📋

Extracted from Consolidated Report

This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.

Sacramento County Grand Jury • 2020-2021

A Saga of Mismanagement and Water Problems

16 pages

View PDF View Full Original

⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.

⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.

Findings 3 findings

F1 Page 54

0Based on data supplied by city 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 July 2008. No action was taken. Response:The Citydisagrees in part with this finding. The referenced engineering consultant was retained to review cost data associated with various practices identified by Citystaff, and prepared and submitted a draft report in Mayof 2008 quantifying the cost associated with these practices. However, the analysis provided in the draft report consisted solelyof cost estimating. The draft report expressly stated that it was not intended to provide an opinion regarding compliance with Proposition 218, and for this reason the various cost estimates in the consultant's draft report were not necessarilyindicative of anyactual violations of Proposition 218. To the extent that this finding suggests otherwise, the Citydisagrees. In addition, actions were taken after the consultant's draft report was received, as noted in the response to Recommendation 1.2, below. Grand Jury Response: The grand jurydisagrees with the city’s response. There was more than adequate information available to the city manager and the city council to warrant greater action than was taken.

F2 Page 56

0Once the city manager and the assistant city manager over the Department of Utilities (DOU) learned that there were potential and substantial Proposition 218 violations, they had a duty to pursue the issue and determine the existence and extent of any actual violations. They failed their duty. Response:The Citydisagrees with this finding. As noted in the response to

F3 Page 56

0 For years DOU has supplied water to city parks at a reduced rate of only 15% of the usual rate of providing water to other metered users. The grand jury is 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 jury finds this timeline to be too lengthy. Response: The Citydisagrees in part with this finding. Citystaff undertook this phased approach to lessen the significant general fund impact of increasing the Department of Parks and Recreation' annual water costs, and as of July 1, 2009, the annual amount paid for water by the Department of Parks and Recreation has already been significantly increased. Given these circumstances and the 38

Recommendations 2

R1
Page 54

1 The city council should disclose the entire consultant's report to the public. Response:The entire consultant's draft report, with minor redactions of privileged and confidential matter, has been publicly disclosed. Grand Jury Response: The grand jury is satisfied that the draft report was released, but the city did not publicize the procedure for obtaining a copy. It was later learned that a citizen must request a copy from the city attorney.
R2
Page 56

1 The city council should admonish the city manager and the responsible assistant city manager for this failure. Response:During the CityCouncil's January26, 2010, public meeting, City staff presented a written report to the CityCouncil concerning the Grand Juryreport and Proposition 218 issues, as well as verbal presentations bythe City Manager and the Director of Utilities. At this meeting, CityCouncilmembers publicly admonished staff and directed them to move forward to address these issues. Grand Jury Response: The city manager and his staff were admonished in a public city council meeting but NO action was taken against the city attorney, who in the grand jury’s opinion was equally if not more culpable for not bringing the issue to the city council. One of the city attorney’s primary responsibilities is to advise the city council when illegal acts are being taken by the city. The grand jury found no evidence the city attorney performed this duty. It is recommended the city attorney be admonished by the city council. Additionally, the grand jury recommends the city attorney provide the city council a list and summary of all legal opinions issued on a monthly basis.