ACCOUNTABILITY FOR TRENCH RESTORATION IN COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO AND THE CITIES OF SACRAMENTO AND FOLSOM

Subject of Investigation

Trench Restoration in rights-of-way in the County of Sacramento and the Cities of Sacramento, Citrus Heights, Folsom, and Galt.

Reason for Investigation

Information was received that public and private contractors are not restoring pavement in public rights-of way at least to its pre-construction condition, and that public funds are being expended to remedy deficiencies that should have been the responsibility of contractors or sureties.

Method of Investigation

Review of city and county ordinances regarding Trench Restoration;
Review of Standard Specifications/Details for City of Sacramento and County of Sacramento; Telephone interviews with:

• City of Sacramento Street Manager, Department of Public Works
• City of Sacramento Supervising Engineer, Engineering Division;
• County of Sacramento Principal Civil Engineer, Department of Transportation, Design Services;
• City of Galt Associate Engineer, Department of Public Works;
• Citrus Heights Associate Engineer, Engineering Department; and,
• City of Folsom Engineer, Planning Inspection and Permits Department

Background

The Grand Jury received information that private contractors have not been restoring pavement in public rights-of-way when some trenching is performed, especially when the work is examined several months after completion. Although a performance bond is in place for one year following the completion of the project, some instances of pavement failure were noted during this one-year period, but that certain jurisdictions would not reinspect the completed work prior to the expiration of the performance bond.

Conclusions

If re-inspection of the work is made, the public entity may discover deficiencies and obligate the contractor or surety to remedy the work before the expiration of the Performance bond. This will require the party causing the deficiencies to restore the pavement, rather than using public funds for this purpose.

Findings and Recommendations

Finding # 1: No procedures are in place in the cities of Folsom and Sacramento nor are there any procedures in place in the County of Sacramento to re-inspect the work of improvement before one year after completion and before the performance bond expires.

Recommendation # 1: A procedure should be implemented to re-inspect the work of improvement before on-year after completion of the work of improvement but prior to the expiration of the performance bond.

Response Required

Penal Code Section 933.05 requires that specific responses to both the findings and recommendations contained in this Report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Sacramento Superior Court by September 30, 2001, from:

· Administrator, Public Works Agency, County of Sacramento
· Director of Public Works/City Engineer, City of Folsom
· Director of Public Works, City of Sacramento