Item 5a Staff Report Approve Response to Santa Clara Civil Grant Jury Report - Review of Audits and Financial Reportsf
MEETING DATE: 9/15/03
ITEM NO. q
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: September 11, 2003
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: ORRY P. KORB, TOWN ATTORNEY
SUBJECT: APPROVE RESPONSE TO SANTA CLARA COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY
REPORT - REVIEW OF AUDITS AND FINANCIAL REPORTS
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve response to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Final Report - Review of Audits and
Financial Reports.
DISCUSSION:
The 2002-03 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury examined documents received from government
entities throughout the county. Among these were financial reports, audited financial statements,
budgets, and audit reports. It conducted a review of the activities city internal auditors. As a result
of the Grand Jury's review, several findings and recommendations were made.
The Grand Jury's recommendations called for more regular use of independent management reports
and process audits by the larger cities and that such reports be routinely distributed to the Grand Jury.
The Grand Jury's review had two specific recommendations that applied to the Town of Los Gatos.
The first is that Town add the Grand Jury to its routine distribution list for all financial reports,
CAFR's, budgets and audit reports, which staff recommends be implemented by the Town. The
second specifically calls for each of the smaller jurisdictions, (i.e. Los Gatos, Los Altos, Los Altos
Hills) to develop plans for the review of procedures and compliance and provide that information
to the Grand Jury. Staff recommends that the Town agree to develop plans for reviews of selected
procedures as part of the FY 2003/04 administrative work plan, and then share that information with
the Grand Jury.
PREPARED BY: ORRY P. KORB, TOWN ATTORNEY
Reviewed by:
Rev: 9/11/03 ,! 2 pm
Reformatted: 7/19/99
OPK:SC/wp (N:\ATY\Grand- Jury Audit Report.TCR.wpol
Town Manager P S Z Assistant Town Manager Clerk
inance Community Development
File# 301-05
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: APPROVE RESPONSE TO SANTA CLARA COUNTY GRAND JURY
REQUEST -REVIEW OF AUDITS AND FINANCIAL REPORTS
September 9, 2003
The attached letter responds to the report by generally agreeing with the findings and
recommendations contained therein. Once approved by Council and signed by the Mayor, it will be
forwarded to the Presiding Judge of the Santa Clara County Superior Court who supervises the Civil
Grand Jury.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS:
Responding to the recommendations of the Grand Jury is not a project as defined by CEQA.
FISCAL ANALYSIS:
No fiscal impact at this time.
Attachments: 1. Grand Jury Report —Final Report -Review of Audits and Financial Reports
2. Response Letter
June 24, 2003
Debra J. Figone
Town Manager
Town of Los Gatos
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Dear Ms. Figone:
JUN 2 6 2003
The 2002-2003 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury is transmitting to you its
Final Report, Review of Audits and Financial Reports.
California Penal Code, Section 933(c) and 933.05(c) require that an elected
county official or agency head shall respond within 60 days to the Presiding Judge of the
Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the
control of their agency or department. Copies of responses to the Grand Jury's report
must also be submitted to the Board of Supervisors. California Penal Code, Section
933.05 contains guidelines for responses to Grand Jury findings and recommendations
and is attached to this letter.
PLEASE NOTE:
1. As stated in Penal Code 933.05, you are required to "Agree" or
"Disagree" with each FINDING. If you disagree, in whole or part, you
must include an explanation of the reasons you disagree.
2. As stated in Penal Code 933.05, you are required to respond to each
RECOMMENDATION with one of four possible actions.
Your comments are due in the office of the Honorable Thomas P. Hansen,
Presiding Judge, Santa Clara County Superior Court, 191 North First Street, San Jose,
CA 95113, no later than August 25, 2003.
SUPERIOR COURT BUILDING • 191 NORTH FIRST STREET, SAN JOSE, CAI.IFORNIA 95113 • (4081 882-2721 • FAx 882-2795
6.007
,' TACHMENT i
Page Two
Copies of all responses shall be placed on file with the Clerk of the Court.
Sincerely,
FRED de FUNIAK
Foreperson
2002-2003 Civil Grand Jury
FdF:dsa
Enc.
California Penal Code §933.05, in relevant part:
933.05. (a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding,
the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following:
(1) The respondent agrees with the finding.
(2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case
the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an
explanation of the reasons therefor.
(b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury
recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following
actions:
(1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the
implemented action.
(2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented
in the future, with a timeframe for implementation.
(3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the
scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be
prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being
investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when
applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of
the grand jury report.
(4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is
not reasonable, with an explanation therefor ... .
2002-2003 SANTA CLARA COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY JUN 24 03
REVIEW OF AUDITS AND FINANCIAL REPORTS
Summary
The 2002-2003 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury (Grand Jury) examined
documents received from government entities throughout the county. Among
these were:
• financial reports
• audited financial statements
• budgets
• audit reports
It conducted a review of the activities of all city internal auditors. As a result of its
reviews, the Grand Jury has several findings and recommendations.
Background
The Grand Jury reviews the financial reports and statements to determine whether
or not they have been issued. An assessment is made of their timeliness and
completeness.
A. Terms Defined
Specialized terms are used in this report, and in the interest of clarity, the
following simplified definitions are offered:
• Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR): A legally mandated
annual financial report defined by the Government Accounting Standards
Board that includes all the income, expenses, special funds, or designated
funds that are part of a government entity's financial activities.
• Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB): The national
accountancy board that establishes the standards to be used in all
governmental accounting.
• Special Districts: These are special districts that have taxing
authority. The district is governed by a board of directors, which may be
a city or town council. A special district may be a part of a city or cut
across city lines. Some enterprise funds (funds that charge a fee for
facilities or services) are special districts. For example, the Loma Prieta
Resource Conservation District is a special district. The California State
Controllers Office lists 32 functions for special districts.
• Joint Powers Agencies (JPA): These agencies cross geopolitical
boundaries to address a common responsibility. They are governed by
representatives from the government entities sharing their authority.
Several cities getting together to jointly provide a wastewater treatment
system or expanded Library facilities are examples of a JPA. School
districts getting together to jointly provide student transportation services
is also a JPA.
Management Reports and Process Audits: In addition to financial reports,
the Grand Jury reviewed the results of management reports and process
audits. Management reports are overviews with general recommendations.
Process audits involve the testing of a system with specific
recommendations. For example, a management report states that the
system for reviewing timecards allows unsigned timecards to be entered
into the payroll records. A process audit indicates that 12% of the
timecards are not signed by the employee, and that 20% are not signed by
the supervisor. A recommendation on a process audit is specific, such as;
change the policy to return all unsigned timecards to the supervisor's
manager for action.
B. Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports
As part of its watchdog responsibilities, the Grand Jury annually receives copies
of the legally mandated CAFRs for the county, the cities and towns within Santa
Clara County, and a limited number ofJPAs and special districts.
This fiscal year was the first year that government agencies with revenues in
excess of $100 million were to comply with the requirements of Statement 34 of
the GASB. As noted, GASB is a national standards board that defines the
accounting practices and reporting standards of government agencies in
California. Statement 34, issued in June 1999, requires government entities to
provide budget, budget performance and comparison information, a management
discussion and analysis section, and the current value of capital assets in their
CAFRs. The Grand Jury examined CAFRs and their compliance with Statement
34. Statement 34 information adds to the usefulness of the reports, but does
require additional review time.
The Grand Jury received 14 CAFRs. Eight entities had revenues in excess of
$100 million and thus were required to meet the GASB Statement 34
requirements in their latest annual reports. The eight were Santa Clara County,
the Santa Clara Valley Water District, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation
2
Authority, and the cities of Mountain View, Palo Alto, San Jose, Santa Clara, and
Sunnyvale. Several entities indicated within their CAFRs that they were still
working to finalize such items as the current value of capital assets.
Based on the size of their revenue, Gilroy and Monte Sereno are not required at
this time to provide CAFRs. Therefore, they submitted audited financial
statements. Two entities, Los Altos and Los Altos Hills, did not have their final
reports available. (See Table 1 below)
TABLE 1
Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports Received
ENTITY REPORT
Campbell CAFR
Cupertino CAFR
Gilroy Statement
Los Altos Not available
Los Altos Hills Not available
Los Gatos CAFR
Milpitas CAFR
Monte Sereno Statement
Morgan Hill CAFR
Mountain View CAFR
Palo Alto CAFR
San Jose CAFR
Santa Clara CAFR
Saratoga CAFR
Sunnyvale CAFR
Santa Clara County CAFR
Santa Clara County Water District CAFR
Santa Clara Valley Transportation
Authority CAFR
C. Budgets
As already noted, under the guidelines of GASB Statement 34, reporting
government entities must provide budget and budget performance information in
their CAFRs. Based on the phasing requirements of Statement 34, entities with
revenues in excess of $100 million are required to include this information in the
2001-2002 report. This year, the Grand Jury requested budget information along
with the other reports. The Grand Jury used these publications for reference in
the course of its oversight function. Budgets were received from:
• Campbell
• Mountain View
• San Jose
• Santa Clara
• County of Santa Clara (Preliminary only)
This year, budgets were not required of the other cities in the county as their prior
year revenue did not exceed $100 million.
D. Audits
The Grand Jury did not routinely request audit information from school districts
or JPAs, with the exception of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. A
limited number of special district reports were requested. Appendix A is a list of
audit reports received and reviewed by the Grand Jury.
Each audit report was reviewed to determine if any additional action or follow up
by the Grand Jury would be beneficial. Eighteen reports required follow up (see
Follow-up column in Appendix A). Follow up actions included Grand Jury
requests for additional information, responses, implementation schedules, or
referral to future Grand Juries for further inquiry.
E. Internal and Independent Auditors
The Grand Jury surveyed the county's cities and towns to determine what level of
internal or independent audits were routine to each city. For the first time, the
Grand Jury requested that all cities and towns provide their process audits and
4
management reports. The Grand Jury received and evaluated sixty-eight audits of
all types (see Appendix A).
There is an internal auditor for the County of Santa Clara. The internal auditor for
the County of Santa Clara is used to audit state and federal grants, as is required
by those grants.
Of the 15 cities and towns within Santa Clara County, only Palo Alto, San Jose
and Sunnyvale have internal auditors. San Jose and Palo Alto auditors report
directly to their city councils in open meetings. Sunnyvale's internal auditor is
under the oversight of the city manager.
When the internal auditor reports directly to the city council in open meetings, the
public is fully aware of the actions of the auditor, including the reasons for a
recommendation to expand or terminate an audit. All reports and
recommendations made, along with the staff responses, become part of the public
record. There is no requirement for meetings between the city manager and his
staff to be public.
In addition, the City of Santa Clara has established the function of city auditor and
assigned it to the city clerk's office. This function is limited to independently
verifying support data for disbursements, but does not provide any process audit.
All entities which were checked used independent auditors for their annual
reports. Entities without internal auditors used independent auditors or oversight
agencies for audits of specific funds or functions. The Grand Jury found the
smaller entities had determined the hiring of a full-time internal auditor was not
fiscally feasible and relied on contracted independent auditors for selected process
audits.
F. Conclusions
The process audit information gathered gives the Grand Jury confidence that
reasonable efforts are being made to provide the citizens of the county with
efficient and responsive services. There are indications that stronger support for
the implementation of audit recommendations by the appropriate governing
boards would lead to even greater improvement in services and programs.
Examples from the cities of Palo Alto and San Jose audit recommendation status
reports follow:
• Palo Alto report of September 2002 lists 53 recommendations, 29 of
which were holdovers from the November 2001 report. Four
recommendations (7.6%) have been implemented, of which two are
from 1997 and two from 1999. The balance, 49 (90.7%), are "in
process," with eight from April 1998.
5
Finding I
• The San Jose report of the 6 months ending December 31, 2002 shows
94 recommendations not yet implemented. The earliest of these is
from 1988. Of these 94 recommendations, 22 (23.4%) have been
implemented, 57 (60.6%) are only partially implemented and 13
(13.8%) have not been implemented. One was rejected and one, from
1995, continues to be deferred.
The internal auditor for the City of Sunnyvale reports to the city manager. Two
management/performance audits were terminated in the early stages because of
the need for major restructuring of the departments under audit. These were the
audits of the Transportation Operations Department and the Roadside and Median
Right -of -Way Services Department. Since the audits were terminated without the
public receiving the information that would have been available with a direct
report to the city council by an independent internal auditor, the public has limited
ability to evaluate the operations of the departments and the effectiveness of the
restructuring. Not reporting to the city council in open forum provides an
opportunity for public perception of a cover up, which negates the value of
internal auditors as independent evaluators.
Recommendation I
Finding II
The Grand Jury recommends that the City of Sunnyvale have the internal auditor
report directly to the City Council.
The City of Santa Clara has designated a city auditor function and assigned it to
the city clerk, who is independently elected. Current auditing activities are limited
to verification of expenditures and associated documentation.
Recommendation II
The Grand Jury recommends that the City of Santa Clara expand the
responsibilities of the city auditor function to include internal audit
responsibilities and separate this function from the office of the city clerk.
6
Finding III
Seven cities/towns did not provide the Grand Jury with management reports or
process audits. They are:
• Campbell
• Gilroy
• Los Altos
• Los Altos Hills
• Los Gatos
• Monte Sereno
• Santa Clara
Milpitas submitted a single audit on internal financial controls.
The failure of the smaller cities/towns to perform regular management reports or
process audits is understandable. However, for our more moderate -sized or larger
cities, such as Campbell, Gilroy, Milpitas and Santa Clara, to ignore these tools of
good management is to overlook potential improvements in providing high
quality, efficient services to their citizens.
Recommendation III-1
The Grand Jury recommends that all cities or towns that do not currently include
the Grand Jury on their routine distribution list for financial reports, CAFRs,
budget, and audit reports add the Grand Jury to their list.
Recommendation III-2
The Grand Jury recommends that the cities of Campbell, Gilroy, Milpitas and
Santa Clara implement a program of process audits and process adherence,
providing copies of the audits and staff responses to the Grand Jury.
Recommendation III-3
The Grand Jury recommends that Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, and Monte Sereno
develop plans for the review of procedures and compliance, providing the information, results
and recommendations to the Grand Jury.
7
PASSED and ADOPTED by the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury on this 29th day of May,
2003.
4A-y)
Fred de Funiak
Forepers •
Ron R. — an
Foreperson Pr• em
Patricia L. Cunningham
Secretary
8
APPENDIX A
FY 2002-2003 AUDITS, FINANCIAL REPORTS AND LETTERS RECEIVED
ENTITY OR FUND
DEPT
TYPE
Recmd
Follow Up
County
Controller Audit
Controller
IA
Y
Professional Group, Valley Health Svcs
SCVHHS
IA
, 6
Data Center Operations
SCVHHS
IA .
7
Employee Benefits
HR
Mgmt
9
Y
Grants
Juvenile Crime Enforcement
Probation
IA
5
Y
Auto Insurance Fraud
DA
IA
Organized Auto Fraud Interdiction Prog.
DA
IA
Workers Comp. Fraud
DA
IA
Funds
SCC Law Library
IA
Child Development Program
Soc Svcs
IA
School Districts
Gavilan Joint Community College District
Fiscal
5
Joint Powers Agencies
Santa Clara Valley Water District
CAFR
Special Districts
Loma Prieta Resource Consv. Dist.
Fiscal
N
Saratoga Public Financing Authority
Fiscal
Burbank Sanitary District
CAFR
Saratoga Cemetery District
Fiscal
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Single Grant Audit
Finance
IA
Cupertino RDA
RDA
IA
CAFR Mgmt Letter
Finance
IA
CITY OF MILPITAS
Internal Control Structure
Finance
Fiscal
1
CITY OF MORGAN HILL
Morgan Hill RDA Housing Fund Requirements
RDA
Mgmt
3
Morgan Hill Police Property & Evidence Op's
Police
Mgmt
Y
Board of Corrections Insp. of MH Holding Fac.
Police
Mgmt
3
Development Process Services
Comm Dev't
Mgmt
39
Y
Health Inspection of Morgan Hill Holding Facility
Police
Mgmt
3
Risk Management Audit
Finance
Mgmt
26
Y
CAFR Management Report
Finance
Fiscal
3
Y
CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW
Foothill Disposal Co. Compliance Audit
City
Mgmt
Cash Handling Procedures 1999
Various
Study
16
Cash Handling Procedures 2002
Various
Mgmt
15
Library Organization Review
Library Scvs
Mgmt
58
1 of 2
APPENDIX A
FY 2002-2003 AUDITS, FINANCIAL REPORTS AND LETTERS RECEIVED
ENTITY OR FUND
DEPT
TYPE
Recmd
Follow Up
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Utility Risk Mgmt Procedures
Utilities Op's
M•mt
24
Y
Contract Processing Times
Study
Internal Control Structure
Finance
M • mt
7
Y
Compliance with Prop 111
Finance
Mgmt
Public Improve Corp. FY2001 & 2002
Finance
Fiscal
Regional Water Quality Control Plant FY 2001
Finance
Fiscal
Cable Coop Franchise Year End 2000 & 2001
Finance
Fiscal
Bicycle/Ped FY2000 & 2001
Finance
Fiscal
Payroll Procedures & Practices
Finance
Fiscal
10
Y
CITY OF SAN JOSE
Cash Handling/Refund
Building
Mgmt
6
Y
Customer Service Call Center
Admin
Mgmt
2
Petty Cash & Change Funds
City Hall
Mgmt
Property Mgmt Operations
Public Works
Mgmt
12
Y
Rental Dispute Program
Neigh Svcs
Mgmt
6
San Jose Arena Mgmt
Mgmt
8
San Jose Office of Equality Assurance
OEA
Mgmt
10
Hayes Renaissance Center Compliance with
Agreement
Mgmt
3
Y
Survey of Real Property Inventory
Mgmt
Y
Neighborhood Clean -Up Program
Planning
M • mt
7
Project Technology Education (Tech Q III)
Vehicle Replacement Program
Gen Svcs
Mgmt
15
CITY OF SARATOGA
CAFR Mgmt Report
Finance
Fiscal
CITY OF SUNNYVALE *
Review Program 763 Status
PW, Fleet Svcs
Review
Sun/GIS One Stop Permitting
30
Cable TV
TCI Cable
14
Housing Division Operations
Housing
Mgmt
9
Y
Federal Equitable Sharing Program 2001, 2002
Housing
Fiscal
Mini Program Performance
Public Works
Review
4
Standby Processes
PW, Bldg, IS
Mgmt
9
Y
Library Collection Program 636
Libra
M • mt
8
Library Services Program 637
Library
Mgmt
3
Library Learning Program 638
Library
Mgmt
9
Cash Receipts Process
Y
Purchasing Card Review
OTHER AGENCY AUDITS
Juvenile Confinement Facilities
Inspection
*The City of Sunnyvale had two audits that were not completed: Transportation Operations Audit was halted
pending reorganization, and Accounts Payable was never completed.
2 of 2
Appendix Key
Column headings:
Entity or Fund Name of audit report
Dept Department included in the audit
Type Type of report
IA Internal Audit
Fiscal Financial Audit only
Mgmt Management or process audit
CAFR Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
Study Study with recommendations
Review Review of status of recommendations
Inspect. Inspection report
Recmnd
Follow-up
Number of Recommendations in Audit Report
Follow-up actions by Grand Jury
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
(408) 354-6801— FAX: (408) 399-5786
Sandy Decker, Mayor
Steve Glickman, Vice Mayor
Diane McNutt, Council Member
Joe Pirzynski, Council Member
Mike Wasserman, Council Member
September 15, 2003
Honorable Thomas P. Hansen
Presiding Judge
Santa Clara Superior Court
191 North First Street
San Jose, CA 95113
RE: 2002-2003 SANTA CLARA COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT - REVIEW OF
AUDITS AND FINANCIAL REPORTS
Dear Judge Hansen:
The Town of Los Gatos, pursuant to Penal Code sections 933(c) and 933.05(c), hereby responds to the
finding and recommendations contained in the above report of the Civil Grand Jury.
FINDING I:
The internal auditor for the City of Sunnyvale reports to the City Manager. Two
management/performance audits were terminated in the early stages because of the need for major
restructuring of the departments under audit. These were the audits of the Transportation Operations
Department and the Roadside and Median Right of Way Services Department. Since the audits were
terminated without the public receiving the information that would have been available with a direct
report to the city council by an independent internal auditor, the public has limited ability to evaluate
the operations of the departments and the effectiveness of the restructuring. Not reporting to the city
council in open forum provides an opportunity for public perception of a cover-up, which negates the
value of internal auditors as independent evaluators.
RESPONSE:
To the best of the Town's knowledge and in reliance on the fact finding of the Civil Grand Jury, the
Town agrees with the finding.
ATTACHMENT 2
Honorable Thomas P. Hansen
September 15, 2003
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION I:
The Grand Jury recommends that the City of Sunnyvale have the internal auditor report directly to the
City Council.
RESPONSE:
To the best of the Town's knowledge and in reliance on the fact finding of the Civil Grand Jury, the
Town agrees with the finding.
FINDING II:
The City of Santa Clara has designated a city auditor function and assigned it to the city clerk, who is
independently elected. Current auditing activities are limited to verification of expenditures and
associated documentation.
RESPONSE:
To the best of the Town's knowledge and in reliance on the fact finding of the Civil Grand Jury, the
Town agrees with the finding.
RECOMMENDATION II:
The Grand Jury recommends that the City of Santa Clara expand the responsibilities of the city auditor
function to include internal audit responsibilities and separate this function from the office of the city
clerk.
RESPONSE:
To the best of the Town's knowledge and in reliance on the fact finding of the Civil Grand Jury, the
Town agrees with the finding
FINDING III:
Seven cities/towns did not provide the Grand Jury with management reports or process audits. They
are Campbell, Gilroy, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, and Santa Clara. Milpitas
submitted a single audit on internal financial controls.
The failure of the smaller cities/towns to perform regular management reports or process audits is
understandable. However, for our more moderate -sized or larger cities, such as Campbell, Gilroy,
Milpitas and Santa Clara, to ignore these tools of good management is to overlook potential
improvements in providing high quality, efficient services to their citizens.
Honorable Thomas P. Hansen
September 15, 2003
Page 3
RESPONSE:
To the best of the Town's knowledge and in reliance on the fact finding of the Civil Grand Jury, the
Town agrees with the finding as it concerns cities other than the Town. The Town agrees with the
finding concerning the Town.
RECOMMENDATION III -I:
The Grand Jury recommends that all cities or towns that do not currently include the Grand Jury on
their routine distribution list for financial reports, CAFR's, budget, and audit reports add the Grand
Jury to their list.
RESPONSE:
The Town agrees and will add the Santa Clara Civil Grand Jury to its routine distribution list for
financial reports, CAFR's, budget, and audit reports.
RECOMMENDATION III -II:
The Grand Jury recommends that the cities of Campbell, Gilroy, Milpitas, and Santa Clara implement
a program of process audits and process adherence, providing copies of the audits and staff responses
to the Grand Jury.
RESPONSE:
The Town agrees with this recommendation to the extent that it does not involve the Town and subject
to any objections made by the cities directly effected by the recommendation.
RECOMMENDATION III -III:
The Grand Jury recommends that Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos and Monte Sereno develop
plans for the review of procedures and compliance, providing the information, results and
recommendations to the Grand Jury.
RESPONSE:
The Town agrees and will incorporate into its administrative work plan in FY 2003/04 a process for
review of selected procedures and compliance. As the information of these reviews becomes available,
it will be forwarded to Grand Jury.
Honorable Thomas P. Hansen
September 15, 2003
Page 4
We trust that this fully responds to the report.
Sincerely,
SANDY DECKER
Mayor
SD:OK:pg N:1ATY\grand.jury.audit fin.LTR.wpd
cc: Town Council
Town Attorney
Town Council Minutes September 15, 2003
Redevelopment Agency Los Gatos, California
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE/RATIFICATION/AUGUST-SEPTEMBER 2003 (03.V)
Motion by Mr. Pirzynski, seconded by Mr. Glickman, that Council ratify the accompanying check
registers for accounts payable invoices paid on August 29, 2003 and September 5, 2003 in the amount
of $486,439.98. Carried unanimously.
MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 (04.V)
Motion by Mr. Pirzynski, seconded by Mr. Glickman, that Council approve the Minutes of September
2, 2003, Regular Joint Town Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting corrected as follows: Page 8,
under Silicon Valley Animal Control, the last sentence should read, "In the mean time the Humane
Society is still covering sheltering and SVACA is handling field services." Carried unanimously.
SANTA CLARA COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORTS (5A&B.09)
A. Motion by Mr. Pirzynski, seconded by Mr. Glickman, that Council approve response to Santa
Clara County Civil Grand Jury report - review of audits and financial reports. Carried
unanimously.
B. Motion by Mr. Pirzynski, seconded by Mr. Glickman, that Council approve response to Santa
Clara County Civil Grand Jury report regarding listing of special districts, joint powers
agencies, designated non-profit corporations and other governmental entities. Carried
unanimously.
SMITH RANCH COURT/HISTORIC STREET NAME (06.V)
Motion by Mr. Pirzynski, seconded by Mr. Glickman, that Council approve request to add the historic
name "Smith Ranch Court" to the Town's Official Street Naming List. Carried unanimously.
TOWN COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT/MEETING SCHEDULE FY 2003-2004 (07.28)
Motion by Mr. Pirzynski, seconded by Mr. Glickman, that Council amend Town
Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting Schedule for 2003-2004 Fiscal Year. Carried unanimously.
COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION/APPOINTMENT/STUDENT COMMISSIONER (08B.12)
Motion by Mr. Pirzynski, seconded by Mr. Glickman, that Council accept Community Services
Commission recommendation to reinstate Jennifer Werner as .Student Community Services
Commissioner. Carried unanimously.
RETAINING WALL REPLACEMENT/PROJ:0210A/RESOLUTION 2003-110 (09.15)
Motion by Mr. Pirzynski, seconded by Mr. Glickman, that Council adopt Resolution 2003-110
entitled, RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS AWARDING A CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $224,511.00 WITH CASEY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
FOR PROJECT 0210A RETAINING WALL REPLACEMENTS, and authorizing staff to issue
change orders as necessary to the construction contract up to an amount of $30,000. Carried
unanimously.
TOPPING WAY #2/ANNEXATION/TOPPING WAY 16495/RESOLUTION 2003-111 (10.26)
Motion by Mr. Pirzynski, seconded by Mr. Glickman, that Council adopt Resolution 2003-111
entitled, RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS ORDERING THE
REORGANIZATION OF CERTAIN UNINHABITED TERRITORY DESIGNATED AS
TOPPING WAY #2 (APN:532-09-001) TO THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS. Carried unanimously.
N:1CLK1Council Minutes130031M 09-15-03.wpd
3