FINANCE AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE

Executive Summary

MAY 9, 2001

The meeting was convened at 2:30 P.M.

a. Consent Items:

1. Monthly Investment Report for March 2001 (Finance)

2. Unfunded Projects Appropriation Report as of 3/31/01 (Public Works)

Upon motion of Councilmember Reed, seconded by Councilmember Diquisto, the Committee approved the Consent Items.

b. An Audit of the Pretreatment Source Control Inspection Program (Auditor/Environmental Services Department)

Upon motion of Councilmember Diquisto, seconded by Councilmember Reed, the Committee accepted the staff report.

c. Oral Petitions

Bill Garbett, Public spoke on the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the canning industry.

Ted Smith, Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition spoke on the progress that the Environmental Services Department has made. He stated that this was due to increased monitoring and inspections. He expressed his concern over cutting back on any of these services.

d. Adjournment

The Committee was adjourned at 3:35 P.M.

Councilmember Pat Dando, Chair,

Finance and Infrastructure Committee

COUNCIL AGENDA: 5-22-01

ITEM: 3.3

FINANCE AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE

Meeting Report

May 9, 2001

PRESENT: Chair Pat Dando, Councilmember Chuck Reed, Councilmember John Diquisto, Councilmember Nora Campos

ABSENT: None

5 STAFF: Kay Winer, Bill Hughes, Jerry Silva, David Moreno, Linda Brouchoud, Carl Mosher, Mary Ellen Dick, Linda Moya, Lindsey Wolfe, John Mukhar

The meeting was convened at 2:30 P.M.

a. Consent Items:

3. Monthly Investment Report for March 2001 (Finance)

4. Unfunded Projects Appropriation Report as of 3/31/01 (Public Works)

Upon motion of Councilmember Reed, seconded by Councilmember Diquisto, the Committee approved the Consent Items.

b. An Audit of the Pretreatment Source Control Inspection Program (Auditor/Environmental Services Department)

Jerry Silva, City Auditor gave an overview of the audit. He stated that the Environmental Services Department (ESD) has concurred with the two findings but that there are areas of difference between the Departments’ calculations. Specifically, these areas are:

· Auditor calculated 3 inspections per day while ESD calculated only 2

· ESD assumed 600 follow-up inspections while the Auditor’s Office did not include that in the calculations

· Auditor recommends sampling over inspections as a more efficient way to determine compliance

· While ESD did eliminate positions, some were different from the Auditor’s recommendation

Carl Mosher, Director of Environmental Services stated that ESD has submitted a budget proposal which implements the Auditor’s recommendations. He noted that the department has not filled the vacant inspector positions in 5 years. The positions have been budgeted every year but there has been a savings shown at the end of the year.

Carl described the historical background of the Pretreatment Source Control Inspection Program. He stated that in the early 90’s the department had problems with permit compliance. Through a series of environmental and pre-treatment programs, the Water Pollution Control Plant has gone from one of the worst environmentally to one of the most recognized treatment facilities. The reason the department’s reductions are different from what the Auditor’s Office recommended is because the department does not want to get to the point where the programs fall back into non-compliance. ESD is in the process of re-deploying a number of inspectors into other programs. Carl added that the affected employees would be re-deployed to other divisions of ESD or other departments, such as Planning, Building and Code Enforcement. No employees would lose their jobs. He added that, along with personnel, vehicles are also being reduced. The lab issue has not been addressed yet but it will be before Council’s consideration of the mid-year budget.

Chair Dando asked what the benefit would be of doing more samples than inspections.

Randy Shipes, Deputy Director of Watershed Protection, ESD answered that sampling is more cost effective then inspections and is a good indication of what is happening overall.

Councilmember Diquisto asked how many employees there would be after reductions.

Carl answered that there will be 24 in the whole inspection and pre-treatment program. He added that there are currently 32 employees. $1.1 million will be eliminated from the budget. 8 employees will be re-deployed throughout the department.

Jerry added that the audit recommendation was that the program be reduced by 8 inspectors, 3 technicians and 2 seniors.

Councilmember Campos asked what the savings would be from re-deployment?

Carl answered that the savings would be approximately $1.9 million.