19D - RESPONSE TO ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY

Home Browse Search

The Honorable Judge Kim Dunning August 16, 2010 Page 8 Council meeting. The detailed scope of work for such services, as well as the intended selection process for the contract award will be stated. A copy of the approved City Council agenda item regarding this policy modification is attached. With regard to the Santa Ana Street Car Project, the City Council did acknowledge its vision for the transit project in conjunction with the City of Garden Grove. This action is reflected in the approval of the Cooperative Agreement between the City and OCTA on September 2, 2008. From there, the RFP for the Go Local program consultant was issued. As mentioned previously, the RFP was very detailed and clearly articulated the City's vision for its proposed transit program. RECOMMENDATION R-4: The City of Santa Ana needs to tighten procedures to assure compliance with the expectations and timelines of the agencies that grant funds to the City. RESPONSE: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. The City is extremely aware of and experienced in managing grant funds for various projects. Regular progress payments are provided to grant-funding agencies, such as OCTA. Further, OCTA staff participate in monthly project meetings with city staff and the consultant team undertaking the fixed guideway study. All project-related issues are discussed at these meetings, including schedules, funding, community outreach, etc. Since there have not been any issues with the current grant administration practices, the City will continue with our monthly meetings and prompt compliance with grant milestones. RECOMMENDATION R-5: The City Attorney should conduct a retraining program for the City Council regarding the Ralph M. Brown Act, AB 1234 and the City of Santa Ana Code of Ethics and Conduct by June 1, 2010. The training programs shall be scheduled every two years thereafter including an emphasis on an open and transparent process. RESPONSE: As noted in the response to Finding F.5, we believe that this recommendation is not justified. As such, and for the reasons set forth below, the recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. The City Council has met the legal requirements for biennial ethics training. The Grand Jury recommendation implies that, in spite of the required legal training, the City Council should receive additional training immediately from the City Attorney. With all due respect, we do not find this recommendation necessary or legally required at this point. 19D-8