El Dorado County Grand Jury • 2009-2010

El Dorado County Grand Jury 2009-2010 Purchase of the Animal Control Shelter Property

18 pages
View Original PDF

Findings and Recommendations 11 findings

F1
The Board of Supervisors approved the purchase of the 10-acre parcel near the town of El Dorado without recognizing that only about 7 1/2 acres of the parcel are usable due to a seasonal creek flowing through the property.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
The Board of Supervisors approved the purchase of the 10-acre parcel near the town of El Dorado without recognizing that the cost of improving access to the parcel and adjoining parcels as specified in the purchase agreement could be as much as $1.5 million.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
The Board of Supervisors approved the purchase of the 10-acre parcel near the town of EI Dorado without requiring the Sellers to contribute to the costs of the improvements specified in the purchase agreement. Those improvements will greatly benefit the privately-owned parcels adjacent to the required roadway, which are still owned by the Sellers.
No recommendations for this finding
F4
The Board of Supervisors approved the purchase of the 10-acre parcel near the town of El Dorado without recognizing that they may have obligated the County to build a road, water lines, and a fence, at an estimated cost of $1 million to $1.5 million (according to testimony), even if the County does not build the Animal Control Shelter on the 10-acre parcel.
No recommendations for this finding
F5
The Board of Supervisors insisted that the Animal Control Shelter be built using "tilt-up" construction although the BOS was advised that "tilt-up" construction was not the most cost effective method, and that the next less expensive option, steel frame, could save as much as $1 million.
No recommendations for this finding
F6
The Board of Supervisors' involvement in the land selection, purchase, and the method of construction for the Animal Control Shelter was unusually high.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6
The 2006 Board of Supervisors, in their eagerness to construct the animal control shelter for the County of EI Dorado, overstepped their involvement in the details of the negotiation and construction of the structure. The County had staff expertise in the area of real estate acquisition, negotiation and construction. The Board should have deferred to their expertise and taken an impartial posture. Instead, because of their close involvement in the details, an aura of conflict of interest has been created and serious ethical questions have been raised. This Grand Jury, in light of the testimony received, raises the question that if the Board of Supervisors had not been so closely involved in the "day-to-day" decision making process, would the property that was purchased have been the final selection? The Board of Supervisors is a policy setting and final decision- making board. Decisions should be made based on the expertise and advice of County staff. By being overly involved in the decision-making process, the Board of Supervisors unduly influenced County professional staff to make recommendations that were more agreeable to the County Supervisors. Hence, the process was made much more complicated and controversial by their involvement and not without political overtones. This Grand Jury recommends review by the Board of Supervisors of their decision-making processes, and of the legal requirements that are in place to forestall these kinds of expensive errors incurred at the expense of County taxpayers. RESPONSES Responses to both findings and recommendations in this report are required from the Board of Supervisors, the Chief Administrative Officer, and County Counsel in accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05. Address responses to: The Honorable Suzanne N. Kingsbury, Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court, 1354 Johnson Blvd., South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150.
F7
The Board of Supervisors has failed for more than four years to construct or otherwise acquire a permanent Animal Control Shelter for the West Slope even though the County purchased the 10-acre parcel in 2006 for $450,000, and hired an architect, at a cost not to exceed $574,400, to design the building (a significant portion of which was spent). An additional $6 million in the Capital Improvement Budget has been set aside for the Animal Control Shelter.
No recommendations for this finding
F8
The Board of Supervisors' decisions regarding the selection of the location for the Animal Control Shelter and the method of construction were strongly influenced by one Supervisor. According to authoritative sources with direct knowledge, that Supervisor "drove the bus". Nonetheless, all members of the Board of Supervisors share responsibility for approving the purchase.
No recommendations for this finding
F9
The Board of Supervisors failed to make diligent inquiries into the usability of the entire 10-acre parcel, failed to ask important questions about the costs of improvements specified in the purchase agreement, and failed to negotiate a fair cost- sharing agreement with the Sellers for the costs of the improvements.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1
The Board of Supervisors should require a detailed, written cost analysis for any contract greater than a set dollar amount that it considers for approval.
R2
The Board of Supervisors should give appropriate deference to experts, both in and outside the County, in matters of property acquisition and building construction, and should not ignore those recommendations without compelling reasons.
R5
The Board of Supervisors should exercise due diligence by thoroughly reviewing all contracts, asking questions, and insisting on complete answers before approving action.
F10
The Department of General Services, and the CAO, failed to provide the Board of Supervisors with all pertinent information concerning the costs of the improvements to be made by the County as described in the purchase agreement for the 10-acre parcel.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
The lead County Department in each case, and the CAO, should provide the Board of Supervisors with all pertinent information, including financial cost, for all aspects of a proposed property acquisition and improvements.
F11
The County Counsel's office, who prepared the purchase agreement for the 10- acre parcel, made a glaring omission by neglecting to insert an "escape clause" that would permit the County to avoid making the specified improvements if the Animal Control Shelter were not actually constructed on the l C-acre parcel. Even if the County received a lower price for the 10-acre parcel because it agreed to build the road and make other improvements, any difference in price did not justify the County being left "holding the bag" or having a costly contractual obligation for the required improvements.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
County Counsel's office should insist that the County is protected in all contracts for foreseeable changes in circumstances and require appropriate protective language in all County contracts.

No Responses Found 2

Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.

El Dorado County County
El Dorado County Board of Supervisors Elected County Office