for repairing and Control Agency." upgrading levees along the west bank of the Feather River, from the Thermalito Afterbay south to the Sutter Bypass, a total of 44 miles. Repairs are necessary because the Feather River west levees do not provide 100-year flood protection, a requirement of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) or 200-year flood protection, a new state The state requirement is for those areas with requirement for areas with more than 10,000 or more residents, or those with plans 100,000 residents. to grow to 10,000 or more residents. The 2011-2012 Sutter County Grand Jury A "Citizen's Oversight committee" does not (SCGJ) visited the SBFCA office for an exist. There is a Citizens Assessment District informational meeting to learn about the Advisory Committee. According to its charter, Feather River West Levee Project I (Project). that Committee's purpose is to review the The SCGJ learned that this is a long tern expenditure of funds generated by SBFCA's project that requires oversight from the annual assessments and advise the Board on its community. SCGJ recommends
* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.