Score: -2 (14/6/16)
Sacramento County Grand Jury • 2009-2010

The City of Sacramento and Proposition 218 The Law Is the Law 1.0 Summary

37 pages
View Original PDF

Findings and Recommendations 6 findings

F1
0 Based on data supplied bycity employees, a consultant’s draft report estimated that the city’s annual cost of potential violations is more than $5 million. The present worth cost of one-time projects and recurring costs over the last three years is in excess of $21 million. The mayor and members of city council received copies of this report in July2008. No action was taken.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
1 Thecitycouncil should disclose the entire consultant’s report to the public.
F2
0 Once the city manager and the assistant city manager over the Department of Utilities (DOU) learned that there were potential and substantial Proposition 218 violations, theyhad a duty to pursue the issue and determine the existence and extent of any actual violations. Theyfailed their duty.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
1 The citycouncil should admonish the citymanager and the responsible assistant citymanager for this failure.
F3
0 For years DOU has supplied water to cityparks at a reduced rate of only 15 % of the usual rate of providing water to other metered users.11 The grand juryis of the opinion that this is a violation of Proposition 218, which limits fees or charges to ratepayers for property related services. Providing water at reduced rates to the Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) is not a property related service to ratepayers. The April 2009 agreement between DOU and DPR provides for this violation to be corrected over a 15 year period. The grand juryfinds this timeline to be too lengthy. In Bighorn-Desert View Water Agency(2006), the California Supreme Court held that consumption based rates are “fees” or charges” for property related services and are subject to Propositions 218. 13
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
1 The citycouncil should modifythis agreement and direct that DPR begin paying the comparable full metered rate in FY 2012.
F4
0 The cityhas shifted the cost of providing city services from the general fund to the enterprise funds of DOU. The city improperly uses DOU labor and equipment, without reimbursement, to provide services to other city departments, sports facilities and city buildings.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
1 If the advice of outside counsel confirms these violations, the citycouncil should direct that DOU enterprise funds be reimbursed for future services from non-ratepayer funds.
F5
0 Forthe last several years DOU was directed to allocate $1 million to payfor capital improvements related to private economic development projects. The citydropped the allocation from the FY 2010 budget.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
1 The citycouncil should get an outside legal opinion concerning this practice.
F6
0 The grand juryfound a lack of accountability, absence of transparencyand failure of responsibilitybyindividuals who hold positions of public trust in Sacramento City government.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6
1 The citycouncil should clarify, in writing, its expectations regarding compliance with all laws and convey this policystatement to city staff and to the public. 14 7.0 Response Requirements 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 the Sacramento County Superior Court by April 6, 2010, from: · The Sacramento City Council · The Mayor of the City of Sacramento · The City Manager of Sacramento Mail or hand-deliver a hard copy of the response to: Hon. Steve White, Presiding Judge Sacramento County Superior Court 720 9th Street, Dept. Sacramento, CA 95814 In addition, e-mail the response to Becky Castaneda, Grand Jury Coordinator, at castanb@saccourt.com 15 8.0 Appendices Appendix A--California Constitution, Article XIII D, SEC. 6 (b), (1)-(5). The full text of Proposition 218 is available at: http://www.lao.ca.gov/1996/120196_prop_218/understanding_prop218_1296.html#

Agency Responses 15

Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.