Superior Court of California County of Sacramento Grand Jury June 20, 2016 The Honorable Russell Hom Advisor Judge to

Conclusions 36

• CL1 Page 19
  DRR has failed to meet its proposed revenue recovery collection goals of 38% and has not considered any other cost-effective revenue collection alternatives.
• CL2 Page 20
  DRR does not have an established method for monitoring agency client accounts.
• CL3 Page 20
  DRR’s established payment policy guidelines are not consistently followed.
• CL4 Page 22
  DRR does not have the tools or reports to verify daily payment transactions and/or identify payments received with inadequate debtor account information.
• CL5 Page 22
  DRR does not have a policy or procedure for processing payments that are missing debtor account information.
• CL6 Page 22
  DRR has no plan to reconcile and close the Unallocated Trust Account.
• CL7 Page 23
  Resolution of duplicate debtor accounts and/or charges does not appear to be a DRR priority.
• CL8 Page 23
  There is evidence of debtors’ payments to DRR on duplicate accounts.
• CL9 Page 16
  DRR fails to collect the hundreds of millions of dollars in outstanding debts owed to the County.
• CL10 Page 16
  DRR management rarely uses reports to manage collection activity and workload.
• CL11 Page 16
  DRR management fails to work together effectively to manage the Department and the revenue collection activities.
• CL12 Page 16
  The Board and CEO have not exhibited any apparent concerns or provided adequate oversight for the collection of revenue through the DRR.
• CL13 Page 24
  Approximately 30,000 debtor accounts are due refunds in excess of $1.4 million.
• CL14 Page 26
  There is inadequate monitoring of unlimited user access rights to the DMACS debtor account and collection data.
• CL15 Page 26
  There is no oversight of the individuals with unlimited user access rights to the DMACS.
• CL16 Page 20
  DRR does not review debtor account activity to assess collectibility or regularly use the FTB Tax Offset Program to successfully improve revenue recovery.
• CL17 Page 22
  Revenue collected by DRR with incomplete debtor account information is not being posted to debtor accounts in the DMACS when received.
• CL18 Page 22
  DRR rarely distributes funds held in the Unallocated Trust Account to its agency clients.
• CL19 Page 22
  DRR does not reconcile the issues associated with the over 53,000 transactions in the Unallocated Trust Account.
• CL20 Page 23
  The DMACS creates duplicate accounts and/or charges which DRR staff is unable to explain or resolve.
• CL21 Page 17
  DRR did not use a competitive bid process to secure services on the County’s behalf. The Board of Supervisors approved and awarded a $4.4 million contract for the development of the DMACS.
• CL22 Page 19
  DRR failed to monitor its revenue recovery system and adjust collection efforts to reduce the outstanding debt.
• CL23 Page 20
  DRR does not provide its agency clients with updates of debtor account collections on a regular basis.
• CL24 Page 24
  DRR does not consider processing refunds due on accounts established before July 2015 as a department priority.
• CL25 Page 25
  Significant issues were identified during the DOF auditors’ initial system review, preliminary findings were discussed with DRR management but a final report was never submitted to the Board for approval.
• CL26 Page 25
  Issues regarding potential fraud and other irregularities were identified during the DOF auditors’ subsequent system review. DRR obstructed the release of any subsequent findings and/or a subsequent final report, which should have been submitted to the Board for approval.
• CL27 Page 32
  Director, Sacramento County Department of Revenue Recovery-All Findings and Recommendations
• CL28 Page 32
  Director, Sacramento County Department of Finance-Findings 23, 24 & 25 and Recommendations 23, 24 & 25.
• CL29 Page 32
  County Executive, Sacramento County Executive’s Office-Finding 4 and
• CL30 Page 32
  Sacramento County Board of Supervisors-All Findings and
• CL31 Page 68
  The Grand Jury recognizes the work that area leaders and homeless service providers have made in order to address the homeless crisis in Sacramento. In spite of these efforts, the Grand Jury found that there has been little progress in reducing the number of people experiencing homelessness. It is the recommendation of the Grand Jury that the County and surrounding cities should declare homelessness a state of emergency. Criminalization of homelessness is not an effective solution, and other options need to be developed, including basic supports to meet the needs of all the homeless and reduce the amount of blight and negative effects on the public. Nontraditional approaches of responding to homeless issues such as access to toilets and showers, safe sanctuaries, and Navigators and impact units require additional funding and support. While the Grand Jury supports the intent of the Housing First model to move homeless people into permanent housing, the model does not address the needs of all homeless individuals and families. With resources shifted to one specific solution, an already overburdened safety net is challenged to meet the needs of all people experiencing homelessness. Without substantially increased affordable housing, the Sacramento area is incapable of providing sufficient resources to meet the demand and significantly reduce the number of people who are homeless at this time. HOMELESSNESS: A STATE OF EMERGENCY 68
• CL32 Page 69
  ACCESS DENIED SUMMARY The people of Sacramento enjoy miles of wonderful public space on the top of the levee system that protects this area from flooding, yet there are often restrictions to public access for recreation. These levees, forming the river parkway along both the American and Sacramento Rivers, are often referred to as the “jewel” of the Sacramento Region. There are several places along the parkway where privately owned cross- fences block the public from freely using the levee trail. These fences over the top of the levee completely block public access as well as prevent the City from paving that portion of the trail. This report focuses on privately owned barriers to public and recreational access along the Sacramento River. (Photographs courtesy of the Sacramento River Parkway Coalition) www.sacramentoriverparkway.org/The_Parkway_Story.html These photographs depict the barriers to public access along the top of the levee.
• CL33 Page 72
  The City’s plan acknowledges that there is a denial of public access by private property owners. This plan is being implemented to acquire recreational easements for public access along the entire Sacramento River levee crest. The Grand Jury believes it may be a waste of public funds to negotiate with private landowners to purchase these recreational land easements. In fact, such easements are already owned and controlled by the Sacramento-San Joaquin Drainage District (see footnote, p.68). ACCESS DENIED 72
• CL34 Page 73
  SACRAMENTO CITY COUNCIL DISCRETIONARY SPENDING: SHOW ME THE MONEY! SUMMARY As a result of several media reports on the size and spending practices of the Sacramento City Council (Council), the Grand Jury decided to review the discretionary spending of the Council. Each Council member is allocated $400,000, and the Mayor is allocated $940,000, per year during the budgeting process for their district expenses. During the course of our review, we focused on key areas of Council spending: transparency, guidelines for discretionary spending, carryover of unspent funds from year to year, and comparison of spending practices to six other cities. The purpose of this inquiry was to review the spending of both the Council and the Mayor related to transparency, guidelines, carryover practices, and the practices of like-sized cities in California.
• CL35 Page 74
  The Grand Jury noted that the City has posted the Council spending information on its webpage, but only the most determined citizens will find the information. Council members have followed existing rules governing spending and carry-over of unused funds, but these guidelines are minimal at best. We believe that the City of Sacramento can improve transparency by including a link to a given Council Member’s spending, on each individual’s webpage, in an easy-to-understand format. We also suggest that the City revisit its guidelines for spending and carrying over funds to ensure that City funds are spent openly and wisely. SACRAMENTO CITY COUNCIL DISCRETIONARY SPENDING: SHOW ME THE MONEY! 74
• CL36 Page 3
  CORRECTIONAL FACILITY SYSTEM REVIEW

No Responses Found 2

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