Water District response to Still Waters Run Deep

Response says

The District disagrees and explains cost allocation by meter capacity, customer class, and consumption.

Audit analysis

Pages 2–3 identify the 2023 cost-of-service study and Proposition 218 as the basis for different percentage increases. This is concrete reasoning with checkable support, without deciding whether the rates are correct.

Response says

The District declines recalculation as unwarranted because it considers its study and allocation appropriate.

Audit analysis

Pages 3–4 explain the refusal through the rate study and different meter capacities.

Response says

The District declines additional review as unwarranted, citing annual outside audits and workload.

Audit analysis

The response expressly labels this answer R1a. This is the directly corresponding recommendation. The recommendation asks the Board of Supervisors to request a review; this District response does not establish what the Board decided.

Response says

The District disagrees and describes equity retention and ownership options under the Enterprise program.

Audit analysis

Pages 4–5 provide detailed program terms, dated fleet figures, and expected ownership of ten vehicles that year. Future ownership does not fully resolve the finding about ownership at the time of the presentations.

Response says

The District declines a correction as unwarranted, referring to its explanation of the lease program.

Audit analysis

The refusal is explicit and tied to its preceding program explanation.

Response says

The District declines additional review as unwarranted, citing annual outside audits and workload.

Audit analysis

The response expressly labels this answer R1a. The report repeats the same recommendation under R2a; this is a shared-text mapping, not a separately labeled agency answer. The recommendation asks the Board of Supervisors to request a review; this District response does not establish what the Board decided.

Response says

The District gives no express finding position; its refusal of a new study implies that it considers existing reviews adequate.

Audit analysis

The answer describes routine cost-versus-value review and Board updates, but does not clearly agree or disagree with the general finding or identify a specific comparison.

Response says

The District declines a new study, saying it already reviews cost versus value and updates the Board.

Audit analysis

It explains its refusal and commits generally to continuing existing reviews, without supplying the requested comparison.

Response says

The District declines additional review as unwarranted, citing annual outside audits and workload.

Audit analysis

The response expressly labels this answer R1a. The report repeats the same recommendation under R3a; this is a shared-text mapping, not a separately labeled agency answer. The recommendation asks the Board of Supervisors to request a review; this District response does not establish what the Board decided.

Response says

The District disagrees, citing its dispersed facilities, on-call needs, and prohibition on personal use.

Audit analysis

Operational necessity is explained, but the alleged additional expense and liability are not separately addressed. No identifiable vehicle policy or cost record is supplied.

Response says

The District declines the recommendation as unwarranted because operations run continuously.

Audit analysis

It explains why ordinary business hours do not fit its work and promises adherence to District policy.

Response says

The District declines additional review as unwarranted, citing annual outside audits and workload.

Audit analysis

The response expressly labels this answer R1a. The report repeats the same recommendation under R4a; this is a shared-text mapping, not a separately labeled agency answer. The recommendation asks the Board of Supervisors to request a review; this District response does not establish what the Board decided.

Response says

The District disagrees while acknowledging temporary inefficiencies and describing software benefits and implementation work.

Audit analysis

Pages 7–8 provide concrete billing-hour comparisons, the September 2021 implementation, and the August 20, 2024 Finance Committee timeline. The response identifies its position and rationale across the finding.

Response says

The District declines a new contract because it engaged Eide Bailly in March 2024.

Audit analysis

The stated disposition is refusal of additional action, supported by an identified existing consultant; this does not establish completion of integration work.

Response says

The District declines additional review as unwarranted, citing annual outside audits and workload.

Audit analysis

The response expressly labels this answer R1a. The report repeats the same recommendation under R5a; this is a shared-text mapping, not a separately labeled agency answer. The recommendation asks the Board of Supervisors to request a review; this District response does not establish what the Board decided.

Response says

The District declines the recommendation because a timeline already exists.

Audit analysis

The response identifies the replacement systems and anticipates core conversion by December 2024, with ancillary modules in early 2025.

Response says

The District disagrees, citing departing-employee feedback and describing reporting channels and discussions with staff.

Audit analysis

The response addresses workplace concerns with specific explanations, but does not identify the underlying exit-feedback dataset or a particular policy that could be checked.

Response says

The District promises implementation within six months and is evaluating consultant quotes.

Audit analysis

This supplies a bounded commitment, although it does not explicitly adopt the jury’s December 31, 2024 date.

Response says

The District provides no express finding position; it promises policy reminders and argues that feedback should extend beyond annual evaluations.

Audit analysis

The related recommendation responses engage the subject but do not clearly resolve the alleged delay, inconsistency, or resulting lack of accountability. The explanation refers to evaluation policy and existing due-date tracking.

Response says

The District promises implementation within three months through reminders and training discussions.

Audit analysis

A bounded commitment is supplied, but reminders alone do not establish compliance.

Response says

The District calls this implemented because Human Resources tracks due dates; it will work with managers on timely completion.

Audit analysis

The response documents a tracking practice but leaves enforcement and timely completion prospective.