San Joaquin County Grand Jury
• 2012-2013
San Joaquin County Grand Jury Getting Rid of Stuff - Improving Disposal of City and County Surplus Public Assets
⚠️ Aviso de traducción: Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Note: Missing finding numbers detected: F4
Findings and Recommendations 21 findings
F1
1 The City of Escalon has no adopted Municipal Code provision, policy or procedure related to the disposal of major capital assets stating who has authority, the methods to follow or the reporting requirements.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
1 Prior to December 2013 the City Council adopt either an ordinance or a policy detailing procedures to be used for the disposal of surplus capital assets, including who is responsible for the disposal, when City Council approval is required, notification requirements, what information is made available to the public and how such information it is to be presented.
F2
1 The surplus property policy has no reference to compliance with Government Code Sections 54220 et seq.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
1 No later than September 30, 2013 the City adopt a policy for disposition of surplus land and buildings to include when appraisals are to be conducted, required compliance with Government Code Section 54220 et seq., and a prior public disclosure of the proposed sale.
F3
1 The staff report for land sale to the housing developer provided very little information. The public must read through an attached long and comprehensive agreement containing many legal requirements in order to obtain basic information on land sale, such as sale price versus appraisal value.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2
1 No later than September 30, 2013 the City adopt a policy for disposition of surplus land and buildings to include when appraisals are to be conducted, required compliance with Government Code Section 54220 et seq., and a prior public disclosure of the proposed sale.
R3
1 Before any future disposal of land or buildings is finalized a report is provided to the City Council in open session that includes the purpose of the sale; evidence of compliance with applicable State laws; the full identity of the purchaser; the total sale price; and, if the sale price is less than the appraised value, the reason for the difference. City of Manteca The Grand Jury received information and documentation from the City of Manteca in response to its survey and questionnaire. The Grand Jury determined there was not sufficient information provided so a thorough review could not be completed within the Grand Jury’s time constraints. Therefore, the Grand Jury makes no findings regarding the City of Manteca’s disposition of major capital assets and suggests that a future County Grand Jury conduct a thorough review of the information provided. City of Ripon The City of Ripon identifies sections of its Municipal Code for its authority and procedures for disposition of capital assets. Section 3.20.020 identifies a Purchasing Officer appointed by the City administrator responsible for administering the sale of all supplies and capital assets that cannot be used by other City departments. Section 3.20.070 of the Code requires a formal bidding process for sales of personal property, and Section 3.20.100 describes the formal bidding procedures for articles to be sold. Section 3.20.110 allows the purchasing officer to sell surplus personal property with an estimated value of less than $25,000 without first seeking sealed bids and following the formal bidding procedures. Response to the Grand Jury’s survey indicated that between 2007 and 2012 the City of Ripon had no sales of surplus land; 15 dispositions of buildings through negotiated sales; six vehicles sold through a public auction; and, one sale of major equipment through a public auction. No specific agreement with the private auction firm which conducted a vehicle sale of the City was provided. However, City Council approval of the sale with a list of vehicles to be sold was provided. Information related to the most recent property sale during the survey period included an independent appraisal and various buyer agreements. Minutes of redevelopment agency approval of the sale were also provided.
F5
1 Ordinance No. 110 establishing provisions for purchasing and disposal of personal property and capital assets by the City of Ripon was adopted in 1958. Procedures related to the disposal are vague and do not clearly address either an adopted policy or procedure. Requirements for the sale of land and buildings are not addressed in a manner that can be easily understood by the public, nor are there clearly defined procedures.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
1 No later than December 1, 2013, the Municipal Code be reviewed and amended to clarify the distinction between purchase and sale of City property, and to update disposition procedures, clarifying the process for disposal of surplus vehicles and equipment.
F6
1 Correspondence between the City and the State Department of Justice in October 2011 indicated that the State’s contract agreement with private auction firms might be terminated because of state budget cuts. There was no indication if the matter has been resolved. Since the state agreement is comprehensive and benefits the City, an alternative agreement should be available for the City’s use.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6
1 The City Council direct the City Attorney to prepare no later than November 1, 2013, a comprehensive auction agreement for use by the City.
F7
1 The City of Tracy has no procedures manual or clearly defined procedures for the disposition of surplus vehicles and equipment. While no indications of any questionable actions were identified, the lack of clear and transparent procedures could raise concerns about the public’s interest being protected.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
1 That prior to December 1, 2013, the City adopt procedures related to the disposition of vehicles and equipment, including who is responsible for the disposal, when council approval is required, notification requirements and information made available to the public.
F8
1 There was no indication from the County materials received that a public disclosure of the results of sales of surplus vehicles and equipment was made. Unless the Board of Supervisors was the authorizing agent for the sale pursuant to the County Administrative Manual, the process is handled completely at an administrative level.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8
1 Beginning September 30, 2013 the County Administrative Officer provide a quarterly public report to the Board of Supervisors summarizing the disposals of vehicles and equipment during the preceding quarter. The report should include the amount of revenues derived from the sales.
F1.1
The City of Escalon has no adopted Municipal Code provision, policy or procedure related to the disposal of major capital assets stating who has authority, the methods to follow or the reporting requirements.
No recommendations for this finding
F1.2
The contractual agreement with the private auction firm hired by the City was a form provided by the company containing very limited information such as protection for the City and fees to be paid.
No recommendations for this finding
F1.3
The disposal of land was by negotiated sale, with all discussions held in closed session. Only the minimum information required by the Brown Act was disclosed on the Agenda.
No recommendations for this finding
F1.4
No information on the details of the land sale was provided to the public prior to the City Council’s public action.
No recommendations for this finding
F2.1
The surplus property policy has no reference to compliance with Government Code Sections 54220 et seq.
No recommendations for this finding
F3.1
The staff report for land sale to the housing developer provided very little information. The public must read through an attached long and comprehensive agreement containing many legal requirements in order to obtain basic information on land sale, such as sale price versus appraisal value.
No recommendations for this finding
F5.1
Ordinance No. 110 establishing provisions for purchasing and disposal of personal property and capital assets by the City of Ripon was adopted in 1958. Procedures related to the disposal are vague and do not clearly address either an adopted policy or procedure. Requirements for the sale of land and buildings are not addressed in a manner that can be easily understood by the public, nor are there clearly defined procedures.
No recommendations for this finding
F5.2
Staff reports at the time real property is sold do not contain sufficient information to inform the public about the proposed transaction.
No recommendations for this finding
F6.1
Correspondence between the City and the State Department of Justice in October 2011 indicated that the State’s contract agreement with private auction firms might be terminated because of state budget cuts. There was no indication if the matter has been resolved. Since the state agreement is comprehensive and benefits the City, an alternative agreement should be available for the City’s use.
No recommendations for this finding
F6.2
Stockton Code Section 3.60.010 requires the City manager to present the City Council a report on personal property sales valued under $20,000. There is no indication whether the report is to be a public document. A written response from the City indicated that in the past the information was included in a weekly newsletter provided to the City Council. No surplus property sales took place between 2008 and 2010; however, a sale that occurred in 2011 was not reported as required by Municipal Code. The City indicated they were in the process of updating their surplus property sale procedures.
No recommendations for this finding
F7.1
The City of Tracy has no procedures manual or clearly defined procedures for the disposition of surplus vehicles and equipment. While no indications of any questionable actions were identified, the lack of clear and transparent procedures could raise concerns about the public’s interest being protected.
No recommendations for this finding
F7.2
The agreement with the private auction firm contained limited protection for the City against claims or other possible legal actions resulting from the auction.
No recommendations for this finding
F8.1
There was no indication from the County materials received that a public disclosure of the results of sales of surplus vehicles and equipment was made. Unless the Board of Supervisors was the authorizing agent for the sale pursuant to the County Administrative Manual, the process is handled completely at an administrative level.
No recommendations for this finding
F8.2
The County indicated that it does not have a policy requiring independent appraisals of real property it sells because there is no requirement for an appraisal under the Government Code. This lack of information makes it difficult for the public to determine if the sale was in the public interest.
No recommendations for this finding
Conclusions 1
-
CL1The cities and the county investigated by the Grand Jury in general provide an open and transparent process for the disposal of the public’s surplus major capital assets. Most have clear policies or procedures for the public to determine if an objective process is used or favoritism is occurring. The degree of detail in these procedures varies. To help assure that the public interest is foremost in the government’s actions, that transparency and disclosure will be maintained throughout the disposal of assets process, and that applicable laws are complied with, the Grand Jury has recommended actions for each jurisdiction to consider. The Grand Jury expects local governments will keep their stewardship of the public’s assets at the forefront of their decisions and actions. Disclaimer Grand Jury reports are based on documentary evidence and the testimony of sworn or admonished witnesses, not on conjecture or opinion. However, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing such evidence except upon specific approval of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, or another judge appointed by the Presiding Judge (Penal Code Sections 911, 924.1(a) and 929). Similarly, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing the identity of witnesses except upon an order of the court for narrowly defined purposes (Penal Code Sections 924.2 and 929). Response Requirements California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05 require that specific responses to all findings and recommendations contained in this report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of San Joaquin County Superior Court within 90 days. Specific Response Requirements: The Escalon City Council is to respond to Findings F1.1, F1.2, F1.3 and F1.4; and Recommendations R1.1, R1.2, R1.3, R1.4 and R1.5 The Lathrop City Council is to respond to Finding F2.1 and Recommendations R2.1 and R2.2. The Lodi City Council is to respond to Finding F3.1 and Recommendation R3.1. The Ripon City Council is to respond to Findings F5.1 and F5.2; and Recommendations R5.1, R5.2, R5.3 and R5.4. The Stockton City Council is to respond to Findings F6.1 and F6.2; and Recommendations R6.1 and R6.2. Tracy City Council is to respond to Findings F7.1 and F7.2; and Recommendations R7.1 and R7.2. The San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors is to respond to Findings F8.1 and F8.2; and Recommendations R8.1 and R8.2. Mail a hard copy of the response to: Honorable David P. Warner, Presiding Judge San Joaquin County Superior Court P.O. Box 201022 Stockton, CA 95201 Also, please email the response to Trisa Martinez, Staff Secretary to the Grand Jury at [email protected]
No Responses Found 1
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors
Elected County Office