Disagrees at least partially with nearly all of the findings
The Ukiah Valley Sanitation District Wednesday may vote on a response to a recent Mendocino County Grand Jury report prepared by its chair that at least partially disagrees with nearly all of the findings.
In June, the Grand Jury released a report titled “Ukiah Valley Sanitation District: Change and Transparency Needed” that described “the city of Ukiah and the Sanitation District (as) initiating a joint rate study to determine new sewer rates (that) must account for the costs of the $9 million combined legal and administrative fees and almost $5 million of payments from the city to the district resulting from a lawsuit.”
The report lists several findings and recommendations, including that: “there is only one sewage collection and treatment system which serves both the city and the district, and that (those two agencies) being jointly responsible for the single sanitation system has led to significant needless expense.”
The proposed response to the Grand Jury report prepared by board Chairwoman Theresa McNerlin states that the board “disagrees wholly or partially” with 12 of the report’s 14 findings, and that two of its four recommendations will not be implemented because they are “not warranted or not reasonable.”
As to the report’s first finding which alleges that the “lawsuit settlement between the city of Ukiah and the Sanitation District left unresolved issues resulting in current arbitration, and continued duplication of services and costs,” the district response states: “the lawsuit did not leave ‘unresolved issues resulting in current arbitration’ (because) the budget dispute, which is the subject ‘unresolved issue,’ did not even exist when the parties settled the lawsuit.” Also, the response states that “the parties have yet to engage in arbitration over the budget disputes.”
The response also disputes that there is indeed just “a single sewage collection and treatment system,” and that “the city and Sanitation District being jointly responsible for the single sanitation system has led to significant needless expense.” Because, the response states, the sanitation system is actually “comprised of two interconnected systems,” so it is not accurate to describe it as one system, and that it is “unclear what the report means by needless expense since no supporting facts are specified.
“That said, the district’s governance and oversight of the combined system has saved it from absorbing significant improper expense charged to it by the city and created millions of dollars of benefits that otherwise would have been lost or unrealized,” the response continues.
As to the Grand Jury’s first recommendation that “the city and district work together to find a way to manage the overall sewer system as a single entity equitably and efficiently for all ratepayers,” the proposed response states that “operating the Combined System by a single entity is feasible, but would require at least the city, and perhaps the district, to cede managerial and operational control of the system, and to some extent ownership of it, to an agency vested with the power and authority over the whole of the system.”
As to the second recommendation that “the district enter into negotiations with the city regarding the proposed MOU/JPA,” the response states that “the recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or reasonable,” describing “the proposed JPA (as) not a joint powers agreement at all. Under the proposal, the (Ukiah) City Council solely makes all decisions for the Combined System. The District board would exist, ostensibly, only to approve audits, yet even that function would be nothing but ministerial since the City would, under the proposal, control all books, records, reporting, and other financial affairs.”
Also, the response notes that “the proposed JPA would eliminate the city’s obligation to make its final payments to the district under the Settlement Agreement, which amounts to millions of dollars.”
September 10, 2019
The Ukiah Daily Journal
By Justine Frederiksen
No comments:
Post a Comment