The county Civil Grand Jury determined that both San Juan
Bautista and the county water district were to blame in the federal
government’s suspension of the $3.8 million water infrastructure
grant they jointly received, and that a compromise must be settled
immediately with the aid of a special task force, according to the
recently-released report.
San Juan Bautista – The county Civil Grand Jury determined that both San Juan Bautista and the county water district were to blame in the federal government’s suspension of the $3.8 million water infrastructure grant they jointly received, and that a compromise must be settled immediately with the aid of a special task force, according to the recently-released report.
“The grand jury report stands on its own,” said newly-hired San Juan City Manager Jan McClintock. “At this point there’s no arguing with it.”
The investigation, which was formally released on Feb. 28, sought to determine the exact circumstances under which the $3.8 million grant – which was awarded by the Economic Development Agency and intended to help repair San Juan’s near obsolete water and sewer system – was suspended, and whether San Juan or the San Benito County Water District Board was to blame.
“You know, I’m really glad this is out there,” said City Councilman Chuck Geiger, who was the only council member who returned phone calls. “I’m glad that this report has been published and that the community can get a good look at what’s been going on with this project.”
Typically, all grand jury reports for a given year are released at once in June, but had the grand jury waited it would have been too late for San Juan or the water district to act on their recommendations – as the city will be actively seeking construction bids in April, according to McClintock.
“Both sides need to put aside differences, personal interests and work for the common good of the public they serve,” the report states.
The seven-page report details the history of San Juan’s water infrastructure project, beginning in 2001 when a $7.9 million estimate was prepared for how much the project might cost. Today that same project will cost the city about $9.1 million, after inflation, according to the report.
When the EDA awarded the city and water district the $3.8 million as co-grantees in February of 2005, it was on the condition that the district would provide $3.1 million in matching funds for the project and the city would provide a little more than $1 million – essentially forming a partnership between the two agencies. However, disagreements arose between the two over which agency would control the bulk of the project, and in July the water district wrote a letter to the EDA stating that San Juan refused to abide by the terms of the original grant agreement.
San Juan was not provided with a copy of this letter or consulted beforehand, and was unaware of the district’s actions until last August when they received a letter from the EDA informing San Juan that the grant had been suspended, and that the city stood to lose the funding if an agreement could not be reached with the water district.
“It is the Grand Jury’s view that having not advised the City of their intent to write to the EDA and then not sending a copy of the letter to the city displayed a level of arrogance and unprofessionalism on the District’s part,” states the report.
SBC Water Board President John Tobias had not examined a copy of the report at press time and could not comment. No other representatives of the water district could be reached for comment.
The report also details the “covertly planned” trip of council members Arturo Medina and Priscilla Hill, as well as consultant Mark Davis, to Seattle for a meeting with the EDA in December – which prompted Geiger to request that District Attorney John Sarsfield investigate a possible Brown Act violation. The meeting was held so that San Juan might find a way to keep the EDA funding, even if the project moved forward without the water district, according to city officials.
“The City Council has since retroactively provided approval for this trip,” states the report. “However results/findings with the EDA, as a result of this trip, have not been made public.”
According to the report, the EDA has indicated that should the water district back out, San Juan might be able to secure the $3.8 million for itself, but the Grand Jury believes this would be an inappropriate course of action.
“Because of the importance of this Project, not only to the City but also to the San Juan Valley… this District must be a partner in this project,” the report states. “The District’s charter and mission statements demand it. There is no choice on the District’s part to withdraw. It is their responsibility to participate. They owe it to the citizens of San Juan Bautista whom through many years, through their property taxes, have been paying the District.”
The report concludes that as long as the two agencies are locked in a stalemate, the citizens of San Juan are at risk should one of the city’s wells break, or worse, if a fire were to ignite downtown and one of the city’s historic structures were destroyed.
“A mixture of misunderstandings, personality conflicts and general mistrust on the part of both sides has led to this stalemate situation,” states the report. “This attitude has failed both the citizens of San Juan Bautista and San Benito County.”
The Grand Jury has called for an emergency session of the county Board of Supervisors with the city of San Juan, the water district, the Regional Water Quality Control Board and a mediator, and that a task force be formed that would be responsible for writing up a mutually acceptable agreement between the two agencies. The meetings must be held at a neutral site, be well publicized and begin within a month of the report’s first issuance. Both agencies are expected to respond to the Superior Court regarding the report within 90 days, though ultimately, the grand jury has no means to enforce its recommendations, according to District Attorney Sarsfield.
“We won’t take the full 90 days,” McClintock said. “We should have a response within a few weeks.”
The report also called on the county supervisor for San Juan, Anthony Botelho, to take an active role in seeing that negotiations move forward quickly.
“I think this report was very well done, and I look forward to helping in any way I can,” said Botelho, who has criticized both agencies for their actions and the situation they’ve put the public in. “I think sometimes we all need a little reminder that we need to work together in this small county of ours, and I think this is a step in the right direction.”
