Fresno County Grand Jury
2000-2001
Quick View
Full Details →
Additional Recommendations
99
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
To be in compliance with the above restricted revenue requirements and regulations and to eliminate the appearance that restricted revenues are being used to fund general fund expenditures, the City of Parlier should ensure that such restricted revenues are clearly used for the related program purposes. Costs charged to the special revenue funds should reflect actual costs attributable to the program and should be supported by applicable documentation such as time tracking. The City of Parlier should obtain clarification from the applicable regulatory agency to determine if their current cost allocation methodology is acceptable.
R2:
In the absence of fully supportable cost allocation methodologies or regulatory approval of existing cost allocation methodologies, the City of Parlier should reverse the $268,224 and $393,602 in overhead costs charged to the special revenue funds listed above. In addition, any other insufficiently supported cost allocations that were not noted in this report should also be reversed.
R3:
In order to provide for sound accounting and budgeting practices and to ensure a clear audit trail, appropriations and expenditures should be initially recorded in the originating department/fund where the activities are incurred.
R4:
The City of Parlier Finance Department should implement procedures that provide segregation of duties related to accounts payable. Specifically, the person who approves payments should not be the same person who signs checks and submits requests for payments. When it is necessary for the Finance Director to submit a request for payment, the payment should be sufficiently reviewed and approved by another authorized staff member (e.g. the City Manager).
R5:
To strengthen internal controls over expenditures in special revenue funds and to ensure that funding does not need to be reimbursed or that future funding is withheld, the City of Parlier should ensure that program costs incurred are fully supported and are in compliance with program requirements. This can be achieved in part by requiring that receipts for credit card purchases be retained for supporting documentation and submitted to the Finance Department for review and approval. 1
R6:
To prevent losses and enhance internal controls, the City of Parlier should immediately implement procedures to ensure that the City’s charge accounts and credit cards are not used for personal purchases. City of Parlier's Response to Recommendations #1 - #6: See . Parlier Redevelopment Agency (RDA) Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that:
R7:
In compliance with the above code sections and to ensure that funding is not withheld, the RDA should immediately submit a 5-year plan to the State Controller’s Office and submit all future required documents when due.
R8:
In order to comply with Health & Safety Code Section 33487 and to ensure that funding is not withheld, the RDA should transfer $3,907 to the low income housing fund for fiscal year 1998/99 from the RDA Capital Projects Fund.
R9:
In order to explain material changes in the financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, the City of Parlier should provide adequate disclosure in the notes to the financial statements. For example, Parlier could have identified the above increase in the capital projects fund balance as a “restated” fund balance in the financial statements. In addition, a note disclosure should have been provided to reconcile the restated fund balance to the prior year ending balance. The disclosure should have also explained the reason(s) for the restatement. Parlier should consider this for future reporting purposes. 10 a, b, c, and d. To ensure that funding is not withheld, the RDA should ensure all proper procedures and legal requirements are followed when issuing loans and all appropriate documents are maintained in their loan files and that all loans are properly authorized. Parlier staff should review all available loan records since the formation of the RDA to try to locate all missing loan documentation and criteria information on the sixteen known loans addressed above. Parlier staff should also determine if there are any additional outstanding loans not currently known that should be followed up on. Also, even though Parlier has indicated that the commercial borrowers of the “written off” loans are out of business, Parlier should continue to bill the business owners until these loans are officially written off by the City Council. Proper procedures must be followed to assure that all redevelopment loans are repaid timely and in full. Redevelopment loans determined to be uncollectible should be written off by the City Council and referred to a collection agency as appropriate. Parlier should consider following up with other collection agencies or pursue other means of recouping unpaid balances, e.g. through small claims processes, other lawsuits, etc. In addition, Parlier should ensure and be able to support that interest charged on Redevelopment loans is charged fairly and equitably. City of Parlier's Response to Recommendations #7 - #10: See . Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Recommendation The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that:
R10:
a, b, c, and d To ensure that funding is not withheld, the RDA should ensure all proper procedures and legal requirements are followed when issuing loans and all appropriate documents are maintained in their loan files and that all loans are properly authorized. Parlier staff should review all available loan records since the formation of the RDA to try to locate all missing loan documentation and criteria information on the sixteen known loans addressed above. Parlier staff should also determine if there are any additional outstanding loans not currently known that should be followed up on. Also, even though Parlier has indicated that the commercial borrowers of the "written off' loans are out of business, Parlier should continue to bill the business owners until these loans are officially written off by the City Council. Proper procedures must be followed to assure that all redevelopment loans are repaid timely and in full. Redevelopment loans determined to be uncollectible should be written off by the City Council and referred to a collection agency as appropriate. Parlier should consider following up with other collection agencies or pursue other means of recouping unpaid balances, e.g. through small claims processes, other lawsuits, etc. In addition, Parlier should ensure and be able to support that interest charged on Redevelopment loans is charged fairly and equitably. Response: The Redevelopment Agency has not made any loans in nearly a decade. Of those older loans on the Agencies books: some loans have been paid off; some loans are in process and payment is timely, some loans are behind in payment and payment is sporadic, on some there is no activity and they are considered uncollectable. Many of the loans were unsecured and should have been. Loans that are secured by real property shall be paid. Extensive searches for records of prior loans have been made, for some loans there are little or no records. A list of uncollectable loans shall be provided to the Redevelopment Agency for 'write-off' consideration. Future loans, if any, considered by the Redevelopment Agency will be secured by real property and shall be recorded.
R11:
To enhance internal controls, ensure the accuracy of the City’s accounting records, and ensure continued funding, Parlier should implement formal procedures to ensure proper accounting for and reconciliation of restricted revenues. In addition, all transactions and supporting documentation must be maintained until such records have been audited by all appropriate oversight agencies. Finally, the City of Parlier should make the appropriate general ledger entries within the special revenue fund to record these transactions. City of Parlier's Response to Recommendation #11: See . Child Development Grant Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that:
R12:
The City of Parlier should post transactions to proper accounts and subsequently classify expenditures appropriately in their financial statements.
R13:
In order to comply with terms of the Child Development Grant, the City of Parlier should reimburse the Child Development fund the $582.50 noted above and only make expenditures appropriate for grant purposes from this fund. 3
R14:
In order to comply with terms of the Child Development Grant, the City of Parlier should obtain an annual audit of the Child Development Program that conforms to the terms of the grant agreement and reports on Child Development revenues and expenditures of the City of Parlier. In addition, the City of Parlier should consistently review any audit reports prepared for their program prior to finalization of the report. City of Parlier's Response to Recommendations #12 - #14: See . Measure “C” – Transportation Authority, Sales Tax Proceeds It was noted during our review that insufficiently supported overhead allocations were applied to the Measure “C” special revenue fund. See findings and recommendations #1 - #3. Highway User Tax (Gas Tax) Recommendation The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that:
R15:
In order to properly account for and report Gas Tax revenues, the City of Parlier must reconcile any variances between revenues paid by a funding entity and revenues recorded by the City. City of Parlier's Response to Recommendation #15: See . Local Transportation Fund Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that:
R16:
In order to properly administer the Local Transportation Fund and ensure proper financial statement presentation, the City of Parlier must reconcile the Local Transportation fund to receipts and implement procedures to ensure that all transactions are properly recorded and reported.
R17:
The City of Parlier should either provide supporting documentation for the $70,702 reduction of revenues or reverse this adjustment as appropriate. 4
R19:
The City of Parlier should contact the DOJ for written clarification of what constitutes acceptable expenditures for this grant. The City of Parlier should comply with the information provided by the DOJ related to this audit finding. Unauthorized expenditures of grant funds must be reimbursed or a waiver should be requested from the grantor agency. City of Parlier's Response to Recommendation #19: See . Cops Grant AB3229 Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that:
R20:
The City of Parlier should ensure that actual interest is allocated to the COPS fund for 1998/99, 1999/00 and thereafter. In addition, the City should ensure that adequate interest allocation methodologies are used to ensure that all restricted revenues are accurately calculated, allocated and available to be used for restricted program purposes or returned to regulatory agencies as necessary in the event of non-compliance with program requirements.
R21:
In compliance with the provisions of Government Code Section 30061 as stated above, the City of Parlier should ensure that the appropriation of COPS grant monies for 2000/01 and thereafter are separately presented to and approved by Parlier’s City Council as required. 5
R22:
The City of Parlier should maintain support for all financial transactions that affect special revenue funds as well as other funds until all oversight agencies conduct periodic audits. Unauthorized expenditures of grant funds must be reimbursed or a waiver should be requested from the grantor agency. City of Parlier's Response to Recommendations #20 - #22: See . Universal Hiring Grant (Cops) Recommendation The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that:
R23:
The City of Parlier should implement procedures to ensure that expenditures are not claimed/reported twice and that overtime costs are not claimed in compliance with Universal Hiring Grant provisions. Parlier should also adjust the above reports and charges to reverse duplicated expenditures and inappropriate overtime costs. City of Parlier's Response to Recommendation #23: See . Office Of Emergency Services (OES) Recommendations
R24:
The City of Parlier should investigate the difference of $2,404 between revenues reported in their general ledger for OES revenues and the amount of payments confirmed through the State OES or have support for the variance readily available.
R25:
The City of Parlier should immediately revise the Project Completion and Certification Report to reflect actual costs for the disaster period. They should provide support for costs claimed or return $36,136 claimed inappropriately to the State OES.
R26:
To ensure accuracy of records, enhance internal controls, and ensure the availability of current and future funding, the City of Parlier should properly maintain files containing supporting documentation for transactions and retain these records until audited by all appropriate oversight agencies. City of Parlier's Response to Recommendations #24 - #26: See . THE PARLIER PAINT PROJECT Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that:
R27:
The Parlier City Manager confer with the City Council before engaging in city projects costing over $10,000 as required by PMC.
R28:
Bidding and contracting of services be in compliance with PMC.
R29:
The City Manager and City Council be held responsible for implementing the directives set forth in PMC.
R30:
Compensation of employees and/or contractors be in compliance with existing State and Federal laws. City of Parlier's Response to Recommendations #27 - #30: See . PARLIER ANIMAL CONTROL Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that:
R31:
The City hire an animal control officer.
R32:
The animal shelter be relocated within the city to make it more accessible.
R33:
Leash and licensing laws be enforced.
R34:
The City educate the community regarding licensing, vaccinations, leash laws, spaying and neutering.
R35:
The City establish a fee schedule for costs incurred in animal control.
R36:
All record keeping relating to animal control be current.
R37:
State guidelines be followed for the ultimate disposal of any animal. 7
R38:
Polaroid photographs of impounded dogs be posted at city hall in order for citizens to see if their dog has been impounded. City of Parlier's Response to Recommendations #31 - #38: See . CARPETING OF PARLIER CITY HALL Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that:
R39:
The Parlier Municipal Code and Purchasing Ordinance be followed.
R40:
Shortcuts that violate the existing code not be considered. City of Parlier's Response to Recommendations #39 and #40: See . CODE ENFORCEMENT IN PARLIER Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that:
R41:
The present policy of code enforcement be changed to a more aggressive system which addresses all violations existing in the City of Parlier.
R42:
Written policy and procedures be developed to provide for the tracking and documented resolution of all complaints.
R43:
The city hire a code enforcement officer, supported with sufficient staff.
R44:
Adequate training be provided for the code enforcement officer and staff, including instruction in property owner and tenant rights.
R45:
A written manual providing guidelines on how to resolve code enforcement disputes be developed and implemented.
R46:
The City of Parlier inform and educate the public on current code enforcement policy.
R47:
A current copy of the Parlier Municipal Code be available for public use at City Hall and the public library. City of Parlier's Response to Recommendations #41 - #47: See . PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT WITHIN THE CITY OF PARLIER Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that:
R48:
The City of Parlier formulate and implement written policies and procedures regarding labor relations.
R49:
The City develop written job classifications for all positions and issue them to all employees.
R50:
The City require department heads to adhere to the PMC sections covering their areas of responsibility.
R51:
A current copy of the PMC be made available to City Council members. 9
R52:
The City prepare, and provide to all employees, a handbook informing them of employee rights as stated in the PMC.
R53:
Employees be advised, in writing, of their rights of representation at all disciplinary hearings.
R54:
Written annual job performance evaluations of all employees be conducted, a copy placed in the employee’s permanent file and a copy provided to the employee.
R55:
A written salary schedule for each position be prepared and a copy made available to each employee.
R56:
The city develop and issue a written policy regarding advancement and salary increases. City of Parlier's Response to Recommendations #48 - #56: See . NEPOTISM IN THE CITY OF PARLIER Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that:
R57:
PMC section 4.01.080 be rewritten to more clearly state the city’s policy on nepotism as defined by Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, “favoritism shown to relatives or close friends by those in power (as by giving them jobs).”
R58:
The policy of the city be to recruit, employ, and promote the best-qualified individuals. City of Parlier's Response to Recommendations #57 and #58: See . PARLIER PERSONNEL HEARING BOARD Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that:
R59:
The current PHB be dissolved.
R60:
The position for citizen at large be advertised (noticed).
R61:
The position for citizen at large be posted at City Hall.
R62:
All citizens who submit applications for this position be given equal consideration. City of Parlier's Response to Recommendations #59 - #62: See . PARLIER POLICE DEPARTMENT Recommendation The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that:
R63:
The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that the Parlier Police Department be closed immediately and the policing of Parlier be contracted with the Fresno County Sheriff. City of Parlier's Response to Recommendation #63: See . A Community with a vision to the future. Una Comunidad con vision al futuro Incorporated November 14, 1921 Founded 1876 July 24, 2001 Honorable Gary D. Huff Presiding Judge Superior Court County of Fresno 1100 Van Ness Avenue Fresno, CA 93721 Dear Judge Hoff: Enclosed please find the City of Parlier's response to the 200-2001 Grand Jury Report. The City was quite disappointed with the quality of work performed by the Grand Jury, and found and determined that many of the findings were incorrect. Nevertheless, there were many useful recommendations that will be put in place. Sincerely, Michael R. Swigart City Manager Enclosures 1100 E. Parlier Avenue, Parlier, California 93848 .(559) 646.3545 FAX (559) 646-0416 12 A Community with a vision to the future. Una Comunidad con visión al futuro Incorporated November 14, 1921 Founded 1878 Staff Report Date: 07172001 To: Mayor, Council From: City Manager Council Meeting of July 17,2001 G. City Manager/Executive Director Reports Item g.4, Grand Jury Recommendations Recommendation: 1. Receive Recommendations from the Grand Jury;
R64:
Continue the broad public education program to increase awareness of the need to meet recycling goals. Response to Recommendation 64: The City has implemented the recommendation. The Solid Waste education budget has been increased for FY 02 specifically for this purpose. Broad recycling education programs are ongoing, with acceleration of effort planed for a spring of 2003 multi- media campaign.
R65:
Tailor educational efforts to target each culture within our community in a way that has proven most effective for that group. City of Fresno City Hall • 2600 Fresno Street • Fresno, California 93721-3601 (559) 498-4591 • FAX (559) 488-1015 • www.ci.fresno.ca.us 28 Fresno County Grand Jury October 3, 2001 Response to Recommendation 65: The City has not yet fully implemented the recommendation. Solid Waste is developing educational strategies to fit several linguistic and cultural specialized groups. A media consultant with multi-cultural expertise will be retained in FY 02, while we are currently working with EOC and several community groups to tailor educational messages and venues to maximize results. FRESNO CITY PARKS FACILITIES Response to Findings: The City agrees with the findings.
R66:
Increase the budget to provide for care of new parks. Response to Recommendation 66: The City has implemented the recommendation. The FY02 budget for neighborhood parks was increased by $266, 700 to compensate for the opening of Layne, Kolligian and Pilibos Parks and the Multi-Cultural Corridor and increased operating costs including energy.
R67:
Add personnel to help maintain the park sanitation facilities. Response to Recommendation 67: The City has implemented the recommendation. The Parks Division budget was increased during fiscal year 2000-2001 to increase the number of times the outdoor facilities at neighborhood parks are maintained from 5 to 7 times per week, including holidays. Those parks that are staffed with Recreation personnel, which is 27 out of 58, receive at least one additional maintenance visit daily during operating hours. The maintenance level on the regional parks restroom facilities remain at two cleanings per day and a minimum of one additional visit each day by maintenance personnel. Fresno County Grand Jury October 3, 2001
R68:
Provide adequate funds for replacement of fixtures with more durable ones. Response to Recommendation 68: The City has not yet fully implemented the recommendation. The four outdoor restroom facilities at Woodward Park are on a four year schedule for complete renovation. The funding source for the improvements is from Crystal Valley Decorating for their Festival of Lights Exhibit. Fixtures at other facilities are replaced when damaged, and the Parks Division is pursuing grants from Federal and State agencies for replacements at other outdoor facilities. CITY COUNCIL INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDS Response to Findings: The City agrees that certain non-capital expenses were authorized out of what is generally called district infrastructure, but disagrees that any cited expenditures were legally or procedurally questionable. Funding sources were used for legally permissible expenditures; general fund sources were used for non-capital expenditures.
R69:
Distribution of the City Council discretionary infrastructure funds be reviewed and approved by the City Manager prior to disbursement. Response to Recommendation 69: Expenditures funded from district infrastructure budgets follow standard City procedures for review and payment. Additionally, non-capital expenditures were placed on Council agendas, considered in Council open meetings, and approved by a supermajority vote and subject to mayoral veto.
R70:
Consideration be given to reducing the current allotment from $140,000 to $70,000 per district. Fresno County Grand Jury October 3, 2001 Response to Recommendation 70: The Mayor and City Council have recently discussed this matter in public session, and have confirmed the need for resources to be available to expediently resolve infrastructure needs within Council districts. Additionally, the Council has placed a limit of 15 percent of their infrastructure budgets for funding non-capital related expenditures. Finally, the City Attorney's Office is preparing, for Council consideration, a resolution which establishes the criteria for use of Community Service Program Funds. The Council adopted the resolution which is attached as Exhibit '"A".
R71:
Carryover of any unused infrastructure funds be eliminated. Response to Recommendation 71: The budgeting of unused infrastructure funds is a policy decision regarding the allocation of limited City resources to the infrastructure needs of the City. The issue is compounded by the timing and process necessary to complete infrastructure projects including, Charter required competitive bidding and approvals necessary to properly expend the funds. The matter was considered by the City Council on August 21, 2001, at which time the funds were appropriated for use in fiscal year 2001-2002.
R72:
Future Grand Juries continue to monitor the program. Response to Recommendation 72: Should future Grand Juries choose to monitor the program, City staff will provide requested information as required. CITY OF FRESNO WATER METERS Response to Findings and Conclusions: The City agrees with findings A through F, Findings H and I, and Conclusion C. Regarding Finding G which stated that “”Water Police" have been inactivated due to lack of funds", it is correct that the program of proactive water waste patrols was de-funded. The principal reason however, was not a lack of funds but was a policy decision by the 31 Fresno County Grand Jury October 3, 2001 previous City administration and previous Council to redirect the resources of the water conservation program. Regarding Conclusion A, the cost of San Joaquin water supply will increase. Contract costs will increase from a current $30 per acre ft to a minimum of $70 per acre ft. Regarding Conclusion B, the cost of installation, maintenance and administration of a residential metering program will be fully offset after full implementation by the anticipated decrease in pumping, water treatment and wastewater treatment costs.
R73:
The Mayor, City Council and all civic groups unite to promote the installation of water meters. Response to Recommendation 73: The City has not yet fully implemented the recommendation. The Mayor and Council have all endorsed meters if they are necessary to renew the City's CVP contract. A broad based stakeholders group (Contract Renewal Advisory Group) has been formed to provide feedback and support in the contract renewal process and a referendum on water meters should it become necessary to renew the CVP contract. Timing and need for such a campaign must wait the outcome of current City negotiations with the Bureau of Reclamation. While the Council has authority to place measure on the ballot for voter approval, State law prohibits the City from using public funds to advocate passage or defeat of a local ballot measure. The rationale grounded in case law is that public money cannot be spent to tip the scales in favor of some electors and against others in matters left for the citizenry to decide.
R74:
Homeowners and businesses that currently have meters be excluded from further meter installation costs. Response to Recommendation 74:
R75:
The City Utilities Department continue to publish average water bills for various family sizes with and without meters. Response to Recommendation 75: Ongoing.
R76:
Water police be reactivated to prevent water waste. Response to Recommendation 76: The City has not yet fully implemented the recommendation. This and related conservation program expansions are a condition of the City's Central Valley Project contract renewal and will be re-implemented at the time of contract renewal. In addition, increased conservation funding is anticipated in the FY 03 budget cycle. BASEBALL/MULTI-USE STADIUM Response to Findings: The findings specified as A-M were generally accurate as of the time Grand Jury received its information. Some of the matters are estimated (e.g., annual debt service; final project cost) while other matters are in development (e.g., safety/traffic control plan). City disagrees with Conclusion A; conclusion B is ambiguous; and City disagrees with Conclusion C and D, to the extent that security and traffic plans are in the process of development. These plans will be developed and implemented with the purpose of avoiding or minimizing serious parking impacts except during intermittent, non peak business hours. Fresno County Grand Jury October 3, 2001
R77:
The City require an annual independent audit of the financial statements of FDG [Fresno Diamond Group]. Response to Recommendation 77: The recommendation will be implemented as deemed necessary by the City, per Section 17.9 of the lease agreement as follows: “Records of Tenant pertaining to any obligations of Tenant hereunder shall be kept on a generally recognized accounting basis and shall be available to the City or its authorized representatives upon request during regular business hours throughout the life of this Agreement and for a period of three years thereafter. In addition, all books, documents papers, and records of Tenant pertaining to any obligation of Tenant pursuant to this Agreement shall be available for the purpose of making audits, examinations, excerpts, and transcriptions for the same period of time. If an audit by the City discloses underpayment in excess of one percent of any monies due the City hereunder, reasonable audit costs shall be reimbursable by Tenant to the City. This Section shall survive expiration or termination of this Agreement."
R78:
All seventeen dates the city controls be devoted to for-profit events to enhance the City's revenues. Response to Recommendation 78: The recommendation will not be implemented. Under the lease, the City is allocated 10 Concession-Using Events, and 7 Non-Concession-Using Events, and it states, in Section 3.6(h): "Non-Concession-Using Events shall generally be partially or wholly sponsored or contracted for by either the City or other not-for-profit organizations (which are not required to be 501 (c)(3) organizations or for charitable purposes." It is the general understanding between the parties that the 7 events would not be "for- profit" events.
R79:
The public be assured of coordinated parking and security by FDG and the City. Fresno County Grand Jury October 3, 2001 Response to Recommendation 79: The City has not yet fully implemented the recommendation. Parking plans are being developed (with a consultant's study being completed in September) to provide for stadium event parking, and security plans will be in place by the opening of the stadium. CITY OF FRESNO FIRE DEPARTMENT Response to Conclusions: The City agrees with Conclusion A; disagrees with Conclusions B and D; and agrees in part with Conclusions C, E, and F. Regarding Conclusion C, vehicle status is monitored by the department and equipment is replaced as needed. Regarding Conclusion E, and while the ratio may be accurate, it does not necessarily reflect the ability to provide Fire services within the City of Fresno. Regarding Conclusion F, the implementation is ongoing.
R80:
The fire department have a budgeted vehicle replacement plan. The city should consider replacement of vehicles after seven or eight years while they still have significant value on the used fire vehicle market. Response to Recommendation 80: The City has not yet fully implemented the recommendation. While the Fire Department does not currently maintain a specific vehicle replacement plan, vehicles have been replaced as needed, by financing the purchase over a ten year period. The Department is currently developing a draft replacement plan for consideration.
R81:
The inventory of fire fighting tools be increased so that all spare engines/tools are fully equipped. Response to Recommendation 81: The City has implemented the recommendation. Active engines and trucks equipped with necessary tools. Reserve engines and trucks are currently equipped with a minimum of tools; typically hose and small tools on engines, and ladders and small 35 Fresno County Grand Jury October 3, 2001 tools on trucks. The balance of the inventory is stocked when a front line engine or truck is out of service for repairs. When reserve apparatus is temporarily placed in service as a new company, it operates with existing equipment. In those cases when additional equipment is needed to perform a task, the equipment from other apparatus on scene is utilized.
R82:
The city recognize the need to increase the number of fire fighting personnel. Response to Recommendation 82: The City has not yet fully implemented the recommendation. The City recognizes that the 0.58 firefighters/1000 population is at the low end of national and regional standards. However, these standards do not take into account specific service needs of Fresno. The City will continue to pursue options for increasing Fire Department staffing in future budget deliberations.
R83:
The City of Fresno revisit its traffic light preemption plan and budget funds to complete this program: Response to Recommendation 83: The City has not yet fully implemented the recommendation. The intersections of Herndon and West, and Clovis and Clinton currently have the Opticom traffic preemption device. Fire apparatus specifications have included the Opticom transmitter as emergency warning equipment to be installed since 1998. Nine of our thirty one fire apparatus are equipped with an Opticom transmitter. The City implementation of this program will continue to be a priority in future budget deliberations. The Fire Department is continually reviewing opportunities for improving response times, and will present a report of such opportunities as part of the fiscal year 2001-2002 budget process. Fresno County Grand Jury October 3, 2001 ELKHORN CORRECTION FACILITY Response to Findings:
R84:
The Fresno Fire Department develop a plan to reduce response times to the NFPA standards. City of Fresno’s Response to Recommendations #80 - #84: See . Daniel G. Hobbs City Manager October 3, 2001 Mr. Rick Allen Van Ness #102 Fresno, CA 93721 Dear Mr. Allen: SUBJECT: 2000-2001 GRAND JURY RECOMMENDATIONS The following contains the City of Fresno's response to the 2000-2001 Grand Jury
R85:
The PA/PG evaluate the use of the County Treasury Pool. Response: The option of putting the Public Guardian funds with the County under the Auditor-Controller/Treasurer-Tax Collector was carefully investigated. This Department decided that it was not a viable option because: 1) The Department loses control of the citizens' funds. Currently, when a vendor fails to respond in an adequate manner, the funds are immediately transferred to an institution providing more satisfactory services. It would be unlikely that we could remove the funds from the County's control once they are delivered whatever the level of service. 2) Limitations within the Auditor-Controller/Treasurer-Tax Collector's Office preclude the guarantee of providing "rush" checks. The Public Administrator/Guardian staff requires access to client's monies on a daily basis to address immediate needs on behalf of their clients. These emergency needs are primarily related to new cases, which are opened on a daily basis. An example of such a need would include payment of utility bills to avoid interruptions of services. 3) The County's investment pool is insured through various means; however, it is not Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) insured as required by the Superior Court. West Nielsen Avenue Fresno, California 93706 Telephone: Public Administrator (559) 268-0139 Coroner (559) 268-0109 Public Guardian (559) 268-0139 Equal Employment Opportunity Affirmative Action Disabled Employer 53 The Honorable Judge Hoff August 27, 2001 Page Two
R86:
Storage be improved for case records and client assets. Construction of an on-site storage building would eliminate the need for an expensive off-site mini-storage. Response: This Department initiated this recommendation and, therefore, we concur. The monies being paid to private outside storage companies could largely defray the cost of such storage. Personnel time spent visiting off-site storage would be curtailed. In the meantime the Department has surplused equipment, old computers, and furniture that were housed in the metal shed to provide additional storage space in that facility. The Department, in conjunction with the County Clerk as Records Manager, has also developed a record retention schedule, which was approved by the Board of Supervisors in December 2000 and is being utilized by the Department to eliminate dormant files: The Department submitted a second Capital Improvement Projects request for the 2001-2002 budget year. The County Administrative Office, when made aware of our storage needs, sent a team to evaluate the situation. After several months, no recommendation has been forthcoming.
R87:
Evaluate the need for additional deputies due to the implementation of the new Elder Abuse Referral Law SB 1742. Response: We have not yet determined the potential impact of SB 1742 on the Public Guardian's Office nor how such a program will be funded. The Public Guardian will meet with law enforcement agencies and Department of Adult Services to ascertain whether these agencies have been properly trained in the area of adult abuse and to determine the anticipated impact. The Public Guardian is presently in negotiations with the Department of Adult Services for funding to add an additional deputy position to expedite cases referred from Adult Protective Services. An agreement is expected to be forthcoming.
R88:
PA/PG add the services of a Registered Nurse to staff. This person would aid in evaluating and inspecting medical care facilities as well as review proposed client treatment and prescription history. Response: This position was included in the Department's 2001-2002 budget request but not recommended by the County Administrative Office. The Honorable Judge Hoff August 27, 2001 Page Three
R89:
PA/PG evaluate the purchase of Long Term Care Insurance for those clients who would be eligible. Response: The need for long-term care insurance is reviewed on a case by case basis by the Public Administrator/Guardian staff. These reviews have not resulted in such a service being determined to be in the client's best interest. The need is continuing to be reviewed on a case by case basis.
R90:
A plan be developed for a new morgue before the County reaches a crisis situation. Response: Over 20 years ago after touring various morgues the County built a nearly state-of- the-art facility in a 32 year-old building. The building is now 54 years old and lacks proper electricity, proper plumbing, proper cooling and proper heating. A similar tour of morgues today shows that we are deficient in such areas as special airflow rooms to reduce possible contamination by tuberculosis and other diseases, pneumatic doors to prevent bloody gloves from contaminating doorknobs, storage, etc. There is a shortage of forensic pathologists. These doctors can easily find employment in communities of their choice. Our aging facility handicaps our recruiting efforts. Ideally, a new morgue should be placed in the vicinity of the Community/University Medical Center to serve as an educational opportunity for medical students and other physicians doing their rotation in Fresno.
R91:
A commercial washing machine be purchased for on-site laundering needs and/or use a commercial laundry. Response: Currently this Department uses a non-commercial washer and dryer. Due to the nature of the work in this office, these machines do not hold up well to the types of materials that are cleaned and dried and the cleaning agents that are used. Use of commercial laundry with their garment requirements has not proved satisfactory in delivery and scheduling because of limited volume and cost benefit. Based on the recommendation and the above noted factors, this Department will include in next fiscal year's budget a request for a commercial grade thirty-five pound washer and a commercial graded fifty pound dryer. It is expected that these machines will have a much longer service life and lower the maintenance cost of the units we now use. The estimated cost for the commercial units described above are expected to be approximately $6,000.00, delivered and set up. The Honorable Judge Hoff August 27,2001 Page Four
R92:
Reference be made to the Grand Jury reports of 1998/99 and 1999/2000 regarding the need for improvement of record storage. Response: The Response to Recommendation #86 reflects the facility storage concerns for the entire Department and would address such issues as record storage. Very truly yours, David M. Hadden, M.D. Fresno County Coroner-Public Administrator/ Public Guardian DMH:slb 56 MENDOTA UTILITY BILL COLLECTIONS Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that: 93. The monthly shutoff list and notices be reviewed by an individual independent of the accounting department of the City of Mendota. 94. The subject of outstanding utility bills be reviewed during the annual financial audit conducted by an outside auditor. 95. The City establish and maintain training for all employees on the use of the Municipal Code and written procedures and policies regarding the collection of utility bills. City of Mendota’s Response to Recommendations #93 - #95: See . ELKHORN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that: 96. The Fresno County Board of Supervisors review commitments made in the February 11, 1997, letter issued by a former County Chief Administrative Officer and assure the neighbors of ECF that the County intends to honor these commitments. If certain commitments cannot be met, the County should negotiate with the neighbors to reach an equitable arrangement. Fresno County’s Response to Recommendation #96: Fresno County agrees with the
R93:
The monthly shutoff list and notices be reviewed by an individual independent of the accounting department of the City of Mendota.
R94:
The subject of outstanding utility bills be reviewed during the annual financial audit conducted by an outside auditor.
R95:
The City establish and maintain training for all employees on the use of the Municipal Code and written procedures and policies regarding the collection of utility bills. City of Mendota’s Response to Recommendations #93 - #95: See . ELKHORN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that:
R96:
The Fresno County Board of Supervisors review commitments made in the February 11, 1997, letter issued by a former County Chief Administrative Officer and assure the neighbors of ECF that the County intends to honor these commitments. If certain commitments cannot be met, the County should negotiate with the neighbors to reach an equitable arrangement. Fresno County’s Response to Recommendation #96: Fresno County agrees with the
R97:
The Board of Supervisors continue to fund and maintain the present level of services at ECF. Fresno County’s Response to Recommendation #97: Fresno County agrees with the
R98:
The City of Fresno continue to fund Elkhorn Correctional Facility at no less than the current rate of $1,000,000 per year with no sunset provision. Response to Recommendation 98: The City will not implement the recommendation, as stated. The City of Fresno's position is to continue the present commitment to fund the ECF for the balance of the nine years, if the ECF stays at the current 200 bed capacity both in staffing of correctional personnel and commitments to the facility. City recognizes that as long- term solutions Juvenile Hall expansion is still several years away, it essential that County maintain the ECF as a rehabilitation center for nonviolent Juvenile offenders. It is neither wise, nor sound policy for the City at this time to make a perpetual commitment for these reasons: a perpetual commitment is subject to availability of funding; a perpetual commitment is subject to revocation by a future Council on a variety of grounds; future City-County agreements may require the need to revisit future funding; a future Council may determine that City resources are more urgently needed to fund other related programs (crime prevention, after school programs, etc.) other than confinement costs; making a minimum commitment now may discourage greater, participation by Fresno andlor other cities in the County, should the need arise. Under the above circumstances, making such a minimum commitment now would be misleading and unproductive. In sum, the City is encouraged by the present level of activities of the ECF, and will consider future opportunities to involve itself and other cities in the county to support the program in the most appropriate means then available. Fresno County Grand Jury October 3, 2001 BRIEFING BOOK FOR NEWLY ELECTED OFFICIALS Response to Findings: City agrees with the need and desirability for newly elected officials to receive a minimum and appropriate level of orientation in the new position, and the information needed and legally available to get up to speed on pending issues as expeditiously as possible.
R99:
The County provide boot camp facilities for female juvenile offenders. Fresno County’s Response to Recommendation #99: Fresno County agrees with the
R100:
The 2000-01 Grand Jury recommends that Future Grand Juries continue to monitor the activities at the Elkhorn Correctional Facility.
Quick View
Full Details →
Additional Recommendations
99
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
To be in compliance with the above restricted revenue requirements and regulations and to eliminate the appearance that restricted revenues are being used to fund general fund expenditures, the City of Parlier should ensure that such restricted revenues are clearly used for the related program purposes. Costs charged to the special revenue funds should reflect actual costs attributable to the program and should be supported by applicable documentation such as time tracking. The City of Parlier should obtain clarification from the applicable regulatory agency to determine if their current cost allocation methodology is acceptable. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation.
R2:
In the absence of fully supportable cost allocation methodologies or regulatory approval of existing cost allocation methodologies, the City of Parlier should reverse the $268,224 and $393,602 in overhead costs charged to the special revenue funds listed above. In addition, any 17 other insufficiently supported cost allocations that were not noted in this report should also be reversed. Response: The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor for review, the manager will report back to Council with recommendation for appropriate action.
R3:
In order to provide for sound accounting and budgeting practices and to ensure a clear audit trail, appropriations and expenditures should be initially recorded in the originating department/fund where the activities are incurred. Response: The City is in compliance with generally accepted accounting practices. The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor for further review and appropriate action.
R4:
The City of Parlier Finance Department should implement procedures that provide segregation of duties related to accounts payable. Specifically, the person who approves payments should not be the same person who signs checks and submits requests for payments. When it is necessary for the Finance Director to submit a request for payment, the payment should be sufficiently reviewed and approved by another authorized staff member (e.g. the City Manager). Response: Payments are approved by Department Heads. Any Department expenditures greater than a thousand dollars must be reviewed and approved by the City Manager. Additionally, the City Manager reviews and approves all payments on the demand warrant register. This register is published in the Council agenda for public review.
R5:
To strengthen internal controls over expenditures in special revenue funds and to ensure that funding does not need to be reimbursed or that future funding is withheld, the City of Parlier should ensure that program costs incurred are fully supported and are in compliance with program requirements. This can be achieved in part by requiring that receipts for credit card purchases be retained for supporting documentation and submitted to the Finance Department for review and approval. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation.
R6:
To prevent losses and enhance internal controls, the City of Parlier should immediately implement procedures to ensure that the City's charge accounts and credit cards are not used for personal purchases. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation. Such procedures are in place.
R7:
In compliance with the above code sections and to ensure that funding is not withheld, the RDA should immediately submit a 5-year plan to the State Controller's Office and submit all future required documents when due. Response: The City has held off on updating its 5 year housing plan pending certification of its housing element by the State Housing and Community Development Department. The element will be certified in a few weeks. The plan will be updated during this 2001-2002 fiscal year.
R8:
In order to comply with Health & Safety Code Section 33487 and to ensure that funding is not withheld, the RDA should transfer $3,907 to the low income-housing fund for fiscal year 1998/99 from the RDA Capital Projects Fund. Response: The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor for review, the manager will report back to Council with recommendation for appropriate action.
R9:
In order to explain material changes in the financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, the City of Parlier should provide adequate disclosure in the notes to the financial statements. For example, Parlier could have identified the above increase in the capital projects fund balance as a "restated" fund balance in the financial statements. In addition, a note disclosure should have been provided to reconcile the restated fund balance to the prior year ending balance. The disclosure should have also explained the reason(s) for the restatement. Parlier should consider this for future reporting purposes. Response: The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor for review and appropriate future action.
R10:
a, b, c, and d To ensure that funding is not withheld, the RDA should ensure all proper procedures and legal requirements are followed when issuing loans and all appropriate documents are maintained in their loan files and that all loans are properly authorized. Parlier staff should review all available loan records since the formation of the RDA to try to locate all missing loan documentation and criteria information on the sixteen known loans addressed above. Parlier staff should also determine if there are any additional outstanding loans not currently known that should be followed up on. Also, even though Parlier has indicated that the commercial borrowers of the "written off' loans are out of business, Parlier should continue to bill the business owners until these loans are officially written off by the City Council. Proper procedures must be followed to assure that all redevelopment loans are repaid timely and in full. Redevelopment loans determined to be uncollectible should be written off by the City Council and referred to a collection agency as appropriate. Parlier should consider following up with other collection agencies or pursue other means of recouping unpaid balances, e.g. through small claims processes, other lawsuits, etc. In addition, Parlier should ensure and be able to support that interest charged on Redevelopment loans is charged fairly and equitably. Response: The Redevelopment Agency has not made any loans in nearly a decade. Of those older loans on the Agencies books: some loans have been paid off; some loans are in process and payment is timely, some loans are behind in payment and payment is sporadic, on some there is no activity and they are considered uncollectable. Many of the loans were unsecured and should have been. Loans that are secured by real property shall be paid. Extensive searches for records of prior loans have been made, for some loans there are little or no records. A list of uncollectable loans shall be provided to the Redevelopment Agency for 'write-off' consideration. Future loans, if any, considered by the Redevelopment Agency will be secured by real property and shall be recorded.
R11:
To enhance internal controls, ensure the accuracy of the City's accounting records, and ensure continued funding, Parlier should implement formal procedures to ensure proper accounting for and reconciliation of restricted revenues. In addition, all transactions and supporting documentation must be maintained until such records have been audited by all appropriate oversight agencies. Finally, the City of Parlier should make the appropriate general ledger entries within the special revenue fund to record these transactions. Response: The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor appropriate future action. 19
R12:
The City of Parlier should post transactions to proper accounts and subsequently classify expenditures appropriately in their financial statements. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation.
R13:
In order to comply with terms of the Child Development Grant, the City of Parlier should reimburse the Child Development fund the $582.50 noted above and only make expenditures appropriate for grant purposes from this fund. Response: The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor for review, the manager will report back to Council with recommendation for appropriate action.
R14:
In order to comply with terms of the Child Development Grant, the City of Parlier should obtain an annual audit of the Child Development Program that conforms to the terms of the grant agreement and reports on Child Development revenues and expenditures of the City of Parlier. In addition, the City of Parlier should consistently review any audit reports prepared for their program prior to finalization of the report. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation.
R15:
In order to properly account for and report Gas Tax revenues, the City of Parlier must reconcile any variances between revenues paid by a funding entity and revenues recorded by the City. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation.
R16:
In order to properly administer the Local Transportation Fund and ensure proper financial statement presentation, the City of Parlier must reconcile the Local Transportation fund to receipts and implement procedures to ensure that all transactions are properly recorded and reported. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation.
R17:
The City of Parlier should either provide supporting documentation for the $70, 702 reduction of revenues or reverse this adjustment as appropriate. Response: The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor for review, the manager will report back to Council with recommendation for appropriate action.
R19:
The City of Parlier should contact the DOJ for written clarification of what constitutes acceptable expenditures for this grant. The City of Parlier should comply with the information provided by the 20 DOJ related to this audit finding. Unauthorized expenditures of grant funds must be reimbursed or a waiver should be requested from the grantor agency. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation.
R20:
The City of Parlier should ensure that actual interest is allocated to the COPS fund for 1998/99, 1999/00 and thereafter. In addition, the City should ensure that adequate interest allocation methodologies are used to ensure that all restricted revenues are accurately calculated, allocated and available to be used for restricted program purposes or returned to regulatory agencies as necessary in the event of non-compliance with program requirements. Response: The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor for review, the manager will report back to Council with recommendation for appropriate action.
R21:
In compliance with the provisions of Government Code Section 30061 as stated above, the City of Parlier should ensure that the appropriation of COPS grant monies for 2000/01 and thereafter are separately presented to and approved by Parlier's City Council as required. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation.
R22:
The City of Parlier should maintain support for all financial transactions that affect special revenue funds as well as other funds until all oversight agencies conduct periodic audits. Unauthorized expenditures of grant funds must be reimbursed or a waiver should be requested from the grantor agency. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation.
R23:
The City of Parlier should implement procedures to ensure that expenditures are not claimed/reported twice and that overtime costs are not claimed in compliance with Universal Hiring Grant provisions. Parlier should also adjust the above reports and charges to reverse duplicated expenditures and inappropriate overtime costs. Response: The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor for review, the manager will report back to Council with recommendation for appropriate action.
R24:
The City of Parlier should investigate the difference of $2,404 between revenues reported in their general ledger for OES revenues and the amount of payments confirmed through the State OES or have support for the variance readily available. Response: The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor for review, the manager will report back to Council with recommendation for appropriate action.
R25:
The City of Parlier should immediately revise the Project Completion and Certification Report to reflect actual costs for the disaster period. They should provide support for costs claimed or return $36,136 claimed inappropriately to the State OES. Response: The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor for review, the manager will report back to Council with recommendation for appropriate action. 21
R26:
To ensure accuracy of records, enhance internal controls, and ensure the availability of current and future funding, the City of Parlier should properly maintain files containing supporting documentation for transactions and retain these records until audited by all appropriate oversight agencies. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation. Summary: It is our recommendation that the City of Parlier hire either a CPA firm or professional accounting staff to help them address the findings and recommendations in this report, correct their records/reports related to special revenue funds, and implement procedures/processes to ensure that restricted revenues are properly expended and accounted for and that all applicable rules, regulations and laws are followed with strict compliance. Gary W. Peterson Auditor-Control Treasurer-Tax Collector Response: The City concurs with the Summary recommendation and the matter is referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor. Paint Project: 27. The Parlier City Manager confer with the City Council before engaging in city projects costing over $10,000 as required by PMC. 28. Bidding and contracting of services be in compliance with PMC. 29. The City Manager and City Council be held responsible for implementing the directives set forth in PMC. 30. Compensation of employees and/or contractors be in compliance with existing State and Federal laws. Response: The City concurs with recommendations 27 though 30. It disagrees with many of the findings. Animal Control 31. The City hire an animal control officer. 32. The animal shelter be relocated within the city to make it more accessible. 33. Leash and licensing laws be enforced. 34. The City educate the community regarding licensing, vaccinations, leash laws, spaying and neutering. 35. The City establish a fee schedule for costs incurred in animal control. 36. All record keeping relating to animal control be current. 37. State guidelines be followed for the ultimate disposal of any animal. 38. Polaroid photographs of impounded dogs be posted at city hall in order for citizens to see if their dog has been impounded. Response to 31 - 38: The current location of the city's holding facility and city's procedures for managing it are cost effective and consistent with requirements of law. The Council expects and management will ensure that our operation is in compliance with state law. City Hall Carpeting 39. The Parlier Municipal Code and Purchasing Ordinance be followed. 40. Shortcuts that violate the existing code not be considered. Response: The City concurs with recommendations 39 and 40. Code Enforcement 41. The present policy of code enforcement be changed to a more aggressive system which addresses all violations existing in the City of Parlier. 42. Written policy and procedures be developed to provide for the tracking and documented resolution of all complaints. 43. The city hire a code enforcement officer, supported with sufficient staff. 44. Adequate training be provided for the code enforcement officer and staff, including instruction in property owner and tenant rights. 45. A written manual providing guidelines on how to resolve code enforcement disputes be developed and implemented. 46. The City of Parlier inform and educate the public on current code enforcement policy. 47. A current copy of the Parlier Municipal Code be available for public use at City Hall and the public library. Response to 41 -47: The City has budgeted for a ½ time Code Enforcement Officer in the FY2001-2002 budget. A more active code enforcement program will be instituted accordingly. Personnel Policies 48. The City of Parlier formulate and implement written policies and procedures regarding labor relations. 49. The City develop written job classifications for all positions and issue them to all employees. 50. The City require department heads to adhere to the PMC sections covering their areas of responsibility . 51. A current copy of the PMC be made available to City Council members. 52. The City prepare, and provide to all employees, a handbook informing them of employee rights as stated in the PMC. 53. Employees be advised, in writing, of their rights of representation at all disciplinary hearings. 54. Written annual job performance evaluations of all employees be conducted, a copy placed in the employee's permanent file and a copy provided to the employee. 23 55. A written salary schedule for each position be prepared and a copy made available to each employee. 56. The city develop and issue a written policy regarding advancement and salary increases. Response: Items 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 55 are in place and are standard practice. Item 54 will be instituted this fiscal year. Item 56 will be put in place if and when it is deemed necessary. Nepotism 57. PMC section 4.01.080 be rewritten to more clearly state the city's policy on nepotism as defined by Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, "favoritism shown to relatives or close friends by those in power (as by giving them jobs)." Response: The matter will be referred to the City Attorney for review and to report back to Council with recommendation for appropriate action. 58. The policy of the city be to recruit, employ, and promote the best-qualified individuals. Response: This is City Policy. Personnel Appeals Board 59. The current PHB be dissolved. 60. The position for citizen at large be advertised (noticed). 61. The position for citizen at large be posted at City Hall. 62. All citizens who submit applications for this position be given equal consideration. Response: The City disagrees with recommendations 59-62. The Personnel Appeals Board was established by the municipal code. Council appointments were made consistent with that code. Police Department 63. The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that the Parlier Police Department be closed immediately and the policing of Parlier be contracted with the Fresno County Sheriff. Response: The majority of the Police Department findings were absurd; this recommendation is nonsense. SECTION II CITY COMMITTEE CITY COMMITTEE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DIVISION Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that: 64. Continue the broad public education program to increase awareness of the need to meet recycling goals. 65. Tailor educational efforts to target each culture within our community in a way that has proven most effective for that group. City of Fresno’s Response to Recommendations #64 and #65: See . FRESNO CITY PARKS SANITATION FACILITIES Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that: 66. Increase the budget to provide for care of the new parks. 67. Add personnel to help maintain the park sanitation facilities. 68. Provide adequate funds for replacement of fixtures with more durable ones. City of Fresno’s Response to Recommendations #66 - #68: See . CITY COUNCIL INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDS Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that: 69. Distribution of the City Council discretionary infrastructure funds be reviewed and approved by the City Manager prior to disbursement. 25 70. Consideration be given to reducing the current allotment from $140,000 to $70,000 per district. 71. Carryover of any unused infrastructure funds be eliminated. 72. Future Grand Juries continue to monitor the program. City of Fresno’s Response to Recommendations #69 - #72: See . CITY OF FRESNO WATER METERS Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that: 73. The Mayor, City Council and all civic groups unite to promote the installation of water meters. 74. Homeowners and businesses that currently have meters be excluded from further meter installation costs. 75. The city utilities department continue to publish average water bills for various family sizes with and without meters. 76. Water police be reactivated to prevent water waste. City of Fresno’s Response to Recommendations #73 - #76: See . BASEBALL/MULTI-USE STADIUM Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that: 77. The City require an annual independent audit of the financial statements of FDG. 78. All seventeen dates the city controls be devoted to for-profit events to enhance the City’s revenues. 26 79. The public be assured of coordinated parking and security by FDG and the City. City of Fresno’s Response to Recommendations #77 - #79: See . CITY OF FRESNO FIRE DEPARTMENT Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that: 80. The fire department have a budgeted vehicle replacement plan. The city should consider replacement of vehicles after seven or eight years while they still have significant value on the used fire vehicle market. 81. The inventory of fire fighting tools be increased so that all spare engines/trucks are fully equipped. 82. The city recognize the need to increase the number of fire fighting personnel. 83. The City of Fresno revisit its traffic light pre-emption plan and budget funds to complete this program. 84. The Fresno Fire Department develop a plan to reduce response times to the NFPA standards. City of Fresno’s Response to Recommendations #80 - #84: See . Daniel G. Hobbs City Manager October 3, 2001 Mr. Rick Allen Van Ness #102 Fresno, CA 93721 Dear Mr. Allen: SUBJECT: 2000-2001 GRAND JURY RECOMMENDATIONS The following contains the City of Fresno's response to the 2000-2001 Grand Jury
R27:
The Parlier City Manager confer with the City Council before engaging in city projects costing over $10,000 as required by PMC.
R28:
Bidding and contracting of services be in compliance with PMC.
R29:
The City Manager and City Council be held responsible for implementing the directives set forth in PMC.
R30:
Compensation of employees and/or contractors be in compliance with existing State and Federal laws. City of Parlier's Response to Recommendations #27 - #30: See . PARLIER ANIMAL CONTROL Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that:
R31:
The City hire an animal control officer.
R32:
The animal shelter be relocated within the city to make it more accessible.
R33:
Leash and licensing laws be enforced.
R34:
The City educate the community regarding licensing, vaccinations, leash laws, spaying and neutering.
R35:
The City establish a fee schedule for costs incurred in animal control.
R36:
All record keeping relating to animal control be current.
R37:
State guidelines be followed for the ultimate disposal of any animal. 7
R38:
Polaroid photographs of impounded dogs be posted at city hall in order for citizens to see if their dog has been impounded. City of Parlier's Response to Recommendations #31 - #38: See . CARPETING OF PARLIER CITY HALL Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that:
R39:
The Parlier Municipal Code and Purchasing Ordinance be followed.
R40:
Shortcuts that violate the existing code not be considered. City of Parlier's Response to Recommendations #39 and #40: See . 8
R41:
The present policy of code enforcement be changed to a more aggressive system which addresses all violations existing in the City of Parlier.
R42:
Written policy and procedures be developed to provide for the tracking and documented resolution of all complaints.
R43:
The city hire a code enforcement officer, supported with sufficient staff.
R44:
Adequate training be provided for the code enforcement officer and staff, including instruction in property owner and tenant rights.
R45:
A written manual providing guidelines on how to resolve code enforcement disputes be developed and implemented.
R46:
The City of Parlier inform and educate the public on current code enforcement policy.
R47:
A current copy of the Parlier Municipal Code be available for public use at City Hall and the public library. City of Parlier's Response to Recommendations #41 - #47: See . PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT WITHIN THE CITY OF PARLIER Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that:
R48:
The City of Parlier formulate and implement written policies and procedures regarding labor relations.
R49:
The City develop written job classifications for all positions and issue them to all employees.
R50:
The City require department heads to adhere to the PMC sections covering their areas of responsibility.
R51:
A current copy of the PMC be made available to City Council members. 9
R52:
The City prepare, and provide to all employees, a handbook informing them of employee rights as stated in the PMC.
R53:
Employees be advised, in writing, of their rights of representation at all disciplinary hearings.
R54:
Written annual job performance evaluations of all employees be conducted, a copy placed in the employee’s permanent file and a copy provided to the employee.
R55:
A written salary schedule for each position be prepared and a copy made available to each employee.
R56:
The city develop and issue a written policy regarding advancement and salary increases. City of Parlier's Response to Recommendations #48 - #56: See . NEPOTISM IN THE CITY OF PARLIER Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that:
R57:
PMC section 4.01.080 be rewritten to more clearly state the city’s policy on nepotism as defined by Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, “favoritism shown to relatives or close friends by those in power (as by giving them jobs).”
R58:
The policy of the city be to recruit, employ, and promote the best-qualified individuals. City of Parlier's Response to Recommendations #57 and #58: See . PARLIER PERSONNEL HEARING BOARD Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that:
R59:
The current PHB be dissolved.
R60:
The position for citizen at large be advertised (noticed).
R61:
The position for citizen at large be posted at City Hall.
R62:
All citizens who submit applications for this position be given equal consideration. City of Parlier's Response to Recommendations #59 - #62: See . PARLIER POLICE DEPARTMENT Recommendation The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that:
R63:
The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that the Parlier Police Department be closed immediately and the policing of Parlier be contracted with the Fresno County Sheriff. City of Parlier's Response to Recommendation #63: See . A Community with a vision to the future. Una Comunidad con vision al futuro Incorporated November 14, 1921 Founded 1876 July 24, 2001 Honorable Gary D. Huff Presiding Judge Superior Court County of Fresno 1100 Van Ness Avenue Fresno, CA 93721 Dear Judge Hoff: Enclosed please find the City of Parlier's response to the 200-2001 Grand Jury Report. The City was quite disappointed with the quality of work performed by the Grand Jury, and found and determined that many of the findings were incorrect. Nevertheless, there were many useful recommendations that will be put in place. Sincerely, Michael R. Swigart City Manager Enclosures 1100 E. Parlier Avenue, Parlier, California 93848 .(559) 646.3545 FAX (559) 646-0416 12 A Community with a vision to the future. Una Comunidad con visión al futuro Incorporated November 14, 1921 Founded 1878 Staff Report Date: 07172001 To: Mayor, Council From: City Manager Council Meeting of July 17,2001 G. City Manager/Executive Director Reports Item g.4, Grand Jury Recommendations Recommendation: 1. Receive Recommendations from the Grand Jury;
R64:
Continue the broad public education program to increase awareness of the need to meet recycling goals. Response to Recommendation 64: The City has implemented the recommendation. The Solid Waste education budget has been increased for FY 02 specifically for this purpose. Broad recycling education programs are ongoing, with acceleration of effort planed for a spring of 2003 multi- media campaign.
R65:
Tailor educational efforts to target each culture within our community in a way that has proven most effective for that group. City of Fresno City Hall • 2600 Fresno Street • Fresno, California 93721-3601 (559) 498-4591 • FAX (559) 488-1015 • www.ci.fresno.ca.us 28 Fresno County Grand Jury October 3, 2001 Response to Recommendation 65: The City has not yet fully implemented the recommendation. Solid Waste is developing educational strategies to fit several linguistic and cultural specialized groups. A media consultant with multi-cultural expertise will be retained in FY 02, while we are currently working with EOC and several community groups to tailor educational messages and venues to maximize results. FRESNO CITY PARKS FACILITIES Response to Findings: The City agrees with the findings.
R66:
Increase the budget to provide for care of new parks. Response to Recommendation 66: The City has implemented the recommendation. The FY02 budget for neighborhood parks was increased by $266, 700 to compensate for the opening of Layne, Kolligian and Pilibos Parks and the Multi-Cultural Corridor and increased operating costs including energy.
R67:
Add personnel to help maintain the park sanitation facilities. Response to Recommendation 67: The City has implemented the recommendation. The Parks Division budget was increased during fiscal year 2000-2001 to increase the number of times the outdoor facilities at neighborhood parks are maintained from 5 to 7 times per week, including holidays. Those parks that are staffed with Recreation personnel, which is 27 out of 58, receive at least one additional maintenance visit daily during operating hours. The maintenance level on the regional parks restroom facilities remain at two cleanings per day and a minimum of one additional visit each day by maintenance personnel. Fresno County Grand Jury October 3, 2001
R68:
Provide adequate funds for replacement of fixtures with more durable ones. Response to Recommendation 68: The City has not yet fully implemented the recommendation. The four outdoor restroom facilities at Woodward Park are on a four year schedule for complete renovation. The funding source for the improvements is from Crystal Valley Decorating for their Festival of Lights Exhibit. Fixtures at other facilities are replaced when damaged, and the Parks Division is pursuing grants from Federal and State agencies for replacements at other outdoor facilities. CITY COUNCIL INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDS Response to Findings: The City agrees that certain non-capital expenses were authorized out of what is generally called district infrastructure, but disagrees that any cited expenditures were legally or procedurally questionable. Funding sources were used for legally permissible expenditures; general fund sources were used for non-capital expenditures.
R69:
Distribution of the City Council discretionary infrastructure funds be reviewed and approved by the City Manager prior to disbursement. Response to Recommendation 69: Expenditures funded from district infrastructure budgets follow standard City procedures for review and payment. Additionally, non-capital expenditures were placed on Council agendas, considered in Council open meetings, and approved by a supermajority vote and subject to mayoral veto.
R70:
Consideration be given to reducing the current allotment from $140,000 to $70,000 per district. Fresno County Grand Jury October 3, 2001 Response to Recommendation 70: The Mayor and City Council have recently discussed this matter in public session, and have confirmed the need for resources to be available to expediently resolve infrastructure needs within Council districts. Additionally, the Council has placed a limit of 15 percent of their infrastructure budgets for funding non-capital related expenditures. Finally, the City Attorney's Office is preparing, for Council consideration, a resolution which establishes the criteria for use of Community Service Program Funds. The Council adopted the resolution which is attached as Exhibit '"A".
R71:
Carryover of any unused infrastructure funds be eliminated. Response to Recommendation 71: The budgeting of unused infrastructure funds is a policy decision regarding the allocation of limited City resources to the infrastructure needs of the City. The issue is compounded by the timing and process necessary to complete infrastructure projects including, Charter required competitive bidding and approvals necessary to properly expend the funds. The matter was considered by the City Council on August 21, 2001, at which time the funds were appropriated for use in fiscal year 2001-2002.
R72:
Future Grand Juries continue to monitor the program. Response to Recommendation 72: Should future Grand Juries choose to monitor the program, City staff will provide requested information as required. CITY OF FRESNO WATER METERS Response to Findings and Conclusions: The City agrees with findings A through F, Findings H and I, and Conclusion C. Regarding Finding G which stated that “”Water Police" have been inactivated due to lack of funds", it is correct that the program of proactive water waste patrols was de-funded. The principal reason however, was not a lack of funds but was a policy decision by the 31 Fresno County Grand Jury October 3, 2001 previous City administration and previous Council to redirect the resources of the water conservation program. Regarding Conclusion A, the cost of San Joaquin water supply will increase. Contract costs will increase from a current $30 per acre ft to a minimum of $70 per acre ft. Regarding Conclusion B, the cost of installation, maintenance and administration of a residential metering program will be fully offset after full implementation by the anticipated decrease in pumping, water treatment and wastewater treatment costs.
R73:
The Mayor, City Council and all civic groups unite to promote the installation of water meters. Response to Recommendation 73: The City has not yet fully implemented the recommendation. The Mayor and Council have all endorsed meters if they are necessary to renew the City's CVP contract. A broad based stakeholders group (Contract Renewal Advisory Group) has been formed to provide feedback and support in the contract renewal process and a referendum on water meters should it become necessary to renew the CVP contract. Timing and need for such a campaign must wait the outcome of current City negotiations with the Bureau of Reclamation. While the Council has authority to place measure on the ballot for voter approval, State law prohibits the City from using public funds to advocate passage or defeat of a local ballot measure. The rationale grounded in case law is that public money cannot be spent to tip the scales in favor of some electors and against others in matters left for the citizenry to decide.
R74:
Homeowners and businesses that currently have meters be excluded from further meter installation costs. Response to Recommendation 74:
R75:
The City Utilities Department continue to publish average water bills for various family sizes with and without meters. Response to Recommendation 75: Ongoing.
R76:
Water police be reactivated to prevent water waste. Response to Recommendation 76: The City has not yet fully implemented the recommendation. This and related conservation program expansions are a condition of the City's Central Valley Project contract renewal and will be re-implemented at the time of contract renewal. In addition, increased conservation funding is anticipated in the FY 03 budget cycle. BASEBALL/MULTI-USE STADIUM Response to Findings: The findings specified as A-M were generally accurate as of the time Grand Jury received its information. Some of the matters are estimated (e.g., annual debt service; final project cost) while other matters are in development (e.g., safety/traffic control plan). City disagrees with Conclusion A; conclusion B is ambiguous; and City disagrees with Conclusion C and D, to the extent that security and traffic plans are in the process of development. These plans will be developed and implemented with the purpose of avoiding or minimizing serious parking impacts except during intermittent, non peak business hours. Fresno County Grand Jury October 3, 2001
R77:
The City require an annual independent audit of the financial statements of FDG [Fresno Diamond Group]. Response to Recommendation 77: The recommendation will be implemented as deemed necessary by the City, per Section 17.9 of the lease agreement as follows: “Records of Tenant pertaining to any obligations of Tenant hereunder shall be kept on a generally recognized accounting basis and shall be available to the City or its authorized representatives upon request during regular business hours throughout the life of this Agreement and for a period of three years thereafter. In addition, all books, documents papers, and records of Tenant pertaining to any obligation of Tenant pursuant to this Agreement shall be available for the purpose of making audits, examinations, excerpts, and transcriptions for the same period of time. If an audit by the City discloses underpayment in excess of one percent of any monies due the City hereunder, reasonable audit costs shall be reimbursable by Tenant to the City. This Section shall survive expiration or termination of this Agreement."
R78:
All seventeen dates the city controls be devoted to for-profit events to enhance the City's revenues. Response to Recommendation 78: The recommendation will not be implemented. Under the lease, the City is allocated 10 Concession-Using Events, and 7 Non-Concession-Using Events, and it states, in Section 3.6(h): "Non-Concession-Using Events shall generally be partially or wholly sponsored or contracted for by either the City or other not-for-profit organizations (which are not required to be 501 (c)(3) organizations or for charitable purposes." It is the general understanding between the parties that the 7 events would not be "for- profit" events.
R79:
The public be assured of coordinated parking and security by FDG and the City. Fresno County Grand Jury October 3, 2001 Response to Recommendation 79: The City has not yet fully implemented the recommendation. Parking plans are being developed (with a consultant's study being completed in September) to provide for stadium event parking, and security plans will be in place by the opening of the stadium. CITY OF FRESNO FIRE DEPARTMENT Response to Conclusions: The City agrees with Conclusion A; disagrees with Conclusions B and D; and agrees in part with Conclusions C, E, and F. Regarding Conclusion C, vehicle status is monitored by the department and equipment is replaced as needed. Regarding Conclusion E, and while the ratio may be accurate, it does not necessarily reflect the ability to provide Fire services within the City of Fresno. Regarding Conclusion F, the implementation is ongoing.
R80:
The fire department have a budgeted vehicle replacement plan. The city should consider replacement of vehicles after seven or eight years while they still have significant value on the used fire vehicle market. Response to Recommendation 80: The City has not yet fully implemented the recommendation. While the Fire Department does not currently maintain a specific vehicle replacement plan, vehicles have been replaced as needed, by financing the purchase over a ten year period. The Department is currently developing a draft replacement plan for consideration.
R81:
The inventory of fire fighting tools be increased so that all spare engines/tools are fully equipped. Response to Recommendation 81: The City has implemented the recommendation. Active engines and trucks equipped with necessary tools. Reserve engines and trucks are currently equipped with a minimum of tools; typically hose and small tools on engines, and ladders and small 35 Fresno County Grand Jury October 3, 2001 tools on trucks. The balance of the inventory is stocked when a front line engine or truck is out of service for repairs. When reserve apparatus is temporarily placed in service as a new company, it operates with existing equipment. In those cases when additional equipment is needed to perform a task, the equipment from other apparatus on scene is utilized.
R82:
The city recognize the need to increase the number of fire fighting personnel. Response to Recommendation 82: The City has not yet fully implemented the recommendation. The City recognizes that the 0.58 firefighters/1000 population is at the low end of national and regional standards. However, these standards do not take into account specific service needs of Fresno. The City will continue to pursue options for increasing Fire Department staffing in future budget deliberations.
R83:
The City of Fresno revisit its traffic light preemption plan and budget funds to complete this program: Response to Recommendation 83: The City has not yet fully implemented the recommendation. The intersections of Herndon and West, and Clovis and Clinton currently have the Opticom traffic preemption device. Fire apparatus specifications have included the Opticom transmitter as emergency warning equipment to be installed since 1998. Nine of our thirty one fire apparatus are equipped with an Opticom transmitter. The City implementation of this program will continue to be a priority in future budget deliberations. The Fire Department is continually reviewing opportunities for improving response times, and will present a report of such opportunities as part of the fiscal year 2001-2002 budget process. Fresno County Grand Jury October 3, 2001 ELKHORN CORRECTION FACILITY Response to Findings:
R84:
The Fresno Fire Department develop a plan to reduce response times to the NFPA standards. City of Fresno’s Response to Recommendations #80 - #84: See . Daniel G. Hobbs City Manager October 3, 2001 Mr. Rick Allen Van Ness #102 Fresno, CA 93721 Dear Mr. Allen: SUBJECT: 2000-2001 GRAND JURY RECOMMENDATIONS The following contains the City of Fresno's response to the 2000-2001 Grand Jury
R85:
The PA/PG evaluate the use of the County Treasury Pool. Response: The option of putting the Public Guardian funds with the County under the Auditor-Controller/Treasurer-Tax Collector was carefully investigated. This Department decided that it was not a viable option because: 1) The Department loses control of the citizens' funds. Currently, when a vendor fails to respond in an adequate manner, the funds are immediately transferred to an institution providing more satisfactory services. It would be unlikely that we could remove the funds from the County's control once they are delivered whatever the level of service. 2) Limitations within the Auditor-Controller/Treasurer-Tax Collector's Office preclude the guarantee of providing "rush" checks. The Public Administrator/Guardian staff requires access to client's monies on a daily basis to address immediate needs on behalf of their clients. These emergency needs are primarily related to new cases, which are opened on a daily basis. An example of such a need would include payment of utility bills to avoid interruptions of services. 3) The County's investment pool is insured through various means; however, it is not Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) insured as required by the Superior Court. West Nielsen Avenue Fresno, California 93706 Telephone: Public Administrator (559) 268-0139 Coroner (559) 268-0109 Public Guardian (559) 268-0139 Equal Employment Opportunity Affirmative Action Disabled Employer 53 The Honorable Judge Hoff August 27, 2001 Page Two
R86:
Storage be improved for case records and client assets. Construction of an on-site storage building would eliminate the need for an expensive off-site mini-storage. Response: This Department initiated this recommendation and, therefore, we concur. The monies being paid to private outside storage companies could largely defray the cost of such storage. Personnel time spent visiting off-site storage would be curtailed. In the meantime the Department has surplused equipment, old computers, and furniture that were housed in the metal shed to provide additional storage space in that facility. The Department, in conjunction with the County Clerk as Records Manager, has also developed a record retention schedule, which was approved by the Board of Supervisors in December 2000 and is being utilized by the Department to eliminate dormant files: The Department submitted a second Capital Improvement Projects request for the 2001-2002 budget year. The County Administrative Office, when made aware of our storage needs, sent a team to evaluate the situation. After several months, no recommendation has been forthcoming.
R87:
Evaluate the need for additional deputies due to the implementation of the new Elder Abuse Referral Law SB 1742. Response: We have not yet determined the potential impact of SB 1742 on the Public Guardian's Office nor how such a program will be funded. The Public Guardian will meet with law enforcement agencies and Department of Adult Services to ascertain whether these agencies have been properly trained in the area of adult abuse and to determine the anticipated impact. The Public Guardian is presently in negotiations with the Department of Adult Services for funding to add an additional deputy position to expedite cases referred from Adult Protective Services. An agreement is expected to be forthcoming.
R88:
PA/PG add the services of a Registered Nurse to staff. This person would aid in evaluating and inspecting medical care facilities as well as review proposed client treatment and prescription history. Response: This position was included in the Department's 2001-2002 budget request but not recommended by the County Administrative Office. The Honorable Judge Hoff August 27, 2001 Page Three
R89:
PA/PG evaluate the purchase of Long Term Care Insurance for those clients who would be eligible. Response: The need for long-term care insurance is reviewed on a case by case basis by the Public Administrator/Guardian staff. These reviews have not resulted in such a service being determined to be in the client's best interest. The need is continuing to be reviewed on a case by case basis.
R90:
A plan be developed for a new morgue before the County reaches a crisis situation. Response: Over 20 years ago after touring various morgues the County built a nearly state-of- the-art facility in a 32 year-old building. The building is now 54 years old and lacks proper electricity, proper plumbing, proper cooling and proper heating. A similar tour of morgues today shows that we are deficient in such areas as special airflow rooms to reduce possible contamination by tuberculosis and other diseases, pneumatic doors to prevent bloody gloves from contaminating doorknobs, storage, etc. There is a shortage of forensic pathologists. These doctors can easily find employment in communities of their choice. Our aging facility handicaps our recruiting efforts. Ideally, a new morgue should be placed in the vicinity of the Community/University Medical Center to serve as an educational opportunity for medical students and other physicians doing their rotation in Fresno.
R91:
A commercial washing machine be purchased for on-site laundering needs and/or use a commercial laundry. Response: Currently this Department uses a non-commercial washer and dryer. Due to the nature of the work in this office, these machines do not hold up well to the types of materials that are cleaned and dried and the cleaning agents that are used. Use of commercial laundry with their garment requirements has not proved satisfactory in delivery and scheduling because of limited volume and cost benefit. Based on the recommendation and the above noted factors, this Department will include in next fiscal year's budget a request for a commercial grade thirty-five pound washer and a commercial graded fifty pound dryer. It is expected that these machines will have a much longer service life and lower the maintenance cost of the units we now use. The estimated cost for the commercial units described above are expected to be approximately $6,000.00, delivered and set up. The Honorable Judge Hoff August 27,2001 Page Four
R92:
Reference be made to the Grand Jury reports of 1998/99 and 1999/2000 regarding the need for improvement of record storage. Response: The Response to Recommendation #86 reflects the facility storage concerns for the entire Department and would address such issues as record storage. Very truly yours, David M. Hadden, M.D. Fresno County Coroner-Public Administrator/ Public Guardian DMH:slb 56 MENDOTA UTILITY BILL COLLECTIONS Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that: 93. The monthly shutoff list and notices be reviewed by an individual independent of the accounting department of the City of Mendota. 94. The subject of outstanding utility bills be reviewed during the annual financial audit conducted by an outside auditor. 95. The City establish and maintain training for all employees on the use of the Municipal Code and written procedures and policies regarding the collection of utility bills. City of Mendota’s Response to Recommendations #93 - #95: See . ELKHORN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that: 96. The Fresno County Board of Supervisors review commitments made in the February 11, 1997, letter issued by a former County Chief Administrative Officer and assure the neighbors of ECF that the County intends to honor these commitments. If certain commitments cannot be met, the County should negotiate with the neighbors to reach an equitable arrangement. Fresno County’s Response to Recommendation #96: Fresno County agrees with the
R93:
The monthly shutoff list and notices be reviewed by an individual independent of the accounting department of the City of Mendota.
R94:
The subject of outstanding utility bills be reviewed during the annual financial audit conducted by an outside auditor.
R95:
The City establish and maintain training for all employees on the use of the Municipal Code and written procedures and policies regarding the collection of utility bills. City of Mendota’s Response to Recommendations #93 - #95: See . ELKHORN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that:
R96:
The Fresno County Board of Supervisors review commitments made in the February 11, 1997, letter issued by a former County Chief Administrative Officer and assure the neighbors of ECF that the County intends to honor these commitments. If certain commitments cannot be met, the County should negotiate with the neighbors to reach an equitable arrangement. Fresno County’s Response to Recommendation #96: Fresno County agrees with the
R97:
The Board of Supervisors continue to fund and maintain the present level of services at ECF. Fresno County’s Response to Recommendation #97: Fresno County agrees with the
R98:
The City of Fresno continue to fund Elkhorn Correctional Facility at no less than the current rate of $1,000,000 per year with no sunset provision. Response to Recommendation 98: The City will not implement the recommendation, as stated. The City of Fresno's position is to continue the present commitment to fund the ECF for the balance of the nine years, if the ECF stays at the current 200 bed capacity both in staffing of correctional personnel and commitments to the facility. City recognizes that as long- term solutions Juvenile Hall expansion is still several years away, it essential that County maintain the ECF as a rehabilitation center for nonviolent Juvenile offenders. It is neither wise, nor sound policy for the City at this time to make a perpetual commitment for these reasons: a perpetual commitment is subject to availability of funding; a perpetual commitment is subject to revocation by a future Council on a variety of grounds; future City-County agreements may require the need to revisit future funding; a future Council may determine that City resources are more urgently needed to fund other related programs (crime prevention, after school programs, etc.) other than confinement costs; making a minimum commitment now may discourage greater, participation by Fresno andlor other cities in the County, should the need arise. Under the above circumstances, making such a minimum commitment now would be misleading and unproductive. In sum, the City is encouraged by the present level of activities of the ECF, and will consider future opportunities to involve itself and other cities in the county to support the program in the most appropriate means then available. Fresno County Grand Jury October 3, 2001 BRIEFING BOOK FOR NEWLY ELECTED OFFICIALS Response to Findings: City agrees with the need and desirability for newly elected officials to receive a minimum and appropriate level of orientation in the new position, and the information needed and legally available to get up to speed on pending issues as expeditiously as possible.
R99:
The County provide boot camp facilities for female juvenile offenders. Fresno County’s Response to Recommendation #99: Fresno County agrees with the
R100:
The 2000-01 Grand Jury recommends that Future Grand Juries continue to monitor the activities at the Elkhorn Correctional Facility.
Quick View
Full Details →
Additional Recommendations
99
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
To be in compliance with the above restricted revenue requirements and regulations and to eliminate the appearance that restricted revenues are being used to fund general fund expenditures, the City of Parlier should ensure that such restricted revenues are clearly used for the related program purposes. Costs charged to the special revenue funds should reflect actual costs attributable to the program and should be supported by applicable documentation such as time tracking. The City of Parlier should obtain clarification from the applicable regulatory agency to determine if their current cost allocation methodology is acceptable. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation.
R2:
In the absence of fully supportable cost allocation methodologies or regulatory approval of existing cost allocation methodologies, the City of Parlier should reverse the $268,224 and $393,602 in overhead costs charged to the special revenue funds listed above. In addition, any 17 other insufficiently supported cost allocations that were not noted in this report should also be reversed. Response: The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor for review, the manager will report back to Council with recommendation for appropriate action.
R3:
In order to provide for sound accounting and budgeting practices and to ensure a clear audit trail, appropriations and expenditures should be initially recorded in the originating department/fund where the activities are incurred. Response: The City is in compliance with generally accepted accounting practices. The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor for further review and appropriate action.
R4:
The City of Parlier Finance Department should implement procedures that provide segregation of duties related to accounts payable. Specifically, the person who approves payments should not be the same person who signs checks and submits requests for payments. When it is necessary for the Finance Director to submit a request for payment, the payment should be sufficiently reviewed and approved by another authorized staff member (e.g. the City Manager). Response: Payments are approved by Department Heads. Any Department expenditures greater than a thousand dollars must be reviewed and approved by the City Manager. Additionally, the City Manager reviews and approves all payments on the demand warrant register. This register is published in the Council agenda for public review.
R5:
To strengthen internal controls over expenditures in special revenue funds and to ensure that funding does not need to be reimbursed or that future funding is withheld, the City of Parlier should ensure that program costs incurred are fully supported and are in compliance with program requirements. This can be achieved in part by requiring that receipts for credit card purchases be retained for supporting documentation and submitted to the Finance Department for review and approval. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation.
R6:
To prevent losses and enhance internal controls, the City of Parlier should immediately implement procedures to ensure that the City's charge accounts and credit cards are not used for personal purchases. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation. Such procedures are in place.
R7:
In compliance with the above code sections and to ensure that funding is not withheld, the RDA should immediately submit a 5-year plan to the State Controller's Office and submit all future required documents when due. Response: The City has held off on updating its 5 year housing plan pending certification of its housing element by the State Housing and Community Development Department. The element will be certified in a few weeks. The plan will be updated during this 2001-2002 fiscal year.
R8:
In order to comply with Health & Safety Code Section 33487 and to ensure that funding is not withheld, the RDA should transfer $3,907 to the low income-housing fund for fiscal year 1998/99 from the RDA Capital Projects Fund. Response: The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor for review, the manager will report back to Council with recommendation for appropriate action.
R9:
In order to explain material changes in the financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, the City of Parlier should provide adequate disclosure in the notes to the financial statements. For example, Parlier could have identified the above increase in the capital projects fund balance as a "restated" fund balance in the financial statements. In addition, a note disclosure should have been provided to reconcile the restated fund balance to the prior year ending balance. The disclosure should have also explained the reason(s) for the restatement. Parlier should consider this for future reporting purposes. Response: The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor for review and appropriate future action.
R10:
a, b, c, and d To ensure that funding is not withheld, the RDA should ensure all proper procedures and legal requirements are followed when issuing loans and all appropriate documents are maintained in their loan files and that all loans are properly authorized. Parlier staff should review all available loan records since the formation of the RDA to try to locate all missing loan documentation and criteria information on the sixteen known loans addressed above. Parlier staff should also determine if there are any additional outstanding loans not currently known that should be followed up on. Also, even though Parlier has indicated that the commercial borrowers of the "written off' loans are out of business, Parlier should continue to bill the business owners until these loans are officially written off by the City Council. Proper procedures must be followed to assure that all redevelopment loans are repaid timely and in full. Redevelopment loans determined to be uncollectible should be written off by the City Council and referred to a collection agency as appropriate. Parlier should consider following up with other collection agencies or pursue other means of recouping unpaid balances, e.g. through small claims processes, other lawsuits, etc. In addition, Parlier should ensure and be able to support that interest charged on Redevelopment loans is charged fairly and equitably. Response: The Redevelopment Agency has not made any loans in nearly a decade. Of those older loans on the Agencies books: some loans have been paid off; some loans are in process and payment is timely, some loans are behind in payment and payment is sporadic, on some there is no activity and they are considered uncollectable. Many of the loans were unsecured and should have been. Loans that are secured by real property shall be paid. Extensive searches for records of prior loans have been made, for some loans there are little or no records. A list of uncollectable loans shall be provided to the Redevelopment Agency for 'write-off' consideration. Future loans, if any, considered by the Redevelopment Agency will be secured by real property and shall be recorded.
R11:
To enhance internal controls, ensure the accuracy of the City's accounting records, and ensure continued funding, Parlier should implement formal procedures to ensure proper accounting for and reconciliation of restricted revenues. In addition, all transactions and supporting documentation must be maintained until such records have been audited by all appropriate oversight agencies. Finally, the City of Parlier should make the appropriate general ledger entries within the special revenue fund to record these transactions. Response: The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor appropriate future action. 19
R12:
The City of Parlier should post transactions to proper accounts and subsequently classify expenditures appropriately in their financial statements. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation.
R13:
In order to comply with terms of the Child Development Grant, the City of Parlier should reimburse the Child Development fund the $582.50 noted above and only make expenditures appropriate for grant purposes from this fund. Response: The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor for review, the manager will report back to Council with recommendation for appropriate action.
R14:
In order to comply with terms of the Child Development Grant, the City of Parlier should obtain an annual audit of the Child Development Program that conforms to the terms of the grant agreement and reports on Child Development revenues and expenditures of the City of Parlier. In addition, the City of Parlier should consistently review any audit reports prepared for their program prior to finalization of the report. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation.
R15:
In order to properly account for and report Gas Tax revenues, the City of Parlier must reconcile any variances between revenues paid by a funding entity and revenues recorded by the City. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation.
R16:
In order to properly administer the Local Transportation Fund and ensure proper financial statement presentation, the City of Parlier must reconcile the Local Transportation fund to receipts and implement procedures to ensure that all transactions are properly recorded and reported. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation.
R17:
The City of Parlier should either provide supporting documentation for the $70, 702 reduction of revenues or reverse this adjustment as appropriate. Response: The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor for review, the manager will report back to Council with recommendation for appropriate action.
R19:
The City of Parlier should contact the DOJ for written clarification of what constitutes acceptable expenditures for this grant. The City of Parlier should comply with the information provided by the 20 DOJ related to this audit finding. Unauthorized expenditures of grant funds must be reimbursed or a waiver should be requested from the grantor agency. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation.
R20:
The City of Parlier should ensure that actual interest is allocated to the COPS fund for 1998/99, 1999/00 and thereafter. In addition, the City should ensure that adequate interest allocation methodologies are used to ensure that all restricted revenues are accurately calculated, allocated and available to be used for restricted program purposes or returned to regulatory agencies as necessary in the event of non-compliance with program requirements. Response: The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor for review, the manager will report back to Council with recommendation for appropriate action.
R21:
In compliance with the provisions of Government Code Section 30061 as stated above, the City of Parlier should ensure that the appropriation of COPS grant monies for 2000/01 and thereafter are separately presented to and approved by Parlier's City Council as required. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation.
R22:
The City of Parlier should maintain support for all financial transactions that affect special revenue funds as well as other funds until all oversight agencies conduct periodic audits. Unauthorized expenditures of grant funds must be reimbursed or a waiver should be requested from the grantor agency. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation.
R23:
The City of Parlier should implement procedures to ensure that expenditures are not claimed/reported twice and that overtime costs are not claimed in compliance with Universal Hiring Grant provisions. Parlier should also adjust the above reports and charges to reverse duplicated expenditures and inappropriate overtime costs. Response: The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor for review, the manager will report back to Council with recommendation for appropriate action.
R24:
The City of Parlier should investigate the difference of $2,404 between revenues reported in their general ledger for OES revenues and the amount of payments confirmed through the State OES or have support for the variance readily available. Response: The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor for review, the manager will report back to Council with recommendation for appropriate action.
R25:
The City of Parlier should immediately revise the Project Completion and Certification Report to reflect actual costs for the disaster period. They should provide support for costs claimed or return $36,136 claimed inappropriately to the State OES. Response: The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor for review, the manager will report back to Council with recommendation for appropriate action. 21
R26:
To ensure accuracy of records, enhance internal controls, and ensure the availability of current and future funding, the City of Parlier should properly maintain files containing supporting documentation for transactions and retain these records until audited by all appropriate oversight agencies. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation. Summary: It is our recommendation that the City of Parlier hire either a CPA firm or professional accounting staff to help them address the findings and recommendations in this report, correct their records/reports related to special revenue funds, and implement procedures/processes to ensure that restricted revenues are properly expended and accounted for and that all applicable rules, regulations and laws are followed with strict compliance. Gary W. Peterson Auditor-Control Treasurer-Tax Collector Response: The City concurs with the Summary recommendation and the matter is referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor. Paint Project: 27. The Parlier City Manager confer with the City Council before engaging in city projects costing over $10,000 as required by PMC. 28. Bidding and contracting of services be in compliance with PMC. 29. The City Manager and City Council be held responsible for implementing the directives set forth in PMC. 30. Compensation of employees and/or contractors be in compliance with existing State and Federal laws. Response: The City concurs with recommendations 27 though 30. It disagrees with many of the findings. Animal Control 31. The City hire an animal control officer. 32. The animal shelter be relocated within the city to make it more accessible. 33. Leash and licensing laws be enforced. 34. The City educate the community regarding licensing, vaccinations, leash laws, spaying and neutering. 35. The City establish a fee schedule for costs incurred in animal control. 36. All record keeping relating to animal control be current. 37. State guidelines be followed for the ultimate disposal of any animal. 38. Polaroid photographs of impounded dogs be posted at city hall in order for citizens to see if their dog has been impounded. Response to 31 - 38: The current location of the city's holding facility and city's procedures for managing it are cost effective and consistent with requirements of law. The Council expects and management will ensure that our operation is in compliance with state law. City Hall Carpeting 39. The Parlier Municipal Code and Purchasing Ordinance be followed. 40. Shortcuts that violate the existing code not be considered. Response: The City concurs with recommendations 39 and 40. Code Enforcement 41. The present policy of code enforcement be changed to a more aggressive system which addresses all violations existing in the City of Parlier. 42. Written policy and procedures be developed to provide for the tracking and documented resolution of all complaints. 43. The city hire a code enforcement officer, supported with sufficient staff. 44. Adequate training be provided for the code enforcement officer and staff, including instruction in property owner and tenant rights. 45. A written manual providing guidelines on how to resolve code enforcement disputes be developed and implemented. 46. The City of Parlier inform and educate the public on current code enforcement policy. 47. A current copy of the Parlier Municipal Code be available for public use at City Hall and the public library. Response to 41 -47: The City has budgeted for a ½ time Code Enforcement Officer in the FY2001-2002 budget. A more active code enforcement program will be instituted accordingly. Personnel Policies 48. The City of Parlier formulate and implement written policies and procedures regarding labor relations. 49. The City develop written job classifications for all positions and issue them to all employees. 50. The City require department heads to adhere to the PMC sections covering their areas of responsibility . 51. A current copy of the PMC be made available to City Council members. 52. The City prepare, and provide to all employees, a handbook informing them of employee rights as stated in the PMC. 53. Employees be advised, in writing, of their rights of representation at all disciplinary hearings. 54. Written annual job performance evaluations of all employees be conducted, a copy placed in the employee's permanent file and a copy provided to the employee. 23 55. A written salary schedule for each position be prepared and a copy made available to each employee. 56. The city develop and issue a written policy regarding advancement and salary increases. Response: Items 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 55 are in place and are standard practice. Item 54 will be instituted this fiscal year. Item 56 will be put in place if and when it is deemed necessary. Nepotism 57. PMC section 4.01.080 be rewritten to more clearly state the city's policy on nepotism as defined by Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, "favoritism shown to relatives or close friends by those in power (as by giving them jobs)." Response: The matter will be referred to the City Attorney for review and to report back to Council with recommendation for appropriate action. 58. The policy of the city be to recruit, employ, and promote the best-qualified individuals. Response: This is City Policy. Personnel Appeals Board 59. The current PHB be dissolved. 60. The position for citizen at large be advertised (noticed). 61. The position for citizen at large be posted at City Hall. 62. All citizens who submit applications for this position be given equal consideration. Response: The City disagrees with recommendations 59-62. The Personnel Appeals Board was established by the municipal code. Council appointments were made consistent with that code. Police Department 63. The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that the Parlier Police Department be closed immediately and the policing of Parlier be contracted with the Fresno County Sheriff. Response: The majority of the Police Department findings were absurd; this recommendation is nonsense. SECTION II CITY COMMITTEE CITY COMMITTEE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DIVISION Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that: 64. Continue the broad public education program to increase awareness of the need to meet recycling goals. 65. Tailor educational efforts to target each culture within our community in a way that has proven most effective for that group. City of Fresno’s Response to Recommendations #64 and #65: See . FRESNO CITY PARKS SANITATION FACILITIES Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that: 66. Increase the budget to provide for care of the new parks. 67. Add personnel to help maintain the park sanitation facilities. 68. Provide adequate funds for replacement of fixtures with more durable ones. City of Fresno’s Response to Recommendations #66 - #68: See . CITY COUNCIL INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDS Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that: 69. Distribution of the City Council discretionary infrastructure funds be reviewed and approved by the City Manager prior to disbursement. 25 70. Consideration be given to reducing the current allotment from $140,000 to $70,000 per district. 71. Carryover of any unused infrastructure funds be eliminated. 72. Future Grand Juries continue to monitor the program. City of Fresno’s Response to Recommendations #69 - #72: See . CITY OF FRESNO WATER METERS Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that: 73. The Mayor, City Council and all civic groups unite to promote the installation of water meters. 74. Homeowners and businesses that currently have meters be excluded from further meter installation costs. 75. The city utilities department continue to publish average water bills for various family sizes with and without meters. 76. Water police be reactivated to prevent water waste. City of Fresno’s Response to Recommendations #73 - #76: See . BASEBALL/MULTI-USE STADIUM Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that: 77. The City require an annual independent audit of the financial statements of FDG. 78. All seventeen dates the city controls be devoted to for-profit events to enhance the City’s revenues. 26 79. The public be assured of coordinated parking and security by FDG and the City. City of Fresno’s Response to Recommendations #77 - #79: See . CITY OF FRESNO FIRE DEPARTMENT Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that: 80. The fire department have a budgeted vehicle replacement plan. The city should consider replacement of vehicles after seven or eight years while they still have significant value on the used fire vehicle market. 81. The inventory of fire fighting tools be increased so that all spare engines/trucks are fully equipped. 82. The city recognize the need to increase the number of fire fighting personnel. 83. The City of Fresno revisit its traffic light pre-emption plan and budget funds to complete this program. 84. The Fresno Fire Department develop a plan to reduce response times to the NFPA standards. City of Fresno’s Response to Recommendations #80 - #84: See . Daniel G. Hobbs City Manager October 3, 2001 Mr. Rick Allen Van Ness #102 Fresno, CA 93721 Dear Mr. Allen: SUBJECT: 2000-2001 GRAND JURY RECOMMENDATIONS The following contains the City of Fresno's response to the 2000-2001 Grand Jury
R27:
The Parlier City Manager confer with the City Council before engaging in city projects costing over $10,000 as required by PMC.
R28:
Bidding and contracting of services be in compliance with PMC.
R29:
The City Manager and City Council be held responsible for implementing the directives set forth in PMC.
R30:
Compensation of employees and/or contractors be in compliance with existing State and Federal laws. City of Parlier's Response to Recommendations #27 - #30: See . PARLIER ANIMAL CONTROL Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that:
R31:
The City hire an animal control officer.
R32:
The animal shelter be relocated within the city to make it more accessible.
R33:
Leash and licensing laws be enforced.
R34:
The City educate the community regarding licensing, vaccinations, leash laws, spaying and neutering.
R35:
The City establish a fee schedule for costs incurred in animal control.
R36:
All record keeping relating to animal control be current.
R37:
State guidelines be followed for the ultimate disposal of any animal. 7
R38:
Polaroid photographs of impounded dogs be posted at city hall in order for citizens to see if their dog has been impounded. City of Parlier's Response to Recommendations #31 - #38: See . CARPETING OF PARLIER CITY HALL Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that:
R39:
The Parlier Municipal Code and Purchasing Ordinance be followed.
R40:
Shortcuts that violate the existing code not be considered. City of Parlier's Response to Recommendations #39 and #40: See . CODE ENFORCEMENT IN PARLIER Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that:
R41:
The present policy of code enforcement be changed to a more aggressive system which addresses all violations existing in the City of Parlier.
R42:
Written policy and procedures be developed to provide for the tracking and documented resolution of all complaints.
R43:
The city hire a code enforcement officer, supported with sufficient staff.
R44:
Adequate training be provided for the code enforcement officer and staff, including instruction in property owner and tenant rights.
R45:
A written manual providing guidelines on how to resolve code enforcement disputes be developed and implemented.
R46:
The City of Parlier inform and educate the public on current code enforcement policy.
R47:
A current copy of the Parlier Municipal Code be available for public use at City Hall and the public library. City of Parlier's Response to Recommendations #41 - #47: See . PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT WITHIN THE CITY OF PARLIER Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that:
R48:
The City of Parlier formulate and implement written policies and procedures regarding labor relations.
R49:
The City develop written job classifications for all positions and issue them to all employees.
R50:
The City require department heads to adhere to the PMC sections covering their areas of responsibility.
R51:
A current copy of the PMC be made available to City Council members. 9
R52:
The City prepare, and provide to all employees, a handbook informing them of employee rights as stated in the PMC.
R53:
Employees be advised, in writing, of their rights of representation at all disciplinary hearings.
R54:
Written annual job performance evaluations of all employees be conducted, a copy placed in the employee’s permanent file and a copy provided to the employee.
R55:
A written salary schedule for each position be prepared and a copy made available to each employee.
R56:
The city develop and issue a written policy regarding advancement and salary increases. City of Parlier's Response to Recommendations #48 - #56: See . NEPOTISM IN THE CITY OF PARLIER Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that:
R57:
PMC section 4.01.080 be rewritten to more clearly state the city’s policy on nepotism as defined by Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, “favoritism shown to relatives or close friends by those in power (as by giving them jobs).”
R58:
The policy of the city be to recruit, employ, and promote the best-qualified individuals. City of Parlier's Response to Recommendations #57 and #58: See . PARLIER PERSONNEL HEARING BOARD Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that:
R59:
The current PHB be dissolved.
R60:
The position for citizen at large be advertised (noticed).
R61:
The position for citizen at large be posted at City Hall.
R62:
All citizens who submit applications for this position be given equal consideration. City of Parlier's Response to Recommendations #59 - #62: See . PARLIER POLICE DEPARTMENT Recommendation The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that:
R63:
The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that the Parlier Police Department be closed immediately and the policing of Parlier be contracted with the Fresno County Sheriff. City of Parlier's Response to Recommendation #63: See . A Community with a vision to the future. Una Comunidad con vision al futuro Incorporated November 14, 1921 Founded 1876 July 24, 2001 Honorable Gary D. Huff Presiding Judge Superior Court County of Fresno 1100 Van Ness Avenue Fresno, CA 93721 Dear Judge Hoff: Enclosed please find the City of Parlier's response to the 200-2001 Grand Jury Report. The City was quite disappointed with the quality of work performed by the Grand Jury, and found and determined that many of the findings were incorrect. Nevertheless, there were many useful recommendations that will be put in place. Sincerely, Michael R. Swigart City Manager Enclosures 1100 E. Parlier Avenue, Parlier, California 93848 .(559) 646.3545 FAX (559) 646-0416 12 A Community with a vision to the future. Una Comunidad con visión al futuro Incorporated November 14, 1921 Founded 1878 Staff Report Date: 07172001 To: Mayor, Council From: City Manager Council Meeting of July 17,2001 G. City Manager/Executive Director Reports Item g.4, Grand Jury Recommendations Recommendation: 1. Receive Recommendations from the Grand Jury;
R64:
Continue the broad public education program to increase awareness of the need to meet recycling goals. Response to Recommendation 64: The City has implemented the recommendation. The Solid Waste education budget has been increased for FY 02 specifically for this purpose. Broad recycling education programs are ongoing, with acceleration of effort planed for a spring of 2003 multi- media campaign.
R65:
Tailor educational efforts to target each culture within our community in a way that has proven most effective for that group. City of Fresno City Hall • 2600 Fresno Street • Fresno, California 93721-3601 (559) 498-4591 • FAX (559) 488-1015 • www.ci.fresno.ca.us 28 Fresno County Grand Jury October 3, 2001 Response to Recommendation 65: The City has not yet fully implemented the recommendation. Solid Waste is developing educational strategies to fit several linguistic and cultural specialized groups. A media consultant with multi-cultural expertise will be retained in FY 02, while we are currently working with EOC and several community groups to tailor educational messages and venues to maximize results. FRESNO CITY PARKS FACILITIES Response to Findings: The City agrees with the findings.
R66:
Increase the budget to provide for care of new parks. Response to Recommendation 66: The City has implemented the recommendation. The FY02 budget for neighborhood parks was increased by $266, 700 to compensate for the opening of Layne, Kolligian and Pilibos Parks and the Multi-Cultural Corridor and increased operating costs including energy.
R67:
Add personnel to help maintain the park sanitation facilities. Response to Recommendation 67: The City has implemented the recommendation. The Parks Division budget was increased during fiscal year 2000-2001 to increase the number of times the outdoor facilities at neighborhood parks are maintained from 5 to 7 times per week, including holidays. Those parks that are staffed with Recreation personnel, which is 27 out of 58, receive at least one additional maintenance visit daily during operating hours. The maintenance level on the regional parks restroom facilities remain at two cleanings per day and a minimum of one additional visit each day by maintenance personnel. Fresno County Grand Jury October 3, 2001
R68:
Provide adequate funds for replacement of fixtures with more durable ones. Response to Recommendation 68: The City has not yet fully implemented the recommendation. The four outdoor restroom facilities at Woodward Park are on a four year schedule for complete renovation. The funding source for the improvements is from Crystal Valley Decorating for their Festival of Lights Exhibit. Fixtures at other facilities are replaced when damaged, and the Parks Division is pursuing grants from Federal and State agencies for replacements at other outdoor facilities. CITY COUNCIL INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDS Response to Findings: The City agrees that certain non-capital expenses were authorized out of what is generally called district infrastructure, but disagrees that any cited expenditures were legally or procedurally questionable. Funding sources were used for legally permissible expenditures; general fund sources were used for non-capital expenditures.
R69:
Distribution of the City Council discretionary infrastructure funds be reviewed and approved by the City Manager prior to disbursement. Response to Recommendation 69: Expenditures funded from district infrastructure budgets follow standard City procedures for review and payment. Additionally, non-capital expenditures were placed on Council agendas, considered in Council open meetings, and approved by a supermajority vote and subject to mayoral veto.
R70:
Consideration be given to reducing the current allotment from $140,000 to $70,000 per district. Fresno County Grand Jury October 3, 2001 Response to Recommendation 70: The Mayor and City Council have recently discussed this matter in public session, and have confirmed the need for resources to be available to expediently resolve infrastructure needs within Council districts. Additionally, the Council has placed a limit of 15 percent of their infrastructure budgets for funding non-capital related expenditures. Finally, the City Attorney's Office is preparing, for Council consideration, a resolution which establishes the criteria for use of Community Service Program Funds. The Council adopted the resolution which is attached as Exhibit '"A".
R71:
Carryover of any unused infrastructure funds be eliminated. Response to Recommendation 71: The budgeting of unused infrastructure funds is a policy decision regarding the allocation of limited City resources to the infrastructure needs of the City. The issue is compounded by the timing and process necessary to complete infrastructure projects including, Charter required competitive bidding and approvals necessary to properly expend the funds. The matter was considered by the City Council on August 21, 2001, at which time the funds were appropriated for use in fiscal year 2001-2002.
R72:
Future Grand Juries continue to monitor the program. Response to Recommendation 72: Should future Grand Juries choose to monitor the program, City staff will provide requested information as required. CITY OF FRESNO WATER METERS Response to Findings and Conclusions: The City agrees with findings A through F, Findings H and I, and Conclusion C. Regarding Finding G which stated that “”Water Police" have been inactivated due to lack of funds", it is correct that the program of proactive water waste patrols was de-funded. The principal reason however, was not a lack of funds but was a policy decision by the 31 Fresno County Grand Jury October 3, 2001 previous City administration and previous Council to redirect the resources of the water conservation program. Regarding Conclusion A, the cost of San Joaquin water supply will increase. Contract costs will increase from a current $30 per acre ft to a minimum of $70 per acre ft. Regarding Conclusion B, the cost of installation, maintenance and administration of a residential metering program will be fully offset after full implementation by the anticipated decrease in pumping, water treatment and wastewater treatment costs.
R73:
The Mayor, City Council and all civic groups unite to promote the installation of water meters. Response to Recommendation 73: The City has not yet fully implemented the recommendation. The Mayor and Council have all endorsed meters if they are necessary to renew the City's CVP contract. A broad based stakeholders group (Contract Renewal Advisory Group) has been formed to provide feedback and support in the contract renewal process and a referendum on water meters should it become necessary to renew the CVP contract. Timing and need for such a campaign must wait the outcome of current City negotiations with the Bureau of Reclamation. While the Council has authority to place measure on the ballot for voter approval, State law prohibits the City from using public funds to advocate passage or defeat of a local ballot measure. The rationale grounded in case law is that public money cannot be spent to tip the scales in favor of some electors and against others in matters left for the citizenry to decide.
R74:
Homeowners and businesses that currently have meters be excluded from further meter installation costs. Response to Recommendation 74:
R75:
The City Utilities Department continue to publish average water bills for various family sizes with and without meters. Response to Recommendation 75: Ongoing.
R76:
Water police be reactivated to prevent water waste. Response to Recommendation 76: The City has not yet fully implemented the recommendation. This and related conservation program expansions are a condition of the City's Central Valley Project contract renewal and will be re-implemented at the time of contract renewal. In addition, increased conservation funding is anticipated in the FY 03 budget cycle. BASEBALL/MULTI-USE STADIUM Response to Findings: The findings specified as A-M were generally accurate as of the time Grand Jury received its information. Some of the matters are estimated (e.g., annual debt service; final project cost) while other matters are in development (e.g., safety/traffic control plan). City disagrees with Conclusion A; conclusion B is ambiguous; and City disagrees with Conclusion C and D, to the extent that security and traffic plans are in the process of development. These plans will be developed and implemented with the purpose of avoiding or minimizing serious parking impacts except during intermittent, non peak business hours. Fresno County Grand Jury October 3, 2001
R77:
The City require an annual independent audit of the financial statements of FDG [Fresno Diamond Group]. Response to Recommendation 77: The recommendation will be implemented as deemed necessary by the City, per Section 17.9 of the lease agreement as follows: “Records of Tenant pertaining to any obligations of Tenant hereunder shall be kept on a generally recognized accounting basis and shall be available to the City or its authorized representatives upon request during regular business hours throughout the life of this Agreement and for a period of three years thereafter. In addition, all books, documents papers, and records of Tenant pertaining to any obligation of Tenant pursuant to this Agreement shall be available for the purpose of making audits, examinations, excerpts, and transcriptions for the same period of time. If an audit by the City discloses underpayment in excess of one percent of any monies due the City hereunder, reasonable audit costs shall be reimbursable by Tenant to the City. This Section shall survive expiration or termination of this Agreement."
R78:
All seventeen dates the city controls be devoted to for-profit events to enhance the City's revenues. Response to Recommendation 78: The recommendation will not be implemented. Under the lease, the City is allocated 10 Concession-Using Events, and 7 Non-Concession-Using Events, and it states, in Section 3.6(h): "Non-Concession-Using Events shall generally be partially or wholly sponsored or contracted for by either the City or other not-for-profit organizations (which are not required to be 501 (c)(3) organizations or for charitable purposes." It is the general understanding between the parties that the 7 events would not be "for- profit" events.
R79:
The public be assured of coordinated parking and security by FDG and the City. Fresno County Grand Jury October 3, 2001 Response to Recommendation 79: The City has not yet fully implemented the recommendation. Parking plans are being developed (with a consultant's study being completed in September) to provide for stadium event parking, and security plans will be in place by the opening of the stadium. CITY OF FRESNO FIRE DEPARTMENT Response to Conclusions: The City agrees with Conclusion A; disagrees with Conclusions B and D; and agrees in part with Conclusions C, E, and F. Regarding Conclusion C, vehicle status is monitored by the department and equipment is replaced as needed. Regarding Conclusion E, and while the ratio may be accurate, it does not necessarily reflect the ability to provide Fire services within the City of Fresno. Regarding Conclusion F, the implementation is ongoing.
R80:
The fire department have a budgeted vehicle replacement plan. The city should consider replacement of vehicles after seven or eight years while they still have significant value on the used fire vehicle market. Response to Recommendation 80: The City has not yet fully implemented the recommendation. While the Fire Department does not currently maintain a specific vehicle replacement plan, vehicles have been replaced as needed, by financing the purchase over a ten year period. The Department is currently developing a draft replacement plan for consideration.
R81:
The inventory of fire fighting tools be increased so that all spare engines/tools are fully equipped. Response to Recommendation 81: The City has implemented the recommendation. Active engines and trucks equipped with necessary tools. Reserve engines and trucks are currently equipped with a minimum of tools; typically hose and small tools on engines, and ladders and small 35 Fresno County Grand Jury October 3, 2001 tools on trucks. The balance of the inventory is stocked when a front line engine or truck is out of service for repairs. When reserve apparatus is temporarily placed in service as a new company, it operates with existing equipment. In those cases when additional equipment is needed to perform a task, the equipment from other apparatus on scene is utilized.
R82:
The city recognize the need to increase the number of fire fighting personnel. Response to Recommendation 82: The City has not yet fully implemented the recommendation. The City recognizes that the 0.58 firefighters/1000 population is at the low end of national and regional standards. However, these standards do not take into account specific service needs of Fresno. The City will continue to pursue options for increasing Fire Department staffing in future budget deliberations.
R83:
The City of Fresno revisit its traffic light preemption plan and budget funds to complete this program: Response to Recommendation 83: The City has not yet fully implemented the recommendation. The intersections of Herndon and West, and Clovis and Clinton currently have the Opticom traffic preemption device. Fire apparatus specifications have included the Opticom transmitter as emergency warning equipment to be installed since 1998. Nine of our thirty one fire apparatus are equipped with an Opticom transmitter. The City implementation of this program will continue to be a priority in future budget deliberations. The Fire Department is continually reviewing opportunities for improving response times, and will present a report of such opportunities as part of the fiscal year 2001-2002 budget process. Fresno County Grand Jury October 3, 2001 ELKHORN CORRECTION FACILITY Response to Findings:
R84:
The Fresno Fire Department develop a plan to reduce response times to the NFPA standards. City of Fresno’s Response to Recommendations #80 - #84: See . Daniel G. Hobbs City Manager October 3, 2001 Mr. Rick Allen Van Ness #102 Fresno, CA 93721 Dear Mr. Allen: SUBJECT: 2000-2001 GRAND JURY RECOMMENDATIONS The following contains the City of Fresno's response to the 2000-2001 Grand Jury
R85:
The PA/PG evaluate the use of the County Treasury Pool. Response: The option of putting the Public Guardian funds with the County under the Auditor-Controller/Treasurer-Tax Collector was carefully investigated. This Department decided that it was not a viable option because: 1) The Department loses control of the citizens' funds. Currently, when a vendor fails to respond in an adequate manner, the funds are immediately transferred to an institution providing more satisfactory services. It would be unlikely that we could remove the funds from the County's control once they are delivered whatever the level of service. 2) Limitations within the Auditor-Controller/Treasurer-Tax Collector's Office preclude the guarantee of providing "rush" checks. The Public Administrator/Guardian staff requires access to client's monies on a daily basis to address immediate needs on behalf of their clients. These emergency needs are primarily related to new cases, which are opened on a daily basis. An example of such a need would include payment of utility bills to avoid interruptions of services. 3) The County's investment pool is insured through various means; however, it is not Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) insured as required by the Superior Court. West Nielsen Avenue Fresno, California 93706 Telephone: Public Administrator (559) 268-0139 Coroner (559) 268-0109 Public Guardian (559) 268-0139 Equal Employment Opportunity Affirmative Action Disabled Employer 53 The Honorable Judge Hoff August 27, 2001 Page Two
R86:
Storage be improved for case records and client assets. Construction of an on-site storage building would eliminate the need for an expensive off-site mini-storage. Response: This Department initiated this recommendation and, therefore, we concur. The monies being paid to private outside storage companies could largely defray the cost of such storage. Personnel time spent visiting off-site storage would be curtailed. In the meantime the Department has surplused equipment, old computers, and furniture that were housed in the metal shed to provide additional storage space in that facility. The Department, in conjunction with the County Clerk as Records Manager, has also developed a record retention schedule, which was approved by the Board of Supervisors in December 2000 and is being utilized by the Department to eliminate dormant files: The Department submitted a second Capital Improvement Projects request for the 2001-2002 budget year. The County Administrative Office, when made aware of our storage needs, sent a team to evaluate the situation. After several months, no recommendation has been forthcoming.
R87:
Evaluate the need for additional deputies due to the implementation of the new Elder Abuse Referral Law SB 1742. Response: We have not yet determined the potential impact of SB 1742 on the Public Guardian's Office nor how such a program will be funded. The Public Guardian will meet with law enforcement agencies and Department of Adult Services to ascertain whether these agencies have been properly trained in the area of adult abuse and to determine the anticipated impact. The Public Guardian is presently in negotiations with the Department of Adult Services for funding to add an additional deputy position to expedite cases referred from Adult Protective Services. An agreement is expected to be forthcoming.
R88:
PA/PG add the services of a Registered Nurse to staff. This person would aid in evaluating and inspecting medical care facilities as well as review proposed client treatment and prescription history. Response: This position was included in the Department's 2001-2002 budget request but not recommended by the County Administrative Office. The Honorable Judge Hoff August 27, 2001 Page Three
R89:
PA/PG evaluate the purchase of Long Term Care Insurance for those clients who would be eligible. Response: The need for long-term care insurance is reviewed on a case by case basis by the Public Administrator/Guardian staff. These reviews have not resulted in such a service being determined to be in the client's best interest. The need is continuing to be reviewed on a case by case basis.
R90:
A plan be developed for a new morgue before the County reaches a crisis situation. Response: Over 20 years ago after touring various morgues the County built a nearly state-of- the-art facility in a 32 year-old building. The building is now 54 years old and lacks proper electricity, proper plumbing, proper cooling and proper heating. A similar tour of morgues today shows that we are deficient in such areas as special airflow rooms to reduce possible contamination by tuberculosis and other diseases, pneumatic doors to prevent bloody gloves from contaminating doorknobs, storage, etc. There is a shortage of forensic pathologists. These doctors can easily find employment in communities of their choice. Our aging facility handicaps our recruiting efforts. Ideally, a new morgue should be placed in the vicinity of the Community/University Medical Center to serve as an educational opportunity for medical students and other physicians doing their rotation in Fresno.
R91:
A commercial washing machine be purchased for on-site laundering needs and/or use a commercial laundry. Response: Currently this Department uses a non-commercial washer and dryer. Due to the nature of the work in this office, these machines do not hold up well to the types of materials that are cleaned and dried and the cleaning agents that are used. Use of commercial laundry with their garment requirements has not proved satisfactory in delivery and scheduling because of limited volume and cost benefit. Based on the recommendation and the above noted factors, this Department will include in next fiscal year's budget a request for a commercial grade thirty-five pound washer and a commercial graded fifty pound dryer. It is expected that these machines will have a much longer service life and lower the maintenance cost of the units we now use. The estimated cost for the commercial units described above are expected to be approximately $6,000.00, delivered and set up. The Honorable Judge Hoff August 27,2001 Page Four
R92:
Reference be made to the Grand Jury reports of 1998/99 and 1999/2000 regarding the need for improvement of record storage. Response: The Response to Recommendation #86 reflects the facility storage concerns for the entire Department and would address such issues as record storage. Very truly yours, David M. Hadden, M.D. Fresno County Coroner-Public Administrator/ Public Guardian DMH:slb 56 MENDOTA UTILITY BILL COLLECTIONS Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that: 93. The monthly shutoff list and notices be reviewed by an individual independent of the accounting department of the City of Mendota. 94. The subject of outstanding utility bills be reviewed during the annual financial audit conducted by an outside auditor. 95. The City establish and maintain training for all employees on the use of the Municipal Code and written procedures and policies regarding the collection of utility bills. City of Mendota’s Response to Recommendations #93 - #95: See . ELKHORN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that: 96. The Fresno County Board of Supervisors review commitments made in the February 11, 1997, letter issued by a former County Chief Administrative Officer and assure the neighbors of ECF that the County intends to honor these commitments. If certain commitments cannot be met, the County should negotiate with the neighbors to reach an equitable arrangement. Fresno County’s Response to Recommendation #96: Fresno County agrees with the
R93:
The monthly shutoff list and notices be reviewed by an individual independent of the accounting department of the City of Mendota.
R94:
The subject of outstanding utility bills be reviewed during the annual financial audit conducted by an outside auditor.
R95:
The City establish and maintain training for all employees on the use of the Municipal Code and written procedures and policies regarding the collection of utility bills. City of Mendota’s Response to Recommendations #93 - #95: See . ELKHORN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that:
R96:
The Fresno County Board of Supervisors review commitments made in the February 11, 1997, letter issued by a former County Chief Administrative Officer and assure the neighbors of ECF that the County intends to honor these commitments. If certain commitments cannot be met, the County should negotiate with the neighbors to reach an equitable arrangement. Fresno County’s Response to Recommendation #96: Fresno County agrees with the
R97:
The Board of Supervisors continue to fund and maintain the present level of services at ECF. Fresno County’s Response to Recommendation #97: Fresno County agrees with the
R98:
The City of Fresno continue to fund Elkhorn Correctional Facility at no less than the current rate of $1,000,000 per year with no sunset provision. Response to Recommendation 98: The City will not implement the recommendation, as stated. The City of Fresno's position is to continue the present commitment to fund the ECF for the balance of the nine years, if the ECF stays at the current 200 bed capacity both in staffing of correctional personnel and commitments to the facility. City recognizes that as long- term solutions Juvenile Hall expansion is still several years away, it essential that County maintain the ECF as a rehabilitation center for nonviolent Juvenile offenders. It is neither wise, nor sound policy for the City at this time to make a perpetual commitment for these reasons: a perpetual commitment is subject to availability of funding; a perpetual commitment is subject to revocation by a future Council on a variety of grounds; future City-County agreements may require the need to revisit future funding; a future Council may determine that City resources are more urgently needed to fund other related programs (crime prevention, after school programs, etc.) other than confinement costs; making a minimum commitment now may discourage greater, participation by Fresno andlor other cities in the County, should the need arise. Under the above circumstances, making such a minimum commitment now would be misleading and unproductive. In sum, the City is encouraged by the present level of activities of the ECF, and will consider future opportunities to involve itself and other cities in the county to support the program in the most appropriate means then available. Fresno County Grand Jury October 3, 2001 BRIEFING BOOK FOR NEWLY ELECTED OFFICIALS Response to Findings: City agrees with the need and desirability for newly elected officials to receive a minimum and appropriate level of orientation in the new position, and the information needed and legally available to get up to speed on pending issues as expeditiously as possible.
R99:
The County provide boot camp facilities for female juvenile offenders. Fresno County’s Response to Recommendation #99: Fresno County agrees with the
R100:
The 2000-01 Grand Jury recommends that Future Grand Juries continue to monitor the activities at the Elkhorn Correctional Facility.
Quick View
Full Details →
Additional Recommendations
99
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
To be in compliance with the above restricted revenue requirements and regulations and to eliminate the appearance that restricted revenues are being used to fund general fund expenditures, the City of Parlier should ensure that such restricted revenues are clearly used for the related program purposes. Costs charged to the special revenue funds should reflect actual costs attributable to the program and should be supported by applicable documentation such as time tracking. The City of Parlier should obtain clarification from the applicable regulatory agency to determine if their current cost allocation methodology is acceptable. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation.
R2:
In the absence of fully supportable cost allocation methodologies or regulatory approval of existing cost allocation methodologies, the City of Parlier should reverse the $268,224 and $393,602 in overhead costs charged to the special revenue funds listed above. In addition, any 17 other insufficiently supported cost allocations that were not noted in this report should also be reversed. Response: The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor for review, the manager will report back to Council with recommendation for appropriate action.
R3:
In order to provide for sound accounting and budgeting practices and to ensure a clear audit trail, appropriations and expenditures should be initially recorded in the originating department/fund where the activities are incurred. Response: The City is in compliance with generally accepted accounting practices. The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor for further review and appropriate action.
R4:
The City of Parlier Finance Department should implement procedures that provide segregation of duties related to accounts payable. Specifically, the person who approves payments should not be the same person who signs checks and submits requests for payments. When it is necessary for the Finance Director to submit a request for payment, the payment should be sufficiently reviewed and approved by another authorized staff member (e.g. the City Manager). Response: Payments are approved by Department Heads. Any Department expenditures greater than a thousand dollars must be reviewed and approved by the City Manager. Additionally, the City Manager reviews and approves all payments on the demand warrant register. This register is published in the Council agenda for public review.
R5:
To strengthen internal controls over expenditures in special revenue funds and to ensure that funding does not need to be reimbursed or that future funding is withheld, the City of Parlier should ensure that program costs incurred are fully supported and are in compliance with program requirements. This can be achieved in part by requiring that receipts for credit card purchases be retained for supporting documentation and submitted to the Finance Department for review and approval. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation.
R6:
To prevent losses and enhance internal controls, the City of Parlier should immediately implement procedures to ensure that the City's charge accounts and credit cards are not used for personal purchases. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation. Such procedures are in place.
R7:
In compliance with the above code sections and to ensure that funding is not withheld, the RDA should immediately submit a 5-year plan to the State Controller's Office and submit all future required documents when due. Response: The City has held off on updating its 5 year housing plan pending certification of its housing element by the State Housing and Community Development Department. The element will be certified in a few weeks. The plan will be updated during this 2001-2002 fiscal year.
R8:
In order to comply with Health & Safety Code Section 33487 and to ensure that funding is not withheld, the RDA should transfer $3,907 to the low income-housing fund for fiscal year 1998/99 from the RDA Capital Projects Fund. Response: The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor for review, the manager will report back to Council with recommendation for appropriate action.
R9:
In order to explain material changes in the financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, the City of Parlier should provide adequate disclosure in the notes to the financial statements. For example, Parlier could have identified the above increase in the capital projects fund balance as a "restated" fund balance in the financial statements. In addition, a note disclosure should have been provided to reconcile the restated fund balance to the prior year ending balance. The disclosure should have also explained the reason(s) for the restatement. Parlier should consider this for future reporting purposes. Response: The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor for review and appropriate future action.
R10:
a, b, c, and d To ensure that funding is not withheld, the RDA should ensure all proper procedures and legal requirements are followed when issuing loans and all appropriate documents are maintained in their loan files and that all loans are properly authorized. Parlier staff should review all available loan records since the formation of the RDA to try to locate all missing loan documentation and criteria information on the sixteen known loans addressed above. Parlier staff should also determine if there are any additional outstanding loans not currently known that should be followed up on. Also, even though Parlier has indicated that the commercial borrowers of the "written off' loans are out of business, Parlier should continue to bill the business owners until these loans are officially written off by the City Council. Proper procedures must be followed to assure that all redevelopment loans are repaid timely and in full. Redevelopment loans determined to be uncollectible should be written off by the City Council and referred to a collection agency as appropriate. Parlier should consider following up with other collection agencies or pursue other means of recouping unpaid balances, e.g. through small claims processes, other lawsuits, etc. In addition, Parlier should ensure and be able to support that interest charged on Redevelopment loans is charged fairly and equitably. Response: The Redevelopment Agency has not made any loans in nearly a decade. Of those older loans on the Agencies books: some loans have been paid off; some loans are in process and payment is timely, some loans are behind in payment and payment is sporadic, on some there is no activity and they are considered uncollectable. Many of the loans were unsecured and should have been. Loans that are secured by real property shall be paid. Extensive searches for records of prior loans have been made, for some loans there are little or no records. A list of uncollectable loans shall be provided to the Redevelopment Agency for 'write-off' consideration. Future loans, if any, considered by the Redevelopment Agency will be secured by real property and shall be recorded.
R11:
To enhance internal controls, ensure the accuracy of the City's accounting records, and ensure continued funding, Parlier should implement formal procedures to ensure proper accounting for and reconciliation of restricted revenues. In addition, all transactions and supporting documentation must be maintained until such records have been audited by all appropriate oversight agencies. Finally, the City of Parlier should make the appropriate general ledger entries within the special revenue fund to record these transactions. Response: The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor appropriate future action. 19
R12:
The City of Parlier should post transactions to proper accounts and subsequently classify expenditures appropriately in their financial statements. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation.
R13:
In order to comply with terms of the Child Development Grant, the City of Parlier should reimburse the Child Development fund the $582.50 noted above and only make expenditures appropriate for grant purposes from this fund. Response: The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor for review, the manager will report back to Council with recommendation for appropriate action.
R14:
In order to comply with terms of the Child Development Grant, the City of Parlier should obtain an annual audit of the Child Development Program that conforms to the terms of the grant agreement and reports on Child Development revenues and expenditures of the City of Parlier. In addition, the City of Parlier should consistently review any audit reports prepared for their program prior to finalization of the report. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation.
R15:
In order to properly account for and report Gas Tax revenues, the City of Parlier must reconcile any variances between revenues paid by a funding entity and revenues recorded by the City. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation.
R16:
In order to properly administer the Local Transportation Fund and ensure proper financial statement presentation, the City of Parlier must reconcile the Local Transportation fund to receipts and implement procedures to ensure that all transactions are properly recorded and reported. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation.
R17:
The City of Parlier should either provide supporting documentation for the $70, 702 reduction of revenues or reverse this adjustment as appropriate. Response: The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor for review, the manager will report back to Council with recommendation for appropriate action.
R19:
The City of Parlier should contact the DOJ for written clarification of what constitutes acceptable expenditures for this grant. The City of Parlier should comply with the information provided by the 20 DOJ related to this audit finding. Unauthorized expenditures of grant funds must be reimbursed or a waiver should be requested from the grantor agency. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation.
R20:
The City of Parlier should ensure that actual interest is allocated to the COPS fund for 1998/99, 1999/00 and thereafter. In addition, the City should ensure that adequate interest allocation methodologies are used to ensure that all restricted revenues are accurately calculated, allocated and available to be used for restricted program purposes or returned to regulatory agencies as necessary in the event of non-compliance with program requirements. Response: The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor for review, the manager will report back to Council with recommendation for appropriate action.
R21:
In compliance with the provisions of Government Code Section 30061 as stated above, the City of Parlier should ensure that the appropriation of COPS grant monies for 2000/01 and thereafter are separately presented to and approved by Parlier's City Council as required. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation.
R22:
The City of Parlier should maintain support for all financial transactions that affect special revenue funds as well as other funds until all oversight agencies conduct periodic audits. Unauthorized expenditures of grant funds must be reimbursed or a waiver should be requested from the grantor agency. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation.
R23:
The City of Parlier should implement procedures to ensure that expenditures are not claimed/reported twice and that overtime costs are not claimed in compliance with Universal Hiring Grant provisions. Parlier should also adjust the above reports and charges to reverse duplicated expenditures and inappropriate overtime costs. Response: The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor for review, the manager will report back to Council with recommendation for appropriate action.
R24:
The City of Parlier should investigate the difference of $2,404 between revenues reported in their general ledger for OES revenues and the amount of payments confirmed through the State OES or have support for the variance readily available. Response: The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor for review, the manager will report back to Council with recommendation for appropriate action.
R25:
The City of Parlier should immediately revise the Project Completion and Certification Report to reflect actual costs for the disaster period. They should provide support for costs claimed or return $36,136 claimed inappropriately to the State OES. Response: The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor for review, the manager will report back to Council with recommendation for appropriate action. 21
R26:
To ensure accuracy of records, enhance internal controls, and ensure the availability of current and future funding, the City of Parlier should properly maintain files containing supporting documentation for transactions and retain these records until audited by all appropriate oversight agencies. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation. Summary: It is our recommendation that the City of Parlier hire either a CPA firm or professional accounting staff to help them address the findings and recommendations in this report, correct their records/reports related to special revenue funds, and implement procedures/processes to ensure that restricted revenues are properly expended and accounted for and that all applicable rules, regulations and laws are followed with strict compliance. Gary W. Peterson Auditor-Control Treasurer-Tax Collector Response: The City concurs with the Summary recommendation and the matter is referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor. Paint Project: 27. The Parlier City Manager confer with the City Council before engaging in city projects costing over $10,000 as required by PMC. 28. Bidding and contracting of services be in compliance with PMC. 29. The City Manager and City Council be held responsible for implementing the directives set forth in PMC. 30. Compensation of employees and/or contractors be in compliance with existing State and Federal laws. Response: The City concurs with recommendations 27 though 30. It disagrees with many of the findings. Animal Control 31. The City hire an animal control officer. 32. The animal shelter be relocated within the city to make it more accessible. 33. Leash and licensing laws be enforced. 34. The City educate the community regarding licensing, vaccinations, leash laws, spaying and neutering. 35. The City establish a fee schedule for costs incurred in animal control. 36. All record keeping relating to animal control be current. 37. State guidelines be followed for the ultimate disposal of any animal. 38. Polaroid photographs of impounded dogs be posted at city hall in order for citizens to see if their dog has been impounded. Response to 31 - 38: The current location of the city's holding facility and city's procedures for managing it are cost effective and consistent with requirements of law. The Council expects and management will ensure that our operation is in compliance with state law. City Hall Carpeting 39. The Parlier Municipal Code and Purchasing Ordinance be followed. 40. Shortcuts that violate the existing code not be considered. Response: The City concurs with recommendations 39 and 40. Code Enforcement 41. The present policy of code enforcement be changed to a more aggressive system which addresses all violations existing in the City of Parlier. 42. Written policy and procedures be developed to provide for the tracking and documented resolution of all complaints. 43. The city hire a code enforcement officer, supported with sufficient staff. 44. Adequate training be provided for the code enforcement officer and staff, including instruction in property owner and tenant rights. 45. A written manual providing guidelines on how to resolve code enforcement disputes be developed and implemented. 46. The City of Parlier inform and educate the public on current code enforcement policy. 47. A current copy of the Parlier Municipal Code be available for public use at City Hall and the public library. Response to 41 -47: The City has budgeted for a ½ time Code Enforcement Officer in the FY2001-2002 budget. A more active code enforcement program will be instituted accordingly. Personnel Policies 48. The City of Parlier formulate and implement written policies and procedures regarding labor relations. 49. The City develop written job classifications for all positions and issue them to all employees. 50. The City require department heads to adhere to the PMC sections covering their areas of responsibility . 51. A current copy of the PMC be made available to City Council members. 52. The City prepare, and provide to all employees, a handbook informing them of employee rights as stated in the PMC. 53. Employees be advised, in writing, of their rights of representation at all disciplinary hearings. 54. Written annual job performance evaluations of all employees be conducted, a copy placed in the employee's permanent file and a copy provided to the employee. 23 55. A written salary schedule for each position be prepared and a copy made available to each employee. 56. The city develop and issue a written policy regarding advancement and salary increases. Response: Items 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 55 are in place and are standard practice. Item 54 will be instituted this fiscal year. Item 56 will be put in place if and when it is deemed necessary. Nepotism 57. PMC section 4.01.080 be rewritten to more clearly state the city's policy on nepotism as defined by Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, "favoritism shown to relatives or close friends by those in power (as by giving them jobs)." Response: The matter will be referred to the City Attorney for review and to report back to Council with recommendation for appropriate action. 58. The policy of the city be to recruit, employ, and promote the best-qualified individuals. Response: This is City Policy. Personnel Appeals Board 59. The current PHB be dissolved. 60. The position for citizen at large be advertised (noticed). 61. The position for citizen at large be posted at City Hall. 62. All citizens who submit applications for this position be given equal consideration. Response: The City disagrees with recommendations 59-62. The Personnel Appeals Board was established by the municipal code. Council appointments were made consistent with that code. Police Department 63. The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that the Parlier Police Department be closed immediately and the policing of Parlier be contracted with the Fresno County Sheriff. Response: The majority of the Police Department findings were absurd; this recommendation is nonsense. SECTION II CITY COMMITTEE CITY COMMITTEE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DIVISION Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that: 64. Continue the broad public education program to increase awareness of the need to meet recycling goals. 65. Tailor educational efforts to target each culture within our community in a way that has proven most effective for that group. City of Fresno’s Response to Recommendations #64 and #65: See . FRESNO CITY PARKS SANITATION FACILITIES Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that: 66. Increase the budget to provide for care of the new parks. 67. Add personnel to help maintain the park sanitation facilities. 68. Provide adequate funds for replacement of fixtures with more durable ones. City of Fresno’s Response to Recommendations #66 - #68: See . CITY COUNCIL INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDS Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that: 69. Distribution of the City Council discretionary infrastructure funds be reviewed and approved by the City Manager prior to disbursement. 25 70. Consideration be given to reducing the current allotment from $140,000 to $70,000 per district. 71. Carryover of any unused infrastructure funds be eliminated. 72. Future Grand Juries continue to monitor the program. City of Fresno’s Response to Recommendations #69 - #72: See . CITY OF FRESNO WATER METERS Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that: 73. The Mayor, City Council and all civic groups unite to promote the installation of water meters. 74. Homeowners and businesses that currently have meters be excluded from further meter installation costs. 75. The city utilities department continue to publish average water bills for various family sizes with and without meters. 76. Water police be reactivated to prevent water waste. City of Fresno’s Response to Recommendations #73 - #76: See . BASEBALL/MULTI-USE STADIUM Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that: 77. The City require an annual independent audit of the financial statements of FDG. 78. All seventeen dates the city controls be devoted to for-profit events to enhance the City’s revenues. 26 79. The public be assured of coordinated parking and security by FDG and the City. City of Fresno’s Response to Recommendations #77 - #79: See . CITY OF FRESNO FIRE DEPARTMENT Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that: 80. The fire department have a budgeted vehicle replacement plan. The city should consider replacement of vehicles after seven or eight years while they still have significant value on the used fire vehicle market. 81. The inventory of fire fighting tools be increased so that all spare engines/trucks are fully equipped. 82. The city recognize the need to increase the number of fire fighting personnel. 83. The City of Fresno revisit its traffic light pre-emption plan and budget funds to complete this program. 84. The Fresno Fire Department develop a plan to reduce response times to the NFPA standards. City of Fresno’s Response to Recommendations #80 - #84: See . Daniel G. Hobbs City Manager October 3, 2001 Mr. Rick Allen Van Ness #102 Fresno, CA 93721 Dear Mr. Allen: SUBJECT: 2000-2001 GRAND JURY RECOMMENDATIONS The following contains the City of Fresno's response to the 2000-2001 Grand Jury
R27:
The Parlier City Manager confer with the City Council before engaging in city projects costing over $10,000 as required by PMC.
R28:
Bidding and contracting of services be in compliance with PMC.
R29:
The City Manager and City Council be held responsible for implementing the directives set forth in PMC.
R30:
Compensation of employees and/or contractors be in compliance with existing State and Federal laws. City of Parlier's Response to Recommendations #27 - #30: See . PARLIER ANIMAL CONTROL Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that:
R31:
The City hire an animal control officer.
R32:
The animal shelter be relocated within the city to make it more accessible.
R33:
Leash and licensing laws be enforced.
R34:
The City educate the community regarding licensing, vaccinations, leash laws, spaying and neutering.
R35:
The City establish a fee schedule for costs incurred in animal control.
R36:
All record keeping relating to animal control be current.
R37:
State guidelines be followed for the ultimate disposal of any animal. 7
R38:
Polaroid photographs of impounded dogs be posted at city hall in order for citizens to see if their dog has been impounded. City of Parlier's Response to Recommendations #31 - #38: See . CARPETING OF PARLIER CITY HALL Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that:
R39:
The Parlier Municipal Code and Purchasing Ordinance be followed.
R40:
Shortcuts that violate the existing code not be considered. City of Parlier's Response to Recommendations #39 and #40: See . CODE ENFORCEMENT IN PARLIER Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that:
R41:
The present policy of code enforcement be changed to a more aggressive system which addresses all violations existing in the City of Parlier.
R42:
Written policy and procedures be developed to provide for the tracking and documented resolution of all complaints.
R43:
The city hire a code enforcement officer, supported with sufficient staff.
R44:
Adequate training be provided for the code enforcement officer and staff, including instruction in property owner and tenant rights.
R45:
A written manual providing guidelines on how to resolve code enforcement disputes be developed and implemented.
R46:
The City of Parlier inform and educate the public on current code enforcement policy.
R47:
A current copy of the Parlier Municipal Code be available for public use at City Hall and the public library. City of Parlier's Response to Recommendations #41 - #47: See . PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT WITHIN THE CITY OF PARLIER Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that:
R48:
The City of Parlier formulate and implement written policies and procedures regarding labor relations.
R49:
The City develop written job classifications for all positions and issue them to all employees.
R50:
The City require department heads to adhere to the PMC sections covering their areas of responsibility.
R51:
A current copy of the PMC be made available to City Council members. 9
R52:
The City prepare, and provide to all employees, a handbook informing them of employee rights as stated in the PMC.
R53:
Employees be advised, in writing, of their rights of representation at all disciplinary hearings.
R54:
Written annual job performance evaluations of all employees be conducted, a copy placed in the employee’s permanent file and a copy provided to the employee.
R55:
A written salary schedule for each position be prepared and a copy made available to each employee.
R56:
The city develop and issue a written policy regarding advancement and salary increases. City of Parlier's Response to Recommendations #48 - #56: See . NEPOTISM IN THE CITY OF PARLIER Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that:
R57:
PMC section 4.01.080 be rewritten to more clearly state the city’s policy on nepotism as defined by Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, “favoritism shown to relatives or close friends by those in power (as by giving them jobs).”
R58:
The policy of the city be to recruit, employ, and promote the best-qualified individuals. City of Parlier's Response to Recommendations #57 and #58: See . 10
R59:
The current PHB be dissolved.
R60:
The position for citizen at large be advertised (noticed).
R61:
The position for citizen at large be posted at City Hall.
R62:
All citizens who submit applications for this position be given equal consideration. City of Parlier's Response to Recommendations #59 - #62: See . PARLIER POLICE DEPARTMENT Recommendation The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that:
R63:
The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that the Parlier Police Department be closed immediately and the policing of Parlier be contracted with the Fresno County Sheriff. City of Parlier's Response to Recommendation #63: See . A Community with a vision to the future. Una Comunidad con vision al futuro Incorporated November 14, 1921 Founded 1876 July 24, 2001 Honorable Gary D. Huff Presiding Judge Superior Court County of Fresno 1100 Van Ness Avenue Fresno, CA 93721 Dear Judge Hoff: Enclosed please find the City of Parlier's response to the 200-2001 Grand Jury Report. The City was quite disappointed with the quality of work performed by the Grand Jury, and found and determined that many of the findings were incorrect. Nevertheless, there were many useful recommendations that will be put in place. Sincerely, Michael R. Swigart City Manager Enclosures 1100 E. Parlier Avenue, Parlier, California 93848 .(559) 646.3545 FAX (559) 646-0416 12 A Community with a vision to the future. Una Comunidad con visión al futuro Incorporated November 14, 1921 Founded 1878 Staff Report Date: 07172001 To: Mayor, Council From: City Manager Council Meeting of July 17,2001 G. City Manager/Executive Director Reports Item g.4, Grand Jury Recommendations Recommendation: 1. Receive Recommendations from the Grand Jury;
R64:
Continue the broad public education program to increase awareness of the need to meet recycling goals. Response to Recommendation 64: The City has implemented the recommendation. The Solid Waste education budget has been increased for FY 02 specifically for this purpose. Broad recycling education programs are ongoing, with acceleration of effort planed for a spring of 2003 multi- media campaign.
R65:
Tailor educational efforts to target each culture within our community in a way that has proven most effective for that group. City of Fresno City Hall • 2600 Fresno Street • Fresno, California 93721-3601 (559) 498-4591 • FAX (559) 488-1015 • www.ci.fresno.ca.us 28 Fresno County Grand Jury October 3, 2001 Response to Recommendation 65: The City has not yet fully implemented the recommendation. Solid Waste is developing educational strategies to fit several linguistic and cultural specialized groups. A media consultant with multi-cultural expertise will be retained in FY 02, while we are currently working with EOC and several community groups to tailor educational messages and venues to maximize results. FRESNO CITY PARKS FACILITIES Response to Findings: The City agrees with the findings.
R66:
Increase the budget to provide for care of new parks. Response to Recommendation 66: The City has implemented the recommendation. The FY02 budget for neighborhood parks was increased by $266, 700 to compensate for the opening of Layne, Kolligian and Pilibos Parks and the Multi-Cultural Corridor and increased operating costs including energy.
R67:
Add personnel to help maintain the park sanitation facilities. Response to Recommendation 67: The City has implemented the recommendation. The Parks Division budget was increased during fiscal year 2000-2001 to increase the number of times the outdoor facilities at neighborhood parks are maintained from 5 to 7 times per week, including holidays. Those parks that are staffed with Recreation personnel, which is 27 out of 58, receive at least one additional maintenance visit daily during operating hours. The maintenance level on the regional parks restroom facilities remain at two cleanings per day and a minimum of one additional visit each day by maintenance personnel. Fresno County Grand Jury October 3, 2001
R68:
Provide adequate funds for replacement of fixtures with more durable ones. Response to Recommendation 68: The City has not yet fully implemented the recommendation. The four outdoor restroom facilities at Woodward Park are on a four year schedule for complete renovation. The funding source for the improvements is from Crystal Valley Decorating for their Festival of Lights Exhibit. Fixtures at other facilities are replaced when damaged, and the Parks Division is pursuing grants from Federal and State agencies for replacements at other outdoor facilities. CITY COUNCIL INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDS Response to Findings: The City agrees that certain non-capital expenses were authorized out of what is generally called district infrastructure, but disagrees that any cited expenditures were legally or procedurally questionable. Funding sources were used for legally permissible expenditures; general fund sources were used for non-capital expenditures.
R69:
Distribution of the City Council discretionary infrastructure funds be reviewed and approved by the City Manager prior to disbursement. Response to Recommendation 69: Expenditures funded from district infrastructure budgets follow standard City procedures for review and payment. Additionally, non-capital expenditures were placed on Council agendas, considered in Council open meetings, and approved by a supermajority vote and subject to mayoral veto.
R70:
Consideration be given to reducing the current allotment from $140,000 to $70,000 per district. Fresno County Grand Jury October 3, 2001 Response to Recommendation 70: The Mayor and City Council have recently discussed this matter in public session, and have confirmed the need for resources to be available to expediently resolve infrastructure needs within Council districts. Additionally, the Council has placed a limit of 15 percent of their infrastructure budgets for funding non-capital related expenditures. Finally, the City Attorney's Office is preparing, for Council consideration, a resolution which establishes the criteria for use of Community Service Program Funds. The Council adopted the resolution which is attached as Exhibit '"A".
R71:
Carryover of any unused infrastructure funds be eliminated. Response to Recommendation 71: The budgeting of unused infrastructure funds is a policy decision regarding the allocation of limited City resources to the infrastructure needs of the City. The issue is compounded by the timing and process necessary to complete infrastructure projects including, Charter required competitive bidding and approvals necessary to properly expend the funds. The matter was considered by the City Council on August 21, 2001, at which time the funds were appropriated for use in fiscal year 2001-2002.
R72:
Future Grand Juries continue to monitor the program. Response to Recommendation 72: Should future Grand Juries choose to monitor the program, City staff will provide requested information as required. CITY OF FRESNO WATER METERS Response to Findings and Conclusions: The City agrees with findings A through F, Findings H and I, and Conclusion C. Regarding Finding G which stated that “”Water Police" have been inactivated due to lack of funds", it is correct that the program of proactive water waste patrols was de-funded. The principal reason however, was not a lack of funds but was a policy decision by the 31 Fresno County Grand Jury October 3, 2001 previous City administration and previous Council to redirect the resources of the water conservation program. Regarding Conclusion A, the cost of San Joaquin water supply will increase. Contract costs will increase from a current $30 per acre ft to a minimum of $70 per acre ft. Regarding Conclusion B, the cost of installation, maintenance and administration of a residential metering program will be fully offset after full implementation by the anticipated decrease in pumping, water treatment and wastewater treatment costs.
R73:
The Mayor, City Council and all civic groups unite to promote the installation of water meters. Response to Recommendation 73: The City has not yet fully implemented the recommendation. The Mayor and Council have all endorsed meters if they are necessary to renew the City's CVP contract. A broad based stakeholders group (Contract Renewal Advisory Group) has been formed to provide feedback and support in the contract renewal process and a referendum on water meters should it become necessary to renew the CVP contract. Timing and need for such a campaign must wait the outcome of current City negotiations with the Bureau of Reclamation. While the Council has authority to place measure on the ballot for voter approval, State law prohibits the City from using public funds to advocate passage or defeat of a local ballot measure. The rationale grounded in case law is that public money cannot be spent to tip the scales in favor of some electors and against others in matters left for the citizenry to decide.
R74:
Homeowners and businesses that currently have meters be excluded from further meter installation costs. Response to Recommendation 74:
R75:
The City Utilities Department continue to publish average water bills for various family sizes with and without meters. Response to Recommendation 75: Ongoing.
R76:
Water police be reactivated to prevent water waste. Response to Recommendation 76: The City has not yet fully implemented the recommendation. This and related conservation program expansions are a condition of the City's Central Valley Project contract renewal and will be re-implemented at the time of contract renewal. In addition, increased conservation funding is anticipated in the FY 03 budget cycle. BASEBALL/MULTI-USE STADIUM Response to Findings: The findings specified as A-M were generally accurate as of the time Grand Jury received its information. Some of the matters are estimated (e.g., annual debt service; final project cost) while other matters are in development (e.g., safety/traffic control plan). City disagrees with Conclusion A; conclusion B is ambiguous; and City disagrees with Conclusion C and D, to the extent that security and traffic plans are in the process of development. These plans will be developed and implemented with the purpose of avoiding or minimizing serious parking impacts except during intermittent, non peak business hours. Fresno County Grand Jury October 3, 2001
R77:
The City require an annual independent audit of the financial statements of FDG [Fresno Diamond Group]. Response to Recommendation 77: The recommendation will be implemented as deemed necessary by the City, per Section 17.9 of the lease agreement as follows: “Records of Tenant pertaining to any obligations of Tenant hereunder shall be kept on a generally recognized accounting basis and shall be available to the City or its authorized representatives upon request during regular business hours throughout the life of this Agreement and for a period of three years thereafter. In addition, all books, documents papers, and records of Tenant pertaining to any obligation of Tenant pursuant to this Agreement shall be available for the purpose of making audits, examinations, excerpts, and transcriptions for the same period of time. If an audit by the City discloses underpayment in excess of one percent of any monies due the City hereunder, reasonable audit costs shall be reimbursable by Tenant to the City. This Section shall survive expiration or termination of this Agreement."
R78:
All seventeen dates the city controls be devoted to for-profit events to enhance the City's revenues. Response to Recommendation 78: The recommendation will not be implemented. Under the lease, the City is allocated 10 Concession-Using Events, and 7 Non-Concession-Using Events, and it states, in Section 3.6(h): "Non-Concession-Using Events shall generally be partially or wholly sponsored or contracted for by either the City or other not-for-profit organizations (which are not required to be 501 (c)(3) organizations or for charitable purposes." It is the general understanding between the parties that the 7 events would not be "for- profit" events.
R79:
The public be assured of coordinated parking and security by FDG and the City. Fresno County Grand Jury October 3, 2001 Response to Recommendation 79: The City has not yet fully implemented the recommendation. Parking plans are being developed (with a consultant's study being completed in September) to provide for stadium event parking, and security plans will be in place by the opening of the stadium. CITY OF FRESNO FIRE DEPARTMENT Response to Conclusions: The City agrees with Conclusion A; disagrees with Conclusions B and D; and agrees in part with Conclusions C, E, and F. Regarding Conclusion C, vehicle status is monitored by the department and equipment is replaced as needed. Regarding Conclusion E, and while the ratio may be accurate, it does not necessarily reflect the ability to provide Fire services within the City of Fresno. Regarding Conclusion F, the implementation is ongoing.
R80:
The fire department have a budgeted vehicle replacement plan. The city should consider replacement of vehicles after seven or eight years while they still have significant value on the used fire vehicle market. Response to Recommendation 80: The City has not yet fully implemented the recommendation. While the Fire Department does not currently maintain a specific vehicle replacement plan, vehicles have been replaced as needed, by financing the purchase over a ten year period. The Department is currently developing a draft replacement plan for consideration.
R81:
The inventory of fire fighting tools be increased so that all spare engines/tools are fully equipped. Response to Recommendation 81: The City has implemented the recommendation. Active engines and trucks equipped with necessary tools. Reserve engines and trucks are currently equipped with a minimum of tools; typically hose and small tools on engines, and ladders and small 35 Fresno County Grand Jury October 3, 2001 tools on trucks. The balance of the inventory is stocked when a front line engine or truck is out of service for repairs. When reserve apparatus is temporarily placed in service as a new company, it operates with existing equipment. In those cases when additional equipment is needed to perform a task, the equipment from other apparatus on scene is utilized.
R82:
The city recognize the need to increase the number of fire fighting personnel. Response to Recommendation 82: The City has not yet fully implemented the recommendation. The City recognizes that the 0.58 firefighters/1000 population is at the low end of national and regional standards. However, these standards do not take into account specific service needs of Fresno. The City will continue to pursue options for increasing Fire Department staffing in future budget deliberations.
R83:
The City of Fresno revisit its traffic light preemption plan and budget funds to complete this program: Response to Recommendation 83: The City has not yet fully implemented the recommendation. The intersections of Herndon and West, and Clovis and Clinton currently have the Opticom traffic preemption device. Fire apparatus specifications have included the Opticom transmitter as emergency warning equipment to be installed since 1998. Nine of our thirty one fire apparatus are equipped with an Opticom transmitter. The City implementation of this program will continue to be a priority in future budget deliberations. The Fire Department is continually reviewing opportunities for improving response times, and will present a report of such opportunities as part of the fiscal year 2001-2002 budget process. Fresno County Grand Jury October 3, 2001 ELKHORN CORRECTION FACILITY Response to Findings:
R84:
The Fresno Fire Department develop a plan to reduce response times to the NFPA standards. City of Fresno’s Response to Recommendations #80 - #84: See . Daniel G. Hobbs City Manager October 3, 2001 Mr. Rick Allen Van Ness #102 Fresno, CA 93721 Dear Mr. Allen: SUBJECT: 2000-2001 GRAND JURY RECOMMENDATIONS The following contains the City of Fresno's response to the 2000-2001 Grand Jury
R85:
The PA/PG evaluate the use of the County Treasury Pool. Response: The option of putting the Public Guardian funds with the County under the Auditor-Controller/Treasurer-Tax Collector was carefully investigated. This Department decided that it was not a viable option because: 1) The Department loses control of the citizens' funds. Currently, when a vendor fails to respond in an adequate manner, the funds are immediately transferred to an institution providing more satisfactory services. It would be unlikely that we could remove the funds from the County's control once they are delivered whatever the level of service. 2) Limitations within the Auditor-Controller/Treasurer-Tax Collector's Office preclude the guarantee of providing "rush" checks. The Public Administrator/Guardian staff requires access to client's monies on a daily basis to address immediate needs on behalf of their clients. These emergency needs are primarily related to new cases, which are opened on a daily basis. An example of such a need would include payment of utility bills to avoid interruptions of services. 3) The County's investment pool is insured through various means; however, it is not Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) insured as required by the Superior Court. West Nielsen Avenue Fresno, California 93706 Telephone: Public Administrator (559) 268-0139 Coroner (559) 268-0109 Public Guardian (559) 268-0139 Equal Employment Opportunity Affirmative Action Disabled Employer 53 The Honorable Judge Hoff August 27, 2001 Page Two
R86:
Storage be improved for case records and client assets. Construction of an on-site storage building would eliminate the need for an expensive off-site mini-storage. Response: This Department initiated this recommendation and, therefore, we concur. The monies being paid to private outside storage companies could largely defray the cost of such storage. Personnel time spent visiting off-site storage would be curtailed. In the meantime the Department has surplused equipment, old computers, and furniture that were housed in the metal shed to provide additional storage space in that facility. The Department, in conjunction with the County Clerk as Records Manager, has also developed a record retention schedule, which was approved by the Board of Supervisors in December 2000 and is being utilized by the Department to eliminate dormant files: The Department submitted a second Capital Improvement Projects request for the 2001-2002 budget year. The County Administrative Office, when made aware of our storage needs, sent a team to evaluate the situation. After several months, no recommendation has been forthcoming.
R87:
Evaluate the need for additional deputies due to the implementation of the new Elder Abuse Referral Law SB 1742. Response: We have not yet determined the potential impact of SB 1742 on the Public Guardian's Office nor how such a program will be funded. The Public Guardian will meet with law enforcement agencies and Department of Adult Services to ascertain whether these agencies have been properly trained in the area of adult abuse and to determine the anticipated impact. The Public Guardian is presently in negotiations with the Department of Adult Services for funding to add an additional deputy position to expedite cases referred from Adult Protective Services. An agreement is expected to be forthcoming.
R88:
PA/PG add the services of a Registered Nurse to staff. This person would aid in evaluating and inspecting medical care facilities as well as review proposed client treatment and prescription history. Response: This position was included in the Department's 2001-2002 budget request but not recommended by the County Administrative Office. The Honorable Judge Hoff August 27, 2001 Page Three
R89:
PA/PG evaluate the purchase of Long Term Care Insurance for those clients who would be eligible. Response: The need for long-term care insurance is reviewed on a case by case basis by the Public Administrator/Guardian staff. These reviews have not resulted in such a service being determined to be in the client's best interest. The need is continuing to be reviewed on a case by case basis.
R90:
A plan be developed for a new morgue before the County reaches a crisis situation. Response: Over 20 years ago after touring various morgues the County built a nearly state-of- the-art facility in a 32 year-old building. The building is now 54 years old and lacks proper electricity, proper plumbing, proper cooling and proper heating. A similar tour of morgues today shows that we are deficient in such areas as special airflow rooms to reduce possible contamination by tuberculosis and other diseases, pneumatic doors to prevent bloody gloves from contaminating doorknobs, storage, etc. There is a shortage of forensic pathologists. These doctors can easily find employment in communities of their choice. Our aging facility handicaps our recruiting efforts. Ideally, a new morgue should be placed in the vicinity of the Community/University Medical Center to serve as an educational opportunity for medical students and other physicians doing their rotation in Fresno.
R91:
A commercial washing machine be purchased for on-site laundering needs and/or use a commercial laundry. Response: Currently this Department uses a non-commercial washer and dryer. Due to the nature of the work in this office, these machines do not hold up well to the types of materials that are cleaned and dried and the cleaning agents that are used. Use of commercial laundry with their garment requirements has not proved satisfactory in delivery and scheduling because of limited volume and cost benefit. Based on the recommendation and the above noted factors, this Department will include in next fiscal year's budget a request for a commercial grade thirty-five pound washer and a commercial graded fifty pound dryer. It is expected that these machines will have a much longer service life and lower the maintenance cost of the units we now use. The estimated cost for the commercial units described above are expected to be approximately $6,000.00, delivered and set up. The Honorable Judge Hoff August 27,2001 Page Four
R92:
Reference be made to the Grand Jury reports of 1998/99 and 1999/2000 regarding the need for improvement of record storage. Response: The Response to Recommendation #86 reflects the facility storage concerns for the entire Department and would address such issues as record storage. Very truly yours, David M. Hadden, M.D. Fresno County Coroner-Public Administrator/ Public Guardian DMH:slb 56 MENDOTA UTILITY BILL COLLECTIONS Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that: 93. The monthly shutoff list and notices be reviewed by an individual independent of the accounting department of the City of Mendota. 94. The subject of outstanding utility bills be reviewed during the annual financial audit conducted by an outside auditor. 95. The City establish and maintain training for all employees on the use of the Municipal Code and written procedures and policies regarding the collection of utility bills. City of Mendota’s Response to Recommendations #93 - #95: See . ELKHORN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that: 96. The Fresno County Board of Supervisors review commitments made in the February 11, 1997, letter issued by a former County Chief Administrative Officer and assure the neighbors of ECF that the County intends to honor these commitments. If certain commitments cannot be met, the County should negotiate with the neighbors to reach an equitable arrangement. Fresno County’s Response to Recommendation #96: Fresno County agrees with the
R93:
The monthly shutoff list and notices be reviewed by an individual independent of the accounting department of the City of Mendota.
R94:
The subject of outstanding utility bills be reviewed during the annual financial audit conducted by an outside auditor.
R95:
The City establish and maintain training for all employees on the use of the Municipal Code and written procedures and policies regarding the collection of utility bills. City of Mendota’s Response to Recommendations #93 - #95: See . ELKHORN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that:
R96:
The Fresno County Board of Supervisors review commitments made in the February 11, 1997, letter issued by a former County Chief Administrative Officer and assure the neighbors of ECF that the County intends to honor these commitments. If certain commitments cannot be met, the County should negotiate with the neighbors to reach an equitable arrangement. Fresno County’s Response to Recommendation #96: Fresno County agrees with the
R97:
The Board of Supervisors continue to fund and maintain the present level of services at ECF. Fresno County’s Response to Recommendation #97: Fresno County agrees with the
R98:
The City of Fresno continue to fund Elkhorn Correctional Facility at no less than the current rate of $1,000,000 per year with no sunset provision. Response to Recommendation 98: The City will not implement the recommendation, as stated. The City of Fresno's position is to continue the present commitment to fund the ECF for the balance of the nine years, if the ECF stays at the current 200 bed capacity both in staffing of correctional personnel and commitments to the facility. City recognizes that as long- term solutions Juvenile Hall expansion is still several years away, it essential that County maintain the ECF as a rehabilitation center for nonviolent Juvenile offenders. It is neither wise, nor sound policy for the City at this time to make a perpetual commitment for these reasons: a perpetual commitment is subject to availability of funding; a perpetual commitment is subject to revocation by a future Council on a variety of grounds; future City-County agreements may require the need to revisit future funding; a future Council may determine that City resources are more urgently needed to fund other related programs (crime prevention, after school programs, etc.) other than confinement costs; making a minimum commitment now may discourage greater, participation by Fresno andlor other cities in the County, should the need arise. Under the above circumstances, making such a minimum commitment now would be misleading and unproductive. In sum, the City is encouraged by the present level of activities of the ECF, and will consider future opportunities to involve itself and other cities in the county to support the program in the most appropriate means then available. Fresno County Grand Jury October 3, 2001 BRIEFING BOOK FOR NEWLY ELECTED OFFICIALS Response to Findings: City agrees with the need and desirability for newly elected officials to receive a minimum and appropriate level of orientation in the new position, and the information needed and legally available to get up to speed on pending issues as expeditiously as possible.
R99:
The County provide boot camp facilities for female juvenile offenders. Fresno County’s Response to Recommendation #99: Fresno County agrees with the
R100:
The 2000-01 Grand Jury recommends that Future Grand Juries continue to monitor the activities at the Elkhorn Correctional Facility.
Quick View
Full Details →
Additional Recommendations
99
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
To be in compliance with the above restricted revenue requirements and regulations and to eliminate the appearance that restricted revenues are being used to fund general fund expenditures, the City of Parlier should ensure that such restricted revenues are clearly used for the related program purposes. Costs charged to the special revenue funds should reflect actual costs attributable to the program and should be supported by applicable documentation such as time tracking. The City of Parlier should obtain clarification from the applicable regulatory agency to determine if their current cost allocation methodology is acceptable. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation.
R2:
In the absence of fully supportable cost allocation methodologies or regulatory approval of existing cost allocation methodologies, the City of Parlier should reverse the $268,224 and $393,602 in overhead costs charged to the special revenue funds listed above. In addition, any 17 other insufficiently supported cost allocations that were not noted in this report should also be reversed. Response: The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor for review, the manager will report back to Council with recommendation for appropriate action.
R3:
In order to provide for sound accounting and budgeting practices and to ensure a clear audit trail, appropriations and expenditures should be initially recorded in the originating department/fund where the activities are incurred. Response: The City is in compliance with generally accepted accounting practices. The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor for further review and appropriate action.
R4:
The City of Parlier Finance Department should implement procedures that provide segregation of duties related to accounts payable. Specifically, the person who approves payments should not be the same person who signs checks and submits requests for payments. When it is necessary for the Finance Director to submit a request for payment, the payment should be sufficiently reviewed and approved by another authorized staff member (e.g. the City Manager). Response: Payments are approved by Department Heads. Any Department expenditures greater than a thousand dollars must be reviewed and approved by the City Manager. Additionally, the City Manager reviews and approves all payments on the demand warrant register. This register is published in the Council agenda for public review.
R5:
To strengthen internal controls over expenditures in special revenue funds and to ensure that funding does not need to be reimbursed or that future funding is withheld, the City of Parlier should ensure that program costs incurred are fully supported and are in compliance with program requirements. This can be achieved in part by requiring that receipts for credit card purchases be retained for supporting documentation and submitted to the Finance Department for review and approval. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation.
R6:
To prevent losses and enhance internal controls, the City of Parlier should immediately implement procedures to ensure that the City's charge accounts and credit cards are not used for personal purchases. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation. Such procedures are in place.
R7:
In compliance with the above code sections and to ensure that funding is not withheld, the RDA should immediately submit a 5-year plan to the State Controller's Office and submit all future required documents when due. Response: The City has held off on updating its 5 year housing plan pending certification of its housing element by the State Housing and Community Development Department. The element will be certified in a few weeks. The plan will be updated during this 2001-2002 fiscal year.
R8:
In order to comply with Health & Safety Code Section 33487 and to ensure that funding is not withheld, the RDA should transfer $3,907 to the low income-housing fund for fiscal year 1998/99 from the RDA Capital Projects Fund. Response: The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor for review, the manager will report back to Council with recommendation for appropriate action.
R9:
In order to explain material changes in the financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, the City of Parlier should provide adequate disclosure in the notes to the financial statements. For example, Parlier could have identified the above increase in the capital projects fund balance as a "restated" fund balance in the financial statements. In addition, a note disclosure should have been provided to reconcile the restated fund balance to the prior year ending balance. The disclosure should have also explained the reason(s) for the restatement. Parlier should consider this for future reporting purposes. Response: The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor for review and appropriate future action.
R10:
a, b, c, and d To ensure that funding is not withheld, the RDA should ensure all proper procedures and legal requirements are followed when issuing loans and all appropriate documents are maintained in their loan files and that all loans are properly authorized. Parlier staff should review all available loan records since the formation of the RDA to try to locate all missing loan documentation and criteria information on the sixteen known loans addressed above. Parlier staff should also determine if there are any additional outstanding loans not currently known that should be followed up on. Also, even though Parlier has indicated that the commercial borrowers of the "written off' loans are out of business, Parlier should continue to bill the business owners until these loans are officially written off by the City Council. Proper procedures must be followed to assure that all redevelopment loans are repaid timely and in full. Redevelopment loans determined to be uncollectible should be written off by the City Council and referred to a collection agency as appropriate. Parlier should consider following up with other collection agencies or pursue other means of recouping unpaid balances, e.g. through small claims processes, other lawsuits, etc. In addition, Parlier should ensure and be able to support that interest charged on Redevelopment loans is charged fairly and equitably. Response: The Redevelopment Agency has not made any loans in nearly a decade. Of those older loans on the Agencies books: some loans have been paid off; some loans are in process and payment is timely, some loans are behind in payment and payment is sporadic, on some there is no activity and they are considered uncollectable. Many of the loans were unsecured and should have been. Loans that are secured by real property shall be paid. Extensive searches for records of prior loans have been made, for some loans there are little or no records. A list of uncollectable loans shall be provided to the Redevelopment Agency for 'write-off' consideration. Future loans, if any, considered by the Redevelopment Agency will be secured by real property and shall be recorded.
R11:
To enhance internal controls, ensure the accuracy of the City's accounting records, and ensure continued funding, Parlier should implement formal procedures to ensure proper accounting for and reconciliation of restricted revenues. In addition, all transactions and supporting documentation must be maintained until such records have been audited by all appropriate oversight agencies. Finally, the City of Parlier should make the appropriate general ledger entries within the special revenue fund to record these transactions. Response: The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor appropriate future action. 19
R12:
The City of Parlier should post transactions to proper accounts and subsequently classify expenditures appropriately in their financial statements. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation.
R13:
In order to comply with terms of the Child Development Grant, the City of Parlier should reimburse the Child Development fund the $582.50 noted above and only make expenditures appropriate for grant purposes from this fund. Response: The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor for review, the manager will report back to Council with recommendation for appropriate action.
R14:
In order to comply with terms of the Child Development Grant, the City of Parlier should obtain an annual audit of the Child Development Program that conforms to the terms of the grant agreement and reports on Child Development revenues and expenditures of the City of Parlier. In addition, the City of Parlier should consistently review any audit reports prepared for their program prior to finalization of the report. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation.
R15:
In order to properly account for and report Gas Tax revenues, the City of Parlier must reconcile any variances between revenues paid by a funding entity and revenues recorded by the City. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation.
R16:
In order to properly administer the Local Transportation Fund and ensure proper financial statement presentation, the City of Parlier must reconcile the Local Transportation fund to receipts and implement procedures to ensure that all transactions are properly recorded and reported. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation.
R17:
The City of Parlier should either provide supporting documentation for the $70, 702 reduction of revenues or reverse this adjustment as appropriate. Response: The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor for review, the manager will report back to Council with recommendation for appropriate action.
R19:
The City of Parlier should contact the DOJ for written clarification of what constitutes acceptable expenditures for this grant. The City of Parlier should comply with the information provided by the 20 DOJ related to this audit finding. Unauthorized expenditures of grant funds must be reimbursed or a waiver should be requested from the grantor agency. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation.
R20:
The City of Parlier should ensure that actual interest is allocated to the COPS fund for 1998/99, 1999/00 and thereafter. In addition, the City should ensure that adequate interest allocation methodologies are used to ensure that all restricted revenues are accurately calculated, allocated and available to be used for restricted program purposes or returned to regulatory agencies as necessary in the event of non-compliance with program requirements. Response: The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor for review, the manager will report back to Council with recommendation for appropriate action.
R21:
In compliance with the provisions of Government Code Section 30061 as stated above, the City of Parlier should ensure that the appropriation of COPS grant monies for 2000/01 and thereafter are separately presented to and approved by Parlier's City Council as required. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation.
R22:
The City of Parlier should maintain support for all financial transactions that affect special revenue funds as well as other funds until all oversight agencies conduct periodic audits. Unauthorized expenditures of grant funds must be reimbursed or a waiver should be requested from the grantor agency. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation.
R23:
The City of Parlier should implement procedures to ensure that expenditures are not claimed/reported twice and that overtime costs are not claimed in compliance with Universal Hiring Grant provisions. Parlier should also adjust the above reports and charges to reverse duplicated expenditures and inappropriate overtime costs. Response: The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor for review, the manager will report back to Council with recommendation for appropriate action.
R24:
The City of Parlier should investigate the difference of $2,404 between revenues reported in their general ledger for OES revenues and the amount of payments confirmed through the State OES or have support for the variance readily available. Response: The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor for review, the manager will report back to Council with recommendation for appropriate action.
R25:
The City of Parlier should immediately revise the Project Completion and Certification Report to reflect actual costs for the disaster period. They should provide support for costs claimed or return $36,136 claimed inappropriately to the State OES. Response: The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor for review, the manager will report back to Council with recommendation for appropriate action. 21
R26:
To ensure accuracy of records, enhance internal controls, and ensure the availability of current and future funding, the City of Parlier should properly maintain files containing supporting documentation for transactions and retain these records until audited by all appropriate oversight agencies. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation. Summary: It is our recommendation that the City of Parlier hire either a CPA firm or professional accounting staff to help them address the findings and recommendations in this report, correct their records/reports related to special revenue funds, and implement procedures/processes to ensure that restricted revenues are properly expended and accounted for and that all applicable rules, regulations and laws are followed with strict compliance. Gary W. Peterson Auditor-Control Treasurer-Tax Collector Response: The City concurs with the Summary recommendation and the matter is referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor. Paint Project: 27. The Parlier City Manager confer with the City Council before engaging in city projects costing over $10,000 as required by PMC. 28. Bidding and contracting of services be in compliance with PMC. 29. The City Manager and City Council be held responsible for implementing the directives set forth in PMC. 30. Compensation of employees and/or contractors be in compliance with existing State and Federal laws. Response: The City concurs with recommendations 27 though 30. It disagrees with many of the findings. Animal Control 31. The City hire an animal control officer. 32. The animal shelter be relocated within the city to make it more accessible. 33. Leash and licensing laws be enforced. 34. The City educate the community regarding licensing, vaccinations, leash laws, spaying and neutering. 35. The City establish a fee schedule for costs incurred in animal control. 36. All record keeping relating to animal control be current. 37. State guidelines be followed for the ultimate disposal of any animal. 38. Polaroid photographs of impounded dogs be posted at city hall in order for citizens to see if their dog has been impounded. Response to 31 - 38: The current location of the city's holding facility and city's procedures for managing it are cost effective and consistent with requirements of law. The Council expects and management will ensure that our operation is in compliance with state law. City Hall Carpeting 39. The Parlier Municipal Code and Purchasing Ordinance be followed. 40. Shortcuts that violate the existing code not be considered. Response: The City concurs with recommendations 39 and 40. Code Enforcement 41. The present policy of code enforcement be changed to a more aggressive system which addresses all violations existing in the City of Parlier. 42. Written policy and procedures be developed to provide for the tracking and documented resolution of all complaints. 43. The city hire a code enforcement officer, supported with sufficient staff. 44. Adequate training be provided for the code enforcement officer and staff, including instruction in property owner and tenant rights. 45. A written manual providing guidelines on how to resolve code enforcement disputes be developed and implemented. 46. The City of Parlier inform and educate the public on current code enforcement policy. 47. A current copy of the Parlier Municipal Code be available for public use at City Hall and the public library. Response to 41 -47: The City has budgeted for a ½ time Code Enforcement Officer in the FY2001-2002 budget. A more active code enforcement program will be instituted accordingly. Personnel Policies 48. The City of Parlier formulate and implement written policies and procedures regarding labor relations. 49. The City develop written job classifications for all positions and issue them to all employees. 50. The City require department heads to adhere to the PMC sections covering their areas of responsibility . 51. A current copy of the PMC be made available to City Council members. 52. The City prepare, and provide to all employees, a handbook informing them of employee rights as stated in the PMC. 53. Employees be advised, in writing, of their rights of representation at all disciplinary hearings. 54. Written annual job performance evaluations of all employees be conducted, a copy placed in the employee's permanent file and a copy provided to the employee. 23 55. A written salary schedule for each position be prepared and a copy made available to each employee. 56. The city develop and issue a written policy regarding advancement and salary increases. Response: Items 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 55 are in place and are standard practice. Item 54 will be instituted this fiscal year. Item 56 will be put in place if and when it is deemed necessary. Nepotism 57. PMC section 4.01.080 be rewritten to more clearly state the city's policy on nepotism as defined by Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, "favoritism shown to relatives or close friends by those in power (as by giving them jobs)." Response: The matter will be referred to the City Attorney for review and to report back to Council with recommendation for appropriate action. 58. The policy of the city be to recruit, employ, and promote the best-qualified individuals. Response: This is City Policy. Personnel Appeals Board 59. The current PHB be dissolved. 60. The position for citizen at large be advertised (noticed). 61. The position for citizen at large be posted at City Hall. 62. All citizens who submit applications for this position be given equal consideration. Response: The City disagrees with recommendations 59-62. The Personnel Appeals Board was established by the municipal code. Council appointments were made consistent with that code. Police Department 63. The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that the Parlier Police Department be closed immediately and the policing of Parlier be contracted with the Fresno County Sheriff. Response: The majority of the Police Department findings were absurd; this recommendation is nonsense. SECTION II CITY COMMITTEE CITY COMMITTEE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DIVISION Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that: 64. Continue the broad public education program to increase awareness of the need to meet recycling goals. 65. Tailor educational efforts to target each culture within our community in a way that has proven most effective for that group. City of Fresno’s Response to Recommendations #64 and #65: See . FRESNO CITY PARKS SANITATION FACILITIES Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that: 66. Increase the budget to provide for care of the new parks. 67. Add personnel to help maintain the park sanitation facilities. 68. Provide adequate funds for replacement of fixtures with more durable ones. City of Fresno’s Response to Recommendations #66 - #68: See . CITY COUNCIL INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDS Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that: 69. Distribution of the City Council discretionary infrastructure funds be reviewed and approved by the City Manager prior to disbursement. 25 70. Consideration be given to reducing the current allotment from $140,000 to $70,000 per district. 71. Carryover of any unused infrastructure funds be eliminated. 72. Future Grand Juries continue to monitor the program. City of Fresno’s Response to Recommendations #69 - #72: See . CITY OF FRESNO WATER METERS Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that: 73. The Mayor, City Council and all civic groups unite to promote the installation of water meters. 74. Homeowners and businesses that currently have meters be excluded from further meter installation costs. 75. The city utilities department continue to publish average water bills for various family sizes with and without meters. 76. Water police be reactivated to prevent water waste. City of Fresno’s Response to Recommendations #73 - #76: See . BASEBALL/MULTI-USE STADIUM Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that: 77. The City require an annual independent audit of the financial statements of FDG. 78. All seventeen dates the city controls be devoted to for-profit events to enhance the City’s revenues. 26 79. The public be assured of coordinated parking and security by FDG and the City. City of Fresno’s Response to Recommendations #77 - #79: See . CITY OF FRESNO FIRE DEPARTMENT Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that: 80. The fire department have a budgeted vehicle replacement plan. The city should consider replacement of vehicles after seven or eight years while they still have significant value on the used fire vehicle market. 81. The inventory of fire fighting tools be increased so that all spare engines/trucks are fully equipped. 82. The city recognize the need to increase the number of fire fighting personnel. 83. The City of Fresno revisit its traffic light pre-emption plan and budget funds to complete this program. 84. The Fresno Fire Department develop a plan to reduce response times to the NFPA standards. City of Fresno’s Response to Recommendations #80 - #84: See . Daniel G. Hobbs City Manager October 3, 2001 Mr. Rick Allen Van Ness #102 Fresno, CA 93721 Dear Mr. Allen: SUBJECT: 2000-2001 GRAND JURY RECOMMENDATIONS The following contains the City of Fresno's response to the 2000-2001 Grand Jury
R27:
The Parlier City Manager confer with the City Council before engaging in city projects costing over $10,000 as required by PMC.
R28:
Bidding and contracting of services be in compliance with PMC.
R29:
The City Manager and City Council be held responsible for implementing the directives set forth in PMC.
R30:
Compensation of employees and/or contractors be in compliance with existing State and Federal laws. City of Parlier's Response to Recommendations #27 - #30: See . PARLIER ANIMAL CONTROL Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that:
R31:
The City hire an animal control officer.
R32:
The animal shelter be relocated within the city to make it more accessible.
R33:
Leash and licensing laws be enforced.
R34:
The City educate the community regarding licensing, vaccinations, leash laws, spaying and neutering.
R35:
The City establish a fee schedule for costs incurred in animal control.
R36:
All record keeping relating to animal control be current.
R37:
State guidelines be followed for the ultimate disposal of any animal. 7
R38:
Polaroid photographs of impounded dogs be posted at city hall in order for citizens to see if their dog has been impounded. City of Parlier's Response to Recommendations #31 - #38: See . CARPETING OF PARLIER CITY HALL Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that:
R39:
The Parlier Municipal Code and Purchasing Ordinance be followed.
R40:
Shortcuts that violate the existing code not be considered. City of Parlier's Response to Recommendations #39 and #40: See . CODE ENFORCEMENT IN PARLIER Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that:
R41:
The present policy of code enforcement be changed to a more aggressive system which addresses all violations existing in the City of Parlier.
R42:
Written policy and procedures be developed to provide for the tracking and documented resolution of all complaints.
R43:
The city hire a code enforcement officer, supported with sufficient staff.
R44:
Adequate training be provided for the code enforcement officer and staff, including instruction in property owner and tenant rights.
R45:
A written manual providing guidelines on how to resolve code enforcement disputes be developed and implemented.
R46:
The City of Parlier inform and educate the public on current code enforcement policy.
R47:
A current copy of the Parlier Municipal Code be available for public use at City Hall and the public library. City of Parlier's Response to Recommendations #41 - #47: See . PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT WITHIN THE CITY OF PARLIER Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that:
R48:
The City of Parlier formulate and implement written policies and procedures regarding labor relations.
R49:
The City develop written job classifications for all positions and issue them to all employees.
R50:
The City require department heads to adhere to the PMC sections covering their areas of responsibility.
R51:
A current copy of the PMC be made available to City Council members. 9
R52:
The City prepare, and provide to all employees, a handbook informing them of employee rights as stated in the PMC.
R53:
Employees be advised, in writing, of their rights of representation at all disciplinary hearings.
R54:
Written annual job performance evaluations of all employees be conducted, a copy placed in the employee’s permanent file and a copy provided to the employee.
R55:
A written salary schedule for each position be prepared and a copy made available to each employee.
R56:
The city develop and issue a written policy regarding advancement and salary increases. City of Parlier's Response to Recommendations #48 - #56: See . NEPOTISM IN THE CITY OF PARLIER Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that:
R57:
PMC section 4.01.080 be rewritten to more clearly state the city’s policy on nepotism as defined by Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, “favoritism shown to relatives or close friends by those in power (as by giving them jobs).”
R58:
The policy of the city be to recruit, employ, and promote the best-qualified individuals. City of Parlier's Response to Recommendations #57 and #58: See . PARLIER PERSONNEL HEARING BOARD Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that:
R59:
The current PHB be dissolved.
R60:
The position for citizen at large be advertised (noticed).
R61:
The position for citizen at large be posted at City Hall.
R62:
All citizens who submit applications for this position be given equal consideration. City of Parlier's Response to Recommendations #59 - #62: See . PARLIER POLICE DEPARTMENT Recommendation The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that:
R63:
The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that the Parlier Police Department be closed immediately and the policing of Parlier be contracted with the Fresno County Sheriff. City of Parlier's Response to Recommendation #63: See . A Community with a vision to the future. Una Comunidad con vision al futuro Incorporated November 14, 1921 Founded 1876 July 24, 2001 Honorable Gary D. Huff Presiding Judge Superior Court County of Fresno 1100 Van Ness Avenue Fresno, CA 93721 Dear Judge Hoff: Enclosed please find the City of Parlier's response to the 200-2001 Grand Jury Report. The City was quite disappointed with the quality of work performed by the Grand Jury, and found and determined that many of the findings were incorrect. Nevertheless, there were many useful recommendations that will be put in place. Sincerely, Michael R. Swigart City Manager Enclosures 1100 E. Parlier Avenue, Parlier, California 93848 .(559) 646.3545 FAX (559) 646-0416 12 A Community with a vision to the future. Una Comunidad con visión al futuro Incorporated November 14, 1921 Founded 1878 Staff Report Date: 07172001 To: Mayor, Council From: City Manager Council Meeting of July 17,2001 G. City Manager/Executive Director Reports Item g.4, Grand Jury Recommendations Recommendation: 1. Receive Recommendations from the Grand Jury;
R64:
Continue the broad public education program to increase awareness of the need to meet recycling goals. Response to Recommendation 64: The City has implemented the recommendation. The Solid Waste education budget has been increased for FY 02 specifically for this purpose. Broad recycling education programs are ongoing, with acceleration of effort planed for a spring of 2003 multi- media campaign.
R65:
Tailor educational efforts to target each culture within our community in a way that has proven most effective for that group. City of Fresno City Hall • 2600 Fresno Street • Fresno, California 93721-3601 (559) 498-4591 • FAX (559) 488-1015 • www.ci.fresno.ca.us 28 Fresno County Grand Jury October 3, 2001 Response to Recommendation 65: The City has not yet fully implemented the recommendation. Solid Waste is developing educational strategies to fit several linguistic and cultural specialized groups. A media consultant with multi-cultural expertise will be retained in FY 02, while we are currently working with EOC and several community groups to tailor educational messages and venues to maximize results. FRESNO CITY PARKS FACILITIES Response to Findings: The City agrees with the findings.
R66:
Increase the budget to provide for care of new parks. Response to Recommendation 66: The City has implemented the recommendation. The FY02 budget for neighborhood parks was increased by $266, 700 to compensate for the opening of Layne, Kolligian and Pilibos Parks and the Multi-Cultural Corridor and increased operating costs including energy.
R67:
Add personnel to help maintain the park sanitation facilities. Response to Recommendation 67: The City has implemented the recommendation. The Parks Division budget was increased during fiscal year 2000-2001 to increase the number of times the outdoor facilities at neighborhood parks are maintained from 5 to 7 times per week, including holidays. Those parks that are staffed with Recreation personnel, which is 27 out of 58, receive at least one additional maintenance visit daily during operating hours. The maintenance level on the regional parks restroom facilities remain at two cleanings per day and a minimum of one additional visit each day by maintenance personnel. Fresno County Grand Jury October 3, 2001
R68:
Provide adequate funds for replacement of fixtures with more durable ones. Response to Recommendation 68: The City has not yet fully implemented the recommendation. The four outdoor restroom facilities at Woodward Park are on a four year schedule for complete renovation. The funding source for the improvements is from Crystal Valley Decorating for their Festival of Lights Exhibit. Fixtures at other facilities are replaced when damaged, and the Parks Division is pursuing grants from Federal and State agencies for replacements at other outdoor facilities. CITY COUNCIL INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDS Response to Findings: The City agrees that certain non-capital expenses were authorized out of what is generally called district infrastructure, but disagrees that any cited expenditures were legally or procedurally questionable. Funding sources were used for legally permissible expenditures; general fund sources were used for non-capital expenditures.
R69:
Distribution of the City Council discretionary infrastructure funds be reviewed and approved by the City Manager prior to disbursement. Response to Recommendation 69: Expenditures funded from district infrastructure budgets follow standard City procedures for review and payment. Additionally, non-capital expenditures were placed on Council agendas, considered in Council open meetings, and approved by a supermajority vote and subject to mayoral veto.
R70:
Consideration be given to reducing the current allotment from $140,000 to $70,000 per district. Fresno County Grand Jury October 3, 2001 Response to Recommendation 70: The Mayor and City Council have recently discussed this matter in public session, and have confirmed the need for resources to be available to expediently resolve infrastructure needs within Council districts. Additionally, the Council has placed a limit of 15 percent of their infrastructure budgets for funding non-capital related expenditures. Finally, the City Attorney's Office is preparing, for Council consideration, a resolution which establishes the criteria for use of Community Service Program Funds. The Council adopted the resolution which is attached as Exhibit '"A".
R71:
Carryover of any unused infrastructure funds be eliminated. Response to Recommendation 71: The budgeting of unused infrastructure funds is a policy decision regarding the allocation of limited City resources to the infrastructure needs of the City. The issue is compounded by the timing and process necessary to complete infrastructure projects including, Charter required competitive bidding and approvals necessary to properly expend the funds. The matter was considered by the City Council on August 21, 2001, at which time the funds were appropriated for use in fiscal year 2001-2002.
R72:
Future Grand Juries continue to monitor the program. Response to Recommendation 72: Should future Grand Juries choose to monitor the program, City staff will provide requested information as required. CITY OF FRESNO WATER METERS Response to Findings and Conclusions: The City agrees with findings A through F, Findings H and I, and Conclusion C. Regarding Finding G which stated that “”Water Police" have been inactivated due to lack of funds", it is correct that the program of proactive water waste patrols was de-funded. The principal reason however, was not a lack of funds but was a policy decision by the 31 Fresno County Grand Jury October 3, 2001 previous City administration and previous Council to redirect the resources of the water conservation program. Regarding Conclusion A, the cost of San Joaquin water supply will increase. Contract costs will increase from a current $30 per acre ft to a minimum of $70 per acre ft. Regarding Conclusion B, the cost of installation, maintenance and administration of a residential metering program will be fully offset after full implementation by the anticipated decrease in pumping, water treatment and wastewater treatment costs.
R73:
The Mayor, City Council and all civic groups unite to promote the installation of water meters. Response to Recommendation 73: The City has not yet fully implemented the recommendation. The Mayor and Council have all endorsed meters if they are necessary to renew the City's CVP contract. A broad based stakeholders group (Contract Renewal Advisory Group) has been formed to provide feedback and support in the contract renewal process and a referendum on water meters should it become necessary to renew the CVP contract. Timing and need for such a campaign must wait the outcome of current City negotiations with the Bureau of Reclamation. While the Council has authority to place measure on the ballot for voter approval, State law prohibits the City from using public funds to advocate passage or defeat of a local ballot measure. The rationale grounded in case law is that public money cannot be spent to tip the scales in favor of some electors and against others in matters left for the citizenry to decide.
R74:
Homeowners and businesses that currently have meters be excluded from further meter installation costs. Response to Recommendation 74:
R75:
The City Utilities Department continue to publish average water bills for various family sizes with and without meters. Response to Recommendation 75: Ongoing.
R76:
Water police be reactivated to prevent water waste. Response to Recommendation 76: The City has not yet fully implemented the recommendation. This and related conservation program expansions are a condition of the City's Central Valley Project contract renewal and will be re-implemented at the time of contract renewal. In addition, increased conservation funding is anticipated in the FY 03 budget cycle. BASEBALL/MULTI-USE STADIUM Response to Findings: The findings specified as A-M were generally accurate as of the time Grand Jury received its information. Some of the matters are estimated (e.g., annual debt service; final project cost) while other matters are in development (e.g., safety/traffic control plan). City disagrees with Conclusion A; conclusion B is ambiguous; and City disagrees with Conclusion C and D, to the extent that security and traffic plans are in the process of development. These plans will be developed and implemented with the purpose of avoiding or minimizing serious parking impacts except during intermittent, non peak business hours. Fresno County Grand Jury October 3, 2001
R77:
The City require an annual independent audit of the financial statements of FDG [Fresno Diamond Group]. Response to Recommendation 77: The recommendation will be implemented as deemed necessary by the City, per Section 17.9 of the lease agreement as follows: “Records of Tenant pertaining to any obligations of Tenant hereunder shall be kept on a generally recognized accounting basis and shall be available to the City or its authorized representatives upon request during regular business hours throughout the life of this Agreement and for a period of three years thereafter. In addition, all books, documents papers, and records of Tenant pertaining to any obligation of Tenant pursuant to this Agreement shall be available for the purpose of making audits, examinations, excerpts, and transcriptions for the same period of time. If an audit by the City discloses underpayment in excess of one percent of any monies due the City hereunder, reasonable audit costs shall be reimbursable by Tenant to the City. This Section shall survive expiration or termination of this Agreement."
R78:
All seventeen dates the city controls be devoted to for-profit events to enhance the City's revenues. Response to Recommendation 78: The recommendation will not be implemented. Under the lease, the City is allocated 10 Concession-Using Events, and 7 Non-Concession-Using Events, and it states, in Section 3.6(h): "Non-Concession-Using Events shall generally be partially or wholly sponsored or contracted for by either the City or other not-for-profit organizations (which are not required to be 501 (c)(3) organizations or for charitable purposes." It is the general understanding between the parties that the 7 events would not be "for- profit" events.
R79:
The public be assured of coordinated parking and security by FDG and the City. Fresno County Grand Jury October 3, 2001 Response to Recommendation 79: The City has not yet fully implemented the recommendation. Parking plans are being developed (with a consultant's study being completed in September) to provide for stadium event parking, and security plans will be in place by the opening of the stadium. CITY OF FRESNO FIRE DEPARTMENT Response to Conclusions: The City agrees with Conclusion A; disagrees with Conclusions B and D; and agrees in part with Conclusions C, E, and F. Regarding Conclusion C, vehicle status is monitored by the department and equipment is replaced as needed. Regarding Conclusion E, and while the ratio may be accurate, it does not necessarily reflect the ability to provide Fire services within the City of Fresno. Regarding Conclusion F, the implementation is ongoing.
R80:
The fire department have a budgeted vehicle replacement plan. The city should consider replacement of vehicles after seven or eight years while they still have significant value on the used fire vehicle market. Response to Recommendation 80: The City has not yet fully implemented the recommendation. While the Fire Department does not currently maintain a specific vehicle replacement plan, vehicles have been replaced as needed, by financing the purchase over a ten year period. The Department is currently developing a draft replacement plan for consideration.
R81:
The inventory of fire fighting tools be increased so that all spare engines/tools are fully equipped. Response to Recommendation 81: The City has implemented the recommendation. Active engines and trucks equipped with necessary tools. Reserve engines and trucks are currently equipped with a minimum of tools; typically hose and small tools on engines, and ladders and small 35 Fresno County Grand Jury October 3, 2001 tools on trucks. The balance of the inventory is stocked when a front line engine or truck is out of service for repairs. When reserve apparatus is temporarily placed in service as a new company, it operates with existing equipment. In those cases when additional equipment is needed to perform a task, the equipment from other apparatus on scene is utilized.
R82:
The city recognize the need to increase the number of fire fighting personnel. Response to Recommendation 82: The City has not yet fully implemented the recommendation. The City recognizes that the 0.58 firefighters/1000 population is at the low end of national and regional standards. However, these standards do not take into account specific service needs of Fresno. The City will continue to pursue options for increasing Fire Department staffing in future budget deliberations.
R83:
The City of Fresno revisit its traffic light preemption plan and budget funds to complete this program: Response to Recommendation 83: The City has not yet fully implemented the recommendation. The intersections of Herndon and West, and Clovis and Clinton currently have the Opticom traffic preemption device. Fire apparatus specifications have included the Opticom transmitter as emergency warning equipment to be installed since 1998. Nine of our thirty one fire apparatus are equipped with an Opticom transmitter. The City implementation of this program will continue to be a priority in future budget deliberations. The Fire Department is continually reviewing opportunities for improving response times, and will present a report of such opportunities as part of the fiscal year 2001-2002 budget process. Fresno County Grand Jury October 3, 2001 ELKHORN CORRECTION FACILITY Response to Findings:
R84:
The Fresno Fire Department develop a plan to reduce response times to the NFPA standards. City of Fresno’s Response to Recommendations #80 - #84: See . Daniel G. Hobbs City Manager October 3, 2001 Mr. Rick Allen Van Ness #102 Fresno, CA 93721 Dear Mr. Allen: SUBJECT: 2000-2001 GRAND JURY RECOMMENDATIONS The following contains the City of Fresno's response to the 2000-2001 Grand Jury
R85:
The PA/PG evaluate the use of the County Treasury Pool. Response: The option of putting the Public Guardian funds with the County under the Auditor-Controller/Treasurer-Tax Collector was carefully investigated. This Department decided that it was not a viable option because: 1) The Department loses control of the citizens' funds. Currently, when a vendor fails to respond in an adequate manner, the funds are immediately transferred to an institution providing more satisfactory services. It would be unlikely that we could remove the funds from the County's control once they are delivered whatever the level of service. 2) Limitations within the Auditor-Controller/Treasurer-Tax Collector's Office preclude the guarantee of providing "rush" checks. The Public Administrator/Guardian staff requires access to client's monies on a daily basis to address immediate needs on behalf of their clients. These emergency needs are primarily related to new cases, which are opened on a daily basis. An example of such a need would include payment of utility bills to avoid interruptions of services. 3) The County's investment pool is insured through various means; however, it is not Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) insured as required by the Superior Court. West Nielsen Avenue Fresno, California 93706 Telephone: Public Administrator (559) 268-0139 Coroner (559) 268-0109 Public Guardian (559) 268-0139 Equal Employment Opportunity Affirmative Action Disabled Employer 53 The Honorable Judge Hoff August 27, 2001 Page Two
R86:
Storage be improved for case records and client assets. Construction of an on-site storage building would eliminate the need for an expensive off-site mini-storage. Response: This Department initiated this recommendation and, therefore, we concur. The monies being paid to private outside storage companies could largely defray the cost of such storage. Personnel time spent visiting off-site storage would be curtailed. In the meantime the Department has surplused equipment, old computers, and furniture that were housed in the metal shed to provide additional storage space in that facility. The Department, in conjunction with the County Clerk as Records Manager, has also developed a record retention schedule, which was approved by the Board of Supervisors in December 2000 and is being utilized by the Department to eliminate dormant files: The Department submitted a second Capital Improvement Projects request for the 2001-2002 budget year. The County Administrative Office, when made aware of our storage needs, sent a team to evaluate the situation. After several months, no recommendation has been forthcoming.
R87:
Evaluate the need for additional deputies due to the implementation of the new Elder Abuse Referral Law SB 1742. Response: We have not yet determined the potential impact of SB 1742 on the Public Guardian's Office nor how such a program will be funded. The Public Guardian will meet with law enforcement agencies and Department of Adult Services to ascertain whether these agencies have been properly trained in the area of adult abuse and to determine the anticipated impact. The Public Guardian is presently in negotiations with the Department of Adult Services for funding to add an additional deputy position to expedite cases referred from Adult Protective Services. An agreement is expected to be forthcoming.
R88:
PA/PG add the services of a Registered Nurse to staff. This person would aid in evaluating and inspecting medical care facilities as well as review proposed client treatment and prescription history. Response: This position was included in the Department's 2001-2002 budget request but not recommended by the County Administrative Office. The Honorable Judge Hoff August 27, 2001 Page Three
R89:
PA/PG evaluate the purchase of Long Term Care Insurance for those clients who would be eligible. Response: The need for long-term care insurance is reviewed on a case by case basis by the Public Administrator/Guardian staff. These reviews have not resulted in such a service being determined to be in the client's best interest. The need is continuing to be reviewed on a case by case basis.
R90:
A plan be developed for a new morgue before the County reaches a crisis situation. Response: Over 20 years ago after touring various morgues the County built a nearly state-of- the-art facility in a 32 year-old building. The building is now 54 years old and lacks proper electricity, proper plumbing, proper cooling and proper heating. A similar tour of morgues today shows that we are deficient in such areas as special airflow rooms to reduce possible contamination by tuberculosis and other diseases, pneumatic doors to prevent bloody gloves from contaminating doorknobs, storage, etc. There is a shortage of forensic pathologists. These doctors can easily find employment in communities of their choice. Our aging facility handicaps our recruiting efforts. Ideally, a new morgue should be placed in the vicinity of the Community/University Medical Center to serve as an educational opportunity for medical students and other physicians doing their rotation in Fresno.
R91:
A commercial washing machine be purchased for on-site laundering needs and/or use a commercial laundry. Response: Currently this Department uses a non-commercial washer and dryer. Due to the nature of the work in this office, these machines do not hold up well to the types of materials that are cleaned and dried and the cleaning agents that are used. Use of commercial laundry with their garment requirements has not proved satisfactory in delivery and scheduling because of limited volume and cost benefit. Based on the recommendation and the above noted factors, this Department will include in next fiscal year's budget a request for a commercial grade thirty-five pound washer and a commercial graded fifty pound dryer. It is expected that these machines will have a much longer service life and lower the maintenance cost of the units we now use. The estimated cost for the commercial units described above are expected to be approximately $6,000.00, delivered and set up. The Honorable Judge Hoff August 27,2001 Page Four
R92:
Reference be made to the Grand Jury reports of 1998/99 and 1999/2000 regarding the need for improvement of record storage. Response: The Response to Recommendation #86 reflects the facility storage concerns for the entire Department and would address such issues as record storage. Very truly yours, David M. Hadden, M.D. Fresno County Coroner-Public Administrator/ Public Guardian DMH:slb 56 MENDOTA UTILITY BILL COLLECTIONS Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that: 93. The monthly shutoff list and notices be reviewed by an individual independent of the accounting department of the City of Mendota. 94. The subject of outstanding utility bills be reviewed during the annual financial audit conducted by an outside auditor. 95. The City establish and maintain training for all employees on the use of the Municipal Code and written procedures and policies regarding the collection of utility bills. City of Mendota’s Response to Recommendations #93 - #95: See . ELKHORN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that: 96. The Fresno County Board of Supervisors review commitments made in the February 11, 1997, letter issued by a former County Chief Administrative Officer and assure the neighbors of ECF that the County intends to honor these commitments. If certain commitments cannot be met, the County should negotiate with the neighbors to reach an equitable arrangement. Fresno County’s Response to Recommendation #96: Fresno County agrees with the
R93:
The monthly shutoff list and notices be reviewed by an individual independent of the accounting department of the City of Mendota.
R94:
The subject of outstanding utility bills be reviewed during the annual financial audit conducted by an outside auditor.
R95:
The City establish and maintain training for all employees on the use of the Municipal Code and written procedures and policies regarding the collection of utility bills. City of Mendota’s Response to Recommendations #93 - #95: See . ELKHORN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that:
R96:
The Fresno County Board of Supervisors review commitments made in the February 11, 1997, letter issued by a former County Chief Administrative Officer and assure the neighbors of ECF that the County intends to honor these commitments. If certain commitments cannot be met, the County should negotiate with the neighbors to reach an equitable arrangement. Fresno County’s Response to Recommendation #96: Fresno County agrees with the
R97:
The Board of Supervisors continue to fund and maintain the present level of services at ECF. Fresno County’s Response to Recommendation #97: Fresno County agrees with the
R98:
The City of Fresno continue to fund Elkhorn Correctional Facility at no less than the current rate of $1,000,000 per year with no sunset provision. Response to Recommendation 98: The City will not implement the recommendation, as stated. The City of Fresno's position is to continue the present commitment to fund the ECF for the balance of the nine years, if the ECF stays at the current 200 bed capacity both in staffing of correctional personnel and commitments to the facility. City recognizes that as long- term solutions Juvenile Hall expansion is still several years away, it essential that County maintain the ECF as a rehabilitation center for nonviolent Juvenile offenders. It is neither wise, nor sound policy for the City at this time to make a perpetual commitment for these reasons: a perpetual commitment is subject to availability of funding; a perpetual commitment is subject to revocation by a future Council on a variety of grounds; future City-County agreements may require the need to revisit future funding; a future Council may determine that City resources are more urgently needed to fund other related programs (crime prevention, after school programs, etc.) other than confinement costs; making a minimum commitment now may discourage greater, participation by Fresno andlor other cities in the County, should the need arise. Under the above circumstances, making such a minimum commitment now would be misleading and unproductive. In sum, the City is encouraged by the present level of activities of the ECF, and will consider future opportunities to involve itself and other cities in the county to support the program in the most appropriate means then available. Fresno County Grand Jury October 3, 2001 BRIEFING BOOK FOR NEWLY ELECTED OFFICIALS Response to Findings: City agrees with the need and desirability for newly elected officials to receive a minimum and appropriate level of orientation in the new position, and the information needed and legally available to get up to speed on pending issues as expeditiously as possible.
R99:
The County provide boot camp facilities for female juvenile offenders. Fresno County’s Response to Recommendation #99: Fresno County agrees with the
R100:
The 2000-01 Grand Jury recommends that Future Grand Juries continue to monitor the activities at the Elkhorn Correctional Facility.
Quick View
Full Details →
Additional Recommendations
99
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
To be in compliance with the above restricted revenue requirements and regulations and to eliminate the appearance that restricted revenues are being used to fund general fund expenditures, the City of Parlier should ensure that such restricted revenues are clearly used for the related program purposes. Costs charged to the special revenue funds should reflect actual costs attributable to the program and should be supported by applicable documentation such as time tracking. The City of Parlier should obtain clarification from the applicable regulatory agency to determine if their current cost allocation methodology is acceptable. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation.
R2:
In the absence of fully supportable cost allocation methodologies or regulatory approval of existing cost allocation methodologies, the City of Parlier should reverse the $268,224 and $393,602 in overhead costs charged to the special revenue funds listed above. In addition, any 17 other insufficiently supported cost allocations that were not noted in this report should also be reversed. Response: The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor for review, the manager will report back to Council with recommendation for appropriate action.
R3:
In order to provide for sound accounting and budgeting practices and to ensure a clear audit trail, appropriations and expenditures should be initially recorded in the originating department/fund where the activities are incurred. Response: The City is in compliance with generally accepted accounting practices. The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor for further review and appropriate action.
R4:
The City of Parlier Finance Department should implement procedures that provide segregation of duties related to accounts payable. Specifically, the person who approves payments should not be the same person who signs checks and submits requests for payments. When it is necessary for the Finance Director to submit a request for payment, the payment should be sufficiently reviewed and approved by another authorized staff member (e.g. the City Manager). Response: Payments are approved by Department Heads. Any Department expenditures greater than a thousand dollars must be reviewed and approved by the City Manager. Additionally, the City Manager reviews and approves all payments on the demand warrant register. This register is published in the Council agenda for public review.
R5:
To strengthen internal controls over expenditures in special revenue funds and to ensure that funding does not need to be reimbursed or that future funding is withheld, the City of Parlier should ensure that program costs incurred are fully supported and are in compliance with program requirements. This can be achieved in part by requiring that receipts for credit card purchases be retained for supporting documentation and submitted to the Finance Department for review and approval. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation.
R6:
To prevent losses and enhance internal controls, the City of Parlier should immediately implement procedures to ensure that the City's charge accounts and credit cards are not used for personal purchases. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation. Such procedures are in place.
R7:
In compliance with the above code sections and to ensure that funding is not withheld, the RDA should immediately submit a 5-year plan to the State Controller's Office and submit all future required documents when due. Response: The City has held off on updating its 5 year housing plan pending certification of its housing element by the State Housing and Community Development Department. The element will be certified in a few weeks. The plan will be updated during this 2001-2002 fiscal year.
R8:
In order to comply with Health & Safety Code Section 33487 and to ensure that funding is not withheld, the RDA should transfer $3,907 to the low income-housing fund for fiscal year 1998/99 from the RDA Capital Projects Fund. Response: The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor for review, the manager will report back to Council with recommendation for appropriate action.
R9:
In order to explain material changes in the financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, the City of Parlier should provide adequate disclosure in the notes to the financial statements. For example, Parlier could have identified the above increase in the capital projects fund balance as a "restated" fund balance in the financial statements. In addition, a note disclosure should have been provided to reconcile the restated fund balance to the prior year ending balance. The disclosure should have also explained the reason(s) for the restatement. Parlier should consider this for future reporting purposes. Response: The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor for review and appropriate future action.
R10:
a, b, c, and d To ensure that funding is not withheld, the RDA should ensure all proper procedures and legal requirements are followed when issuing loans and all appropriate documents are maintained in their loan files and that all loans are properly authorized. Parlier staff should review all available loan records since the formation of the RDA to try to locate all missing loan documentation and criteria information on the sixteen known loans addressed above. Parlier staff should also determine if there are any additional outstanding loans not currently known that should be followed up on. Also, even though Parlier has indicated that the commercial borrowers of the "written off' loans are out of business, Parlier should continue to bill the business owners until these loans are officially written off by the City Council. Proper procedures must be followed to assure that all redevelopment loans are repaid timely and in full. Redevelopment loans determined to be uncollectible should be written off by the City Council and referred to a collection agency as appropriate. Parlier should consider following up with other collection agencies or pursue other means of recouping unpaid balances, e.g. through small claims processes, other lawsuits, etc. In addition, Parlier should ensure and be able to support that interest charged on Redevelopment loans is charged fairly and equitably. Response: The Redevelopment Agency has not made any loans in nearly a decade. Of those older loans on the Agencies books: some loans have been paid off; some loans are in process and payment is timely, some loans are behind in payment and payment is sporadic, on some there is no activity and they are considered uncollectable. Many of the loans were unsecured and should have been. Loans that are secured by real property shall be paid. Extensive searches for records of prior loans have been made, for some loans there are little or no records. A list of uncollectable loans shall be provided to the Redevelopment Agency for 'write-off' consideration. Future loans, if any, considered by the Redevelopment Agency will be secured by real property and shall be recorded.
R11:
To enhance internal controls, ensure the accuracy of the City's accounting records, and ensure continued funding, Parlier should implement formal procedures to ensure proper accounting for and reconciliation of restricted revenues. In addition, all transactions and supporting documentation must be maintained until such records have been audited by all appropriate oversight agencies. Finally, the City of Parlier should make the appropriate general ledger entries within the special revenue fund to record these transactions. Response: The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor appropriate future action. 19
R12:
The City of Parlier should post transactions to proper accounts and subsequently classify expenditures appropriately in their financial statements. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation.
R13:
In order to comply with terms of the Child Development Grant, the City of Parlier should reimburse the Child Development fund the $582.50 noted above and only make expenditures appropriate for grant purposes from this fund. Response: The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor for review, the manager will report back to Council with recommendation for appropriate action.
R14:
In order to comply with terms of the Child Development Grant, the City of Parlier should obtain an annual audit of the Child Development Program that conforms to the terms of the grant agreement and reports on Child Development revenues and expenditures of the City of Parlier. In addition, the City of Parlier should consistently review any audit reports prepared for their program prior to finalization of the report. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation.
R15:
In order to properly account for and report Gas Tax revenues, the City of Parlier must reconcile any variances between revenues paid by a funding entity and revenues recorded by the City. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation.
R16:
In order to properly administer the Local Transportation Fund and ensure proper financial statement presentation, the City of Parlier must reconcile the Local Transportation fund to receipts and implement procedures to ensure that all transactions are properly recorded and reported. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation.
R17:
The City of Parlier should either provide supporting documentation for the $70, 702 reduction of revenues or reverse this adjustment as appropriate. Response: The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor for review, the manager will report back to Council with recommendation for appropriate action.
R19:
The City of Parlier should contact the DOJ for written clarification of what constitutes acceptable expenditures for this grant. The City of Parlier should comply with the information provided by the 20 DOJ related to this audit finding. Unauthorized expenditures of grant funds must be reimbursed or a waiver should be requested from the grantor agency. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation.
R20:
The City of Parlier should ensure that actual interest is allocated to the COPS fund for 1998/99, 1999/00 and thereafter. In addition, the City should ensure that adequate interest allocation methodologies are used to ensure that all restricted revenues are accurately calculated, allocated and available to be used for restricted program purposes or returned to regulatory agencies as necessary in the event of non-compliance with program requirements. Response: The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor for review, the manager will report back to Council with recommendation for appropriate action.
R21:
In compliance with the provisions of Government Code Section 30061 as stated above, the City of Parlier should ensure that the appropriation of COPS grant monies for 2000/01 and thereafter are separately presented to and approved by Parlier's City Council as required. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation.
R22:
The City of Parlier should maintain support for all financial transactions that affect special revenue funds as well as other funds until all oversight agencies conduct periodic audits. Unauthorized expenditures of grant funds must be reimbursed or a waiver should be requested from the grantor agency. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation.
R23:
The City of Parlier should implement procedures to ensure that expenditures are not claimed/reported twice and that overtime costs are not claimed in compliance with Universal Hiring Grant provisions. Parlier should also adjust the above reports and charges to reverse duplicated expenditures and inappropriate overtime costs. Response: The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor for review, the manager will report back to Council with recommendation for appropriate action.
R24:
The City of Parlier should investigate the difference of $2,404 between revenues reported in their general ledger for OES revenues and the amount of payments confirmed through the State OES or have support for the variance readily available. Response: The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor for review, the manager will report back to Council with recommendation for appropriate action.
R25:
The City of Parlier should immediately revise the Project Completion and Certification Report to reflect actual costs for the disaster period. They should provide support for costs claimed or return $36,136 claimed inappropriately to the State OES. Response: The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor for review, the manager will report back to Council with recommendation for appropriate action. 21
R26:
To ensure accuracy of records, enhance internal controls, and ensure the availability of current and future funding, the City of Parlier should properly maintain files containing supporting documentation for transactions and retain these records until audited by all appropriate oversight agencies. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation. Summary: It is our recommendation that the City of Parlier hire either a CPA firm or professional accounting staff to help them address the findings and recommendations in this report, correct their records/reports related to special revenue funds, and implement procedures/processes to ensure that restricted revenues are properly expended and accounted for and that all applicable rules, regulations and laws are followed with strict compliance. Gary W. Peterson Auditor-Control Treasurer-Tax Collector Response: The City concurs with the Summary recommendation and the matter is referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor. Paint Project: 27. The Parlier City Manager confer with the City Council before engaging in city projects costing over $10,000 as required by PMC. 28. Bidding and contracting of services be in compliance with PMC. 29. The City Manager and City Council be held responsible for implementing the directives set forth in PMC. 30. Compensation of employees and/or contractors be in compliance with existing State and Federal laws. Response: The City concurs with recommendations 27 though 30. It disagrees with many of the findings. Animal Control 31. The City hire an animal control officer. 32. The animal shelter be relocated within the city to make it more accessible. 33. Leash and licensing laws be enforced. 34. The City educate the community regarding licensing, vaccinations, leash laws, spaying and neutering. 35. The City establish a fee schedule for costs incurred in animal control. 36. All record keeping relating to animal control be current. 37. State guidelines be followed for the ultimate disposal of any animal. 38. Polaroid photographs of impounded dogs be posted at city hall in order for citizens to see if their dog has been impounded. Response to 31 - 38: The current location of the city's holding facility and city's procedures for managing it are cost effective and consistent with requirements of law. The Council expects and management will ensure that our operation is in compliance with state law. City Hall Carpeting 39. The Parlier Municipal Code and Purchasing Ordinance be followed. 40. Shortcuts that violate the existing code not be considered. Response: The City concurs with recommendations 39 and 40. Code Enforcement 41. The present policy of code enforcement be changed to a more aggressive system which addresses all violations existing in the City of Parlier. 42. Written policy and procedures be developed to provide for the tracking and documented resolution of all complaints. 43. The city hire a code enforcement officer, supported with sufficient staff. 44. Adequate training be provided for the code enforcement officer and staff, including instruction in property owner and tenant rights. 45. A written manual providing guidelines on how to resolve code enforcement disputes be developed and implemented. 46. The City of Parlier inform and educate the public on current code enforcement policy. 47. A current copy of the Parlier Municipal Code be available for public use at City Hall and the public library. Response to 41 -47: The City has budgeted for a ½ time Code Enforcement Officer in the FY2001-2002 budget. A more active code enforcement program will be instituted accordingly. Personnel Policies 48. The City of Parlier formulate and implement written policies and procedures regarding labor relations. 49. The City develop written job classifications for all positions and issue them to all employees. 50. The City require department heads to adhere to the PMC sections covering their areas of responsibility . 51. A current copy of the PMC be made available to City Council members. 52. The City prepare, and provide to all employees, a handbook informing them of employee rights as stated in the PMC. 53. Employees be advised, in writing, of their rights of representation at all disciplinary hearings. 54. Written annual job performance evaluations of all employees be conducted, a copy placed in the employee's permanent file and a copy provided to the employee. 23 55. A written salary schedule for each position be prepared and a copy made available to each employee. 56. The city develop and issue a written policy regarding advancement and salary increases. Response: Items 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 55 are in place and are standard practice. Item 54 will be instituted this fiscal year. Item 56 will be put in place if and when it is deemed necessary. Nepotism 57. PMC section 4.01.080 be rewritten to more clearly state the city's policy on nepotism as defined by Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, "favoritism shown to relatives or close friends by those in power (as by giving them jobs)." Response: The matter will be referred to the City Attorney for review and to report back to Council with recommendation for appropriate action. 58. The policy of the city be to recruit, employ, and promote the best-qualified individuals. Response: This is City Policy. Personnel Appeals Board 59. The current PHB be dissolved. 60. The position for citizen at large be advertised (noticed). 61. The position for citizen at large be posted at City Hall. 62. All citizens who submit applications for this position be given equal consideration. Response: The City disagrees with recommendations 59-62. The Personnel Appeals Board was established by the municipal code. Council appointments were made consistent with that code. Police Department 63. The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that the Parlier Police Department be closed immediately and the policing of Parlier be contracted with the Fresno County Sheriff. Response: The majority of the Police Department findings were absurd; this recommendation is nonsense. SECTION II CITY COMMITTEE CITY COMMITTEE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DIVISION Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that: 64. Continue the broad public education program to increase awareness of the need to meet recycling goals. 65. Tailor educational efforts to target each culture within our community in a way that has proven most effective for that group. City of Fresno’s Response to Recommendations #64 and #65: See . FRESNO CITY PARKS SANITATION FACILITIES Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that: 66. Increase the budget to provide for care of the new parks. 67. Add personnel to help maintain the park sanitation facilities. 68. Provide adequate funds for replacement of fixtures with more durable ones. City of Fresno’s Response to Recommendations #66 - #68: See . CITY COUNCIL INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDS Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that: 69. Distribution of the City Council discretionary infrastructure funds be reviewed and approved by the City Manager prior to disbursement. 25 70. Consideration be given to reducing the current allotment from $140,000 to $70,000 per district. 71. Carryover of any unused infrastructure funds be eliminated. 72. Future Grand Juries continue to monitor the program. City of Fresno’s Response to Recommendations #69 - #72: See . CITY OF FRESNO WATER METERS Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that: 73. The Mayor, City Council and all civic groups unite to promote the installation of water meters. 74. Homeowners and businesses that currently have meters be excluded from further meter installation costs. 75. The city utilities department continue to publish average water bills for various family sizes with and without meters. 76. Water police be reactivated to prevent water waste. City of Fresno’s Response to Recommendations #73 - #76: See . BASEBALL/MULTI-USE STADIUM Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that: 77. The City require an annual independent audit of the financial statements of FDG. 78. All seventeen dates the city controls be devoted to for-profit events to enhance the City’s revenues. 26 79. The public be assured of coordinated parking and security by FDG and the City. City of Fresno’s Response to Recommendations #77 - #79: See . CITY OF FRESNO FIRE DEPARTMENT Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that: 80. The fire department have a budgeted vehicle replacement plan. The city should consider replacement of vehicles after seven or eight years while they still have significant value on the used fire vehicle market. 81. The inventory of fire fighting tools be increased so that all spare engines/trucks are fully equipped. 82. The city recognize the need to increase the number of fire fighting personnel. 83. The City of Fresno revisit its traffic light pre-emption plan and budget funds to complete this program. 84. The Fresno Fire Department develop a plan to reduce response times to the NFPA standards. City of Fresno’s Response to Recommendations #80 - #84: See . Daniel G. Hobbs City Manager October 3, 2001 Mr. Rick Allen Van Ness #102 Fresno, CA 93721 Dear Mr. Allen: SUBJECT: 2000-2001 GRAND JURY RECOMMENDATIONS The following contains the City of Fresno's response to the 2000-2001 Grand Jury
R27:
The Parlier City Manager confer with the City Council before engaging in city projects costing over $10,000 as required by PMC.
R28:
Bidding and contracting of services be in compliance with PMC.
R29:
The City Manager and City Council be held responsible for implementing the directives set forth in PMC.
R30:
Compensation of employees and/or contractors be in compliance with existing State and Federal laws. City of Parlier's Response to Recommendations #27 - #30: See . PARLIER ANIMAL CONTROL Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that:
R31:
The City hire an animal control officer.
R32:
The animal shelter be relocated within the city to make it more accessible.
R33:
Leash and licensing laws be enforced.
R34:
The City educate the community regarding licensing, vaccinations, leash laws, spaying and neutering.
R35:
The City establish a fee schedule for costs incurred in animal control.
R36:
All record keeping relating to animal control be current.
R37:
State guidelines be followed for the ultimate disposal of any animal. 7
R38:
Polaroid photographs of impounded dogs be posted at city hall in order for citizens to see if their dog has been impounded. City of Parlier's Response to Recommendations #31 - #38: See . CARPETING OF PARLIER CITY HALL Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that:
R39:
The Parlier Municipal Code and Purchasing Ordinance be followed.
R40:
Shortcuts that violate the existing code not be considered. City of Parlier's Response to Recommendations #39 and #40: See . CODE ENFORCEMENT IN PARLIER Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that:
R41:
The present policy of code enforcement be changed to a more aggressive system which addresses all violations existing in the City of Parlier.
R42:
Written policy and procedures be developed to provide for the tracking and documented resolution of all complaints.
R43:
The city hire a code enforcement officer, supported with sufficient staff.
R44:
Adequate training be provided for the code enforcement officer and staff, including instruction in property owner and tenant rights.
R45:
A written manual providing guidelines on how to resolve code enforcement disputes be developed and implemented.
R46:
The City of Parlier inform and educate the public on current code enforcement policy.
R47:
A current copy of the Parlier Municipal Code be available for public use at City Hall and the public library. City of Parlier's Response to Recommendations #41 - #47: See . PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT WITHIN THE CITY OF PARLIER Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that:
R48:
The City of Parlier formulate and implement written policies and procedures regarding labor relations.
R49:
The City develop written job classifications for all positions and issue them to all employees.
R50:
The City require department heads to adhere to the PMC sections covering their areas of responsibility.
R51:
A current copy of the PMC be made available to City Council members. 9
R52:
The City prepare, and provide to all employees, a handbook informing them of employee rights as stated in the PMC.
R53:
Employees be advised, in writing, of their rights of representation at all disciplinary hearings.
R54:
Written annual job performance evaluations of all employees be conducted, a copy placed in the employee’s permanent file and a copy provided to the employee.
R55:
A written salary schedule for each position be prepared and a copy made available to each employee.
R56:
The city develop and issue a written policy regarding advancement and salary increases. City of Parlier's Response to Recommendations #48 - #56: See . NEPOTISM IN THE CITY OF PARLIER Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that:
R57:
PMC section 4.01.080 be rewritten to more clearly state the city’s policy on nepotism as defined by Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, “favoritism shown to relatives or close friends by those in power (as by giving them jobs).”
R58:
The policy of the city be to recruit, employ, and promote the best-qualified individuals. City of Parlier's Response to Recommendations #57 and #58: See . PARLIER PERSONNEL HEARING BOARD Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that:
R59:
The current PHB be dissolved.
R60:
The position for citizen at large be advertised (noticed).
R61:
The position for citizen at large be posted at City Hall.
R62:
All citizens who submit applications for this position be given equal consideration. City of Parlier's Response to Recommendations #59 - #62: See . PARLIER POLICE DEPARTMENT Recommendation The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that:
R63:
The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that the Parlier Police Department be closed immediately and the policing of Parlier be contracted with the Fresno County Sheriff. City of Parlier's Response to Recommendation #63: See . A Community with a vision to the future. Una Comunidad con vision al futuro Incorporated November 14, 1921 Founded 1876 July 24, 2001 Honorable Gary D. Huff Presiding Judge Superior Court County of Fresno 1100 Van Ness Avenue Fresno, CA 93721 Dear Judge Hoff: Enclosed please find the City of Parlier's response to the 200-2001 Grand Jury Report. The City was quite disappointed with the quality of work performed by the Grand Jury, and found and determined that many of the findings were incorrect. Nevertheless, there were many useful recommendations that will be put in place. Sincerely, Michael R. Swigart City Manager Enclosures 1100 E. Parlier Avenue, Parlier, California 93848 .(559) 646.3545 FAX (559) 646-0416 12 A Community with a vision to the future. Una Comunidad con visión al futuro Incorporated November 14, 1921 Founded 1878 Staff Report Date: 07172001 To: Mayor, Council From: City Manager Council Meeting of July 17,2001 G. City Manager/Executive Director Reports Item g.4, Grand Jury Recommendations Recommendation: 1. Receive Recommendations from the Grand Jury;
R64:
Continue the broad public education program to increase awareness of the need to meet recycling goals. Response to Recommendation 64: The City has implemented the recommendation. The Solid Waste education budget has been increased for FY 02 specifically for this purpose. Broad recycling education programs are ongoing, with acceleration of effort planed for a spring of 2003 multi- media campaign.
R65:
Tailor educational efforts to target each culture within our community in a way that has proven most effective for that group. City of Fresno City Hall • 2600 Fresno Street • Fresno, California 93721-3601 (559) 498-4591 • FAX (559) 488-1015 • www.ci.fresno.ca.us 28 Fresno County Grand Jury October 3, 2001 Response to Recommendation 65: The City has not yet fully implemented the recommendation. Solid Waste is developing educational strategies to fit several linguistic and cultural specialized groups. A media consultant with multi-cultural expertise will be retained in FY 02, while we are currently working with EOC and several community groups to tailor educational messages and venues to maximize results. FRESNO CITY PARKS FACILITIES Response to Findings: The City agrees with the findings.
R66:
Increase the budget to provide for care of new parks. Response to Recommendation 66: The City has implemented the recommendation. The FY02 budget for neighborhood parks was increased by $266, 700 to compensate for the opening of Layne, Kolligian and Pilibos Parks and the Multi-Cultural Corridor and increased operating costs including energy.
R67:
Add personnel to help maintain the park sanitation facilities. Response to Recommendation 67: The City has implemented the recommendation. The Parks Division budget was increased during fiscal year 2000-2001 to increase the number of times the outdoor facilities at neighborhood parks are maintained from 5 to 7 times per week, including holidays. Those parks that are staffed with Recreation personnel, which is 27 out of 58, receive at least one additional maintenance visit daily during operating hours. The maintenance level on the regional parks restroom facilities remain at two cleanings per day and a minimum of one additional visit each day by maintenance personnel. Fresno County Grand Jury October 3, 2001
R68:
Provide adequate funds for replacement of fixtures with more durable ones. Response to Recommendation 68: The City has not yet fully implemented the recommendation. The four outdoor restroom facilities at Woodward Park are on a four year schedule for complete renovation. The funding source for the improvements is from Crystal Valley Decorating for their Festival of Lights Exhibit. Fixtures at other facilities are replaced when damaged, and the Parks Division is pursuing grants from Federal and State agencies for replacements at other outdoor facilities. CITY COUNCIL INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDS Response to Findings: The City agrees that certain non-capital expenses were authorized out of what is generally called district infrastructure, but disagrees that any cited expenditures were legally or procedurally questionable. Funding sources were used for legally permissible expenditures; general fund sources were used for non-capital expenditures.
R69:
Distribution of the City Council discretionary infrastructure funds be reviewed and approved by the City Manager prior to disbursement. Response to Recommendation 69: Expenditures funded from district infrastructure budgets follow standard City procedures for review and payment. Additionally, non-capital expenditures were placed on Council agendas, considered in Council open meetings, and approved by a supermajority vote and subject to mayoral veto.
R70:
Consideration be given to reducing the current allotment from $140,000 to $70,000 per district. Fresno County Grand Jury October 3, 2001 Response to Recommendation 70: The Mayor and City Council have recently discussed this matter in public session, and have confirmed the need for resources to be available to expediently resolve infrastructure needs within Council districts. Additionally, the Council has placed a limit of 15 percent of their infrastructure budgets for funding non-capital related expenditures. Finally, the City Attorney's Office is preparing, for Council consideration, a resolution which establishes the criteria for use of Community Service Program Funds. The Council adopted the resolution which is attached as Exhibit '"A".
R71:
Carryover of any unused infrastructure funds be eliminated. Response to Recommendation 71: The budgeting of unused infrastructure funds is a policy decision regarding the allocation of limited City resources to the infrastructure needs of the City. The issue is compounded by the timing and process necessary to complete infrastructure projects including, Charter required competitive bidding and approvals necessary to properly expend the funds. The matter was considered by the City Council on August 21, 2001, at which time the funds were appropriated for use in fiscal year 2001-2002.
R72:
Future Grand Juries continue to monitor the program. Response to Recommendation 72: Should future Grand Juries choose to monitor the program, City staff will provide requested information as required. CITY OF FRESNO WATER METERS Response to Findings and Conclusions: The City agrees with findings A through F, Findings H and I, and Conclusion C. Regarding Finding G which stated that “”Water Police" have been inactivated due to lack of funds", it is correct that the program of proactive water waste patrols was de-funded. The principal reason however, was not a lack of funds but was a policy decision by the 31 Fresno County Grand Jury October 3, 2001 previous City administration and previous Council to redirect the resources of the water conservation program. Regarding Conclusion A, the cost of San Joaquin water supply will increase. Contract costs will increase from a current $30 per acre ft to a minimum of $70 per acre ft. Regarding Conclusion B, the cost of installation, maintenance and administration of a residential metering program will be fully offset after full implementation by the anticipated decrease in pumping, water treatment and wastewater treatment costs.
R73:
The Mayor, City Council and all civic groups unite to promote the installation of water meters. Response to Recommendation 73: The City has not yet fully implemented the recommendation. The Mayor and Council have all endorsed meters if they are necessary to renew the City's CVP contract. A broad based stakeholders group (Contract Renewal Advisory Group) has been formed to provide feedback and support in the contract renewal process and a referendum on water meters should it become necessary to renew the CVP contract. Timing and need for such a campaign must wait the outcome of current City negotiations with the Bureau of Reclamation. While the Council has authority to place measure on the ballot for voter approval, State law prohibits the City from using public funds to advocate passage or defeat of a local ballot measure. The rationale grounded in case law is that public money cannot be spent to tip the scales in favor of some electors and against others in matters left for the citizenry to decide.
R74:
Homeowners and businesses that currently have meters be excluded from further meter installation costs. Response to Recommendation 74:
R75:
The City Utilities Department continue to publish average water bills for various family sizes with and without meters. Response to Recommendation 75: Ongoing.
R76:
Water police be reactivated to prevent water waste. Response to Recommendation 76: The City has not yet fully implemented the recommendation. This and related conservation program expansions are a condition of the City's Central Valley Project contract renewal and will be re-implemented at the time of contract renewal. In addition, increased conservation funding is anticipated in the FY 03 budget cycle. BASEBALL/MULTI-USE STADIUM Response to Findings: The findings specified as A-M were generally accurate as of the time Grand Jury received its information. Some of the matters are estimated (e.g., annual debt service; final project cost) while other matters are in development (e.g., safety/traffic control plan). City disagrees with Conclusion A; conclusion B is ambiguous; and City disagrees with Conclusion C and D, to the extent that security and traffic plans are in the process of development. These plans will be developed and implemented with the purpose of avoiding or minimizing serious parking impacts except during intermittent, non peak business hours. Fresno County Grand Jury October 3, 2001
R77:
The City require an annual independent audit of the financial statements of FDG [Fresno Diamond Group]. Response to Recommendation 77: The recommendation will be implemented as deemed necessary by the City, per Section 17.9 of the lease agreement as follows: “Records of Tenant pertaining to any obligations of Tenant hereunder shall be kept on a generally recognized accounting basis and shall be available to the City or its authorized representatives upon request during regular business hours throughout the life of this Agreement and for a period of three years thereafter. In addition, all books, documents papers, and records of Tenant pertaining to any obligation of Tenant pursuant to this Agreement shall be available for the purpose of making audits, examinations, excerpts, and transcriptions for the same period of time. If an audit by the City discloses underpayment in excess of one percent of any monies due the City hereunder, reasonable audit costs shall be reimbursable by Tenant to the City. This Section shall survive expiration or termination of this Agreement."
R78:
All seventeen dates the city controls be devoted to for-profit events to enhance the City's revenues. Response to Recommendation 78: The recommendation will not be implemented. Under the lease, the City is allocated 10 Concession-Using Events, and 7 Non-Concession-Using Events, and it states, in Section 3.6(h): "Non-Concession-Using Events shall generally be partially or wholly sponsored or contracted for by either the City or other not-for-profit organizations (which are not required to be 501 (c)(3) organizations or for charitable purposes." It is the general understanding between the parties that the 7 events would not be "for- profit" events.
R79:
The public be assured of coordinated parking and security by FDG and the City. Fresno County Grand Jury October 3, 2001 Response to Recommendation 79: The City has not yet fully implemented the recommendation. Parking plans are being developed (with a consultant's study being completed in September) to provide for stadium event parking, and security plans will be in place by the opening of the stadium. CITY OF FRESNO FIRE DEPARTMENT Response to Conclusions: The City agrees with Conclusion A; disagrees with Conclusions B and D; and agrees in part with Conclusions C, E, and F. Regarding Conclusion C, vehicle status is monitored by the department and equipment is replaced as needed. Regarding Conclusion E, and while the ratio may be accurate, it does not necessarily reflect the ability to provide Fire services within the City of Fresno. Regarding Conclusion F, the implementation is ongoing.
R80:
The fire department have a budgeted vehicle replacement plan. The city should consider replacement of vehicles after seven or eight years while they still have significant value on the used fire vehicle market. Response to Recommendation 80: The City has not yet fully implemented the recommendation. While the Fire Department does not currently maintain a specific vehicle replacement plan, vehicles have been replaced as needed, by financing the purchase over a ten year period. The Department is currently developing a draft replacement plan for consideration.
R81:
The inventory of fire fighting tools be increased so that all spare engines/tools are fully equipped. Response to Recommendation 81: The City has implemented the recommendation. Active engines and trucks equipped with necessary tools. Reserve engines and trucks are currently equipped with a minimum of tools; typically hose and small tools on engines, and ladders and small 35 Fresno County Grand Jury October 3, 2001 tools on trucks. The balance of the inventory is stocked when a front line engine or truck is out of service for repairs. When reserve apparatus is temporarily placed in service as a new company, it operates with existing equipment. In those cases when additional equipment is needed to perform a task, the equipment from other apparatus on scene is utilized.
R82:
The city recognize the need to increase the number of fire fighting personnel. Response to Recommendation 82: The City has not yet fully implemented the recommendation. The City recognizes that the 0.58 firefighters/1000 population is at the low end of national and regional standards. However, these standards do not take into account specific service needs of Fresno. The City will continue to pursue options for increasing Fire Department staffing in future budget deliberations.
R83:
The City of Fresno revisit its traffic light preemption plan and budget funds to complete this program: Response to Recommendation 83: The City has not yet fully implemented the recommendation. The intersections of Herndon and West, and Clovis and Clinton currently have the Opticom traffic preemption device. Fire apparatus specifications have included the Opticom transmitter as emergency warning equipment to be installed since 1998. Nine of our thirty one fire apparatus are equipped with an Opticom transmitter. The City implementation of this program will continue to be a priority in future budget deliberations. The Fire Department is continually reviewing opportunities for improving response times, and will present a report of such opportunities as part of the fiscal year 2001-2002 budget process. Fresno County Grand Jury October 3, 2001 ELKHORN CORRECTION FACILITY Response to Findings:
R84:
The Fresno Fire Department develop a plan to reduce response times to the NFPA standards. City of Fresno’s Response to Recommendations #80 - #84: See . Daniel G. Hobbs City Manager October 3, 2001 Mr. Rick Allen Van Ness #102 Fresno, CA 93721 Dear Mr. Allen: SUBJECT: 2000-2001 GRAND JURY RECOMMENDATIONS The following contains the City of Fresno's response to the 2000-2001 Grand Jury
R85:
The PA/PG evaluate the use of the County Treasury Pool. Response: The option of putting the Public Guardian funds with the County under the Auditor-Controller/Treasurer-Tax Collector was carefully investigated. This Department decided that it was not a viable option because: 1) The Department loses control of the citizens' funds. Currently, when a vendor fails to respond in an adequate manner, the funds are immediately transferred to an institution providing more satisfactory services. It would be unlikely that we could remove the funds from the County's control once they are delivered whatever the level of service. 2) Limitations within the Auditor-Controller/Treasurer-Tax Collector's Office preclude the guarantee of providing "rush" checks. The Public Administrator/Guardian staff requires access to client's monies on a daily basis to address immediate needs on behalf of their clients. These emergency needs are primarily related to new cases, which are opened on a daily basis. An example of such a need would include payment of utility bills to avoid interruptions of services. 3) The County's investment pool is insured through various means; however, it is not Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) insured as required by the Superior Court. West Nielsen Avenue Fresno, California 93706 Telephone: Public Administrator (559) 268-0139 Coroner (559) 268-0109 Public Guardian (559) 268-0139 Equal Employment Opportunity Affirmative Action Disabled Employer 53 The Honorable Judge Hoff August 27, 2001 Page Two
R86:
Storage be improved for case records and client assets. Construction of an on-site storage building would eliminate the need for an expensive off-site mini-storage. Response: This Department initiated this recommendation and, therefore, we concur. The monies being paid to private outside storage companies could largely defray the cost of such storage. Personnel time spent visiting off-site storage would be curtailed. In the meantime the Department has surplused equipment, old computers, and furniture that were housed in the metal shed to provide additional storage space in that facility. The Department, in conjunction with the County Clerk as Records Manager, has also developed a record retention schedule, which was approved by the Board of Supervisors in December 2000 and is being utilized by the Department to eliminate dormant files: The Department submitted a second Capital Improvement Projects request for the 2001-2002 budget year. The County Administrative Office, when made aware of our storage needs, sent a team to evaluate the situation. After several months, no recommendation has been forthcoming.
R87:
Evaluate the need for additional deputies due to the implementation of the new Elder Abuse Referral Law SB 1742. Response: We have not yet determined the potential impact of SB 1742 on the Public Guardian's Office nor how such a program will be funded. The Public Guardian will meet with law enforcement agencies and Department of Adult Services to ascertain whether these agencies have been properly trained in the area of adult abuse and to determine the anticipated impact. The Public Guardian is presently in negotiations with the Department of Adult Services for funding to add an additional deputy position to expedite cases referred from Adult Protective Services. An agreement is expected to be forthcoming.
R88:
PA/PG add the services of a Registered Nurse to staff. This person would aid in evaluating and inspecting medical care facilities as well as review proposed client treatment and prescription history. Response: This position was included in the Department's 2001-2002 budget request but not recommended by the County Administrative Office. The Honorable Judge Hoff August 27, 2001 Page Three
R89:
PA/PG evaluate the purchase of Long Term Care Insurance for those clients who would be eligible. Response: The need for long-term care insurance is reviewed on a case by case basis by the Public Administrator/Guardian staff. These reviews have not resulted in such a service being determined to be in the client's best interest. The need is continuing to be reviewed on a case by case basis.
R90:
A plan be developed for a new morgue before the County reaches a crisis situation. Response: Over 20 years ago after touring various morgues the County built a nearly state-of- the-art facility in a 32 year-old building. The building is now 54 years old and lacks proper electricity, proper plumbing, proper cooling and proper heating. A similar tour of morgues today shows that we are deficient in such areas as special airflow rooms to reduce possible contamination by tuberculosis and other diseases, pneumatic doors to prevent bloody gloves from contaminating doorknobs, storage, etc. There is a shortage of forensic pathologists. These doctors can easily find employment in communities of their choice. Our aging facility handicaps our recruiting efforts. Ideally, a new morgue should be placed in the vicinity of the Community/University Medical Center to serve as an educational opportunity for medical students and other physicians doing their rotation in Fresno.
R91:
A commercial washing machine be purchased for on-site laundering needs and/or use a commercial laundry. Response: Currently this Department uses a non-commercial washer and dryer. Due to the nature of the work in this office, these machines do not hold up well to the types of materials that are cleaned and dried and the cleaning agents that are used. Use of commercial laundry with their garment requirements has not proved satisfactory in delivery and scheduling because of limited volume and cost benefit. Based on the recommendation and the above noted factors, this Department will include in next fiscal year's budget a request for a commercial grade thirty-five pound washer and a commercial graded fifty pound dryer. It is expected that these machines will have a much longer service life and lower the maintenance cost of the units we now use. The estimated cost for the commercial units described above are expected to be approximately $6,000.00, delivered and set up. The Honorable Judge Hoff August 27,2001 Page Four
R92:
Reference be made to the Grand Jury reports of 1998/99 and 1999/2000 regarding the need for improvement of record storage. Response: The Response to Recommendation #86 reflects the facility storage concerns for the entire Department and would address such issues as record storage. Very truly yours, David M. Hadden, M.D. Fresno County Coroner-Public Administrator/ Public Guardian DMH:slb 56 MENDOTA UTILITY BILL COLLECTIONS Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that: 93. The monthly shutoff list and notices be reviewed by an individual independent of the accounting department of the City of Mendota. 94. The subject of outstanding utility bills be reviewed during the annual financial audit conducted by an outside auditor. 95. The City establish and maintain training for all employees on the use of the Municipal Code and written procedures and policies regarding the collection of utility bills. City of Mendota’s Response to Recommendations #93 - #95: See . ELKHORN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that: 96. The Fresno County Board of Supervisors review commitments made in the February 11, 1997, letter issued by a former County Chief Administrative Officer and assure the neighbors of ECF that the County intends to honor these commitments. If certain commitments cannot be met, the County should negotiate with the neighbors to reach an equitable arrangement. Fresno County’s Response to Recommendation #96: Fresno County agrees with the
R93:
The monthly shutoff list and notices be reviewed by an individual independent of the accounting department of the City of Mendota.
R94:
The subject of outstanding utility bills be reviewed during the annual financial audit conducted by an outside auditor.
R95:
The City establish and maintain training for all employees on the use of the Municipal Code and written procedures and policies regarding the collection of utility bills. City of Mendota’s Response to Recommendations #93 - #95: See . ELKHORN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that:
R96:
The Fresno County Board of Supervisors review commitments made in the February 11, 1997, letter issued by a former County Chief Administrative Officer and assure the neighbors of ECF that the County intends to honor these commitments. If certain commitments cannot be met, the County should negotiate with the neighbors to reach an equitable arrangement. Fresno County’s Response to Recommendation #96: Fresno County agrees with the
R97:
The Board of Supervisors continue to fund and maintain the present level of services at ECF. Fresno County’s Response to Recommendation #97: Fresno County agrees with the
R98:
The City of Fresno continue to fund Elkhorn Correctional Facility at no less than the current rate of $1,000,000 per year with no sunset provision. Response to Recommendation 98: The City will not implement the recommendation, as stated. The City of Fresno's position is to continue the present commitment to fund the ECF for the balance of the nine years, if the ECF stays at the current 200 bed capacity both in staffing of correctional personnel and commitments to the facility. City recognizes that as long- term solutions Juvenile Hall expansion is still several years away, it essential that County maintain the ECF as a rehabilitation center for nonviolent Juvenile offenders. It is neither wise, nor sound policy for the City at this time to make a perpetual commitment for these reasons: a perpetual commitment is subject to availability of funding; a perpetual commitment is subject to revocation by a future Council on a variety of grounds; future City-County agreements may require the need to revisit future funding; a future Council may determine that City resources are more urgently needed to fund other related programs (crime prevention, after school programs, etc.) other than confinement costs; making a minimum commitment now may discourage greater, participation by Fresno andlor other cities in the County, should the need arise. Under the above circumstances, making such a minimum commitment now would be misleading and unproductive. In sum, the City is encouraged by the present level of activities of the ECF, and will consider future opportunities to involve itself and other cities in the county to support the program in the most appropriate means then available. Fresno County Grand Jury October 3, 2001 BRIEFING BOOK FOR NEWLY ELECTED OFFICIALS Response to Findings: City agrees with the need and desirability for newly elected officials to receive a minimum and appropriate level of orientation in the new position, and the information needed and legally available to get up to speed on pending issues as expeditiously as possible.
R99:
The County provide boot camp facilities for female juvenile offenders. Fresno County’s Response to Recommendation #99: Fresno County agrees with the
R100:
The 2000-01 Grand Jury recommends that Future Grand Juries continue to monitor the activities at the Elkhorn Correctional Facility.
Quick View
Full Details →
Additional Recommendations
99
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
To be in compliance with the above restricted revenue requirements and regulations and to eliminate the appearance that restricted revenues are being used to fund general fund expenditures, the City of Parlier should ensure that such restricted revenues are clearly used for the related program purposes. Costs charged to the special revenue funds should reflect actual costs attributable to the program and should be supported by applicable documentation such as time tracking. The City of Parlier should obtain clarification from the applicable regulatory agency to determine if their current cost allocation methodology is acceptable. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation.
R2:
In the absence of fully supportable cost allocation methodologies or regulatory approval of existing cost allocation methodologies, the City of Parlier should reverse the $268,224 and $393,602 in overhead costs charged to the special revenue funds listed above. In addition, any 17 other insufficiently supported cost allocations that were not noted in this report should also be reversed. Response: The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor for review, the manager will report back to Council with recommendation for appropriate action.
R3:
In order to provide for sound accounting and budgeting practices and to ensure a clear audit trail, appropriations and expenditures should be initially recorded in the originating department/fund where the activities are incurred. Response: The City is in compliance with generally accepted accounting practices. The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor for further review and appropriate action.
R4:
The City of Parlier Finance Department should implement procedures that provide segregation of duties related to accounts payable. Specifically, the person who approves payments should not be the same person who signs checks and submits requests for payments. When it is necessary for the Finance Director to submit a request for payment, the payment should be sufficiently reviewed and approved by another authorized staff member (e.g. the City Manager). Response: Payments are approved by Department Heads. Any Department expenditures greater than a thousand dollars must be reviewed and approved by the City Manager. Additionally, the City Manager reviews and approves all payments on the demand warrant register. This register is published in the Council agenda for public review.
R5:
To strengthen internal controls over expenditures in special revenue funds and to ensure that funding does not need to be reimbursed or that future funding is withheld, the City of Parlier should ensure that program costs incurred are fully supported and are in compliance with program requirements. This can be achieved in part by requiring that receipts for credit card purchases be retained for supporting documentation and submitted to the Finance Department for review and approval. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation.
R6:
To prevent losses and enhance internal controls, the City of Parlier should immediately implement procedures to ensure that the City's charge accounts and credit cards are not used for personal purchases. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation. Such procedures are in place.
R7:
In compliance with the above code sections and to ensure that funding is not withheld, the RDA should immediately submit a 5-year plan to the State Controller's Office and submit all future required documents when due. Response: The City has held off on updating its 5 year housing plan pending certification of its housing element by the State Housing and Community Development Department. The element will be certified in a few weeks. The plan will be updated during this 2001-2002 fiscal year.
R8:
In order to comply with Health & Safety Code Section 33487 and to ensure that funding is not withheld, the RDA should transfer $3,907 to the low income-housing fund for fiscal year 1998/99 from the RDA Capital Projects Fund. Response: The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor for review, the manager will report back to Council with recommendation for appropriate action.
R9:
In order to explain material changes in the financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, the City of Parlier should provide adequate disclosure in the notes to the financial statements. For example, Parlier could have identified the above increase in the capital projects fund balance as a "restated" fund balance in the financial statements. In addition, a note disclosure should have been provided to reconcile the restated fund balance to the prior year ending balance. The disclosure should have also explained the reason(s) for the restatement. Parlier should consider this for future reporting purposes. Response: The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor for review and appropriate future action.
R10:
a, b, c, and d To ensure that funding is not withheld, the RDA should ensure all proper procedures and legal requirements are followed when issuing loans and all appropriate documents are maintained in their loan files and that all loans are properly authorized. Parlier staff should review all available loan records since the formation of the RDA to try to locate all missing loan documentation and criteria information on the sixteen known loans addressed above. Parlier staff should also determine if there are any additional outstanding loans not currently known that should be followed up on. Also, even though Parlier has indicated that the commercial borrowers of the "written off' loans are out of business, Parlier should continue to bill the business owners until these loans are officially written off by the City Council. Proper procedures must be followed to assure that all redevelopment loans are repaid timely and in full. Redevelopment loans determined to be uncollectible should be written off by the City Council and referred to a collection agency as appropriate. Parlier should consider following up with other collection agencies or pursue other means of recouping unpaid balances, e.g. through small claims processes, other lawsuits, etc. In addition, Parlier should ensure and be able to support that interest charged on Redevelopment loans is charged fairly and equitably. Response: The Redevelopment Agency has not made any loans in nearly a decade. Of those older loans on the Agencies books: some loans have been paid off; some loans are in process and payment is timely, some loans are behind in payment and payment is sporadic, on some there is no activity and they are considered uncollectable. Many of the loans were unsecured and should have been. Loans that are secured by real property shall be paid. Extensive searches for records of prior loans have been made, for some loans there are little or no records. A list of uncollectable loans shall be provided to the Redevelopment Agency for 'write-off' consideration. Future loans, if any, considered by the Redevelopment Agency will be secured by real property and shall be recorded.
R11:
To enhance internal controls, ensure the accuracy of the City's accounting records, and ensure continued funding, Parlier should implement formal procedures to ensure proper accounting for and reconciliation of restricted revenues. In addition, all transactions and supporting documentation must be maintained until such records have been audited by all appropriate oversight agencies. Finally, the City of Parlier should make the appropriate general ledger entries within the special revenue fund to record these transactions. Response: The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor appropriate future action. 19
R12:
The City of Parlier should post transactions to proper accounts and subsequently classify expenditures appropriately in their financial statements. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation.
R13:
In order to comply with terms of the Child Development Grant, the City of Parlier should reimburse the Child Development fund the $582.50 noted above and only make expenditures appropriate for grant purposes from this fund. Response: The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor for review, the manager will report back to Council with recommendation for appropriate action.
R14:
In order to comply with terms of the Child Development Grant, the City of Parlier should obtain an annual audit of the Child Development Program that conforms to the terms of the grant agreement and reports on Child Development revenues and expenditures of the City of Parlier. In addition, the City of Parlier should consistently review any audit reports prepared for their program prior to finalization of the report. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation.
R15:
In order to properly account for and report Gas Tax revenues, the City of Parlier must reconcile any variances between revenues paid by a funding entity and revenues recorded by the City. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation.
R16:
In order to properly administer the Local Transportation Fund and ensure proper financial statement presentation, the City of Parlier must reconcile the Local Transportation fund to receipts and implement procedures to ensure that all transactions are properly recorded and reported. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation.
R17:
The City of Parlier should either provide supporting documentation for the $70, 702 reduction of revenues or reverse this adjustment as appropriate. Response: The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor for review, the manager will report back to Council with recommendation for appropriate action.
R19:
The City of Parlier should contact the DOJ for written clarification of what constitutes acceptable expenditures for this grant. The City of Parlier should comply with the information provided by the 20 DOJ related to this audit finding. Unauthorized expenditures of grant funds must be reimbursed or a waiver should be requested from the grantor agency. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation.
R20:
The City of Parlier should ensure that actual interest is allocated to the COPS fund for 1998/99, 1999/00 and thereafter. In addition, the City should ensure that adequate interest allocation methodologies are used to ensure that all restricted revenues are accurately calculated, allocated and available to be used for restricted program purposes or returned to regulatory agencies as necessary in the event of non-compliance with program requirements. Response: The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor for review, the manager will report back to Council with recommendation for appropriate action.
R21:
In compliance with the provisions of Government Code Section 30061 as stated above, the City of Parlier should ensure that the appropriation of COPS grant monies for 2000/01 and thereafter are separately presented to and approved by Parlier's City Council as required. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation.
R22:
The City of Parlier should maintain support for all financial transactions that affect special revenue funds as well as other funds until all oversight agencies conduct periodic audits. Unauthorized expenditures of grant funds must be reimbursed or a waiver should be requested from the grantor agency. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation.
R23:
The City of Parlier should implement procedures to ensure that expenditures are not claimed/reported twice and that overtime costs are not claimed in compliance with Universal Hiring Grant provisions. Parlier should also adjust the above reports and charges to reverse duplicated expenditures and inappropriate overtime costs. Response: The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor for review, the manager will report back to Council with recommendation for appropriate action.
R24:
The City of Parlier should investigate the difference of $2,404 between revenues reported in their general ledger for OES revenues and the amount of payments confirmed through the State OES or have support for the variance readily available. Response: The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor for review, the manager will report back to Council with recommendation for appropriate action.
R25:
The City of Parlier should immediately revise the Project Completion and Certification Report to reflect actual costs for the disaster period. They should provide support for costs claimed or return $36,136 claimed inappropriately to the State OES. Response: The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor for review, the manager will report back to Council with recommendation for appropriate action. 21
R26:
To ensure accuracy of records, enhance internal controls, and ensure the availability of current and future funding, the City of Parlier should properly maintain files containing supporting documentation for transactions and retain these records until audited by all appropriate oversight agencies. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation. Summary: It is our recommendation that the City of Parlier hire either a CPA firm or professional accounting staff to help them address the findings and recommendations in this report, correct their records/reports related to special revenue funds, and implement procedures/processes to ensure that restricted revenues are properly expended and accounted for and that all applicable rules, regulations and laws are followed with strict compliance. Gary W. Peterson Auditor-Control Treasurer-Tax Collector Response: The City concurs with the Summary recommendation and the matter is referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor. Paint Project: 27. The Parlier City Manager confer with the City Council before engaging in city projects costing over $10,000 as required by PMC. 28. Bidding and contracting of services be in compliance with PMC. 29. The City Manager and City Council be held responsible for implementing the directives set forth in PMC. 30. Compensation of employees and/or contractors be in compliance with existing State and Federal laws. Response: The City concurs with recommendations 27 though 30. It disagrees with many of the findings. Animal Control 31. The City hire an animal control officer. 32. The animal shelter be relocated within the city to make it more accessible. 33. Leash and licensing laws be enforced. 34. The City educate the community regarding licensing, vaccinations, leash laws, spaying and neutering. 35. The City establish a fee schedule for costs incurred in animal control. 36. All record keeping relating to animal control be current. 37. State guidelines be followed for the ultimate disposal of any animal. 38. Polaroid photographs of impounded dogs be posted at city hall in order for citizens to see if their dog has been impounded. Response to 31 - 38: The current location of the city's holding facility and city's procedures for managing it are cost effective and consistent with requirements of law. The Council expects and management will ensure that our operation is in compliance with state law. City Hall Carpeting 39. The Parlier Municipal Code and Purchasing Ordinance be followed. 40. Shortcuts that violate the existing code not be considered. Response: The City concurs with recommendations 39 and 40. Code Enforcement 41. The present policy of code enforcement be changed to a more aggressive system which addresses all violations existing in the City of Parlier. 42. Written policy and procedures be developed to provide for the tracking and documented resolution of all complaints. 43. The city hire a code enforcement officer, supported with sufficient staff. 44. Adequate training be provided for the code enforcement officer and staff, including instruction in property owner and tenant rights. 45. A written manual providing guidelines on how to resolve code enforcement disputes be developed and implemented. 46. The City of Parlier inform and educate the public on current code enforcement policy. 47. A current copy of the Parlier Municipal Code be available for public use at City Hall and the public library. Response to 41 -47: The City has budgeted for a ½ time Code Enforcement Officer in the FY2001-2002 budget. A more active code enforcement program will be instituted accordingly. Personnel Policies 48. The City of Parlier formulate and implement written policies and procedures regarding labor relations. 49. The City develop written job classifications for all positions and issue them to all employees. 50. The City require department heads to adhere to the PMC sections covering their areas of responsibility . 51. A current copy of the PMC be made available to City Council members. 52. The City prepare, and provide to all employees, a handbook informing them of employee rights as stated in the PMC. 53. Employees be advised, in writing, of their rights of representation at all disciplinary hearings. 54. Written annual job performance evaluations of all employees be conducted, a copy placed in the employee's permanent file and a copy provided to the employee. 23 55. A written salary schedule for each position be prepared and a copy made available to each employee. 56. The city develop and issue a written policy regarding advancement and salary increases. Response: Items 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 55 are in place and are standard practice. Item 54 will be instituted this fiscal year. Item 56 will be put in place if and when it is deemed necessary. Nepotism 57. PMC section 4.01.080 be rewritten to more clearly state the city's policy on nepotism as defined by Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, "favoritism shown to relatives or close friends by those in power (as by giving them jobs)." Response: The matter will be referred to the City Attorney for review and to report back to Council with recommendation for appropriate action. 58. The policy of the city be to recruit, employ, and promote the best-qualified individuals. Response: This is City Policy. Personnel Appeals Board 59. The current PHB be dissolved. 60. The position for citizen at large be advertised (noticed). 61. The position for citizen at large be posted at City Hall. 62. All citizens who submit applications for this position be given equal consideration. Response: The City disagrees with recommendations 59-62. The Personnel Appeals Board was established by the municipal code. Council appointments were made consistent with that code. Police Department 63. The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that the Parlier Police Department be closed immediately and the policing of Parlier be contracted with the Fresno County Sheriff. Response: The majority of the Police Department findings were absurd; this recommendation is nonsense. SECTION II CITY COMMITTEE CITY COMMITTEE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DIVISION Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that: 64. Continue the broad public education program to increase awareness of the need to meet recycling goals. 65. Tailor educational efforts to target each culture within our community in a way that has proven most effective for that group. City of Fresno’s Response to Recommendations #64 and #65: See . FRESNO CITY PARKS SANITATION FACILITIES Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that: 66. Increase the budget to provide for care of the new parks. 67. Add personnel to help maintain the park sanitation facilities. 68. Provide adequate funds for replacement of fixtures with more durable ones. City of Fresno’s Response to Recommendations #66 - #68: See . CITY COUNCIL INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDS Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that: 69. Distribution of the City Council discretionary infrastructure funds be reviewed and approved by the City Manager prior to disbursement. 25 70. Consideration be given to reducing the current allotment from $140,000 to $70,000 per district. 71. Carryover of any unused infrastructure funds be eliminated. 72. Future Grand Juries continue to monitor the program. City of Fresno’s Response to Recommendations #69 - #72: See . CITY OF FRESNO WATER METERS Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that: 73. The Mayor, City Council and all civic groups unite to promote the installation of water meters. 74. Homeowners and businesses that currently have meters be excluded from further meter installation costs. 75. The city utilities department continue to publish average water bills for various family sizes with and without meters. 76. Water police be reactivated to prevent water waste. City of Fresno’s Response to Recommendations #73 - #76: See . BASEBALL/MULTI-USE STADIUM Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that: 77. The City require an annual independent audit of the financial statements of FDG. 78. All seventeen dates the city controls be devoted to for-profit events to enhance the City’s revenues. 26 79. The public be assured of coordinated parking and security by FDG and the City. City of Fresno’s Response to Recommendations #77 - #79: See . CITY OF FRESNO FIRE DEPARTMENT Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that: 80. The fire department have a budgeted vehicle replacement plan. The city should consider replacement of vehicles after seven or eight years while they still have significant value on the used fire vehicle market. 81. The inventory of fire fighting tools be increased so that all spare engines/trucks are fully equipped. 82. The city recognize the need to increase the number of fire fighting personnel. 83. The City of Fresno revisit its traffic light pre-emption plan and budget funds to complete this program. 84. The Fresno Fire Department develop a plan to reduce response times to the NFPA standards. City of Fresno’s Response to Recommendations #80 - #84: See . Daniel G. Hobbs City Manager October 3, 2001 Mr. Rick Allen Van Ness #102 Fresno, CA 93721 Dear Mr. Allen: SUBJECT: 2000-2001 GRAND JURY RECOMMENDATIONS The following contains the City of Fresno's response to the 2000-2001 Grand Jury
R27:
The Parlier City Manager confer with the City Council before engaging in city projects costing over $10,000 as required by PMC.
R28:
Bidding and contracting of services be in compliance with PMC.
R29:
The City Manager and City Council be held responsible for implementing the directives set forth in PMC.
R30:
Compensation of employees and/or contractors be in compliance with existing State and Federal laws. Response: The City concurs with recommendations 27 though 30. It disagrees with many of the findings. Animal Control
R31:
The City hire an animal control officer.
R32:
The animal shelter be relocated within the city to make it more accessible.
R33:
Leash and licensing laws be enforced.
R34:
The City educate the community regarding licensing, vaccinations, leash laws, spaying and neutering.
R35:
The City establish a fee schedule for costs incurred in animal control.
R36:
All record keeping relating to animal control be current.
R37:
State guidelines be followed for the ultimate disposal of any animal.
R38:
Polaroid photographs of impounded dogs be posted at city hall in order for citizens to see if their dog has been impounded. Response to 31 - 38: The current location of the city's holding facility and city's procedures for managing it are cost effective and consistent with requirements of law. The Council expects and management will ensure that our operation is in compliance with state law. City Hall Carpeting
R39:
The Parlier Municipal Code and Purchasing Ordinance be followed.
R40:
Shortcuts that violate the existing code not be considered. Response: The City concurs with recommendations 39 and 40. Code Enforcement
R41:
The present policy of code enforcement be changed to a more aggressive system which addresses all violations existing in the City of Parlier.
R42:
Written policy and procedures be developed to provide for the tracking and documented resolution of all complaints.
R43:
The city hire a code enforcement officer, supported with sufficient staff.
R44:
Adequate training be provided for the code enforcement officer and staff, including instruction in property owner and tenant rights.
R45:
A written manual providing guidelines on how to resolve code enforcement disputes be developed and implemented.
R46:
The City of Parlier inform and educate the public on current code enforcement policy.
R47:
A current copy of the Parlier Municipal Code be available for public use at City Hall and the public library. Response to 41 -47: The City has budgeted for a ½ time Code Enforcement Officer in the FY2001-2002 budget. A more active code enforcement program will be instituted accordingly. Personnel Policies
R48:
The City of Parlier formulate and implement written policies and procedures regarding labor relations.
R49:
The City develop written job classifications for all positions and issue them to all employees.
R50:
The City require department heads to adhere to the PMC sections covering their areas of responsibility .
R51:
A current copy of the PMC be made available to City Council members.
R52:
The City prepare, and provide to all employees, a handbook informing them of employee rights as stated in the PMC.
R53:
Employees be advised, in writing, of their rights of representation at all disciplinary hearings.
R54:
Written annual job performance evaluations of all employees be conducted, a copy placed in the employee's permanent file and a copy provided to the employee. 23
R55:
A written salary schedule for each position be prepared and a copy made available to each employee.
R56:
The city develop and issue a written policy regarding advancement and salary increases. Response: Items 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 55 are in place and are standard practice. Item 54 will be instituted this fiscal year. Item 56 will be put in place if and when it is deemed necessary. Nepotism
R57:
PMC section 4.01.080 be rewritten to more clearly state the city's policy on nepotism as defined by Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, "favoritism shown to relatives or close friends by those in power (as by giving them jobs)." Response: The matter will be referred to the City Attorney for review and to report back to Council with recommendation for appropriate action.
R58:
The policy of the city be to recruit, employ, and promote the best-qualified individuals. Response: This is City Policy. Personnel Appeals Board
R59:
The current PHB be dissolved.
R60:
The position for citizen at large be advertised (noticed).
R61:
The position for citizen at large be posted at City Hall.
R62:
All citizens who submit applications for this position be given equal consideration. City of Parlier's Response to Recommendations #59 - #62: See . PARLIER POLICE DEPARTMENT Recommendation The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that:
R63:
The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that the Parlier Police Department be closed immediately and the policing of Parlier be contracted with the Fresno County Sheriff. City of Parlier's Response to Recommendation #63: See . A Community with a vision to the future. Una Comunidad con vision al futuro Incorporated November 14, 1921 Founded 1876 July 24, 2001 Honorable Gary D. Huff Presiding Judge Superior Court County of Fresno 1100 Van Ness Avenue Fresno, CA 93721 Dear Judge Hoff: Enclosed please find the City of Parlier's response to the 200-2001 Grand Jury Report. The City was quite disappointed with the quality of work performed by the Grand Jury, and found and determined that many of the findings were incorrect. Nevertheless, there were many useful recommendations that will be put in place. Sincerely, Michael R. Swigart City Manager Enclosures 1100 E. Parlier Avenue, Parlier, California 93848 .(559) 646.3545 FAX (559) 646-0416 12 A Community with a vision to the future. Una Comunidad con visión al futuro Incorporated November 14, 1921 Founded 1878 Staff Report Date: 07172001 To: Mayor, Council From: City Manager Council Meeting of July 17,2001 G. City Manager/Executive Director Reports Item g.4, Grand Jury Recommendations Recommendation: 1. Receive Recommendations from the Grand Jury;
R64:
Continue the broad public education program to increase awareness of the need to meet recycling goals. Response to Recommendation 64: The City has implemented the recommendation. The Solid Waste education budget has been increased for FY 02 specifically for this purpose. Broad recycling education programs are ongoing, with acceleration of effort planed for a spring of 2003 multi- media campaign.
R65:
Tailor educational efforts to target each culture within our community in a way that has proven most effective for that group. City of Fresno City Hall • 2600 Fresno Street • Fresno, California 93721-3601 (559) 498-4591 • FAX (559) 488-1015 • www.ci.fresno.ca.us 28 Fresno County Grand Jury October 3, 2001 Response to Recommendation 65: The City has not yet fully implemented the recommendation. Solid Waste is developing educational strategies to fit several linguistic and cultural specialized groups. A media consultant with multi-cultural expertise will be retained in FY 02, while we are currently working with EOC and several community groups to tailor educational messages and venues to maximize results. FRESNO CITY PARKS FACILITIES Response to Findings: The City agrees with the findings.
R66:
Increase the budget to provide for care of new parks. Response to Recommendation 66: The City has implemented the recommendation. The FY02 budget for neighborhood parks was increased by $266, 700 to compensate for the opening of Layne, Kolligian and Pilibos Parks and the Multi-Cultural Corridor and increased operating costs including energy.
R67:
Add personnel to help maintain the park sanitation facilities. Response to Recommendation 67: The City has implemented the recommendation. The Parks Division budget was increased during fiscal year 2000-2001 to increase the number of times the outdoor facilities at neighborhood parks are maintained from 5 to 7 times per week, including holidays. Those parks that are staffed with Recreation personnel, which is 27 out of 58, receive at least one additional maintenance visit daily during operating hours. The maintenance level on the regional parks restroom facilities remain at two cleanings per day and a minimum of one additional visit each day by maintenance personnel. Fresno County Grand Jury October 3, 2001
R68:
Provide adequate funds for replacement of fixtures with more durable ones. Response to Recommendation 68: The City has not yet fully implemented the recommendation. The four outdoor restroom facilities at Woodward Park are on a four year schedule for complete renovation. The funding source for the improvements is from Crystal Valley Decorating for their Festival of Lights Exhibit. Fixtures at other facilities are replaced when damaged, and the Parks Division is pursuing grants from Federal and State agencies for replacements at other outdoor facilities. CITY COUNCIL INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDS Response to Findings: The City agrees that certain non-capital expenses were authorized out of what is generally called district infrastructure, but disagrees that any cited expenditures were legally or procedurally questionable. Funding sources were used for legally permissible expenditures; general fund sources were used for non-capital expenditures.
R69:
Distribution of the City Council discretionary infrastructure funds be reviewed and approved by the City Manager prior to disbursement. Response to Recommendation 69: Expenditures funded from district infrastructure budgets follow standard City procedures for review and payment. Additionally, non-capital expenditures were placed on Council agendas, considered in Council open meetings, and approved by a supermajority vote and subject to mayoral veto.
R70:
Consideration be given to reducing the current allotment from $140,000 to $70,000 per district. Fresno County Grand Jury October 3, 2001 Response to Recommendation 70: The Mayor and City Council have recently discussed this matter in public session, and have confirmed the need for resources to be available to expediently resolve infrastructure needs within Council districts. Additionally, the Council has placed a limit of 15 percent of their infrastructure budgets for funding non-capital related expenditures. Finally, the City Attorney's Office is preparing, for Council consideration, a resolution which establishes the criteria for use of Community Service Program Funds. The Council adopted the resolution which is attached as Exhibit '"A".
R71:
Carryover of any unused infrastructure funds be eliminated. Response to Recommendation 71: The budgeting of unused infrastructure funds is a policy decision regarding the allocation of limited City resources to the infrastructure needs of the City. The issue is compounded by the timing and process necessary to complete infrastructure projects including, Charter required competitive bidding and approvals necessary to properly expend the funds. The matter was considered by the City Council on August 21, 2001, at which time the funds were appropriated for use in fiscal year 2001-2002.
R72:
Future Grand Juries continue to monitor the program. Response to Recommendation 72: Should future Grand Juries choose to monitor the program, City staff will provide requested information as required. CITY OF FRESNO WATER METERS Response to Findings and Conclusions: The City agrees with findings A through F, Findings H and I, and Conclusion C. Regarding Finding G which stated that “”Water Police" have been inactivated due to lack of funds", it is correct that the program of proactive water waste patrols was de-funded. The principal reason however, was not a lack of funds but was a policy decision by the 31 Fresno County Grand Jury October 3, 2001 previous City administration and previous Council to redirect the resources of the water conservation program. Regarding Conclusion A, the cost of San Joaquin water supply will increase. Contract costs will increase from a current $30 per acre ft to a minimum of $70 per acre ft. Regarding Conclusion B, the cost of installation, maintenance and administration of a residential metering program will be fully offset after full implementation by the anticipated decrease in pumping, water treatment and wastewater treatment costs.
R73:
The Mayor, City Council and all civic groups unite to promote the installation of water meters. Response to Recommendation 73: The City has not yet fully implemented the recommendation. The Mayor and Council have all endorsed meters if they are necessary to renew the City's CVP contract. A broad based stakeholders group (Contract Renewal Advisory Group) has been formed to provide feedback and support in the contract renewal process and a referendum on water meters should it become necessary to renew the CVP contract. Timing and need for such a campaign must wait the outcome of current City negotiations with the Bureau of Reclamation. While the Council has authority to place measure on the ballot for voter approval, State law prohibits the City from using public funds to advocate passage or defeat of a local ballot measure. The rationale grounded in case law is that public money cannot be spent to tip the scales in favor of some electors and against others in matters left for the citizenry to decide.
R74:
Homeowners and businesses that currently have meters be excluded from further meter installation costs. Response to Recommendation 74:
R75:
The City Utilities Department continue to publish average water bills for various family sizes with and without meters. Response to Recommendation 75: Ongoing.
R76:
Water police be reactivated to prevent water waste. Response to Recommendation 76: The City has not yet fully implemented the recommendation. This and related conservation program expansions are a condition of the City's Central Valley Project contract renewal and will be re-implemented at the time of contract renewal. In addition, increased conservation funding is anticipated in the FY 03 budget cycle. BASEBALL/MULTI-USE STADIUM Response to Findings: The findings specified as A-M were generally accurate as of the time Grand Jury received its information. Some of the matters are estimated (e.g., annual debt service; final project cost) while other matters are in development (e.g., safety/traffic control plan). City disagrees with Conclusion A; conclusion B is ambiguous; and City disagrees with Conclusion C and D, to the extent that security and traffic plans are in the process of development. These plans will be developed and implemented with the purpose of avoiding or minimizing serious parking impacts except during intermittent, non peak business hours. Fresno County Grand Jury October 3, 2001
R77:
The City require an annual independent audit of the financial statements of FDG [Fresno Diamond Group]. Response to Recommendation 77: The recommendation will be implemented as deemed necessary by the City, per Section 17.9 of the lease agreement as follows: “Records of Tenant pertaining to any obligations of Tenant hereunder shall be kept on a generally recognized accounting basis and shall be available to the City or its authorized representatives upon request during regular business hours throughout the life of this Agreement and for a period of three years thereafter. In addition, all books, documents papers, and records of Tenant pertaining to any obligation of Tenant pursuant to this Agreement shall be available for the purpose of making audits, examinations, excerpts, and transcriptions for the same period of time. If an audit by the City discloses underpayment in excess of one percent of any monies due the City hereunder, reasonable audit costs shall be reimbursable by Tenant to the City. This Section shall survive expiration or termination of this Agreement."
R78:
All seventeen dates the city controls be devoted to for-profit events to enhance the City's revenues. Response to Recommendation 78: The recommendation will not be implemented. Under the lease, the City is allocated 10 Concession-Using Events, and 7 Non-Concession-Using Events, and it states, in Section 3.6(h): "Non-Concession-Using Events shall generally be partially or wholly sponsored or contracted for by either the City or other not-for-profit organizations (which are not required to be 501 (c)(3) organizations or for charitable purposes." It is the general understanding between the parties that the 7 events would not be "for- profit" events.
R79:
The public be assured of coordinated parking and security by FDG and the City. Fresno County Grand Jury October 3, 2001 Response to Recommendation 79: The City has not yet fully implemented the recommendation. Parking plans are being developed (with a consultant's study being completed in September) to provide for stadium event parking, and security plans will be in place by the opening of the stadium. CITY OF FRESNO FIRE DEPARTMENT Response to Conclusions: The City agrees with Conclusion A; disagrees with Conclusions B and D; and agrees in part with Conclusions C, E, and F. Regarding Conclusion C, vehicle status is monitored by the department and equipment is replaced as needed. Regarding Conclusion E, and while the ratio may be accurate, it does not necessarily reflect the ability to provide Fire services within the City of Fresno. Regarding Conclusion F, the implementation is ongoing.
R80:
The fire department have a budgeted vehicle replacement plan. The city should consider replacement of vehicles after seven or eight years while they still have significant value on the used fire vehicle market. Response to Recommendation 80: The City has not yet fully implemented the recommendation. While the Fire Department does not currently maintain a specific vehicle replacement plan, vehicles have been replaced as needed, by financing the purchase over a ten year period. The Department is currently developing a draft replacement plan for consideration.
R81:
The inventory of fire fighting tools be increased so that all spare engines/tools are fully equipped. Response to Recommendation 81: The City has implemented the recommendation. Active engines and trucks equipped with necessary tools. Reserve engines and trucks are currently equipped with a minimum of tools; typically hose and small tools on engines, and ladders and small 35 Fresno County Grand Jury October 3, 2001 tools on trucks. The balance of the inventory is stocked when a front line engine or truck is out of service for repairs. When reserve apparatus is temporarily placed in service as a new company, it operates with existing equipment. In those cases when additional equipment is needed to perform a task, the equipment from other apparatus on scene is utilized.
R82:
The city recognize the need to increase the number of fire fighting personnel. Response to Recommendation 82: The City has not yet fully implemented the recommendation. The City recognizes that the 0.58 firefighters/1000 population is at the low end of national and regional standards. However, these standards do not take into account specific service needs of Fresno. The City will continue to pursue options for increasing Fire Department staffing in future budget deliberations.
R83:
The City of Fresno revisit its traffic light preemption plan and budget funds to complete this program: Response to Recommendation 83: The City has not yet fully implemented the recommendation. The intersections of Herndon and West, and Clovis and Clinton currently have the Opticom traffic preemption device. Fire apparatus specifications have included the Opticom transmitter as emergency warning equipment to be installed since 1998. Nine of our thirty one fire apparatus are equipped with an Opticom transmitter. The City implementation of this program will continue to be a priority in future budget deliberations. The Fire Department is continually reviewing opportunities for improving response times, and will present a report of such opportunities as part of the fiscal year 2001-2002 budget process. Fresno County Grand Jury October 3, 2001 ELKHORN CORRECTION FACILITY Response to Findings:
R84:
The Fresno Fire Department develop a plan to reduce response times to the NFPA standards. City of Fresno’s Response to Recommendations #80 - #84: See . Daniel G. Hobbs City Manager October 3, 2001 Mr. Rick Allen Van Ness #102 Fresno, CA 93721 Dear Mr. Allen: SUBJECT: 2000-2001 GRAND JURY RECOMMENDATIONS The following contains the City of Fresno's response to the 2000-2001 Grand Jury
R85:
The PA/PG evaluate the use of the County Treasury Pool. Response: The option of putting the Public Guardian funds with the County under the Auditor-Controller/Treasurer-Tax Collector was carefully investigated. This Department decided that it was not a viable option because: 1) The Department loses control of the citizens' funds. Currently, when a vendor fails to respond in an adequate manner, the funds are immediately transferred to an institution providing more satisfactory services. It would be unlikely that we could remove the funds from the County's control once they are delivered whatever the level of service. 2) Limitations within the Auditor-Controller/Treasurer-Tax Collector's Office preclude the guarantee of providing "rush" checks. The Public Administrator/Guardian staff requires access to client's monies on a daily basis to address immediate needs on behalf of their clients. These emergency needs are primarily related to new cases, which are opened on a daily basis. An example of such a need would include payment of utility bills to avoid interruptions of services. 3) The County's investment pool is insured through various means; however, it is not Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) insured as required by the Superior Court. West Nielsen Avenue Fresno, California 93706 Telephone: Public Administrator (559) 268-0139 Coroner (559) 268-0109 Public Guardian (559) 268-0139 Equal Employment Opportunity Affirmative Action Disabled Employer 53 The Honorable Judge Hoff August 27, 2001 Page Two
R86:
Storage be improved for case records and client assets. Construction of an on-site storage building would eliminate the need for an expensive off-site mini-storage. Response: This Department initiated this recommendation and, therefore, we concur. The monies being paid to private outside storage companies could largely defray the cost of such storage. Personnel time spent visiting off-site storage would be curtailed. In the meantime the Department has surplused equipment, old computers, and furniture that were housed in the metal shed to provide additional storage space in that facility. The Department, in conjunction with the County Clerk as Records Manager, has also developed a record retention schedule, which was approved by the Board of Supervisors in December 2000 and is being utilized by the Department to eliminate dormant files: The Department submitted a second Capital Improvement Projects request for the 2001-2002 budget year. The County Administrative Office, when made aware of our storage needs, sent a team to evaluate the situation. After several months, no recommendation has been forthcoming.
R87:
Evaluate the need for additional deputies due to the implementation of the new Elder Abuse Referral Law SB 1742. Response: We have not yet determined the potential impact of SB 1742 on the Public Guardian's Office nor how such a program will be funded. The Public Guardian will meet with law enforcement agencies and Department of Adult Services to ascertain whether these agencies have been properly trained in the area of adult abuse and to determine the anticipated impact. The Public Guardian is presently in negotiations with the Department of Adult Services for funding to add an additional deputy position to expedite cases referred from Adult Protective Services. An agreement is expected to be forthcoming.
R88:
PA/PG add the services of a Registered Nurse to staff. This person would aid in evaluating and inspecting medical care facilities as well as review proposed client treatment and prescription history. Response: This position was included in the Department's 2001-2002 budget request but not recommended by the County Administrative Office. The Honorable Judge Hoff August 27, 2001 Page Three
R89:
PA/PG evaluate the purchase of Long Term Care Insurance for those clients who would be eligible. Response: The need for long-term care insurance is reviewed on a case by case basis by the Public Administrator/Guardian staff. These reviews have not resulted in such a service being determined to be in the client's best interest. The need is continuing to be reviewed on a case by case basis.
R90:
A plan be developed for a new morgue before the County reaches a crisis situation. Response: Over 20 years ago after touring various morgues the County built a nearly state-of- the-art facility in a 32 year-old building. The building is now 54 years old and lacks proper electricity, proper plumbing, proper cooling and proper heating. A similar tour of morgues today shows that we are deficient in such areas as special airflow rooms to reduce possible contamination by tuberculosis and other diseases, pneumatic doors to prevent bloody gloves from contaminating doorknobs, storage, etc. There is a shortage of forensic pathologists. These doctors can easily find employment in communities of their choice. Our aging facility handicaps our recruiting efforts. Ideally, a new morgue should be placed in the vicinity of the Community/University Medical Center to serve as an educational opportunity for medical students and other physicians doing their rotation in Fresno.
R91:
A commercial washing machine be purchased for on-site laundering needs and/or use a commercial laundry. Response: Currently this Department uses a non-commercial washer and dryer. Due to the nature of the work in this office, these machines do not hold up well to the types of materials that are cleaned and dried and the cleaning agents that are used. Use of commercial laundry with their garment requirements has not proved satisfactory in delivery and scheduling because of limited volume and cost benefit. Based on the recommendation and the above noted factors, this Department will include in next fiscal year's budget a request for a commercial grade thirty-five pound washer and a commercial graded fifty pound dryer. It is expected that these machines will have a much longer service life and lower the maintenance cost of the units we now use. The estimated cost for the commercial units described above are expected to be approximately $6,000.00, delivered and set up. The Honorable Judge Hoff August 27,2001 Page Four
R92:
Reference be made to the Grand Jury reports of 1998/99 and 1999/2000 regarding the need for improvement of record storage. Response: The Response to Recommendation #86 reflects the facility storage concerns for the entire Department and would address such issues as record storage. Very truly yours, David M. Hadden, M.D. Fresno County Coroner-Public Administrator/ Public Guardian DMH:slb 56 MENDOTA UTILITY BILL COLLECTIONS Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that: 93. The monthly shutoff list and notices be reviewed by an individual independent of the accounting department of the City of Mendota. 94. The subject of outstanding utility bills be reviewed during the annual financial audit conducted by an outside auditor. 95. The City establish and maintain training for all employees on the use of the Municipal Code and written procedures and policies regarding the collection of utility bills. City of Mendota’s Response to Recommendations #93 - #95: See . ELKHORN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that: 96. The Fresno County Board of Supervisors review commitments made in the February 11, 1997, letter issued by a former County Chief Administrative Officer and assure the neighbors of ECF that the County intends to honor these commitments. If certain commitments cannot be met, the County should negotiate with the neighbors to reach an equitable arrangement. Fresno County’s Response to Recommendation #96: Fresno County agrees with the
R93:
The monthly shutoff list and notices be reviewed by an individual independent of the accounting department of the City of Mendota.
R94:
The subject of outstanding utility bills be reviewed during the annual financial audit conducted by an outside auditor.
R95:
The City establish and maintain training for all employees on the use of the Municipal Code and written procedures and policies regarding the collection of utility bills. City of Mendota’s Response to Recommendations #93 - #95: See . ELKHORN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that:
R96:
The Fresno County Board of Supervisors review commitments made in the February 11, 1997, letter issued by a former County Chief Administrative Officer and assure the neighbors of ECF that the County intends to honor these commitments. If certain commitments cannot be met, the County should negotiate with the neighbors to reach an equitable arrangement. Fresno County’s Response to Recommendation #96: Fresno County agrees with the
R97:
The Board of Supervisors continue to fund and maintain the present level of services at ECF. Fresno County’s Response to Recommendation #97: Fresno County agrees with the
R98:
The City of Fresno continue to fund Elkhorn Correctional Facility at no less than the current rate of $1,000,000 per year with no sunset provision. Response to Recommendation 98: The City will not implement the recommendation, as stated. The City of Fresno's position is to continue the present commitment to fund the ECF for the balance of the nine years, if the ECF stays at the current 200 bed capacity both in staffing of correctional personnel and commitments to the facility. City recognizes that as long- term solutions Juvenile Hall expansion is still several years away, it essential that County maintain the ECF as a rehabilitation center for nonviolent Juvenile offenders. It is neither wise, nor sound policy for the City at this time to make a perpetual commitment for these reasons: a perpetual commitment is subject to availability of funding; a perpetual commitment is subject to revocation by a future Council on a variety of grounds; future City-County agreements may require the need to revisit future funding; a future Council may determine that City resources are more urgently needed to fund other related programs (crime prevention, after school programs, etc.) other than confinement costs; making a minimum commitment now may discourage greater, participation by Fresno andlor other cities in the County, should the need arise. Under the above circumstances, making such a minimum commitment now would be misleading and unproductive. In sum, the City is encouraged by the present level of activities of the ECF, and will consider future opportunities to involve itself and other cities in the county to support the program in the most appropriate means then available. Fresno County Grand Jury October 3, 2001 BRIEFING BOOK FOR NEWLY ELECTED OFFICIALS Response to Findings: City agrees with the need and desirability for newly elected officials to receive a minimum and appropriate level of orientation in the new position, and the information needed and legally available to get up to speed on pending issues as expeditiously as possible.
R99:
The County provide boot camp facilities for female juvenile offenders. Fresno County’s Response to Recommendation #99: Fresno County agrees with the
R100:
Future Grand Juries continue to monitor the activities at the Elkhorn Correctional Facility. See
Quick View
Full Details →
Additional Recommendations
99
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
To be in compliance with the above restricted revenue requirements and regulations and to eliminate the appearance that restricted revenues are being used to fund general fund expenditures, the City of Parlier should ensure that such restricted revenues are clearly used for the related program purposes. Costs charged to the special revenue funds should reflect actual costs attributable to the program and should be supported by applicable documentation such as time tracking. The City of Parlier should obtain clarification from the applicable regulatory agency to determine if their current cost allocation methodology is acceptable. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation.
R2:
In the absence of fully supportable cost allocation methodologies or regulatory approval of existing cost allocation methodologies, the City of Parlier should reverse the $268,224 and $393,602 in overhead costs charged to the special revenue funds listed above. In addition, any 17 other insufficiently supported cost allocations that were not noted in this report should also be reversed. Response: The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor for review, the manager will report back to Council with recommendation for appropriate action.
R3:
In order to provide for sound accounting and budgeting practices and to ensure a clear audit trail, appropriations and expenditures should be initially recorded in the originating department/fund where the activities are incurred. Response: The City is in compliance with generally accepted accounting practices. The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor for further review and appropriate action.
R4:
The City of Parlier Finance Department should implement procedures that provide segregation of duties related to accounts payable. Specifically, the person who approves payments should not be the same person who signs checks and submits requests for payments. When it is necessary for the Finance Director to submit a request for payment, the payment should be sufficiently reviewed and approved by another authorized staff member (e.g. the City Manager). Response: Payments are approved by Department Heads. Any Department expenditures greater than a thousand dollars must be reviewed and approved by the City Manager. Additionally, the City Manager reviews and approves all payments on the demand warrant register. This register is published in the Council agenda for public review.
R5:
To strengthen internal controls over expenditures in special revenue funds and to ensure that funding does not need to be reimbursed or that future funding is withheld, the City of Parlier should ensure that program costs incurred are fully supported and are in compliance with program requirements. This can be achieved in part by requiring that receipts for credit card purchases be retained for supporting documentation and submitted to the Finance Department for review and approval. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation.
R6:
To prevent losses and enhance internal controls, the City of Parlier should immediately implement procedures to ensure that the City's charge accounts and credit cards are not used for personal purchases. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation. Such procedures are in place.
R7:
In compliance with the above code sections and to ensure that funding is not withheld, the RDA should immediately submit a 5-year plan to the State Controller's Office and submit all future required documents when due. Response: The City has held off on updating its 5 year housing plan pending certification of its housing element by the State Housing and Community Development Department. The element will be certified in a few weeks. The plan will be updated during this 2001-2002 fiscal year.
R8:
In order to comply with Health & Safety Code Section 33487 and to ensure that funding is not withheld, the RDA should transfer $3,907 to the low income-housing fund for fiscal year 1998/99 from the RDA Capital Projects Fund. Response: The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor for review, the manager will report back to Council with recommendation for appropriate action.
R9:
In order to explain material changes in the financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, the City of Parlier should provide adequate disclosure in the notes to the financial statements. For example, Parlier could have identified the above increase in the capital projects fund balance as a "restated" fund balance in the financial statements. In addition, a note disclosure should have been provided to reconcile the restated fund balance to the prior year ending balance. The disclosure should have also explained the reason(s) for the restatement. Parlier should consider this for future reporting purposes. Response: The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor for review and appropriate future action.
R10:
a, b, c, and d To ensure that funding is not withheld, the RDA should ensure all proper procedures and legal requirements are followed when issuing loans and all appropriate documents are maintained in their loan files and that all loans are properly authorized. Parlier staff should review all available loan records since the formation of the RDA to try to locate all missing loan documentation and criteria information on the sixteen known loans addressed above. Parlier staff should also determine if there are any additional outstanding loans not currently known that should be followed up on. Also, even though Parlier has indicated that the commercial borrowers of the "written off' loans are out of business, Parlier should continue to bill the business owners until these loans are officially written off by the City Council. Proper procedures must be followed to assure that all redevelopment loans are repaid timely and in full. Redevelopment loans determined to be uncollectible should be written off by the City Council and referred to a collection agency as appropriate. Parlier should consider following up with other collection agencies or pursue other means of recouping unpaid balances, e.g. through small claims processes, other lawsuits, etc. In addition, Parlier should ensure and be able to support that interest charged on Redevelopment loans is charged fairly and equitably. Response: The Redevelopment Agency has not made any loans in nearly a decade. Of those older loans on the Agencies books: some loans have been paid off; some loans are in process and payment is timely, some loans are behind in payment and payment is sporadic, on some there is no activity and they are considered uncollectable. Many of the loans were unsecured and should have been. Loans that are secured by real property shall be paid. Extensive searches for records of prior loans have been made, for some loans there are little or no records. A list of uncollectable loans shall be provided to the Redevelopment Agency for 'write-off' consideration. Future loans, if any, considered by the Redevelopment Agency will be secured by real property and shall be recorded.
R11:
To enhance internal controls, ensure the accuracy of the City's accounting records, and ensure continued funding, Parlier should implement formal procedures to ensure proper accounting for and reconciliation of restricted revenues. In addition, all transactions and supporting documentation must be maintained until such records have been audited by all appropriate oversight agencies. Finally, the City of Parlier should make the appropriate general ledger entries within the special revenue fund to record these transactions. Response: The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor appropriate future action. 19
R12:
The City of Parlier should post transactions to proper accounts and subsequently classify expenditures appropriately in their financial statements. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation.
R13:
In order to comply with terms of the Child Development Grant, the City of Parlier should reimburse the Child Development fund the $582.50 noted above and only make expenditures appropriate for grant purposes from this fund. Response: The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor for review, the manager will report back to Council with recommendation for appropriate action.
R14:
In order to comply with terms of the Child Development Grant, the City of Parlier should obtain an annual audit of the Child Development Program that conforms to the terms of the grant agreement and reports on Child Development revenues and expenditures of the City of Parlier. In addition, the City of Parlier should consistently review any audit reports prepared for their program prior to finalization of the report. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation.
R15:
In order to properly account for and report Gas Tax revenues, the City of Parlier must reconcile any variances between revenues paid by a funding entity and revenues recorded by the City. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation.
R16:
In order to properly administer the Local Transportation Fund and ensure proper financial statement presentation, the City of Parlier must reconcile the Local Transportation fund to receipts and implement procedures to ensure that all transactions are properly recorded and reported. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation.
R17:
The City of Parlier should either provide supporting documentation for the $70, 702 reduction of revenues or reverse this adjustment as appropriate. Response: The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor for review, the manager will report back to Council with recommendation for appropriate action.
R19:
The City of Parlier should contact the DOJ for written clarification of what constitutes acceptable expenditures for this grant. The City of Parlier should comply with the information provided by the 20 DOJ related to this audit finding. Unauthorized expenditures of grant funds must be reimbursed or a waiver should be requested from the grantor agency. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation.
R20:
The City of Parlier should ensure that actual interest is allocated to the COPS fund for 1998/99, 1999/00 and thereafter. In addition, the City should ensure that adequate interest allocation methodologies are used to ensure that all restricted revenues are accurately calculated, allocated and available to be used for restricted program purposes or returned to regulatory agencies as necessary in the event of non-compliance with program requirements. Response: The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor for review, the manager will report back to Council with recommendation for appropriate action.
R21:
In compliance with the provisions of Government Code Section 30061 as stated above, the City of Parlier should ensure that the appropriation of COPS grant monies for 2000/01 and thereafter are separately presented to and approved by Parlier's City Council as required. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation.
R22:
The City of Parlier should maintain support for all financial transactions that affect special revenue funds as well as other funds until all oversight agencies conduct periodic audits. Unauthorized expenditures of grant funds must be reimbursed or a waiver should be requested from the grantor agency. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation.
R23:
The City of Parlier should implement procedures to ensure that expenditures are not claimed/reported twice and that overtime costs are not claimed in compliance with Universal Hiring Grant provisions. Parlier should also adjust the above reports and charges to reverse duplicated expenditures and inappropriate overtime costs. Response: The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor for review, the manager will report back to Council with recommendation for appropriate action.
R24:
The City of Parlier should investigate the difference of $2,404 between revenues reported in their general ledger for OES revenues and the amount of payments confirmed through the State OES or have support for the variance readily available. Response: The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor for review, the manager will report back to Council with recommendation for appropriate action.
R25:
The City of Parlier should immediately revise the Project Completion and Certification Report to reflect actual costs for the disaster period. They should provide support for costs claimed or return $36,136 claimed inappropriately to the State OES. Response: The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor for review, the manager will report back to Council with recommendation for appropriate action. 21
R26:
To ensure accuracy of records, enhance internal controls, and ensure the availability of current and future funding, the City of Parlier should properly maintain files containing supporting documentation for transactions and retain these records until audited by all appropriate oversight agencies. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation. Summary: It is our recommendation that the City of Parlier hire either a CPA firm or professional accounting staff to help them address the findings and recommendations in this report, correct their records/reports related to special revenue funds, and implement procedures/processes to ensure that restricted revenues are properly expended and accounted for and that all applicable rules, regulations and laws are followed with strict compliance. Gary W. Peterson Auditor-Control Treasurer-Tax Collector Response: The City concurs with the Summary recommendation and the matter is referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor. Paint Project: 27. The Parlier City Manager confer with the City Council before engaging in city projects costing over $10,000 as required by PMC. 28. Bidding and contracting of services be in compliance with PMC. 29. The City Manager and City Council be held responsible for implementing the directives set forth in PMC. 30. Compensation of employees and/or contractors be in compliance with existing State and Federal laws. Response: The City concurs with recommendations 27 though 30. It disagrees with many of the findings. Animal Control 31. The City hire an animal control officer. 32. The animal shelter be relocated within the city to make it more accessible. 33. Leash and licensing laws be enforced. 34. The City educate the community regarding licensing, vaccinations, leash laws, spaying and neutering. 35. The City establish a fee schedule for costs incurred in animal control. 36. All record keeping relating to animal control be current. 37. State guidelines be followed for the ultimate disposal of any animal. 38. Polaroid photographs of impounded dogs be posted at city hall in order for citizens to see if their dog has been impounded. Response to 31 - 38: The current location of the city's holding facility and city's procedures for managing it are cost effective and consistent with requirements of law. The Council expects and management will ensure that our operation is in compliance with state law. City Hall Carpeting 39. The Parlier Municipal Code and Purchasing Ordinance be followed. 40. Shortcuts that violate the existing code not be considered. Response: The City concurs with recommendations 39 and 40. Code Enforcement 41. The present policy of code enforcement be changed to a more aggressive system which addresses all violations existing in the City of Parlier. 42. Written policy and procedures be developed to provide for the tracking and documented resolution of all complaints. 43. The city hire a code enforcement officer, supported with sufficient staff. 44. Adequate training be provided for the code enforcement officer and staff, including instruction in property owner and tenant rights. 45. A written manual providing guidelines on how to resolve code enforcement disputes be developed and implemented. 46. The City of Parlier inform and educate the public on current code enforcement policy. 47. A current copy of the Parlier Municipal Code be available for public use at City Hall and the public library. Response to 41 -47: The City has budgeted for a ½ time Code Enforcement Officer in the FY2001-2002 budget. A more active code enforcement program will be instituted accordingly. Personnel Policies 48. The City of Parlier formulate and implement written policies and procedures regarding labor relations. 49. The City develop written job classifications for all positions and issue them to all employees. 50. The City require department heads to adhere to the PMC sections covering their areas of responsibility . 51. A current copy of the PMC be made available to City Council members. 52. The City prepare, and provide to all employees, a handbook informing them of employee rights as stated in the PMC. 53. Employees be advised, in writing, of their rights of representation at all disciplinary hearings. 54. Written annual job performance evaluations of all employees be conducted, a copy placed in the employee's permanent file and a copy provided to the employee. 23 55. A written salary schedule for each position be prepared and a copy made available to each employee. 56. The city develop and issue a written policy regarding advancement and salary increases. Response: Items 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 55 are in place and are standard practice. Item 54 will be instituted this fiscal year. Item 56 will be put in place if and when it is deemed necessary. Nepotism 57. PMC section 4.01.080 be rewritten to more clearly state the city's policy on nepotism as defined by Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, "favoritism shown to relatives or close friends by those in power (as by giving them jobs)." Response: The matter will be referred to the City Attorney for review and to report back to Council with recommendation for appropriate action. 58. The policy of the city be to recruit, employ, and promote the best-qualified individuals. Response: This is City Policy. Personnel Appeals Board 59. The current PHB be dissolved. 60. The position for citizen at large be advertised (noticed). 61. The position for citizen at large be posted at City Hall. 62. All citizens who submit applications for this position be given equal consideration. Response: The City disagrees with recommendations 59-62. The Personnel Appeals Board was established by the municipal code. Council appointments were made consistent with that code. Police Department 63. The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that the Parlier Police Department be closed immediately and the policing of Parlier be contracted with the Fresno County Sheriff. Response: The majority of the Police Department findings were absurd; this recommendation is nonsense. SECTION II CITY COMMITTEE CITY COMMITTEE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DIVISION Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that: 64. Continue the broad public education program to increase awareness of the need to meet recycling goals. 65. Tailor educational efforts to target each culture within our community in a way that has proven most effective for that group. City of Fresno’s Response to Recommendations #64 and #65: See . FRESNO CITY PARKS SANITATION FACILITIES Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that: 66. Increase the budget to provide for care of the new parks. 67. Add personnel to help maintain the park sanitation facilities. 68. Provide adequate funds for replacement of fixtures with more durable ones. City of Fresno’s Response to Recommendations #66 - #68: See . CITY COUNCIL INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDS Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that: 69. Distribution of the City Council discretionary infrastructure funds be reviewed and approved by the City Manager prior to disbursement. 25 70. Consideration be given to reducing the current allotment from $140,000 to $70,000 per district. 71. Carryover of any unused infrastructure funds be eliminated. 72. Future Grand Juries continue to monitor the program. City of Fresno’s Response to Recommendations #69 - #72: See . CITY OF FRESNO WATER METERS Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that: 73. The Mayor, City Council and all civic groups unite to promote the installation of water meters. 74. Homeowners and businesses that currently have meters be excluded from further meter installation costs. 75. The city utilities department continue to publish average water bills for various family sizes with and without meters. 76. Water police be reactivated to prevent water waste. City of Fresno’s Response to Recommendations #73 - #76: See . BASEBALL/MULTI-USE STADIUM Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that: 77. The City require an annual independent audit of the financial statements of FDG. 78. All seventeen dates the city controls be devoted to for-profit events to enhance the City’s revenues. 26 79. The public be assured of coordinated parking and security by FDG and the City. City of Fresno’s Response to Recommendations #77 - #79: See . CITY OF FRESNO FIRE DEPARTMENT Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that: 80. The fire department have a budgeted vehicle replacement plan. The city should consider replacement of vehicles after seven or eight years while they still have significant value on the used fire vehicle market. 81. The inventory of fire fighting tools be increased so that all spare engines/trucks are fully equipped. 82. The city recognize the need to increase the number of fire fighting personnel. 83. The City of Fresno revisit its traffic light pre-emption plan and budget funds to complete this program. 84. The Fresno Fire Department develop a plan to reduce response times to the NFPA standards. City of Fresno’s Response to Recommendations #80 - #84: See . Daniel G. Hobbs City Manager October 3, 2001 Mr. Rick Allen Van Ness #102 Fresno, CA 93721 Dear Mr. Allen: SUBJECT: 2000-2001 GRAND JURY RECOMMENDATIONS The following contains the City of Fresno's response to the 2000-2001 Grand Jury
R27:
The Parlier City Manager confer with the City Council before engaging in city projects costing over $10,000 as required by PMC.
R28:
Bidding and contracting of services be in compliance with PMC.
R29:
The City Manager and City Council be held responsible for implementing the directives set forth in PMC.
R30:
Compensation of employees and/or contractors be in compliance with existing State and Federal laws. City of Parlier's Response to Recommendations #27 - #30: See . PARLIER ANIMAL CONTROL Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that:
R31:
The City hire an animal control officer.
R32:
The animal shelter be relocated within the city to make it more accessible.
R33:
Leash and licensing laws be enforced.
R34:
The City educate the community regarding licensing, vaccinations, leash laws, spaying and neutering.
R35:
The City establish a fee schedule for costs incurred in animal control.
R36:
All record keeping relating to animal control be current.
R37:
State guidelines be followed for the ultimate disposal of any animal. 7
R38:
Polaroid photographs of impounded dogs be posted at city hall in order for citizens to see if their dog has been impounded. City of Parlier's Response to Recommendations #31 - #38: See . CARPETING OF PARLIER CITY HALL Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that:
R39:
The Parlier Municipal Code and Purchasing Ordinance be followed.
R40:
Shortcuts that violate the existing code not be considered. City of Parlier's Response to Recommendations #39 and #40: See . CODE ENFORCEMENT IN PARLIER Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that:
R41:
The present policy of code enforcement be changed to a more aggressive system which addresses all violations existing in the City of Parlier.
R42:
Written policy and procedures be developed to provide for the tracking and documented resolution of all complaints.
R43:
The city hire a code enforcement officer, supported with sufficient staff.
R44:
Adequate training be provided for the code enforcement officer and staff, including instruction in property owner and tenant rights.
R45:
A written manual providing guidelines on how to resolve code enforcement disputes be developed and implemented.
R46:
The City of Parlier inform and educate the public on current code enforcement policy.
R47:
A current copy of the Parlier Municipal Code be available for public use at City Hall and the public library. City of Parlier's Response to Recommendations #41 - #47: See . PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT WITHIN THE CITY OF PARLIER Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that:
R48:
The City of Parlier formulate and implement written policies and procedures regarding labor relations.
R49:
The City develop written job classifications for all positions and issue them to all employees.
R50:
The City require department heads to adhere to the PMC sections covering their areas of responsibility.
R51:
A current copy of the PMC be made available to City Council members. 9
R52:
The City prepare, and provide to all employees, a handbook informing them of employee rights as stated in the PMC.
R53:
Employees be advised, in writing, of their rights of representation at all disciplinary hearings.
R54:
Written annual job performance evaluations of all employees be conducted, a copy placed in the employee’s permanent file and a copy provided to the employee.
R55:
A written salary schedule for each position be prepared and a copy made available to each employee.
R56:
The city develop and issue a written policy regarding advancement and salary increases. City of Parlier's Response to Recommendations #48 - #56: See . NEPOTISM IN THE CITY OF PARLIER Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that:
R57:
PMC section 4.01.080 be rewritten to more clearly state the city’s policy on nepotism as defined by Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, “favoritism shown to relatives or close friends by those in power (as by giving them jobs).”
R58:
The policy of the city be to recruit, employ, and promote the best-qualified individuals. City of Parlier's Response to Recommendations #57 and #58: See . PARLIER PERSONNEL HEARING BOARD Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that:
R59:
The current PHB be dissolved.
R60:
The position for citizen at large be advertised (noticed).
R61:
The position for citizen at large be posted at City Hall.
R62:
All citizens who submit applications for this position be given equal consideration. City of Parlier's Response to Recommendations #59 - #62: See . PARLIER POLICE DEPARTMENT Recommendation The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that:
R63:
The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that the Parlier Police Department be closed immediately and the policing of Parlier be contracted with the Fresno County Sheriff. City of Parlier's Response to Recommendation #63: See . A Community with a vision to the future. Una Comunidad con vision al futuro Incorporated November 14, 1921 Founded 1876 July 24, 2001 Honorable Gary D. Huff Presiding Judge Superior Court County of Fresno 1100 Van Ness Avenue Fresno, CA 93721 Dear Judge Hoff: Enclosed please find the City of Parlier's response to the 200-2001 Grand Jury Report. The City was quite disappointed with the quality of work performed by the Grand Jury, and found and determined that many of the findings were incorrect. Nevertheless, there were many useful recommendations that will be put in place. Sincerely, Michael R. Swigart City Manager Enclosures 1100 E. Parlier Avenue, Parlier, California 93848 .(559) 646.3545 FAX (559) 646-0416 12 A Community with a vision to the future. Una Comunidad con visión al futuro Incorporated November 14, 1921 Founded 1878 Staff Report Date: 07172001 To: Mayor, Council From: City Manager Council Meeting of July 17,2001 G. City Manager/Executive Director Reports Item g.4, Grand Jury Recommendations Recommendation: 1. Receive Recommendations from the Grand Jury;
R64:
Continue the broad public education program to increase awareness of the need to meet recycling goals. Response to Recommendation 64: The City has implemented the recommendation. The Solid Waste education budget has been increased for FY 02 specifically for this purpose. Broad recycling education programs are ongoing, with acceleration of effort planed for a spring of 2003 multi- media campaign.
R65:
Tailor educational efforts to target each culture within our community in a way that has proven most effective for that group. City of Fresno City Hall • 2600 Fresno Street • Fresno, California 93721-3601 (559) 498-4591 • FAX (559) 488-1015 • www.ci.fresno.ca.us 28 Fresno County Grand Jury October 3, 2001 Response to Recommendation 65: The City has not yet fully implemented the recommendation. Solid Waste is developing educational strategies to fit several linguistic and cultural specialized groups. A media consultant with multi-cultural expertise will be retained in FY 02, while we are currently working with EOC and several community groups to tailor educational messages and venues to maximize results. FRESNO CITY PARKS FACILITIES Response to Findings: The City agrees with the findings.
R66:
Increase the budget to provide for care of new parks. Response to Recommendation 66: The City has implemented the recommendation. The FY02 budget for neighborhood parks was increased by $266, 700 to compensate for the opening of Layne, Kolligian and Pilibos Parks and the Multi-Cultural Corridor and increased operating costs including energy.
R67:
Add personnel to help maintain the park sanitation facilities. Response to Recommendation 67: The City has implemented the recommendation. The Parks Division budget was increased during fiscal year 2000-2001 to increase the number of times the outdoor facilities at neighborhood parks are maintained from 5 to 7 times per week, including holidays. Those parks that are staffed with Recreation personnel, which is 27 out of 58, receive at least one additional maintenance visit daily during operating hours. The maintenance level on the regional parks restroom facilities remain at two cleanings per day and a minimum of one additional visit each day by maintenance personnel. Fresno County Grand Jury October 3, 2001
R68:
Provide adequate funds for replacement of fixtures with more durable ones. Response to Recommendation 68: The City has not yet fully implemented the recommendation. The four outdoor restroom facilities at Woodward Park are on a four year schedule for complete renovation. The funding source for the improvements is from Crystal Valley Decorating for their Festival of Lights Exhibit. Fixtures at other facilities are replaced when damaged, and the Parks Division is pursuing grants from Federal and State agencies for replacements at other outdoor facilities. CITY COUNCIL INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDS Response to Findings: The City agrees that certain non-capital expenses were authorized out of what is generally called district infrastructure, but disagrees that any cited expenditures were legally or procedurally questionable. Funding sources were used for legally permissible expenditures; general fund sources were used for non-capital expenditures.
R69:
Distribution of the City Council discretionary infrastructure funds be reviewed and approved by the City Manager prior to disbursement. Response to Recommendation 69: Expenditures funded from district infrastructure budgets follow standard City procedures for review and payment. Additionally, non-capital expenditures were placed on Council agendas, considered in Council open meetings, and approved by a supermajority vote and subject to mayoral veto.
R70:
Consideration be given to reducing the current allotment from $140,000 to $70,000 per district. Fresno County Grand Jury October 3, 2001 Response to Recommendation 70: The Mayor and City Council have recently discussed this matter in public session, and have confirmed the need for resources to be available to expediently resolve infrastructure needs within Council districts. Additionally, the Council has placed a limit of 15 percent of their infrastructure budgets for funding non-capital related expenditures. Finally, the City Attorney's Office is preparing, for Council consideration, a resolution which establishes the criteria for use of Community Service Program Funds. The Council adopted the resolution which is attached as Exhibit '"A".
R71:
Carryover of any unused infrastructure funds be eliminated. Response to Recommendation 71: The budgeting of unused infrastructure funds is a policy decision regarding the allocation of limited City resources to the infrastructure needs of the City. The issue is compounded by the timing and process necessary to complete infrastructure projects including, Charter required competitive bidding and approvals necessary to properly expend the funds. The matter was considered by the City Council on August 21, 2001, at which time the funds were appropriated for use in fiscal year 2001-2002.
R72:
The 2000-01 Grand Jury recommends that Future Grand Juries continue to monitor the Fresno City Council's Infrastructure Funds program.
R73:
The Mayor, City Council and all civic groups unite to promote the installation of water meters. Response to Recommendation 73: The City has not yet fully implemented the recommendation. The Mayor and Council have all endorsed meters if they are necessary to renew the City's CVP contract. A broad based stakeholders group (Contract Renewal Advisory Group) has been formed to provide feedback and support in the contract renewal process and a referendum on water meters should it become necessary to renew the CVP contract. Timing and need for such a campaign must wait the outcome of current City negotiations with the Bureau of Reclamation. While the Council has authority to place measure on the ballot for voter approval, State law prohibits the City from using public funds to advocate passage or defeat of a local ballot measure. The rationale grounded in case law is that public money cannot be spent to tip the scales in favor of some electors and against others in matters left for the citizenry to decide.
R74:
Homeowners and businesses that currently have meters be excluded from further meter installation costs. Response to Recommendation 74:
R75:
The City Utilities Department continue to publish average water bills for various family sizes with and without meters. Response to Recommendation 75: Ongoing.
R76:
Water police be reactivated to prevent water waste. Response to Recommendation 76: The City has not yet fully implemented the recommendation. This and related conservation program expansions are a condition of the City's Central Valley Project contract renewal and will be re-implemented at the time of contract renewal. In addition, increased conservation funding is anticipated in the FY 03 budget cycle. BASEBALL/MULTI-USE STADIUM Response to Findings: The findings specified as A-M were generally accurate as of the time Grand Jury received its information. Some of the matters are estimated (e.g., annual debt service; final project cost) while other matters are in development (e.g., safety/traffic control plan). City disagrees with Conclusion A; conclusion B is ambiguous; and City disagrees with Conclusion C and D, to the extent that security and traffic plans are in the process of development. These plans will be developed and implemented with the purpose of avoiding or minimizing serious parking impacts except during intermittent, non peak business hours. Fresno County Grand Jury October 3, 2001
R77:
The City require an annual independent audit of the financial statements of FDG [Fresno Diamond Group]. Response to Recommendation 77: The recommendation will be implemented as deemed necessary by the City, per Section 17.9 of the lease agreement as follows: “Records of Tenant pertaining to any obligations of Tenant hereunder shall be kept on a generally recognized accounting basis and shall be available to the City or its authorized representatives upon request during regular business hours throughout the life of this Agreement and for a period of three years thereafter. In addition, all books, documents papers, and records of Tenant pertaining to any obligation of Tenant pursuant to this Agreement shall be available for the purpose of making audits, examinations, excerpts, and transcriptions for the same period of time. If an audit by the City discloses underpayment in excess of one percent of any monies due the City hereunder, reasonable audit costs shall be reimbursable by Tenant to the City. This Section shall survive expiration or termination of this Agreement."
R78:
All seventeen dates the city controls be devoted to for-profit events to enhance the City's revenues. Response to Recommendation 78: The recommendation will not be implemented. Under the lease, the City is allocated 10 Concession-Using Events, and 7 Non-Concession-Using Events, and it states, in Section 3.6(h): "Non-Concession-Using Events shall generally be partially or wholly sponsored or contracted for by either the City or other not-for-profit organizations (which are not required to be 501 (c)(3) organizations or for charitable purposes." It is the general understanding between the parties that the 7 events would not be "for- profit" events.
R79:
The public be assured of coordinated parking and security by FDG and the City. Fresno County Grand Jury October 3, 2001 Response to Recommendation 79: The City has not yet fully implemented the recommendation. Parking plans are being developed (with a consultant's study being completed in September) to provide for stadium event parking, and security plans will be in place by the opening of the stadium. CITY OF FRESNO FIRE DEPARTMENT Response to Conclusions: The City agrees with Conclusion A; disagrees with Conclusions B and D; and agrees in part with Conclusions C, E, and F. Regarding Conclusion C, vehicle status is monitored by the department and equipment is replaced as needed. Regarding Conclusion E, and while the ratio may be accurate, it does not necessarily reflect the ability to provide Fire services within the City of Fresno. Regarding Conclusion F, the implementation is ongoing.
R80:
The fire department have a budgeted vehicle replacement plan. The city should consider replacement of vehicles after seven or eight years while they still have significant value on the used fire vehicle market. Response to Recommendation 80: The City has not yet fully implemented the recommendation. While the Fire Department does not currently maintain a specific vehicle replacement plan, vehicles have been replaced as needed, by financing the purchase over a ten year period. The Department is currently developing a draft replacement plan for consideration.
R81:
The inventory of fire fighting tools be increased so that all spare engines/tools are fully equipped. Response to Recommendation 81: The City has implemented the recommendation. Active engines and trucks equipped with necessary tools. Reserve engines and trucks are currently equipped with a minimum of tools; typically hose and small tools on engines, and ladders and small 35 Fresno County Grand Jury October 3, 2001 tools on trucks. The balance of the inventory is stocked when a front line engine or truck is out of service for repairs. When reserve apparatus is temporarily placed in service as a new company, it operates with existing equipment. In those cases when additional equipment is needed to perform a task, the equipment from other apparatus on scene is utilized.
R82:
The city recognize the need to increase the number of fire fighting personnel. Response to Recommendation 82: The City has not yet fully implemented the recommendation. The City recognizes that the 0.58 firefighters/1000 population is at the low end of national and regional standards. However, these standards do not take into account specific service needs of Fresno. The City will continue to pursue options for increasing Fire Department staffing in future budget deliberations.
R83:
The City of Fresno revisit its traffic light preemption plan and budget funds to complete this program: Response to Recommendation 83: The City has not yet fully implemented the recommendation. The intersections of Herndon and West, and Clovis and Clinton currently have the Opticom traffic preemption device. Fire apparatus specifications have included the Opticom transmitter as emergency warning equipment to be installed since 1998. Nine of our thirty one fire apparatus are equipped with an Opticom transmitter. The City implementation of this program will continue to be a priority in future budget deliberations. The Fire Department is continually reviewing opportunities for improving response times, and will present a report of such opportunities as part of the fiscal year 2001-2002 budget process. Fresno County Grand Jury October 3, 2001 ELKHORN CORRECTION FACILITY Response to Findings:
R84:
The Fresno Fire Department develop a plan to reduce response times to the NFPA standards. City of Fresno’s Response to Recommendations #80 - #84: See . Daniel G. Hobbs City Manager October 3, 2001 Mr. Rick Allen Van Ness #102 Fresno, CA 93721 Dear Mr. Allen: SUBJECT: 2000-2001 GRAND JURY RECOMMENDATIONS The following contains the City of Fresno's response to the 2000-2001 Grand Jury
R85:
The PA/PG evaluate the use of the County Treasury Pool. Response: The option of putting the Public Guardian funds with the County under the Auditor-Controller/Treasurer-Tax Collector was carefully investigated. This Department decided that it was not a viable option because: 1) The Department loses control of the citizens' funds. Currently, when a vendor fails to respond in an adequate manner, the funds are immediately transferred to an institution providing more satisfactory services. It would be unlikely that we could remove the funds from the County's control once they are delivered whatever the level of service. 2) Limitations within the Auditor-Controller/Treasurer-Tax Collector's Office preclude the guarantee of providing "rush" checks. The Public Administrator/Guardian staff requires access to client's monies on a daily basis to address immediate needs on behalf of their clients. These emergency needs are primarily related to new cases, which are opened on a daily basis. An example of such a need would include payment of utility bills to avoid interruptions of services. 3) The County's investment pool is insured through various means; however, it is not Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) insured as required by the Superior Court. West Nielsen Avenue Fresno, California 93706 Telephone: Public Administrator (559) 268-0139 Coroner (559) 268-0109 Public Guardian (559) 268-0139 Equal Employment Opportunity Affirmative Action Disabled Employer 53 The Honorable Judge Hoff August 27, 2001 Page Two
R86:
Storage be improved for case records and client assets. Construction of an on-site storage building would eliminate the need for an expensive off-site mini-storage. Response: This Department initiated this recommendation and, therefore, we concur. The monies being paid to private outside storage companies could largely defray the cost of such storage. Personnel time spent visiting off-site storage would be curtailed. In the meantime the Department has surplused equipment, old computers, and furniture that were housed in the metal shed to provide additional storage space in that facility. The Department, in conjunction with the County Clerk as Records Manager, has also developed a record retention schedule, which was approved by the Board of Supervisors in December 2000 and is being utilized by the Department to eliminate dormant files: The Department submitted a second Capital Improvement Projects request for the 2001-2002 budget year. The County Administrative Office, when made aware of our storage needs, sent a team to evaluate the situation. After several months, no recommendation has been forthcoming.
R87:
Evaluate the need for additional deputies due to the implementation of the new Elder Abuse Referral Law SB 1742. Response: We have not yet determined the potential impact of SB 1742 on the Public Guardian's Office nor how such a program will be funded. The Public Guardian will meet with law enforcement agencies and Department of Adult Services to ascertain whether these agencies have been properly trained in the area of adult abuse and to determine the anticipated impact. The Public Guardian is presently in negotiations with the Department of Adult Services for funding to add an additional deputy position to expedite cases referred from Adult Protective Services. An agreement is expected to be forthcoming.
R88:
PA/PG add the services of a Registered Nurse to staff. This person would aid in evaluating and inspecting medical care facilities as well as review proposed client treatment and prescription history. Response: This position was included in the Department's 2001-2002 budget request but not recommended by the County Administrative Office. The Honorable Judge Hoff August 27, 2001 Page Three
R89:
PA/PG evaluate the purchase of Long Term Care Insurance for those clients who would be eligible. Response: The need for long-term care insurance is reviewed on a case by case basis by the Public Administrator/Guardian staff. These reviews have not resulted in such a service being determined to be in the client's best interest. The need is continuing to be reviewed on a case by case basis.
R90:
A plan be developed for a new morgue before the County reaches a crisis situation. Response: Over 20 years ago after touring various morgues the County built a nearly state-of- the-art facility in a 32 year-old building. The building is now 54 years old and lacks proper electricity, proper plumbing, proper cooling and proper heating. A similar tour of morgues today shows that we are deficient in such areas as special airflow rooms to reduce possible contamination by tuberculosis and other diseases, pneumatic doors to prevent bloody gloves from contaminating doorknobs, storage, etc. There is a shortage of forensic pathologists. These doctors can easily find employment in communities of their choice. Our aging facility handicaps our recruiting efforts. Ideally, a new morgue should be placed in the vicinity of the Community/University Medical Center to serve as an educational opportunity for medical students and other physicians doing their rotation in Fresno.
R91:
A commercial washing machine be purchased for on-site laundering needs and/or use a commercial laundry. Response: Currently this Department uses a non-commercial washer and dryer. Due to the nature of the work in this office, these machines do not hold up well to the types of materials that are cleaned and dried and the cleaning agents that are used. Use of commercial laundry with their garment requirements has not proved satisfactory in delivery and scheduling because of limited volume and cost benefit. Based on the recommendation and the above noted factors, this Department will include in next fiscal year's budget a request for a commercial grade thirty-five pound washer and a commercial graded fifty pound dryer. It is expected that these machines will have a much longer service life and lower the maintenance cost of the units we now use. The estimated cost for the commercial units described above are expected to be approximately $6,000.00, delivered and set up. The Honorable Judge Hoff August 27,2001 Page Four
R92:
Reference be made to the Grand Jury reports of 1998/99 and 1999/2000 regarding the need for improvement of record storage. Response: The Response to Recommendation #86 reflects the facility storage concerns for the entire Department and would address such issues as record storage. Very truly yours, David M. Hadden, M.D. Fresno County Coroner-Public Administrator/ Public Guardian DMH:slb 56 MENDOTA UTILITY BILL COLLECTIONS Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that: 93. The monthly shutoff list and notices be reviewed by an individual independent of the accounting department of the City of Mendota. 94. The subject of outstanding utility bills be reviewed during the annual financial audit conducted by an outside auditor. 95. The City establish and maintain training for all employees on the use of the Municipal Code and written procedures and policies regarding the collection of utility bills. City of Mendota’s Response to Recommendations #93 - #95: See . ELKHORN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that: 96. The Fresno County Board of Supervisors review commitments made in the February 11, 1997, letter issued by a former County Chief Administrative Officer and assure the neighbors of ECF that the County intends to honor these commitments. If certain commitments cannot be met, the County should negotiate with the neighbors to reach an equitable arrangement. Fresno County’s Response to Recommendation #96: Fresno County agrees with the
R93:
The monthly shutoff list and notices be reviewed by an individual independent of the accounting department of the City of Mendota.
R94:
The subject of outstanding utility bills be reviewed during the annual financial audit conducted by an outside auditor.
R95:
The City establish and maintain training for all employees on the use of the Municipal Code and written procedures and policies regarding the collection of utility bills. City of Mendota’s Response to Recommendations #93 - #95: See . ELKHORN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that:
R96:
The Fresno County Board of Supervisors review commitments made in the February 11, 1997, letter issued by a former County Chief Administrative Officer and assure the neighbors of ECF that the County intends to honor these commitments. If certain commitments cannot be met, the County should negotiate with the neighbors to reach an equitable arrangement. Fresno County’s Response to Recommendation #96: Fresno County agrees with the
R97:
The Board of Supervisors continue to fund and maintain the present level of services at ECF. Fresno County’s Response to Recommendation #97: Fresno County agrees with the
R98:
The City of Fresno continue to fund Elkhorn Correctional Facility at no less than the current rate of $1,000,000 per year with no sunset provision. Response to Recommendation 98: The City will not implement the recommendation, as stated. The City of Fresno's position is to continue the present commitment to fund the ECF for the balance of the nine years, if the ECF stays at the current 200 bed capacity both in staffing of correctional personnel and commitments to the facility. City recognizes that as long- term solutions Juvenile Hall expansion is still several years away, it essential that County maintain the ECF as a rehabilitation center for nonviolent Juvenile offenders. It is neither wise, nor sound policy for the City at this time to make a perpetual commitment for these reasons: a perpetual commitment is subject to availability of funding; a perpetual commitment is subject to revocation by a future Council on a variety of grounds; future City-County agreements may require the need to revisit future funding; a future Council may determine that City resources are more urgently needed to fund other related programs (crime prevention, after school programs, etc.) other than confinement costs; making a minimum commitment now may discourage greater, participation by Fresno andlor other cities in the County, should the need arise. Under the above circumstances, making such a minimum commitment now would be misleading and unproductive. In sum, the City is encouraged by the present level of activities of the ECF, and will consider future opportunities to involve itself and other cities in the county to support the program in the most appropriate means then available. Fresno County Grand Jury October 3, 2001 BRIEFING BOOK FOR NEWLY ELECTED OFFICIALS Response to Findings: City agrees with the need and desirability for newly elected officials to receive a minimum and appropriate level of orientation in the new position, and the information needed and legally available to get up to speed on pending issues as expeditiously as possible.
R99:
The County provide boot camp facilities for female juvenile offenders. Fresno County’s Response to Recommendation #99: Fresno County agrees with the
R100:
The 2000-01 Grand Jury recommends that Future Grand Juries continue to monitor the activities at the Elkhorn Correctional Facility.
Quick View
Full Details →
Additional Recommendations
99
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
To be in compliance with the above restricted revenue requirements and regulations and to eliminate the appearance that restricted revenues are being used to fund general fund expenditures, the City of Parlier should ensure that such restricted revenues are clearly used for the related program purposes. Costs charged to the special revenue funds should reflect actual costs attributable to the program and should be supported by applicable documentation such as time tracking. The City of Parlier should obtain clarification from the applicable regulatory agency to determine if their current cost allocation methodology is acceptable. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation.
R2:
In the absence of fully supportable cost allocation methodologies or regulatory approval of existing cost allocation methodologies, the City of Parlier should reverse the $268,224 and $393,602 in overhead costs charged to the special revenue funds listed above. In addition, any 17 other insufficiently supported cost allocations that were not noted in this report should also be reversed. Response: The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor for review, the manager will report back to Council with recommendation for appropriate action.
R3:
In order to provide for sound accounting and budgeting practices and to ensure a clear audit trail, appropriations and expenditures should be initially recorded in the originating department/fund where the activities are incurred. Response: The City is in compliance with generally accepted accounting practices. The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor for further review and appropriate action.
R4:
The City of Parlier Finance Department should implement procedures that provide segregation of duties related to accounts payable. Specifically, the person who approves payments should not be the same person who signs checks and submits requests for payments. When it is necessary for the Finance Director to submit a request for payment, the payment should be sufficiently reviewed and approved by another authorized staff member (e.g. the City Manager). Response: Payments are approved by Department Heads. Any Department expenditures greater than a thousand dollars must be reviewed and approved by the City Manager. Additionally, the City Manager reviews and approves all payments on the demand warrant register. This register is published in the Council agenda for public review.
R5:
To strengthen internal controls over expenditures in special revenue funds and to ensure that funding does not need to be reimbursed or that future funding is withheld, the City of Parlier should ensure that program costs incurred are fully supported and are in compliance with program requirements. This can be achieved in part by requiring that receipts for credit card purchases be retained for supporting documentation and submitted to the Finance Department for review and approval. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation.
R6:
To prevent losses and enhance internal controls, the City of Parlier should immediately implement procedures to ensure that the City's charge accounts and credit cards are not used for personal purchases. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation. Such procedures are in place.
R7:
In compliance with the above code sections and to ensure that funding is not withheld, the RDA should immediately submit a 5-year plan to the State Controller's Office and submit all future required documents when due. Response: The City has held off on updating its 5 year housing plan pending certification of its housing element by the State Housing and Community Development Department. The element will be certified in a few weeks. The plan will be updated during this 2001-2002 fiscal year.
R8:
In order to comply with Health & Safety Code Section 33487 and to ensure that funding is not withheld, the RDA should transfer $3,907 to the low income-housing fund for fiscal year 1998/99 from the RDA Capital Projects Fund. Response: The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor for review, the manager will report back to Council with recommendation for appropriate action.
R9:
In order to explain material changes in the financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, the City of Parlier should provide adequate disclosure in the notes to the financial statements. For example, Parlier could have identified the above increase in the capital projects fund balance as a "restated" fund balance in the financial statements. In addition, a note disclosure should have been provided to reconcile the restated fund balance to the prior year ending balance. The disclosure should have also explained the reason(s) for the restatement. Parlier should consider this for future reporting purposes. Response: The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor for review and appropriate future action.
R10:
a, b, c, and d To ensure that funding is not withheld, the RDA should ensure all proper procedures and legal requirements are followed when issuing loans and all appropriate documents are maintained in their loan files and that all loans are properly authorized. Parlier staff should review all available loan records since the formation of the RDA to try to locate all missing loan documentation and criteria information on the sixteen known loans addressed above. Parlier staff should also determine if there are any additional outstanding loans not currently known that should be followed up on. Also, even though Parlier has indicated that the commercial borrowers of the "written off' loans are out of business, Parlier should continue to bill the business owners until these loans are officially written off by the City Council. Proper procedures must be followed to assure that all redevelopment loans are repaid timely and in full. Redevelopment loans determined to be uncollectible should be written off by the City Council and referred to a collection agency as appropriate. Parlier should consider following up with other collection agencies or pursue other means of recouping unpaid balances, e.g. through small claims processes, other lawsuits, etc. In addition, Parlier should ensure and be able to support that interest charged on Redevelopment loans is charged fairly and equitably. Response: The Redevelopment Agency has not made any loans in nearly a decade. Of those older loans on the Agencies books: some loans have been paid off; some loans are in process and payment is timely, some loans are behind in payment and payment is sporadic, on some there is no activity and they are considered uncollectable. Many of the loans were unsecured and should have been. Loans that are secured by real property shall be paid. Extensive searches for records of prior loans have been made, for some loans there are little or no records. A list of uncollectable loans shall be provided to the Redevelopment Agency for 'write-off' consideration. Future loans, if any, considered by the Redevelopment Agency will be secured by real property and shall be recorded.
R11:
To enhance internal controls, ensure the accuracy of the City's accounting records, and ensure continued funding, Parlier should implement formal procedures to ensure proper accounting for and reconciliation of restricted revenues. In addition, all transactions and supporting documentation must be maintained until such records have been audited by all appropriate oversight agencies. Finally, the City of Parlier should make the appropriate general ledger entries within the special revenue fund to record these transactions. Response: The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor appropriate future action. 19
R12:
The City of Parlier should post transactions to proper accounts and subsequently classify expenditures appropriately in their financial statements. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation.
R13:
In order to comply with terms of the Child Development Grant, the City of Parlier should reimburse the Child Development fund the $582.50 noted above and only make expenditures appropriate for grant purposes from this fund. Response: The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor for review, the manager will report back to Council with recommendation for appropriate action.
R14:
In order to comply with terms of the Child Development Grant, the City of Parlier should obtain an annual audit of the Child Development Program that conforms to the terms of the grant agreement and reports on Child Development revenues and expenditures of the City of Parlier. In addition, the City of Parlier should consistently review any audit reports prepared for their program prior to finalization of the report. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation.
R15:
In order to properly account for and report Gas Tax revenues, the City of Parlier must reconcile any variances between revenues paid by a funding entity and revenues recorded by the City. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation.
R16:
In order to properly administer the Local Transportation Fund and ensure proper financial statement presentation, the City of Parlier must reconcile the Local Transportation fund to receipts and implement procedures to ensure that all transactions are properly recorded and reported. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation.
R17:
The City of Parlier should either provide supporting documentation for the $70, 702 reduction of revenues or reverse this adjustment as appropriate. Response: The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor for review, the manager will report back to Council with recommendation for appropriate action.
R19:
The City of Parlier should contact the DOJ for written clarification of what constitutes acceptable expenditures for this grant. The City of Parlier should comply with the information provided by the 20 DOJ related to this audit finding. Unauthorized expenditures of grant funds must be reimbursed or a waiver should be requested from the grantor agency. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation.
R20:
The City of Parlier should ensure that actual interest is allocated to the COPS fund for 1998/99, 1999/00 and thereafter. In addition, the City should ensure that adequate interest allocation methodologies are used to ensure that all restricted revenues are accurately calculated, allocated and available to be used for restricted program purposes or returned to regulatory agencies as necessary in the event of non-compliance with program requirements. Response: The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor for review, the manager will report back to Council with recommendation for appropriate action.
R21:
In compliance with the provisions of Government Code Section 30061 as stated above, the City of Parlier should ensure that the appropriation of COPS grant monies for 2000/01 and thereafter are separately presented to and approved by Parlier's City Council as required. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation.
R22:
The City of Parlier should maintain support for all financial transactions that affect special revenue funds as well as other funds until all oversight agencies conduct periodic audits. Unauthorized expenditures of grant funds must be reimbursed or a waiver should be requested from the grantor agency. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation.
R23:
The City of Parlier should implement procedures to ensure that expenditures are not claimed/reported twice and that overtime costs are not claimed in compliance with Universal Hiring Grant provisions. Parlier should also adjust the above reports and charges to reverse duplicated expenditures and inappropriate overtime costs. Response: The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor for review, the manager will report back to Council with recommendation for appropriate action.
R24:
The City of Parlier should investigate the difference of $2,404 between revenues reported in their general ledger for OES revenues and the amount of payments confirmed through the State OES or have support for the variance readily available. Response: The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor for review, the manager will report back to Council with recommendation for appropriate action.
R25:
The City of Parlier should immediately revise the Project Completion and Certification Report to reflect actual costs for the disaster period. They should provide support for costs claimed or return $36,136 claimed inappropriately to the State OES. Response: The matter will be referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor for review, the manager will report back to Council with recommendation for appropriate action. 21
R26:
To ensure accuracy of records, enhance internal controls, and ensure the availability of current and future funding, the City of Parlier should properly maintain files containing supporting documentation for transactions and retain these records until audited by all appropriate oversight agencies. Response: The City concurs with the recommendation. Summary: It is our recommendation that the City of Parlier hire either a CPA firm or professional accounting staff to help them address the findings and recommendations in this report, correct their records/reports related to special revenue funds, and implement procedures/processes to ensure that restricted revenues are properly expended and accounted for and that all applicable rules, regulations and laws are followed with strict compliance. Gary W. Peterson Auditor-Control Treasurer-Tax Collector Response: The City concurs with the Summary recommendation and the matter is referred to the Finance Director and City Auditor. Paint Project: 27. The Parlier City Manager confer with the City Council before engaging in city projects costing over $10,000 as required by PMC. 28. Bidding and contracting of services be in compliance with PMC. 29. The City Manager and City Council be held responsible for implementing the directives set forth in PMC. 30. Compensation of employees and/or contractors be in compliance with existing State and Federal laws. Response: The City concurs with recommendations 27 though 30. It disagrees with many of the findings. Animal Control 31. The City hire an animal control officer. 32. The animal shelter be relocated within the city to make it more accessible. 33. Leash and licensing laws be enforced. 34. The City educate the community regarding licensing, vaccinations, leash laws, spaying and neutering. 35. The City establish a fee schedule for costs incurred in animal control. 36. All record keeping relating to animal control be current. 37. State guidelines be followed for the ultimate disposal of any animal. 38. Polaroid photographs of impounded dogs be posted at city hall in order for citizens to see if their dog has been impounded. Response to 31 - 38: The current location of the city's holding facility and city's procedures for managing it are cost effective and consistent with requirements of law. The Council expects and management will ensure that our operation is in compliance with state law. City Hall Carpeting 39. The Parlier Municipal Code and Purchasing Ordinance be followed. 40. Shortcuts that violate the existing code not be considered. Response: The City concurs with recommendations 39 and 40. Code Enforcement 41. The present policy of code enforcement be changed to a more aggressive system which addresses all violations existing in the City of Parlier. 42. Written policy and procedures be developed to provide for the tracking and documented resolution of all complaints. 43. The city hire a code enforcement officer, supported with sufficient staff. 44. Adequate training be provided for the code enforcement officer and staff, including instruction in property owner and tenant rights. 45. A written manual providing guidelines on how to resolve code enforcement disputes be developed and implemented. 46. The City of Parlier inform and educate the public on current code enforcement policy. 47. A current copy of the Parlier Municipal Code be available for public use at City Hall and the public library. Response to 41 -47: The City has budgeted for a ½ time Code Enforcement Officer in the FY2001-2002 budget. A more active code enforcement program will be instituted accordingly. Personnel Policies 48. The City of Parlier formulate and implement written policies and procedures regarding labor relations. 49. The City develop written job classifications for all positions and issue them to all employees. 50. The City require department heads to adhere to the PMC sections covering their areas of responsibility . 51. A current copy of the PMC be made available to City Council members. 52. The City prepare, and provide to all employees, a handbook informing them of employee rights as stated in the PMC. 53. Employees be advised, in writing, of their rights of representation at all disciplinary hearings. 54. Written annual job performance evaluations of all employees be conducted, a copy placed in the employee's permanent file and a copy provided to the employee. 23 55. A written salary schedule for each position be prepared and a copy made available to each employee. 56. The city develop and issue a written policy regarding advancement and salary increases. Response: Items 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 55 are in place and are standard practice. Item 54 will be instituted this fiscal year. Item 56 will be put in place if and when it is deemed necessary. Nepotism 57. PMC section 4.01.080 be rewritten to more clearly state the city's policy on nepotism as defined by Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, "favoritism shown to relatives or close friends by those in power (as by giving them jobs)." Response: The matter will be referred to the City Attorney for review and to report back to Council with recommendation for appropriate action. 58. The policy of the city be to recruit, employ, and promote the best-qualified individuals. Response: This is City Policy. Personnel Appeals Board 59. The current PHB be dissolved. 60. The position for citizen at large be advertised (noticed). 61. The position for citizen at large be posted at City Hall. 62. All citizens who submit applications for this position be given equal consideration. Response: The City disagrees with recommendations 59-62. The Personnel Appeals Board was established by the municipal code. Council appointments were made consistent with that code. Police Department 63. The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that the Parlier Police Department be closed immediately and the policing of Parlier be contracted with the Fresno County Sheriff. Response: The majority of the Police Department findings were absurd; this recommendation is nonsense. SECTION II CITY COMMITTEE CITY COMMITTEE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DIVISION Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that: 64. Continue the broad public education program to increase awareness of the need to meet recycling goals. 65. Tailor educational efforts to target each culture within our community in a way that has proven most effective for that group. City of Fresno’s Response to Recommendations #64 and #65: See . FRESNO CITY PARKS SANITATION FACILITIES Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that: 66. Increase the budget to provide for care of the new parks. 67. Add personnel to help maintain the park sanitation facilities. 68. Provide adequate funds for replacement of fixtures with more durable ones. City of Fresno’s Response to Recommendations #66 - #68: See . CITY COUNCIL INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDS Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that: 69. Distribution of the City Council discretionary infrastructure funds be reviewed and approved by the City Manager prior to disbursement. 25 70. Consideration be given to reducing the current allotment from $140,000 to $70,000 per district. 71. Carryover of any unused infrastructure funds be eliminated. 72. Future Grand Juries continue to monitor the program. City of Fresno’s Response to Recommendations #69 - #72: See . CITY OF FRESNO WATER METERS Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that: 73. The Mayor, City Council and all civic groups unite to promote the installation of water meters. 74. Homeowners and businesses that currently have meters be excluded from further meter installation costs. 75. The city utilities department continue to publish average water bills for various family sizes with and without meters. 76. Water police be reactivated to prevent water waste. City of Fresno’s Response to Recommendations #73 - #76: See . BASEBALL/MULTI-USE STADIUM Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that: 77. The City require an annual independent audit of the financial statements of FDG. 78. All seventeen dates the city controls be devoted to for-profit events to enhance the City’s revenues. 26 79. The public be assured of coordinated parking and security by FDG and the City. City of Fresno’s Response to Recommendations #77 - #79: See . CITY OF FRESNO FIRE DEPARTMENT Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that: 80. The fire department have a budgeted vehicle replacement plan. The city should consider replacement of vehicles after seven or eight years while they still have significant value on the used fire vehicle market. 81. The inventory of fire fighting tools be increased so that all spare engines/trucks are fully equipped. 82. The city recognize the need to increase the number of fire fighting personnel. 83. The City of Fresno revisit its traffic light pre-emption plan and budget funds to complete this program. 84. The Fresno Fire Department develop a plan to reduce response times to the NFPA standards. City of Fresno’s Response to Recommendations #80 - #84: See . Daniel G. Hobbs City Manager October 3, 2001 Mr. Rick Allen Van Ness #102 Fresno, CA 93721 Dear Mr. Allen: SUBJECT: 2000-2001 GRAND JURY RECOMMENDATIONS The following contains the City of Fresno's response to the 2000-2001 Grand Jury
R27:
The Parlier City Manager confer with the City Council before engaging in city projects costing over $10,000 as required by PMC.
R28:
Bidding and contracting of services be in compliance with PMC.
R29:
The City Manager and City Council be held responsible for implementing the directives set forth in PMC.
R30:
Compensation of employees and/or contractors be in compliance with existing State and Federal laws. City of Parlier's Response to Recommendations #27 - #30: See . PARLIER ANIMAL CONTROL Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that:
R31:
The City hire an animal control officer.
R32:
The animal shelter be relocated within the city to make it more accessible.
R33:
Leash and licensing laws be enforced.
R34:
The City educate the community regarding licensing, vaccinations, leash laws, spaying and neutering.
R35:
The City establish a fee schedule for costs incurred in animal control.
R36:
All record keeping relating to animal control be current.
R37:
State guidelines be followed for the ultimate disposal of any animal. 7
R38:
Polaroid photographs of impounded dogs be posted at city hall in order for citizens to see if their dog has been impounded. City of Parlier's Response to Recommendations #31 - #38: See . CARPETING OF PARLIER CITY HALL Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that:
R39:
The Parlier Municipal Code and Purchasing Ordinance be followed.
R40:
Shortcuts that violate the existing code not be considered. City of Parlier's Response to Recommendations #39 and #40: See . CODE ENFORCEMENT IN PARLIER Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that:
R41:
The present policy of code enforcement be changed to a more aggressive system which addresses all violations existing in the City of Parlier.
R42:
Written policy and procedures be developed to provide for the tracking and documented resolution of all complaints.
R43:
The city hire a code enforcement officer, supported with sufficient staff.
R44:
Adequate training be provided for the code enforcement officer and staff, including instruction in property owner and tenant rights.
R45:
A written manual providing guidelines on how to resolve code enforcement disputes be developed and implemented.
R46:
The City of Parlier inform and educate the public on current code enforcement policy.
R47:
A current copy of the Parlier Municipal Code be available for public use at City Hall and the public library. City of Parlier's Response to Recommendations #41 - #47: See . PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT WITHIN THE CITY OF PARLIER Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that:
R48:
The City of Parlier formulate and implement written policies and procedures regarding labor relations.
R49:
The City develop written job classifications for all positions and issue them to all employees.
R50:
The City require department heads to adhere to the PMC sections covering their areas of responsibility.
R51:
A current copy of the PMC be made available to City Council members. 9
R52:
The City prepare, and provide to all employees, a handbook informing them of employee rights as stated in the PMC.
R53:
Employees be advised, in writing, of their rights of representation at all disciplinary hearings.
R54:
Written annual job performance evaluations of all employees be conducted, a copy placed in the employee’s permanent file and a copy provided to the employee.
R55:
A written salary schedule for each position be prepared and a copy made available to each employee.
R56:
The city develop and issue a written policy regarding advancement and salary increases. City of Parlier's Response to Recommendations #48 - #56: See . NEPOTISM IN THE CITY OF PARLIER Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that:
R57:
PMC section 4.01.080 be rewritten to more clearly state the city’s policy on nepotism as defined by Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, “favoritism shown to relatives or close friends by those in power (as by giving them jobs).”
R58:
The policy of the city be to recruit, employ, and promote the best-qualified individuals. City of Parlier's Response to Recommendations #57 and #58: See . PARLIER PERSONNEL HEARING BOARD Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that:
R59:
The current PHB be dissolved.
R60:
The position for citizen at large be advertised (noticed).
R61:
The position for citizen at large be posted at City Hall.
R62:
All citizens who submit applications for this position be given equal consideration. City of Parlier's Response to Recommendations #59 - #62: See . PARLIER POLICE DEPARTMENT Recommendation The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that:
R63:
The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that the Parlier Police Department be closed immediately and the policing of Parlier be contracted with the Fresno County Sheriff. City of Parlier's Response to Recommendation #63: See . A Community with a vision to the future. Una Comunidad con vision al futuro Incorporated November 14, 1921 Founded 1876 July 24, 2001 Honorable Gary D. Huff Presiding Judge Superior Court County of Fresno 1100 Van Ness Avenue Fresno, CA 93721 Dear Judge Hoff: Enclosed please find the City of Parlier's response to the 200-2001 Grand Jury Report. The City was quite disappointed with the quality of work performed by the Grand Jury, and found and determined that many of the findings were incorrect. Nevertheless, there were many useful recommendations that will be put in place. Sincerely, Michael R. Swigart City Manager Enclosures 1100 E. Parlier Avenue, Parlier, California 93848 .(559) 646.3545 FAX (559) 646-0416 12 A Community with a vision to the future. Una Comunidad con visión al futuro Incorporated November 14, 1921 Founded 1878 Staff Report Date: 07172001 To: Mayor, Council From: City Manager Council Meeting of July 17,2001 G. City Manager/Executive Director Reports Item g.4, Grand Jury Recommendations Recommendation: 1. Receive Recommendations from the Grand Jury;
R64:
Continue the broad public education program to increase awareness of the need to meet recycling goals. Response to Recommendation 64: The City has implemented the recommendation. The Solid Waste education budget has been increased for FY 02 specifically for this purpose. Broad recycling education programs are ongoing, with acceleration of effort planed for a spring of 2003 multi- media campaign.
R65:
Tailor educational efforts to target each culture within our community in a way that has proven most effective for that group. City of Fresno City Hall • 2600 Fresno Street • Fresno, California 93721-3601 (559) 498-4591 • FAX (559) 488-1015 • www.ci.fresno.ca.us 28 Fresno County Grand Jury October 3, 2001 Response to Recommendation 65: The City has not yet fully implemented the recommendation. Solid Waste is developing educational strategies to fit several linguistic and cultural specialized groups. A media consultant with multi-cultural expertise will be retained in FY 02, while we are currently working with EOC and several community groups to tailor educational messages and venues to maximize results. FRESNO CITY PARKS FACILITIES Response to Findings: The City agrees with the findings.
R66:
Increase the budget to provide for care of new parks. Response to Recommendation 66: The City has implemented the recommendation. The FY02 budget for neighborhood parks was increased by $266, 700 to compensate for the opening of Layne, Kolligian and Pilibos Parks and the Multi-Cultural Corridor and increased operating costs including energy.
R67:
Add personnel to help maintain the park sanitation facilities. Response to Recommendation 67: The City has implemented the recommendation. The Parks Division budget was increased during fiscal year 2000-2001 to increase the number of times the outdoor facilities at neighborhood parks are maintained from 5 to 7 times per week, including holidays. Those parks that are staffed with Recreation personnel, which is 27 out of 58, receive at least one additional maintenance visit daily during operating hours. The maintenance level on the regional parks restroom facilities remain at two cleanings per day and a minimum of one additional visit each day by maintenance personnel. Fresno County Grand Jury October 3, 2001
R68:
Provide adequate funds for replacement of fixtures with more durable ones. Response to Recommendation 68: The City has not yet fully implemented the recommendation. The four outdoor restroom facilities at Woodward Park are on a four year schedule for complete renovation. The funding source for the improvements is from Crystal Valley Decorating for their Festival of Lights Exhibit. Fixtures at other facilities are replaced when damaged, and the Parks Division is pursuing grants from Federal and State agencies for replacements at other outdoor facilities. CITY COUNCIL INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDS Response to Findings: The City agrees that certain non-capital expenses were authorized out of what is generally called district infrastructure, but disagrees that any cited expenditures were legally or procedurally questionable. Funding sources were used for legally permissible expenditures; general fund sources were used for non-capital expenditures.
R69:
Distribution of the City Council discretionary infrastructure funds be reviewed and approved by the City Manager prior to disbursement. Response to Recommendation 69: Expenditures funded from district infrastructure budgets follow standard City procedures for review and payment. Additionally, non-capital expenditures were placed on Council agendas, considered in Council open meetings, and approved by a supermajority vote and subject to mayoral veto.
R70:
Consideration be given to reducing the current allotment from $140,000 to $70,000 per district. Fresno County Grand Jury October 3, 2001 Response to Recommendation 70: The Mayor and City Council have recently discussed this matter in public session, and have confirmed the need for resources to be available to expediently resolve infrastructure needs within Council districts. Additionally, the Council has placed a limit of 15 percent of their infrastructure budgets for funding non-capital related expenditures. Finally, the City Attorney's Office is preparing, for Council consideration, a resolution which establishes the criteria for use of Community Service Program Funds. The Council adopted the resolution which is attached as Exhibit '"A".
R71:
Carryover of any unused infrastructure funds be eliminated. Response to Recommendation 71: The budgeting of unused infrastructure funds is a policy decision regarding the allocation of limited City resources to the infrastructure needs of the City. The issue is compounded by the timing and process necessary to complete infrastructure projects including, Charter required competitive bidding and approvals necessary to properly expend the funds. The matter was considered by the City Council on August 21, 2001, at which time the funds were appropriated for use in fiscal year 2001-2002.
R72:
Future Grand Juries continue to monitor the program. Response to Recommendation 72: Should future Grand Juries choose to monitor the program, City staff will provide requested information as required. CITY OF FRESNO WATER METERS Response to Findings and Conclusions: The City agrees with findings A through F, Findings H and I, and Conclusion C. Regarding Finding G which stated that “”Water Police" have been inactivated due to lack of funds", it is correct that the program of proactive water waste patrols was de-funded. The principal reason however, was not a lack of funds but was a policy decision by the 31 Fresno County Grand Jury October 3, 2001 previous City administration and previous Council to redirect the resources of the water conservation program. Regarding Conclusion A, the cost of San Joaquin water supply will increase. Contract costs will increase from a current $30 per acre ft to a minimum of $70 per acre ft. Regarding Conclusion B, the cost of installation, maintenance and administration of a residential metering program will be fully offset after full implementation by the anticipated decrease in pumping, water treatment and wastewater treatment costs.
R73:
The Mayor, City Council and all civic groups unite to promote the installation of water meters. Response to Recommendation 73: The City has not yet fully implemented the recommendation. The Mayor and Council have all endorsed meters if they are necessary to renew the City's CVP contract. A broad based stakeholders group (Contract Renewal Advisory Group) has been formed to provide feedback and support in the contract renewal process and a referendum on water meters should it become necessary to renew the CVP contract. Timing and need for such a campaign must wait the outcome of current City negotiations with the Bureau of Reclamation. While the Council has authority to place measure on the ballot for voter approval, State law prohibits the City from using public funds to advocate passage or defeat of a local ballot measure. The rationale grounded in case law is that public money cannot be spent to tip the scales in favor of some electors and against others in matters left for the citizenry to decide.
R74:
Homeowners and businesses that currently have meters be excluded from further meter installation costs. Response to Recommendation 74:
R75:
The City Utilities Department continue to publish average water bills for various family sizes with and without meters. Response to Recommendation 75: Ongoing.
R76:
Water police be reactivated to prevent water waste. Response to Recommendation 76: The City has not yet fully implemented the recommendation. This and related conservation program expansions are a condition of the City's Central Valley Project contract renewal and will be re-implemented at the time of contract renewal. In addition, increased conservation funding is anticipated in the FY 03 budget cycle. BASEBALL/MULTI-USE STADIUM Response to Findings: The findings specified as A-M were generally accurate as of the time Grand Jury received its information. Some of the matters are estimated (e.g., annual debt service; final project cost) while other matters are in development (e.g., safety/traffic control plan). City disagrees with Conclusion A; conclusion B is ambiguous; and City disagrees with Conclusion C and D, to the extent that security and traffic plans are in the process of development. These plans will be developed and implemented with the purpose of avoiding or minimizing serious parking impacts except during intermittent, non peak business hours. Fresno County Grand Jury October 3, 2001
R77:
The City require an annual independent audit of the financial statements of FDG [Fresno Diamond Group]. Response to Recommendation 77: The recommendation will be implemented as deemed necessary by the City, per Section 17.9 of the lease agreement as follows: “Records of Tenant pertaining to any obligations of Tenant hereunder shall be kept on a generally recognized accounting basis and shall be available to the City or its authorized representatives upon request during regular business hours throughout the life of this Agreement and for a period of three years thereafter. In addition, all books, documents papers, and records of Tenant pertaining to any obligation of Tenant pursuant to this Agreement shall be available for the purpose of making audits, examinations, excerpts, and transcriptions for the same period of time. If an audit by the City discloses underpayment in excess of one percent of any monies due the City hereunder, reasonable audit costs shall be reimbursable by Tenant to the City. This Section shall survive expiration or termination of this Agreement."
R78:
All seventeen dates the city controls be devoted to for-profit events to enhance the City's revenues. Response to Recommendation 78: The recommendation will not be implemented. Under the lease, the City is allocated 10 Concession-Using Events, and 7 Non-Concession-Using Events, and it states, in Section 3.6(h): "Non-Concession-Using Events shall generally be partially or wholly sponsored or contracted for by either the City or other not-for-profit organizations (which are not required to be 501 (c)(3) organizations or for charitable purposes." It is the general understanding between the parties that the 7 events would not be "for- profit" events.
R79:
The public be assured of coordinated parking and security by FDG and the City. Fresno County Grand Jury October 3, 2001 Response to Recommendation 79: The City has not yet fully implemented the recommendation. Parking plans are being developed (with a consultant's study being completed in September) to provide for stadium event parking, and security plans will be in place by the opening of the stadium. CITY OF FRESNO FIRE DEPARTMENT Response to Conclusions: The City agrees with Conclusion A; disagrees with Conclusions B and D; and agrees in part with Conclusions C, E, and F. Regarding Conclusion C, vehicle status is monitored by the department and equipment is replaced as needed. Regarding Conclusion E, and while the ratio may be accurate, it does not necessarily reflect the ability to provide Fire services within the City of Fresno. Regarding Conclusion F, the implementation is ongoing.
R80:
The fire department have a budgeted vehicle replacement plan. The city should consider replacement of vehicles after seven or eight years while they still have significant value on the used fire vehicle market. Response to Recommendation 80: The City has not yet fully implemented the recommendation. While the Fire Department does not currently maintain a specific vehicle replacement plan, vehicles have been replaced as needed, by financing the purchase over a ten year period. The Department is currently developing a draft replacement plan for consideration.
R81:
The inventory of fire fighting tools be increased so that all spare engines/tools are fully equipped. Response to Recommendation 81: The City has implemented the recommendation. Active engines and trucks equipped with necessary tools. Reserve engines and trucks are currently equipped with a minimum of tools; typically hose and small tools on engines, and ladders and small 35 Fresno County Grand Jury October 3, 2001 tools on trucks. The balance of the inventory is stocked when a front line engine or truck is out of service for repairs. When reserve apparatus is temporarily placed in service as a new company, it operates with existing equipment. In those cases when additional equipment is needed to perform a task, the equipment from other apparatus on scene is utilized.
R82:
The city recognize the need to increase the number of fire fighting personnel. Response to Recommendation 82: The City has not yet fully implemented the recommendation. The City recognizes that the 0.58 firefighters/1000 population is at the low end of national and regional standards. However, these standards do not take into account specific service needs of Fresno. The City will continue to pursue options for increasing Fire Department staffing in future budget deliberations.
R83:
The City of Fresno revisit its traffic light preemption plan and budget funds to complete this program: Response to Recommendation 83: The City has not yet fully implemented the recommendation. The intersections of Herndon and West, and Clovis and Clinton currently have the Opticom traffic preemption device. Fire apparatus specifications have included the Opticom transmitter as emergency warning equipment to be installed since 1998. Nine of our thirty one fire apparatus are equipped with an Opticom transmitter. The City implementation of this program will continue to be a priority in future budget deliberations. The Fire Department is continually reviewing opportunities for improving response times, and will present a report of such opportunities as part of the fiscal year 2001-2002 budget process. Fresno County Grand Jury October 3, 2001 ELKHORN CORRECTION FACILITY Response to Findings:
R84:
The Fresno Fire Department develop a plan to reduce response times to the NFPA standards. City of Fresno’s Response to Recommendations #80 - #84: See . Daniel G. Hobbs City Manager October 3, 2001 Mr. Rick Allen Van Ness #102 Fresno, CA 93721 Dear Mr. Allen: SUBJECT: 2000-2001 GRAND JURY RECOMMENDATIONS The following contains the City of Fresno's response to the 2000-2001 Grand Jury
R85:
The PA/PG evaluate the use of the County Treasury Pool. Response: The option of putting the Public Guardian funds with the County under the Auditor-Controller/Treasurer-Tax Collector was carefully investigated. This Department decided that it was not a viable option because: 1) The Department loses control of the citizens' funds. Currently, when a vendor fails to respond in an adequate manner, the funds are immediately transferred to an institution providing more satisfactory services. It would be unlikely that we could remove the funds from the County's control once they are delivered whatever the level of service. 2) Limitations within the Auditor-Controller/Treasurer-Tax Collector's Office preclude the guarantee of providing "rush" checks. The Public Administrator/Guardian staff requires access to client's monies on a daily basis to address immediate needs on behalf of their clients. These emergency needs are primarily related to new cases, which are opened on a daily basis. An example of such a need would include payment of utility bills to avoid interruptions of services. 3) The County's investment pool is insured through various means; however, it is not Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) insured as required by the Superior Court. West Nielsen Avenue Fresno, California 93706 Telephone: Public Administrator (559) 268-0139 Coroner (559) 268-0109 Public Guardian (559) 268-0139 Equal Employment Opportunity Affirmative Action Disabled Employer 53 The Honorable Judge Hoff August 27, 2001 Page Two
R86:
Storage be improved for case records and client assets. Construction of an on-site storage building would eliminate the need for an expensive off-site mini-storage. Response: This Department initiated this recommendation and, therefore, we concur. The monies being paid to private outside storage companies could largely defray the cost of such storage. Personnel time spent visiting off-site storage would be curtailed. In the meantime the Department has surplused equipment, old computers, and furniture that were housed in the metal shed to provide additional storage space in that facility. The Department, in conjunction with the County Clerk as Records Manager, has also developed a record retention schedule, which was approved by the Board of Supervisors in December 2000 and is being utilized by the Department to eliminate dormant files: The Department submitted a second Capital Improvement Projects request for the 2001-2002 budget year. The County Administrative Office, when made aware of our storage needs, sent a team to evaluate the situation. After several months, no recommendation has been forthcoming.
R87:
Evaluate the need for additional deputies due to the implementation of the new Elder Abuse Referral Law SB 1742. Response: We have not yet determined the potential impact of SB 1742 on the Public Guardian's Office nor how such a program will be funded. The Public Guardian will meet with law enforcement agencies and Department of Adult Services to ascertain whether these agencies have been properly trained in the area of adult abuse and to determine the anticipated impact. The Public Guardian is presently in negotiations with the Department of Adult Services for funding to add an additional deputy position to expedite cases referred from Adult Protective Services. An agreement is expected to be forthcoming.
R88:
PA/PG add the services of a Registered Nurse to staff. This person would aid in evaluating and inspecting medical care facilities as well as review proposed client treatment and prescription history. Response: This position was included in the Department's 2001-2002 budget request but not recommended by the County Administrative Office. The Honorable Judge Hoff August 27, 2001 Page Three
R89:
PA/PG evaluate the purchase of Long Term Care Insurance for those clients who would be eligible. Response: The need for long-term care insurance is reviewed on a case by case basis by the Public Administrator/Guardian staff. These reviews have not resulted in such a service being determined to be in the client's best interest. The need is continuing to be reviewed on a case by case basis.
R90:
A plan be developed for a new morgue before the County reaches a crisis situation. Response: Over 20 years ago after touring various morgues the County built a nearly state-of- the-art facility in a 32 year-old building. The building is now 54 years old and lacks proper electricity, proper plumbing, proper cooling and proper heating. A similar tour of morgues today shows that we are deficient in such areas as special airflow rooms to reduce possible contamination by tuberculosis and other diseases, pneumatic doors to prevent bloody gloves from contaminating doorknobs, storage, etc. There is a shortage of forensic pathologists. These doctors can easily find employment in communities of their choice. Our aging facility handicaps our recruiting efforts. Ideally, a new morgue should be placed in the vicinity of the Community/University Medical Center to serve as an educational opportunity for medical students and other physicians doing their rotation in Fresno.
R91:
A commercial washing machine be purchased for on-site laundering needs and/or use a commercial laundry. Response: Currently this Department uses a non-commercial washer and dryer. Due to the nature of the work in this office, these machines do not hold up well to the types of materials that are cleaned and dried and the cleaning agents that are used. Use of commercial laundry with their garment requirements has not proved satisfactory in delivery and scheduling because of limited volume and cost benefit. Based on the recommendation and the above noted factors, this Department will include in next fiscal year's budget a request for a commercial grade thirty-five pound washer and a commercial graded fifty pound dryer. It is expected that these machines will have a much longer service life and lower the maintenance cost of the units we now use. The estimated cost for the commercial units described above are expected to be approximately $6,000.00, delivered and set up. The Honorable Judge Hoff August 27,2001 Page Four
R92:
Reference be made to the Grand Jury reports of 1998/99 and 1999/2000 regarding the need for improvement of record storage. Response: The Response to Recommendation #86 reflects the facility storage concerns for the entire Department and would address such issues as record storage. Very truly yours, David M. Hadden, M.D. Fresno County Coroner-Public Administrator/ Public Guardian DMH:slb 56 MENDOTA UTILITY BILL COLLECTIONS Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that: 93. The monthly shutoff list and notices be reviewed by an individual independent of the accounting department of the City of Mendota. 94. The subject of outstanding utility bills be reviewed during the annual financial audit conducted by an outside auditor. 95. The City establish and maintain training for all employees on the use of the Municipal Code and written procedures and policies regarding the collection of utility bills. City of Mendota’s Response to Recommendations #93 - #95: See . ELKHORN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that: 96. The Fresno County Board of Supervisors review commitments made in the February 11, 1997, letter issued by a former County Chief Administrative Officer and assure the neighbors of ECF that the County intends to honor these commitments. If certain commitments cannot be met, the County should negotiate with the neighbors to reach an equitable arrangement. Fresno County’s Response to Recommendation #96: Fresno County agrees with the
R93:
The monthly shutoff list and notices be reviewed by an individual independent of the accounting department of the City of Mendota.
R94:
The subject of outstanding utility bills be reviewed during the annual financial audit conducted by an outside auditor.
R95:
The City establish and maintain training for all employees on the use of the Municipal Code and written procedures and policies regarding the collection of utility bills. City of Mendota’s Response to Recommendations #93 - #95: See . ELKHORN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY Recommendations The 2000-01 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that:
R96:
The Fresno County Board of Supervisors review commitments made in the February 11, 1997, letter issued by a former County Chief Administrative Officer and assure the neighbors of ECF that the County intends to honor these commitments. If certain commitments cannot be met, the County should negotiate with the neighbors to reach an equitable arrangement. Fresno County’s Response to Recommendation #96: Fresno County agrees with the
R97:
The Board of Supervisors continue to fund and maintain the present level of services at ECF. Fresno County’s Response to Recommendation #97: Fresno County agrees with the
R98:
The City of Fresno continue to fund Elkhorn Correctional Facility at no less than the current rate of $1,000,000 per year with no sunset provision. Response to Recommendation 98: The City will not implement the recommendation, as stated. The City of Fresno's position is to continue the present commitment to fund the ECF for the balance of the nine years, if the ECF stays at the current 200 bed capacity both in staffing of correctional personnel and commitments to the facility. City recognizes that as long- term solutions Juvenile Hall expansion is still several years away, it essential that County maintain the ECF as a rehabilitation center for nonviolent Juvenile offenders. It is neither wise, nor sound policy for the City at this time to make a perpetual commitment for these reasons: a perpetual commitment is subject to availability of funding; a perpetual commitment is subject to revocation by a future Council on a variety of grounds; future City-County agreements may require the need to revisit future funding; a future Council may determine that City resources are more urgently needed to fund other related programs (crime prevention, after school programs, etc.) other than confinement costs; making a minimum commitment now may discourage greater, participation by Fresno andlor other cities in the County, should the need arise. Under the above circumstances, making such a minimum commitment now would be misleading and unproductive. In sum, the City is encouraged by the present level of activities of the ECF, and will consider future opportunities to involve itself and other cities in the county to support the program in the most appropriate means then available. Fresno County Grand Jury October 3, 2001 BRIEFING BOOK FOR NEWLY ELECTED OFFICIALS Response to Findings: City agrees with the need and desirability for newly elected officials to receive a minimum and appropriate level of orientation in the new position, and the information needed and legally available to get up to speed on pending issues as expeditiously as possible.
R99:
The County provide boot camp facilities for female juvenile offenders. Fresno County’s Response to Recommendation #99: Fresno County agrees with the
R100:
The 2000-01 Grand Jury recommends that Future Grand Juries continue to monitor the activities at the Elkhorn Correctional Facility.
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F4:
During fieldwork it was noted that a check was issued to the Finance Director on August 6, 1998 in the amount of $1,504.31 for training reimbursement. The Finance Director also authorized the payment and signed the check. It is the City Manager’s policy to approve the warrant register, which he believes provides proper segregation of duties. However, based on our review, the warrant register does not provide details of each payment, just check totals. Therefore, the City Manager’s approval of the warrant register does not indicate that he approved the contents of the payment. At a minimum, internal controls require segregation of duties which provides an adequate level of review. Although this can be difficult in a small office like Parlier’s Finance Department, the City Manager should review and approve the payment contents as well as payment totals, when the Finance Director is the payee.
F5:
It was noted during fieldwork that Parlier’s City Manager and Finance Director utilize City credit cards. Purchases for office equipment, travel and meetings, etc. are made using these credit cards, and in 9 out of 11 (81%) credit card statements reviewed, receipts were not attached to the statements to support the expenditures. Only vendor names and handwritten general descriptions were included on the statements. We further tested 3 of the above 9 statements and determined that $117.11 of the insufficiently supported expenditures on a statement totaling $684.51 was attributable to Parlier’s Redevelopment Agency. In addition, $525.17 and $177.07 of the expenditures on two other statements totaling $5,037.59 and $1,980.00, respectively, were attributable to the Measure C – Transportation Authority, Sales Tax Proceeds fund (Measure C). In addition, when costs are charged to the Measure C program that cannot be substantiated and, therefore may not be in compliance with program requirements, Parlier’s future allocations may be withheld and reimbursements of such funds to the Fresno County Auditor-Controller/Treasurer- Tax Collector may be required. Such funds would only be released when exceptions are resolved and Parlier is in compliance with program requirements. Compliance issues regarding redevelopment agencies are addressed by various regulatory agencies as explained in the Parlier Redevelopment Agency section on .
F6:
It was noted during testing of expenditures, that the Finance Director used the City of Parlier’s Office Depot credit card on two separate occasions to purchase personal items such as movie videos, games, a chair, bookcases, etc. totaling $768.06. Both the Finance Director and City Manager stated the card was used by mistake and that actions were taken to reimburse the City through payroll deductions. However, when this matter was brought to the Finance Director’s attention by our audits staff, the Finance Director researched and determined that Parlier had not yet been reimbursed. Although this matter should have been followed up more timely, on April 2, 2001, the Finance Director did reimburse the City $914.77 which includes interest. 8
F7:
Health & Safety Code Section 33490 requires redevelopment agencies to submit a 5-year plan to the State Controller’s Office on or before December 31, 1994 and every 5 years thereafter. The RDA submitted a 5-year plan in 1994. However, based on information provided, Parlier’s 5-year plan, which was due on or before December 31,1999, had not been submitted to the State Controller’s Office as of the date of this review.
F8:
It was noted that the RDA appropriately recorded $747,015 in revenues for fiscal year 1998/99. However, only $145,496 of this amount was transferred to the low-income housing fund, which was less than the 20% required by Health & Safety Code Section 33487 by $3,907. The calculation was based on the net amount received by the RDA instead of the gross apportionment as required by the Code. The transfer to the low-income housing fund was properly calculated for fiscal year 1999/00. 9
F9:
It was noted during a review of Parlier’s financial statements that redevelopment notes receivable in the amount of $1,257,180 were erroneously listed in the general long-term debt account group in the 1998/99 statements. These notes receivable were properly reclassified by Parlier staff in the 1999/00 statements, which resulted in a $1,257,180 increase in the capital projects beginning fund balance; however, there was no disclosure explaining this material change.
F10a:
According to Parlier’s City Manager, all redevelopment loan programs must be approved by the RDA Board, which is Parlier’s City Council. We reviewed all available loan files for the sixteen redevelopment loans issued by Parlier as identified below, which were made between 1993 and 1996. There are nine individual loans and seven commercial loans. Based on documentation provided, it could not be determined that any of the loans were properly approved by the RDA Board. The Executive Director of the RDA is authorized to execute loan documents on behalf of the RDA, and we verified that he did sign agreements for all of the loans except as noted in Findings #10b, c and d below. In addition, based on information provided in loan files, we could not determine if any of the borrowers met the RDA criteria needed to obtain the loans. The City Manager stated that it is unlikely that any of the borrowers would not meet the criteria due to Parlier’s demographics. In addition, both the City Manager and Finance Director stated that there may be additional RDA loans that they do not know about. They said that loan files were incomplete when they began working for the City, and they had to piece together documentation for the loans as it was located. Based on the documentation provided, all nine individual loans were charged 5% interest. However, of the six commercial loans that had any supporting documentation (the seventh loan did not), one was charged 4.39% interest, three were charged 5%, and two others were charged 8%. Parlier staff did not know how these various interest rates were determined or why it was decided to charge different borrowers different rates. Based on our review of redevelopment guidelines, no provisions could be found that addressed the matter of interest rates on outstanding loans. In addition, except as noted in Finding #10b, we could not determine that any of the borrowers were related to City officials at the time of the issuance of the loans; however, this should not necessarily be an issue provided all borrowers met RDA loan criteria as addressed above.
F10b:
Nine of the sixteen loans issued by Parlier were “written off” for financial statement purposes and seven were not. Except as noted below, payments on six of these seven loans were received regularly and currently from the borrowers. Four of these six loans were provided to individuals in the amounts of $6,013, $7,000, $13,782, and $15,000. The fifth and sixth loans were commercial loans for $102,000 and $488,000 at a 4.39% and 5% interest rates, respectively. The seventh of these loans, which did not have any supporting documentation, is addressed in Finding #10d. The $15,000 individual loan noted above was issued in 1995 to a relative of the mayor. No payments were received by the RDA until the previous Finance Director contacted the borrower in April 1997 requesting copies of loan documents, which Parlier did not have at that time. Shortly after that, the borrower began to make regular payments on the loan and has continued making payments through the date of this review. These loan payments are included in a schedule in our workpapers. In addition, based on our review of loan documentation provided by the City, the agreement for this $15,000 loan was signed only by the borrower. Therefore, it is not clear whether the loan was properly executed by the Executive Director, or whether the loan was properly approved by the RDA Board as addressed in finding #10a. Based on documentation provided, we did find evidence that the Executive Director authorized $5,000 of the loan, because he approved two checks issued on this loan totaling $5,000.
F10c:
One of eight reportable conditions in Parlier’s 1998/99 audit report stated “The RDA has made numerous redevelopment loans to individuals and businesses. Many of these are totally non- performing.” The corresponding recommendation stated “Staff should contact each delinquent borrower to determine if stronger collection action is required, or if the loan cannot be reasonably collected, then it should be written off.” Parlier’s response was “RDA receivables were turned over to a professional collection service. Collection of the majority of housing loans is not possible, since the loans were not secured by real property. The issue of whether to pursue or forgive these loans is a policy for the Council to pursue.” 11 For 1999/00 financial statement purposes, the RDA “wrote off” four commercial loans and five individual loans totaling $46,736. Based on information provided, Parlier’s City Council did not approve writing off these loans, although it was disclosed in Parlier’s 1999/00 financial statements that the “City wrote off” the loans. During our review, Parlier staff explained that it was not the City’s intention to officially write off loans as they just wanted to report loans for financial statement purposes net of amounts considered to be uncollectible, and they are continuing to pursue collection of these loans. Based on information provided during our review, Parlier referred the delinquent loans to one collection agency who declined to pursue collection of the loans. According to Parlier staff, based on that collection agency’s response that these loans were not collectible, it was decided not to try to obtain further collection agency services. As of the date of this review, Parlier has not referred these loans to any other collection agency. The RDA continues to send invoices monthly on the “written off” loans to all of the individual borrowers but to none of the commercial borrowers, which, according to the City Manager, are no longer in business. However, no payments have been made by the loan recipients in several years. Information received on these “written off” loans is indicated below. The loan type is designated by a C for Commercial or I for Individual as follows: Loan Loan Loan Interest Unpaid Date of Type Year Loan Recipient Amount Rate Balance Last Pmt C 1993 El01 $12,500 8% $10,000 7/97 C 1993 Gor02 5,500 8% 4,940 11/93 C 1995 Sal03 2,390 5% 1,647 1/98 C 1995 Ant04 2,550 5% 513 7/97 I 1995 Mar05 5,000 5% 3,062 4/97 I 1995 And06 3,044 5% 2,639 4/97 I 1995 Noe07 2,500 5% 2,048 12/96 I 1996 Elo08 14,430 5% 14,430 None I 1996 Man09 7,683 5% 7,457 12/96 Total $55,597 $46,736 In addition, based on our review of the related loan documentation, the following exceptions were noted for these “written-off” loans: 1. The signed loan agreement for loan recipient Gor02 specified a loan amount of $4,000, but the amortization schedule included in the documentation provided an amended loan total of $5,500, yet there was no authorized amendment to the loan agreement. 12
Additional Recommendations
9
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
To be in compliance with the above restricted revenue requirements and regulations and to eliminate the appearance that restricted revenues are being used to fund general fund expenditures, the City of Parlier should ensure that such restricted revenues are clearly used for the related program purposes. Costs charged to the special revenue funds should reflect actual costs attributable to the program and should be supported by applicable documentation such as time tracking. The City of Parlier should obtain clarification from the applicable regulatory agency to determine if their current cost allocation methodology is acceptable.
R2:
In the absence of fully supportable cost allocation methodologies or regulatory approval of existing cost allocation methodologies, the City of Parlier should reverse the $268,224 and $393,602 in overhead costs charged to the special revenue funds listed above. In addition, any other insufficiently supported cost allocations that were not noted in this report should also be reversed.
R3:
In order to provide for sound accounting and budgeting practices and to ensure a clear audit trail, appropriations and expenditures should be initially recorded in the originating department/fund where the activities are incurred.
R4:
The City of Parlier Finance Department should implement procedures that provide segregation of duties related to accounts payable. Specifically, the person who approves payments should not be the same person who signs checks and submits requests for payments. When it is necessary for the 7 Finance Director to submit a request for payment, the payment should be sufficiently reviewed and approved by another authorized staff member (e.g. the City Manager).
R5:
To strengthen internal controls over expenditures in special revenue funds and to ensure that funding does not need to be reimbursed or that future funding is withheld, the City of Parlier should ensure that program costs incurred are fully supported and are in compliance with program requirements. This can be achieved in part by requiring that receipts for credit card purchases be retained for supporting documentation and submitted to the Finance Department for review and approval.
R6:
To prevent losses and enhance internal controls, the City of Parlier should immediately implement procedures to ensure that the City’s charge accounts and credit cards are not used for personal purchases. Parlier Redevelopment Agency (RDA) Compliance issues involving redevelopment funding are addressed by the State Controller’s Office, the State Attorney General and the Court. Based on Section 33080.8 of California’s Health & Safety Code, the State Controller compiles lists of redevelopment agencies that appear to have uncorrected major violations, based on the annual independent audit reports filed by such agencies. The Attorney General can pursue filing lawsuits against redevelopment agencies having uncorrected violations, and the Court can prohibit the agency from performing various activities until the Court determines that the major violations are corrected. Since the RDA’s annual audit reports for 1998/99 and 1999/00 contained unqualified opinions, it is unlikely that it was determined that Parlier had any major violations, and it is not known what actions, if any, the above regulatory entities would take as a result of the redevelopment findings noted in this separate report. This report may affect the findings and opinion of independent accounting firms performing future redevelopment audits; however, it is not known if these
R7:
In compliance with the above code sections and to ensure that funding is not withheld, the RDA should immediately submit a 5-year plan to the State Controller’s Office and submit all future required documents when due.
R8:
In order to comply with Health & Safety Code Section 33487 and to ensure that funding is not withheld, the RDA should transfer $3,907 to the low income housing fund for fiscal year 1998/99 from the RDA Capital Projects Fund.
R9:
In order to explain material changes in the financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, the City of Parlier should provide adequate disclosure in the notes to the financial statements. For example, Parlier could have identified the above increase in the capital projects fund balance as a “restated” fund balance in the financial statements. In addition, a note disclosure should have been provided to reconcile the restated fund balance to the prior year ending balance. The disclosure should have also explained the reason(s) for the restatement. Parlier should consider this for future reporting purposes.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
19 findings
F4:
During fieldwork it was noted that a check was issued to the Finance Director on August 6, 1998 in the amount of $1,504.31 for training reimbursement. The Finance Director also authorized the payment and signed the check. It is the City Manager’s policy to approve the warrant register, which he believes provides proper segregation of duties. However, based on our review, the warrant register does not provide details of each payment, just check totals. Therefore, the City Manager’s approval of the warrant register does not indicate that he approved the contents of the payment. At a minimum, internal controls require segregation of duties which provides an adequate level of review. Although this can be difficult in a small office like Parlier’s Finance Department, the City Manager should review and approve the payment contents as well as payment totals, when the Finance Director is the payee.
F5:
It was noted during fieldwork that Parlier’s City Manager and Finance Director utilize City credit cards. Purchases for office equipment, travel and meetings, etc. are made using these credit cards, and in 9 out of 11 (81%) credit card statements reviewed, receipts were not attached to the statements to support the expenditures. Only vendor names and handwritten general descriptions were included on the statements. We further tested 3 of the above 9 statements and determined that $117.11 of the insufficiently supported expenditures on a statement totaling $684.51 was attributable to Parlier’s Redevelopment Agency. In addition, $525.17 and $177.07 of the expenditures on two other statements totaling $5,037.59 and $1,980.00, respectively, were attributable to the Measure C – Transportation Authority, Sales Tax Proceeds fund (Measure C). In addition, when costs are charged to the Measure C program that cannot be substantiated and, therefore may not be in compliance with program requirements, Parlier’s future allocations may be withheld and reimbursements of such funds to the Fresno County Auditor-Controller/Treasurer- Tax Collector may be required. Such funds would only be released when exceptions are resolved and Parlier is in compliance with program requirements. Compliance issues regarding redevelopment agencies are addressed by various regulatory agencies as explained in the Parlier Redevelopment Agency section on .
F6:
It was noted during testing of expenditures, that the Finance Director used the City of Parlier’s Office Depot credit card on two separate occasions to purchase personal items such as movie videos, games, a chair, bookcases, etc. totaling $768.06. Both the Finance Director and City Manager stated the card was used by mistake and that actions were taken to reimburse the City through payroll deductions. However, when this matter was brought to the Finance Director’s attention by our audits staff, the Finance Director researched and determined that Parlier had not yet been reimbursed. Although this matter should have been followed up more timely, on April 2, 2001, the Finance Director did reimburse the City $914.77 which includes interest. 8
F7:
Health & Safety Code Section 33490 requires redevelopment agencies to submit a 5-year plan to the State Controller’s Office on or before December 31, 1994 and every 5 years thereafter. The RDA submitted a 5-year plan in 1994. However, based on information provided, Parlier’s 5-year plan, which was due on or before December 31,1999, had not been submitted to the State Controller’s Office as of the date of this review.
F8:
It was noted that the RDA appropriately recorded $747,015 in revenues for fiscal year 1998/99. However, only $145,496 of this amount was transferred to the low-income housing fund, which was less than the 20% required by Health & Safety Code Section 33487 by $3,907. The calculation was based on the net amount received by the RDA instead of the gross apportionment as required by the Code. The transfer to the low-income housing fund was properly calculated for fiscal year 1999/00. 9
F9:
It was noted during a review of Parlier’s financial statements that redevelopment notes receivable in the amount of $1,257,180 were erroneously listed in the general long-term debt account group in the 1998/99 statements. These notes receivable were properly reclassified by Parlier staff in the 1999/00 statements, which resulted in a $1,257,180 increase in the capital projects beginning fund balance; however, there was no disclosure explaining this material change.
F10a:
According to Parlier’s City Manager, all redevelopment loan programs must be approved by the RDA Board, which is Parlier’s City Council. We reviewed all available loan files for the sixteen redevelopment loans issued by Parlier as identified below, which were made between 1993 and 1996. There are nine individual loans and seven commercial loans. Based on documentation provided, it could not be determined that any of the loans were properly approved by the RDA Board. The Executive Director of the RDA is authorized to execute loan documents on behalf of the RDA, and we verified that he did sign agreements for all of the loans except as noted in Findings #10b, c and d below. In addition, based on information provided in loan files, we could not determine if any of the borrowers met the RDA criteria needed to obtain the loans. The City Manager stated that it is unlikely that any of the borrowers would not meet the criteria due to Parlier’s demographics. In addition, both the City Manager and Finance Director stated that there may be additional RDA loans that they do not know about. They said that loan files were incomplete when they began working for the City, and they had to piece together documentation for the loans as it was located. Based on the documentation provided, all nine individual loans were charged 5% interest. However, of the six commercial loans that had any supporting documentation (the seventh loan did not), one was charged 4.39% interest, three were charged 5%, and two others were charged 8%. Parlier staff did not know how these various interest rates were determined or why it was decided to charge different borrowers different rates. Based on our review of redevelopment guidelines, no provisions could be found that addressed the matter of interest rates on outstanding loans. In addition, except as noted in Finding #10b, we could not determine that any of the borrowers were related to City officials at the time of the issuance of the loans; however, this should not necessarily be an issue provided all borrowers met RDA loan criteria as addressed above.
F10b:
Nine of the sixteen loans issued by Parlier were “written off” for financial statement purposes and seven were not. Except as noted below, payments on six of these seven loans were received regularly and currently from the borrowers. Four of these six loans were provided to individuals in the amounts of $6,013, $7,000, $13,782, and $15,000. The fifth and sixth loans were commercial loans for $102,000 and $488,000 at a 4.39% and 5% interest rates, respectively. The seventh of these loans, which did not have any supporting documentation, is addressed in Finding #10d. The $15,000 individual loan noted above was issued in 1995 to a relative of the mayor. No payments were received by the RDA until the previous Finance Director contacted the borrower in April 1997 requesting copies of loan documents, which Parlier did not have at that time. Shortly after that, the borrower began to make regular payments on the loan and has continued making payments through the date of this review. These loan payments are included in a schedule in our workpapers. In addition, based on our review of loan documentation provided by the City, the agreement for this $15,000 loan was signed only by the borrower. Therefore, it is not clear whether the loan was properly executed by the Executive Director, or whether the loan was properly approved by the RDA Board as addressed in finding #10a. Based on documentation provided, we did find evidence that the Executive Director authorized $5,000 of the loan, because he approved two checks issued on this loan totaling $5,000.
F10c:
One of eight reportable conditions in Parlier’s 1998/99 audit report stated “The RDA has made numerous redevelopment loans to individuals and businesses. Many of these are totally non- performing.” The corresponding recommendation stated “Staff should contact each delinquent borrower to determine if stronger collection action is required, or if the loan cannot be reasonably collected, then it should be written off.” Parlier’s response was “RDA receivables were turned over to a professional collection service. Collection of the majority of housing loans is not possible, since the loans were not secured by real property. The issue of whether to pursue or forgive these loans is a policy for the Council to pursue.” 11 For 1999/00 financial statement purposes, the RDA “wrote off” four commercial loans and five individual loans totaling $46,736. Based on information provided, Parlier’s City Council did not approve writing off these loans, although it was disclosed in Parlier’s 1999/00 financial statements that the “City wrote off” the loans. During our review, Parlier staff explained that it was not the City’s intention to officially write off loans as they just wanted to report loans for financial statement purposes net of amounts considered to be uncollectible, and they are continuing to pursue collection of these loans. Based on information provided during our review, Parlier referred the delinquent loans to one collection agency who declined to pursue collection of the loans. According to Parlier staff, based on that collection agency’s response that these loans were not collectible, it was decided not to try to obtain further collection agency services. As of the date of this review, Parlier has not referred these loans to any other collection agency. The RDA continues to send invoices monthly on the “written off” loans to all of the individual borrowers but to none of the commercial borrowers, which, according to the City Manager, are no longer in business. However, no payments have been made by the loan recipients in several years. Information received on these “written off” loans is indicated below. The loan type is designated by a C for Commercial or I for Individual as follows: Loan Loan Loan Interest Unpaid Date of Type Year Loan Recipient Amount Rate Balance Last Pmt C 1993 El01 $12,500 8% $10,000 7/97 C 1993 Gor02 5,500 8% 4,940 11/93 C 1995 Sal03 2,390 5% 1,647 1/98 C 1995 Ant04 2,550 5% 513 7/97 I 1995 Mar05 5,000 5% 3,062 4/97 I 1995 And06 3,044 5% 2,639 4/97 I 1995 Noe07 2,500 5% 2,048 12/96 I 1996 Elo08 14,430 5% 14,430 None I 1996 Man09 7,683 5% 7,457 12/96 Total $55,597 $46,736 In addition, based on our review of the related loan documentation, the following exceptions were noted for these “written-off” loans: 1. The signed loan agreement for loan recipient Gor02 specified a loan amount of $4,000, but the amortization schedule included in the documentation provided an amended loan total of $5,500, yet there was no authorized amendment to the loan agreement. 12 2. The loan documentation for loan recipient El01 (El01) did not contain a loan agreement but contained other miscellaneous documents including a 1993 request from the attorney in fact for a $12,500 loan; an incomplete and unofficial copy of a 1993 RDA minutes indicating that the RDA Board approved a $12,000 loan to El01, and a copy of a $12,500 check signed by the RDA Executive Director and made out to El01 in 1993. Therefore, there was a conflict between the $12,000 amount that appeared to have been approved by the RDA Board and the $12,500 check approved by the Executive Director.
F10d:
During our review of the seven outstanding loans that were not “written off”, we noted that the financial statements disclosed that “…the Agency has a receivable … relating to low-income housing assistance provided in prior years. As long as …” the borrower “…continues renting to low-income individuals, they will be required to pay back a discounted amount equaling the annual installments, without interest, in the amount of $83,418 beginning in December 2013.” Parlier staff was able to provide us with a recorded deed of trust for this loan in the amount of $1,668,366; however, they could not provide a copy of the loan agreement. Therefore, we were not able to verify whether the borrower has complied with the terms of the agreement or whether the agreement was properly approved as discussed in finding #10a. Also, we were not able to determine whether interest will accrue if the borrower does not continue renting to low-income individuals or any other details about the loan.
F11:
It was noted during fieldwork that reimbursement requests submitted to the Fresno County Public Works Department were properly supported by invoices to outside entities. However, transactions were not properly recorded in the City of Parlier’s general ledger. Payments made by Fresno County to Parlier during fiscal year 1998/99 were understated in Parlier’s CDBG general ledger by $14,271.61, thereby understating CDBG revenues on the 1998/99 financial statements. The difference was due to a check issued by Fresno County in the amount of $149,271.61 on May 13, 1999. It was confirmed that Parlier received and endorsed the check for $149,271.61; however, only $135,000 of this amount was recorded in Parlier’s CDBG fund. The balance of $14,271.61 was recorded in Parlier’s general fund. Also, we were not able to trace 2 of 30 (6%) invoices totaling $4,370 to Parlier’s CDBG fund. However, we were able to confirm with the vendor that the invoices had been paid. Parlier staff has not been able to provide information regarding where these expenditures were recorded. Additionally, during a test of CDBG expenditures recorded in the general ledger, Parlier staff were not able to locate supporting documentation for 2 of 8 (25%) expenditures tested. Accurate and complete records are essential for restricted revenue funds to ensure continued funding and enhance internal controls.
F12:
During a review of Parlier’s financial statements for fiscal years 1998/99 and 1999/00, it was noted that the Child Development Fund listed expenditures for capital projects, which is not in compliance with the terms of the grant. Further analysis found that capital expenditures were not made in violation of the grant provisions. Instead, expenditures were not properly classified in the general ledger or the financial statements. 14
F13:
During a review of grant agreements for fiscal years 1998/99 and 1999/00, it was determined that grant expenditures recorded in the general fund and reported in the financial statements were in compliance with grant provisions except for a 1998/99 expenditure of $582.50 for engineering expenses.
F14:
During a review of the general ledger it was determined that expenditures do not agree with reports submitted to the State. The general ledger for fiscal year 1999/00 reports grant revenues of $283,950.97 plus $10,216.73 interest revenue for a total of $294,167.70. The general ledger also indicates total expenditures of $81,966.58 for 1999/00. The audit report sent to the State, which was prepared by the subcontractor’s CPA, indicates costs of $1,094,953.00 and revenue received of $72,808.00 for 1999/00. It appears that this audit report was prepared to reflect revenues and expenditures of the subcontractor and not the City of Parlier’s Child Development revenues and expenditures.
F15:
During the review, it was noted that payments made by the State Controller’s Office (SCO) to Parlier, which were posted on the SCO’s website did not agree with totals recorded in Parlier’s accounting system for fiscal years 1998/99 and 1999/00. For fiscal year 1998/99, the SCO recorded payments of $197,403.36 and Parlier recorded revenues of $218,610.40 for a variance of $21,207.04. For fiscal year 1999/00, the SCO recorded payments of $200,512.18 and Parlier recorded revenues of $202,545.85 for a variance of $2,033.67. Based on our review and documentation provided we could not determine whether the variances were due to timing differences or other factors.
F18:
During a review of the audit report issued by an independent accounting firm for fiscal year 1998/99, it was noted that the report contained an unqualified opinion despite the insufficiently supported expenditures discussed in findings #1-3 and the understated revenues discussed above. The same firm is conducting an audit of the Local Transportation fund for fiscal year 1999/00 but has not yet issued their report. During a conversation on March 26, 2001 with a staff member of the independent firm, the staff member said that the firm is questioning the method that Parlier uses to apply administrative overhead costs to this fund. The staff member also stated that the 1999/00 report will contain findings and recommendations related to the overhead application process.
F19:
Parlier’s Finance Director said that the City uses LLEBG money to pay for overtime expenditures in the Police Department since the amount of the grant is not enough to hire an additional police officer. Although overtime used to increase or enhance police services is an appropriate expenditure for this grant; based on information reviewed, we could not determine that overtime expended was an inappropriate use of grant monies. One officer’s salary is charged to the fund as an equivalent to the law enforcement overtime costs incurred outside of the fund. The amount of the 1998 grant was $19,623 and overtime for that period was $92,705. The amount of the 1999 grant was $19,097 and overtime for that period was $65,135. The Finance Director stated that he spoke with personnel in the US Department of Justice (DOJ) who told him that he can account for the fund in this manner as long as he can support the amount of overtime claimed on the grant. We contacted the DOJ and were told that this practice is not appropriate. DOJ staff stated that the actual expenditures paid with LLEBG money must be recorded in the fund established to account for the grant. During our review, expenditures for equipment were tested. During fiscal year 1998/99, 4 of 5 (80%) equipment expenditures tested did not appear to be appropriate for fund purposes based on information provided. As confirmed with the DOJ, LLEBG money is to be used to increase or enhance law enforcement services. The expenditures questioned include chairs for $1,356.68, rug runners for $343.73, and office supplies for $161.61. 17
F22:
During a test of expenditures for fiscal year 1999/00, the City of Parlier was not able to provide support for $769.50 charged to salaries and benefits recorded through a journal entry. The City’s Finance Director stated that the support for the journal entry could not be located.
F23:
Based on our review, another COPS program (AB3229, Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund) was charged $886.13 for an officer’s salary that was also included in a Universal Hiring Grant report submitted to the DOJ for the period 10/1/98 to 3/31/99. In addition, the salary included in this report also included overtime which is not allowable according to Universal Hiring Grant provisions.
Additional Recommendations
99
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
To be in compliance with the above restricted revenue requirements and regulations and to eliminate the appearance that restricted revenues are being used to fund general fund expenditures, the City of Parlier should ensure that such restricted revenues are clearly used for the related program purposes. Costs charged to the special revenue funds should reflect actual costs attributable to the program and should be supported by applicable documentation such as time tracking. The City of Parlier should obtain clarification from the applicable regulatory agency to determine if their current cost allocation methodology is acceptable.
R2:
In the absence of fully supportable cost allocation methodologies or regulatory approval of existing cost allocation methodologies, the City of Parlier should reverse the $268,224 and $393,602 in overhead costs charged to the special revenue funds listed above. In addition, any other insufficiently supported cost allocations that were not noted in this report should also be reversed.
R3:
In order to provide for sound accounting and budgeting practices and to ensure a clear audit trail, appropriations and expenditures should be initially recorded in the originating department/fund where the activities are incurred.
R4:
The City of Parlier Finance Department should implement procedures that provide segregation of duties related to accounts payable. Specifically, the person who approves payments should not be the same person who signs checks and submits requests for payments. When it is necessary for the 7 Finance Director to submit a request for payment, the payment should be sufficiently reviewed and approved by another authorized staff member (e.g. the City Manager).
R5:
To strengthen internal controls over expenditures in special revenue funds and to ensure that funding does not need to be reimbursed or that future funding is withheld, the City of Parlier should ensure that program costs incurred are fully supported and are in compliance with program requirements. This can be achieved in part by requiring that receipts for credit card purchases be retained for supporting documentation and submitted to the Finance Department for review and approval.
R6:
To prevent losses and enhance internal controls, the City of Parlier should immediately implement procedures to ensure that the City’s charge accounts and credit cards are not used for personal purchases. Parlier Redevelopment Agency (RDA) Compliance issues involving redevelopment funding are addressed by the State Controller’s Office, the State Attorney General and the Court. Based on Section 33080.8 of California’s Health & Safety Code, the State Controller compiles lists of redevelopment agencies that appear to have uncorrected major violations, based on the annual independent audit reports filed by such agencies. The Attorney General can pursue filing lawsuits against redevelopment agencies having uncorrected violations, and the Court can prohibit the agency from performing various activities until the Court determines that the major violations are corrected. Since the RDA’s annual audit reports for 1998/99 and 1999/00 contained unqualified opinions, it is unlikely that it was determined that Parlier had any major violations, and it is not known what actions, if any, the above regulatory entities would take as a result of the redevelopment findings noted in this separate report. This report may affect the findings and opinion of independent accounting firms performing future redevelopment audits; however, it is not known if these
R7:
In compliance with the above code sections and to ensure that funding is not withheld, the RDA should immediately submit a 5-year plan to the State Controller’s Office and submit all future required documents when due.
R8:
In order to comply with Health & Safety Code Section 33487 and to ensure that funding is not withheld, the RDA should transfer $3,907 to the low income housing fund for fiscal year 1998/99 from the RDA Capital Projects Fund.
R9:
In order to explain material changes in the financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, the City of Parlier should provide adequate disclosure in the notes to the financial statements. For example, Parlier could have identified the above increase in the capital projects fund balance as a “restated” fund balance in the financial statements. In addition, a note disclosure should have been provided to reconcile the restated fund balance to the prior year ending balance. The disclosure should have also explained the reason(s) for the restatement. Parlier should consider this for future reporting purposes.
R10:
a, b, c, and d To ensure that funding is not withheld, the RDA should ensure all proper procedures and legal requirements are followed when issuing loans and all appropriate documents are maintained in their loan files and that all loans are properly authorized. Parlier staff should review all available loan records since the formation of the RDA to try to locate all missing loan documentation and criteria information on the sixteen known loans addressed above. Parlier staff should also determine if there are any additional outstanding loans not currently known that should be followed up on. Also, even though Parlier has indicated that the commercial borrowers of the “written off” loans are out of business, Parlier should continue to bill the business owners until these loans are officially written off by the City Council. Proper procedures must be followed to assure that all redevelopment loans are repaid timely and in full. Redevelopment loans determined to be uncollectible should be written off by the City Council and referred to a collection agency as appropriate. Parlier should consider following up with other collection agencies or pursue other means of recouping unpaid balances, e.g. through small claims processes, other lawsuits, etc. In addition, Parlier should ensure and be able to support that interest charged on Redevelopment loans is charged fairly and equitably. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
R11:
To enhance internal controls, ensure the accuracy of the City’s accounting records, and ensure continued funding, Parlier should implement formal procedures to ensure proper accounting for and reconciliation of restricted revenues. In addition, all transactions and supporting documentation must be maintained until such records have been audited by all appropriate oversight agencies. Finally, the City of Parlier should make the appropriate general ledger entries within the special revenue fund to record these transactions. Child Development Grant
R12:
The City of Parlier should post transactions to proper accounts and subsequently classify expenditures appropriately in their financial statements.
R13:
In order to comply with terms of the Child Development Grant, the City of Parlier should reimburse the Child Development fund the $582.50 noted above and only make expenditures appropriate for grant purposes from this fund.
R14:
In order to comply with terms of the Child Development Grant, the City of Parlier should obtain an annual audit of the Child Development Program that conforms to the terms of the grant agreement and reports on Child Development revenues and expenditures of the City of Parlier. In addition, the City of Parlier should consistently review any audit reports prepared for their program prior to finalization of the report. Measure “C” – Transportation Authority, Sales Tax Proceeds It was noted during our review that insufficiently supported overhead allocations were applied to the Measure “C” special revenue fund. See findings and recommendations #1 - 3. Highway User Tax (Gas Tax)
R15:
In order to properly account for and report Gas Tax revenues, the City of Parlier must reconcile any variances between revenues paid by a funding entity and revenues recorded by the City. Local Transportation Fund
R16:
In order to properly administer the Local Transportation Fund and ensure proper financial statement presentation, the City of Parlier must reconcile the Local Transportation fund to receipts and implement procedures to ensure that all transactions are properly recorded and reported.
R17:
The City of Parlier should either provide supporting documentation for the $70,702 reduction of revenues or reverse this adjustment as appropriate. 16
R19:
The City of Parlier should contact the DOJ for written clarification of what constitutes acceptable expenditures for this grant. The City of Parlier should comply with the information provided by the DOJ related to this audit finding. Unauthorized expenditures of grant funds must be reimbursed or a waiver should be requested from the grantor agency. COPS Grant AB3229
R20:
The City of Parlier should ensure that actual interest is allocated to the COPS fund for 1998/99, 1999/00 and thereafter. In addition, the City should ensure that adequate interest allocation methodologies are used to ensure that all restricted revenues are accurately calculated, allocated and available to be used for restricted program purposes or returned to regulatory agencies as necessary in the event of non-compliance with program requirements.
R21:
In compliance with the provisions of Government Code Section 30061 as stated above, the City of Parlier should ensure that the appropriation of COPS grant monies for 2000/01 and thereafter are separately presented to and approved by Parlier’s City Council as required.
R22:
The City of Parlier should maintain support for all financial transactions that affect special revenue funds as well as other funds until all oversight agencies conduct periodic audits. Unauthorized expenditures of grant funds must be reimbursed or a waiver should be requested from the grantor agency. Universal Hiring Grant (COPS)
R23:
The City of Parlier should implement procedures to ensure that expenditures are not claimed/reported twice and that overtime costs are not claimed in compliance with Universal 19 Hiring Grant provisions. Parlier should also adjust the above reports and charges to reverse duplicated expenditures and inappropriate overtime costs. Office of Emergency Services (OES)
R24:
The City of Parlier should investigate the difference of $2,404 between revenues reported in their general ledger for OES revenues and the amount of payments confirmed through the State OES or have support for the variance readily available.
R25:
The City of Parlier should immediately revise the Project Completion and Certification Report to reflect actual costs for the disaster period. They should provide support for costs claimed or return $36,136 claimed inappropriately to the State OES. 20
R26:
To ensure accuracy of records, enhance internal controls, and ensure the availability of current and future funding, the City of Parlier should properly maintain files containing supporting documentation for transactions and retain these records until audited by all appropriate oversight agencies. Transportation Equity Act No reportable conditions were noted during our review of the Transportation Equity Act, which provides funding for street improvements. Based on our review, only $14,761 was spent for this program in 1999/00 for preliminary engineering on street improvement projects, which is in compliance with program provisions.
R27:
The Parlier City Manager confer with the City Council before engaging in city projects costing over $10,000 as required by PMC.
R28:
Bidding and contracting of services be in compliance with PMC.
R29:
The City Manager and City Council be held responsible for implementing the directives set forth in PMC.
R30:
Compensation of employees and/or contractors be in compliance with existing State and Federal laws. PARLIER ANIMAL CONTROL Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury received complaints relating to animal control and conditions at the City of Parlier Animal Shelter. Recommendations regarding animal control and the animal shelter were included in the 1997/1998 Grand Jury Report. The City Manager responded as follows: “The City will continue efforts to create innovative ways to obtain funding and attract community support for animal control operations and facilities, this shall include seeking grants, encouraging participation by local organizations and volunteers, the Humane Society and SPCA.” “The City will continue to enforce leash and licensing laws and to collect fees and/or fines to generate revenue for animal control services. The city code has animal control codes, which it enforces; the city has adopted animal licensing fees and fines to offset some of the costs of these activities. The City Council reviews fees on an annual basis and adjusts them, as it deems appropriate. The City will review and update its animal control codes and fees during fiscal 1998-1999.”
R31:
The City hire an animal control officer.
R32:
The animal shelter be relocated within the city to make it more accessible.
R33:
Leash and licensing laws be enforced.
R34:
The City educate the community regarding licensing, vaccinations, leash laws, spaying and neutering.
R35:
The City establish a fee schedule for costs incurred in animal control.
R36:
All record keeping relating to animal control be current.
R37:
State guidelines be followed for the ultimate disposal of any animal.
R38:
Polaroid photographs of mi pounded dogs be posted at city hall in order for citizens to see if their dog has been impounded. CARPETING OF PARLIER CITY HALL Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury investigated a complaint from a concerned citizen about the method used by the City Manager in the purchase and installation of carpet in the Parlier City Hall.
R39:
The Parlier Municipal Code and Purchasing Ordinance be followed.
R40:
Shortcuts that violate the existing code not be considered. CODE ENFORCEMENT IN PARLIER Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury investigated a written complaint from a citizen that cited the lack of code enforcement in the City of Parlier.
R41:
The present policy of code enforcement be changed to a more aggressive system which addresses all violations existing in the City of Parlier.
R42:
Written policy and procedures be developed to provide for the tracking and documented resolution of all complaints.
R43:
The city hire a code enforcement officer, supported with sufficient staff.
R44:
Adequate training be provided for the code enforcement officer and staff, including instruction in property owner and tenant rights.
R45:
A written manual providing guidelines on how to resolve code enforcement disputes be developed and implemented.
R46:
The City of Parlier inform and educate the public on current code enforcement policy.
R47:
A current copy of the Parlier Municipal Code be available for public use at City Hall and the public library. PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT WITHIN THE CITY OF PARLIER Introduction An employee of the City of Parlier provided testimony to the 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury regarding an unfair disciplinary experience while employed by the city. Subsequently, the Grand Jury received additional testimony from other current and former employees who indicated they too had not been treated in an equitable manner.
R48:
The City of Parlier formulate and implement written policies and procedures regarding labor relations.
R49:
The City develop written job classifications for all positions and issue them to all employees.
R50:
The City require department heads to adhere to the PMC sections covering their areas of responsibility.
R51:
A current copy of the PMC be made available to City Council members.
R52:
The City prepare, and provide to all employees, a handbook informing them of employee rights as stated in the PMC.
R53:
Employees be advised, in writing, of their rights of representation at all disciplinary hearings.
R54:
Written annual job performance evaluations of all employees be conducted, a copy placed in the employee’s permanent file and a copy provided to the employee.
R55:
A written salary schedule for each position be prepared and a copy made available to each employee.
R56:
The city develop and issue a written policy regarding advancement and salary increases. NEPOTISM IN THE CITY OF PARLIER Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury received several complaints from employees of the City of Parlier regarding nepotism as it exists in the city and the effect it has on their work environment. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary definition of nepotism is “favoritism shown to relatives or close friends by those in power (as by giving them jobs).” Nepotism is defined by the Parlier Municipal Code (PMC) Section 4.01.080 as “Applicants for employment with the city who are related within the third degree, by blood or marriage, to a person currently employed by the city, shall not be employed in the same department as the applicant’s relative, if it is determined on a case-by case review that employment of the applicant in the same department as his or her relative would create or aggravate problems relating to safety, security, supervision, morale or conflicts of interest in such department.”
R57:
PMC section 4.01.080 be rewritten to more clearly state the city’s policy on nepotism as defined by Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, “favoritism shown to relatives or close friends by those in power (as by giving them jobs).”
R58:
The policy of the city be to recruit, employ, and promote the best-qualified individuals. PARLIER PERSONNEL HEARING BOARD Introduction During the year 2000, a decision was made by the City manager to establish a Personnel Hearing Board (PHB). The Parlier Municipal Code (PMC) Section 4.02. (1997) describes the duties and responsibilities of the Board. Such a Board had never been established. The Board consists of two City Council members and a citizen at large. The purpose of the Board is to hear the final appeal of employees who have been disciplined and have exhausted all options for redress. The citizen at large position is to be filled by an applicant who is a resident of the City and at least 18 years of age. This position is to be noticed and described in the local newspaper and posted at City Hall.
R59:
The current PHB be dissolved.
R60:
The position for citizen at large be advertised (noticed).
R61:
The position for citizen at large be posted at City Hall.
R62:
All citizens who submit applications for this position be given equal consideration. PARLIER POLICE DEPARTMENT Introduction For many years, the Parlier Police Department has suffered from a lack of leadership and corresponding departmental ineffectiveness. The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury has undertaken a review of the causes and possible remedies. During the past 10 years, the City of Parlier has had 13 Chiefs of Police. Turnover by employees has been high due to low pay, low morale and lack of leadership. There have been continuing allegations of corruption, inefficiency and favoritism.
R63:
The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that the Parlier Police Department be closed immediately and the policing of Parlier be contracted with the Fresno County Sheriff. CITY COMMITTEE Rene Lastreto, Chair Robert Boehringer Mikie Kapigian Louis Olais Juliana Pherson Leo Shishmanian 42 CITY COMMITTEE
R64:
Continue the broad public education program to increase awareness of the need to meet recycling goals.
R65:
Tailor educational efforts to target each culture within our community in a way that has proven most effective for that group. FRESNO CITY PARKS SANITATION FACILITIES Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury inspected toilet facilities at Roeding Park, Woodward Park and six neighborhood parks. Conditions reviewed: Ø Cleanliness and cleaning schedules Ø Condition of fixtures and stalls Ø Privacy locks on toilet doors Ø Presence of soap Ø Presence of hand drying materials or machines Ø Plumbing leaks
R66:
Increase the budget to provide for care of the new parks.
R67:
Add personnel to help maintain the park sanitation facilities.
R68:
Provide adequate funds for replacement of fixtures with more durable ones. CITY COUNCIL INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDS Introduction The Fresno City Council discretionary infrastructure budget was examined by the 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury.
R69:
Distribution of the City Council discretionary infrastructure funds be reviewed and approved by the City Manager prior to disbursement. 48
R70:
Consideration be given to reducing the current allotment from $140,000 to $70,000 per district.
R71:
Carryover of any unused infrastructure funds be eliminated.
R72:
Future Grand Juries continue to monitor the program. CITY OF FRESNO WATER METERS Introduction Upon review of the 1999/2000 Fresno County Grand Jury report, the 2000/2001 Grand Jury investigated the current status of water availability and management.
R73:
The Mayor, City Council and all civic groups unite to promote the installation of water meters.
R74:
Homeowners and businesses that currently have meters be excluded from further meter installation costs.
R75:
The city utilities department continue to publish average water bills for various family sizes with and without meters.
R76:
Water police be reactivated to prevent water waste. BASEBALL/MULTI-USE STADIUM Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury reviewed the reports of the 1998/1999 and 1999/2000 Grand Juries. During the tenure of the present Grand Jury, the Fresno City Council approved the stadium project. Work has commenced on the site.
R77:
The City require an annual independent audit of the financial statements of FDG.
R78:
All seventeen dates the city controls be devoted to for-profit events to enhance the City’s revenues.
R79:
The public be assured of coordinated parking and security by FDG and the City. CITY OF FRESNO FIRE DEPARTMENT Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury investigated the City of Fresno Fire Department's (FFD) rating as established by the Insurance Services Office, Inc. (ISO). This organization evaluates the level of fire protection, the ability to receive and answer alarms, and the adequacy of water supply. A maximum of 100% credit is available. The percentages are broken into ten ISO Public Protection Classes. Class 1 equates to the top rating of 90-100%. Class 10 equates to the lowest rating, 0-9%. When last evaluated in 1995, the City of Fresno was rated a Class 4, achieving a rating of 66.07%. These classifications were developed for fire insurance rating purposes only. Insurance companies may use the agency’s classification to assist in setting property insurance premiums.
R80:
The fire department have a budgeted vehicle replacement plan. The city should consider replacement of vehicles after seven or eight years while they still have significant value on the used fire vehicle market.
R81:
The inventory of fire fighting tools be increased so that all spare engines/trucks are fully equipped.
R82:
The city recognize the need to increase the number of fire fighting personnel.
R83:
The City of Fresno revisit its traffic light pre-emption plan and budget funds to complete this program.
R84:
The Fresno Fire Department develop a plan to reduce response times to the NFPA standards. COUNTY COMMITTEE Rick Allen, Chair James Cotton Fred Goldring Ann Thaxter James Torosian Donald Wilson 57 COUNTY COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury County Committee’s primary function is to oversee all aspects of county government, incorporated cities not including Fresno, and special districts. Among the committee’s responsibilities is to insure that county monies and operations are handled in an efficient, effective and appropriate manner that best serve the interest of the citizens. The Grand Jury received requests for inquiries into various government operations within the County of Fresno. The County Committee conducted inquiries of the following: A. The operations and management of the Office of the Public Administrator/Public Guardian. B. Operation of the Coroner’s Office. Allegations of misconduct regarding utility bill collection policies in the City of Mendota. C. Complaints regarding the management of the City of Parlier. (The result of this investigation is presented in this report under the heading - Ad Hoc Committee, City of Parlier). D. The operations of the Elkhorn Correctional Facility. E. The need for a Briefing Book for newly elected members of the Fresno County Board of Supervisors and Fresno City Council. In the course of conducting these inquiries the committee gathered facts, interviewed many citizens, officials, department heads and employees of the County of Fresno and cities within the County of Fresno. During the process of the investigations, the committee made numerous field trips to government facilities within the county. OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC ADMINSTRATOR/PUBLIC GUARDIAN Introduction The 1999/2000 Fresno County Grand Jury Report prompted a review by this jury panel of the Public Administrator/Public Guardian Office (PA/PG).
R85:
The PA/PG evaluate the use of the County Treasury Pool.
R86:
Storage be improved for case records and client assets. Construction of an on-site storage building would eliminate the need for expensive off-site mini-storage.
R87:
Evaluate the need for additional deputies due to the implementation of the new Elder Abuse Referral Law SB 1742.
R88:
PA/PG add the services of a Registered Nurse to staff. This person would aid in evaluating and inspecting medical care facilities as well as review proposed client treatment and prescription history.
R89:
PA/PG evaluate the purchase of Long Term Care Insurance for those clients who would be eligible. OFFICE OF THE FRESNO COUNTY CORONER Introduction The 1999/2000 Fresno County Grand Jury report prompted an unannounced visit to the facilities of the Fresno County Coroner on December 19, 2000 by the 2000/2001 Grand Jury.
R90:
A plan be developed for a new morgue before the County reaches a crisis situation.
R91:
A new commercial washing machine be purchased for on-site laundering needs and/or use a commercial laundry.
R92:
Reference be made to the Grand Jury reports of 1998/1999 and 1999/2000 regarding the need for improvement of record storage. MENDOTA UTILITY BILL COLLECTIONS Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury received a written complaint regarding bill collection policies in the City of Mendota. The complaint included the following allegations: A. Some employees of the City of Mendota had not paid their water/utility bill for a period in excess of one year. B. Some elected officials were not making timely payments of their water/utility bills. C. This activity had been disclosed by the City Manager and/or City Attorney. It was alleged that the entire City office staff was involved. D. The 2000/2001 Grand Jury issued a subpoena for certain records covering the payment of water/utility bills by current and former Mendota city employees and elected officials. These records were provided to the Grand Jury on August 30, 2000.
R93:
The monthly shutoff list and notices be reviewed by an individual independent of the accounting department of the City of Mendota.
R94:
The subject of outstanding utility bills be reviewed during the annual financial audit conducted by an outside auditor.
R95:
The City establish and maintain training for all employees on the use of the Municipal Code and written procedures and policies regarding the collection of utility bills. ELKHORN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury followed up on the recommendation of the 1998/1999 Grand Jury to monitor the operation of the Elkhorn Correctional Facility (Juvenile Boot Camp). The Grand Jury toured the Elkhorn Correctional Facility (ECF) on September 1, 2000. The director and support staff provided a briefing on the history of the facility and its goals. Information was received from Elkhorn management, members of the Fresno County Board of Supervisors, the Chief Probation Officer and officials of the City of Fresno.
R96:
The Fresno County Board of Supervisors review commitments made in the February 11, 1997, letter issued by a former County Chief Administrative Officer and assure the neighbors of ECF that the County intends to honor these commitments. If certain commitments cannot be met, the County should negotiate with the neighbors to reach an equitable arrangement.
R97:
The Board of Supervisors continue to fund and maintain the present level of services at ECF.
R98:
The City of Fresno continue to fund Elkhorn Correctional Facility at no less than the current rate of $1,000,000 per year with no sunset provision.
R99:
The County provide boot camp facilities for female juvenile offenders.
R100:
Future Grand Juries continue to monitor the activities at the Elkhorn Correctional Facility. BRIEFING BOOK FOR NEWLY ELECTED OFFICIALS Introduction As the result of testimony received from newly elected members of the Fresno City Council and Fresno County Board of Supervisors, the Grand Jury reviewed the procedure for providing information to these individuals prior to assuming office.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
19 findings
F4:
During fieldwork it was noted that a check was issued to the Finance Director on August 6, 1998 in the amount of $1,504.31 for training reimbursement. The Finance Director also authorized the payment and signed the check. It is the City Manager’s policy to approve the warrant register, which he believes provides proper segregation of duties. However, based on our review, the warrant register does not provide details of each payment, just check totals. Therefore, the City Manager’s approval of the warrant register does not indicate that he approved the contents of the payment. At a minimum, internal controls require segregation of duties which provides an adequate level of review. Although this can be difficult in a small office like Parlier’s Finance Department, the City Manager should review and approve the payment contents as well as payment totals, when the Finance Director is the payee.
F5:
It was noted during fieldwork that Parlier’s City Manager and Finance Director utilize City credit cards. Purchases for office equipment, travel and meetings, etc. are made using these credit cards, and in 9 out of 11 (81%) credit card statements reviewed, receipts were not attached to the statements to support the expenditures. Only vendor names and handwritten general descriptions were included on the statements. We further tested 3 of the above 9 statements and determined that $117.11 of the insufficiently supported expenditures on a statement totaling $684.51 was attributable to Parlier’s Redevelopment Agency. In addition, $525.17 and $177.07 of the expenditures on two other statements totaling $5,037.59 and $1,980.00, respectively, were attributable to the Measure C – Transportation Authority, Sales Tax Proceeds fund (Measure C). In addition, when costs are charged to the Measure C program that cannot be substantiated and, therefore may not be in compliance with program requirements, Parlier’s future allocations may be withheld and reimbursements of such funds to the Fresno County Auditor-Controller/Treasurer- Tax Collector may be required. Such funds would only be released when exceptions are resolved and Parlier is in compliance with program requirements. Compliance issues regarding redevelopment agencies are addressed by various regulatory agencies as explained in the Parlier Redevelopment Agency section on .
F6:
It was noted during testing of expenditures, that the Finance Director used the City of Parlier’s Office Depot credit card on two separate occasions to purchase personal items such as movie videos, games, a chair, bookcases, etc. totaling $768.06. Both the Finance Director and City Manager stated the card was used by mistake and that actions were taken to reimburse the City through payroll deductions. However, when this matter was brought to the Finance Director’s attention by our audits staff, the Finance Director researched and determined that Parlier had not yet been reimbursed. Although this matter should have been followed up more timely, on April 2, 2001, the Finance Director did reimburse the City $914.77 which includes interest. 8
F7:
Health & Safety Code Section 33490 requires redevelopment agencies to submit a 5-year plan to the State Controller’s Office on or before December 31, 1994 and every 5 years thereafter. The RDA submitted a 5-year plan in 1994. However, based on information provided, Parlier’s 5-year plan, which was due on or before December 31,1999, had not been submitted to the State Controller’s Office as of the date of this review.
F8:
It was noted that the RDA appropriately recorded $747,015 in revenues for fiscal year 1998/99. However, only $145,496 of this amount was transferred to the low-income housing fund, which was less than the 20% required by Health & Safety Code Section 33487 by $3,907. The calculation was based on the net amount received by the RDA instead of the gross apportionment as required by the Code. The transfer to the low-income housing fund was properly calculated for fiscal year 1999/00. 9
F9:
It was noted during a review of Parlier’s financial statements that redevelopment notes receivable in the amount of $1,257,180 were erroneously listed in the general long-term debt account group in the 1998/99 statements. These notes receivable were properly reclassified by Parlier staff in the 1999/00 statements, which resulted in a $1,257,180 increase in the capital projects beginning fund balance; however, there was no disclosure explaining this material change.
F10a:
According to Parlier’s City Manager, all redevelopment loan programs must be approved by the RDA Board, which is Parlier’s City Council. We reviewed all available loan files for the sixteen redevelopment loans issued by Parlier as identified below, which were made between 1993 and 1996. There are nine individual loans and seven commercial loans. Based on documentation provided, it could not be determined that any of the loans were properly approved by the RDA Board. The Executive Director of the RDA is authorized to execute loan documents on behalf of the RDA, and we verified that he did sign agreements for all of the loans except as noted in Findings #10b, c and d below. In addition, based on information provided in loan files, we could not determine if any of the borrowers met the RDA criteria needed to obtain the loans. The City Manager stated that it is unlikely that any of the borrowers would not meet the criteria due to Parlier’s demographics. In addition, both the City Manager and Finance Director stated that there may be additional RDA loans that they do not know about. They said that loan files were incomplete when they began working for the City, and they had to piece together documentation for the loans as it was located. Based on the documentation provided, all nine individual loans were charged 5% interest. However, of the six commercial loans that had any supporting documentation (the seventh loan did not), one was charged 4.39% interest, three were charged 5%, and two others were charged 8%. Parlier staff did not know how these various interest rates were determined or why it was decided to charge different borrowers different rates. Based on our review of redevelopment guidelines, no provisions could be found that addressed the matter of interest rates on outstanding loans. In addition, except as noted in Finding #10b, we could not determine that any of the borrowers were related to City officials at the time of the issuance of the loans; however, this should not necessarily be an issue provided all borrowers met RDA loan criteria as addressed above.
F10b:
Nine of the sixteen loans issued by Parlier were “written off” for financial statement purposes and seven were not. Except as noted below, payments on six of these seven loans were received regularly and currently from the borrowers. Four of these six loans were provided to individuals in the amounts of $6,013, $7,000, $13,782, and $15,000. The fifth and sixth loans were commercial loans for $102,000 and $488,000 at a 4.39% and 5% interest rates, respectively. The seventh of these loans, which did not have any supporting documentation, is addressed in Finding #10d. The $15,000 individual loan noted above was issued in 1995 to a relative of the mayor. No payments were received by the RDA until the previous Finance Director contacted the borrower in April 1997 requesting copies of loan documents, which Parlier did not have at that time. Shortly after that, the borrower began to make regular payments on the loan and has continued making payments through the date of this review. These loan payments are included in a schedule in our workpapers. In addition, based on our review of loan documentation provided by the City, the agreement for this $15,000 loan was signed only by the borrower. Therefore, it is not clear whether the loan was properly executed by the Executive Director, or whether the loan was properly approved by the RDA Board as addressed in finding #10a. Based on documentation provided, we did find evidence that the Executive Director authorized $5,000 of the loan, because he approved two checks issued on this loan totaling $5,000.
F10c:
One of eight reportable conditions in Parlier’s 1998/99 audit report stated “The RDA has made numerous redevelopment loans to individuals and businesses. Many of these are totally non- performing.” The corresponding recommendation stated “Staff should contact each delinquent borrower to determine if stronger collection action is required, or if the loan cannot be reasonably collected, then it should be written off.” Parlier’s response was “RDA receivables were turned over to a professional collection service. Collection of the majority of housing loans is not possible, since the loans were not secured by real property. The issue of whether to pursue or forgive these loans is a policy for the Council to pursue.” 11 For 1999/00 financial statement purposes, the RDA “wrote off” four commercial loans and five individual loans totaling $46,736. Based on information provided, Parlier’s City Council did not approve writing off these loans, although it was disclosed in Parlier’s 1999/00 financial statements that the “City wrote off” the loans. During our review, Parlier staff explained that it was not the City’s intention to officially write off loans as they just wanted to report loans for financial statement purposes net of amounts considered to be uncollectible, and they are continuing to pursue collection of these loans. Based on information provided during our review, Parlier referred the delinquent loans to one collection agency who declined to pursue collection of the loans. According to Parlier staff, based on that collection agency’s response that these loans were not collectible, it was decided not to try to obtain further collection agency services. As of the date of this review, Parlier has not referred these loans to any other collection agency. The RDA continues to send invoices monthly on the “written off” loans to all of the individual borrowers but to none of the commercial borrowers, which, according to the City Manager, are no longer in business. However, no payments have been made by the loan recipients in several years. Information received on these “written off” loans is indicated below. The loan type is designated by a C for Commercial or I for Individual as follows: Loan Loan Loan Interest Unpaid Date of Type Year Loan Recipient Amount Rate Balance Last Pmt C 1993 El01 $12,500 8% $10,000 7/97 C 1993 Gor02 5,500 8% 4,940 11/93 C 1995 Sal03 2,390 5% 1,647 1/98 C 1995 Ant04 2,550 5% 513 7/97 I 1995 Mar05 5,000 5% 3,062 4/97 I 1995 And06 3,044 5% 2,639 4/97 I 1995 Noe07 2,500 5% 2,048 12/96 I 1996 Elo08 14,430 5% 14,430 None I 1996 Man09 7,683 5% 7,457 12/96 Total $55,597 $46,736 In addition, based on our review of the related loan documentation, the following exceptions were noted for these “written-off” loans: 1. The signed loan agreement for loan recipient Gor02 specified a loan amount of $4,000, but the amortization schedule included in the documentation provided an amended loan total of $5,500, yet there was no authorized amendment to the loan agreement. 12 2. The loan documentation for loan recipient El01 (El01) did not contain a loan agreement but contained other miscellaneous documents including a 1993 request from the attorney in fact for a $12,500 loan; an incomplete and unofficial copy of a 1993 RDA minutes indicating that the RDA Board approved a $12,000 loan to El01, and a copy of a $12,500 check signed by the RDA Executive Director and made out to El01 in 1993. Therefore, there was a conflict between the $12,000 amount that appeared to have been approved by the RDA Board and the $12,500 check approved by the Executive Director.
F10d:
During our review of the seven outstanding loans that were not “written off”, we noted that the financial statements disclosed that “…the Agency has a receivable … relating to low-income housing assistance provided in prior years. As long as …” the borrower “…continues renting to low-income individuals, they will be required to pay back a discounted amount equaling the annual installments, without interest, in the amount of $83,418 beginning in December 2013.” Parlier staff was able to provide us with a recorded deed of trust for this loan in the amount of $1,668,366; however, they could not provide a copy of the loan agreement. Therefore, we were not able to verify whether the borrower has complied with the terms of the agreement or whether the agreement was properly approved as discussed in finding #10a. Also, we were not able to determine whether interest will accrue if the borrower does not continue renting to low-income individuals or any other details about the loan.
F11:
It was noted during fieldwork that reimbursement requests submitted to the Fresno County Public Works Department were properly supported by invoices to outside entities. However, transactions were not properly recorded in the City of Parlier’s general ledger. Payments made by Fresno County to Parlier during fiscal year 1998/99 were understated in Parlier’s CDBG general ledger by $14,271.61, thereby understating CDBG revenues on the 1998/99 financial statements. The difference was due to a check issued by Fresno County in the amount of $149,271.61 on May 13, 1999. It was confirmed that Parlier received and endorsed the check for $149,271.61; however, only $135,000 of this amount was recorded in Parlier’s CDBG fund. The balance of $14,271.61 was recorded in Parlier’s general fund. Also, we were not able to trace 2 of 30 (6%) invoices totaling $4,370 to Parlier’s CDBG fund. However, we were able to confirm with the vendor that the invoices had been paid. Parlier staff has not been able to provide information regarding where these expenditures were recorded. Additionally, during a test of CDBG expenditures recorded in the general ledger, Parlier staff were not able to locate supporting documentation for 2 of 8 (25%) expenditures tested. Accurate and complete records are essential for restricted revenue funds to ensure continued funding and enhance internal controls.
F12:
During a review of Parlier’s financial statements for fiscal years 1998/99 and 1999/00, it was noted that the Child Development Fund listed expenditures for capital projects, which is not in compliance with the terms of the grant. Further analysis found that capital expenditures were not made in violation of the grant provisions. Instead, expenditures were not properly classified in the general ledger or the financial statements. 14
F13:
During a review of grant agreements for fiscal years 1998/99 and 1999/00, it was determined that grant expenditures recorded in the general fund and reported in the financial statements were in compliance with grant provisions except for a 1998/99 expenditure of $582.50 for engineering expenses.
F14:
During a review of the general ledger it was determined that expenditures do not agree with reports submitted to the State. The general ledger for fiscal year 1999/00 reports grant revenues of $283,950.97 plus $10,216.73 interest revenue for a total of $294,167.70. The general ledger also indicates total expenditures of $81,966.58 for 1999/00. The audit report sent to the State, which was prepared by the subcontractor’s CPA, indicates costs of $1,094,953.00 and revenue received of $72,808.00 for 1999/00. It appears that this audit report was prepared to reflect revenues and expenditures of the subcontractor and not the City of Parlier’s Child Development revenues and expenditures.
F15:
During the review, it was noted that payments made by the State Controller’s Office (SCO) to Parlier, which were posted on the SCO’s website did not agree with totals recorded in Parlier’s accounting system for fiscal years 1998/99 and 1999/00. For fiscal year 1998/99, the SCO recorded payments of $197,403.36 and Parlier recorded revenues of $218,610.40 for a variance of $21,207.04. For fiscal year 1999/00, the SCO recorded payments of $200,512.18 and Parlier recorded revenues of $202,545.85 for a variance of $2,033.67. Based on our review and documentation provided we could not determine whether the variances were due to timing differences or other factors.
F18:
During a review of the audit report issued by an independent accounting firm for fiscal year 1998/99, it was noted that the report contained an unqualified opinion despite the insufficiently supported expenditures discussed in findings #1-3 and the understated revenues discussed above. The same firm is conducting an audit of the Local Transportation fund for fiscal year 1999/00 but has not yet issued their report. During a conversation on March 26, 2001 with a staff member of the independent firm, the staff member said that the firm is questioning the method that Parlier uses to apply administrative overhead costs to this fund. The staff member also stated that the 1999/00 report will contain findings and recommendations related to the overhead application process.
F19:
Parlier’s Finance Director said that the City uses LLEBG money to pay for overtime expenditures in the Police Department since the amount of the grant is not enough to hire an additional police officer. Although overtime used to increase or enhance police services is an appropriate expenditure for this grant; based on information reviewed, we could not determine that overtime expended was an inappropriate use of grant monies. One officer’s salary is charged to the fund as an equivalent to the law enforcement overtime costs incurred outside of the fund. The amount of the 1998 grant was $19,623 and overtime for that period was $92,705. The amount of the 1999 grant was $19,097 and overtime for that period was $65,135. The Finance Director stated that he spoke with personnel in the US Department of Justice (DOJ) who told him that he can account for the fund in this manner as long as he can support the amount of overtime claimed on the grant. We contacted the DOJ and were told that this practice is not appropriate. DOJ staff stated that the actual expenditures paid with LLEBG money must be recorded in the fund established to account for the grant. During our review, expenditures for equipment were tested. During fiscal year 1998/99, 4 of 5 (80%) equipment expenditures tested did not appear to be appropriate for fund purposes based on information provided. As confirmed with the DOJ, LLEBG money is to be used to increase or enhance law enforcement services. The expenditures questioned include chairs for $1,356.68, rug runners for $343.73, and office supplies for $161.61. 17
F22:
During a test of expenditures for fiscal year 1999/00, the City of Parlier was not able to provide support for $769.50 charged to salaries and benefits recorded through a journal entry. The City’s Finance Director stated that the support for the journal entry could not be located.
F23:
Based on our review, another COPS program (AB3229, Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund) was charged $886.13 for an officer’s salary that was also included in a Universal Hiring Grant report submitted to the DOJ for the period 10/1/98 to 3/31/99. In addition, the salary included in this report also included overtime which is not allowable according to Universal Hiring Grant provisions.
Additional Recommendations
99
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
To be in compliance with the above restricted revenue requirements and regulations and to eliminate the appearance that restricted revenues are being used to fund general fund expenditures, the City of Parlier should ensure that such restricted revenues are clearly used for the related program purposes. Costs charged to the special revenue funds should reflect actual costs attributable to the program and should be supported by applicable documentation such as time tracking. The City of Parlier should obtain clarification from the applicable regulatory agency to determine if their current cost allocation methodology is acceptable.
R2:
In the absence of fully supportable cost allocation methodologies or regulatory approval of existing cost allocation methodologies, the City of Parlier should reverse the $268,224 and $393,602 in overhead costs charged to the special revenue funds listed above. In addition, any other insufficiently supported cost allocations that were not noted in this report should also be reversed.
R3:
In order to provide for sound accounting and budgeting practices and to ensure a clear audit trail, appropriations and expenditures should be initially recorded in the originating department/fund where the activities are incurred.
R4:
The City of Parlier Finance Department should implement procedures that provide segregation of duties related to accounts payable. Specifically, the person who approves payments should not be the same person who signs checks and submits requests for payments. When it is necessary for the 7 Finance Director to submit a request for payment, the payment should be sufficiently reviewed and approved by another authorized staff member (e.g. the City Manager).
R5:
To strengthen internal controls over expenditures in special revenue funds and to ensure that funding does not need to be reimbursed or that future funding is withheld, the City of Parlier should ensure that program costs incurred are fully supported and are in compliance with program requirements. This can be achieved in part by requiring that receipts for credit card purchases be retained for supporting documentation and submitted to the Finance Department for review and approval.
R6:
To prevent losses and enhance internal controls, the City of Parlier should immediately implement procedures to ensure that the City’s charge accounts and credit cards are not used for personal purchases. Parlier Redevelopment Agency (RDA) Compliance issues involving redevelopment funding are addressed by the State Controller’s Office, the State Attorney General and the Court. Based on Section 33080.8 of California’s Health & Safety Code, the State Controller compiles lists of redevelopment agencies that appear to have uncorrected major violations, based on the annual independent audit reports filed by such agencies. The Attorney General can pursue filing lawsuits against redevelopment agencies having uncorrected violations, and the Court can prohibit the agency from performing various activities until the Court determines that the major violations are corrected. Since the RDA’s annual audit reports for 1998/99 and 1999/00 contained unqualified opinions, it is unlikely that it was determined that Parlier had any major violations, and it is not known what actions, if any, the above regulatory entities would take as a result of the redevelopment findings noted in this separate report. This report may affect the findings and opinion of independent accounting firms performing future redevelopment audits; however, it is not known if these
R7:
In compliance with the above code sections and to ensure that funding is not withheld, the RDA should immediately submit a 5-year plan to the State Controller’s Office and submit all future required documents when due.
R8:
In order to comply with Health & Safety Code Section 33487 and to ensure that funding is not withheld, the RDA should transfer $3,907 to the low income housing fund for fiscal year 1998/99 from the RDA Capital Projects Fund.
R9:
In order to explain material changes in the financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, the City of Parlier should provide adequate disclosure in the notes to the financial statements. For example, Parlier could have identified the above increase in the capital projects fund balance as a “restated” fund balance in the financial statements. In addition, a note disclosure should have been provided to reconcile the restated fund balance to the prior year ending balance. The disclosure should have also explained the reason(s) for the restatement. Parlier should consider this for future reporting purposes.
R10:
a, b, c, and d To ensure that funding is not withheld, the RDA should ensure all proper procedures and legal requirements are followed when issuing loans and all appropriate documents are maintained in their loan files and that all loans are properly authorized. Parlier staff should review all available loan records since the formation of the RDA to try to locate all missing loan documentation and criteria information on the sixteen known loans addressed above. Parlier staff should also determine if there are any additional outstanding loans not currently known that should be followed up on. Also, even though Parlier has indicated that the commercial borrowers of the “written off” loans are out of business, Parlier should continue to bill the business owners until these loans are officially written off by the City Council. Proper procedures must be followed to assure that all redevelopment loans are repaid timely and in full. Redevelopment loans determined to be uncollectible should be written off by the City Council and referred to a collection agency as appropriate. Parlier should consider following up with other collection agencies or pursue other means of recouping unpaid balances, e.g. through small claims processes, other lawsuits, etc. In addition, Parlier should ensure and be able to support that interest charged on Redevelopment loans is charged fairly and equitably. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
R11:
To enhance internal controls, ensure the accuracy of the City’s accounting records, and ensure continued funding, Parlier should implement formal procedures to ensure proper accounting for and reconciliation of restricted revenues. In addition, all transactions and supporting documentation must be maintained until such records have been audited by all appropriate oversight agencies. Finally, the City of Parlier should make the appropriate general ledger entries within the special revenue fund to record these transactions. Child Development Grant
R12:
The City of Parlier should post transactions to proper accounts and subsequently classify expenditures appropriately in their financial statements.
R13:
In order to comply with terms of the Child Development Grant, the City of Parlier should reimburse the Child Development fund the $582.50 noted above and only make expenditures appropriate for grant purposes from this fund.
R14:
In order to comply with terms of the Child Development Grant, the City of Parlier should obtain an annual audit of the Child Development Program that conforms to the terms of the grant agreement and reports on Child Development revenues and expenditures of the City of Parlier. In addition, the City of Parlier should consistently review any audit reports prepared for their program prior to finalization of the report. Measure “C” – Transportation Authority, Sales Tax Proceeds It was noted during our review that insufficiently supported overhead allocations were applied to the Measure “C” special revenue fund. See findings and recommendations #1 - 3. Highway User Tax (Gas Tax)
R15:
In order to properly account for and report Gas Tax revenues, the City of Parlier must reconcile any variances between revenues paid by a funding entity and revenues recorded by the City. Local Transportation Fund
R16:
In order to properly administer the Local Transportation Fund and ensure proper financial statement presentation, the City of Parlier must reconcile the Local Transportation fund to receipts and implement procedures to ensure that all transactions are properly recorded and reported.
R17:
The City of Parlier should either provide supporting documentation for the $70,702 reduction of revenues or reverse this adjustment as appropriate. 16
R19:
The City of Parlier should contact the DOJ for written clarification of what constitutes acceptable expenditures for this grant. The City of Parlier should comply with the information provided by the DOJ related to this audit finding. Unauthorized expenditures of grant funds must be reimbursed or a waiver should be requested from the grantor agency. COPS Grant AB3229
R20:
The City of Parlier should ensure that actual interest is allocated to the COPS fund for 1998/99, 1999/00 and thereafter. In addition, the City should ensure that adequate interest allocation methodologies are used to ensure that all restricted revenues are accurately calculated, allocated and available to be used for restricted program purposes or returned to regulatory agencies as necessary in the event of non-compliance with program requirements.
R21:
In compliance with the provisions of Government Code Section 30061 as stated above, the City of Parlier should ensure that the appropriation of COPS grant monies for 2000/01 and thereafter are separately presented to and approved by Parlier’s City Council as required.
R22:
The City of Parlier should maintain support for all financial transactions that affect special revenue funds as well as other funds until all oversight agencies conduct periodic audits. Unauthorized expenditures of grant funds must be reimbursed or a waiver should be requested from the grantor agency. Universal Hiring Grant (COPS)
R23:
The City of Parlier should implement procedures to ensure that expenditures are not claimed/reported twice and that overtime costs are not claimed in compliance with Universal 19 Hiring Grant provisions. Parlier should also adjust the above reports and charges to reverse duplicated expenditures and inappropriate overtime costs. Office of Emergency Services (OES)
R24:
The City of Parlier should investigate the difference of $2,404 between revenues reported in their general ledger for OES revenues and the amount of payments confirmed through the State OES or have support for the variance readily available.
R25:
The City of Parlier should immediately revise the Project Completion and Certification Report to reflect actual costs for the disaster period. They should provide support for costs claimed or return $36,136 claimed inappropriately to the State OES. 20
R26:
To ensure accuracy of records, enhance internal controls, and ensure the availability of current and future funding, the City of Parlier should properly maintain files containing supporting documentation for transactions and retain these records until audited by all appropriate oversight agencies. Transportation Equity Act No reportable conditions were noted during our review of the Transportation Equity Act, which provides funding for street improvements. Based on our review, only $14,761 was spent for this program in 1999/00 for preliminary engineering on street improvement projects, which is in compliance with program provisions.
R27:
The Parlier City Manager confer with the City Council before engaging in city projects costing over $10,000 as required by PMC.
R28:
Bidding and contracting of services be in compliance with PMC.
R29:
The City Manager and City Council be held responsible for implementing the directives set forth in PMC.
R30:
Compensation of employees and/or contractors be in compliance with existing State and Federal laws. PARLIER ANIMAL CONTROL Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury received complaints relating to animal control and conditions at the City of Parlier Animal Shelter. Recommendations regarding animal control and the animal shelter were included in the 1997/1998 Grand Jury Report. The City Manager responded as follows: “The City will continue efforts to create innovative ways to obtain funding and attract community support for animal control operations and facilities, this shall include seeking grants, encouraging participation by local organizations and volunteers, the Humane Society and SPCA.” “The City will continue to enforce leash and licensing laws and to collect fees and/or fines to generate revenue for animal control services. The city code has animal control codes, which it enforces; the city has adopted animal licensing fees and fines to offset some of the costs of these activities. The City Council reviews fees on an annual basis and adjusts them, as it deems appropriate. The City will review and update its animal control codes and fees during fiscal 1998-1999.”
R31:
The City hire an animal control officer.
R32:
The animal shelter be relocated within the city to make it more accessible.
R33:
Leash and licensing laws be enforced.
R34:
The City educate the community regarding licensing, vaccinations, leash laws, spaying and neutering.
R35:
The City establish a fee schedule for costs incurred in animal control.
R36:
All record keeping relating to animal control be current.
R37:
State guidelines be followed for the ultimate disposal of any animal.
R38:
Polaroid photographs of mi pounded dogs be posted at city hall in order for citizens to see if their dog has been impounded. CARPETING OF PARLIER CITY HALL Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury investigated a complaint from a concerned citizen about the method used by the City Manager in the purchase and installation of carpet in the Parlier City Hall.
R39:
The Parlier Municipal Code and Purchasing Ordinance be followed.
R40:
Shortcuts that violate the existing code not be considered. CODE ENFORCEMENT IN PARLIER Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury investigated a written complaint from a citizen that cited the lack of code enforcement in the City of Parlier.
R41:
The present policy of code enforcement be changed to a more aggressive system which addresses all violations existing in the City of Parlier.
R42:
Written policy and procedures be developed to provide for the tracking and documented resolution of all complaints.
R43:
The city hire a code enforcement officer, supported with sufficient staff.
R44:
Adequate training be provided for the code enforcement officer and staff, including instruction in property owner and tenant rights.
R45:
A written manual providing guidelines on how to resolve code enforcement disputes be developed and implemented.
R46:
The City of Parlier inform and educate the public on current code enforcement policy.
R47:
A current copy of the Parlier Municipal Code be available for public use at City Hall and the public library. PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT WITHIN THE CITY OF PARLIER Introduction An employee of the City of Parlier provided testimony to the 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury regarding an unfair disciplinary experience while employed by the city. Subsequently, the Grand Jury received additional testimony from other current and former employees who indicated they too had not been treated in an equitable manner.
R48:
The City of Parlier formulate and implement written policies and procedures regarding labor relations.
R49:
The City develop written job classifications for all positions and issue them to all employees.
R50:
The City require department heads to adhere to the PMC sections covering their areas of responsibility.
R51:
A current copy of the PMC be made available to City Council members.
R52:
The City prepare, and provide to all employees, a handbook informing them of employee rights as stated in the PMC.
R53:
Employees be advised, in writing, of their rights of representation at all disciplinary hearings.
R54:
Written annual job performance evaluations of all employees be conducted, a copy placed in the employee’s permanent file and a copy provided to the employee.
R55:
A written salary schedule for each position be prepared and a copy made available to each employee.
R56:
The city develop and issue a written policy regarding advancement and salary increases. NEPOTISM IN THE CITY OF PARLIER Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury received several complaints from employees of the City of Parlier regarding nepotism as it exists in the city and the effect it has on their work environment. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary definition of nepotism is “favoritism shown to relatives or close friends by those in power (as by giving them jobs).” Nepotism is defined by the Parlier Municipal Code (PMC) Section 4.01.080 as “Applicants for employment with the city who are related within the third degree, by blood or marriage, to a person currently employed by the city, shall not be employed in the same department as the applicant’s relative, if it is determined on a case-by case review that employment of the applicant in the same department as his or her relative would create or aggravate problems relating to safety, security, supervision, morale or conflicts of interest in such department.”
R57:
PMC section 4.01.080 be rewritten to more clearly state the city’s policy on nepotism as defined by Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, “favoritism shown to relatives or close friends by those in power (as by giving them jobs).”
R58:
The policy of the city be to recruit, employ, and promote the best-qualified individuals. PARLIER PERSONNEL HEARING BOARD Introduction During the year 2000, a decision was made by the City manager to establish a Personnel Hearing Board (PHB). The Parlier Municipal Code (PMC) Section 4.02. (1997) describes the duties and responsibilities of the Board. Such a Board had never been established. The Board consists of two City Council members and a citizen at large. The purpose of the Board is to hear the final appeal of employees who have been disciplined and have exhausted all options for redress. The citizen at large position is to be filled by an applicant who is a resident of the City and at least 18 years of age. This position is to be noticed and described in the local newspaper and posted at City Hall.
R59:
The current PHB be dissolved.
R60:
The position for citizen at large be advertised (noticed).
R61:
The position for citizen at large be posted at City Hall.
R62:
All citizens who submit applications for this position be given equal consideration. PARLIER POLICE DEPARTMENT Introduction For many years, the Parlier Police Department has suffered from a lack of leadership and corresponding departmental ineffectiveness. The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury has undertaken a review of the causes and possible remedies. During the past 10 years, the City of Parlier has had 13 Chiefs of Police. Turnover by employees has been high due to low pay, low morale and lack of leadership. There have been continuing allegations of corruption, inefficiency and favoritism.
R63:
The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that the Parlier Police Department be closed immediately and the policing of Parlier be contracted with the Fresno County Sheriff. CITY COMMITTEE Rene Lastreto, Chair Robert Boehringer Mikie Kapigian Louis Olais Juliana Pherson Leo Shishmanian 42 CITY COMMITTEE
R64:
Continue the broad public education program to increase awareness of the need to meet recycling goals.
R65:
Tailor educational efforts to target each culture within our community in a way that has proven most effective for that group. FRESNO CITY PARKS SANITATION FACILITIES Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury inspected toilet facilities at Roeding Park, Woodward Park and six neighborhood parks. Conditions reviewed: Ø Cleanliness and cleaning schedules Ø Condition of fixtures and stalls Ø Privacy locks on toilet doors Ø Presence of soap Ø Presence of hand drying materials or machines Ø Plumbing leaks
R66:
Increase the budget to provide for care of the new parks.
R67:
Add personnel to help maintain the park sanitation facilities.
R68:
Provide adequate funds for replacement of fixtures with more durable ones. CITY COUNCIL INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDS Introduction The Fresno City Council discretionary infrastructure budget was examined by the 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury.
R69:
Distribution of the City Council discretionary infrastructure funds be reviewed and approved by the City Manager prior to disbursement. 48
R70:
Consideration be given to reducing the current allotment from $140,000 to $70,000 per district.
R71:
Carryover of any unused infrastructure funds be eliminated.
R72:
Future Grand Juries continue to monitor the program. CITY OF FRESNO WATER METERS Introduction Upon review of the 1999/2000 Fresno County Grand Jury report, the 2000/2001 Grand Jury investigated the current status of water availability and management.
R73:
The Mayor, City Council and all civic groups unite to promote the installation of water meters.
R74:
Homeowners and businesses that currently have meters be excluded from further meter installation costs.
R75:
The city utilities department continue to publish average water bills for various family sizes with and without meters.
R76:
Water police be reactivated to prevent water waste. BASEBALL/MULTI-USE STADIUM Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury reviewed the reports of the 1998/1999 and 1999/2000 Grand Juries. During the tenure of the present Grand Jury, the Fresno City Council approved the stadium project. Work has commenced on the site.
R77:
The City require an annual independent audit of the financial statements of FDG.
R78:
All seventeen dates the city controls be devoted to for-profit events to enhance the City’s revenues.
R79:
The public be assured of coordinated parking and security by FDG and the City. CITY OF FRESNO FIRE DEPARTMENT Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury investigated the City of Fresno Fire Department's (FFD) rating as established by the Insurance Services Office, Inc. (ISO). This organization evaluates the level of fire protection, the ability to receive and answer alarms, and the adequacy of water supply. A maximum of 100% credit is available. The percentages are broken into ten ISO Public Protection Classes. Class 1 equates to the top rating of 90-100%. Class 10 equates to the lowest rating, 0-9%. When last evaluated in 1995, the City of Fresno was rated a Class 4, achieving a rating of 66.07%. These classifications were developed for fire insurance rating purposes only. Insurance companies may use the agency’s classification to assist in setting property insurance premiums.
R80:
The fire department have a budgeted vehicle replacement plan. The city should consider replacement of vehicles after seven or eight years while they still have significant value on the used fire vehicle market.
R81:
The inventory of fire fighting tools be increased so that all spare engines/trucks are fully equipped.
R82:
The city recognize the need to increase the number of fire fighting personnel.
R83:
The City of Fresno revisit its traffic light pre-emption plan and budget funds to complete this program.
R84:
The Fresno Fire Department develop a plan to reduce response times to the NFPA standards. COUNTY COMMITTEE Rick Allen, Chair James Cotton Fred Goldring Ann Thaxter James Torosian Donald Wilson 57 COUNTY COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury County Committee’s primary function is to oversee all aspects of county government, incorporated cities not including Fresno, and special districts. Among the committee’s responsibilities is to insure that county monies and operations are handled in an efficient, effective and appropriate manner that best serve the interest of the citizens. The Grand Jury received requests for inquiries into various government operations within the County of Fresno. The County Committee conducted inquiries of the following: A. The operations and management of the Office of the Public Administrator/Public Guardian. B. Operation of the Coroner’s Office. Allegations of misconduct regarding utility bill collection policies in the City of Mendota. C. Complaints regarding the management of the City of Parlier. (The result of this investigation is presented in this report under the heading - Ad Hoc Committee, City of Parlier). D. The operations of the Elkhorn Correctional Facility. E. The need for a Briefing Book for newly elected members of the Fresno County Board of Supervisors and Fresno City Council. In the course of conducting these inquiries the committee gathered facts, interviewed many citizens, officials, department heads and employees of the County of Fresno and cities within the County of Fresno. During the process of the investigations, the committee made numerous field trips to government facilities within the county. OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC ADMINSTRATOR/PUBLIC GUARDIAN Introduction The 1999/2000 Fresno County Grand Jury Report prompted a review by this jury panel of the Public Administrator/Public Guardian Office (PA/PG).
R85:
The PA/PG evaluate the use of the County Treasury Pool.
R86:
Storage be improved for case records and client assets. Construction of an on-site storage building would eliminate the need for expensive off-site mini-storage.
R87:
Evaluate the need for additional deputies due to the implementation of the new Elder Abuse Referral Law SB 1742.
R88:
PA/PG add the services of a Registered Nurse to staff. This person would aid in evaluating and inspecting medical care facilities as well as review proposed client treatment and prescription history.
R89:
PA/PG evaluate the purchase of Long Term Care Insurance for those clients who would be eligible. OFFICE OF THE FRESNO COUNTY CORONER Introduction The 1999/2000 Fresno County Grand Jury report prompted an unannounced visit to the facilities of the Fresno County Coroner on December 19, 2000 by the 2000/2001 Grand Jury.
R90:
A plan be developed for a new morgue before the County reaches a crisis situation.
R91:
A new commercial washing machine be purchased for on-site laundering needs and/or use a commercial laundry.
R92:
Reference be made to the Grand Jury reports of 1998/1999 and 1999/2000 regarding the need for improvement of record storage. MENDOTA UTILITY BILL COLLECTIONS Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury received a written complaint regarding bill collection policies in the City of Mendota. The complaint included the following allegations: A. Some employees of the City of Mendota had not paid their water/utility bill for a period in excess of one year. B. Some elected officials were not making timely payments of their water/utility bills. C. This activity had been disclosed by the City Manager and/or City Attorney. It was alleged that the entire City office staff was involved. D. The 2000/2001 Grand Jury issued a subpoena for certain records covering the payment of water/utility bills by current and former Mendota city employees and elected officials. These records were provided to the Grand Jury on August 30, 2000.
R93:
The monthly shutoff list and notices be reviewed by an individual independent of the accounting department of the City of Mendota.
R94:
The subject of outstanding utility bills be reviewed during the annual financial audit conducted by an outside auditor.
R95:
The City establish and maintain training for all employees on the use of the Municipal Code and written procedures and policies regarding the collection of utility bills. ELKHORN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury followed up on the recommendation of the 1998/1999 Grand Jury to monitor the operation of the Elkhorn Correctional Facility (Juvenile Boot Camp). The Grand Jury toured the Elkhorn Correctional Facility (ECF) on September 1, 2000. The director and support staff provided a briefing on the history of the facility and its goals. Information was received from Elkhorn management, members of the Fresno County Board of Supervisors, the Chief Probation Officer and officials of the City of Fresno.
R96:
The Fresno County Board of Supervisors review commitments made in the February 11, 1997, letter issued by a former County Chief Administrative Officer and assure the neighbors of ECF that the County intends to honor these commitments. If certain commitments cannot be met, the County should negotiate with the neighbors to reach an equitable arrangement.
R97:
The Board of Supervisors continue to fund and maintain the present level of services at ECF.
R98:
The City of Fresno continue to fund Elkhorn Correctional Facility at no less than the current rate of $1,000,000 per year with no sunset provision.
R99:
The County provide boot camp facilities for female juvenile offenders.
R100:
Future Grand Juries continue to monitor the activities at the Elkhorn Correctional Facility. BRIEFING BOOK FOR NEWLY ELECTED OFFICIALS Introduction As the result of testimony received from newly elected members of the Fresno City Council and Fresno County Board of Supervisors, the Grand Jury reviewed the procedure for providing information to these individuals prior to assuming office.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
19 findings
F4:
During fieldwork it was noted that a check was issued to the Finance Director on August 6, 1998 in the amount of $1,504.31 for training reimbursement. The Finance Director also authorized the payment and signed the check. It is the City Manager’s policy to approve the warrant register, which he believes provides proper segregation of duties. However, based on our review, the warrant register does not provide details of each payment, just check totals. Therefore, the City Manager’s approval of the warrant register does not indicate that he approved the contents of the payment. At a minimum, internal controls require segregation of duties which provides an adequate level of review. Although this can be difficult in a small office like Parlier’s Finance Department, the City Manager should review and approve the payment contents as well as payment totals, when the Finance Director is the payee.
F5:
It was noted during fieldwork that Parlier’s City Manager and Finance Director utilize City credit cards. Purchases for office equipment, travel and meetings, etc. are made using these credit cards, and in 9 out of 11 (81%) credit card statements reviewed, receipts were not attached to the statements to support the expenditures. Only vendor names and handwritten general descriptions were included on the statements. We further tested 3 of the above 9 statements and determined that $117.11 of the insufficiently supported expenditures on a statement totaling $684.51 was attributable to Parlier’s Redevelopment Agency. In addition, $525.17 and $177.07 of the expenditures on two other statements totaling $5,037.59 and $1,980.00, respectively, were attributable to the Measure C – Transportation Authority, Sales Tax Proceeds fund (Measure C). In addition, when costs are charged to the Measure C program that cannot be substantiated and, therefore may not be in compliance with program requirements, Parlier’s future allocations may be withheld and reimbursements of such funds to the Fresno County Auditor-Controller/Treasurer- Tax Collector may be required. Such funds would only be released when exceptions are resolved and Parlier is in compliance with program requirements. Compliance issues regarding redevelopment agencies are addressed by various regulatory agencies as explained in the Parlier Redevelopment Agency section on .
F6:
It was noted during testing of expenditures, that the Finance Director used the City of Parlier’s Office Depot credit card on two separate occasions to purchase personal items such as movie videos, games, a chair, bookcases, etc. totaling $768.06. Both the Finance Director and City Manager stated the card was used by mistake and that actions were taken to reimburse the City through payroll deductions. However, when this matter was brought to the Finance Director’s attention by our audits staff, the Finance Director researched and determined that Parlier had not yet been reimbursed. Although this matter should have been followed up more timely, on April 2, 2001, the Finance Director did reimburse the City $914.77 which includes interest. 8
F7:
Health & Safety Code Section 33490 requires redevelopment agencies to submit a 5-year plan to the State Controller’s Office on or before December 31, 1994 and every 5 years thereafter. The RDA submitted a 5-year plan in 1994. However, based on information provided, Parlier’s 5-year plan, which was due on or before December 31,1999, had not been submitted to the State Controller’s Office as of the date of this review.
F8:
It was noted that the RDA appropriately recorded $747,015 in revenues for fiscal year 1998/99. However, only $145,496 of this amount was transferred to the low-income housing fund, which was less than the 20% required by Health & Safety Code Section 33487 by $3,907. The calculation was based on the net amount received by the RDA instead of the gross apportionment as required by the Code. The transfer to the low-income housing fund was properly calculated for fiscal year 1999/00. 9
F9:
It was noted during a review of Parlier’s financial statements that redevelopment notes receivable in the amount of $1,257,180 were erroneously listed in the general long-term debt account group in the 1998/99 statements. These notes receivable were properly reclassified by Parlier staff in the 1999/00 statements, which resulted in a $1,257,180 increase in the capital projects beginning fund balance; however, there was no disclosure explaining this material change.
F10a:
According to Parlier’s City Manager, all redevelopment loan programs must be approved by the RDA Board, which is Parlier’s City Council. We reviewed all available loan files for the sixteen redevelopment loans issued by Parlier as identified below, which were made between 1993 and 1996. There are nine individual loans and seven commercial loans. Based on documentation provided, it could not be determined that any of the loans were properly approved by the RDA Board. The Executive Director of the RDA is authorized to execute loan documents on behalf of the RDA, and we verified that he did sign agreements for all of the loans except as noted in Findings #10b, c and d below. In addition, based on information provided in loan files, we could not determine if any of the borrowers met the RDA criteria needed to obtain the loans. The City Manager stated that it is unlikely that any of the borrowers would not meet the criteria due to Parlier’s demographics. In addition, both the City Manager and Finance Director stated that there may be additional RDA loans that they do not know about. They said that loan files were incomplete when they began working for the City, and they had to piece together documentation for the loans as it was located. Based on the documentation provided, all nine individual loans were charged 5% interest. However, of the six commercial loans that had any supporting documentation (the seventh loan did not), one was charged 4.39% interest, three were charged 5%, and two others were charged 8%. Parlier staff did not know how these various interest rates were determined or why it was decided to charge different borrowers different rates. Based on our review of redevelopment guidelines, no provisions could be found that addressed the matter of interest rates on outstanding loans. In addition, except as noted in Finding #10b, we could not determine that any of the borrowers were related to City officials at the time of the issuance of the loans; however, this should not necessarily be an issue provided all borrowers met RDA loan criteria as addressed above.
F10b:
Nine of the sixteen loans issued by Parlier were “written off” for financial statement purposes and seven were not. Except as noted below, payments on six of these seven loans were received regularly and currently from the borrowers. Four of these six loans were provided to individuals in the amounts of $6,013, $7,000, $13,782, and $15,000. The fifth and sixth loans were commercial loans for $102,000 and $488,000 at a 4.39% and 5% interest rates, respectively. The seventh of these loans, which did not have any supporting documentation, is addressed in Finding #10d. The $15,000 individual loan noted above was issued in 1995 to a relative of the mayor. No payments were received by the RDA until the previous Finance Director contacted the borrower in April 1997 requesting copies of loan documents, which Parlier did not have at that time. Shortly after that, the borrower began to make regular payments on the loan and has continued making payments through the date of this review. These loan payments are included in a schedule in our workpapers. In addition, based on our review of loan documentation provided by the City, the agreement for this $15,000 loan was signed only by the borrower. Therefore, it is not clear whether the loan was properly executed by the Executive Director, or whether the loan was properly approved by the RDA Board as addressed in finding #10a. Based on documentation provided, we did find evidence that the Executive Director authorized $5,000 of the loan, because he approved two checks issued on this loan totaling $5,000.
F10c:
One of eight reportable conditions in Parlier’s 1998/99 audit report stated “The RDA has made numerous redevelopment loans to individuals and businesses. Many of these are totally non- performing.” The corresponding recommendation stated “Staff should contact each delinquent borrower to determine if stronger collection action is required, or if the loan cannot be reasonably collected, then it should be written off.” Parlier’s response was “RDA receivables were turned over to a professional collection service. Collection of the majority of housing loans is not possible, since the loans were not secured by real property. The issue of whether to pursue or forgive these loans is a policy for the Council to pursue.” 11 For 1999/00 financial statement purposes, the RDA “wrote off” four commercial loans and five individual loans totaling $46,736. Based on information provided, Parlier’s City Council did not approve writing off these loans, although it was disclosed in Parlier’s 1999/00 financial statements that the “City wrote off” the loans. During our review, Parlier staff explained that it was not the City’s intention to officially write off loans as they just wanted to report loans for financial statement purposes net of amounts considered to be uncollectible, and they are continuing to pursue collection of these loans. Based on information provided during our review, Parlier referred the delinquent loans to one collection agency who declined to pursue collection of the loans. According to Parlier staff, based on that collection agency’s response that these loans were not collectible, it was decided not to try to obtain further collection agency services. As of the date of this review, Parlier has not referred these loans to any other collection agency. The RDA continues to send invoices monthly on the “written off” loans to all of the individual borrowers but to none of the commercial borrowers, which, according to the City Manager, are no longer in business. However, no payments have been made by the loan recipients in several years. Information received on these “written off” loans is indicated below. The loan type is designated by a C for Commercial or I for Individual as follows: Loan Loan Loan Interest Unpaid Date of Type Year Loan Recipient Amount Rate Balance Last Pmt C 1993 El01 $12,500 8% $10,000 7/97 C 1993 Gor02 5,500 8% 4,940 11/93 C 1995 Sal03 2,390 5% 1,647 1/98 C 1995 Ant04 2,550 5% 513 7/97 I 1995 Mar05 5,000 5% 3,062 4/97 I 1995 And06 3,044 5% 2,639 4/97 I 1995 Noe07 2,500 5% 2,048 12/96 I 1996 Elo08 14,430 5% 14,430 None I 1996 Man09 7,683 5% 7,457 12/96 Total $55,597 $46,736 In addition, based on our review of the related loan documentation, the following exceptions were noted for these “written-off” loans: 1. The signed loan agreement for loan recipient Gor02 specified a loan amount of $4,000, but the amortization schedule included in the documentation provided an amended loan total of $5,500, yet there was no authorized amendment to the loan agreement. 12 2. The loan documentation for loan recipient El01 (El01) did not contain a loan agreement but contained other miscellaneous documents including a 1993 request from the attorney in fact for a $12,500 loan; an incomplete and unofficial copy of a 1993 RDA minutes indicating that the RDA Board approved a $12,000 loan to El01, and a copy of a $12,500 check signed by the RDA Executive Director and made out to El01 in 1993. Therefore, there was a conflict between the $12,000 amount that appeared to have been approved by the RDA Board and the $12,500 check approved by the Executive Director.
F10d:
During our review of the seven outstanding loans that were not “written off”, we noted that the financial statements disclosed that “…the Agency has a receivable … relating to low-income housing assistance provided in prior years. As long as …” the borrower “…continues renting to low-income individuals, they will be required to pay back a discounted amount equaling the annual installments, without interest, in the amount of $83,418 beginning in December 2013.” Parlier staff was able to provide us with a recorded deed of trust for this loan in the amount of $1,668,366; however, they could not provide a copy of the loan agreement. Therefore, we were not able to verify whether the borrower has complied with the terms of the agreement or whether the agreement was properly approved as discussed in finding #10a. Also, we were not able to determine whether interest will accrue if the borrower does not continue renting to low-income individuals or any other details about the loan.
F11:
It was noted during fieldwork that reimbursement requests submitted to the Fresno County Public Works Department were properly supported by invoices to outside entities. However, transactions were not properly recorded in the City of Parlier’s general ledger. Payments made by Fresno County to Parlier during fiscal year 1998/99 were understated in Parlier’s CDBG general ledger by $14,271.61, thereby understating CDBG revenues on the 1998/99 financial statements. The difference was due to a check issued by Fresno County in the amount of $149,271.61 on May 13, 1999. It was confirmed that Parlier received and endorsed the check for $149,271.61; however, only $135,000 of this amount was recorded in Parlier’s CDBG fund. The balance of $14,271.61 was recorded in Parlier’s general fund. Also, we were not able to trace 2 of 30 (6%) invoices totaling $4,370 to Parlier’s CDBG fund. However, we were able to confirm with the vendor that the invoices had been paid. Parlier staff has not been able to provide information regarding where these expenditures were recorded. Additionally, during a test of CDBG expenditures recorded in the general ledger, Parlier staff were not able to locate supporting documentation for 2 of 8 (25%) expenditures tested. Accurate and complete records are essential for restricted revenue funds to ensure continued funding and enhance internal controls.
F12:
During a review of Parlier’s financial statements for fiscal years 1998/99 and 1999/00, it was noted that the Child Development Fund listed expenditures for capital projects, which is not in compliance with the terms of the grant. Further analysis found that capital expenditures were not made in violation of the grant provisions. Instead, expenditures were not properly classified in the general ledger or the financial statements. 14
F13:
During a review of grant agreements for fiscal years 1998/99 and 1999/00, it was determined that grant expenditures recorded in the general fund and reported in the financial statements were in compliance with grant provisions except for a 1998/99 expenditure of $582.50 for engineering expenses.
F14:
During a review of the general ledger it was determined that expenditures do not agree with reports submitted to the State. The general ledger for fiscal year 1999/00 reports grant revenues of $283,950.97 plus $10,216.73 interest revenue for a total of $294,167.70. The general ledger also indicates total expenditures of $81,966.58 for 1999/00. The audit report sent to the State, which was prepared by the subcontractor’s CPA, indicates costs of $1,094,953.00 and revenue received of $72,808.00 for 1999/00. It appears that this audit report was prepared to reflect revenues and expenditures of the subcontractor and not the City of Parlier’s Child Development revenues and expenditures.
F15:
During the review, it was noted that payments made by the State Controller’s Office (SCO) to Parlier, which were posted on the SCO’s website did not agree with totals recorded in Parlier’s accounting system for fiscal years 1998/99 and 1999/00. For fiscal year 1998/99, the SCO recorded payments of $197,403.36 and Parlier recorded revenues of $218,610.40 for a variance of $21,207.04. For fiscal year 1999/00, the SCO recorded payments of $200,512.18 and Parlier recorded revenues of $202,545.85 for a variance of $2,033.67. Based on our review and documentation provided we could not determine whether the variances were due to timing differences or other factors.
F18:
During a review of the audit report issued by an independent accounting firm for fiscal year 1998/99, it was noted that the report contained an unqualified opinion despite the insufficiently supported expenditures discussed in findings #1-3 and the understated revenues discussed above. The same firm is conducting an audit of the Local Transportation fund for fiscal year 1999/00 but has not yet issued their report. During a conversation on March 26, 2001 with a staff member of the independent firm, the staff member said that the firm is questioning the method that Parlier uses to apply administrative overhead costs to this fund. The staff member also stated that the 1999/00 report will contain findings and recommendations related to the overhead application process.
F19:
Parlier’s Finance Director said that the City uses LLEBG money to pay for overtime expenditures in the Police Department since the amount of the grant is not enough to hire an additional police officer. Although overtime used to increase or enhance police services is an appropriate expenditure for this grant; based on information reviewed, we could not determine that overtime expended was an inappropriate use of grant monies. One officer’s salary is charged to the fund as an equivalent to the law enforcement overtime costs incurred outside of the fund. The amount of the 1998 grant was $19,623 and overtime for that period was $92,705. The amount of the 1999 grant was $19,097 and overtime for that period was $65,135. The Finance Director stated that he spoke with personnel in the US Department of Justice (DOJ) who told him that he can account for the fund in this manner as long as he can support the amount of overtime claimed on the grant. We contacted the DOJ and were told that this practice is not appropriate. DOJ staff stated that the actual expenditures paid with LLEBG money must be recorded in the fund established to account for the grant. During our review, expenditures for equipment were tested. During fiscal year 1998/99, 4 of 5 (80%) equipment expenditures tested did not appear to be appropriate for fund purposes based on information provided. As confirmed with the DOJ, LLEBG money is to be used to increase or enhance law enforcement services. The expenditures questioned include chairs for $1,356.68, rug runners for $343.73, and office supplies for $161.61. 17
F22:
During a test of expenditures for fiscal year 1999/00, the City of Parlier was not able to provide support for $769.50 charged to salaries and benefits recorded through a journal entry. The City’s Finance Director stated that the support for the journal entry could not be located.
F23:
Based on our review, another COPS program (AB3229, Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund) was charged $886.13 for an officer’s salary that was also included in a Universal Hiring Grant report submitted to the DOJ for the period 10/1/98 to 3/31/99. In addition, the salary included in this report also included overtime which is not allowable according to Universal Hiring Grant provisions.
Additional Recommendations
99
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
To be in compliance with the above restricted revenue requirements and regulations and to eliminate the appearance that restricted revenues are being used to fund general fund expenditures, the City of Parlier should ensure that such restricted revenues are clearly used for the related program purposes. Costs charged to the special revenue funds should reflect actual costs attributable to the program and should be supported by applicable documentation such as time tracking. The City of Parlier should obtain clarification from the applicable regulatory agency to determine if their current cost allocation methodology is acceptable.
R2:
In the absence of fully supportable cost allocation methodologies or regulatory approval of existing cost allocation methodologies, the City of Parlier should reverse the $268,224 and $393,602 in overhead costs charged to the special revenue funds listed above. In addition, any other insufficiently supported cost allocations that were not noted in this report should also be reversed.
R3:
In order to provide for sound accounting and budgeting practices and to ensure a clear audit trail, appropriations and expenditures should be initially recorded in the originating department/fund where the activities are incurred.
R4:
The City of Parlier Finance Department should implement procedures that provide segregation of duties related to accounts payable. Specifically, the person who approves payments should not be the same person who signs checks and submits requests for payments. When it is necessary for the 7 Finance Director to submit a request for payment, the payment should be sufficiently reviewed and approved by another authorized staff member (e.g. the City Manager).
R5:
To strengthen internal controls over expenditures in special revenue funds and to ensure that funding does not need to be reimbursed or that future funding is withheld, the City of Parlier should ensure that program costs incurred are fully supported and are in compliance with program requirements. This can be achieved in part by requiring that receipts for credit card purchases be retained for supporting documentation and submitted to the Finance Department for review and approval.
R6:
To prevent losses and enhance internal controls, the City of Parlier should immediately implement procedures to ensure that the City’s charge accounts and credit cards are not used for personal purchases. Parlier Redevelopment Agency (RDA) Compliance issues involving redevelopment funding are addressed by the State Controller’s Office, the State Attorney General and the Court. Based on Section 33080.8 of California’s Health & Safety Code, the State Controller compiles lists of redevelopment agencies that appear to have uncorrected major violations, based on the annual independent audit reports filed by such agencies. The Attorney General can pursue filing lawsuits against redevelopment agencies having uncorrected violations, and the Court can prohibit the agency from performing various activities until the Court determines that the major violations are corrected. Since the RDA’s annual audit reports for 1998/99 and 1999/00 contained unqualified opinions, it is unlikely that it was determined that Parlier had any major violations, and it is not known what actions, if any, the above regulatory entities would take as a result of the redevelopment findings noted in this separate report. This report may affect the findings and opinion of independent accounting firms performing future redevelopment audits; however, it is not known if these
R7:
In compliance with the above code sections and to ensure that funding is not withheld, the RDA should immediately submit a 5-year plan to the State Controller’s Office and submit all future required documents when due.
R8:
In order to comply with Health & Safety Code Section 33487 and to ensure that funding is not withheld, the RDA should transfer $3,907 to the low income housing fund for fiscal year 1998/99 from the RDA Capital Projects Fund.
R9:
In order to explain material changes in the financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, the City of Parlier should provide adequate disclosure in the notes to the financial statements. For example, Parlier could have identified the above increase in the capital projects fund balance as a “restated” fund balance in the financial statements. In addition, a note disclosure should have been provided to reconcile the restated fund balance to the prior year ending balance. The disclosure should have also explained the reason(s) for the restatement. Parlier should consider this for future reporting purposes.
R10:
a, b, c, and d To ensure that funding is not withheld, the RDA should ensure all proper procedures and legal requirements are followed when issuing loans and all appropriate documents are maintained in their loan files and that all loans are properly authorized. Parlier staff should review all available loan records since the formation of the RDA to try to locate all missing loan documentation and criteria information on the sixteen known loans addressed above. Parlier staff should also determine if there are any additional outstanding loans not currently known that should be followed up on. Also, even though Parlier has indicated that the commercial borrowers of the “written off” loans are out of business, Parlier should continue to bill the business owners until these loans are officially written off by the City Council. Proper procedures must be followed to assure that all redevelopment loans are repaid timely and in full. Redevelopment loans determined to be uncollectible should be written off by the City Council and referred to a collection agency as appropriate. Parlier should consider following up with other collection agencies or pursue other means of recouping unpaid balances, e.g. through small claims processes, other lawsuits, etc. In addition, Parlier should ensure and be able to support that interest charged on Redevelopment loans is charged fairly and equitably. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
R11:
To enhance internal controls, ensure the accuracy of the City’s accounting records, and ensure continued funding, Parlier should implement formal procedures to ensure proper accounting for and reconciliation of restricted revenues. In addition, all transactions and supporting documentation must be maintained until such records have been audited by all appropriate oversight agencies. Finally, the City of Parlier should make the appropriate general ledger entries within the special revenue fund to record these transactions. Child Development Grant
R12:
The City of Parlier should post transactions to proper accounts and subsequently classify expenditures appropriately in their financial statements.
R13:
In order to comply with terms of the Child Development Grant, the City of Parlier should reimburse the Child Development fund the $582.50 noted above and only make expenditures appropriate for grant purposes from this fund.
R14:
In order to comply with terms of the Child Development Grant, the City of Parlier should obtain an annual audit of the Child Development Program that conforms to the terms of the grant agreement and reports on Child Development revenues and expenditures of the City of Parlier. In addition, the City of Parlier should consistently review any audit reports prepared for their program prior to finalization of the report. Measure “C” – Transportation Authority, Sales Tax Proceeds It was noted during our review that insufficiently supported overhead allocations were applied to the Measure “C” special revenue fund. See findings and recommendations #1 - 3. Highway User Tax (Gas Tax)
R15:
In order to properly account for and report Gas Tax revenues, the City of Parlier must reconcile any variances between revenues paid by a funding entity and revenues recorded by the City. Local Transportation Fund
R16:
In order to properly administer the Local Transportation Fund and ensure proper financial statement presentation, the City of Parlier must reconcile the Local Transportation fund to receipts and implement procedures to ensure that all transactions are properly recorded and reported.
R17:
The City of Parlier should either provide supporting documentation for the $70,702 reduction of revenues or reverse this adjustment as appropriate. 16
R19:
The City of Parlier should contact the DOJ for written clarification of what constitutes acceptable expenditures for this grant. The City of Parlier should comply with the information provided by the DOJ related to this audit finding. Unauthorized expenditures of grant funds must be reimbursed or a waiver should be requested from the grantor agency. COPS Grant AB3229
R20:
The City of Parlier should ensure that actual interest is allocated to the COPS fund for 1998/99, 1999/00 and thereafter. In addition, the City should ensure that adequate interest allocation methodologies are used to ensure that all restricted revenues are accurately calculated, allocated and available to be used for restricted program purposes or returned to regulatory agencies as necessary in the event of non-compliance with program requirements.
R21:
In compliance with the provisions of Government Code Section 30061 as stated above, the City of Parlier should ensure that the appropriation of COPS grant monies for 2000/01 and thereafter are separately presented to and approved by Parlier’s City Council as required.
R22:
The City of Parlier should maintain support for all financial transactions that affect special revenue funds as well as other funds until all oversight agencies conduct periodic audits. Unauthorized expenditures of grant funds must be reimbursed or a waiver should be requested from the grantor agency. Universal Hiring Grant (COPS)
R23:
The City of Parlier should implement procedures to ensure that expenditures are not claimed/reported twice and that overtime costs are not claimed in compliance with Universal 19 Hiring Grant provisions. Parlier should also adjust the above reports and charges to reverse duplicated expenditures and inappropriate overtime costs. Office of Emergency Services (OES)
R24:
The City of Parlier should investigate the difference of $2,404 between revenues reported in their general ledger for OES revenues and the amount of payments confirmed through the State OES or have support for the variance readily available.
R25:
The City of Parlier should immediately revise the Project Completion and Certification Report to reflect actual costs for the disaster period. They should provide support for costs claimed or return $36,136 claimed inappropriately to the State OES. 20
R26:
To ensure accuracy of records, enhance internal controls, and ensure the availability of current and future funding, the City of Parlier should properly maintain files containing supporting documentation for transactions and retain these records until audited by all appropriate oversight agencies. Transportation Equity Act No reportable conditions were noted during our review of the Transportation Equity Act, which provides funding for street improvements. Based on our review, only $14,761 was spent for this program in 1999/00 for preliminary engineering on street improvement projects, which is in compliance with program provisions.
R27:
The Parlier City Manager confer with the City Council before engaging in city projects costing over $10,000 as required by PMC.
R28:
Bidding and contracting of services be in compliance with PMC.
R29:
The City Manager and City Council be held responsible for implementing the directives set forth in PMC.
R30:
Compensation of employees and/or contractors be in compliance with existing State and Federal laws. PARLIER ANIMAL CONTROL Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury received complaints relating to animal control and conditions at the City of Parlier Animal Shelter. Recommendations regarding animal control and the animal shelter were included in the 1997/1998 Grand Jury Report. The City Manager responded as follows: “The City will continue efforts to create innovative ways to obtain funding and attract community support for animal control operations and facilities, this shall include seeking grants, encouraging participation by local organizations and volunteers, the Humane Society and SPCA.” “The City will continue to enforce leash and licensing laws and to collect fees and/or fines to generate revenue for animal control services. The city code has animal control codes, which it enforces; the city has adopted animal licensing fees and fines to offset some of the costs of these activities. The City Council reviews fees on an annual basis and adjusts them, as it deems appropriate. The City will review and update its animal control codes and fees during fiscal 1998-1999.”
R31:
The City hire an animal control officer.
R32:
The animal shelter be relocated within the city to make it more accessible.
R33:
Leash and licensing laws be enforced.
R34:
The City educate the community regarding licensing, vaccinations, leash laws, spaying and neutering.
R35:
The City establish a fee schedule for costs incurred in animal control.
R36:
All record keeping relating to animal control be current.
R37:
State guidelines be followed for the ultimate disposal of any animal.
R38:
Polaroid photographs of mi pounded dogs be posted at city hall in order for citizens to see if their dog has been impounded. CARPETING OF PARLIER CITY HALL Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury investigated a complaint from a concerned citizen about the method used by the City Manager in the purchase and installation of carpet in the Parlier City Hall.
R39:
The Parlier Municipal Code and Purchasing Ordinance be followed.
R40:
Shortcuts that violate the existing code not be considered. CODE ENFORCEMENT IN PARLIER Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury investigated a written complaint from a citizen that cited the lack of code enforcement in the City of Parlier.
R41:
The present policy of code enforcement be changed to a more aggressive system which addresses all violations existing in the City of Parlier.
R42:
Written policy and procedures be developed to provide for the tracking and documented resolution of all complaints.
R43:
The city hire a code enforcement officer, supported with sufficient staff.
R44:
Adequate training be provided for the code enforcement officer and staff, including instruction in property owner and tenant rights.
R45:
A written manual providing guidelines on how to resolve code enforcement disputes be developed and implemented.
R46:
The City of Parlier inform and educate the public on current code enforcement policy.
R47:
A current copy of the Parlier Municipal Code be available for public use at City Hall and the public library. PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT WITHIN THE CITY OF PARLIER Introduction An employee of the City of Parlier provided testimony to the 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury regarding an unfair disciplinary experience while employed by the city. Subsequently, the Grand Jury received additional testimony from other current and former employees who indicated they too had not been treated in an equitable manner.
R48:
The City of Parlier formulate and implement written policies and procedures regarding labor relations.
R49:
The City develop written job classifications for all positions and issue them to all employees.
R50:
The City require department heads to adhere to the PMC sections covering their areas of responsibility.
R51:
A current copy of the PMC be made available to City Council members.
R52:
The City prepare, and provide to all employees, a handbook informing them of employee rights as stated in the PMC.
R53:
Employees be advised, in writing, of their rights of representation at all disciplinary hearings.
R54:
Written annual job performance evaluations of all employees be conducted, a copy placed in the employee’s permanent file and a copy provided to the employee.
R55:
A written salary schedule for each position be prepared and a copy made available to each employee.
R56:
The city develop and issue a written policy regarding advancement and salary increases. NEPOTISM IN THE CITY OF PARLIER Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury received several complaints from employees of the City of Parlier regarding nepotism as it exists in the city and the effect it has on their work environment. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary definition of nepotism is “favoritism shown to relatives or close friends by those in power (as by giving them jobs).” Nepotism is defined by the Parlier Municipal Code (PMC) Section 4.01.080 as “Applicants for employment with the city who are related within the third degree, by blood or marriage, to a person currently employed by the city, shall not be employed in the same department as the applicant’s relative, if it is determined on a case-by case review that employment of the applicant in the same department as his or her relative would create or aggravate problems relating to safety, security, supervision, morale or conflicts of interest in such department.”
R57:
PMC section 4.01.080 be rewritten to more clearly state the city’s policy on nepotism as defined by Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, “favoritism shown to relatives or close friends by those in power (as by giving them jobs).”
R58:
The policy of the city be to recruit, employ, and promote the best-qualified individuals. PARLIER PERSONNEL HEARING BOARD Introduction During the year 2000, a decision was made by the City manager to establish a Personnel Hearing Board (PHB). The Parlier Municipal Code (PMC) Section 4.02. (1997) describes the duties and responsibilities of the Board. Such a Board had never been established. The Board consists of two City Council members and a citizen at large. The purpose of the Board is to hear the final appeal of employees who have been disciplined and have exhausted all options for redress. The citizen at large position is to be filled by an applicant who is a resident of the City and at least 18 years of age. This position is to be noticed and described in the local newspaper and posted at City Hall.
R59:
The current PHB be dissolved.
R60:
The position for citizen at large be advertised (noticed).
R61:
The position for citizen at large be posted at City Hall.
R62:
All citizens who submit applications for this position be given equal consideration. PARLIER POLICE DEPARTMENT Introduction For many years, the Parlier Police Department has suffered from a lack of leadership and corresponding departmental ineffectiveness. The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury has undertaken a review of the causes and possible remedies. During the past 10 years, the City of Parlier has had 13 Chiefs of Police. Turnover by employees has been high due to low pay, low morale and lack of leadership. There have been continuing allegations of corruption, inefficiency and favoritism.
R63:
The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that the Parlier Police Department be closed immediately and the policing of Parlier be contracted with the Fresno County Sheriff. CITY COMMITTEE Rene Lastreto, Chair Robert Boehringer Mikie Kapigian Louis Olais Juliana Pherson Leo Shishmanian 42 CITY COMMITTEE
R64:
Continue the broad public education program to increase awareness of the need to meet recycling goals.
R65:
Tailor educational efforts to target each culture within our community in a way that has proven most effective for that group. FRESNO CITY PARKS SANITATION FACILITIES Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury inspected toilet facilities at Roeding Park, Woodward Park and six neighborhood parks. Conditions reviewed: Ø Cleanliness and cleaning schedules Ø Condition of fixtures and stalls Ø Privacy locks on toilet doors Ø Presence of soap Ø Presence of hand drying materials or machines Ø Plumbing leaks
R66:
Increase the budget to provide for care of the new parks.
R67:
Add personnel to help maintain the park sanitation facilities.
R68:
Provide adequate funds for replacement of fixtures with more durable ones. CITY COUNCIL INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDS Introduction The Fresno City Council discretionary infrastructure budget was examined by the 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury.
R69:
Distribution of the City Council discretionary infrastructure funds be reviewed and approved by the City Manager prior to disbursement. 48
R70:
Consideration be given to reducing the current allotment from $140,000 to $70,000 per district.
R71:
Carryover of any unused infrastructure funds be eliminated.
R72:
Future Grand Juries continue to monitor the program. CITY OF FRESNO WATER METERS Introduction Upon review of the 1999/2000 Fresno County Grand Jury report, the 2000/2001 Grand Jury investigated the current status of water availability and management.
R73:
The Mayor, City Council and all civic groups unite to promote the installation of water meters.
R74:
Homeowners and businesses that currently have meters be excluded from further meter installation costs.
R75:
The city utilities department continue to publish average water bills for various family sizes with and without meters.
R76:
Water police be reactivated to prevent water waste. BASEBALL/MULTI-USE STADIUM Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury reviewed the reports of the 1998/1999 and 1999/2000 Grand Juries. During the tenure of the present Grand Jury, the Fresno City Council approved the stadium project. Work has commenced on the site.
R77:
The City require an annual independent audit of the financial statements of FDG.
R78:
All seventeen dates the city controls be devoted to for-profit events to enhance the City’s revenues.
R79:
The public be assured of coordinated parking and security by FDG and the City. CITY OF FRESNO FIRE DEPARTMENT Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury investigated the City of Fresno Fire Department's (FFD) rating as established by the Insurance Services Office, Inc. (ISO). This organization evaluates the level of fire protection, the ability to receive and answer alarms, and the adequacy of water supply. A maximum of 100% credit is available. The percentages are broken into ten ISO Public Protection Classes. Class 1 equates to the top rating of 90-100%. Class 10 equates to the lowest rating, 0-9%. When last evaluated in 1995, the City of Fresno was rated a Class 4, achieving a rating of 66.07%. These classifications were developed for fire insurance rating purposes only. Insurance companies may use the agency’s classification to assist in setting property insurance premiums.
R80:
The fire department have a budgeted vehicle replacement plan. The city should consider replacement of vehicles after seven or eight years while they still have significant value on the used fire vehicle market.
R81:
The inventory of fire fighting tools be increased so that all spare engines/trucks are fully equipped.
R82:
The city recognize the need to increase the number of fire fighting personnel.
R83:
The City of Fresno revisit its traffic light pre-emption plan and budget funds to complete this program.
R84:
The Fresno Fire Department develop a plan to reduce response times to the NFPA standards. COUNTY COMMITTEE Rick Allen, Chair James Cotton Fred Goldring Ann Thaxter James Torosian Donald Wilson 57 COUNTY COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury County Committee’s primary function is to oversee all aspects of county government, incorporated cities not including Fresno, and special districts. Among the committee’s responsibilities is to insure that county monies and operations are handled in an efficient, effective and appropriate manner that best serve the interest of the citizens. The Grand Jury received requests for inquiries into various government operations within the County of Fresno. The County Committee conducted inquiries of the following: A. The operations and management of the Office of the Public Administrator/Public Guardian. B. Operation of the Coroner’s Office. Allegations of misconduct regarding utility bill collection policies in the City of Mendota. C. Complaints regarding the management of the City of Parlier. (The result of this investigation is presented in this report under the heading - Ad Hoc Committee, City of Parlier). D. The operations of the Elkhorn Correctional Facility. E. The need for a Briefing Book for newly elected members of the Fresno County Board of Supervisors and Fresno City Council. In the course of conducting these inquiries the committee gathered facts, interviewed many citizens, officials, department heads and employees of the County of Fresno and cities within the County of Fresno. During the process of the investigations, the committee made numerous field trips to government facilities within the county. OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC ADMINSTRATOR/PUBLIC GUARDIAN Introduction The 1999/2000 Fresno County Grand Jury Report prompted a review by this jury panel of the Public Administrator/Public Guardian Office (PA/PG).
R85:
The PA/PG evaluate the use of the County Treasury Pool.
R86:
Storage be improved for case records and client assets. Construction of an on-site storage building would eliminate the need for expensive off-site mini-storage.
R87:
Evaluate the need for additional deputies due to the implementation of the new Elder Abuse Referral Law SB 1742.
R88:
PA/PG add the services of a Registered Nurse to staff. This person would aid in evaluating and inspecting medical care facilities as well as review proposed client treatment and prescription history.
R89:
PA/PG evaluate the purchase of Long Term Care Insurance for those clients who would be eligible. OFFICE OF THE FRESNO COUNTY CORONER Introduction The 1999/2000 Fresno County Grand Jury report prompted an unannounced visit to the facilities of the Fresno County Coroner on December 19, 2000 by the 2000/2001 Grand Jury.
R90:
A plan be developed for a new morgue before the County reaches a crisis situation.
R91:
A new commercial washing machine be purchased for on-site laundering needs and/or use a commercial laundry.
R92:
Reference be made to the Grand Jury reports of 1998/1999 and 1999/2000 regarding the need for improvement of record storage. MENDOTA UTILITY BILL COLLECTIONS Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury received a written complaint regarding bill collection policies in the City of Mendota. The complaint included the following allegations: A. Some employees of the City of Mendota had not paid their water/utility bill for a period in excess of one year. B. Some elected officials were not making timely payments of their water/utility bills. C. This activity had been disclosed by the City Manager and/or City Attorney. It was alleged that the entire City office staff was involved. D. The 2000/2001 Grand Jury issued a subpoena for certain records covering the payment of water/utility bills by current and former Mendota city employees and elected officials. These records were provided to the Grand Jury on August 30, 2000.
R93:
The monthly shutoff list and notices be reviewed by an individual independent of the accounting department of the City of Mendota.
R94:
The subject of outstanding utility bills be reviewed during the annual financial audit conducted by an outside auditor.
R95:
The City establish and maintain training for all employees on the use of the Municipal Code and written procedures and policies regarding the collection of utility bills. ELKHORN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury followed up on the recommendation of the 1998/1999 Grand Jury to monitor the operation of the Elkhorn Correctional Facility (Juvenile Boot Camp). The Grand Jury toured the Elkhorn Correctional Facility (ECF) on September 1, 2000. The director and support staff provided a briefing on the history of the facility and its goals. Information was received from Elkhorn management, members of the Fresno County Board of Supervisors, the Chief Probation Officer and officials of the City of Fresno.
R96:
The Fresno County Board of Supervisors review commitments made in the February 11, 1997, letter issued by a former County Chief Administrative Officer and assure the neighbors of ECF that the County intends to honor these commitments. If certain commitments cannot be met, the County should negotiate with the neighbors to reach an equitable arrangement.
R97:
The Board of Supervisors continue to fund and maintain the present level of services at ECF.
R98:
The City of Fresno continue to fund Elkhorn Correctional Facility at no less than the current rate of $1,000,000 per year with no sunset provision.
R99:
The County provide boot camp facilities for female juvenile offenders.
R100:
Future Grand Juries continue to monitor the activities at the Elkhorn Correctional Facility. BRIEFING BOOK FOR NEWLY ELECTED OFFICIALS Introduction As the result of testimony received from newly elected members of the Fresno City Council and Fresno County Board of Supervisors, the Grand Jury reviewed the procedure for providing information to these individuals prior to assuming office.
Findings & Recommendations
19 findings
F4:
During fieldwork it was noted that a check was issued to the Finance Director on August 6, 1998 in the amount of $1,504.31 for training reimbursement. The Finance Director also authorized the payment and signed the check. It is the City Manager’s policy to approve the warrant register, which he believes provides proper segregation of duties. However, based on our review, the warrant register does not provide details of each payment, just check totals. Therefore, the City Manager’s approval of the warrant register does not indicate that he approved the contents of the payment. At a minimum, internal controls require segregation of duties which provides an adequate level of review. Although this can be difficult in a small office like Parlier’s Finance Department, the City Manager should review and approve the payment contents as well as payment totals, when the Finance Director is the payee.
F5:
It was noted during fieldwork that Parlier’s City Manager and Finance Director utilize City credit cards. Purchases for office equipment, travel and meetings, etc. are made using these credit cards, and in 9 out of 11 (81%) credit card statements reviewed, receipts were not attached to the statements to support the expenditures. Only vendor names and handwritten general descriptions were included on the statements. We further tested 3 of the above 9 statements and determined that $117.11 of the insufficiently supported expenditures on a statement totaling $684.51 was attributable to Parlier’s Redevelopment Agency. In addition, $525.17 and $177.07 of the expenditures on two other statements totaling $5,037.59 and $1,980.00, respectively, were attributable to the Measure C – Transportation Authority, Sales Tax Proceeds fund (Measure C). In addition, when costs are charged to the Measure C program that cannot be substantiated and, therefore may not be in compliance with program requirements, Parlier’s future allocations may be withheld and reimbursements of such funds to the Fresno County Auditor-Controller/Treasurer- Tax Collector may be required. Such funds would only be released when exceptions are resolved and Parlier is in compliance with program requirements. Compliance issues regarding redevelopment agencies are addressed by various regulatory agencies as explained in the Parlier Redevelopment Agency section on .
F6:
It was noted during testing of expenditures, that the Finance Director used the City of Parlier’s Office Depot credit card on two separate occasions to purchase personal items such as movie videos, games, a chair, bookcases, etc. totaling $768.06. Both the Finance Director and City Manager stated the card was used by mistake and that actions were taken to reimburse the City through payroll deductions. However, when this matter was brought to the Finance Director’s attention by our audits staff, the Finance Director researched and determined that Parlier had not yet been reimbursed. Although this matter should have been followed up more timely, on April 2, 2001, the Finance Director did reimburse the City $914.77 which includes interest. 8
F7:
Health & Safety Code Section 33490 requires redevelopment agencies to submit a 5-year plan to the State Controller’s Office on or before December 31, 1994 and every 5 years thereafter. The RDA submitted a 5-year plan in 1994. However, based on information provided, Parlier’s 5-year plan, which was due on or before December 31,1999, had not been submitted to the State Controller’s Office as of the date of this review.
F8:
It was noted that the RDA appropriately recorded $747,015 in revenues for fiscal year 1998/99. However, only $145,496 of this amount was transferred to the low-income housing fund, which was less than the 20% required by Health & Safety Code Section 33487 by $3,907. The calculation was based on the net amount received by the RDA instead of the gross apportionment as required by the Code. The transfer to the low-income housing fund was properly calculated for fiscal year 1999/00. 9
F9:
It was noted during a review of Parlier’s financial statements that redevelopment notes receivable in the amount of $1,257,180 were erroneously listed in the general long-term debt account group in the 1998/99 statements. These notes receivable were properly reclassified by Parlier staff in the 1999/00 statements, which resulted in a $1,257,180 increase in the capital projects beginning fund balance; however, there was no disclosure explaining this material change.
F10a:
According to Parlier’s City Manager, all redevelopment loan programs must be approved by the RDA Board, which is Parlier’s City Council. We reviewed all available loan files for the sixteen redevelopment loans issued by Parlier as identified below, which were made between 1993 and 1996. There are nine individual loans and seven commercial loans. Based on documentation provided, it could not be determined that any of the loans were properly approved by the RDA Board. The Executive Director of the RDA is authorized to execute loan documents on behalf of the RDA, and we verified that he did sign agreements for all of the loans except as noted in Findings #10b, c and d below. In addition, based on information provided in loan files, we could not determine if any of the borrowers met the RDA criteria needed to obtain the loans. The City Manager stated that it is unlikely that any of the borrowers would not meet the criteria due to Parlier’s demographics. In addition, both the City Manager and Finance Director stated that there may be additional RDA loans that they do not know about. They said that loan files were incomplete when they began working for the City, and they had to piece together documentation for the loans as it was located. Based on the documentation provided, all nine individual loans were charged 5% interest. However, of the six commercial loans that had any supporting documentation (the seventh loan did not), one was charged 4.39% interest, three were charged 5%, and two others were charged 8%. Parlier staff did not know how these various interest rates were determined or why it was decided to charge different borrowers different rates. Based on our review of redevelopment guidelines, no provisions could be found that addressed the matter of interest rates on outstanding loans. In addition, except as noted in Finding #10b, we could not determine that any of the borrowers were related to City officials at the time of the issuance of the loans; however, this should not necessarily be an issue provided all borrowers met RDA loan criteria as addressed above.
F10b:
Nine of the sixteen loans issued by Parlier were “written off” for financial statement purposes and seven were not. Except as noted below, payments on six of these seven loans were received regularly and currently from the borrowers. Four of these six loans were provided to individuals in the amounts of $6,013, $7,000, $13,782, and $15,000. The fifth and sixth loans were commercial loans for $102,000 and $488,000 at a 4.39% and 5% interest rates, respectively. The seventh of these loans, which did not have any supporting documentation, is addressed in Finding #10d. The $15,000 individual loan noted above was issued in 1995 to a relative of the mayor. No payments were received by the RDA until the previous Finance Director contacted the borrower in April 1997 requesting copies of loan documents, which Parlier did not have at that time. Shortly after that, the borrower began to make regular payments on the loan and has continued making payments through the date of this review. These loan payments are included in a schedule in our workpapers. In addition, based on our review of loan documentation provided by the City, the agreement for this $15,000 loan was signed only by the borrower. Therefore, it is not clear whether the loan was properly executed by the Executive Director, or whether the loan was properly approved by the RDA Board as addressed in finding #10a. Based on documentation provided, we did find evidence that the Executive Director authorized $5,000 of the loan, because he approved two checks issued on this loan totaling $5,000.
F10c:
One of eight reportable conditions in Parlier’s 1998/99 audit report stated “The RDA has made numerous redevelopment loans to individuals and businesses. Many of these are totally non- performing.” The corresponding recommendation stated “Staff should contact each delinquent borrower to determine if stronger collection action is required, or if the loan cannot be reasonably collected, then it should be written off.” Parlier’s response was “RDA receivables were turned over to a professional collection service. Collection of the majority of housing loans is not possible, since the loans were not secured by real property. The issue of whether to pursue or forgive these loans is a policy for the Council to pursue.” 11 For 1999/00 financial statement purposes, the RDA “wrote off” four commercial loans and five individual loans totaling $46,736. Based on information provided, Parlier’s City Council did not approve writing off these loans, although it was disclosed in Parlier’s 1999/00 financial statements that the “City wrote off” the loans. During our review, Parlier staff explained that it was not the City’s intention to officially write off loans as they just wanted to report loans for financial statement purposes net of amounts considered to be uncollectible, and they are continuing to pursue collection of these loans. Based on information provided during our review, Parlier referred the delinquent loans to one collection agency who declined to pursue collection of the loans. According to Parlier staff, based on that collection agency’s response that these loans were not collectible, it was decided not to try to obtain further collection agency services. As of the date of this review, Parlier has not referred these loans to any other collection agency. The RDA continues to send invoices monthly on the “written off” loans to all of the individual borrowers but to none of the commercial borrowers, which, according to the City Manager, are no longer in business. However, no payments have been made by the loan recipients in several years. Information received on these “written off” loans is indicated below. The loan type is designated by a C for Commercial or I for Individual as follows: Loan Loan Loan Interest Unpaid Date of Type Year Loan Recipient Amount Rate Balance Last Pmt C 1993 El01 $12,500 8% $10,000 7/97 C 1993 Gor02 5,500 8% 4,940 11/93 C 1995 Sal03 2,390 5% 1,647 1/98 C 1995 Ant04 2,550 5% 513 7/97 I 1995 Mar05 5,000 5% 3,062 4/97 I 1995 And06 3,044 5% 2,639 4/97 I 1995 Noe07 2,500 5% 2,048 12/96 I 1996 Elo08 14,430 5% 14,430 None I 1996 Man09 7,683 5% 7,457 12/96 Total $55,597 $46,736 In addition, based on our review of the related loan documentation, the following exceptions were noted for these “written-off” loans: 1. The signed loan agreement for loan recipient Gor02 specified a loan amount of $4,000, but the amortization schedule included in the documentation provided an amended loan total of $5,500, yet there was no authorized amendment to the loan agreement. 12 2. The loan documentation for loan recipient El01 (El01) did not contain a loan agreement but contained other miscellaneous documents including a 1993 request from the attorney in fact for a $12,500 loan; an incomplete and unofficial copy of a 1993 RDA minutes indicating that the RDA Board approved a $12,000 loan to El01, and a copy of a $12,500 check signed by the RDA Executive Director and made out to El01 in 1993. Therefore, there was a conflict between the $12,000 amount that appeared to have been approved by the RDA Board and the $12,500 check approved by the Executive Director.
F10d:
During our review of the seven outstanding loans that were not “written off”, we noted that the financial statements disclosed that “…the Agency has a receivable … relating to low-income housing assistance provided in prior years. As long as …” the borrower “…continues renting to low-income individuals, they will be required to pay back a discounted amount equaling the annual installments, without interest, in the amount of $83,418 beginning in December 2013.” Parlier staff was able to provide us with a recorded deed of trust for this loan in the amount of $1,668,366; however, they could not provide a copy of the loan agreement. Therefore, we were not able to verify whether the borrower has complied with the terms of the agreement or whether the agreement was properly approved as discussed in finding #10a. Also, we were not able to determine whether interest will accrue if the borrower does not continue renting to low-income individuals or any other details about the loan.
F11:
It was noted during fieldwork that reimbursement requests submitted to the Fresno County Public Works Department were properly supported by invoices to outside entities. However, transactions were not properly recorded in the City of Parlier’s general ledger. Payments made by Fresno County to Parlier during fiscal year 1998/99 were understated in Parlier’s CDBG general ledger by $14,271.61, thereby understating CDBG revenues on the 1998/99 financial statements. The difference was due to a check issued by Fresno County in the amount of $149,271.61 on May 13, 1999. It was confirmed that Parlier received and endorsed the check for $149,271.61; however, only $135,000 of this amount was recorded in Parlier’s CDBG fund. The balance of $14,271.61 was recorded in Parlier’s general fund. Also, we were not able to trace 2 of 30 (6%) invoices totaling $4,370 to Parlier’s CDBG fund. However, we were able to confirm with the vendor that the invoices had been paid. Parlier staff has not been able to provide information regarding where these expenditures were recorded. Additionally, during a test of CDBG expenditures recorded in the general ledger, Parlier staff were not able to locate supporting documentation for 2 of 8 (25%) expenditures tested. Accurate and complete records are essential for restricted revenue funds to ensure continued funding and enhance internal controls.
F12:
During a review of Parlier’s financial statements for fiscal years 1998/99 and 1999/00, it was noted that the Child Development Fund listed expenditures for capital projects, which is not in compliance with the terms of the grant. Further analysis found that capital expenditures were not made in violation of the grant provisions. Instead, expenditures were not properly classified in the general ledger or the financial statements. 14
F13:
During a review of grant agreements for fiscal years 1998/99 and 1999/00, it was determined that grant expenditures recorded in the general fund and reported in the financial statements were in compliance with grant provisions except for a 1998/99 expenditure of $582.50 for engineering expenses.
F14:
During a review of the general ledger it was determined that expenditures do not agree with reports submitted to the State. The general ledger for fiscal year 1999/00 reports grant revenues of $283,950.97 plus $10,216.73 interest revenue for a total of $294,167.70. The general ledger also indicates total expenditures of $81,966.58 for 1999/00. The audit report sent to the State, which was prepared by the subcontractor’s CPA, indicates costs of $1,094,953.00 and revenue received of $72,808.00 for 1999/00. It appears that this audit report was prepared to reflect revenues and expenditures of the subcontractor and not the City of Parlier’s Child Development revenues and expenditures.
F15:
During the review, it was noted that payments made by the State Controller’s Office (SCO) to Parlier, which were posted on the SCO’s website did not agree with totals recorded in Parlier’s accounting system for fiscal years 1998/99 and 1999/00. For fiscal year 1998/99, the SCO recorded payments of $197,403.36 and Parlier recorded revenues of $218,610.40 for a variance of $21,207.04. For fiscal year 1999/00, the SCO recorded payments of $200,512.18 and Parlier recorded revenues of $202,545.85 for a variance of $2,033.67. Based on our review and documentation provided we could not determine whether the variances were due to timing differences or other factors.
F18:
During a review of the audit report issued by an independent accounting firm for fiscal year 1998/99, it was noted that the report contained an unqualified opinion despite the insufficiently supported expenditures discussed in findings #1-3 and the understated revenues discussed above. The same firm is conducting an audit of the Local Transportation fund for fiscal year 1999/00 but has not yet issued their report. During a conversation on March 26, 2001 with a staff member of the independent firm, the staff member said that the firm is questioning the method that Parlier uses to apply administrative overhead costs to this fund. The staff member also stated that the 1999/00 report will contain findings and recommendations related to the overhead application process.
F19:
Parlier’s Finance Director said that the City uses LLEBG money to pay for overtime expenditures in the Police Department since the amount of the grant is not enough to hire an additional police officer. Although overtime used to increase or enhance police services is an appropriate expenditure for this grant; based on information reviewed, we could not determine that overtime expended was an inappropriate use of grant monies. One officer’s salary is charged to the fund as an equivalent to the law enforcement overtime costs incurred outside of the fund. The amount of the 1998 grant was $19,623 and overtime for that period was $92,705. The amount of the 1999 grant was $19,097 and overtime for that period was $65,135. The Finance Director stated that he spoke with personnel in the US Department of Justice (DOJ) who told him that he can account for the fund in this manner as long as he can support the amount of overtime claimed on the grant. We contacted the DOJ and were told that this practice is not appropriate. DOJ staff stated that the actual expenditures paid with LLEBG money must be recorded in the fund established to account for the grant. During our review, expenditures for equipment were tested. During fiscal year 1998/99, 4 of 5 (80%) equipment expenditures tested did not appear to be appropriate for fund purposes based on information provided. As confirmed with the DOJ, LLEBG money is to be used to increase or enhance law enforcement services. The expenditures questioned include chairs for $1,356.68, rug runners for $343.73, and office supplies for $161.61. 17
F22:
During a test of expenditures for fiscal year 1999/00, the City of Parlier was not able to provide support for $769.50 charged to salaries and benefits recorded through a journal entry. The City’s Finance Director stated that the support for the journal entry could not be located.
F23:
Based on our review, another COPS program (AB3229, Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund) was charged $886.13 for an officer’s salary that was also included in a Universal Hiring Grant report submitted to the DOJ for the period 10/1/98 to 3/31/99. In addition, the salary included in this report also included overtime which is not allowable according to Universal Hiring Grant provisions.
Additional Recommendations
99
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
To be in compliance with the above restricted revenue requirements and regulations and to eliminate the appearance that restricted revenues are being used to fund general fund expenditures, the City of Parlier should ensure that such restricted revenues are clearly used for the related program purposes. Costs charged to the special revenue funds should reflect actual costs attributable to the program and should be supported by applicable documentation such as time tracking. The City of Parlier should obtain clarification from the applicable regulatory agency to determine if their current cost allocation methodology is acceptable.
R2:
In the absence of fully supportable cost allocation methodologies or regulatory approval of existing cost allocation methodologies, the City of Parlier should reverse the $268,224 and $393,602 in overhead costs charged to the special revenue funds listed above. In addition, any other insufficiently supported cost allocations that were not noted in this report should also be reversed.
R3:
In order to provide for sound accounting and budgeting practices and to ensure a clear audit trail, appropriations and expenditures should be initially recorded in the originating department/fund where the activities are incurred.
R4:
The City of Parlier Finance Department should implement procedures that provide segregation of duties related to accounts payable. Specifically, the person who approves payments should not be the same person who signs checks and submits requests for payments. When it is necessary for the 7 Finance Director to submit a request for payment, the payment should be sufficiently reviewed and approved by another authorized staff member (e.g. the City Manager).
R5:
To strengthen internal controls over expenditures in special revenue funds and to ensure that funding does not need to be reimbursed or that future funding is withheld, the City of Parlier should ensure that program costs incurred are fully supported and are in compliance with program requirements. This can be achieved in part by requiring that receipts for credit card purchases be retained for supporting documentation and submitted to the Finance Department for review and approval.
R6:
To prevent losses and enhance internal controls, the City of Parlier should immediately implement procedures to ensure that the City’s charge accounts and credit cards are not used for personal purchases. Parlier Redevelopment Agency (RDA) Compliance issues involving redevelopment funding are addressed by the State Controller’s Office, the State Attorney General and the Court. Based on Section 33080.8 of California’s Health & Safety Code, the State Controller compiles lists of redevelopment agencies that appear to have uncorrected major violations, based on the annual independent audit reports filed by such agencies. The Attorney General can pursue filing lawsuits against redevelopment agencies having uncorrected violations, and the Court can prohibit the agency from performing various activities until the Court determines that the major violations are corrected. Since the RDA’s annual audit reports for 1998/99 and 1999/00 contained unqualified opinions, it is unlikely that it was determined that Parlier had any major violations, and it is not known what actions, if any, the above regulatory entities would take as a result of the redevelopment findings noted in this separate report. This report may affect the findings and opinion of independent accounting firms performing future redevelopment audits; however, it is not known if these
R7:
In compliance with the above code sections and to ensure that funding is not withheld, the RDA should immediately submit a 5-year plan to the State Controller’s Office and submit all future required documents when due.
R8:
In order to comply with Health & Safety Code Section 33487 and to ensure that funding is not withheld, the RDA should transfer $3,907 to the low income housing fund for fiscal year 1998/99 from the RDA Capital Projects Fund.
R9:
In order to explain material changes in the financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, the City of Parlier should provide adequate disclosure in the notes to the financial statements. For example, Parlier could have identified the above increase in the capital projects fund balance as a “restated” fund balance in the financial statements. In addition, a note disclosure should have been provided to reconcile the restated fund balance to the prior year ending balance. The disclosure should have also explained the reason(s) for the restatement. Parlier should consider this for future reporting purposes.
R10:
a, b, c, and d To ensure that funding is not withheld, the RDA should ensure all proper procedures and legal requirements are followed when issuing loans and all appropriate documents are maintained in their loan files and that all loans are properly authorized. Parlier staff should review all available loan records since the formation of the RDA to try to locate all missing loan documentation and criteria information on the sixteen known loans addressed above. Parlier staff should also determine if there are any additional outstanding loans not currently known that should be followed up on. Also, even though Parlier has indicated that the commercial borrowers of the “written off” loans are out of business, Parlier should continue to bill the business owners until these loans are officially written off by the City Council. Proper procedures must be followed to assure that all redevelopment loans are repaid timely and in full. Redevelopment loans determined to be uncollectible should be written off by the City Council and referred to a collection agency as appropriate. Parlier should consider following up with other collection agencies or pursue other means of recouping unpaid balances, e.g. through small claims processes, other lawsuits, etc. In addition, Parlier should ensure and be able to support that interest charged on Redevelopment loans is charged fairly and equitably. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
R11:
To enhance internal controls, ensure the accuracy of the City’s accounting records, and ensure continued funding, Parlier should implement formal procedures to ensure proper accounting for and reconciliation of restricted revenues. In addition, all transactions and supporting documentation must be maintained until such records have been audited by all appropriate oversight agencies. Finally, the City of Parlier should make the appropriate general ledger entries within the special revenue fund to record these transactions. Child Development Grant
R12:
The City of Parlier should post transactions to proper accounts and subsequently classify expenditures appropriately in their financial statements.
R13:
In order to comply with terms of the Child Development Grant, the City of Parlier should reimburse the Child Development fund the $582.50 noted above and only make expenditures appropriate for grant purposes from this fund.
R14:
In order to comply with terms of the Child Development Grant, the City of Parlier should obtain an annual audit of the Child Development Program that conforms to the terms of the grant agreement and reports on Child Development revenues and expenditures of the City of Parlier. In addition, the City of Parlier should consistently review any audit reports prepared for their program prior to finalization of the report. Measure “C” – Transportation Authority, Sales Tax Proceeds It was noted during our review that insufficiently supported overhead allocations were applied to the Measure “C” special revenue fund. See findings and recommendations #1 - 3. Highway User Tax (Gas Tax)
R15:
In order to properly account for and report Gas Tax revenues, the City of Parlier must reconcile any variances between revenues paid by a funding entity and revenues recorded by the City. Local Transportation Fund
R16:
In order to properly administer the Local Transportation Fund and ensure proper financial statement presentation, the City of Parlier must reconcile the Local Transportation fund to receipts and implement procedures to ensure that all transactions are properly recorded and reported.
R17:
The City of Parlier should either provide supporting documentation for the $70,702 reduction of revenues or reverse this adjustment as appropriate. 16
R19:
The City of Parlier should contact the DOJ for written clarification of what constitutes acceptable expenditures for this grant. The City of Parlier should comply with the information provided by the DOJ related to this audit finding. Unauthorized expenditures of grant funds must be reimbursed or a waiver should be requested from the grantor agency. COPS Grant AB3229
R20:
The City of Parlier should ensure that actual interest is allocated to the COPS fund for 1998/99, 1999/00 and thereafter. In addition, the City should ensure that adequate interest allocation methodologies are used to ensure that all restricted revenues are accurately calculated, allocated and available to be used for restricted program purposes or returned to regulatory agencies as necessary in the event of non-compliance with program requirements.
R21:
In compliance with the provisions of Government Code Section 30061 as stated above, the City of Parlier should ensure that the appropriation of COPS grant monies for 2000/01 and thereafter are separately presented to and approved by Parlier’s City Council as required.
R22:
The City of Parlier should maintain support for all financial transactions that affect special revenue funds as well as other funds until all oversight agencies conduct periodic audits. Unauthorized expenditures of grant funds must be reimbursed or a waiver should be requested from the grantor agency. Universal Hiring Grant (COPS)
R23:
The City of Parlier should implement procedures to ensure that expenditures are not claimed/reported twice and that overtime costs are not claimed in compliance with Universal 19 Hiring Grant provisions. Parlier should also adjust the above reports and charges to reverse duplicated expenditures and inappropriate overtime costs. Office of Emergency Services (OES)
R24:
The City of Parlier should investigate the difference of $2,404 between revenues reported in their general ledger for OES revenues and the amount of payments confirmed through the State OES or have support for the variance readily available.
R25:
The City of Parlier should immediately revise the Project Completion and Certification Report to reflect actual costs for the disaster period. They should provide support for costs claimed or return $36,136 claimed inappropriately to the State OES. 20
R26:
To ensure accuracy of records, enhance internal controls, and ensure the availability of current and future funding, the City of Parlier should properly maintain files containing supporting documentation for transactions and retain these records until audited by all appropriate oversight agencies. Transportation Equity Act No reportable conditions were noted during our review of the Transportation Equity Act, which provides funding for street improvements. Based on our review, only $14,761 was spent for this program in 1999/00 for preliminary engineering on street improvement projects, which is in compliance with program provisions.
R27:
The Parlier City Manager confer with the City Council before engaging in city projects costing over $10,000 as required by PMC.
R28:
Bidding and contracting of services be in compliance with PMC.
R29:
The City Manager and City Council be held responsible for implementing the directives set forth in PMC.
R30:
Compensation of employees and/or contractors be in compliance with existing State and Federal laws. PARLIER ANIMAL CONTROL Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury received complaints relating to animal control and conditions at the City of Parlier Animal Shelter. Recommendations regarding animal control and the animal shelter were included in the 1997/1998 Grand Jury Report. The City Manager responded as follows: “The City will continue efforts to create innovative ways to obtain funding and attract community support for animal control operations and facilities, this shall include seeking grants, encouraging participation by local organizations and volunteers, the Humane Society and SPCA.” “The City will continue to enforce leash and licensing laws and to collect fees and/or fines to generate revenue for animal control services. The city code has animal control codes, which it enforces; the city has adopted animal licensing fees and fines to offset some of the costs of these activities. The City Council reviews fees on an annual basis and adjusts them, as it deems appropriate. The City will review and update its animal control codes and fees during fiscal 1998-1999.”
R31:
The City hire an animal control officer.
R32:
The animal shelter be relocated within the city to make it more accessible.
R33:
Leash and licensing laws be enforced.
R34:
The City educate the community regarding licensing, vaccinations, leash laws, spaying and neutering.
R35:
The City establish a fee schedule for costs incurred in animal control.
R36:
All record keeping relating to animal control be current.
R37:
State guidelines be followed for the ultimate disposal of any animal.
R38:
Polaroid photographs of mi pounded dogs be posted at city hall in order for citizens to see if their dog has been impounded. CARPETING OF PARLIER CITY HALL Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury investigated a complaint from a concerned citizen about the method used by the City Manager in the purchase and installation of carpet in the Parlier City Hall.
R39:
The Parlier Municipal Code and Purchasing Ordinance be followed.
R40:
Shortcuts that violate the existing code not be considered. CODE ENFORCEMENT IN PARLIER Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury investigated a written complaint from a citizen that cited the lack of code enforcement in the City of Parlier.
R41:
The present policy of code enforcement be changed to a more aggressive system which addresses all violations existing in the City of Parlier.
R42:
Written policy and procedures be developed to provide for the tracking and documented resolution of all complaints.
R43:
The city hire a code enforcement officer, supported with sufficient staff.
R44:
Adequate training be provided for the code enforcement officer and staff, including instruction in property owner and tenant rights.
R45:
A written manual providing guidelines on how to resolve code enforcement disputes be developed and implemented.
R46:
The City of Parlier inform and educate the public on current code enforcement policy.
R47:
A current copy of the Parlier Municipal Code be available for public use at City Hall and the public library. PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT WITHIN THE CITY OF PARLIER Introduction An employee of the City of Parlier provided testimony to the 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury regarding an unfair disciplinary experience while employed by the city. Subsequently, the Grand Jury received additional testimony from other current and former employees who indicated they too had not been treated in an equitable manner.
R48:
The City of Parlier formulate and implement written policies and procedures regarding labor relations.
R49:
The City develop written job classifications for all positions and issue them to all employees.
R50:
The City require department heads to adhere to the PMC sections covering their areas of responsibility.
R51:
A current copy of the PMC be made available to City Council members.
R52:
The City prepare, and provide to all employees, a handbook informing them of employee rights as stated in the PMC.
R53:
Employees be advised, in writing, of their rights of representation at all disciplinary hearings.
R54:
Written annual job performance evaluations of all employees be conducted, a copy placed in the employee’s permanent file and a copy provided to the employee.
R55:
A written salary schedule for each position be prepared and a copy made available to each employee.
R56:
The city develop and issue a written policy regarding advancement and salary increases. NEPOTISM IN THE CITY OF PARLIER Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury received several complaints from employees of the City of Parlier regarding nepotism as it exists in the city and the effect it has on their work environment. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary definition of nepotism is “favoritism shown to relatives or close friends by those in power (as by giving them jobs).” Nepotism is defined by the Parlier Municipal Code (PMC) Section 4.01.080 as “Applicants for employment with the city who are related within the third degree, by blood or marriage, to a person currently employed by the city, shall not be employed in the same department as the applicant’s relative, if it is determined on a case-by case review that employment of the applicant in the same department as his or her relative would create or aggravate problems relating to safety, security, supervision, morale or conflicts of interest in such department.”
R57:
PMC section 4.01.080 be rewritten to more clearly state the city’s policy on nepotism as defined by Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, “favoritism shown to relatives or close friends by those in power (as by giving them jobs).”
R58:
The policy of the city be to recruit, employ, and promote the best-qualified individuals. PARLIER PERSONNEL HEARING BOARD Introduction During the year 2000, a decision was made by the City manager to establish a Personnel Hearing Board (PHB). The Parlier Municipal Code (PMC) Section 4.02. (1997) describes the duties and responsibilities of the Board. Such a Board had never been established. The Board consists of two City Council members and a citizen at large. The purpose of the Board is to hear the final appeal of employees who have been disciplined and have exhausted all options for redress. The citizen at large position is to be filled by an applicant who is a resident of the City and at least 18 years of age. This position is to be noticed and described in the local newspaper and posted at City Hall.
R59:
The current PHB be dissolved.
R60:
The position for citizen at large be advertised (noticed).
R61:
The position for citizen at large be posted at City Hall.
R62:
All citizens who submit applications for this position be given equal consideration. PARLIER POLICE DEPARTMENT Introduction For many years, the Parlier Police Department has suffered from a lack of leadership and corresponding departmental ineffectiveness. The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury has undertaken a review of the causes and possible remedies. During the past 10 years, the City of Parlier has had 13 Chiefs of Police. Turnover by employees has been high due to low pay, low morale and lack of leadership. There have been continuing allegations of corruption, inefficiency and favoritism.
R63:
The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that the Parlier Police Department be closed immediately and the policing of Parlier be contracted with the Fresno County Sheriff. CITY COMMITTEE Rene Lastreto, Chair Robert Boehringer Mikie Kapigian Louis Olais Juliana Pherson Leo Shishmanian 42 CITY COMMITTEE
R64:
Continue the broad public education program to increase awareness of the need to meet recycling goals.
R65:
Tailor educational efforts to target each culture within our community in a way that has proven most effective for that group. FRESNO CITY PARKS SANITATION FACILITIES Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury inspected toilet facilities at Roeding Park, Woodward Park and six neighborhood parks. Conditions reviewed: Ø Cleanliness and cleaning schedules Ø Condition of fixtures and stalls Ø Privacy locks on toilet doors Ø Presence of soap Ø Presence of hand drying materials or machines Ø Plumbing leaks
R66:
Increase the budget to provide for care of the new parks.
R67:
Add personnel to help maintain the park sanitation facilities.
R68:
Provide adequate funds for replacement of fixtures with more durable ones. CITY COUNCIL INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDS Introduction The Fresno City Council discretionary infrastructure budget was examined by the 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury.
R69:
Distribution of the City Council discretionary infrastructure funds be reviewed and approved by the City Manager prior to disbursement. 48
R70:
Consideration be given to reducing the current allotment from $140,000 to $70,000 per district.
R71:
Carryover of any unused infrastructure funds be eliminated.
R72:
Future Grand Juries continue to monitor the program. CITY OF FRESNO WATER METERS Introduction Upon review of the 1999/2000 Fresno County Grand Jury report, the 2000/2001 Grand Jury investigated the current status of water availability and management.
R73:
The Mayor, City Council and all civic groups unite to promote the installation of water meters.
R74:
Homeowners and businesses that currently have meters be excluded from further meter installation costs.
R75:
The city utilities department continue to publish average water bills for various family sizes with and without meters.
R76:
Water police be reactivated to prevent water waste. BASEBALL/MULTI-USE STADIUM Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury reviewed the reports of the 1998/1999 and 1999/2000 Grand Juries. During the tenure of the present Grand Jury, the Fresno City Council approved the stadium project. Work has commenced on the site.
R77:
The City require an annual independent audit of the financial statements of FDG.
R78:
All seventeen dates the city controls be devoted to for-profit events to enhance the City’s revenues.
R79:
The public be assured of coordinated parking and security by FDG and the City. CITY OF FRESNO FIRE DEPARTMENT Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury investigated the City of Fresno Fire Department's (FFD) rating as established by the Insurance Services Office, Inc. (ISO). This organization evaluates the level of fire protection, the ability to receive and answer alarms, and the adequacy of water supply. A maximum of 100% credit is available. The percentages are broken into ten ISO Public Protection Classes. Class 1 equates to the top rating of 90-100%. Class 10 equates to the lowest rating, 0-9%. When last evaluated in 1995, the City of Fresno was rated a Class 4, achieving a rating of 66.07%. These classifications were developed for fire insurance rating purposes only. Insurance companies may use the agency’s classification to assist in setting property insurance premiums.
R80:
The fire department have a budgeted vehicle replacement plan. The city should consider replacement of vehicles after seven or eight years while they still have significant value on the used fire vehicle market.
R81:
The inventory of fire fighting tools be increased so that all spare engines/trucks are fully equipped.
R82:
The city recognize the need to increase the number of fire fighting personnel.
R83:
The City of Fresno revisit its traffic light pre-emption plan and budget funds to complete this program.
R84:
The Fresno Fire Department develop a plan to reduce response times to the NFPA standards. COUNTY COMMITTEE Rick Allen, Chair James Cotton Fred Goldring Ann Thaxter James Torosian Donald Wilson 57 COUNTY COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury County Committee’s primary function is to oversee all aspects of county government, incorporated cities not including Fresno, and special districts. Among the committee’s responsibilities is to insure that county monies and operations are handled in an efficient, effective and appropriate manner that best serve the interest of the citizens. The Grand Jury received requests for inquiries into various government operations within the County of Fresno. The County Committee conducted inquiries of the following: A. The operations and management of the Office of the Public Administrator/Public Guardian. B. Operation of the Coroner’s Office. Allegations of misconduct regarding utility bill collection policies in the City of Mendota. C. Complaints regarding the management of the City of Parlier. (The result of this investigation is presented in this report under the heading - Ad Hoc Committee, City of Parlier). D. The operations of the Elkhorn Correctional Facility. E. The need for a Briefing Book for newly elected members of the Fresno County Board of Supervisors and Fresno City Council. In the course of conducting these inquiries the committee gathered facts, interviewed many citizens, officials, department heads and employees of the County of Fresno and cities within the County of Fresno. During the process of the investigations, the committee made numerous field trips to government facilities within the county. OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC ADMINSTRATOR/PUBLIC GUARDIAN Introduction The 1999/2000 Fresno County Grand Jury Report prompted a review by this jury panel of the Public Administrator/Public Guardian Office (PA/PG).
R85:
The PA/PG evaluate the use of the County Treasury Pool.
R86:
Storage be improved for case records and client assets. Construction of an on-site storage building would eliminate the need for expensive off-site mini-storage.
R87:
Evaluate the need for additional deputies due to the implementation of the new Elder Abuse Referral Law SB 1742.
R88:
PA/PG add the services of a Registered Nurse to staff. This person would aid in evaluating and inspecting medical care facilities as well as review proposed client treatment and prescription history.
R89:
PA/PG evaluate the purchase of Long Term Care Insurance for those clients who would be eligible. OFFICE OF THE FRESNO COUNTY CORONER Introduction The 1999/2000 Fresno County Grand Jury report prompted an unannounced visit to the facilities of the Fresno County Coroner on December 19, 2000 by the 2000/2001 Grand Jury.
R90:
A plan be developed for a new morgue before the County reaches a crisis situation.
R91:
A new commercial washing machine be purchased for on-site laundering needs and/or use a commercial laundry.
R92:
Reference be made to the Grand Jury reports of 1998/1999 and 1999/2000 regarding the need for improvement of record storage. MENDOTA UTILITY BILL COLLECTIONS Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury received a written complaint regarding bill collection policies in the City of Mendota. The complaint included the following allegations: A. Some employees of the City of Mendota had not paid their water/utility bill for a period in excess of one year. B. Some elected officials were not making timely payments of their water/utility bills. C. This activity had been disclosed by the City Manager and/or City Attorney. It was alleged that the entire City office staff was involved. D. The 2000/2001 Grand Jury issued a subpoena for certain records covering the payment of water/utility bills by current and former Mendota city employees and elected officials. These records were provided to the Grand Jury on August 30, 2000.
R93:
The monthly shutoff list and notices be reviewed by an individual independent of the accounting department of the City of Mendota.
R94:
The subject of outstanding utility bills be reviewed during the annual financial audit conducted by an outside auditor.
R95:
The City establish and maintain training for all employees on the use of the Municipal Code and written procedures and policies regarding the collection of utility bills. ELKHORN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury followed up on the recommendation of the 1998/1999 Grand Jury to monitor the operation of the Elkhorn Correctional Facility (Juvenile Boot Camp). The Grand Jury toured the Elkhorn Correctional Facility (ECF) on September 1, 2000. The director and support staff provided a briefing on the history of the facility and its goals. Information was received from Elkhorn management, members of the Fresno County Board of Supervisors, the Chief Probation Officer and officials of the City of Fresno.
R96:
The Fresno County Board of Supervisors review commitments made in the February 11, 1997, letter issued by a former County Chief Administrative Officer and assure the neighbors of ECF that the County intends to honor these commitments. If certain commitments cannot be met, the County should negotiate with the neighbors to reach an equitable arrangement.
R97:
The Board of Supervisors continue to fund and maintain the present level of services at ECF.
R98:
The City of Fresno continue to fund Elkhorn Correctional Facility at no less than the current rate of $1,000,000 per year with no sunset provision.
R99:
The County provide boot camp facilities for female juvenile offenders.
R100:
Future Grand Juries continue to monitor the activities at the Elkhorn Correctional Facility. BRIEFING BOOK FOR NEWLY ELECTED OFFICIALS Introduction As the result of testimony received from newly elected members of the Fresno City Council and Fresno County Board of Supervisors, the Grand Jury reviewed the procedure for providing information to these individuals prior to assuming office.
Findings & Recommendations
19 findings
F4:
During fieldwork it was noted that a check was issued to the Finance Director on August 6, 1998 in the amount of $1,504.31 for training reimbursement. The Finance Director also authorized the payment and signed the check. It is the City Manager’s policy to approve the warrant register, which he believes provides proper segregation of duties. However, based on our review, the warrant register does not provide details of each payment, just check totals. Therefore, the City Manager’s approval of the warrant register does not indicate that he approved the contents of the payment. At a minimum, internal controls require segregation of duties which provides an adequate level of review. Although this can be difficult in a small office like Parlier’s Finance Department, the City Manager should review and approve the payment contents as well as payment totals, when the Finance Director is the payee.
F5:
It was noted during fieldwork that Parlier’s City Manager and Finance Director utilize City credit cards. Purchases for office equipment, travel and meetings, etc. are made using these credit cards, and in 9 out of 11 (81%) credit card statements reviewed, receipts were not attached to the statements to support the expenditures. Only vendor names and handwritten general descriptions were included on the statements. We further tested 3 of the above 9 statements and determined that $117.11 of the insufficiently supported expenditures on a statement totaling $684.51 was attributable to Parlier’s Redevelopment Agency. In addition, $525.17 and $177.07 of the expenditures on two other statements totaling $5,037.59 and $1,980.00, respectively, were attributable to the Measure C – Transportation Authority, Sales Tax Proceeds fund (Measure C). In addition, when costs are charged to the Measure C program that cannot be substantiated and, therefore may not be in compliance with program requirements, Parlier’s future allocations may be withheld and reimbursements of such funds to the Fresno County Auditor-Controller/Treasurer- Tax Collector may be required. Such funds would only be released when exceptions are resolved and Parlier is in compliance with program requirements. Compliance issues regarding redevelopment agencies are addressed by various regulatory agencies as explained in the Parlier Redevelopment Agency section on .
F6:
It was noted during testing of expenditures, that the Finance Director used the City of Parlier’s Office Depot credit card on two separate occasions to purchase personal items such as movie videos, games, a chair, bookcases, etc. totaling $768.06. Both the Finance Director and City Manager stated the card was used by mistake and that actions were taken to reimburse the City through payroll deductions. However, when this matter was brought to the Finance Director’s attention by our audits staff, the Finance Director researched and determined that Parlier had not yet been reimbursed. Although this matter should have been followed up more timely, on April 2, 2001, the Finance Director did reimburse the City $914.77 which includes interest. 8
F7:
Health & Safety Code Section 33490 requires redevelopment agencies to submit a 5-year plan to the State Controller’s Office on or before December 31, 1994 and every 5 years thereafter. The RDA submitted a 5-year plan in 1994. However, based on information provided, Parlier’s 5-year plan, which was due on or before December 31,1999, had not been submitted to the State Controller’s Office as of the date of this review.
F8:
It was noted that the RDA appropriately recorded $747,015 in revenues for fiscal year 1998/99. However, only $145,496 of this amount was transferred to the low-income housing fund, which was less than the 20% required by Health & Safety Code Section 33487 by $3,907. The calculation was based on the net amount received by the RDA instead of the gross apportionment as required by the Code. The transfer to the low-income housing fund was properly calculated for fiscal year 1999/00. 9
F9:
It was noted during a review of Parlier’s financial statements that redevelopment notes receivable in the amount of $1,257,180 were erroneously listed in the general long-term debt account group in the 1998/99 statements. These notes receivable were properly reclassified by Parlier staff in the 1999/00 statements, which resulted in a $1,257,180 increase in the capital projects beginning fund balance; however, there was no disclosure explaining this material change.
F10a:
According to Parlier’s City Manager, all redevelopment loan programs must be approved by the RDA Board, which is Parlier’s City Council. We reviewed all available loan files for the sixteen redevelopment loans issued by Parlier as identified below, which were made between 1993 and 1996. There are nine individual loans and seven commercial loans. Based on documentation provided, it could not be determined that any of the loans were properly approved by the RDA Board. The Executive Director of the RDA is authorized to execute loan documents on behalf of the RDA, and we verified that he did sign agreements for all of the loans except as noted in Findings #10b, c and d below. In addition, based on information provided in loan files, we could not determine if any of the borrowers met the RDA criteria needed to obtain the loans. The City Manager stated that it is unlikely that any of the borrowers would not meet the criteria due to Parlier’s demographics. In addition, both the City Manager and Finance Director stated that there may be additional RDA loans that they do not know about. They said that loan files were incomplete when they began working for the City, and they had to piece together documentation for the loans as it was located. Based on the documentation provided, all nine individual loans were charged 5% interest. However, of the six commercial loans that had any supporting documentation (the seventh loan did not), one was charged 4.39% interest, three were charged 5%, and two others were charged 8%. Parlier staff did not know how these various interest rates were determined or why it was decided to charge different borrowers different rates. Based on our review of redevelopment guidelines, no provisions could be found that addressed the matter of interest rates on outstanding loans. In addition, except as noted in Finding #10b, we could not determine that any of the borrowers were related to City officials at the time of the issuance of the loans; however, this should not necessarily be an issue provided all borrowers met RDA loan criteria as addressed above.
F10b:
Nine of the sixteen loans issued by Parlier were “written off” for financial statement purposes and seven were not. Except as noted below, payments on six of these seven loans were received regularly and currently from the borrowers. Four of these six loans were provided to individuals in the amounts of $6,013, $7,000, $13,782, and $15,000. The fifth and sixth loans were commercial loans for $102,000 and $488,000 at a 4.39% and 5% interest rates, respectively. The seventh of these loans, which did not have any supporting documentation, is addressed in Finding #10d. The $15,000 individual loan noted above was issued in 1995 to a relative of the mayor. No payments were received by the RDA until the previous Finance Director contacted the borrower in April 1997 requesting copies of loan documents, which Parlier did not have at that time. Shortly after that, the borrower began to make regular payments on the loan and has continued making payments through the date of this review. These loan payments are included in a schedule in our workpapers. In addition, based on our review of loan documentation provided by the City, the agreement for this $15,000 loan was signed only by the borrower. Therefore, it is not clear whether the loan was properly executed by the Executive Director, or whether the loan was properly approved by the RDA Board as addressed in finding #10a. Based on documentation provided, we did find evidence that the Executive Director authorized $5,000 of the loan, because he approved two checks issued on this loan totaling $5,000.
F10c:
One of eight reportable conditions in Parlier’s 1998/99 audit report stated “The RDA has made numerous redevelopment loans to individuals and businesses. Many of these are totally non- performing.” The corresponding recommendation stated “Staff should contact each delinquent borrower to determine if stronger collection action is required, or if the loan cannot be reasonably collected, then it should be written off.” Parlier’s response was “RDA receivables were turned over to a professional collection service. Collection of the majority of housing loans is not possible, since the loans were not secured by real property. The issue of whether to pursue or forgive these loans is a policy for the Council to pursue.” 11 For 1999/00 financial statement purposes, the RDA “wrote off” four commercial loans and five individual loans totaling $46,736. Based on information provided, Parlier’s City Council did not approve writing off these loans, although it was disclosed in Parlier’s 1999/00 financial statements that the “City wrote off” the loans. During our review, Parlier staff explained that it was not the City’s intention to officially write off loans as they just wanted to report loans for financial statement purposes net of amounts considered to be uncollectible, and they are continuing to pursue collection of these loans. Based on information provided during our review, Parlier referred the delinquent loans to one collection agency who declined to pursue collection of the loans. According to Parlier staff, based on that collection agency’s response that these loans were not collectible, it was decided not to try to obtain further collection agency services. As of the date of this review, Parlier has not referred these loans to any other collection agency. The RDA continues to send invoices monthly on the “written off” loans to all of the individual borrowers but to none of the commercial borrowers, which, according to the City Manager, are no longer in business. However, no payments have been made by the loan recipients in several years. Information received on these “written off” loans is indicated below. The loan type is designated by a C for Commercial or I for Individual as follows: Loan Loan Loan Interest Unpaid Date of Type Year Loan Recipient Amount Rate Balance Last Pmt C 1993 El01 $12,500 8% $10,000 7/97 C 1993 Gor02 5,500 8% 4,940 11/93 C 1995 Sal03 2,390 5% 1,647 1/98 C 1995 Ant04 2,550 5% 513 7/97 I 1995 Mar05 5,000 5% 3,062 4/97 I 1995 And06 3,044 5% 2,639 4/97 I 1995 Noe07 2,500 5% 2,048 12/96 I 1996 Elo08 14,430 5% 14,430 None I 1996 Man09 7,683 5% 7,457 12/96 Total $55,597 $46,736 In addition, based on our review of the related loan documentation, the following exceptions were noted for these “written-off” loans: 1. The signed loan agreement for loan recipient Gor02 specified a loan amount of $4,000, but the amortization schedule included in the documentation provided an amended loan total of $5,500, yet there was no authorized amendment to the loan agreement. 12 2. The loan documentation for loan recipient El01 (El01) did not contain a loan agreement but contained other miscellaneous documents including a 1993 request from the attorney in fact for a $12,500 loan; an incomplete and unofficial copy of a 1993 RDA minutes indicating that the RDA Board approved a $12,000 loan to El01, and a copy of a $12,500 check signed by the RDA Executive Director and made out to El01 in 1993. Therefore, there was a conflict between the $12,000 amount that appeared to have been approved by the RDA Board and the $12,500 check approved by the Executive Director.
F10d:
During our review of the seven outstanding loans that were not “written off”, we noted that the financial statements disclosed that “…the Agency has a receivable … relating to low-income housing assistance provided in prior years. As long as …” the borrower “…continues renting to low-income individuals, they will be required to pay back a discounted amount equaling the annual installments, without interest, in the amount of $83,418 beginning in December 2013.” Parlier staff was able to provide us with a recorded deed of trust for this loan in the amount of $1,668,366; however, they could not provide a copy of the loan agreement. Therefore, we were not able to verify whether the borrower has complied with the terms of the agreement or whether the agreement was properly approved as discussed in finding #10a. Also, we were not able to determine whether interest will accrue if the borrower does not continue renting to low-income individuals or any other details about the loan.
F11:
It was noted during fieldwork that reimbursement requests submitted to the Fresno County Public Works Department were properly supported by invoices to outside entities. However, transactions were not properly recorded in the City of Parlier’s general ledger. Payments made by Fresno County to Parlier during fiscal year 1998/99 were understated in Parlier’s CDBG general ledger by $14,271.61, thereby understating CDBG revenues on the 1998/99 financial statements. The difference was due to a check issued by Fresno County in the amount of $149,271.61 on May 13, 1999. It was confirmed that Parlier received and endorsed the check for $149,271.61; however, only $135,000 of this amount was recorded in Parlier’s CDBG fund. The balance of $14,271.61 was recorded in Parlier’s general fund. Also, we were not able to trace 2 of 30 (6%) invoices totaling $4,370 to Parlier’s CDBG fund. However, we were able to confirm with the vendor that the invoices had been paid. Parlier staff has not been able to provide information regarding where these expenditures were recorded. Additionally, during a test of CDBG expenditures recorded in the general ledger, Parlier staff were not able to locate supporting documentation for 2 of 8 (25%) expenditures tested. Accurate and complete records are essential for restricted revenue funds to ensure continued funding and enhance internal controls.
F12:
During a review of Parlier’s financial statements for fiscal years 1998/99 and 1999/00, it was noted that the Child Development Fund listed expenditures for capital projects, which is not in compliance with the terms of the grant. Further analysis found that capital expenditures were not made in violation of the grant provisions. Instead, expenditures were not properly classified in the general ledger or the financial statements. 14
F13:
During a review of grant agreements for fiscal years 1998/99 and 1999/00, it was determined that grant expenditures recorded in the general fund and reported in the financial statements were in compliance with grant provisions except for a 1998/99 expenditure of $582.50 for engineering expenses.
F14:
During a review of the general ledger it was determined that expenditures do not agree with reports submitted to the State. The general ledger for fiscal year 1999/00 reports grant revenues of $283,950.97 plus $10,216.73 interest revenue for a total of $294,167.70. The general ledger also indicates total expenditures of $81,966.58 for 1999/00. The audit report sent to the State, which was prepared by the subcontractor’s CPA, indicates costs of $1,094,953.00 and revenue received of $72,808.00 for 1999/00. It appears that this audit report was prepared to reflect revenues and expenditures of the subcontractor and not the City of Parlier’s Child Development revenues and expenditures.
F15:
During the review, it was noted that payments made by the State Controller’s Office (SCO) to Parlier, which were posted on the SCO’s website did not agree with totals recorded in Parlier’s accounting system for fiscal years 1998/99 and 1999/00. For fiscal year 1998/99, the SCO recorded payments of $197,403.36 and Parlier recorded revenues of $218,610.40 for a variance of $21,207.04. For fiscal year 1999/00, the SCO recorded payments of $200,512.18 and Parlier recorded revenues of $202,545.85 for a variance of $2,033.67. Based on our review and documentation provided we could not determine whether the variances were due to timing differences or other factors.
F18:
During a review of the audit report issued by an independent accounting firm for fiscal year 1998/99, it was noted that the report contained an unqualified opinion despite the insufficiently supported expenditures discussed in findings #1-3 and the understated revenues discussed above. The same firm is conducting an audit of the Local Transportation fund for fiscal year 1999/00 but has not yet issued their report. During a conversation on March 26, 2001 with a staff member of the independent firm, the staff member said that the firm is questioning the method that Parlier uses to apply administrative overhead costs to this fund. The staff member also stated that the 1999/00 report will contain findings and recommendations related to the overhead application process.
F19:
Parlier’s Finance Director said that the City uses LLEBG money to pay for overtime expenditures in the Police Department since the amount of the grant is not enough to hire an additional police officer. Although overtime used to increase or enhance police services is an appropriate expenditure for this grant; based on information reviewed, we could not determine that overtime expended was an inappropriate use of grant monies. One officer’s salary is charged to the fund as an equivalent to the law enforcement overtime costs incurred outside of the fund. The amount of the 1998 grant was $19,623 and overtime for that period was $92,705. The amount of the 1999 grant was $19,097 and overtime for that period was $65,135. The Finance Director stated that he spoke with personnel in the US Department of Justice (DOJ) who told him that he can account for the fund in this manner as long as he can support the amount of overtime claimed on the grant. We contacted the DOJ and were told that this practice is not appropriate. DOJ staff stated that the actual expenditures paid with LLEBG money must be recorded in the fund established to account for the grant. During our review, expenditures for equipment were tested. During fiscal year 1998/99, 4 of 5 (80%) equipment expenditures tested did not appear to be appropriate for fund purposes based on information provided. As confirmed with the DOJ, LLEBG money is to be used to increase or enhance law enforcement services. The expenditures questioned include chairs for $1,356.68, rug runners for $343.73, and office supplies for $161.61. 17
F22:
During a test of expenditures for fiscal year 1999/00, the City of Parlier was not able to provide support for $769.50 charged to salaries and benefits recorded through a journal entry. The City’s Finance Director stated that the support for the journal entry could not be located.
F23:
Based on our review, another COPS program (AB3229, Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund) was charged $886.13 for an officer’s salary that was also included in a Universal Hiring Grant report submitted to the DOJ for the period 10/1/98 to 3/31/99. In addition, the salary included in this report also included overtime which is not allowable according to Universal Hiring Grant provisions.
Additional Recommendations
99
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
To be in compliance with the above restricted revenue requirements and regulations and to eliminate the appearance that restricted revenues are being used to fund general fund expenditures, the City of Parlier should ensure that such restricted revenues are clearly used for the related program purposes. Costs charged to the special revenue funds should reflect actual costs attributable to the program and should be supported by applicable documentation such as time tracking. The City of Parlier should obtain clarification from the applicable regulatory agency to determine if their current cost allocation methodology is acceptable.
R2:
In the absence of fully supportable cost allocation methodologies or regulatory approval of existing cost allocation methodologies, the City of Parlier should reverse the $268,224 and $393,602 in overhead costs charged to the special revenue funds listed above. In addition, any other insufficiently supported cost allocations that were not noted in this report should also be reversed.
R3:
In order to provide for sound accounting and budgeting practices and to ensure a clear audit trail, appropriations and expenditures should be initially recorded in the originating department/fund where the activities are incurred.
R4:
The City of Parlier Finance Department should implement procedures that provide segregation of duties related to accounts payable. Specifically, the person who approves payments should not be the same person who signs checks and submits requests for payments. When it is necessary for the 7 Finance Director to submit a request for payment, the payment should be sufficiently reviewed and approved by another authorized staff member (e.g. the City Manager).
R5:
To strengthen internal controls over expenditures in special revenue funds and to ensure that funding does not need to be reimbursed or that future funding is withheld, the City of Parlier should ensure that program costs incurred are fully supported and are in compliance with program requirements. This can be achieved in part by requiring that receipts for credit card purchases be retained for supporting documentation and submitted to the Finance Department for review and approval.
R6:
To prevent losses and enhance internal controls, the City of Parlier should immediately implement procedures to ensure that the City’s charge accounts and credit cards are not used for personal purchases. Parlier Redevelopment Agency (RDA) Compliance issues involving redevelopment funding are addressed by the State Controller’s Office, the State Attorney General and the Court. Based on Section 33080.8 of California’s Health & Safety Code, the State Controller compiles lists of redevelopment agencies that appear to have uncorrected major violations, based on the annual independent audit reports filed by such agencies. The Attorney General can pursue filing lawsuits against redevelopment agencies having uncorrected violations, and the Court can prohibit the agency from performing various activities until the Court determines that the major violations are corrected. Since the RDA’s annual audit reports for 1998/99 and 1999/00 contained unqualified opinions, it is unlikely that it was determined that Parlier had any major violations, and it is not known what actions, if any, the above regulatory entities would take as a result of the redevelopment findings noted in this separate report. This report may affect the findings and opinion of independent accounting firms performing future redevelopment audits; however, it is not known if these
R7:
In compliance with the above code sections and to ensure that funding is not withheld, the RDA should immediately submit a 5-year plan to the State Controller’s Office and submit all future required documents when due.
R8:
In order to comply with Health & Safety Code Section 33487 and to ensure that funding is not withheld, the RDA should transfer $3,907 to the low income housing fund for fiscal year 1998/99 from the RDA Capital Projects Fund.
R9:
In order to explain material changes in the financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, the City of Parlier should provide adequate disclosure in the notes to the financial statements. For example, Parlier could have identified the above increase in the capital projects fund balance as a “restated” fund balance in the financial statements. In addition, a note disclosure should have been provided to reconcile the restated fund balance to the prior year ending balance. The disclosure should have also explained the reason(s) for the restatement. Parlier should consider this for future reporting purposes.
R10:
a, b, c, and d To ensure that funding is not withheld, the RDA should ensure all proper procedures and legal requirements are followed when issuing loans and all appropriate documents are maintained in their loan files and that all loans are properly authorized. Parlier staff should review all available loan records since the formation of the RDA to try to locate all missing loan documentation and criteria information on the sixteen known loans addressed above. Parlier staff should also determine if there are any additional outstanding loans not currently known that should be followed up on. Also, even though Parlier has indicated that the commercial borrowers of the “written off” loans are out of business, Parlier should continue to bill the business owners until these loans are officially written off by the City Council. Proper procedures must be followed to assure that all redevelopment loans are repaid timely and in full. Redevelopment loans determined to be uncollectible should be written off by the City Council and referred to a collection agency as appropriate. Parlier should consider following up with other collection agencies or pursue other means of recouping unpaid balances, e.g. through small claims processes, other lawsuits, etc. In addition, Parlier should ensure and be able to support that interest charged on Redevelopment loans is charged fairly and equitably. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
R11:
To enhance internal controls, ensure the accuracy of the City’s accounting records, and ensure continued funding, Parlier should implement formal procedures to ensure proper accounting for and reconciliation of restricted revenues. In addition, all transactions and supporting documentation must be maintained until such records have been audited by all appropriate oversight agencies. Finally, the City of Parlier should make the appropriate general ledger entries within the special revenue fund to record these transactions. Child Development Grant
R12:
The City of Parlier should post transactions to proper accounts and subsequently classify expenditures appropriately in their financial statements.
R13:
In order to comply with terms of the Child Development Grant, the City of Parlier should reimburse the Child Development fund the $582.50 noted above and only make expenditures appropriate for grant purposes from this fund.
R14:
In order to comply with terms of the Child Development Grant, the City of Parlier should obtain an annual audit of the Child Development Program that conforms to the terms of the grant agreement and reports on Child Development revenues and expenditures of the City of Parlier. In addition, the City of Parlier should consistently review any audit reports prepared for their program prior to finalization of the report. Measure “C” – Transportation Authority, Sales Tax Proceeds It was noted during our review that insufficiently supported overhead allocations were applied to the Measure “C” special revenue fund. See findings and recommendations #1 - 3. Highway User Tax (Gas Tax)
R15:
In order to properly account for and report Gas Tax revenues, the City of Parlier must reconcile any variances between revenues paid by a funding entity and revenues recorded by the City. Local Transportation Fund
R16:
In order to properly administer the Local Transportation Fund and ensure proper financial statement presentation, the City of Parlier must reconcile the Local Transportation fund to receipts and implement procedures to ensure that all transactions are properly recorded and reported.
R17:
The City of Parlier should either provide supporting documentation for the $70,702 reduction of revenues or reverse this adjustment as appropriate. 16
R19:
The City of Parlier should contact the DOJ for written clarification of what constitutes acceptable expenditures for this grant. The City of Parlier should comply with the information provided by the DOJ related to this audit finding. Unauthorized expenditures of grant funds must be reimbursed or a waiver should be requested from the grantor agency. COPS Grant AB3229
R20:
The City of Parlier should ensure that actual interest is allocated to the COPS fund for 1998/99, 1999/00 and thereafter. In addition, the City should ensure that adequate interest allocation methodologies are used to ensure that all restricted revenues are accurately calculated, allocated and available to be used for restricted program purposes or returned to regulatory agencies as necessary in the event of non-compliance with program requirements.
R21:
In compliance with the provisions of Government Code Section 30061 as stated above, the City of Parlier should ensure that the appropriation of COPS grant monies for 2000/01 and thereafter are separately presented to and approved by Parlier’s City Council as required.
R22:
The City of Parlier should maintain support for all financial transactions that affect special revenue funds as well as other funds until all oversight agencies conduct periodic audits. Unauthorized expenditures of grant funds must be reimbursed or a waiver should be requested from the grantor agency. Universal Hiring Grant (COPS)
R23:
The City of Parlier should implement procedures to ensure that expenditures are not claimed/reported twice and that overtime costs are not claimed in compliance with Universal 19 Hiring Grant provisions. Parlier should also adjust the above reports and charges to reverse duplicated expenditures and inappropriate overtime costs. Office of Emergency Services (OES)
R24:
The City of Parlier should investigate the difference of $2,404 between revenues reported in their general ledger for OES revenues and the amount of payments confirmed through the State OES or have support for the variance readily available.
R25:
The City of Parlier should immediately revise the Project Completion and Certification Report to reflect actual costs for the disaster period. They should provide support for costs claimed or return $36,136 claimed inappropriately to the State OES. 20
R26:
To ensure accuracy of records, enhance internal controls, and ensure the availability of current and future funding, the City of Parlier should properly maintain files containing supporting documentation for transactions and retain these records until audited by all appropriate oversight agencies. Transportation Equity Act No reportable conditions were noted during our review of the Transportation Equity Act, which provides funding for street improvements. Based on our review, only $14,761 was spent for this program in 1999/00 for preliminary engineering on street improvement projects, which is in compliance with program provisions.
R27:
The Parlier City Manager confer with the City Council before engaging in city projects costing over $10,000 as required by PMC.
R28:
Bidding and contracting of services be in compliance with PMC.
R29:
The City Manager and City Council be held responsible for implementing the directives set forth in PMC.
R30:
Compensation of employees and/or contractors be in compliance with existing State and Federal laws. PARLIER ANIMAL CONTROL Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury received complaints relating to animal control and conditions at the City of Parlier Animal Shelter. Recommendations regarding animal control and the animal shelter were included in the 1997/1998 Grand Jury Report. The City Manager responded as follows: “The City will continue efforts to create innovative ways to obtain funding and attract community support for animal control operations and facilities, this shall include seeking grants, encouraging participation by local organizations and volunteers, the Humane Society and SPCA.” “The City will continue to enforce leash and licensing laws and to collect fees and/or fines to generate revenue for animal control services. The city code has animal control codes, which it enforces; the city has adopted animal licensing fees and fines to offset some of the costs of these activities. The City Council reviews fees on an annual basis and adjusts them, as it deems appropriate. The City will review and update its animal control codes and fees during fiscal 1998-1999.”
R31:
The City hire an animal control officer.
R32:
The animal shelter be relocated within the city to make it more accessible.
R33:
Leash and licensing laws be enforced.
R34:
The City educate the community regarding licensing, vaccinations, leash laws, spaying and neutering.
R35:
The City establish a fee schedule for costs incurred in animal control.
R36:
All record keeping relating to animal control be current.
R37:
State guidelines be followed for the ultimate disposal of any animal.
R38:
Polaroid photographs of mi pounded dogs be posted at city hall in order for citizens to see if their dog has been impounded. CARPETING OF PARLIER CITY HALL Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury investigated a complaint from a concerned citizen about the method used by the City Manager in the purchase and installation of carpet in the Parlier City Hall.
R39:
The Parlier Municipal Code and Purchasing Ordinance be followed.
R40:
Shortcuts that violate the existing code not be considered. CODE ENFORCEMENT IN PARLIER Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury investigated a written complaint from a citizen that cited the lack of code enforcement in the City of Parlier.
R41:
The present policy of code enforcement be changed to a more aggressive system which addresses all violations existing in the City of Parlier.
R42:
Written policy and procedures be developed to provide for the tracking and documented resolution of all complaints.
R43:
The city hire a code enforcement officer, supported with sufficient staff.
R44:
Adequate training be provided for the code enforcement officer and staff, including instruction in property owner and tenant rights.
R45:
A written manual providing guidelines on how to resolve code enforcement disputes be developed and implemented.
R46:
The City of Parlier inform and educate the public on current code enforcement policy.
R47:
A current copy of the Parlier Municipal Code be available for public use at City Hall and the public library. PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT WITHIN THE CITY OF PARLIER Introduction An employee of the City of Parlier provided testimony to the 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury regarding an unfair disciplinary experience while employed by the city. Subsequently, the Grand Jury received additional testimony from other current and former employees who indicated they too had not been treated in an equitable manner.
R48:
The City of Parlier formulate and implement written policies and procedures regarding labor relations.
R49:
The City develop written job classifications for all positions and issue them to all employees.
R50:
The City require department heads to adhere to the PMC sections covering their areas of responsibility.
R51:
A current copy of the PMC be made available to City Council members.
R52:
The City prepare, and provide to all employees, a handbook informing them of employee rights as stated in the PMC.
R53:
Employees be advised, in writing, of their rights of representation at all disciplinary hearings.
R54:
Written annual job performance evaluations of all employees be conducted, a copy placed in the employee’s permanent file and a copy provided to the employee.
R55:
A written salary schedule for each position be prepared and a copy made available to each employee.
R56:
The city develop and issue a written policy regarding advancement and salary increases. NEPOTISM IN THE CITY OF PARLIER Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury received several complaints from employees of the City of Parlier regarding nepotism as it exists in the city and the effect it has on their work environment. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary definition of nepotism is “favoritism shown to relatives or close friends by those in power (as by giving them jobs).” Nepotism is defined by the Parlier Municipal Code (PMC) Section 4.01.080 as “Applicants for employment with the city who are related within the third degree, by blood or marriage, to a person currently employed by the city, shall not be employed in the same department as the applicant’s relative, if it is determined on a case-by case review that employment of the applicant in the same department as his or her relative would create or aggravate problems relating to safety, security, supervision, morale or conflicts of interest in such department.”
R57:
PMC section 4.01.080 be rewritten to more clearly state the city’s policy on nepotism as defined by Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, “favoritism shown to relatives or close friends by those in power (as by giving them jobs).”
R58:
The policy of the city be to recruit, employ, and promote the best-qualified individuals. PARLIER PERSONNEL HEARING BOARD Introduction During the year 2000, a decision was made by the City manager to establish a Personnel Hearing Board (PHB). The Parlier Municipal Code (PMC) Section 4.02. (1997) describes the duties and responsibilities of the Board. Such a Board had never been established. The Board consists of two City Council members and a citizen at large. The purpose of the Board is to hear the final appeal of employees who have been disciplined and have exhausted all options for redress. The citizen at large position is to be filled by an applicant who is a resident of the City and at least 18 years of age. This position is to be noticed and described in the local newspaper and posted at City Hall.
R59:
The current PHB be dissolved.
R60:
The position for citizen at large be advertised (noticed).
R61:
The position for citizen at large be posted at City Hall.
R62:
All citizens who submit applications for this position be given equal consideration. PARLIER POLICE DEPARTMENT Introduction For many years, the Parlier Police Department has suffered from a lack of leadership and corresponding departmental ineffectiveness. The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury has undertaken a review of the causes and possible remedies. During the past 10 years, the City of Parlier has had 13 Chiefs of Police. Turnover by employees has been high due to low pay, low morale and lack of leadership. There have been continuing allegations of corruption, inefficiency and favoritism.
R63:
The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that the Parlier Police Department be closed immediately and the policing of Parlier be contracted with the Fresno County Sheriff. CITY COMMITTEE Rene Lastreto, Chair Robert Boehringer Mikie Kapigian Louis Olais Juliana Pherson Leo Shishmanian 42 CITY COMMITTEE
R64:
Continue the broad public education program to increase awareness of the need to meet recycling goals.
R65:
Tailor educational efforts to target each culture within our community in a way that has proven most effective for that group. FRESNO CITY PARKS SANITATION FACILITIES Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury inspected toilet facilities at Roeding Park, Woodward Park and six neighborhood parks. Conditions reviewed: Ø Cleanliness and cleaning schedules Ø Condition of fixtures and stalls Ø Privacy locks on toilet doors Ø Presence of soap Ø Presence of hand drying materials or machines Ø Plumbing leaks
R66:
Increase the budget to provide for care of the new parks.
R67:
Add personnel to help maintain the park sanitation facilities.
R68:
Provide adequate funds for replacement of fixtures with more durable ones. CITY COUNCIL INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDS Introduction The Fresno City Council discretionary infrastructure budget was examined by the 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury.
R69:
Distribution of the City Council discretionary infrastructure funds be reviewed and approved by the City Manager prior to disbursement. 48
R70:
Consideration be given to reducing the current allotment from $140,000 to $70,000 per district.
R71:
Carryover of any unused infrastructure funds be eliminated.
R72:
Future Grand Juries continue to monitor the program. CITY OF FRESNO WATER METERS Introduction Upon review of the 1999/2000 Fresno County Grand Jury report, the 2000/2001 Grand Jury investigated the current status of water availability and management.
R73:
The Mayor, City Council and all civic groups unite to promote the installation of water meters.
R74:
Homeowners and businesses that currently have meters be excluded from further meter installation costs.
R75:
The city utilities department continue to publish average water bills for various family sizes with and without meters.
R76:
Water police be reactivated to prevent water waste. BASEBALL/MULTI-USE STADIUM Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury reviewed the reports of the 1998/1999 and 1999/2000 Grand Juries. During the tenure of the present Grand Jury, the Fresno City Council approved the stadium project. Work has commenced on the site.
R77:
The City require an annual independent audit of the financial statements of FDG.
R78:
All seventeen dates the city controls be devoted to for-profit events to enhance the City’s revenues.
R79:
The public be assured of coordinated parking and security by FDG and the City. CITY OF FRESNO FIRE DEPARTMENT Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury investigated the City of Fresno Fire Department's (FFD) rating as established by the Insurance Services Office, Inc. (ISO). This organization evaluates the level of fire protection, the ability to receive and answer alarms, and the adequacy of water supply. A maximum of 100% credit is available. The percentages are broken into ten ISO Public Protection Classes. Class 1 equates to the top rating of 90-100%. Class 10 equates to the lowest rating, 0-9%. When last evaluated in 1995, the City of Fresno was rated a Class 4, achieving a rating of 66.07%. These classifications were developed for fire insurance rating purposes only. Insurance companies may use the agency’s classification to assist in setting property insurance premiums.
R80:
The fire department have a budgeted vehicle replacement plan. The city should consider replacement of vehicles after seven or eight years while they still have significant value on the used fire vehicle market.
R81:
The inventory of fire fighting tools be increased so that all spare engines/trucks are fully equipped.
R82:
The city recognize the need to increase the number of fire fighting personnel.
R83:
The City of Fresno revisit its traffic light pre-emption plan and budget funds to complete this program.
R84:
The Fresno Fire Department develop a plan to reduce response times to the NFPA standards. COUNTY COMMITTEE Rick Allen, Chair James Cotton Fred Goldring Ann Thaxter James Torosian Donald Wilson 57 COUNTY COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury County Committee’s primary function is to oversee all aspects of county government, incorporated cities not including Fresno, and special districts. Among the committee’s responsibilities is to insure that county monies and operations are handled in an efficient, effective and appropriate manner that best serve the interest of the citizens. The Grand Jury received requests for inquiries into various government operations within the County of Fresno. The County Committee conducted inquiries of the following: A. The operations and management of the Office of the Public Administrator/Public Guardian. B. Operation of the Coroner’s Office. Allegations of misconduct regarding utility bill collection policies in the City of Mendota. C. Complaints regarding the management of the City of Parlier. (The result of this investigation is presented in this report under the heading - Ad Hoc Committee, City of Parlier). D. The operations of the Elkhorn Correctional Facility. E. The need for a Briefing Book for newly elected members of the Fresno County Board of Supervisors and Fresno City Council. In the course of conducting these inquiries the committee gathered facts, interviewed many citizens, officials, department heads and employees of the County of Fresno and cities within the County of Fresno. During the process of the investigations, the committee made numerous field trips to government facilities within the county. OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC ADMINSTRATOR/PUBLIC GUARDIAN Introduction The 1999/2000 Fresno County Grand Jury Report prompted a review by this jury panel of the Public Administrator/Public Guardian Office (PA/PG).
R85:
The PA/PG evaluate the use of the County Treasury Pool.
R86:
Storage be improved for case records and client assets. Construction of an on-site storage building would eliminate the need for expensive off-site mini-storage.
R87:
Evaluate the need for additional deputies due to the implementation of the new Elder Abuse Referral Law SB 1742.
R88:
PA/PG add the services of a Registered Nurse to staff. This person would aid in evaluating and inspecting medical care facilities as well as review proposed client treatment and prescription history.
R89:
PA/PG evaluate the purchase of Long Term Care Insurance for those clients who would be eligible. OFFICE OF THE FRESNO COUNTY CORONER Introduction The 1999/2000 Fresno County Grand Jury report prompted an unannounced visit to the facilities of the Fresno County Coroner on December 19, 2000 by the 2000/2001 Grand Jury.
R90:
A plan be developed for a new morgue before the County reaches a crisis situation.
R91:
A new commercial washing machine be purchased for on-site laundering needs and/or use a commercial laundry.
R92:
Reference be made to the Grand Jury reports of 1998/1999 and 1999/2000 regarding the need for improvement of record storage. MENDOTA UTILITY BILL COLLECTIONS Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury received a written complaint regarding bill collection policies in the City of Mendota. The complaint included the following allegations: A. Some employees of the City of Mendota had not paid their water/utility bill for a period in excess of one year. B. Some elected officials were not making timely payments of their water/utility bills. C. This activity had been disclosed by the City Manager and/or City Attorney. It was alleged that the entire City office staff was involved. D. The 2000/2001 Grand Jury issued a subpoena for certain records covering the payment of water/utility bills by current and former Mendota city employees and elected officials. These records were provided to the Grand Jury on August 30, 2000.
R93:
The monthly shutoff list and notices be reviewed by an individual independent of the accounting department of the City of Mendota.
R94:
The subject of outstanding utility bills be reviewed during the annual financial audit conducted by an outside auditor.
R95:
The City establish and maintain training for all employees on the use of the Municipal Code and written procedures and policies regarding the collection of utility bills. ELKHORN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury followed up on the recommendation of the 1998/1999 Grand Jury to monitor the operation of the Elkhorn Correctional Facility (Juvenile Boot Camp). The Grand Jury toured the Elkhorn Correctional Facility (ECF) on September 1, 2000. The director and support staff provided a briefing on the history of the facility and its goals. Information was received from Elkhorn management, members of the Fresno County Board of Supervisors, the Chief Probation Officer and officials of the City of Fresno.
R96:
The Fresno County Board of Supervisors review commitments made in the February 11, 1997, letter issued by a former County Chief Administrative Officer and assure the neighbors of ECF that the County intends to honor these commitments. If certain commitments cannot be met, the County should negotiate with the neighbors to reach an equitable arrangement.
R97:
The Board of Supervisors continue to fund and maintain the present level of services at ECF.
R98:
The City of Fresno continue to fund Elkhorn Correctional Facility at no less than the current rate of $1,000,000 per year with no sunset provision.
R99:
The County provide boot camp facilities for female juvenile offenders.
R100:
Future Grand Juries continue to monitor the activities at the Elkhorn Correctional Facility. BRIEFING BOOK FOR NEWLY ELECTED OFFICIALS Introduction As the result of testimony received from newly elected members of the Fresno City Council and Fresno County Board of Supervisors, the Grand Jury reviewed the procedure for providing information to these individuals prior to assuming office.
Findings & Recommendations
19 findings
F4:
During fieldwork it was noted that a check was issued to the Finance Director on August 6, 1998 in the amount of $1,504.31 for training reimbursement. The Finance Director also authorized the payment and signed the check. It is the City Manager’s policy to approve the warrant register, which he believes provides proper segregation of duties. However, based on our review, the warrant register does not provide details of each payment, just check totals. Therefore, the City Manager’s approval of the warrant register does not indicate that he approved the contents of the payment. At a minimum, internal controls require segregation of duties which provides an adequate level of review. Although this can be difficult in a small office like Parlier’s Finance Department, the City Manager should review and approve the payment contents as well as payment totals, when the Finance Director is the payee.
F5:
It was noted during fieldwork that Parlier’s City Manager and Finance Director utilize City credit cards. Purchases for office equipment, travel and meetings, etc. are made using these credit cards, and in 9 out of 11 (81%) credit card statements reviewed, receipts were not attached to the statements to support the expenditures. Only vendor names and handwritten general descriptions were included on the statements. We further tested 3 of the above 9 statements and determined that $117.11 of the insufficiently supported expenditures on a statement totaling $684.51 was attributable to Parlier’s Redevelopment Agency. In addition, $525.17 and $177.07 of the expenditures on two other statements totaling $5,037.59 and $1,980.00, respectively, were attributable to the Measure C – Transportation Authority, Sales Tax Proceeds fund (Measure C). In addition, when costs are charged to the Measure C program that cannot be substantiated and, therefore may not be in compliance with program requirements, Parlier’s future allocations may be withheld and reimbursements of such funds to the Fresno County Auditor-Controller/Treasurer- Tax Collector may be required. Such funds would only be released when exceptions are resolved and Parlier is in compliance with program requirements. Compliance issues regarding redevelopment agencies are addressed by various regulatory agencies as explained in the Parlier Redevelopment Agency section on .
F6:
It was noted during testing of expenditures, that the Finance Director used the City of Parlier’s Office Depot credit card on two separate occasions to purchase personal items such as movie videos, games, a chair, bookcases, etc. totaling $768.06. Both the Finance Director and City Manager stated the card was used by mistake and that actions were taken to reimburse the City through payroll deductions. However, when this matter was brought to the Finance Director’s attention by our audits staff, the Finance Director researched and determined that Parlier had not yet been reimbursed. Although this matter should have been followed up more timely, on April 2, 2001, the Finance Director did reimburse the City $914.77 which includes interest. 8
F7:
Health & Safety Code Section 33490 requires redevelopment agencies to submit a 5-year plan to the State Controller’s Office on or before December 31, 1994 and every 5 years thereafter. The RDA submitted a 5-year plan in 1994. However, based on information provided, Parlier’s 5-year plan, which was due on or before December 31,1999, had not been submitted to the State Controller’s Office as of the date of this review.
F8:
It was noted that the RDA appropriately recorded $747,015 in revenues for fiscal year 1998/99. However, only $145,496 of this amount was transferred to the low-income housing fund, which was less than the 20% required by Health & Safety Code Section 33487 by $3,907. The calculation was based on the net amount received by the RDA instead of the gross apportionment as required by the Code. The transfer to the low-income housing fund was properly calculated for fiscal year 1999/00. 9
F9:
It was noted during a review of Parlier’s financial statements that redevelopment notes receivable in the amount of $1,257,180 were erroneously listed in the general long-term debt account group in the 1998/99 statements. These notes receivable were properly reclassified by Parlier staff in the 1999/00 statements, which resulted in a $1,257,180 increase in the capital projects beginning fund balance; however, there was no disclosure explaining this material change.
F10a:
According to Parlier’s City Manager, all redevelopment loan programs must be approved by the RDA Board, which is Parlier’s City Council. We reviewed all available loan files for the sixteen redevelopment loans issued by Parlier as identified below, which were made between 1993 and 1996. There are nine individual loans and seven commercial loans. Based on documentation provided, it could not be determined that any of the loans were properly approved by the RDA Board. The Executive Director of the RDA is authorized to execute loan documents on behalf of the RDA, and we verified that he did sign agreements for all of the loans except as noted in Findings #10b, c and d below. In addition, based on information provided in loan files, we could not determine if any of the borrowers met the RDA criteria needed to obtain the loans. The City Manager stated that it is unlikely that any of the borrowers would not meet the criteria due to Parlier’s demographics. In addition, both the City Manager and Finance Director stated that there may be additional RDA loans that they do not know about. They said that loan files were incomplete when they began working for the City, and they had to piece together documentation for the loans as it was located. Based on the documentation provided, all nine individual loans were charged 5% interest. However, of the six commercial loans that had any supporting documentation (the seventh loan did not), one was charged 4.39% interest, three were charged 5%, and two others were charged 8%. Parlier staff did not know how these various interest rates were determined or why it was decided to charge different borrowers different rates. Based on our review of redevelopment guidelines, no provisions could be found that addressed the matter of interest rates on outstanding loans. In addition, except as noted in Finding #10b, we could not determine that any of the borrowers were related to City officials at the time of the issuance of the loans; however, this should not necessarily be an issue provided all borrowers met RDA loan criteria as addressed above.
F10b:
Nine of the sixteen loans issued by Parlier were “written off” for financial statement purposes and seven were not. Except as noted below, payments on six of these seven loans were received regularly and currently from the borrowers. Four of these six loans were provided to individuals in the amounts of $6,013, $7,000, $13,782, and $15,000. The fifth and sixth loans were commercial loans for $102,000 and $488,000 at a 4.39% and 5% interest rates, respectively. The seventh of these loans, which did not have any supporting documentation, is addressed in Finding #10d. The $15,000 individual loan noted above was issued in 1995 to a relative of the mayor. No payments were received by the RDA until the previous Finance Director contacted the borrower in April 1997 requesting copies of loan documents, which Parlier did not have at that time. Shortly after that, the borrower began to make regular payments on the loan and has continued making payments through the date of this review. These loan payments are included in a schedule in our workpapers. In addition, based on our review of loan documentation provided by the City, the agreement for this $15,000 loan was signed only by the borrower. Therefore, it is not clear whether the loan was properly executed by the Executive Director, or whether the loan was properly approved by the RDA Board as addressed in finding #10a. Based on documentation provided, we did find evidence that the Executive Director authorized $5,000 of the loan, because he approved two checks issued on this loan totaling $5,000.
F10c:
One of eight reportable conditions in Parlier’s 1998/99 audit report stated “The RDA has made numerous redevelopment loans to individuals and businesses. Many of these are totally non- performing.” The corresponding recommendation stated “Staff should contact each delinquent borrower to determine if stronger collection action is required, or if the loan cannot be reasonably collected, then it should be written off.” Parlier’s response was “RDA receivables were turned over to a professional collection service. Collection of the majority of housing loans is not possible, since the loans were not secured by real property. The issue of whether to pursue or forgive these loans is a policy for the Council to pursue.” 11 For 1999/00 financial statement purposes, the RDA “wrote off” four commercial loans and five individual loans totaling $46,736. Based on information provided, Parlier’s City Council did not approve writing off these loans, although it was disclosed in Parlier’s 1999/00 financial statements that the “City wrote off” the loans. During our review, Parlier staff explained that it was not the City’s intention to officially write off loans as they just wanted to report loans for financial statement purposes net of amounts considered to be uncollectible, and they are continuing to pursue collection of these loans. Based on information provided during our review, Parlier referred the delinquent loans to one collection agency who declined to pursue collection of the loans. According to Parlier staff, based on that collection agency’s response that these loans were not collectible, it was decided not to try to obtain further collection agency services. As of the date of this review, Parlier has not referred these loans to any other collection agency. The RDA continues to send invoices monthly on the “written off” loans to all of the individual borrowers but to none of the commercial borrowers, which, according to the City Manager, are no longer in business. However, no payments have been made by the loan recipients in several years. Information received on these “written off” loans is indicated below. The loan type is designated by a C for Commercial or I for Individual as follows: Loan Loan Loan Interest Unpaid Date of Type Year Loan Recipient Amount Rate Balance Last Pmt C 1993 El01 $12,500 8% $10,000 7/97 C 1993 Gor02 5,500 8% 4,940 11/93 C 1995 Sal03 2,390 5% 1,647 1/98 C 1995 Ant04 2,550 5% 513 7/97 I 1995 Mar05 5,000 5% 3,062 4/97 I 1995 And06 3,044 5% 2,639 4/97 I 1995 Noe07 2,500 5% 2,048 12/96 I 1996 Elo08 14,430 5% 14,430 None I 1996 Man09 7,683 5% 7,457 12/96 Total $55,597 $46,736 In addition, based on our review of the related loan documentation, the following exceptions were noted for these “written-off” loans: 1. The signed loan agreement for loan recipient Gor02 specified a loan amount of $4,000, but the amortization schedule included in the documentation provided an amended loan total of $5,500, yet there was no authorized amendment to the loan agreement. 12 2. The loan documentation for loan recipient El01 (El01) did not contain a loan agreement but contained other miscellaneous documents including a 1993 request from the attorney in fact for a $12,500 loan; an incomplete and unofficial copy of a 1993 RDA minutes indicating that the RDA Board approved a $12,000 loan to El01, and a copy of a $12,500 check signed by the RDA Executive Director and made out to El01 in 1993. Therefore, there was a conflict between the $12,000 amount that appeared to have been approved by the RDA Board and the $12,500 check approved by the Executive Director.
F10d:
During our review of the seven outstanding loans that were not “written off”, we noted that the financial statements disclosed that “…the Agency has a receivable … relating to low-income housing assistance provided in prior years. As long as …” the borrower “…continues renting to low-income individuals, they will be required to pay back a discounted amount equaling the annual installments, without interest, in the amount of $83,418 beginning in December 2013.” Parlier staff was able to provide us with a recorded deed of trust for this loan in the amount of $1,668,366; however, they could not provide a copy of the loan agreement. Therefore, we were not able to verify whether the borrower has complied with the terms of the agreement or whether the agreement was properly approved as discussed in finding #10a. Also, we were not able to determine whether interest will accrue if the borrower does not continue renting to low-income individuals or any other details about the loan.
F11:
It was noted during fieldwork that reimbursement requests submitted to the Fresno County Public Works Department were properly supported by invoices to outside entities. However, transactions were not properly recorded in the City of Parlier’s general ledger. Payments made by Fresno County to Parlier during fiscal year 1998/99 were understated in Parlier’s CDBG general ledger by $14,271.61, thereby understating CDBG revenues on the 1998/99 financial statements. The difference was due to a check issued by Fresno County in the amount of $149,271.61 on May 13, 1999. It was confirmed that Parlier received and endorsed the check for $149,271.61; however, only $135,000 of this amount was recorded in Parlier’s CDBG fund. The balance of $14,271.61 was recorded in Parlier’s general fund. Also, we were not able to trace 2 of 30 (6%) invoices totaling $4,370 to Parlier’s CDBG fund. However, we were able to confirm with the vendor that the invoices had been paid. Parlier staff has not been able to provide information regarding where these expenditures were recorded. Additionally, during a test of CDBG expenditures recorded in the general ledger, Parlier staff were not able to locate supporting documentation for 2 of 8 (25%) expenditures tested. Accurate and complete records are essential for restricted revenue funds to ensure continued funding and enhance internal controls.
F12:
During a review of Parlier’s financial statements for fiscal years 1998/99 and 1999/00, it was noted that the Child Development Fund listed expenditures for capital projects, which is not in compliance with the terms of the grant. Further analysis found that capital expenditures were not made in violation of the grant provisions. Instead, expenditures were not properly classified in the general ledger or the financial statements. 14
F13:
During a review of grant agreements for fiscal years 1998/99 and 1999/00, it was determined that grant expenditures recorded in the general fund and reported in the financial statements were in compliance with grant provisions except for a 1998/99 expenditure of $582.50 for engineering expenses.
F14:
During a review of the general ledger it was determined that expenditures do not agree with reports submitted to the State. The general ledger for fiscal year 1999/00 reports grant revenues of $283,950.97 plus $10,216.73 interest revenue for a total of $294,167.70. The general ledger also indicates total expenditures of $81,966.58 for 1999/00. The audit report sent to the State, which was prepared by the subcontractor’s CPA, indicates costs of $1,094,953.00 and revenue received of $72,808.00 for 1999/00. It appears that this audit report was prepared to reflect revenues and expenditures of the subcontractor and not the City of Parlier’s Child Development revenues and expenditures.
F15:
During the review, it was noted that payments made by the State Controller’s Office (SCO) to Parlier, which were posted on the SCO’s website did not agree with totals recorded in Parlier’s accounting system for fiscal years 1998/99 and 1999/00. For fiscal year 1998/99, the SCO recorded payments of $197,403.36 and Parlier recorded revenues of $218,610.40 for a variance of $21,207.04. For fiscal year 1999/00, the SCO recorded payments of $200,512.18 and Parlier recorded revenues of $202,545.85 for a variance of $2,033.67. Based on our review and documentation provided we could not determine whether the variances were due to timing differences or other factors.
F18:
During a review of the audit report issued by an independent accounting firm for fiscal year 1998/99, it was noted that the report contained an unqualified opinion despite the insufficiently supported expenditures discussed in findings #1-3 and the understated revenues discussed above. The same firm is conducting an audit of the Local Transportation fund for fiscal year 1999/00 but has not yet issued their report. During a conversation on March 26, 2001 with a staff member of the independent firm, the staff member said that the firm is questioning the method that Parlier uses to apply administrative overhead costs to this fund. The staff member also stated that the 1999/00 report will contain findings and recommendations related to the overhead application process.
F19:
Parlier’s Finance Director said that the City uses LLEBG money to pay for overtime expenditures in the Police Department since the amount of the grant is not enough to hire an additional police officer. Although overtime used to increase or enhance police services is an appropriate expenditure for this grant; based on information reviewed, we could not determine that overtime expended was an inappropriate use of grant monies. One officer’s salary is charged to the fund as an equivalent to the law enforcement overtime costs incurred outside of the fund. The amount of the 1998 grant was $19,623 and overtime for that period was $92,705. The amount of the 1999 grant was $19,097 and overtime for that period was $65,135. The Finance Director stated that he spoke with personnel in the US Department of Justice (DOJ) who told him that he can account for the fund in this manner as long as he can support the amount of overtime claimed on the grant. We contacted the DOJ and were told that this practice is not appropriate. DOJ staff stated that the actual expenditures paid with LLEBG money must be recorded in the fund established to account for the grant. During our review, expenditures for equipment were tested. During fiscal year 1998/99, 4 of 5 (80%) equipment expenditures tested did not appear to be appropriate for fund purposes based on information provided. As confirmed with the DOJ, LLEBG money is to be used to increase or enhance law enforcement services. The expenditures questioned include chairs for $1,356.68, rug runners for $343.73, and office supplies for $161.61. 17
F22:
During a test of expenditures for fiscal year 1999/00, the City of Parlier was not able to provide support for $769.50 charged to salaries and benefits recorded through a journal entry. The City’s Finance Director stated that the support for the journal entry could not be located.
F23:
Based on our review, another COPS program (AB3229, Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund) was charged $886.13 for an officer’s salary that was also included in a Universal Hiring Grant report submitted to the DOJ for the period 10/1/98 to 3/31/99. In addition, the salary included in this report also included overtime which is not allowable according to Universal Hiring Grant provisions.
Additional Recommendations
99
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
To be in compliance with the above restricted revenue requirements and regulations and to eliminate the appearance that restricted revenues are being used to fund general fund expenditures, the City of Parlier should ensure that such restricted revenues are clearly used for the related program purposes. Costs charged to the special revenue funds should reflect actual costs attributable to the program and should be supported by applicable documentation such as time tracking. The City of Parlier should obtain clarification from the applicable regulatory agency to determine if their current cost allocation methodology is acceptable.
R2:
In the absence of fully supportable cost allocation methodologies or regulatory approval of existing cost allocation methodologies, the City of Parlier should reverse the $268,224 and $393,602 in overhead costs charged to the special revenue funds listed above. In addition, any other insufficiently supported cost allocations that were not noted in this report should also be reversed.
R3:
In order to provide for sound accounting and budgeting practices and to ensure a clear audit trail, appropriations and expenditures should be initially recorded in the originating department/fund where the activities are incurred.
R4:
The City of Parlier Finance Department should implement procedures that provide segregation of duties related to accounts payable. Specifically, the person who approves payments should not be the same person who signs checks and submits requests for payments. When it is necessary for the 7 Finance Director to submit a request for payment, the payment should be sufficiently reviewed and approved by another authorized staff member (e.g. the City Manager).
R5:
To strengthen internal controls over expenditures in special revenue funds and to ensure that funding does not need to be reimbursed or that future funding is withheld, the City of Parlier should ensure that program costs incurred are fully supported and are in compliance with program requirements. This can be achieved in part by requiring that receipts for credit card purchases be retained for supporting documentation and submitted to the Finance Department for review and approval.
R6:
To prevent losses and enhance internal controls, the City of Parlier should immediately implement procedures to ensure that the City’s charge accounts and credit cards are not used for personal purchases. Parlier Redevelopment Agency (RDA) Compliance issues involving redevelopment funding are addressed by the State Controller’s Office, the State Attorney General and the Court. Based on Section 33080.8 of California’s Health & Safety Code, the State Controller compiles lists of redevelopment agencies that appear to have uncorrected major violations, based on the annual independent audit reports filed by such agencies. The Attorney General can pursue filing lawsuits against redevelopment agencies having uncorrected violations, and the Court can prohibit the agency from performing various activities until the Court determines that the major violations are corrected. Since the RDA’s annual audit reports for 1998/99 and 1999/00 contained unqualified opinions, it is unlikely that it was determined that Parlier had any major violations, and it is not known what actions, if any, the above regulatory entities would take as a result of the redevelopment findings noted in this separate report. This report may affect the findings and opinion of independent accounting firms performing future redevelopment audits; however, it is not known if these
R7:
In compliance with the above code sections and to ensure that funding is not withheld, the RDA should immediately submit a 5-year plan to the State Controller’s Office and submit all future required documents when due.
R8:
In order to comply with Health & Safety Code Section 33487 and to ensure that funding is not withheld, the RDA should transfer $3,907 to the low income housing fund for fiscal year 1998/99 from the RDA Capital Projects Fund.
R9:
In order to explain material changes in the financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, the City of Parlier should provide adequate disclosure in the notes to the financial statements. For example, Parlier could have identified the above increase in the capital projects fund balance as a “restated” fund balance in the financial statements. In addition, a note disclosure should have been provided to reconcile the restated fund balance to the prior year ending balance. The disclosure should have also explained the reason(s) for the restatement. Parlier should consider this for future reporting purposes.
R10:
a, b, c, and d To ensure that funding is not withheld, the RDA should ensure all proper procedures and legal requirements are followed when issuing loans and all appropriate documents are maintained in their loan files and that all loans are properly authorized. Parlier staff should review all available loan records since the formation of the RDA to try to locate all missing loan documentation and criteria information on the sixteen known loans addressed above. Parlier staff should also determine if there are any additional outstanding loans not currently known that should be followed up on. Also, even though Parlier has indicated that the commercial borrowers of the “written off” loans are out of business, Parlier should continue to bill the business owners until these loans are officially written off by the City Council. Proper procedures must be followed to assure that all redevelopment loans are repaid timely and in full. Redevelopment loans determined to be uncollectible should be written off by the City Council and referred to a collection agency as appropriate. Parlier should consider following up with other collection agencies or pursue other means of recouping unpaid balances, e.g. through small claims processes, other lawsuits, etc. In addition, Parlier should ensure and be able to support that interest charged on Redevelopment loans is charged fairly and equitably. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
R11:
To enhance internal controls, ensure the accuracy of the City’s accounting records, and ensure continued funding, Parlier should implement formal procedures to ensure proper accounting for and reconciliation of restricted revenues. In addition, all transactions and supporting documentation must be maintained until such records have been audited by all appropriate oversight agencies. Finally, the City of Parlier should make the appropriate general ledger entries within the special revenue fund to record these transactions. Child Development Grant
R12:
The City of Parlier should post transactions to proper accounts and subsequently classify expenditures appropriately in their financial statements.
R13:
In order to comply with terms of the Child Development Grant, the City of Parlier should reimburse the Child Development fund the $582.50 noted above and only make expenditures appropriate for grant purposes from this fund.
R14:
In order to comply with terms of the Child Development Grant, the City of Parlier should obtain an annual audit of the Child Development Program that conforms to the terms of the grant agreement and reports on Child Development revenues and expenditures of the City of Parlier. In addition, the City of Parlier should consistently review any audit reports prepared for their program prior to finalization of the report. Measure “C” – Transportation Authority, Sales Tax Proceeds It was noted during our review that insufficiently supported overhead allocations were applied to the Measure “C” special revenue fund. See findings and recommendations #1 - 3. Highway User Tax (Gas Tax)
R15:
In order to properly account for and report Gas Tax revenues, the City of Parlier must reconcile any variances between revenues paid by a funding entity and revenues recorded by the City. Local Transportation Fund
R16:
In order to properly administer the Local Transportation Fund and ensure proper financial statement presentation, the City of Parlier must reconcile the Local Transportation fund to receipts and implement procedures to ensure that all transactions are properly recorded and reported.
R17:
The City of Parlier should either provide supporting documentation for the $70,702 reduction of revenues or reverse this adjustment as appropriate. 16
R19:
The City of Parlier should contact the DOJ for written clarification of what constitutes acceptable expenditures for this grant. The City of Parlier should comply with the information provided by the DOJ related to this audit finding. Unauthorized expenditures of grant funds must be reimbursed or a waiver should be requested from the grantor agency. COPS Grant AB3229
R20:
The City of Parlier should ensure that actual interest is allocated to the COPS fund for 1998/99, 1999/00 and thereafter. In addition, the City should ensure that adequate interest allocation methodologies are used to ensure that all restricted revenues are accurately calculated, allocated and available to be used for restricted program purposes or returned to regulatory agencies as necessary in the event of non-compliance with program requirements.
R21:
In compliance with the provisions of Government Code Section 30061 as stated above, the City of Parlier should ensure that the appropriation of COPS grant monies for 2000/01 and thereafter are separately presented to and approved by Parlier’s City Council as required.
R22:
The City of Parlier should maintain support for all financial transactions that affect special revenue funds as well as other funds until all oversight agencies conduct periodic audits. Unauthorized expenditures of grant funds must be reimbursed or a waiver should be requested from the grantor agency. Universal Hiring Grant (COPS)
R23:
The City of Parlier should implement procedures to ensure that expenditures are not claimed/reported twice and that overtime costs are not claimed in compliance with Universal 19 Hiring Grant provisions. Parlier should also adjust the above reports and charges to reverse duplicated expenditures and inappropriate overtime costs. Office of Emergency Services (OES)
R24:
The City of Parlier should investigate the difference of $2,404 between revenues reported in their general ledger for OES revenues and the amount of payments confirmed through the State OES or have support for the variance readily available.
R25:
The City of Parlier should immediately revise the Project Completion and Certification Report to reflect actual costs for the disaster period. They should provide support for costs claimed or return $36,136 claimed inappropriately to the State OES. 20
R26:
To ensure accuracy of records, enhance internal controls, and ensure the availability of current and future funding, the City of Parlier should properly maintain files containing supporting documentation for transactions and retain these records until audited by all appropriate oversight agencies. Transportation Equity Act No reportable conditions were noted during our review of the Transportation Equity Act, which provides funding for street improvements. Based on our review, only $14,761 was spent for this program in 1999/00 for preliminary engineering on street improvement projects, which is in compliance with program provisions.
R27:
The Parlier City Manager confer with the City Council before engaging in city projects costing over $10,000 as required by PMC.
R28:
Bidding and contracting of services be in compliance with PMC.
R29:
The City Manager and City Council be held responsible for implementing the directives set forth in PMC.
R30:
Compensation of employees and/or contractors be in compliance with existing State and Federal laws. PARLIER ANIMAL CONTROL Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury received complaints relating to animal control and conditions at the City of Parlier Animal Shelter. Recommendations regarding animal control and the animal shelter were included in the 1997/1998 Grand Jury Report. The City Manager responded as follows: “The City will continue efforts to create innovative ways to obtain funding and attract community support for animal control operations and facilities, this shall include seeking grants, encouraging participation by local organizations and volunteers, the Humane Society and SPCA.” “The City will continue to enforce leash and licensing laws and to collect fees and/or fines to generate revenue for animal control services. The city code has animal control codes, which it enforces; the city has adopted animal licensing fees and fines to offset some of the costs of these activities. The City Council reviews fees on an annual basis and adjusts them, as it deems appropriate. The City will review and update its animal control codes and fees during fiscal 1998-1999.”
R31:
The City hire an animal control officer.
R32:
The animal shelter be relocated within the city to make it more accessible.
R33:
Leash and licensing laws be enforced.
R34:
The City educate the community regarding licensing, vaccinations, leash laws, spaying and neutering.
R35:
The City establish a fee schedule for costs incurred in animal control.
R36:
All record keeping relating to animal control be current.
R37:
State guidelines be followed for the ultimate disposal of any animal.
R38:
Polaroid photographs of mi pounded dogs be posted at city hall in order for citizens to see if their dog has been impounded. CARPETING OF PARLIER CITY HALL Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury investigated a complaint from a concerned citizen about the method used by the City Manager in the purchase and installation of carpet in the Parlier City Hall.
R39:
The Parlier Municipal Code and Purchasing Ordinance be followed.
R40:
Shortcuts that violate the existing code not be considered. CODE ENFORCEMENT IN PARLIER Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury investigated a written complaint from a citizen that cited the lack of code enforcement in the City of Parlier.
R41:
The present policy of code enforcement be changed to a more aggressive system which addresses all violations existing in the City of Parlier.
R42:
Written policy and procedures be developed to provide for the tracking and documented resolution of all complaints.
R43:
The city hire a code enforcement officer, supported with sufficient staff.
R44:
Adequate training be provided for the code enforcement officer and staff, including instruction in property owner and tenant rights.
R45:
A written manual providing guidelines on how to resolve code enforcement disputes be developed and implemented.
R46:
The City of Parlier inform and educate the public on current code enforcement policy.
R47:
A current copy of the Parlier Municipal Code be available for public use at City Hall and the public library. PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT WITHIN THE CITY OF PARLIER Introduction An employee of the City of Parlier provided testimony to the 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury regarding an unfair disciplinary experience while employed by the city. Subsequently, the Grand Jury received additional testimony from other current and former employees who indicated they too had not been treated in an equitable manner.
R48:
The City of Parlier formulate and implement written policies and procedures regarding labor relations.
R49:
The City develop written job classifications for all positions and issue them to all employees.
R50:
The City require department heads to adhere to the PMC sections covering their areas of responsibility.
R51:
A current copy of the PMC be made available to City Council members.
R52:
The City prepare, and provide to all employees, a handbook informing them of employee rights as stated in the PMC.
R53:
Employees be advised, in writing, of their rights of representation at all disciplinary hearings.
R54:
Written annual job performance evaluations of all employees be conducted, a copy placed in the employee’s permanent file and a copy provided to the employee.
R55:
A written salary schedule for each position be prepared and a copy made available to each employee.
R56:
The city develop and issue a written policy regarding advancement and salary increases. NEPOTISM IN THE CITY OF PARLIER Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury received several complaints from employees of the City of Parlier regarding nepotism as it exists in the city and the effect it has on their work environment. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary definition of nepotism is “favoritism shown to relatives or close friends by those in power (as by giving them jobs).” Nepotism is defined by the Parlier Municipal Code (PMC) Section 4.01.080 as “Applicants for employment with the city who are related within the third degree, by blood or marriage, to a person currently employed by the city, shall not be employed in the same department as the applicant’s relative, if it is determined on a case-by case review that employment of the applicant in the same department as his or her relative would create or aggravate problems relating to safety, security, supervision, morale or conflicts of interest in such department.”
R57:
PMC section 4.01.080 be rewritten to more clearly state the city’s policy on nepotism as defined by Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, “favoritism shown to relatives or close friends by those in power (as by giving them jobs).”
R58:
The policy of the city be to recruit, employ, and promote the best-qualified individuals. PARLIER PERSONNEL HEARING BOARD Introduction During the year 2000, a decision was made by the City manager to establish a Personnel Hearing Board (PHB). The Parlier Municipal Code (PMC) Section 4.02. (1997) describes the duties and responsibilities of the Board. Such a Board had never been established. The Board consists of two City Council members and a citizen at large. The purpose of the Board is to hear the final appeal of employees who have been disciplined and have exhausted all options for redress. The citizen at large position is to be filled by an applicant who is a resident of the City and at least 18 years of age. This position is to be noticed and described in the local newspaper and posted at City Hall.
R59:
The current PHB be dissolved.
R60:
The position for citizen at large be advertised (noticed).
R61:
The position for citizen at large be posted at City Hall.
R62:
All citizens who submit applications for this position be given equal consideration. PARLIER POLICE DEPARTMENT Introduction For many years, the Parlier Police Department has suffered from a lack of leadership and corresponding departmental ineffectiveness. The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury has undertaken a review of the causes and possible remedies. During the past 10 years, the City of Parlier has had 13 Chiefs of Police. Turnover by employees has been high due to low pay, low morale and lack of leadership. There have been continuing allegations of corruption, inefficiency and favoritism.
R63:
The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that the Parlier Police Department be closed immediately and the policing of Parlier be contracted with the Fresno County Sheriff. CITY COMMITTEE Rene Lastreto, Chair Robert Boehringer Mikie Kapigian Louis Olais Juliana Pherson Leo Shishmanian 42 CITY COMMITTEE
R64:
Continue the broad public education program to increase awareness of the need to meet recycling goals.
R65:
Tailor educational efforts to target each culture within our community in a way that has proven most effective for that group. FRESNO CITY PARKS SANITATION FACILITIES Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury inspected toilet facilities at Roeding Park, Woodward Park and six neighborhood parks. Conditions reviewed: Ø Cleanliness and cleaning schedules Ø Condition of fixtures and stalls Ø Privacy locks on toilet doors Ø Presence of soap Ø Presence of hand drying materials or machines Ø Plumbing leaks
R66:
Increase the budget to provide for care of the new parks.
R67:
Add personnel to help maintain the park sanitation facilities.
R68:
Provide adequate funds for replacement of fixtures with more durable ones. CITY COUNCIL INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDS Introduction The Fresno City Council discretionary infrastructure budget was examined by the 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury.
R69:
Distribution of the City Council discretionary infrastructure funds be reviewed and approved by the City Manager prior to disbursement. 48
R70:
Consideration be given to reducing the current allotment from $140,000 to $70,000 per district.
R71:
Carryover of any unused infrastructure funds be eliminated.
R72:
Future Grand Juries continue to monitor the program. CITY OF FRESNO WATER METERS Introduction Upon review of the 1999/2000 Fresno County Grand Jury report, the 2000/2001 Grand Jury investigated the current status of water availability and management.
R73:
The Mayor, City Council and all civic groups unite to promote the installation of water meters.
R74:
Homeowners and businesses that currently have meters be excluded from further meter installation costs.
R75:
The city utilities department continue to publish average water bills for various family sizes with and without meters.
R76:
Water police be reactivated to prevent water waste. BASEBALL/MULTI-USE STADIUM Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury reviewed the reports of the 1998/1999 and 1999/2000 Grand Juries. During the tenure of the present Grand Jury, the Fresno City Council approved the stadium project. Work has commenced on the site.
R77:
The City require an annual independent audit of the financial statements of FDG.
R78:
All seventeen dates the city controls be devoted to for-profit events to enhance the City’s revenues.
R79:
The public be assured of coordinated parking and security by FDG and the City. CITY OF FRESNO FIRE DEPARTMENT Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury investigated the City of Fresno Fire Department's (FFD) rating as established by the Insurance Services Office, Inc. (ISO). This organization evaluates the level of fire protection, the ability to receive and answer alarms, and the adequacy of water supply. A maximum of 100% credit is available. The percentages are broken into ten ISO Public Protection Classes. Class 1 equates to the top rating of 90-100%. Class 10 equates to the lowest rating, 0-9%. When last evaluated in 1995, the City of Fresno was rated a Class 4, achieving a rating of 66.07%. These classifications were developed for fire insurance rating purposes only. Insurance companies may use the agency’s classification to assist in setting property insurance premiums.
R80:
The fire department have a budgeted vehicle replacement plan. The city should consider replacement of vehicles after seven or eight years while they still have significant value on the used fire vehicle market.
R81:
The inventory of fire fighting tools be increased so that all spare engines/trucks are fully equipped.
R82:
The city recognize the need to increase the number of fire fighting personnel.
R83:
The City of Fresno revisit its traffic light pre-emption plan and budget funds to complete this program.
R84:
The Fresno Fire Department develop a plan to reduce response times to the NFPA standards. COUNTY COMMITTEE Rick Allen, Chair James Cotton Fred Goldring Ann Thaxter James Torosian Donald Wilson 57 COUNTY COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury County Committee’s primary function is to oversee all aspects of county government, incorporated cities not including Fresno, and special districts. Among the committee’s responsibilities is to insure that county monies and operations are handled in an efficient, effective and appropriate manner that best serve the interest of the citizens. The Grand Jury received requests for inquiries into various government operations within the County of Fresno. The County Committee conducted inquiries of the following: A. The operations and management of the Office of the Public Administrator/Public Guardian. B. Operation of the Coroner’s Office. Allegations of misconduct regarding utility bill collection policies in the City of Mendota. C. Complaints regarding the management of the City of Parlier. (The result of this investigation is presented in this report under the heading - Ad Hoc Committee, City of Parlier). D. The operations of the Elkhorn Correctional Facility. E. The need for a Briefing Book for newly elected members of the Fresno County Board of Supervisors and Fresno City Council. In the course of conducting these inquiries the committee gathered facts, interviewed many citizens, officials, department heads and employees of the County of Fresno and cities within the County of Fresno. During the process of the investigations, the committee made numerous field trips to government facilities within the county. OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC ADMINSTRATOR/PUBLIC GUARDIAN Introduction The 1999/2000 Fresno County Grand Jury Report prompted a review by this jury panel of the Public Administrator/Public Guardian Office (PA/PG).
R85:
The PA/PG evaluate the use of the County Treasury Pool.
R86:
Storage be improved for case records and client assets. Construction of an on-site storage building would eliminate the need for expensive off-site mini-storage.
R87:
Evaluate the need for additional deputies due to the implementation of the new Elder Abuse Referral Law SB 1742.
R88:
PA/PG add the services of a Registered Nurse to staff. This person would aid in evaluating and inspecting medical care facilities as well as review proposed client treatment and prescription history.
R89:
PA/PG evaluate the purchase of Long Term Care Insurance for those clients who would be eligible. OFFICE OF THE FRESNO COUNTY CORONER Introduction The 1999/2000 Fresno County Grand Jury report prompted an unannounced visit to the facilities of the Fresno County Coroner on December 19, 2000 by the 2000/2001 Grand Jury.
R90:
A plan be developed for a new morgue before the County reaches a crisis situation.
R91:
A new commercial washing machine be purchased for on-site laundering needs and/or use a commercial laundry.
R92:
Reference be made to the Grand Jury reports of 1998/1999 and 1999/2000 regarding the need for improvement of record storage. MENDOTA UTILITY BILL COLLECTIONS Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury received a written complaint regarding bill collection policies in the City of Mendota. The complaint included the following allegations: A. Some employees of the City of Mendota had not paid their water/utility bill for a period in excess of one year. B. Some elected officials were not making timely payments of their water/utility bills. C. This activity had been disclosed by the City Manager and/or City Attorney. It was alleged that the entire City office staff was involved. D. The 2000/2001 Grand Jury issued a subpoena for certain records covering the payment of water/utility bills by current and former Mendota city employees and elected officials. These records were provided to the Grand Jury on August 30, 2000.
R93:
The monthly shutoff list and notices be reviewed by an individual independent of the accounting department of the City of Mendota.
R94:
The subject of outstanding utility bills be reviewed during the annual financial audit conducted by an outside auditor.
R95:
The City establish and maintain training for all employees on the use of the Municipal Code and written procedures and policies regarding the collection of utility bills. ELKHORN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury followed up on the recommendation of the 1998/1999 Grand Jury to monitor the operation of the Elkhorn Correctional Facility (Juvenile Boot Camp). The Grand Jury toured the Elkhorn Correctional Facility (ECF) on September 1, 2000. The director and support staff provided a briefing on the history of the facility and its goals. Information was received from Elkhorn management, members of the Fresno County Board of Supervisors, the Chief Probation Officer and officials of the City of Fresno.
R96:
The Fresno County Board of Supervisors review commitments made in the February 11, 1997, letter issued by a former County Chief Administrative Officer and assure the neighbors of ECF that the County intends to honor these commitments. If certain commitments cannot be met, the County should negotiate with the neighbors to reach an equitable arrangement.
R97:
The Board of Supervisors continue to fund and maintain the present level of services at ECF.
R98:
The City of Fresno continue to fund Elkhorn Correctional Facility at no less than the current rate of $1,000,000 per year with no sunset provision.
R99:
The County provide boot camp facilities for female juvenile offenders.
R100:
Future Grand Juries continue to monitor the activities at the Elkhorn Correctional Facility. BRIEFING BOOK FOR NEWLY ELECTED OFFICIALS Introduction As the result of testimony received from newly elected members of the Fresno City Council and Fresno County Board of Supervisors, the Grand Jury reviewed the procedure for providing information to these individuals prior to assuming office.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
19 findings
F4:
During fieldwork it was noted that a check was issued to the Finance Director on August 6, 1998 in the amount of $1,504.31 for training reimbursement. The Finance Director also authorized the payment and signed the check. It is the City Manager’s policy to approve the warrant register, which he believes provides proper segregation of duties. However, based on our review, the warrant register does not provide details of each payment, just check totals. Therefore, the City Manager’s approval of the warrant register does not indicate that he approved the contents of the payment. At a minimum, internal controls require segregation of duties which provides an adequate level of review. Although this can be difficult in a small office like Parlier’s Finance Department, the City Manager should review and approve the payment contents as well as payment totals, when the Finance Director is the payee.
F5:
It was noted during fieldwork that Parlier’s City Manager and Finance Director utilize City credit cards. Purchases for office equipment, travel and meetings, etc. are made using these credit cards, and in 9 out of 11 (81%) credit card statements reviewed, receipts were not attached to the statements to support the expenditures. Only vendor names and handwritten general descriptions were included on the statements. We further tested 3 of the above 9 statements and determined that $117.11 of the insufficiently supported expenditures on a statement totaling $684.51 was attributable to Parlier’s Redevelopment Agency. In addition, $525.17 and $177.07 of the expenditures on two other statements totaling $5,037.59 and $1,980.00, respectively, were attributable to the Measure C – Transportation Authority, Sales Tax Proceeds fund (Measure C). In addition, when costs are charged to the Measure C program that cannot be substantiated and, therefore may not be in compliance with program requirements, Parlier’s future allocations may be withheld and reimbursements of such funds to the Fresno County Auditor-Controller/Treasurer- Tax Collector may be required. Such funds would only be released when exceptions are resolved and Parlier is in compliance with program requirements. Compliance issues regarding redevelopment agencies are addressed by various regulatory agencies as explained in the Parlier Redevelopment Agency section on .
F6:
It was noted during testing of expenditures, that the Finance Director used the City of Parlier’s Office Depot credit card on two separate occasions to purchase personal items such as movie videos, games, a chair, bookcases, etc. totaling $768.06. Both the Finance Director and City Manager stated the card was used by mistake and that actions were taken to reimburse the City through payroll deductions. However, when this matter was brought to the Finance Director’s attention by our audits staff, the Finance Director researched and determined that Parlier had not yet been reimbursed. Although this matter should have been followed up more timely, on April 2, 2001, the Finance Director did reimburse the City $914.77 which includes interest. 8
F7:
Health & Safety Code Section 33490 requires redevelopment agencies to submit a 5-year plan to the State Controller’s Office on or before December 31, 1994 and every 5 years thereafter. The RDA submitted a 5-year plan in 1994. However, based on information provided, Parlier’s 5-year plan, which was due on or before December 31,1999, had not been submitted to the State Controller’s Office as of the date of this review.
F8:
It was noted that the RDA appropriately recorded $747,015 in revenues for fiscal year 1998/99. However, only $145,496 of this amount was transferred to the low-income housing fund, which was less than the 20% required by Health & Safety Code Section 33487 by $3,907. The calculation was based on the net amount received by the RDA instead of the gross apportionment as required by the Code. The transfer to the low-income housing fund was properly calculated for fiscal year 1999/00. 9
F9:
It was noted during a review of Parlier’s financial statements that redevelopment notes receivable in the amount of $1,257,180 were erroneously listed in the general long-term debt account group in the 1998/99 statements. These notes receivable were properly reclassified by Parlier staff in the 1999/00 statements, which resulted in a $1,257,180 increase in the capital projects beginning fund balance; however, there was no disclosure explaining this material change.
F10a:
According to Parlier’s City Manager, all redevelopment loan programs must be approved by the RDA Board, which is Parlier’s City Council. We reviewed all available loan files for the sixteen redevelopment loans issued by Parlier as identified below, which were made between 1993 and 1996. There are nine individual loans and seven commercial loans. Based on documentation provided, it could not be determined that any of the loans were properly approved by the RDA Board. The Executive Director of the RDA is authorized to execute loan documents on behalf of the RDA, and we verified that he did sign agreements for all of the loans except as noted in Findings #10b, c and d below. In addition, based on information provided in loan files, we could not determine if any of the borrowers met the RDA criteria needed to obtain the loans. The City Manager stated that it is unlikely that any of the borrowers would not meet the criteria due to Parlier’s demographics. In addition, both the City Manager and Finance Director stated that there may be additional RDA loans that they do not know about. They said that loan files were incomplete when they began working for the City, and they had to piece together documentation for the loans as it was located. Based on the documentation provided, all nine individual loans were charged 5% interest. However, of the six commercial loans that had any supporting documentation (the seventh loan did not), one was charged 4.39% interest, three were charged 5%, and two others were charged 8%. Parlier staff did not know how these various interest rates were determined or why it was decided to charge different borrowers different rates. Based on our review of redevelopment guidelines, no provisions could be found that addressed the matter of interest rates on outstanding loans. In addition, except as noted in Finding #10b, we could not determine that any of the borrowers were related to City officials at the time of the issuance of the loans; however, this should not necessarily be an issue provided all borrowers met RDA loan criteria as addressed above.
F10b:
Nine of the sixteen loans issued by Parlier were “written off” for financial statement purposes and seven were not. Except as noted below, payments on six of these seven loans were received regularly and currently from the borrowers. Four of these six loans were provided to individuals in the amounts of $6,013, $7,000, $13,782, and $15,000. The fifth and sixth loans were commercial loans for $102,000 and $488,000 at a 4.39% and 5% interest rates, respectively. The seventh of these loans, which did not have any supporting documentation, is addressed in Finding #10d. The $15,000 individual loan noted above was issued in 1995 to a relative of the mayor. No payments were received by the RDA until the previous Finance Director contacted the borrower in April 1997 requesting copies of loan documents, which Parlier did not have at that time. Shortly after that, the borrower began to make regular payments on the loan and has continued making payments through the date of this review. These loan payments are included in a schedule in our workpapers. In addition, based on our review of loan documentation provided by the City, the agreement for this $15,000 loan was signed only by the borrower. Therefore, it is not clear whether the loan was properly executed by the Executive Director, or whether the loan was properly approved by the RDA Board as addressed in finding #10a. Based on documentation provided, we did find evidence that the Executive Director authorized $5,000 of the loan, because he approved two checks issued on this loan totaling $5,000.
F10c:
One of eight reportable conditions in Parlier’s 1998/99 audit report stated “The RDA has made numerous redevelopment loans to individuals and businesses. Many of these are totally non- performing.” The corresponding recommendation stated “Staff should contact each delinquent borrower to determine if stronger collection action is required, or if the loan cannot be reasonably collected, then it should be written off.” Parlier’s response was “RDA receivables were turned over to a professional collection service. Collection of the majority of housing loans is not possible, since the loans were not secured by real property. The issue of whether to pursue or forgive these loans is a policy for the Council to pursue.” 11 For 1999/00 financial statement purposes, the RDA “wrote off” four commercial loans and five individual loans totaling $46,736. Based on information provided, Parlier’s City Council did not approve writing off these loans, although it was disclosed in Parlier’s 1999/00 financial statements that the “City wrote off” the loans. During our review, Parlier staff explained that it was not the City’s intention to officially write off loans as they just wanted to report loans for financial statement purposes net of amounts considered to be uncollectible, and they are continuing to pursue collection of these loans. Based on information provided during our review, Parlier referred the delinquent loans to one collection agency who declined to pursue collection of the loans. According to Parlier staff, based on that collection agency’s response that these loans were not collectible, it was decided not to try to obtain further collection agency services. As of the date of this review, Parlier has not referred these loans to any other collection agency. The RDA continues to send invoices monthly on the “written off” loans to all of the individual borrowers but to none of the commercial borrowers, which, according to the City Manager, are no longer in business. However, no payments have been made by the loan recipients in several years. Information received on these “written off” loans is indicated below. The loan type is designated by a C for Commercial or I for Individual as follows: Loan Loan Loan Interest Unpaid Date of Type Year Loan Recipient Amount Rate Balance Last Pmt C 1993 El01 $12,500 8% $10,000 7/97 C 1993 Gor02 5,500 8% 4,940 11/93 C 1995 Sal03 2,390 5% 1,647 1/98 C 1995 Ant04 2,550 5% 513 7/97 I 1995 Mar05 5,000 5% 3,062 4/97 I 1995 And06 3,044 5% 2,639 4/97 I 1995 Noe07 2,500 5% 2,048 12/96 I 1996 Elo08 14,430 5% 14,430 None I 1996 Man09 7,683 5% 7,457 12/96 Total $55,597 $46,736 In addition, based on our review of the related loan documentation, the following exceptions were noted for these “written-off” loans: 1. The signed loan agreement for loan recipient Gor02 specified a loan amount of $4,000, but the amortization schedule included in the documentation provided an amended loan total of $5,500, yet there was no authorized amendment to the loan agreement. 12 2. The loan documentation for loan recipient El01 (El01) did not contain a loan agreement but contained other miscellaneous documents including a 1993 request from the attorney in fact for a $12,500 loan; an incomplete and unofficial copy of a 1993 RDA minutes indicating that the RDA Board approved a $12,000 loan to El01, and a copy of a $12,500 check signed by the RDA Executive Director and made out to El01 in 1993. Therefore, there was a conflict between the $12,000 amount that appeared to have been approved by the RDA Board and the $12,500 check approved by the Executive Director.
F10d:
During our review of the seven outstanding loans that were not “written off”, we noted that the financial statements disclosed that “…the Agency has a receivable … relating to low-income housing assistance provided in prior years. As long as …” the borrower “…continues renting to low-income individuals, they will be required to pay back a discounted amount equaling the annual installments, without interest, in the amount of $83,418 beginning in December 2013.” Parlier staff was able to provide us with a recorded deed of trust for this loan in the amount of $1,668,366; however, they could not provide a copy of the loan agreement. Therefore, we were not able to verify whether the borrower has complied with the terms of the agreement or whether the agreement was properly approved as discussed in finding #10a. Also, we were not able to determine whether interest will accrue if the borrower does not continue renting to low-income individuals or any other details about the loan.
F11:
It was noted during fieldwork that reimbursement requests submitted to the Fresno County Public Works Department were properly supported by invoices to outside entities. However, transactions were not properly recorded in the City of Parlier’s general ledger. Payments made by Fresno County to Parlier during fiscal year 1998/99 were understated in Parlier’s CDBG general ledger by $14,271.61, thereby understating CDBG revenues on the 1998/99 financial statements. The difference was due to a check issued by Fresno County in the amount of $149,271.61 on May 13, 1999. It was confirmed that Parlier received and endorsed the check for $149,271.61; however, only $135,000 of this amount was recorded in Parlier’s CDBG fund. The balance of $14,271.61 was recorded in Parlier’s general fund. Also, we were not able to trace 2 of 30 (6%) invoices totaling $4,370 to Parlier’s CDBG fund. However, we were able to confirm with the vendor that the invoices had been paid. Parlier staff has not been able to provide information regarding where these expenditures were recorded. Additionally, during a test of CDBG expenditures recorded in the general ledger, Parlier staff were not able to locate supporting documentation for 2 of 8 (25%) expenditures tested. Accurate and complete records are essential for restricted revenue funds to ensure continued funding and enhance internal controls.
F12:
During a review of Parlier’s financial statements for fiscal years 1998/99 and 1999/00, it was noted that the Child Development Fund listed expenditures for capital projects, which is not in compliance with the terms of the grant. Further analysis found that capital expenditures were not made in violation of the grant provisions. Instead, expenditures were not properly classified in the general ledger or the financial statements. 14
F13:
During a review of grant agreements for fiscal years 1998/99 and 1999/00, it was determined that grant expenditures recorded in the general fund and reported in the financial statements were in compliance with grant provisions except for a 1998/99 expenditure of $582.50 for engineering expenses.
F14:
During a review of the general ledger it was determined that expenditures do not agree with reports submitted to the State. The general ledger for fiscal year 1999/00 reports grant revenues of $283,950.97 plus $10,216.73 interest revenue for a total of $294,167.70. The general ledger also indicates total expenditures of $81,966.58 for 1999/00. The audit report sent to the State, which was prepared by the subcontractor’s CPA, indicates costs of $1,094,953.00 and revenue received of $72,808.00 for 1999/00. It appears that this audit report was prepared to reflect revenues and expenditures of the subcontractor and not the City of Parlier’s Child Development revenues and expenditures.
F15:
During the review, it was noted that payments made by the State Controller’s Office (SCO) to Parlier, which were posted on the SCO’s website did not agree with totals recorded in Parlier’s accounting system for fiscal years 1998/99 and 1999/00. For fiscal year 1998/99, the SCO recorded payments of $197,403.36 and Parlier recorded revenues of $218,610.40 for a variance of $21,207.04. For fiscal year 1999/00, the SCO recorded payments of $200,512.18 and Parlier recorded revenues of $202,545.85 for a variance of $2,033.67. Based on our review and documentation provided we could not determine whether the variances were due to timing differences or other factors.
F18:
During a review of the audit report issued by an independent accounting firm for fiscal year 1998/99, it was noted that the report contained an unqualified opinion despite the insufficiently supported expenditures discussed in findings #1-3 and the understated revenues discussed above. The same firm is conducting an audit of the Local Transportation fund for fiscal year 1999/00 but has not yet issued their report. During a conversation on March 26, 2001 with a staff member of the independent firm, the staff member said that the firm is questioning the method that Parlier uses to apply administrative overhead costs to this fund. The staff member also stated that the 1999/00 report will contain findings and recommendations related to the overhead application process.
F19:
Parlier’s Finance Director said that the City uses LLEBG money to pay for overtime expenditures in the Police Department since the amount of the grant is not enough to hire an additional police officer. Although overtime used to increase or enhance police services is an appropriate expenditure for this grant; based on information reviewed, we could not determine that overtime expended was an inappropriate use of grant monies. One officer’s salary is charged to the fund as an equivalent to the law enforcement overtime costs incurred outside of the fund. The amount of the 1998 grant was $19,623 and overtime for that period was $92,705. The amount of the 1999 grant was $19,097 and overtime for that period was $65,135. The Finance Director stated that he spoke with personnel in the US Department of Justice (DOJ) who told him that he can account for the fund in this manner as long as he can support the amount of overtime claimed on the grant. We contacted the DOJ and were told that this practice is not appropriate. DOJ staff stated that the actual expenditures paid with LLEBG money must be recorded in the fund established to account for the grant. During our review, expenditures for equipment were tested. During fiscal year 1998/99, 4 of 5 (80%) equipment expenditures tested did not appear to be appropriate for fund purposes based on information provided. As confirmed with the DOJ, LLEBG money is to be used to increase or enhance law enforcement services. The expenditures questioned include chairs for $1,356.68, rug runners for $343.73, and office supplies for $161.61. 17
F22:
During a test of expenditures for fiscal year 1999/00, the City of Parlier was not able to provide support for $769.50 charged to salaries and benefits recorded through a journal entry. The City’s Finance Director stated that the support for the journal entry could not be located.
F23:
Based on our review, another COPS program (AB3229, Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund) was charged $886.13 for an officer’s salary that was also included in a Universal Hiring Grant report submitted to the DOJ for the period 10/1/98 to 3/31/99. In addition, the salary included in this report also included overtime which is not allowable according to Universal Hiring Grant provisions.
Additional Recommendations
99
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
To be in compliance with the above restricted revenue requirements and regulations and to eliminate the appearance that restricted revenues are being used to fund general fund expenditures, the City of Parlier should ensure that such restricted revenues are clearly used for the related program purposes. Costs charged to the special revenue funds should reflect actual costs attributable to the program and should be supported by applicable documentation such as time tracking. The City of Parlier should obtain clarification from the applicable regulatory agency to determine if their current cost allocation methodology is acceptable.
R2:
In the absence of fully supportable cost allocation methodologies or regulatory approval of existing cost allocation methodologies, the City of Parlier should reverse the $268,224 and $393,602 in overhead costs charged to the special revenue funds listed above. In addition, any other insufficiently supported cost allocations that were not noted in this report should also be reversed.
R3:
In order to provide for sound accounting and budgeting practices and to ensure a clear audit trail, appropriations and expenditures should be initially recorded in the originating department/fund where the activities are incurred.
R4:
The City of Parlier Finance Department should implement procedures that provide segregation of duties related to accounts payable. Specifically, the person who approves payments should not be the same person who signs checks and submits requests for payments. When it is necessary for the 7 Finance Director to submit a request for payment, the payment should be sufficiently reviewed and approved by another authorized staff member (e.g. the City Manager).
R5:
To strengthen internal controls over expenditures in special revenue funds and to ensure that funding does not need to be reimbursed or that future funding is withheld, the City of Parlier should ensure that program costs incurred are fully supported and are in compliance with program requirements. This can be achieved in part by requiring that receipts for credit card purchases be retained for supporting documentation and submitted to the Finance Department for review and approval.
R6:
To prevent losses and enhance internal controls, the City of Parlier should immediately implement procedures to ensure that the City’s charge accounts and credit cards are not used for personal purchases. Parlier Redevelopment Agency (RDA) Compliance issues involving redevelopment funding are addressed by the State Controller’s Office, the State Attorney General and the Court. Based on Section 33080.8 of California’s Health & Safety Code, the State Controller compiles lists of redevelopment agencies that appear to have uncorrected major violations, based on the annual independent audit reports filed by such agencies. The Attorney General can pursue filing lawsuits against redevelopment agencies having uncorrected violations, and the Court can prohibit the agency from performing various activities until the Court determines that the major violations are corrected. Since the RDA’s annual audit reports for 1998/99 and 1999/00 contained unqualified opinions, it is unlikely that it was determined that Parlier had any major violations, and it is not known what actions, if any, the above regulatory entities would take as a result of the redevelopment findings noted in this separate report. This report may affect the findings and opinion of independent accounting firms performing future redevelopment audits; however, it is not known if these
R7:
In compliance with the above code sections and to ensure that funding is not withheld, the RDA should immediately submit a 5-year plan to the State Controller’s Office and submit all future required documents when due.
R8:
In order to comply with Health & Safety Code Section 33487 and to ensure that funding is not withheld, the RDA should transfer $3,907 to the low income housing fund for fiscal year 1998/99 from the RDA Capital Projects Fund.
R9:
In order to explain material changes in the financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, the City of Parlier should provide adequate disclosure in the notes to the financial statements. For example, Parlier could have identified the above increase in the capital projects fund balance as a “restated” fund balance in the financial statements. In addition, a note disclosure should have been provided to reconcile the restated fund balance to the prior year ending balance. The disclosure should have also explained the reason(s) for the restatement. Parlier should consider this for future reporting purposes.
R10:
a, b, c, and d To ensure that funding is not withheld, the RDA should ensure all proper procedures and legal requirements are followed when issuing loans and all appropriate documents are maintained in their loan files and that all loans are properly authorized. Parlier staff should review all available loan records since the formation of the RDA to try to locate all missing loan documentation and criteria information on the sixteen known loans addressed above. Parlier staff should also determine if there are any additional outstanding loans not currently known that should be followed up on. Also, even though Parlier has indicated that the commercial borrowers of the “written off” loans are out of business, Parlier should continue to bill the business owners until these loans are officially written off by the City Council. Proper procedures must be followed to assure that all redevelopment loans are repaid timely and in full. Redevelopment loans determined to be uncollectible should be written off by the City Council and referred to a collection agency as appropriate. Parlier should consider following up with other collection agencies or pursue other means of recouping unpaid balances, e.g. through small claims processes, other lawsuits, etc. In addition, Parlier should ensure and be able to support that interest charged on Redevelopment loans is charged fairly and equitably. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
R11:
To enhance internal controls, ensure the accuracy of the City’s accounting records, and ensure continued funding, Parlier should implement formal procedures to ensure proper accounting for and reconciliation of restricted revenues. In addition, all transactions and supporting documentation must be maintained until such records have been audited by all appropriate oversight agencies. Finally, the City of Parlier should make the appropriate general ledger entries within the special revenue fund to record these transactions. Child Development Grant
R12:
The City of Parlier should post transactions to proper accounts and subsequently classify expenditures appropriately in their financial statements.
R13:
In order to comply with terms of the Child Development Grant, the City of Parlier should reimburse the Child Development fund the $582.50 noted above and only make expenditures appropriate for grant purposes from this fund.
R14:
In order to comply with terms of the Child Development Grant, the City of Parlier should obtain an annual audit of the Child Development Program that conforms to the terms of the grant agreement and reports on Child Development revenues and expenditures of the City of Parlier. In addition, the City of Parlier should consistently review any audit reports prepared for their program prior to finalization of the report. Measure “C” – Transportation Authority, Sales Tax Proceeds It was noted during our review that insufficiently supported overhead allocations were applied to the Measure “C” special revenue fund. See findings and recommendations #1 - 3. Highway User Tax (Gas Tax)
R15:
In order to properly account for and report Gas Tax revenues, the City of Parlier must reconcile any variances between revenues paid by a funding entity and revenues recorded by the City. Local Transportation Fund
R16:
In order to properly administer the Local Transportation Fund and ensure proper financial statement presentation, the City of Parlier must reconcile the Local Transportation fund to receipts and implement procedures to ensure that all transactions are properly recorded and reported.
R17:
The City of Parlier should either provide supporting documentation for the $70,702 reduction of revenues or reverse this adjustment as appropriate. 16
R19:
The City of Parlier should contact the DOJ for written clarification of what constitutes acceptable expenditures for this grant. The City of Parlier should comply with the information provided by the DOJ related to this audit finding. Unauthorized expenditures of grant funds must be reimbursed or a waiver should be requested from the grantor agency. COPS Grant AB3229
R20:
The City of Parlier should ensure that actual interest is allocated to the COPS fund for 1998/99, 1999/00 and thereafter. In addition, the City should ensure that adequate interest allocation methodologies are used to ensure that all restricted revenues are accurately calculated, allocated and available to be used for restricted program purposes or returned to regulatory agencies as necessary in the event of non-compliance with program requirements.
R21:
In compliance with the provisions of Government Code Section 30061 as stated above, the City of Parlier should ensure that the appropriation of COPS grant monies for 2000/01 and thereafter are separately presented to and approved by Parlier’s City Council as required.
R22:
The City of Parlier should maintain support for all financial transactions that affect special revenue funds as well as other funds until all oversight agencies conduct periodic audits. Unauthorized expenditures of grant funds must be reimbursed or a waiver should be requested from the grantor agency. Universal Hiring Grant (COPS)
R23:
The City of Parlier should implement procedures to ensure that expenditures are not claimed/reported twice and that overtime costs are not claimed in compliance with Universal 19 Hiring Grant provisions. Parlier should also adjust the above reports and charges to reverse duplicated expenditures and inappropriate overtime costs. Office of Emergency Services (OES)
R24:
The City of Parlier should investigate the difference of $2,404 between revenues reported in their general ledger for OES revenues and the amount of payments confirmed through the State OES or have support for the variance readily available.
R25:
The City of Parlier should immediately revise the Project Completion and Certification Report to reflect actual costs for the disaster period. They should provide support for costs claimed or return $36,136 claimed inappropriately to the State OES. 20
R26:
To ensure accuracy of records, enhance internal controls, and ensure the availability of current and future funding, the City of Parlier should properly maintain files containing supporting documentation for transactions and retain these records until audited by all appropriate oversight agencies. Transportation Equity Act No reportable conditions were noted during our review of the Transportation Equity Act, which provides funding for street improvements. Based on our review, only $14,761 was spent for this program in 1999/00 for preliminary engineering on street improvement projects, which is in compliance with program provisions.
R27:
The Parlier City Manager confer with the City Council before engaging in city projects costing over $10,000 as required by PMC.
R28:
Bidding and contracting of services be in compliance with PMC.
R29:
The City Manager and City Council be held responsible for implementing the directives set forth in PMC.
R30:
Compensation of employees and/or contractors be in compliance with existing State and Federal laws. PARLIER ANIMAL CONTROL Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury received complaints relating to animal control and conditions at the City of Parlier Animal Shelter. Recommendations regarding animal control and the animal shelter were included in the 1997/1998 Grand Jury Report. The City Manager responded as follows: “The City will continue efforts to create innovative ways to obtain funding and attract community support for animal control operations and facilities, this shall include seeking grants, encouraging participation by local organizations and volunteers, the Humane Society and SPCA.” “The City will continue to enforce leash and licensing laws and to collect fees and/or fines to generate revenue for animal control services. The city code has animal control codes, which it enforces; the city has adopted animal licensing fees and fines to offset some of the costs of these activities. The City Council reviews fees on an annual basis and adjusts them, as it deems appropriate. The City will review and update its animal control codes and fees during fiscal 1998-1999.”
R31:
The City hire an animal control officer.
R32:
The animal shelter be relocated within the city to make it more accessible.
R33:
Leash and licensing laws be enforced.
R34:
The City educate the community regarding licensing, vaccinations, leash laws, spaying and neutering.
R35:
The City establish a fee schedule for costs incurred in animal control.
R36:
All record keeping relating to animal control be current.
R37:
State guidelines be followed for the ultimate disposal of any animal.
R38:
Polaroid photographs of mi pounded dogs be posted at city hall in order for citizens to see if their dog has been impounded. CARPETING OF PARLIER CITY HALL Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury investigated a complaint from a concerned citizen about the method used by the City Manager in the purchase and installation of carpet in the Parlier City Hall.
R39:
The Parlier Municipal Code and Purchasing Ordinance be followed.
R40:
Shortcuts that violate the existing code not be considered. CODE ENFORCEMENT IN PARLIER Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury investigated a written complaint from a citizen that cited the lack of code enforcement in the City of Parlier.
R41:
The present policy of code enforcement be changed to a more aggressive system which addresses all violations existing in the City of Parlier.
R42:
Written policy and procedures be developed to provide for the tracking and documented resolution of all complaints.
R43:
The city hire a code enforcement officer, supported with sufficient staff.
R44:
Adequate training be provided for the code enforcement officer and staff, including instruction in property owner and tenant rights.
R45:
A written manual providing guidelines on how to resolve code enforcement disputes be developed and implemented.
R46:
The City of Parlier inform and educate the public on current code enforcement policy.
R47:
A current copy of the Parlier Municipal Code be available for public use at City Hall and the public library. PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT WITHIN THE CITY OF PARLIER Introduction An employee of the City of Parlier provided testimony to the 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury regarding an unfair disciplinary experience while employed by the city. Subsequently, the Grand Jury received additional testimony from other current and former employees who indicated they too had not been treated in an equitable manner.
R48:
The City of Parlier formulate and implement written policies and procedures regarding labor relations.
R49:
The City develop written job classifications for all positions and issue them to all employees.
R50:
The City require department heads to adhere to the PMC sections covering their areas of responsibility.
R51:
A current copy of the PMC be made available to City Council members.
R52:
The City prepare, and provide to all employees, a handbook informing them of employee rights as stated in the PMC.
R53:
Employees be advised, in writing, of their rights of representation at all disciplinary hearings.
R54:
Written annual job performance evaluations of all employees be conducted, a copy placed in the employee’s permanent file and a copy provided to the employee.
R55:
A written salary schedule for each position be prepared and a copy made available to each employee.
R56:
The city develop and issue a written policy regarding advancement and salary increases. NEPOTISM IN THE CITY OF PARLIER Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury received several complaints from employees of the City of Parlier regarding nepotism as it exists in the city and the effect it has on their work environment. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary definition of nepotism is “favoritism shown to relatives or close friends by those in power (as by giving them jobs).” Nepotism is defined by the Parlier Municipal Code (PMC) Section 4.01.080 as “Applicants for employment with the city who are related within the third degree, by blood or marriage, to a person currently employed by the city, shall not be employed in the same department as the applicant’s relative, if it is determined on a case-by case review that employment of the applicant in the same department as his or her relative would create or aggravate problems relating to safety, security, supervision, morale or conflicts of interest in such department.”
R57:
PMC section 4.01.080 be rewritten to more clearly state the city’s policy on nepotism as defined by Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, “favoritism shown to relatives or close friends by those in power (as by giving them jobs).”
R58:
The policy of the city be to recruit, employ, and promote the best-qualified individuals. PARLIER PERSONNEL HEARING BOARD Introduction During the year 2000, a decision was made by the City manager to establish a Personnel Hearing Board (PHB). The Parlier Municipal Code (PMC) Section 4.02. (1997) describes the duties and responsibilities of the Board. Such a Board had never been established. The Board consists of two City Council members and a citizen at large. The purpose of the Board is to hear the final appeal of employees who have been disciplined and have exhausted all options for redress. The citizen at large position is to be filled by an applicant who is a resident of the City and at least 18 years of age. This position is to be noticed and described in the local newspaper and posted at City Hall.
R59:
The current PHB be dissolved.
R60:
The position for citizen at large be advertised (noticed).
R61:
The position for citizen at large be posted at City Hall.
R62:
All citizens who submit applications for this position be given equal consideration. PARLIER POLICE DEPARTMENT Introduction For many years, the Parlier Police Department has suffered from a lack of leadership and corresponding departmental ineffectiveness. The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury has undertaken a review of the causes and possible remedies. During the past 10 years, the City of Parlier has had 13 Chiefs of Police. Turnover by employees has been high due to low pay, low morale and lack of leadership. There have been continuing allegations of corruption, inefficiency and favoritism.
R63:
The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that the Parlier Police Department be closed immediately and the policing of Parlier be contracted with the Fresno County Sheriff. CITY COMMITTEE Rene Lastreto, Chair Robert Boehringer Mikie Kapigian Louis Olais Juliana Pherson Leo Shishmanian 42 CITY COMMITTEE
R64:
Continue the broad public education program to increase awareness of the need to meet recycling goals.
R65:
Tailor educational efforts to target each culture within our community in a way that has proven most effective for that group. FRESNO CITY PARKS SANITATION FACILITIES Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury inspected toilet facilities at Roeding Park, Woodward Park and six neighborhood parks. Conditions reviewed: Ø Cleanliness and cleaning schedules Ø Condition of fixtures and stalls Ø Privacy locks on toilet doors Ø Presence of soap Ø Presence of hand drying materials or machines Ø Plumbing leaks
R66:
Increase the budget to provide for care of the new parks.
R67:
Add personnel to help maintain the park sanitation facilities.
R68:
Provide adequate funds for replacement of fixtures with more durable ones. CITY COUNCIL INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDS Introduction The Fresno City Council discretionary infrastructure budget was examined by the 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury.
R69:
Distribution of the City Council discretionary infrastructure funds be reviewed and approved by the City Manager prior to disbursement. 48
R70:
Consideration be given to reducing the current allotment from $140,000 to $70,000 per district.
R71:
Carryover of any unused infrastructure funds be eliminated.
R72:
Future Grand Juries continue to monitor the program. CITY OF FRESNO WATER METERS Introduction Upon review of the 1999/2000 Fresno County Grand Jury report, the 2000/2001 Grand Jury investigated the current status of water availability and management.
R73:
The Mayor, City Council and all civic groups unite to promote the installation of water meters.
R74:
Homeowners and businesses that currently have meters be excluded from further meter installation costs.
R75:
The city utilities department continue to publish average water bills for various family sizes with and without meters.
R76:
Water police be reactivated to prevent water waste. BASEBALL/MULTI-USE STADIUM Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury reviewed the reports of the 1998/1999 and 1999/2000 Grand Juries. During the tenure of the present Grand Jury, the Fresno City Council approved the stadium project. Work has commenced on the site.
R77:
The City require an annual independent audit of the financial statements of FDG.
R78:
All seventeen dates the city controls be devoted to for-profit events to enhance the City’s revenues.
R79:
The public be assured of coordinated parking and security by FDG and the City. CITY OF FRESNO FIRE DEPARTMENT Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury investigated the City of Fresno Fire Department's (FFD) rating as established by the Insurance Services Office, Inc. (ISO). This organization evaluates the level of fire protection, the ability to receive and answer alarms, and the adequacy of water supply. A maximum of 100% credit is available. The percentages are broken into ten ISO Public Protection Classes. Class 1 equates to the top rating of 90-100%. Class 10 equates to the lowest rating, 0-9%. When last evaluated in 1995, the City of Fresno was rated a Class 4, achieving a rating of 66.07%. These classifications were developed for fire insurance rating purposes only. Insurance companies may use the agency’s classification to assist in setting property insurance premiums.
R80:
The fire department have a budgeted vehicle replacement plan. The city should consider replacement of vehicles after seven or eight years while they still have significant value on the used fire vehicle market.
R81:
The inventory of fire fighting tools be increased so that all spare engines/trucks are fully equipped.
R82:
The city recognize the need to increase the number of fire fighting personnel.
R83:
The City of Fresno revisit its traffic light pre-emption plan and budget funds to complete this program.
R84:
The Fresno Fire Department develop a plan to reduce response times to the NFPA standards. COUNTY COMMITTEE Rick Allen, Chair James Cotton Fred Goldring Ann Thaxter James Torosian Donald Wilson 57 COUNTY COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury County Committee’s primary function is to oversee all aspects of county government, incorporated cities not including Fresno, and special districts. Among the committee’s responsibilities is to insure that county monies and operations are handled in an efficient, effective and appropriate manner that best serve the interest of the citizens. The Grand Jury received requests for inquiries into various government operations within the County of Fresno. The County Committee conducted inquiries of the following: A. The operations and management of the Office of the Public Administrator/Public Guardian. B. Operation of the Coroner’s Office. Allegations of misconduct regarding utility bill collection policies in the City of Mendota. C. Complaints regarding the management of the City of Parlier. (The result of this investigation is presented in this report under the heading - Ad Hoc Committee, City of Parlier). D. The operations of the Elkhorn Correctional Facility. E. The need for a Briefing Book for newly elected members of the Fresno County Board of Supervisors and Fresno City Council. In the course of conducting these inquiries the committee gathered facts, interviewed many citizens, officials, department heads and employees of the County of Fresno and cities within the County of Fresno. During the process of the investigations, the committee made numerous field trips to government facilities within the county. OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC ADMINSTRATOR/PUBLIC GUARDIAN Introduction The 1999/2000 Fresno County Grand Jury Report prompted a review by this jury panel of the Public Administrator/Public Guardian Office (PA/PG).
R85:
The PA/PG evaluate the use of the County Treasury Pool.
R86:
Storage be improved for case records and client assets. Construction of an on-site storage building would eliminate the need for expensive off-site mini-storage.
R87:
Evaluate the need for additional deputies due to the implementation of the new Elder Abuse Referral Law SB 1742.
R88:
PA/PG add the services of a Registered Nurse to staff. This person would aid in evaluating and inspecting medical care facilities as well as review proposed client treatment and prescription history.
R89:
PA/PG evaluate the purchase of Long Term Care Insurance for those clients who would be eligible. OFFICE OF THE FRESNO COUNTY CORONER Introduction The 1999/2000 Fresno County Grand Jury report prompted an unannounced visit to the facilities of the Fresno County Coroner on December 19, 2000 by the 2000/2001 Grand Jury.
R90:
A plan be developed for a new morgue before the County reaches a crisis situation.
R91:
A new commercial washing machine be purchased for on-site laundering needs and/or use a commercial laundry.
R92:
Reference be made to the Grand Jury reports of 1998/1999 and 1999/2000 regarding the need for improvement of record storage. MENDOTA UTILITY BILL COLLECTIONS Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury received a written complaint regarding bill collection policies in the City of Mendota. The complaint included the following allegations: A. Some employees of the City of Mendota had not paid their water/utility bill for a period in excess of one year. B. Some elected officials were not making timely payments of their water/utility bills. C. This activity had been disclosed by the City Manager and/or City Attorney. It was alleged that the entire City office staff was involved. D. The 2000/2001 Grand Jury issued a subpoena for certain records covering the payment of water/utility bills by current and former Mendota city employees and elected officials. These records were provided to the Grand Jury on August 30, 2000.
R93:
The monthly shutoff list and notices be reviewed by an individual independent of the accounting department of the City of Mendota.
R94:
The subject of outstanding utility bills be reviewed during the annual financial audit conducted by an outside auditor.
R95:
The City establish and maintain training for all employees on the use of the Municipal Code and written procedures and policies regarding the collection of utility bills. ELKHORN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury followed up on the recommendation of the 1998/1999 Grand Jury to monitor the operation of the Elkhorn Correctional Facility (Juvenile Boot Camp). The Grand Jury toured the Elkhorn Correctional Facility (ECF) on September 1, 2000. The director and support staff provided a briefing on the history of the facility and its goals. Information was received from Elkhorn management, members of the Fresno County Board of Supervisors, the Chief Probation Officer and officials of the City of Fresno.
R96:
The Fresno County Board of Supervisors review commitments made in the February 11, 1997, letter issued by a former County Chief Administrative Officer and assure the neighbors of ECF that the County intends to honor these commitments. If certain commitments cannot be met, the County should negotiate with the neighbors to reach an equitable arrangement.
R97:
The Board of Supervisors continue to fund and maintain the present level of services at ECF.
R98:
The City of Fresno continue to fund Elkhorn Correctional Facility at no less than the current rate of $1,000,000 per year with no sunset provision.
R99:
The County provide boot camp facilities for female juvenile offenders.
R100:
Future Grand Juries continue to monitor the activities at the Elkhorn Correctional Facility. BRIEFING BOOK FOR NEWLY ELECTED OFFICIALS Introduction As the result of testimony received from newly elected members of the Fresno City Council and Fresno County Board of Supervisors, the Grand Jury reviewed the procedure for providing information to these individuals prior to assuming office.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
19 findings
F4:
During fieldwork it was noted that a check was issued to the Finance Director on August 6, 1998 in the amount of $1,504.31 for training reimbursement. The Finance Director also authorized the payment and signed the check. It is the City Manager’s policy to approve the warrant register, which he believes provides proper segregation of duties. However, based on our review, the warrant register does not provide details of each payment, just check totals. Therefore, the City Manager’s approval of the warrant register does not indicate that he approved the contents of the payment. At a minimum, internal controls require segregation of duties which provides an adequate level of review. Although this can be difficult in a small office like Parlier’s Finance Department, the City Manager should review and approve the payment contents as well as payment totals, when the Finance Director is the payee.
F5:
It was noted during fieldwork that Parlier’s City Manager and Finance Director utilize City credit cards. Purchases for office equipment, travel and meetings, etc. are made using these credit cards, and in 9 out of 11 (81%) credit card statements reviewed, receipts were not attached to the statements to support the expenditures. Only vendor names and handwritten general descriptions were included on the statements. We further tested 3 of the above 9 statements and determined that $117.11 of the insufficiently supported expenditures on a statement totaling $684.51 was attributable to Parlier’s Redevelopment Agency. In addition, $525.17 and $177.07 of the expenditures on two other statements totaling $5,037.59 and $1,980.00, respectively, were attributable to the Measure C – Transportation Authority, Sales Tax Proceeds fund (Measure C). In addition, when costs are charged to the Measure C program that cannot be substantiated and, therefore may not be in compliance with program requirements, Parlier’s future allocations may be withheld and reimbursements of such funds to the Fresno County Auditor-Controller/Treasurer- Tax Collector may be required. Such funds would only be released when exceptions are resolved and Parlier is in compliance with program requirements. Compliance issues regarding redevelopment agencies are addressed by various regulatory agencies as explained in the Parlier Redevelopment Agency section on .
F6:
It was noted during testing of expenditures, that the Finance Director used the City of Parlier’s Office Depot credit card on two separate occasions to purchase personal items such as movie videos, games, a chair, bookcases, etc. totaling $768.06. Both the Finance Director and City Manager stated the card was used by mistake and that actions were taken to reimburse the City through payroll deductions. However, when this matter was brought to the Finance Director’s attention by our audits staff, the Finance Director researched and determined that Parlier had not yet been reimbursed. Although this matter should have been followed up more timely, on April 2, 2001, the Finance Director did reimburse the City $914.77 which includes interest. 8
F7:
Health & Safety Code Section 33490 requires redevelopment agencies to submit a 5-year plan to the State Controller’s Office on or before December 31, 1994 and every 5 years thereafter. The RDA submitted a 5-year plan in 1994. However, based on information provided, Parlier’s 5-year plan, which was due on or before December 31,1999, had not been submitted to the State Controller’s Office as of the date of this review.
F8:
It was noted that the RDA appropriately recorded $747,015 in revenues for fiscal year 1998/99. However, only $145,496 of this amount was transferred to the low-income housing fund, which was less than the 20% required by Health & Safety Code Section 33487 by $3,907. The calculation was based on the net amount received by the RDA instead of the gross apportionment as required by the Code. The transfer to the low-income housing fund was properly calculated for fiscal year 1999/00. 9
F9:
It was noted during a review of Parlier’s financial statements that redevelopment notes receivable in the amount of $1,257,180 were erroneously listed in the general long-term debt account group in the 1998/99 statements. These notes receivable were properly reclassified by Parlier staff in the 1999/00 statements, which resulted in a $1,257,180 increase in the capital projects beginning fund balance; however, there was no disclosure explaining this material change.
F10a:
According to Parlier’s City Manager, all redevelopment loan programs must be approved by the RDA Board, which is Parlier’s City Council. We reviewed all available loan files for the sixteen redevelopment loans issued by Parlier as identified below, which were made between 1993 and 1996. There are nine individual loans and seven commercial loans. Based on documentation provided, it could not be determined that any of the loans were properly approved by the RDA Board. The Executive Director of the RDA is authorized to execute loan documents on behalf of the RDA, and we verified that he did sign agreements for all of the loans except as noted in Findings #10b, c and d below. In addition, based on information provided in loan files, we could not determine if any of the borrowers met the RDA criteria needed to obtain the loans. The City Manager stated that it is unlikely that any of the borrowers would not meet the criteria due to Parlier’s demographics. In addition, both the City Manager and Finance Director stated that there may be additional RDA loans that they do not know about. They said that loan files were incomplete when they began working for the City, and they had to piece together documentation for the loans as it was located. Based on the documentation provided, all nine individual loans were charged 5% interest. However, of the six commercial loans that had any supporting documentation (the seventh loan did not), one was charged 4.39% interest, three were charged 5%, and two others were charged 8%. Parlier staff did not know how these various interest rates were determined or why it was decided to charge different borrowers different rates. Based on our review of redevelopment guidelines, no provisions could be found that addressed the matter of interest rates on outstanding loans. In addition, except as noted in Finding #10b, we could not determine that any of the borrowers were related to City officials at the time of the issuance of the loans; however, this should not necessarily be an issue provided all borrowers met RDA loan criteria as addressed above.
F10b:
Nine of the sixteen loans issued by Parlier were “written off” for financial statement purposes and seven were not. Except as noted below, payments on six of these seven loans were received regularly and currently from the borrowers. Four of these six loans were provided to individuals in the amounts of $6,013, $7,000, $13,782, and $15,000. The fifth and sixth loans were commercial loans for $102,000 and $488,000 at a 4.39% and 5% interest rates, respectively. The seventh of these loans, which did not have any supporting documentation, is addressed in Finding #10d. The $15,000 individual loan noted above was issued in 1995 to a relative of the mayor. No payments were received by the RDA until the previous Finance Director contacted the borrower in April 1997 requesting copies of loan documents, which Parlier did not have at that time. Shortly after that, the borrower began to make regular payments on the loan and has continued making payments through the date of this review. These loan payments are included in a schedule in our workpapers. In addition, based on our review of loan documentation provided by the City, the agreement for this $15,000 loan was signed only by the borrower. Therefore, it is not clear whether the loan was properly executed by the Executive Director, or whether the loan was properly approved by the RDA Board as addressed in finding #10a. Based on documentation provided, we did find evidence that the Executive Director authorized $5,000 of the loan, because he approved two checks issued on this loan totaling $5,000.
F10c:
One of eight reportable conditions in Parlier’s 1998/99 audit report stated “The RDA has made numerous redevelopment loans to individuals and businesses. Many of these are totally non- performing.” The corresponding recommendation stated “Staff should contact each delinquent borrower to determine if stronger collection action is required, or if the loan cannot be reasonably collected, then it should be written off.” Parlier’s response was “RDA receivables were turned over to a professional collection service. Collection of the majority of housing loans is not possible, since the loans were not secured by real property. The issue of whether to pursue or forgive these loans is a policy for the Council to pursue.” 11 For 1999/00 financial statement purposes, the RDA “wrote off” four commercial loans and five individual loans totaling $46,736. Based on information provided, Parlier’s City Council did not approve writing off these loans, although it was disclosed in Parlier’s 1999/00 financial statements that the “City wrote off” the loans. During our review, Parlier staff explained that it was not the City’s intention to officially write off loans as they just wanted to report loans for financial statement purposes net of amounts considered to be uncollectible, and they are continuing to pursue collection of these loans. Based on information provided during our review, Parlier referred the delinquent loans to one collection agency who declined to pursue collection of the loans. According to Parlier staff, based on that collection agency’s response that these loans were not collectible, it was decided not to try to obtain further collection agency services. As of the date of this review, Parlier has not referred these loans to any other collection agency. The RDA continues to send invoices monthly on the “written off” loans to all of the individual borrowers but to none of the commercial borrowers, which, according to the City Manager, are no longer in business. However, no payments have been made by the loan recipients in several years. Information received on these “written off” loans is indicated below. The loan type is designated by a C for Commercial or I for Individual as follows: Loan Loan Loan Interest Unpaid Date of Type Year Loan Recipient Amount Rate Balance Last Pmt C 1993 El01 $12,500 8% $10,000 7/97 C 1993 Gor02 5,500 8% 4,940 11/93 C 1995 Sal03 2,390 5% 1,647 1/98 C 1995 Ant04 2,550 5% 513 7/97 I 1995 Mar05 5,000 5% 3,062 4/97 I 1995 And06 3,044 5% 2,639 4/97 I 1995 Noe07 2,500 5% 2,048 12/96 I 1996 Elo08 14,430 5% 14,430 None I 1996 Man09 7,683 5% 7,457 12/96 Total $55,597 $46,736 In addition, based on our review of the related loan documentation, the following exceptions were noted for these “written-off” loans: 1. The signed loan agreement for loan recipient Gor02 specified a loan amount of $4,000, but the amortization schedule included in the documentation provided an amended loan total of $5,500, yet there was no authorized amendment to the loan agreement. 12 2. The loan documentation for loan recipient El01 (El01) did not contain a loan agreement but contained other miscellaneous documents including a 1993 request from the attorney in fact for a $12,500 loan; an incomplete and unofficial copy of a 1993 RDA minutes indicating that the RDA Board approved a $12,000 loan to El01, and a copy of a $12,500 check signed by the RDA Executive Director and made out to El01 in 1993. Therefore, there was a conflict between the $12,000 amount that appeared to have been approved by the RDA Board and the $12,500 check approved by the Executive Director.
F10d:
During our review of the seven outstanding loans that were not “written off”, we noted that the financial statements disclosed that “…the Agency has a receivable … relating to low-income housing assistance provided in prior years. As long as …” the borrower “…continues renting to low-income individuals, they will be required to pay back a discounted amount equaling the annual installments, without interest, in the amount of $83,418 beginning in December 2013.” Parlier staff was able to provide us with a recorded deed of trust for this loan in the amount of $1,668,366; however, they could not provide a copy of the loan agreement. Therefore, we were not able to verify whether the borrower has complied with the terms of the agreement or whether the agreement was properly approved as discussed in finding #10a. Also, we were not able to determine whether interest will accrue if the borrower does not continue renting to low-income individuals or any other details about the loan.
F11:
It was noted during fieldwork that reimbursement requests submitted to the Fresno County Public Works Department were properly supported by invoices to outside entities. However, transactions were not properly recorded in the City of Parlier’s general ledger. Payments made by Fresno County to Parlier during fiscal year 1998/99 were understated in Parlier’s CDBG general ledger by $14,271.61, thereby understating CDBG revenues on the 1998/99 financial statements. The difference was due to a check issued by Fresno County in the amount of $149,271.61 on May 13, 1999. It was confirmed that Parlier received and endorsed the check for $149,271.61; however, only $135,000 of this amount was recorded in Parlier’s CDBG fund. The balance of $14,271.61 was recorded in Parlier’s general fund. Also, we were not able to trace 2 of 30 (6%) invoices totaling $4,370 to Parlier’s CDBG fund. However, we were able to confirm with the vendor that the invoices had been paid. Parlier staff has not been able to provide information regarding where these expenditures were recorded. Additionally, during a test of CDBG expenditures recorded in the general ledger, Parlier staff were not able to locate supporting documentation for 2 of 8 (25%) expenditures tested. Accurate and complete records are essential for restricted revenue funds to ensure continued funding and enhance internal controls.
F12:
During a review of Parlier’s financial statements for fiscal years 1998/99 and 1999/00, it was noted that the Child Development Fund listed expenditures for capital projects, which is not in compliance with the terms of the grant. Further analysis found that capital expenditures were not made in violation of the grant provisions. Instead, expenditures were not properly classified in the general ledger or the financial statements. 14
F13:
During a review of grant agreements for fiscal years 1998/99 and 1999/00, it was determined that grant expenditures recorded in the general fund and reported in the financial statements were in compliance with grant provisions except for a 1998/99 expenditure of $582.50 for engineering expenses.
F14:
During a review of the general ledger it was determined that expenditures do not agree with reports submitted to the State. The general ledger for fiscal year 1999/00 reports grant revenues of $283,950.97 plus $10,216.73 interest revenue for a total of $294,167.70. The general ledger also indicates total expenditures of $81,966.58 for 1999/00. The audit report sent to the State, which was prepared by the subcontractor’s CPA, indicates costs of $1,094,953.00 and revenue received of $72,808.00 for 1999/00. It appears that this audit report was prepared to reflect revenues and expenditures of the subcontractor and not the City of Parlier’s Child Development revenues and expenditures.
F15:
During the review, it was noted that payments made by the State Controller’s Office (SCO) to Parlier, which were posted on the SCO’s website did not agree with totals recorded in Parlier’s accounting system for fiscal years 1998/99 and 1999/00. For fiscal year 1998/99, the SCO recorded payments of $197,403.36 and Parlier recorded revenues of $218,610.40 for a variance of $21,207.04. For fiscal year 1999/00, the SCO recorded payments of $200,512.18 and Parlier recorded revenues of $202,545.85 for a variance of $2,033.67. Based on our review and documentation provided we could not determine whether the variances were due to timing differences or other factors.
F18:
During a review of the audit report issued by an independent accounting firm for fiscal year 1998/99, it was noted that the report contained an unqualified opinion despite the insufficiently supported expenditures discussed in findings #1-3 and the understated revenues discussed above. The same firm is conducting an audit of the Local Transportation fund for fiscal year 1999/00 but has not yet issued their report. During a conversation on March 26, 2001 with a staff member of the independent firm, the staff member said that the firm is questioning the method that Parlier uses to apply administrative overhead costs to this fund. The staff member also stated that the 1999/00 report will contain findings and recommendations related to the overhead application process.
F19:
Parlier’s Finance Director said that the City uses LLEBG money to pay for overtime expenditures in the Police Department since the amount of the grant is not enough to hire an additional police officer. Although overtime used to increase or enhance police services is an appropriate expenditure for this grant; based on information reviewed, we could not determine that overtime expended was an inappropriate use of grant monies. One officer’s salary is charged to the fund as an equivalent to the law enforcement overtime costs incurred outside of the fund. The amount of the 1998 grant was $19,623 and overtime for that period was $92,705. The amount of the 1999 grant was $19,097 and overtime for that period was $65,135. The Finance Director stated that he spoke with personnel in the US Department of Justice (DOJ) who told him that he can account for the fund in this manner as long as he can support the amount of overtime claimed on the grant. We contacted the DOJ and were told that this practice is not appropriate. DOJ staff stated that the actual expenditures paid with LLEBG money must be recorded in the fund established to account for the grant. During our review, expenditures for equipment were tested. During fiscal year 1998/99, 4 of 5 (80%) equipment expenditures tested did not appear to be appropriate for fund purposes based on information provided. As confirmed with the DOJ, LLEBG money is to be used to increase or enhance law enforcement services. The expenditures questioned include chairs for $1,356.68, rug runners for $343.73, and office supplies for $161.61. 17
F22:
During a test of expenditures for fiscal year 1999/00, the City of Parlier was not able to provide support for $769.50 charged to salaries and benefits recorded through a journal entry. The City’s Finance Director stated that the support for the journal entry could not be located.
F23:
Based on our review, another COPS program (AB3229, Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund) was charged $886.13 for an officer’s salary that was also included in a Universal Hiring Grant report submitted to the DOJ for the period 10/1/98 to 3/31/99. In addition, the salary included in this report also included overtime which is not allowable according to Universal Hiring Grant provisions.
Additional Recommendations
99
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
To be in compliance with the above restricted revenue requirements and regulations and to eliminate the appearance that restricted revenues are being used to fund general fund expenditures, the City of Parlier should ensure that such restricted revenues are clearly used for the related program purposes. Costs charged to the special revenue funds should reflect actual costs attributable to the program and should be supported by applicable documentation such as time tracking. The City of Parlier should obtain clarification from the applicable regulatory agency to determine if their current cost allocation methodology is acceptable.
R2:
In the absence of fully supportable cost allocation methodologies or regulatory approval of existing cost allocation methodologies, the City of Parlier should reverse the $268,224 and $393,602 in overhead costs charged to the special revenue funds listed above. In addition, any other insufficiently supported cost allocations that were not noted in this report should also be reversed.
R3:
In order to provide for sound accounting and budgeting practices and to ensure a clear audit trail, appropriations and expenditures should be initially recorded in the originating department/fund where the activities are incurred.
R4:
The City of Parlier Finance Department should implement procedures that provide segregation of duties related to accounts payable. Specifically, the person who approves payments should not be the same person who signs checks and submits requests for payments. When it is necessary for the 7 Finance Director to submit a request for payment, the payment should be sufficiently reviewed and approved by another authorized staff member (e.g. the City Manager).
R5:
To strengthen internal controls over expenditures in special revenue funds and to ensure that funding does not need to be reimbursed or that future funding is withheld, the City of Parlier should ensure that program costs incurred are fully supported and are in compliance with program requirements. This can be achieved in part by requiring that receipts for credit card purchases be retained for supporting documentation and submitted to the Finance Department for review and approval.
R6:
To prevent losses and enhance internal controls, the City of Parlier should immediately implement procedures to ensure that the City’s charge accounts and credit cards are not used for personal purchases. Parlier Redevelopment Agency (RDA) Compliance issues involving redevelopment funding are addressed by the State Controller’s Office, the State Attorney General and the Court. Based on Section 33080.8 of California’s Health & Safety Code, the State Controller compiles lists of redevelopment agencies that appear to have uncorrected major violations, based on the annual independent audit reports filed by such agencies. The Attorney General can pursue filing lawsuits against redevelopment agencies having uncorrected violations, and the Court can prohibit the agency from performing various activities until the Court determines that the major violations are corrected. Since the RDA’s annual audit reports for 1998/99 and 1999/00 contained unqualified opinions, it is unlikely that it was determined that Parlier had any major violations, and it is not known what actions, if any, the above regulatory entities would take as a result of the redevelopment findings noted in this separate report. This report may affect the findings and opinion of independent accounting firms performing future redevelopment audits; however, it is not known if these
R7:
In compliance with the above code sections and to ensure that funding is not withheld, the RDA should immediately submit a 5-year plan to the State Controller’s Office and submit all future required documents when due.
R8:
In order to comply with Health & Safety Code Section 33487 and to ensure that funding is not withheld, the RDA should transfer $3,907 to the low income housing fund for fiscal year 1998/99 from the RDA Capital Projects Fund.
R9:
In order to explain material changes in the financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, the City of Parlier should provide adequate disclosure in the notes to the financial statements. For example, Parlier could have identified the above increase in the capital projects fund balance as a “restated” fund balance in the financial statements. In addition, a note disclosure should have been provided to reconcile the restated fund balance to the prior year ending balance. The disclosure should have also explained the reason(s) for the restatement. Parlier should consider this for future reporting purposes.
R10:
a, b, c, and d To ensure that funding is not withheld, the RDA should ensure all proper procedures and legal requirements are followed when issuing loans and all appropriate documents are maintained in their loan files and that all loans are properly authorized. Parlier staff should review all available loan records since the formation of the RDA to try to locate all missing loan documentation and criteria information on the sixteen known loans addressed above. Parlier staff should also determine if there are any additional outstanding loans not currently known that should be followed up on. Also, even though Parlier has indicated that the commercial borrowers of the “written off” loans are out of business, Parlier should continue to bill the business owners until these loans are officially written off by the City Council. Proper procedures must be followed to assure that all redevelopment loans are repaid timely and in full. Redevelopment loans determined to be uncollectible should be written off by the City Council and referred to a collection agency as appropriate. Parlier should consider following up with other collection agencies or pursue other means of recouping unpaid balances, e.g. through small claims processes, other lawsuits, etc. In addition, Parlier should ensure and be able to support that interest charged on Redevelopment loans is charged fairly and equitably. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
R11:
To enhance internal controls, ensure the accuracy of the City’s accounting records, and ensure continued funding, Parlier should implement formal procedures to ensure proper accounting for and reconciliation of restricted revenues. In addition, all transactions and supporting documentation must be maintained until such records have been audited by all appropriate oversight agencies. Finally, the City of Parlier should make the appropriate general ledger entries within the special revenue fund to record these transactions. Child Development Grant
R12:
The City of Parlier should post transactions to proper accounts and subsequently classify expenditures appropriately in their financial statements.
R13:
In order to comply with terms of the Child Development Grant, the City of Parlier should reimburse the Child Development fund the $582.50 noted above and only make expenditures appropriate for grant purposes from this fund.
R14:
In order to comply with terms of the Child Development Grant, the City of Parlier should obtain an annual audit of the Child Development Program that conforms to the terms of the grant agreement and reports on Child Development revenues and expenditures of the City of Parlier. In addition, the City of Parlier should consistently review any audit reports prepared for their program prior to finalization of the report. Measure “C” – Transportation Authority, Sales Tax Proceeds It was noted during our review that insufficiently supported overhead allocations were applied to the Measure “C” special revenue fund. See findings and recommendations #1 - 3. Highway User Tax (Gas Tax)
R15:
In order to properly account for and report Gas Tax revenues, the City of Parlier must reconcile any variances between revenues paid by a funding entity and revenues recorded by the City. Local Transportation Fund
R16:
In order to properly administer the Local Transportation Fund and ensure proper financial statement presentation, the City of Parlier must reconcile the Local Transportation fund to receipts and implement procedures to ensure that all transactions are properly recorded and reported.
R17:
The City of Parlier should either provide supporting documentation for the $70,702 reduction of revenues or reverse this adjustment as appropriate. 16
R19:
The City of Parlier should contact the DOJ for written clarification of what constitutes acceptable expenditures for this grant. The City of Parlier should comply with the information provided by the DOJ related to this audit finding. Unauthorized expenditures of grant funds must be reimbursed or a waiver should be requested from the grantor agency. COPS Grant AB3229
R20:
The City of Parlier should ensure that actual interest is allocated to the COPS fund for 1998/99, 1999/00 and thereafter. In addition, the City should ensure that adequate interest allocation methodologies are used to ensure that all restricted revenues are accurately calculated, allocated and available to be used for restricted program purposes or returned to regulatory agencies as necessary in the event of non-compliance with program requirements.
R21:
In compliance with the provisions of Government Code Section 30061 as stated above, the City of Parlier should ensure that the appropriation of COPS grant monies for 2000/01 and thereafter are separately presented to and approved by Parlier’s City Council as required.
R22:
The City of Parlier should maintain support for all financial transactions that affect special revenue funds as well as other funds until all oversight agencies conduct periodic audits. Unauthorized expenditures of grant funds must be reimbursed or a waiver should be requested from the grantor agency. Universal Hiring Grant (COPS)
R23:
The City of Parlier should implement procedures to ensure that expenditures are not claimed/reported twice and that overtime costs are not claimed in compliance with Universal 19 Hiring Grant provisions. Parlier should also adjust the above reports and charges to reverse duplicated expenditures and inappropriate overtime costs. Office of Emergency Services (OES)
R24:
The City of Parlier should investigate the difference of $2,404 between revenues reported in their general ledger for OES revenues and the amount of payments confirmed through the State OES or have support for the variance readily available.
R25:
The City of Parlier should immediately revise the Project Completion and Certification Report to reflect actual costs for the disaster period. They should provide support for costs claimed or return $36,136 claimed inappropriately to the State OES. 20
R26:
To ensure accuracy of records, enhance internal controls, and ensure the availability of current and future funding, the City of Parlier should properly maintain files containing supporting documentation for transactions and retain these records until audited by all appropriate oversight agencies. Transportation Equity Act No reportable conditions were noted during our review of the Transportation Equity Act, which provides funding for street improvements. Based on our review, only $14,761 was spent for this program in 1999/00 for preliminary engineering on street improvement projects, which is in compliance with program provisions.
R27:
The Parlier City Manager confer with the City Council before engaging in city projects costing over $10,000 as required by PMC.
R28:
Bidding and contracting of services be in compliance with PMC.
R29:
The City Manager and City Council be held responsible for implementing the directives set forth in PMC.
R30:
Compensation of employees and/or contractors be in compliance with existing State and Federal laws. PARLIER ANIMAL CONTROL Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury received complaints relating to animal control and conditions at the City of Parlier Animal Shelter. Recommendations regarding animal control and the animal shelter were included in the 1997/1998 Grand Jury Report. The City Manager responded as follows: “The City will continue efforts to create innovative ways to obtain funding and attract community support for animal control operations and facilities, this shall include seeking grants, encouraging participation by local organizations and volunteers, the Humane Society and SPCA.” “The City will continue to enforce leash and licensing laws and to collect fees and/or fines to generate revenue for animal control services. The city code has animal control codes, which it enforces; the city has adopted animal licensing fees and fines to offset some of the costs of these activities. The City Council reviews fees on an annual basis and adjusts them, as it deems appropriate. The City will review and update its animal control codes and fees during fiscal 1998-1999.”
R31:
The City hire an animal control officer.
R32:
The animal shelter be relocated within the city to make it more accessible.
R33:
Leash and licensing laws be enforced.
R34:
The City educate the community regarding licensing, vaccinations, leash laws, spaying and neutering.
R35:
The City establish a fee schedule for costs incurred in animal control.
R36:
All record keeping relating to animal control be current.
R37:
State guidelines be followed for the ultimate disposal of any animal.
R38:
Polaroid photographs of mi pounded dogs be posted at city hall in order for citizens to see if their dog has been impounded. CARPETING OF PARLIER CITY HALL Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury investigated a complaint from a concerned citizen about the method used by the City Manager in the purchase and installation of carpet in the Parlier City Hall.
R39:
The Parlier Municipal Code and Purchasing Ordinance be followed.
R40:
Shortcuts that violate the existing code not be considered. CODE ENFORCEMENT IN PARLIER Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury investigated a written complaint from a citizen that cited the lack of code enforcement in the City of Parlier.
R41:
The present policy of code enforcement be changed to a more aggressive system which addresses all violations existing in the City of Parlier.
R42:
Written policy and procedures be developed to provide for the tracking and documented resolution of all complaints.
R43:
The city hire a code enforcement officer, supported with sufficient staff.
R44:
Adequate training be provided for the code enforcement officer and staff, including instruction in property owner and tenant rights.
R45:
A written manual providing guidelines on how to resolve code enforcement disputes be developed and implemented.
R46:
The City of Parlier inform and educate the public on current code enforcement policy.
R47:
A current copy of the Parlier Municipal Code be available for public use at City Hall and the public library. PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT WITHIN THE CITY OF PARLIER Introduction An employee of the City of Parlier provided testimony to the 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury regarding an unfair disciplinary experience while employed by the city. Subsequently, the Grand Jury received additional testimony from other current and former employees who indicated they too had not been treated in an equitable manner.
R48:
The City of Parlier formulate and implement written policies and procedures regarding labor relations.
R49:
The City develop written job classifications for all positions and issue them to all employees.
R50:
The City require department heads to adhere to the PMC sections covering their areas of responsibility.
R51:
A current copy of the PMC be made available to City Council members.
R52:
The City prepare, and provide to all employees, a handbook informing them of employee rights as stated in the PMC.
R53:
Employees be advised, in writing, of their rights of representation at all disciplinary hearings.
R54:
Written annual job performance evaluations of all employees be conducted, a copy placed in the employee’s permanent file and a copy provided to the employee.
R55:
A written salary schedule for each position be prepared and a copy made available to each employee.
R56:
The city develop and issue a written policy regarding advancement and salary increases. NEPOTISM IN THE CITY OF PARLIER Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury received several complaints from employees of the City of Parlier regarding nepotism as it exists in the city and the effect it has on their work environment. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary definition of nepotism is “favoritism shown to relatives or close friends by those in power (as by giving them jobs).” Nepotism is defined by the Parlier Municipal Code (PMC) Section 4.01.080 as “Applicants for employment with the city who are related within the third degree, by blood or marriage, to a person currently employed by the city, shall not be employed in the same department as the applicant’s relative, if it is determined on a case-by case review that employment of the applicant in the same department as his or her relative would create or aggravate problems relating to safety, security, supervision, morale or conflicts of interest in such department.”
R57:
PMC section 4.01.080 be rewritten to more clearly state the city’s policy on nepotism as defined by Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, “favoritism shown to relatives or close friends by those in power (as by giving them jobs).”
R58:
The policy of the city be to recruit, employ, and promote the best-qualified individuals. PARLIER PERSONNEL HEARING BOARD Introduction During the year 2000, a decision was made by the City manager to establish a Personnel Hearing Board (PHB). The Parlier Municipal Code (PMC) Section 4.02. (1997) describes the duties and responsibilities of the Board. Such a Board had never been established. The Board consists of two City Council members and a citizen at large. The purpose of the Board is to hear the final appeal of employees who have been disciplined and have exhausted all options for redress. The citizen at large position is to be filled by an applicant who is a resident of the City and at least 18 years of age. This position is to be noticed and described in the local newspaper and posted at City Hall.
R59:
The current PHB be dissolved.
R60:
The position for citizen at large be advertised (noticed).
R61:
The position for citizen at large be posted at City Hall.
R62:
All citizens who submit applications for this position be given equal consideration. PARLIER POLICE DEPARTMENT Introduction For many years, the Parlier Police Department has suffered from a lack of leadership and corresponding departmental ineffectiveness. The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury has undertaken a review of the causes and possible remedies. During the past 10 years, the City of Parlier has had 13 Chiefs of Police. Turnover by employees has been high due to low pay, low morale and lack of leadership. There have been continuing allegations of corruption, inefficiency and favoritism.
R63:
The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that the Parlier Police Department be closed immediately and the policing of Parlier be contracted with the Fresno County Sheriff. CITY COMMITTEE Rene Lastreto, Chair Robert Boehringer Mikie Kapigian Louis Olais Juliana Pherson Leo Shishmanian 42 CITY COMMITTEE
R64:
Continue the broad public education program to increase awareness of the need to meet recycling goals.
R65:
Tailor educational efforts to target each culture within our community in a way that has proven most effective for that group. FRESNO CITY PARKS SANITATION FACILITIES Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury inspected toilet facilities at Roeding Park, Woodward Park and six neighborhood parks. Conditions reviewed: Ø Cleanliness and cleaning schedules Ø Condition of fixtures and stalls Ø Privacy locks on toilet doors Ø Presence of soap Ø Presence of hand drying materials or machines Ø Plumbing leaks
R66:
Increase the budget to provide for care of the new parks.
R67:
Add personnel to help maintain the park sanitation facilities.
R68:
Provide adequate funds for replacement of fixtures with more durable ones. CITY COUNCIL INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDS Introduction The Fresno City Council discretionary infrastructure budget was examined by the 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury.
R69:
Distribution of the City Council discretionary infrastructure funds be reviewed and approved by the City Manager prior to disbursement. 48
R70:
Consideration be given to reducing the current allotment from $140,000 to $70,000 per district.
R71:
Carryover of any unused infrastructure funds be eliminated.
R72:
Future Grand Juries continue to monitor the program. CITY OF FRESNO WATER METERS Introduction Upon review of the 1999/2000 Fresno County Grand Jury report, the 2000/2001 Grand Jury investigated the current status of water availability and management.
R73:
The Mayor, City Council and all civic groups unite to promote the installation of water meters.
R74:
Homeowners and businesses that currently have meters be excluded from further meter installation costs.
R75:
The city utilities department continue to publish average water bills for various family sizes with and without meters.
R76:
Water police be reactivated to prevent water waste. BASEBALL/MULTI-USE STADIUM Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury reviewed the reports of the 1998/1999 and 1999/2000 Grand Juries. During the tenure of the present Grand Jury, the Fresno City Council approved the stadium project. Work has commenced on the site.
R77:
The City require an annual independent audit of the financial statements of FDG.
R78:
All seventeen dates the city controls be devoted to for-profit events to enhance the City’s revenues.
R79:
The public be assured of coordinated parking and security by FDG and the City. CITY OF FRESNO FIRE DEPARTMENT Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury investigated the City of Fresno Fire Department's (FFD) rating as established by the Insurance Services Office, Inc. (ISO). This organization evaluates the level of fire protection, the ability to receive and answer alarms, and the adequacy of water supply. A maximum of 100% credit is available. The percentages are broken into ten ISO Public Protection Classes. Class 1 equates to the top rating of 90-100%. Class 10 equates to the lowest rating, 0-9%. When last evaluated in 1995, the City of Fresno was rated a Class 4, achieving a rating of 66.07%. These classifications were developed for fire insurance rating purposes only. Insurance companies may use the agency’s classification to assist in setting property insurance premiums.
R80:
The fire department have a budgeted vehicle replacement plan. The city should consider replacement of vehicles after seven or eight years while they still have significant value on the used fire vehicle market.
R81:
The inventory of fire fighting tools be increased so that all spare engines/trucks are fully equipped.
R82:
The city recognize the need to increase the number of fire fighting personnel.
R83:
The City of Fresno revisit its traffic light pre-emption plan and budget funds to complete this program.
R84:
The Fresno Fire Department develop a plan to reduce response times to the NFPA standards. COUNTY COMMITTEE Rick Allen, Chair James Cotton Fred Goldring Ann Thaxter James Torosian Donald Wilson 57 COUNTY COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury County Committee’s primary function is to oversee all aspects of county government, incorporated cities not including Fresno, and special districts. Among the committee’s responsibilities is to insure that county monies and operations are handled in an efficient, effective and appropriate manner that best serve the interest of the citizens. The Grand Jury received requests for inquiries into various government operations within the County of Fresno. The County Committee conducted inquiries of the following: A. The operations and management of the Office of the Public Administrator/Public Guardian. B. Operation of the Coroner’s Office. Allegations of misconduct regarding utility bill collection policies in the City of Mendota. C. Complaints regarding the management of the City of Parlier. (The result of this investigation is presented in this report under the heading - Ad Hoc Committee, City of Parlier). D. The operations of the Elkhorn Correctional Facility. E. The need for a Briefing Book for newly elected members of the Fresno County Board of Supervisors and Fresno City Council. In the course of conducting these inquiries the committee gathered facts, interviewed many citizens, officials, department heads and employees of the County of Fresno and cities within the County of Fresno. During the process of the investigations, the committee made numerous field trips to government facilities within the county. OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC ADMINSTRATOR/PUBLIC GUARDIAN Introduction The 1999/2000 Fresno County Grand Jury Report prompted a review by this jury panel of the Public Administrator/Public Guardian Office (PA/PG).
R85:
The PA/PG evaluate the use of the County Treasury Pool.
R86:
Storage be improved for case records and client assets. Construction of an on-site storage building would eliminate the need for expensive off-site mini-storage.
R87:
Evaluate the need for additional deputies due to the implementation of the new Elder Abuse Referral Law SB 1742.
R88:
PA/PG add the services of a Registered Nurse to staff. This person would aid in evaluating and inspecting medical care facilities as well as review proposed client treatment and prescription history.
R89:
PA/PG evaluate the purchase of Long Term Care Insurance for those clients who would be eligible. OFFICE OF THE FRESNO COUNTY CORONER Introduction The 1999/2000 Fresno County Grand Jury report prompted an unannounced visit to the facilities of the Fresno County Coroner on December 19, 2000 by the 2000/2001 Grand Jury.
R90:
A plan be developed for a new morgue before the County reaches a crisis situation.
R91:
A new commercial washing machine be purchased for on-site laundering needs and/or use a commercial laundry.
R92:
Reference be made to the Grand Jury reports of 1998/1999 and 1999/2000 regarding the need for improvement of record storage. MENDOTA UTILITY BILL COLLECTIONS Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury received a written complaint regarding bill collection policies in the City of Mendota. The complaint included the following allegations: A. Some employees of the City of Mendota had not paid their water/utility bill for a period in excess of one year. B. Some elected officials were not making timely payments of their water/utility bills. C. This activity had been disclosed by the City Manager and/or City Attorney. It was alleged that the entire City office staff was involved. D. The 2000/2001 Grand Jury issued a subpoena for certain records covering the payment of water/utility bills by current and former Mendota city employees and elected officials. These records were provided to the Grand Jury on August 30, 2000.
R93:
The monthly shutoff list and notices be reviewed by an individual independent of the accounting department of the City of Mendota.
R94:
The subject of outstanding utility bills be reviewed during the annual financial audit conducted by an outside auditor.
R95:
The City establish and maintain training for all employees on the use of the Municipal Code and written procedures and policies regarding the collection of utility bills. ELKHORN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury followed up on the recommendation of the 1998/1999 Grand Jury to monitor the operation of the Elkhorn Correctional Facility (Juvenile Boot Camp). The Grand Jury toured the Elkhorn Correctional Facility (ECF) on September 1, 2000. The director and support staff provided a briefing on the history of the facility and its goals. Information was received from Elkhorn management, members of the Fresno County Board of Supervisors, the Chief Probation Officer and officials of the City of Fresno.
R96:
The Fresno County Board of Supervisors review commitments made in the February 11, 1997, letter issued by a former County Chief Administrative Officer and assure the neighbors of ECF that the County intends to honor these commitments. If certain commitments cannot be met, the County should negotiate with the neighbors to reach an equitable arrangement.
R97:
The Board of Supervisors continue to fund and maintain the present level of services at ECF.
R98:
The City of Fresno continue to fund Elkhorn Correctional Facility at no less than the current rate of $1,000,000 per year with no sunset provision.
R99:
The County provide boot camp facilities for female juvenile offenders.
R100:
Future Grand Juries continue to monitor the activities at the Elkhorn Correctional Facility. BRIEFING BOOK FOR NEWLY ELECTED OFFICIALS Introduction As the result of testimony received from newly elected members of the Fresno City Council and Fresno County Board of Supervisors, the Grand Jury reviewed the procedure for providing information to these individuals prior to assuming office.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
19 findings
F4:
During fieldwork it was noted that a check was issued to the Finance Director on August 6, 1998 in the amount of $1,504.31 for training reimbursement. The Finance Director also authorized the payment and signed the check. It is the City Manager’s policy to approve the warrant register, which he believes provides proper segregation of duties. However, based on our review, the warrant register does not provide details of each payment, just check totals. Therefore, the City Manager’s approval of the warrant register does not indicate that he approved the contents of the payment. At a minimum, internal controls require segregation of duties which provides an adequate level of review. Although this can be difficult in a small office like Parlier’s Finance Department, the City Manager should review and approve the payment contents as well as payment totals, when the Finance Director is the payee.
F5:
It was noted during fieldwork that Parlier’s City Manager and Finance Director utilize City credit cards. Purchases for office equipment, travel and meetings, etc. are made using these credit cards, and in 9 out of 11 (81%) credit card statements reviewed, receipts were not attached to the statements to support the expenditures. Only vendor names and handwritten general descriptions were included on the statements. We further tested 3 of the above 9 statements and determined that $117.11 of the insufficiently supported expenditures on a statement totaling $684.51 was attributable to Parlier’s Redevelopment Agency. In addition, $525.17 and $177.07 of the expenditures on two other statements totaling $5,037.59 and $1,980.00, respectively, were attributable to the Measure C – Transportation Authority, Sales Tax Proceeds fund (Measure C). In addition, when costs are charged to the Measure C program that cannot be substantiated and, therefore may not be in compliance with program requirements, Parlier’s future allocations may be withheld and reimbursements of such funds to the Fresno County Auditor-Controller/Treasurer- Tax Collector may be required. Such funds would only be released when exceptions are resolved and Parlier is in compliance with program requirements. Compliance issues regarding redevelopment agencies are addressed by various regulatory agencies as explained in the Parlier Redevelopment Agency section on .
F6:
It was noted during testing of expenditures, that the Finance Director used the City of Parlier’s Office Depot credit card on two separate occasions to purchase personal items such as movie videos, games, a chair, bookcases, etc. totaling $768.06. Both the Finance Director and City Manager stated the card was used by mistake and that actions were taken to reimburse the City through payroll deductions. However, when this matter was brought to the Finance Director’s attention by our audits staff, the Finance Director researched and determined that Parlier had not yet been reimbursed. Although this matter should have been followed up more timely, on April 2, 2001, the Finance Director did reimburse the City $914.77 which includes interest. 8
F7:
Health & Safety Code Section 33490 requires redevelopment agencies to submit a 5-year plan to the State Controller’s Office on or before December 31, 1994 and every 5 years thereafter. The RDA submitted a 5-year plan in 1994. However, based on information provided, Parlier’s 5-year plan, which was due on or before December 31,1999, had not been submitted to the State Controller’s Office as of the date of this review.
F8:
It was noted that the RDA appropriately recorded $747,015 in revenues for fiscal year 1998/99. However, only $145,496 of this amount was transferred to the low-income housing fund, which was less than the 20% required by Health & Safety Code Section 33487 by $3,907. The calculation was based on the net amount received by the RDA instead of the gross apportionment as required by the Code. The transfer to the low-income housing fund was properly calculated for fiscal year 1999/00. 9
F9:
It was noted during a review of Parlier’s financial statements that redevelopment notes receivable in the amount of $1,257,180 were erroneously listed in the general long-term debt account group in the 1998/99 statements. These notes receivable were properly reclassified by Parlier staff in the 1999/00 statements, which resulted in a $1,257,180 increase in the capital projects beginning fund balance; however, there was no disclosure explaining this material change.
F10a:
According to Parlier’s City Manager, all redevelopment loan programs must be approved by the RDA Board, which is Parlier’s City Council. We reviewed all available loan files for the sixteen redevelopment loans issued by Parlier as identified below, which were made between 1993 and 1996. There are nine individual loans and seven commercial loans. Based on documentation provided, it could not be determined that any of the loans were properly approved by the RDA Board. The Executive Director of the RDA is authorized to execute loan documents on behalf of the RDA, and we verified that he did sign agreements for all of the loans except as noted in Findings #10b, c and d below. In addition, based on information provided in loan files, we could not determine if any of the borrowers met the RDA criteria needed to obtain the loans. The City Manager stated that it is unlikely that any of the borrowers would not meet the criteria due to Parlier’s demographics. In addition, both the City Manager and Finance Director stated that there may be additional RDA loans that they do not know about. They said that loan files were incomplete when they began working for the City, and they had to piece together documentation for the loans as it was located. Based on the documentation provided, all nine individual loans were charged 5% interest. However, of the six commercial loans that had any supporting documentation (the seventh loan did not), one was charged 4.39% interest, three were charged 5%, and two others were charged 8%. Parlier staff did not know how these various interest rates were determined or why it was decided to charge different borrowers different rates. Based on our review of redevelopment guidelines, no provisions could be found that addressed the matter of interest rates on outstanding loans. In addition, except as noted in Finding #10b, we could not determine that any of the borrowers were related to City officials at the time of the issuance of the loans; however, this should not necessarily be an issue provided all borrowers met RDA loan criteria as addressed above.
F10b:
Nine of the sixteen loans issued by Parlier were “written off” for financial statement purposes and seven were not. Except as noted below, payments on six of these seven loans were received regularly and currently from the borrowers. Four of these six loans were provided to individuals in the amounts of $6,013, $7,000, $13,782, and $15,000. The fifth and sixth loans were commercial loans for $102,000 and $488,000 at a 4.39% and 5% interest rates, respectively. The seventh of these loans, which did not have any supporting documentation, is addressed in Finding #10d. The $15,000 individual loan noted above was issued in 1995 to a relative of the mayor. No payments were received by the RDA until the previous Finance Director contacted the borrower in April 1997 requesting copies of loan documents, which Parlier did not have at that time. Shortly after that, the borrower began to make regular payments on the loan and has continued making payments through the date of this review. These loan payments are included in a schedule in our workpapers. In addition, based on our review of loan documentation provided by the City, the agreement for this $15,000 loan was signed only by the borrower. Therefore, it is not clear whether the loan was properly executed by the Executive Director, or whether the loan was properly approved by the RDA Board as addressed in finding #10a. Based on documentation provided, we did find evidence that the Executive Director authorized $5,000 of the loan, because he approved two checks issued on this loan totaling $5,000.
F10c:
One of eight reportable conditions in Parlier’s 1998/99 audit report stated “The RDA has made numerous redevelopment loans to individuals and businesses. Many of these are totally non- performing.” The corresponding recommendation stated “Staff should contact each delinquent borrower to determine if stronger collection action is required, or if the loan cannot be reasonably collected, then it should be written off.” Parlier’s response was “RDA receivables were turned over to a professional collection service. Collection of the majority of housing loans is not possible, since the loans were not secured by real property. The issue of whether to pursue or forgive these loans is a policy for the Council to pursue.” 11 For 1999/00 financial statement purposes, the RDA “wrote off” four commercial loans and five individual loans totaling $46,736. Based on information provided, Parlier’s City Council did not approve writing off these loans, although it was disclosed in Parlier’s 1999/00 financial statements that the “City wrote off” the loans. During our review, Parlier staff explained that it was not the City’s intention to officially write off loans as they just wanted to report loans for financial statement purposes net of amounts considered to be uncollectible, and they are continuing to pursue collection of these loans. Based on information provided during our review, Parlier referred the delinquent loans to one collection agency who declined to pursue collection of the loans. According to Parlier staff, based on that collection agency’s response that these loans were not collectible, it was decided not to try to obtain further collection agency services. As of the date of this review, Parlier has not referred these loans to any other collection agency. The RDA continues to send invoices monthly on the “written off” loans to all of the individual borrowers but to none of the commercial borrowers, which, according to the City Manager, are no longer in business. However, no payments have been made by the loan recipients in several years. Information received on these “written off” loans is indicated below. The loan type is designated by a C for Commercial or I for Individual as follows: Loan Loan Loan Interest Unpaid Date of Type Year Loan Recipient Amount Rate Balance Last Pmt C 1993 El01 $12,500 8% $10,000 7/97 C 1993 Gor02 5,500 8% 4,940 11/93 C 1995 Sal03 2,390 5% 1,647 1/98 C 1995 Ant04 2,550 5% 513 7/97 I 1995 Mar05 5,000 5% 3,062 4/97 I 1995 And06 3,044 5% 2,639 4/97 I 1995 Noe07 2,500 5% 2,048 12/96 I 1996 Elo08 14,430 5% 14,430 None I 1996 Man09 7,683 5% 7,457 12/96 Total $55,597 $46,736 In addition, based on our review of the related loan documentation, the following exceptions were noted for these “written-off” loans: 1. The signed loan agreement for loan recipient Gor02 specified a loan amount of $4,000, but the amortization schedule included in the documentation provided an amended loan total of $5,500, yet there was no authorized amendment to the loan agreement. 12 2. The loan documentation for loan recipient El01 (El01) did not contain a loan agreement but contained other miscellaneous documents including a 1993 request from the attorney in fact for a $12,500 loan; an incomplete and unofficial copy of a 1993 RDA minutes indicating that the RDA Board approved a $12,000 loan to El01, and a copy of a $12,500 check signed by the RDA Executive Director and made out to El01 in 1993. Therefore, there was a conflict between the $12,000 amount that appeared to have been approved by the RDA Board and the $12,500 check approved by the Executive Director.
F10d:
During our review of the seven outstanding loans that were not “written off”, we noted that the financial statements disclosed that “…the Agency has a receivable … relating to low-income housing assistance provided in prior years. As long as …” the borrower “…continues renting to low-income individuals, they will be required to pay back a discounted amount equaling the annual installments, without interest, in the amount of $83,418 beginning in December 2013.” Parlier staff was able to provide us with a recorded deed of trust for this loan in the amount of $1,668,366; however, they could not provide a copy of the loan agreement. Therefore, we were not able to verify whether the borrower has complied with the terms of the agreement or whether the agreement was properly approved as discussed in finding #10a. Also, we were not able to determine whether interest will accrue if the borrower does not continue renting to low-income individuals or any other details about the loan.
F11:
It was noted during fieldwork that reimbursement requests submitted to the Fresno County Public Works Department were properly supported by invoices to outside entities. However, transactions were not properly recorded in the City of Parlier’s general ledger. Payments made by Fresno County to Parlier during fiscal year 1998/99 were understated in Parlier’s CDBG general ledger by $14,271.61, thereby understating CDBG revenues on the 1998/99 financial statements. The difference was due to a check issued by Fresno County in the amount of $149,271.61 on May 13, 1999. It was confirmed that Parlier received and endorsed the check for $149,271.61; however, only $135,000 of this amount was recorded in Parlier’s CDBG fund. The balance of $14,271.61 was recorded in Parlier’s general fund. Also, we were not able to trace 2 of 30 (6%) invoices totaling $4,370 to Parlier’s CDBG fund. However, we were able to confirm with the vendor that the invoices had been paid. Parlier staff has not been able to provide information regarding where these expenditures were recorded. Additionally, during a test of CDBG expenditures recorded in the general ledger, Parlier staff were not able to locate supporting documentation for 2 of 8 (25%) expenditures tested. Accurate and complete records are essential for restricted revenue funds to ensure continued funding and enhance internal controls.
F12:
During a review of Parlier’s financial statements for fiscal years 1998/99 and 1999/00, it was noted that the Child Development Fund listed expenditures for capital projects, which is not in compliance with the terms of the grant. Further analysis found that capital expenditures were not made in violation of the grant provisions. Instead, expenditures were not properly classified in the general ledger or the financial statements. 14
F13:
During a review of grant agreements for fiscal years 1998/99 and 1999/00, it was determined that grant expenditures recorded in the general fund and reported in the financial statements were in compliance with grant provisions except for a 1998/99 expenditure of $582.50 for engineering expenses.
F14:
During a review of the general ledger it was determined that expenditures do not agree with reports submitted to the State. The general ledger for fiscal year 1999/00 reports grant revenues of $283,950.97 plus $10,216.73 interest revenue for a total of $294,167.70. The general ledger also indicates total expenditures of $81,966.58 for 1999/00. The audit report sent to the State, which was prepared by the subcontractor’s CPA, indicates costs of $1,094,953.00 and revenue received of $72,808.00 for 1999/00. It appears that this audit report was prepared to reflect revenues and expenditures of the subcontractor and not the City of Parlier’s Child Development revenues and expenditures.
F15:
During the review, it was noted that payments made by the State Controller’s Office (SCO) to Parlier, which were posted on the SCO’s website did not agree with totals recorded in Parlier’s accounting system for fiscal years 1998/99 and 1999/00. For fiscal year 1998/99, the SCO recorded payments of $197,403.36 and Parlier recorded revenues of $218,610.40 for a variance of $21,207.04. For fiscal year 1999/00, the SCO recorded payments of $200,512.18 and Parlier recorded revenues of $202,545.85 for a variance of $2,033.67. Based on our review and documentation provided we could not determine whether the variances were due to timing differences or other factors.
F18:
During a review of the audit report issued by an independent accounting firm for fiscal year 1998/99, it was noted that the report contained an unqualified opinion despite the insufficiently supported expenditures discussed in findings #1-3 and the understated revenues discussed above. The same firm is conducting an audit of the Local Transportation fund for fiscal year 1999/00 but has not yet issued their report. During a conversation on March 26, 2001 with a staff member of the independent firm, the staff member said that the firm is questioning the method that Parlier uses to apply administrative overhead costs to this fund. The staff member also stated that the 1999/00 report will contain findings and recommendations related to the overhead application process.
F19:
Parlier’s Finance Director said that the City uses LLEBG money to pay for overtime expenditures in the Police Department since the amount of the grant is not enough to hire an additional police officer. Although overtime used to increase or enhance police services is an appropriate expenditure for this grant; based on information reviewed, we could not determine that overtime expended was an inappropriate use of grant monies. One officer’s salary is charged to the fund as an equivalent to the law enforcement overtime costs incurred outside of the fund. The amount of the 1998 grant was $19,623 and overtime for that period was $92,705. The amount of the 1999 grant was $19,097 and overtime for that period was $65,135. The Finance Director stated that he spoke with personnel in the US Department of Justice (DOJ) who told him that he can account for the fund in this manner as long as he can support the amount of overtime claimed on the grant. We contacted the DOJ and were told that this practice is not appropriate. DOJ staff stated that the actual expenditures paid with LLEBG money must be recorded in the fund established to account for the grant. During our review, expenditures for equipment were tested. During fiscal year 1998/99, 4 of 5 (80%) equipment expenditures tested did not appear to be appropriate for fund purposes based on information provided. As confirmed with the DOJ, LLEBG money is to be used to increase or enhance law enforcement services. The expenditures questioned include chairs for $1,356.68, rug runners for $343.73, and office supplies for $161.61. 17
F22:
During a test of expenditures for fiscal year 1999/00, the City of Parlier was not able to provide support for $769.50 charged to salaries and benefits recorded through a journal entry. The City’s Finance Director stated that the support for the journal entry could not be located.
F23:
Based on our review, another COPS program (AB3229, Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund) was charged $886.13 for an officer’s salary that was also included in a Universal Hiring Grant report submitted to the DOJ for the period 10/1/98 to 3/31/99. In addition, the salary included in this report also included overtime which is not allowable according to Universal Hiring Grant provisions.
Additional Recommendations
99
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
To be in compliance with the above restricted revenue requirements and regulations and to eliminate the appearance that restricted revenues are being used to fund general fund expenditures, the City of Parlier should ensure that such restricted revenues are clearly used for the related program purposes. Costs charged to the special revenue funds should reflect actual costs attributable to the program and should be supported by applicable documentation such as time tracking. The City of Parlier should obtain clarification from the applicable regulatory agency to determine if their current cost allocation methodology is acceptable.
R2:
In the absence of fully supportable cost allocation methodologies or regulatory approval of existing cost allocation methodologies, the City of Parlier should reverse the $268,224 and $393,602 in overhead costs charged to the special revenue funds listed above. In addition, any other insufficiently supported cost allocations that were not noted in this report should also be reversed.
R3:
In order to provide for sound accounting and budgeting practices and to ensure a clear audit trail, appropriations and expenditures should be initially recorded in the originating department/fund where the activities are incurred.
R4:
The City of Parlier Finance Department should implement procedures that provide segregation of duties related to accounts payable. Specifically, the person who approves payments should not be the same person who signs checks and submits requests for payments. When it is necessary for the 7 Finance Director to submit a request for payment, the payment should be sufficiently reviewed and approved by another authorized staff member (e.g. the City Manager).
R5:
To strengthen internal controls over expenditures in special revenue funds and to ensure that funding does not need to be reimbursed or that future funding is withheld, the City of Parlier should ensure that program costs incurred are fully supported and are in compliance with program requirements. This can be achieved in part by requiring that receipts for credit card purchases be retained for supporting documentation and submitted to the Finance Department for review and approval.
R6:
To prevent losses and enhance internal controls, the City of Parlier should immediately implement procedures to ensure that the City’s charge accounts and credit cards are not used for personal purchases. Parlier Redevelopment Agency (RDA) Compliance issues involving redevelopment funding are addressed by the State Controller’s Office, the State Attorney General and the Court. Based on Section 33080.8 of California’s Health & Safety Code, the State Controller compiles lists of redevelopment agencies that appear to have uncorrected major violations, based on the annual independent audit reports filed by such agencies. The Attorney General can pursue filing lawsuits against redevelopment agencies having uncorrected violations, and the Court can prohibit the agency from performing various activities until the Court determines that the major violations are corrected. Since the RDA’s annual audit reports for 1998/99 and 1999/00 contained unqualified opinions, it is unlikely that it was determined that Parlier had any major violations, and it is not known what actions, if any, the above regulatory entities would take as a result of the redevelopment findings noted in this separate report. This report may affect the findings and opinion of independent accounting firms performing future redevelopment audits; however, it is not known if these
R7:
In compliance with the above code sections and to ensure that funding is not withheld, the RDA should immediately submit a 5-year plan to the State Controller’s Office and submit all future required documents when due.
R8:
In order to comply with Health & Safety Code Section 33487 and to ensure that funding is not withheld, the RDA should transfer $3,907 to the low income housing fund for fiscal year 1998/99 from the RDA Capital Projects Fund.
R9:
In order to explain material changes in the financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, the City of Parlier should provide adequate disclosure in the notes to the financial statements. For example, Parlier could have identified the above increase in the capital projects fund balance as a “restated” fund balance in the financial statements. In addition, a note disclosure should have been provided to reconcile the restated fund balance to the prior year ending balance. The disclosure should have also explained the reason(s) for the restatement. Parlier should consider this for future reporting purposes.
R10:
a, b, c, and d To ensure that funding is not withheld, the RDA should ensure all proper procedures and legal requirements are followed when issuing loans and all appropriate documents are maintained in their loan files and that all loans are properly authorized. Parlier staff should review all available loan records since the formation of the RDA to try to locate all missing loan documentation and criteria information on the sixteen known loans addressed above. Parlier staff should also determine if there are any additional outstanding loans not currently known that should be followed up on. Also, even though Parlier has indicated that the commercial borrowers of the “written off” loans are out of business, Parlier should continue to bill the business owners until these loans are officially written off by the City Council. Proper procedures must be followed to assure that all redevelopment loans are repaid timely and in full. Redevelopment loans determined to be uncollectible should be written off by the City Council and referred to a collection agency as appropriate. Parlier should consider following up with other collection agencies or pursue other means of recouping unpaid balances, e.g. through small claims processes, other lawsuits, etc. In addition, Parlier should ensure and be able to support that interest charged on Redevelopment loans is charged fairly and equitably. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
R11:
To enhance internal controls, ensure the accuracy of the City’s accounting records, and ensure continued funding, Parlier should implement formal procedures to ensure proper accounting for and reconciliation of restricted revenues. In addition, all transactions and supporting documentation must be maintained until such records have been audited by all appropriate oversight agencies. Finally, the City of Parlier should make the appropriate general ledger entries within the special revenue fund to record these transactions. Child Development Grant
R12:
The City of Parlier should post transactions to proper accounts and subsequently classify expenditures appropriately in their financial statements.
R13:
In order to comply with terms of the Child Development Grant, the City of Parlier should reimburse the Child Development fund the $582.50 noted above and only make expenditures appropriate for grant purposes from this fund.
R14:
In order to comply with terms of the Child Development Grant, the City of Parlier should obtain an annual audit of the Child Development Program that conforms to the terms of the grant agreement and reports on Child Development revenues and expenditures of the City of Parlier. In addition, the City of Parlier should consistently review any audit reports prepared for their program prior to finalization of the report. Measure “C” – Transportation Authority, Sales Tax Proceeds It was noted during our review that insufficiently supported overhead allocations were applied to the Measure “C” special revenue fund. See findings and recommendations #1 - 3. Highway User Tax (Gas Tax)
R15:
In order to properly account for and report Gas Tax revenues, the City of Parlier must reconcile any variances between revenues paid by a funding entity and revenues recorded by the City. Local Transportation Fund
R16:
In order to properly administer the Local Transportation Fund and ensure proper financial statement presentation, the City of Parlier must reconcile the Local Transportation fund to receipts and implement procedures to ensure that all transactions are properly recorded and reported.
R17:
The City of Parlier should either provide supporting documentation for the $70,702 reduction of revenues or reverse this adjustment as appropriate. 16
R19:
The City of Parlier should contact the DOJ for written clarification of what constitutes acceptable expenditures for this grant. The City of Parlier should comply with the information provided by the DOJ related to this audit finding. Unauthorized expenditures of grant funds must be reimbursed or a waiver should be requested from the grantor agency. COPS Grant AB3229
R20:
The City of Parlier should ensure that actual interest is allocated to the COPS fund for 1998/99, 1999/00 and thereafter. In addition, the City should ensure that adequate interest allocation methodologies are used to ensure that all restricted revenues are accurately calculated, allocated and available to be used for restricted program purposes or returned to regulatory agencies as necessary in the event of non-compliance with program requirements.
R21:
In compliance with the provisions of Government Code Section 30061 as stated above, the City of Parlier should ensure that the appropriation of COPS grant monies for 2000/01 and thereafter are separately presented to and approved by Parlier’s City Council as required.
R22:
The City of Parlier should maintain support for all financial transactions that affect special revenue funds as well as other funds until all oversight agencies conduct periodic audits. Unauthorized expenditures of grant funds must be reimbursed or a waiver should be requested from the grantor agency. Universal Hiring Grant (COPS)
R23:
The City of Parlier should implement procedures to ensure that expenditures are not claimed/reported twice and that overtime costs are not claimed in compliance with Universal 19 Hiring Grant provisions. Parlier should also adjust the above reports and charges to reverse duplicated expenditures and inappropriate overtime costs. Office of Emergency Services (OES)
R24:
The City of Parlier should investigate the difference of $2,404 between revenues reported in their general ledger for OES revenues and the amount of payments confirmed through the State OES or have support for the variance readily available.
R25:
The City of Parlier should immediately revise the Project Completion and Certification Report to reflect actual costs for the disaster period. They should provide support for costs claimed or return $36,136 claimed inappropriately to the State OES. 20
R26:
To ensure accuracy of records, enhance internal controls, and ensure the availability of current and future funding, the City of Parlier should properly maintain files containing supporting documentation for transactions and retain these records until audited by all appropriate oversight agencies. Transportation Equity Act No reportable conditions were noted during our review of the Transportation Equity Act, which provides funding for street improvements. Based on our review, only $14,761 was spent for this program in 1999/00 for preliminary engineering on street improvement projects, which is in compliance with program provisions.
R27:
The Parlier City Manager confer with the City Council before engaging in city projects costing over $10,000 as required by PMC.
R28:
Bidding and contracting of services be in compliance with PMC.
R29:
The City Manager and City Council be held responsible for implementing the directives set forth in PMC.
R30:
Compensation of employees and/or contractors be in compliance with existing State and Federal laws. PARLIER ANIMAL CONTROL Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury received complaints relating to animal control and conditions at the City of Parlier Animal Shelter. Recommendations regarding animal control and the animal shelter were included in the 1997/1998 Grand Jury Report. The City Manager responded as follows: “The City will continue efforts to create innovative ways to obtain funding and attract community support for animal control operations and facilities, this shall include seeking grants, encouraging participation by local organizations and volunteers, the Humane Society and SPCA.” “The City will continue to enforce leash and licensing laws and to collect fees and/or fines to generate revenue for animal control services. The city code has animal control codes, which it enforces; the city has adopted animal licensing fees and fines to offset some of the costs of these activities. The City Council reviews fees on an annual basis and adjusts them, as it deems appropriate. The City will review and update its animal control codes and fees during fiscal 1998-1999.”
R31:
The City hire an animal control officer.
R32:
The animal shelter be relocated within the city to make it more accessible.
R33:
Leash and licensing laws be enforced.
R34:
The City educate the community regarding licensing, vaccinations, leash laws, spaying and neutering.
R35:
The City establish a fee schedule for costs incurred in animal control.
R36:
All record keeping relating to animal control be current.
R37:
State guidelines be followed for the ultimate disposal of any animal.
R38:
Polaroid photographs of mi pounded dogs be posted at city hall in order for citizens to see if their dog has been impounded. CARPETING OF PARLIER CITY HALL Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury investigated a complaint from a concerned citizen about the method used by the City Manager in the purchase and installation of carpet in the Parlier City Hall.
R39:
The Parlier Municipal Code and Purchasing Ordinance be followed.
R40:
Shortcuts that violate the existing code not be considered. CODE ENFORCEMENT IN PARLIER Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury investigated a written complaint from a citizen that cited the lack of code enforcement in the City of Parlier.
R41:
The present policy of code enforcement be changed to a more aggressive system which addresses all violations existing in the City of Parlier.
R42:
Written policy and procedures be developed to provide for the tracking and documented resolution of all complaints.
R43:
The city hire a code enforcement officer, supported with sufficient staff.
R44:
Adequate training be provided for the code enforcement officer and staff, including instruction in property owner and tenant rights.
R45:
A written manual providing guidelines on how to resolve code enforcement disputes be developed and implemented.
R46:
The City of Parlier inform and educate the public on current code enforcement policy.
R47:
A current copy of the Parlier Municipal Code be available for public use at City Hall and the public library. PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT WITHIN THE CITY OF PARLIER Introduction An employee of the City of Parlier provided testimony to the 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury regarding an unfair disciplinary experience while employed by the city. Subsequently, the Grand Jury received additional testimony from other current and former employees who indicated they too had not been treated in an equitable manner.
R48:
The City of Parlier formulate and implement written policies and procedures regarding labor relations.
R49:
The City develop written job classifications for all positions and issue them to all employees.
R50:
The City require department heads to adhere to the PMC sections covering their areas of responsibility.
R51:
A current copy of the PMC be made available to City Council members.
R52:
The City prepare, and provide to all employees, a handbook informing them of employee rights as stated in the PMC.
R53:
Employees be advised, in writing, of their rights of representation at all disciplinary hearings.
R54:
Written annual job performance evaluations of all employees be conducted, a copy placed in the employee’s permanent file and a copy provided to the employee.
R55:
A written salary schedule for each position be prepared and a copy made available to each employee.
R56:
The city develop and issue a written policy regarding advancement and salary increases. NEPOTISM IN THE CITY OF PARLIER Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury received several complaints from employees of the City of Parlier regarding nepotism as it exists in the city and the effect it has on their work environment. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary definition of nepotism is “favoritism shown to relatives or close friends by those in power (as by giving them jobs).” Nepotism is defined by the Parlier Municipal Code (PMC) Section 4.01.080 as “Applicants for employment with the city who are related within the third degree, by blood or marriage, to a person currently employed by the city, shall not be employed in the same department as the applicant’s relative, if it is determined on a case-by case review that employment of the applicant in the same department as his or her relative would create or aggravate problems relating to safety, security, supervision, morale or conflicts of interest in such department.”
R57:
PMC section 4.01.080 be rewritten to more clearly state the city’s policy on nepotism as defined by Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, “favoritism shown to relatives or close friends by those in power (as by giving them jobs).”
R58:
The policy of the city be to recruit, employ, and promote the best-qualified individuals. PARLIER PERSONNEL HEARING BOARD Introduction During the year 2000, a decision was made by the City manager to establish a Personnel Hearing Board (PHB). The Parlier Municipal Code (PMC) Section 4.02. (1997) describes the duties and responsibilities of the Board. Such a Board had never been established. The Board consists of two City Council members and a citizen at large. The purpose of the Board is to hear the final appeal of employees who have been disciplined and have exhausted all options for redress. The citizen at large position is to be filled by an applicant who is a resident of the City and at least 18 years of age. This position is to be noticed and described in the local newspaper and posted at City Hall.
R59:
The current PHB be dissolved.
R60:
The position for citizen at large be advertised (noticed).
R61:
The position for citizen at large be posted at City Hall.
R62:
All citizens who submit applications for this position be given equal consideration. PARLIER POLICE DEPARTMENT Introduction For many years, the Parlier Police Department has suffered from a lack of leadership and corresponding departmental ineffectiveness. The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury has undertaken a review of the causes and possible remedies. During the past 10 years, the City of Parlier has had 13 Chiefs of Police. Turnover by employees has been high due to low pay, low morale and lack of leadership. There have been continuing allegations of corruption, inefficiency and favoritism.
R63:
The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that the Parlier Police Department be closed immediately and the policing of Parlier be contracted with the Fresno County Sheriff. CITY COMMITTEE Rene Lastreto, Chair Robert Boehringer Mikie Kapigian Louis Olais Juliana Pherson Leo Shishmanian 42 CITY COMMITTEE
R64:
Continue the broad public education program to increase awareness of the need to meet recycling goals.
R65:
Tailor educational efforts to target each culture within our community in a way that has proven most effective for that group. FRESNO CITY PARKS SANITATION FACILITIES Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury inspected toilet facilities at Roeding Park, Woodward Park and six neighborhood parks. Conditions reviewed: Ø Cleanliness and cleaning schedules Ø Condition of fixtures and stalls Ø Privacy locks on toilet doors Ø Presence of soap Ø Presence of hand drying materials or machines Ø Plumbing leaks
R66:
Increase the budget to provide for care of the new parks.
R67:
Add personnel to help maintain the park sanitation facilities.
R68:
Provide adequate funds for replacement of fixtures with more durable ones. CITY COUNCIL INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDS Introduction The Fresno City Council discretionary infrastructure budget was examined by the 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury.
R69:
Distribution of the City Council discretionary infrastructure funds be reviewed and approved by the City Manager prior to disbursement. 48
R70:
Consideration be given to reducing the current allotment from $140,000 to $70,000 per district.
R71:
Carryover of any unused infrastructure funds be eliminated.
R72:
Future Grand Juries continue to monitor the program. CITY OF FRESNO WATER METERS Introduction Upon review of the 1999/2000 Fresno County Grand Jury report, the 2000/2001 Grand Jury investigated the current status of water availability and management.
R73:
The Mayor, City Council and all civic groups unite to promote the installation of water meters.
R74:
Homeowners and businesses that currently have meters be excluded from further meter installation costs.
R75:
The city utilities department continue to publish average water bills for various family sizes with and without meters.
R76:
Water police be reactivated to prevent water waste. BASEBALL/MULTI-USE STADIUM Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury reviewed the reports of the 1998/1999 and 1999/2000 Grand Juries. During the tenure of the present Grand Jury, the Fresno City Council approved the stadium project. Work has commenced on the site.
R77:
The City require an annual independent audit of the financial statements of FDG.
R78:
All seventeen dates the city controls be devoted to for-profit events to enhance the City’s revenues.
R79:
The public be assured of coordinated parking and security by FDG and the City. CITY OF FRESNO FIRE DEPARTMENT Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury investigated the City of Fresno Fire Department's (FFD) rating as established by the Insurance Services Office, Inc. (ISO). This organization evaluates the level of fire protection, the ability to receive and answer alarms, and the adequacy of water supply. A maximum of 100% credit is available. The percentages are broken into ten ISO Public Protection Classes. Class 1 equates to the top rating of 90-100%. Class 10 equates to the lowest rating, 0-9%. When last evaluated in 1995, the City of Fresno was rated a Class 4, achieving a rating of 66.07%. These classifications were developed for fire insurance rating purposes only. Insurance companies may use the agency’s classification to assist in setting property insurance premiums.
R80:
The fire department have a budgeted vehicle replacement plan. The city should consider replacement of vehicles after seven or eight years while they still have significant value on the used fire vehicle market.
R81:
The inventory of fire fighting tools be increased so that all spare engines/trucks are fully equipped.
R82:
The city recognize the need to increase the number of fire fighting personnel.
R83:
The City of Fresno revisit its traffic light pre-emption plan and budget funds to complete this program.
R84:
The Fresno Fire Department develop a plan to reduce response times to the NFPA standards. COUNTY COMMITTEE Rick Allen, Chair James Cotton Fred Goldring Ann Thaxter James Torosian Donald Wilson 57 COUNTY COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury County Committee’s primary function is to oversee all aspects of county government, incorporated cities not including Fresno, and special districts. Among the committee’s responsibilities is to insure that county monies and operations are handled in an efficient, effective and appropriate manner that best serve the interest of the citizens. The Grand Jury received requests for inquiries into various government operations within the County of Fresno. The County Committee conducted inquiries of the following: A. The operations and management of the Office of the Public Administrator/Public Guardian. B. Operation of the Coroner’s Office. Allegations of misconduct regarding utility bill collection policies in the City of Mendota. C. Complaints regarding the management of the City of Parlier. (The result of this investigation is presented in this report under the heading - Ad Hoc Committee, City of Parlier). D. The operations of the Elkhorn Correctional Facility. E. The need for a Briefing Book for newly elected members of the Fresno County Board of Supervisors and Fresno City Council. In the course of conducting these inquiries the committee gathered facts, interviewed many citizens, officials, department heads and employees of the County of Fresno and cities within the County of Fresno. During the process of the investigations, the committee made numerous field trips to government facilities within the county. OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC ADMINSTRATOR/PUBLIC GUARDIAN Introduction The 1999/2000 Fresno County Grand Jury Report prompted a review by this jury panel of the Public Administrator/Public Guardian Office (PA/PG).
R85:
The PA/PG evaluate the use of the County Treasury Pool.
R86:
Storage be improved for case records and client assets. Construction of an on-site storage building would eliminate the need for expensive off-site mini-storage.
R87:
Evaluate the need for additional deputies due to the implementation of the new Elder Abuse Referral Law SB 1742.
R88:
PA/PG add the services of a Registered Nurse to staff. This person would aid in evaluating and inspecting medical care facilities as well as review proposed client treatment and prescription history.
R89:
PA/PG evaluate the purchase of Long Term Care Insurance for those clients who would be eligible. OFFICE OF THE FRESNO COUNTY CORONER Introduction The 1999/2000 Fresno County Grand Jury report prompted an unannounced visit to the facilities of the Fresno County Coroner on December 19, 2000 by the 2000/2001 Grand Jury.
R90:
A plan be developed for a new morgue before the County reaches a crisis situation.
R91:
A new commercial washing machine be purchased for on-site laundering needs and/or use a commercial laundry.
R92:
Reference be made to the Grand Jury reports of 1998/1999 and 1999/2000 regarding the need for improvement of record storage. MENDOTA UTILITY BILL COLLECTIONS Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury received a written complaint regarding bill collection policies in the City of Mendota. The complaint included the following allegations: A. Some employees of the City of Mendota had not paid their water/utility bill for a period in excess of one year. B. Some elected officials were not making timely payments of their water/utility bills. C. This activity had been disclosed by the City Manager and/or City Attorney. It was alleged that the entire City office staff was involved. D. The 2000/2001 Grand Jury issued a subpoena for certain records covering the payment of water/utility bills by current and former Mendota city employees and elected officials. These records were provided to the Grand Jury on August 30, 2000.
R93:
The monthly shutoff list and notices be reviewed by an individual independent of the accounting department of the City of Mendota.
R94:
The subject of outstanding utility bills be reviewed during the annual financial audit conducted by an outside auditor.
R95:
The City establish and maintain training for all employees on the use of the Municipal Code and written procedures and policies regarding the collection of utility bills. ELKHORN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury followed up on the recommendation of the 1998/1999 Grand Jury to monitor the operation of the Elkhorn Correctional Facility (Juvenile Boot Camp). The Grand Jury toured the Elkhorn Correctional Facility (ECF) on September 1, 2000. The director and support staff provided a briefing on the history of the facility and its goals. Information was received from Elkhorn management, members of the Fresno County Board of Supervisors, the Chief Probation Officer and officials of the City of Fresno.
R96:
The Fresno County Board of Supervisors review commitments made in the February 11, 1997, letter issued by a former County Chief Administrative Officer and assure the neighbors of ECF that the County intends to honor these commitments. If certain commitments cannot be met, the County should negotiate with the neighbors to reach an equitable arrangement.
R97:
The Board of Supervisors continue to fund and maintain the present level of services at ECF.
R98:
The City of Fresno continue to fund Elkhorn Correctional Facility at no less than the current rate of $1,000,000 per year with no sunset provision.
R99:
The County provide boot camp facilities for female juvenile offenders.
R100:
Future Grand Juries continue to monitor the activities at the Elkhorn Correctional Facility. BRIEFING BOOK FOR NEWLY ELECTED OFFICIALS Introduction As the result of testimony received from newly elected members of the Fresno City Council and Fresno County Board of Supervisors, the Grand Jury reviewed the procedure for providing information to these individuals prior to assuming office.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
19 findings
F4:
During fieldwork it was noted that a check was issued to the Finance Director on August 6, 1998 in the amount of $1,504.31 for training reimbursement. The Finance Director also authorized the payment and signed the check. It is the City Manager’s policy to approve the warrant register, which he believes provides proper segregation of duties. However, based on our review, the warrant register does not provide details of each payment, just check totals. Therefore, the City Manager’s approval of the warrant register does not indicate that he approved the contents of the payment. At a minimum, internal controls require segregation of duties which provides an adequate level of review. Although this can be difficult in a small office like Parlier’s Finance Department, the City Manager should review and approve the payment contents as well as payment totals, when the Finance Director is the payee.
F5:
It was noted during fieldwork that Parlier’s City Manager and Finance Director utilize City credit cards. Purchases for office equipment, travel and meetings, etc. are made using these credit cards, and in 9 out of 11 (81%) credit card statements reviewed, receipts were not attached to the statements to support the expenditures. Only vendor names and handwritten general descriptions were included on the statements. We further tested 3 of the above 9 statements and determined that $117.11 of the insufficiently supported expenditures on a statement totaling $684.51 was attributable to Parlier’s Redevelopment Agency. In addition, $525.17 and $177.07 of the expenditures on two other statements totaling $5,037.59 and $1,980.00, respectively, were attributable to the Measure C – Transportation Authority, Sales Tax Proceeds fund (Measure C). In addition, when costs are charged to the Measure C program that cannot be substantiated and, therefore may not be in compliance with program requirements, Parlier’s future allocations may be withheld and reimbursements of such funds to the Fresno County Auditor-Controller/Treasurer- Tax Collector may be required. Such funds would only be released when exceptions are resolved and Parlier is in compliance with program requirements. Compliance issues regarding redevelopment agencies are addressed by various regulatory agencies as explained in the Parlier Redevelopment Agency section on .
F6:
It was noted during testing of expenditures, that the Finance Director used the City of Parlier’s Office Depot credit card on two separate occasions to purchase personal items such as movie videos, games, a chair, bookcases, etc. totaling $768.06. Both the Finance Director and City Manager stated the card was used by mistake and that actions were taken to reimburse the City through payroll deductions. However, when this matter was brought to the Finance Director’s attention by our audits staff, the Finance Director researched and determined that Parlier had not yet been reimbursed. Although this matter should have been followed up more timely, on April 2, 2001, the Finance Director did reimburse the City $914.77 which includes interest. 8
F7:
Health & Safety Code Section 33490 requires redevelopment agencies to submit a 5-year plan to the State Controller’s Office on or before December 31, 1994 and every 5 years thereafter. The RDA submitted a 5-year plan in 1994. However, based on information provided, Parlier’s 5-year plan, which was due on or before December 31,1999, had not been submitted to the State Controller’s Office as of the date of this review.
F8:
It was noted that the RDA appropriately recorded $747,015 in revenues for fiscal year 1998/99. However, only $145,496 of this amount was transferred to the low-income housing fund, which was less than the 20% required by Health & Safety Code Section 33487 by $3,907. The calculation was based on the net amount received by the RDA instead of the gross apportionment as required by the Code. The transfer to the low-income housing fund was properly calculated for fiscal year 1999/00. 9
F9:
It was noted during a review of Parlier’s financial statements that redevelopment notes receivable in the amount of $1,257,180 were erroneously listed in the general long-term debt account group in the 1998/99 statements. These notes receivable were properly reclassified by Parlier staff in the 1999/00 statements, which resulted in a $1,257,180 increase in the capital projects beginning fund balance; however, there was no disclosure explaining this material change.
F10a:
According to Parlier’s City Manager, all redevelopment loan programs must be approved by the RDA Board, which is Parlier’s City Council. We reviewed all available loan files for the sixteen redevelopment loans issued by Parlier as identified below, which were made between 1993 and 1996. There are nine individual loans and seven commercial loans. Based on documentation provided, it could not be determined that any of the loans were properly approved by the RDA Board. The Executive Director of the RDA is authorized to execute loan documents on behalf of the RDA, and we verified that he did sign agreements for all of the loans except as noted in Findings #10b, c and d below. In addition, based on information provided in loan files, we could not determine if any of the borrowers met the RDA criteria needed to obtain the loans. The City Manager stated that it is unlikely that any of the borrowers would not meet the criteria due to Parlier’s demographics. In addition, both the City Manager and Finance Director stated that there may be additional RDA loans that they do not know about. They said that loan files were incomplete when they began working for the City, and they had to piece together documentation for the loans as it was located. Based on the documentation provided, all nine individual loans were charged 5% interest. However, of the six commercial loans that had any supporting documentation (the seventh loan did not), one was charged 4.39% interest, three were charged 5%, and two others were charged 8%. Parlier staff did not know how these various interest rates were determined or why it was decided to charge different borrowers different rates. Based on our review of redevelopment guidelines, no provisions could be found that addressed the matter of interest rates on outstanding loans. In addition, except as noted in Finding #10b, we could not determine that any of the borrowers were related to City officials at the time of the issuance of the loans; however, this should not necessarily be an issue provided all borrowers met RDA loan criteria as addressed above.
F10b:
Nine of the sixteen loans issued by Parlier were “written off” for financial statement purposes and seven were not. Except as noted below, payments on six of these seven loans were received regularly and currently from the borrowers. Four of these six loans were provided to individuals in the amounts of $6,013, $7,000, $13,782, and $15,000. The fifth and sixth loans were commercial loans for $102,000 and $488,000 at a 4.39% and 5% interest rates, respectively. The seventh of these loans, which did not have any supporting documentation, is addressed in Finding #10d. The $15,000 individual loan noted above was issued in 1995 to a relative of the mayor. No payments were received by the RDA until the previous Finance Director contacted the borrower in April 1997 requesting copies of loan documents, which Parlier did not have at that time. Shortly after that, the borrower began to make regular payments on the loan and has continued making payments through the date of this review. These loan payments are included in a schedule in our workpapers. In addition, based on our review of loan documentation provided by the City, the agreement for this $15,000 loan was signed only by the borrower. Therefore, it is not clear whether the loan was properly executed by the Executive Director, or whether the loan was properly approved by the RDA Board as addressed in finding #10a. Based on documentation provided, we did find evidence that the Executive Director authorized $5,000 of the loan, because he approved two checks issued on this loan totaling $5,000.
F10c:
One of eight reportable conditions in Parlier’s 1998/99 audit report stated “The RDA has made numerous redevelopment loans to individuals and businesses. Many of these are totally non- performing.” The corresponding recommendation stated “Staff should contact each delinquent borrower to determine if stronger collection action is required, or if the loan cannot be reasonably collected, then it should be written off.” Parlier’s response was “RDA receivables were turned over to a professional collection service. Collection of the majority of housing loans is not possible, since the loans were not secured by real property. The issue of whether to pursue or forgive these loans is a policy for the Council to pursue.” 11 For 1999/00 financial statement purposes, the RDA “wrote off” four commercial loans and five individual loans totaling $46,736. Based on information provided, Parlier’s City Council did not approve writing off these loans, although it was disclosed in Parlier’s 1999/00 financial statements that the “City wrote off” the loans. During our review, Parlier staff explained that it was not the City’s intention to officially write off loans as they just wanted to report loans for financial statement purposes net of amounts considered to be uncollectible, and they are continuing to pursue collection of these loans. Based on information provided during our review, Parlier referred the delinquent loans to one collection agency who declined to pursue collection of the loans. According to Parlier staff, based on that collection agency’s response that these loans were not collectible, it was decided not to try to obtain further collection agency services. As of the date of this review, Parlier has not referred these loans to any other collection agency. The RDA continues to send invoices monthly on the “written off” loans to all of the individual borrowers but to none of the commercial borrowers, which, according to the City Manager, are no longer in business. However, no payments have been made by the loan recipients in several years. Information received on these “written off” loans is indicated below. The loan type is designated by a C for Commercial or I for Individual as follows: Loan Loan Loan Interest Unpaid Date of Type Year Loan Recipient Amount Rate Balance Last Pmt C 1993 El01 $12,500 8% $10,000 7/97 C 1993 Gor02 5,500 8% 4,940 11/93 C 1995 Sal03 2,390 5% 1,647 1/98 C 1995 Ant04 2,550 5% 513 7/97 I 1995 Mar05 5,000 5% 3,062 4/97 I 1995 And06 3,044 5% 2,639 4/97 I 1995 Noe07 2,500 5% 2,048 12/96 I 1996 Elo08 14,430 5% 14,430 None I 1996 Man09 7,683 5% 7,457 12/96 Total $55,597 $46,736 In addition, based on our review of the related loan documentation, the following exceptions were noted for these “written-off” loans: 1. The signed loan agreement for loan recipient Gor02 specified a loan amount of $4,000, but the amortization schedule included in the documentation provided an amended loan total of $5,500, yet there was no authorized amendment to the loan agreement. 12 2. The loan documentation for loan recipient El01 (El01) did not contain a loan agreement but contained other miscellaneous documents including a 1993 request from the attorney in fact for a $12,500 loan; an incomplete and unofficial copy of a 1993 RDA minutes indicating that the RDA Board approved a $12,000 loan to El01, and a copy of a $12,500 check signed by the RDA Executive Director and made out to El01 in 1993. Therefore, there was a conflict between the $12,000 amount that appeared to have been approved by the RDA Board and the $12,500 check approved by the Executive Director.
F10d:
During our review of the seven outstanding loans that were not “written off”, we noted that the financial statements disclosed that “…the Agency has a receivable … relating to low-income housing assistance provided in prior years. As long as …” the borrower “…continues renting to low-income individuals, they will be required to pay back a discounted amount equaling the annual installments, without interest, in the amount of $83,418 beginning in December 2013.” Parlier staff was able to provide us with a recorded deed of trust for this loan in the amount of $1,668,366; however, they could not provide a copy of the loan agreement. Therefore, we were not able to verify whether the borrower has complied with the terms of the agreement or whether the agreement was properly approved as discussed in finding #10a. Also, we were not able to determine whether interest will accrue if the borrower does not continue renting to low-income individuals or any other details about the loan.
F11:
It was noted during fieldwork that reimbursement requests submitted to the Fresno County Public Works Department were properly supported by invoices to outside entities. However, transactions were not properly recorded in the City of Parlier’s general ledger. Payments made by Fresno County to Parlier during fiscal year 1998/99 were understated in Parlier’s CDBG general ledger by $14,271.61, thereby understating CDBG revenues on the 1998/99 financial statements. The difference was due to a check issued by Fresno County in the amount of $149,271.61 on May 13, 1999. It was confirmed that Parlier received and endorsed the check for $149,271.61; however, only $135,000 of this amount was recorded in Parlier’s CDBG fund. The balance of $14,271.61 was recorded in Parlier’s general fund. Also, we were not able to trace 2 of 30 (6%) invoices totaling $4,370 to Parlier’s CDBG fund. However, we were able to confirm with the vendor that the invoices had been paid. Parlier staff has not been able to provide information regarding where these expenditures were recorded. Additionally, during a test of CDBG expenditures recorded in the general ledger, Parlier staff were not able to locate supporting documentation for 2 of 8 (25%) expenditures tested. Accurate and complete records are essential for restricted revenue funds to ensure continued funding and enhance internal controls.
F12:
During a review of Parlier’s financial statements for fiscal years 1998/99 and 1999/00, it was noted that the Child Development Fund listed expenditures for capital projects, which is not in compliance with the terms of the grant. Further analysis found that capital expenditures were not made in violation of the grant provisions. Instead, expenditures were not properly classified in the general ledger or the financial statements. 14
F13:
During a review of grant agreements for fiscal years 1998/99 and 1999/00, it was determined that grant expenditures recorded in the general fund and reported in the financial statements were in compliance with grant provisions except for a 1998/99 expenditure of $582.50 for engineering expenses.
F14:
During a review of the general ledger it was determined that expenditures do not agree with reports submitted to the State. The general ledger for fiscal year 1999/00 reports grant revenues of $283,950.97 plus $10,216.73 interest revenue for a total of $294,167.70. The general ledger also indicates total expenditures of $81,966.58 for 1999/00. The audit report sent to the State, which was prepared by the subcontractor’s CPA, indicates costs of $1,094,953.00 and revenue received of $72,808.00 for 1999/00. It appears that this audit report was prepared to reflect revenues and expenditures of the subcontractor and not the City of Parlier’s Child Development revenues and expenditures.
F15:
During the review, it was noted that payments made by the State Controller’s Office (SCO) to Parlier, which were posted on the SCO’s website did not agree with totals recorded in Parlier’s accounting system for fiscal years 1998/99 and 1999/00. For fiscal year 1998/99, the SCO recorded payments of $197,403.36 and Parlier recorded revenues of $218,610.40 for a variance of $21,207.04. For fiscal year 1999/00, the SCO recorded payments of $200,512.18 and Parlier recorded revenues of $202,545.85 for a variance of $2,033.67. Based on our review and documentation provided we could not determine whether the variances were due to timing differences or other factors.
F18:
During a review of the audit report issued by an independent accounting firm for fiscal year 1998/99, it was noted that the report contained an unqualified opinion despite the insufficiently supported expenditures discussed in findings #1-3 and the understated revenues discussed above. The same firm is conducting an audit of the Local Transportation fund for fiscal year 1999/00 but has not yet issued their report. During a conversation on March 26, 2001 with a staff member of the independent firm, the staff member said that the firm is questioning the method that Parlier uses to apply administrative overhead costs to this fund. The staff member also stated that the 1999/00 report will contain findings and recommendations related to the overhead application process.
F19:
Parlier’s Finance Director said that the City uses LLEBG money to pay for overtime expenditures in the Police Department since the amount of the grant is not enough to hire an additional police officer. Although overtime used to increase or enhance police services is an appropriate expenditure for this grant; based on information reviewed, we could not determine that overtime expended was an inappropriate use of grant monies. One officer’s salary is charged to the fund as an equivalent to the law enforcement overtime costs incurred outside of the fund. The amount of the 1998 grant was $19,623 and overtime for that period was $92,705. The amount of the 1999 grant was $19,097 and overtime for that period was $65,135. The Finance Director stated that he spoke with personnel in the US Department of Justice (DOJ) who told him that he can account for the fund in this manner as long as he can support the amount of overtime claimed on the grant. We contacted the DOJ and were told that this practice is not appropriate. DOJ staff stated that the actual expenditures paid with LLEBG money must be recorded in the fund established to account for the grant. During our review, expenditures for equipment were tested. During fiscal year 1998/99, 4 of 5 (80%) equipment expenditures tested did not appear to be appropriate for fund purposes based on information provided. As confirmed with the DOJ, LLEBG money is to be used to increase or enhance law enforcement services. The expenditures questioned include chairs for $1,356.68, rug runners for $343.73, and office supplies for $161.61. 17
F22:
During a test of expenditures for fiscal year 1999/00, the City of Parlier was not able to provide support for $769.50 charged to salaries and benefits recorded through a journal entry. The City’s Finance Director stated that the support for the journal entry could not be located.
F23:
Based on our review, another COPS program (AB3229, Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund) was charged $886.13 for an officer’s salary that was also included in a Universal Hiring Grant report submitted to the DOJ for the period 10/1/98 to 3/31/99. In addition, the salary included in this report also included overtime which is not allowable according to Universal Hiring Grant provisions.
Additional Recommendations
99
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
To be in compliance with the above restricted revenue requirements and regulations and to eliminate the appearance that restricted revenues are being used to fund general fund expenditures, the City of Parlier should ensure that such restricted revenues are clearly used for the related program purposes. Costs charged to the special revenue funds should reflect actual costs attributable to the program and should be supported by applicable documentation such as time tracking. The City of Parlier should obtain clarification from the applicable regulatory agency to determine if their current cost allocation methodology is acceptable.
R2:
In the absence of fully supportable cost allocation methodologies or regulatory approval of existing cost allocation methodologies, the City of Parlier should reverse the $268,224 and $393,602 in overhead costs charged to the special revenue funds listed above. In addition, any other insufficiently supported cost allocations that were not noted in this report should also be reversed.
R3:
In order to provide for sound accounting and budgeting practices and to ensure a clear audit trail, appropriations and expenditures should be initially recorded in the originating department/fund where the activities are incurred.
R4:
The City of Parlier Finance Department should implement procedures that provide segregation of duties related to accounts payable. Specifically, the person who approves payments should not be the same person who signs checks and submits requests for payments. When it is necessary for the 7 Finance Director to submit a request for payment, the payment should be sufficiently reviewed and approved by another authorized staff member (e.g. the City Manager).
R5:
To strengthen internal controls over expenditures in special revenue funds and to ensure that funding does not need to be reimbursed or that future funding is withheld, the City of Parlier should ensure that program costs incurred are fully supported and are in compliance with program requirements. This can be achieved in part by requiring that receipts for credit card purchases be retained for supporting documentation and submitted to the Finance Department for review and approval.
R6:
To prevent losses and enhance internal controls, the City of Parlier should immediately implement procedures to ensure that the City’s charge accounts and credit cards are not used for personal purchases. Parlier Redevelopment Agency (RDA) Compliance issues involving redevelopment funding are addressed by the State Controller’s Office, the State Attorney General and the Court. Based on Section 33080.8 of California’s Health & Safety Code, the State Controller compiles lists of redevelopment agencies that appear to have uncorrected major violations, based on the annual independent audit reports filed by such agencies. The Attorney General can pursue filing lawsuits against redevelopment agencies having uncorrected violations, and the Court can prohibit the agency from performing various activities until the Court determines that the major violations are corrected. Since the RDA’s annual audit reports for 1998/99 and 1999/00 contained unqualified opinions, it is unlikely that it was determined that Parlier had any major violations, and it is not known what actions, if any, the above regulatory entities would take as a result of the redevelopment findings noted in this separate report. This report may affect the findings and opinion of independent accounting firms performing future redevelopment audits; however, it is not known if these
R7:
In compliance with the above code sections and to ensure that funding is not withheld, the RDA should immediately submit a 5-year plan to the State Controller’s Office and submit all future required documents when due.
R8:
In order to comply with Health & Safety Code Section 33487 and to ensure that funding is not withheld, the RDA should transfer $3,907 to the low income housing fund for fiscal year 1998/99 from the RDA Capital Projects Fund.
R9:
In order to explain material changes in the financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, the City of Parlier should provide adequate disclosure in the notes to the financial statements. For example, Parlier could have identified the above increase in the capital projects fund balance as a “restated” fund balance in the financial statements. In addition, a note disclosure should have been provided to reconcile the restated fund balance to the prior year ending balance. The disclosure should have also explained the reason(s) for the restatement. Parlier should consider this for future reporting purposes.
R10:
a, b, c, and d To ensure that funding is not withheld, the RDA should ensure all proper procedures and legal requirements are followed when issuing loans and all appropriate documents are maintained in their loan files and that all loans are properly authorized. Parlier staff should review all available loan records since the formation of the RDA to try to locate all missing loan documentation and criteria information on the sixteen known loans addressed above. Parlier staff should also determine if there are any additional outstanding loans not currently known that should be followed up on. Also, even though Parlier has indicated that the commercial borrowers of the “written off” loans are out of business, Parlier should continue to bill the business owners until these loans are officially written off by the City Council. Proper procedures must be followed to assure that all redevelopment loans are repaid timely and in full. Redevelopment loans determined to be uncollectible should be written off by the City Council and referred to a collection agency as appropriate. Parlier should consider following up with other collection agencies or pursue other means of recouping unpaid balances, e.g. through small claims processes, other lawsuits, etc. In addition, Parlier should ensure and be able to support that interest charged on Redevelopment loans is charged fairly and equitably. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
R11:
To enhance internal controls, ensure the accuracy of the City’s accounting records, and ensure continued funding, Parlier should implement formal procedures to ensure proper accounting for and reconciliation of restricted revenues. In addition, all transactions and supporting documentation must be maintained until such records have been audited by all appropriate oversight agencies. Finally, the City of Parlier should make the appropriate general ledger entries within the special revenue fund to record these transactions. Child Development Grant
R12:
The City of Parlier should post transactions to proper accounts and subsequently classify expenditures appropriately in their financial statements.
R13:
In order to comply with terms of the Child Development Grant, the City of Parlier should reimburse the Child Development fund the $582.50 noted above and only make expenditures appropriate for grant purposes from this fund.
R14:
In order to comply with terms of the Child Development Grant, the City of Parlier should obtain an annual audit of the Child Development Program that conforms to the terms of the grant agreement and reports on Child Development revenues and expenditures of the City of Parlier. In addition, the City of Parlier should consistently review any audit reports prepared for their program prior to finalization of the report. Measure “C” – Transportation Authority, Sales Tax Proceeds It was noted during our review that insufficiently supported overhead allocations were applied to the Measure “C” special revenue fund. See findings and recommendations #1 - 3. Highway User Tax (Gas Tax)
R15:
In order to properly account for and report Gas Tax revenues, the City of Parlier must reconcile any variances between revenues paid by a funding entity and revenues recorded by the City. Local Transportation Fund
R16:
In order to properly administer the Local Transportation Fund and ensure proper financial statement presentation, the City of Parlier must reconcile the Local Transportation fund to receipts and implement procedures to ensure that all transactions are properly recorded and reported.
R17:
The City of Parlier should either provide supporting documentation for the $70,702 reduction of revenues or reverse this adjustment as appropriate. 16
R19:
The City of Parlier should contact the DOJ for written clarification of what constitutes acceptable expenditures for this grant. The City of Parlier should comply with the information provided by the DOJ related to this audit finding. Unauthorized expenditures of grant funds must be reimbursed or a waiver should be requested from the grantor agency. COPS Grant AB3229
R20:
The City of Parlier should ensure that actual interest is allocated to the COPS fund for 1998/99, 1999/00 and thereafter. In addition, the City should ensure that adequate interest allocation methodologies are used to ensure that all restricted revenues are accurately calculated, allocated and available to be used for restricted program purposes or returned to regulatory agencies as necessary in the event of non-compliance with program requirements.
R21:
In compliance with the provisions of Government Code Section 30061 as stated above, the City of Parlier should ensure that the appropriation of COPS grant monies for 2000/01 and thereafter are separately presented to and approved by Parlier’s City Council as required.
R22:
The City of Parlier should maintain support for all financial transactions that affect special revenue funds as well as other funds until all oversight agencies conduct periodic audits. Unauthorized expenditures of grant funds must be reimbursed or a waiver should be requested from the grantor agency. Universal Hiring Grant (COPS)
R23:
The City of Parlier should implement procedures to ensure that expenditures are not claimed/reported twice and that overtime costs are not claimed in compliance with Universal 19 Hiring Grant provisions. Parlier should also adjust the above reports and charges to reverse duplicated expenditures and inappropriate overtime costs. Office of Emergency Services (OES)
R24:
The City of Parlier should investigate the difference of $2,404 between revenues reported in their general ledger for OES revenues and the amount of payments confirmed through the State OES or have support for the variance readily available.
R25:
The City of Parlier should immediately revise the Project Completion and Certification Report to reflect actual costs for the disaster period. They should provide support for costs claimed or return $36,136 claimed inappropriately to the State OES. 20
R26:
To ensure accuracy of records, enhance internal controls, and ensure the availability of current and future funding, the City of Parlier should properly maintain files containing supporting documentation for transactions and retain these records until audited by all appropriate oversight agencies. Transportation Equity Act No reportable conditions were noted during our review of the Transportation Equity Act, which provides funding for street improvements. Based on our review, only $14,761 was spent for this program in 1999/00 for preliminary engineering on street improvement projects, which is in compliance with program provisions.
R27:
The Parlier City Manager confer with the City Council before engaging in city projects costing over $10,000 as required by PMC.
R28:
Bidding and contracting of services be in compliance with PMC.
R29:
The City Manager and City Council be held responsible for implementing the directives set forth in PMC.
R30:
Compensation of employees and/or contractors be in compliance with existing State and Federal laws. PARLIER ANIMAL CONTROL Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury received complaints relating to animal control and conditions at the City of Parlier Animal Shelter. Recommendations regarding animal control and the animal shelter were included in the 1997/1998 Grand Jury Report. The City Manager responded as follows: “The City will continue efforts to create innovative ways to obtain funding and attract community support for animal control operations and facilities, this shall include seeking grants, encouraging participation by local organizations and volunteers, the Humane Society and SPCA.” “The City will continue to enforce leash and licensing laws and to collect fees and/or fines to generate revenue for animal control services. The city code has animal control codes, which it enforces; the city has adopted animal licensing fees and fines to offset some of the costs of these activities. The City Council reviews fees on an annual basis and adjusts them, as it deems appropriate. The City will review and update its animal control codes and fees during fiscal 1998-1999.”
R31:
The City hire an animal control officer.
R32:
The animal shelter be relocated within the city to make it more accessible.
R33:
Leash and licensing laws be enforced.
R34:
The City educate the community regarding licensing, vaccinations, leash laws, spaying and neutering.
R35:
The City establish a fee schedule for costs incurred in animal control.
R36:
All record keeping relating to animal control be current.
R37:
State guidelines be followed for the ultimate disposal of any animal.
R38:
Polaroid photographs of mi pounded dogs be posted at city hall in order for citizens to see if their dog has been impounded. CARPETING OF PARLIER CITY HALL Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury investigated a complaint from a concerned citizen about the method used by the City Manager in the purchase and installation of carpet in the Parlier City Hall.
R39:
The Parlier Municipal Code and Purchasing Ordinance be followed.
R40:
Shortcuts that violate the existing code not be considered. CODE ENFORCEMENT IN PARLIER Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury investigated a written complaint from a citizen that cited the lack of code enforcement in the City of Parlier.
R41:
The present policy of code enforcement be changed to a more aggressive system which addresses all violations existing in the City of Parlier.
R42:
Written policy and procedures be developed to provide for the tracking and documented resolution of all complaints.
R43:
The city hire a code enforcement officer, supported with sufficient staff.
R44:
Adequate training be provided for the code enforcement officer and staff, including instruction in property owner and tenant rights.
R45:
A written manual providing guidelines on how to resolve code enforcement disputes be developed and implemented.
R46:
The City of Parlier inform and educate the public on current code enforcement policy.
R47:
A current copy of the Parlier Municipal Code be available for public use at City Hall and the public library. PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT WITHIN THE CITY OF PARLIER Introduction An employee of the City of Parlier provided testimony to the 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury regarding an unfair disciplinary experience while employed by the city. Subsequently, the Grand Jury received additional testimony from other current and former employees who indicated they too had not been treated in an equitable manner.
R48:
The City of Parlier formulate and implement written policies and procedures regarding labor relations.
R49:
The City develop written job classifications for all positions and issue them to all employees.
R50:
The City require department heads to adhere to the PMC sections covering their areas of responsibility.
R51:
A current copy of the PMC be made available to City Council members.
R52:
The City prepare, and provide to all employees, a handbook informing them of employee rights as stated in the PMC.
R53:
Employees be advised, in writing, of their rights of representation at all disciplinary hearings.
R54:
Written annual job performance evaluations of all employees be conducted, a copy placed in the employee’s permanent file and a copy provided to the employee.
R55:
A written salary schedule for each position be prepared and a copy made available to each employee.
R56:
The city develop and issue a written policy regarding advancement and salary increases. NEPOTISM IN THE CITY OF PARLIER Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury received several complaints from employees of the City of Parlier regarding nepotism as it exists in the city and the effect it has on their work environment. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary definition of nepotism is “favoritism shown to relatives or close friends by those in power (as by giving them jobs).” Nepotism is defined by the Parlier Municipal Code (PMC) Section 4.01.080 as “Applicants for employment with the city who are related within the third degree, by blood or marriage, to a person currently employed by the city, shall not be employed in the same department as the applicant’s relative, if it is determined on a case-by case review that employment of the applicant in the same department as his or her relative would create or aggravate problems relating to safety, security, supervision, morale or conflicts of interest in such department.”
R57:
PMC section 4.01.080 be rewritten to more clearly state the city’s policy on nepotism as defined by Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, “favoritism shown to relatives or close friends by those in power (as by giving them jobs).”
R58:
The policy of the city be to recruit, employ, and promote the best-qualified individuals. PARLIER PERSONNEL HEARING BOARD Introduction During the year 2000, a decision was made by the City manager to establish a Personnel Hearing Board (PHB). The Parlier Municipal Code (PMC) Section 4.02. (1997) describes the duties and responsibilities of the Board. Such a Board had never been established. The Board consists of two City Council members and a citizen at large. The purpose of the Board is to hear the final appeal of employees who have been disciplined and have exhausted all options for redress. The citizen at large position is to be filled by an applicant who is a resident of the City and at least 18 years of age. This position is to be noticed and described in the local newspaper and posted at City Hall.
R59:
The current PHB be dissolved.
R60:
The position for citizen at large be advertised (noticed).
R61:
The position for citizen at large be posted at City Hall.
R62:
All citizens who submit applications for this position be given equal consideration. PARLIER POLICE DEPARTMENT Introduction For many years, the Parlier Police Department has suffered from a lack of leadership and corresponding departmental ineffectiveness. The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury has undertaken a review of the causes and possible remedies. During the past 10 years, the City of Parlier has had 13 Chiefs of Police. Turnover by employees has been high due to low pay, low morale and lack of leadership. There have been continuing allegations of corruption, inefficiency and favoritism.
R63:
The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that the Parlier Police Department be closed immediately and the policing of Parlier be contracted with the Fresno County Sheriff. CITY COMMITTEE Rene Lastreto, Chair Robert Boehringer Mikie Kapigian Louis Olais Juliana Pherson Leo Shishmanian 42 CITY COMMITTEE
R64:
Continue the broad public education program to increase awareness of the need to meet recycling goals.
R65:
Tailor educational efforts to target each culture within our community in a way that has proven most effective for that group. FRESNO CITY PARKS SANITATION FACILITIES Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury inspected toilet facilities at Roeding Park, Woodward Park and six neighborhood parks. Conditions reviewed: Ø Cleanliness and cleaning schedules Ø Condition of fixtures and stalls Ø Privacy locks on toilet doors Ø Presence of soap Ø Presence of hand drying materials or machines Ø Plumbing leaks
R66:
Increase the budget to provide for care of the new parks.
R67:
Add personnel to help maintain the park sanitation facilities.
R68:
Provide adequate funds for replacement of fixtures with more durable ones. CITY COUNCIL INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDS Introduction The Fresno City Council discretionary infrastructure budget was examined by the 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury.
R69:
Distribution of the City Council discretionary infrastructure funds be reviewed and approved by the City Manager prior to disbursement. 48
R70:
Consideration be given to reducing the current allotment from $140,000 to $70,000 per district.
R71:
Carryover of any unused infrastructure funds be eliminated.
R72:
Future Grand Juries continue to monitor the program. CITY OF FRESNO WATER METERS Introduction Upon review of the 1999/2000 Fresno County Grand Jury report, the 2000/2001 Grand Jury investigated the current status of water availability and management.
R73:
The Mayor, City Council and all civic groups unite to promote the installation of water meters.
R74:
Homeowners and businesses that currently have meters be excluded from further meter installation costs.
R75:
The city utilities department continue to publish average water bills for various family sizes with and without meters.
R76:
Water police be reactivated to prevent water waste. BASEBALL/MULTI-USE STADIUM Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury reviewed the reports of the 1998/1999 and 1999/2000 Grand Juries. During the tenure of the present Grand Jury, the Fresno City Council approved the stadium project. Work has commenced on the site.
R77:
The City require an annual independent audit of the financial statements of FDG.
R78:
All seventeen dates the city controls be devoted to for-profit events to enhance the City’s revenues.
R79:
The public be assured of coordinated parking and security by FDG and the City. CITY OF FRESNO FIRE DEPARTMENT Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury investigated the City of Fresno Fire Department's (FFD) rating as established by the Insurance Services Office, Inc. (ISO). This organization evaluates the level of fire protection, the ability to receive and answer alarms, and the adequacy of water supply. A maximum of 100% credit is available. The percentages are broken into ten ISO Public Protection Classes. Class 1 equates to the top rating of 90-100%. Class 10 equates to the lowest rating, 0-9%. When last evaluated in 1995, the City of Fresno was rated a Class 4, achieving a rating of 66.07%. These classifications were developed for fire insurance rating purposes only. Insurance companies may use the agency’s classification to assist in setting property insurance premiums.
R80:
The fire department have a budgeted vehicle replacement plan. The city should consider replacement of vehicles after seven or eight years while they still have significant value on the used fire vehicle market.
R81:
The inventory of fire fighting tools be increased so that all spare engines/trucks are fully equipped.
R82:
The city recognize the need to increase the number of fire fighting personnel.
R83:
The City of Fresno revisit its traffic light pre-emption plan and budget funds to complete this program.
R84:
The Fresno Fire Department develop a plan to reduce response times to the NFPA standards. COUNTY COMMITTEE Rick Allen, Chair James Cotton Fred Goldring Ann Thaxter James Torosian Donald Wilson 57 COUNTY COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury County Committee’s primary function is to oversee all aspects of county government, incorporated cities not including Fresno, and special districts. Among the committee’s responsibilities is to insure that county monies and operations are handled in an efficient, effective and appropriate manner that best serve the interest of the citizens. The Grand Jury received requests for inquiries into various government operations within the County of Fresno. The County Committee conducted inquiries of the following: A. The operations and management of the Office of the Public Administrator/Public Guardian. B. Operation of the Coroner’s Office. Allegations of misconduct regarding utility bill collection policies in the City of Mendota. C. Complaints regarding the management of the City of Parlier. (The result of this investigation is presented in this report under the heading - Ad Hoc Committee, City of Parlier). D. The operations of the Elkhorn Correctional Facility. E. The need for a Briefing Book for newly elected members of the Fresno County Board of Supervisors and Fresno City Council. In the course of conducting these inquiries the committee gathered facts, interviewed many citizens, officials, department heads and employees of the County of Fresno and cities within the County of Fresno. During the process of the investigations, the committee made numerous field trips to government facilities within the county. OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC ADMINSTRATOR/PUBLIC GUARDIAN Introduction The 1999/2000 Fresno County Grand Jury Report prompted a review by this jury panel of the Public Administrator/Public Guardian Office (PA/PG).
R85:
The PA/PG evaluate the use of the County Treasury Pool.
R86:
Storage be improved for case records and client assets. Construction of an on-site storage building would eliminate the need for expensive off-site mini-storage.
R87:
Evaluate the need for additional deputies due to the implementation of the new Elder Abuse Referral Law SB 1742.
R88:
PA/PG add the services of a Registered Nurse to staff. This person would aid in evaluating and inspecting medical care facilities as well as review proposed client treatment and prescription history.
R89:
PA/PG evaluate the purchase of Long Term Care Insurance for those clients who would be eligible. OFFICE OF THE FRESNO COUNTY CORONER Introduction The 1999/2000 Fresno County Grand Jury report prompted an unannounced visit to the facilities of the Fresno County Coroner on December 19, 2000 by the 2000/2001 Grand Jury.
R90:
A plan be developed for a new morgue before the County reaches a crisis situation.
R91:
A new commercial washing machine be purchased for on-site laundering needs and/or use a commercial laundry.
R92:
Reference be made to the Grand Jury reports of 1998/1999 and 1999/2000 regarding the need for improvement of record storage. MENDOTA UTILITY BILL COLLECTIONS Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury received a written complaint regarding bill collection policies in the City of Mendota. The complaint included the following allegations: A. Some employees of the City of Mendota had not paid their water/utility bill for a period in excess of one year. B. Some elected officials were not making timely payments of their water/utility bills. C. This activity had been disclosed by the City Manager and/or City Attorney. It was alleged that the entire City office staff was involved. D. The 2000/2001 Grand Jury issued a subpoena for certain records covering the payment of water/utility bills by current and former Mendota city employees and elected officials. These records were provided to the Grand Jury on August 30, 2000.
R93:
The monthly shutoff list and notices be reviewed by an individual independent of the accounting department of the City of Mendota.
R94:
The subject of outstanding utility bills be reviewed during the annual financial audit conducted by an outside auditor.
R95:
The City establish and maintain training for all employees on the use of the Municipal Code and written procedures and policies regarding the collection of utility bills. ELKHORN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury followed up on the recommendation of the 1998/1999 Grand Jury to monitor the operation of the Elkhorn Correctional Facility (Juvenile Boot Camp). The Grand Jury toured the Elkhorn Correctional Facility (ECF) on September 1, 2000. The director and support staff provided a briefing on the history of the facility and its goals. Information was received from Elkhorn management, members of the Fresno County Board of Supervisors, the Chief Probation Officer and officials of the City of Fresno.
R96:
The Fresno County Board of Supervisors review commitments made in the February 11, 1997, letter issued by a former County Chief Administrative Officer and assure the neighbors of ECF that the County intends to honor these commitments. If certain commitments cannot be met, the County should negotiate with the neighbors to reach an equitable arrangement.
R97:
The Board of Supervisors continue to fund and maintain the present level of services at ECF.
R98:
The City of Fresno continue to fund Elkhorn Correctional Facility at no less than the current rate of $1,000,000 per year with no sunset provision.
R99:
The County provide boot camp facilities for female juvenile offenders.
R100:
Future Grand Juries continue to monitor the activities at the Elkhorn Correctional Facility. BRIEFING BOOK FOR NEWLY ELECTED OFFICIALS Introduction As the result of testimony received from newly elected members of the Fresno City Council and Fresno County Board of Supervisors, the Grand Jury reviewed the procedure for providing information to these individuals prior to assuming office.
Findings & Recommendations
19 findings
F4:
During fieldwork it was noted that a check was issued to the Finance Director on August 6, 1998 in the amount of $1,504.31 for training reimbursement. The Finance Director also authorized the payment and signed the check. It is the City Manager’s policy to approve the warrant register, which he believes provides proper segregation of duties. However, based on our review, the warrant register does not provide details of each payment, just check totals. Therefore, the City Manager’s approval of the warrant register does not indicate that he approved the contents of the payment. At a minimum, internal controls require segregation of duties which provides an adequate level of review. Although this can be difficult in a small office like Parlier’s Finance Department, the City Manager should review and approve the payment contents as well as payment totals, when the Finance Director is the payee.
F5:
It was noted during fieldwork that Parlier’s City Manager and Finance Director utilize City credit cards. Purchases for office equipment, travel and meetings, etc. are made using these credit cards, and in 9 out of 11 (81%) credit card statements reviewed, receipts were not attached to the statements to support the expenditures. Only vendor names and handwritten general descriptions were included on the statements. We further tested 3 of the above 9 statements and determined that $117.11 of the insufficiently supported expenditures on a statement totaling $684.51 was attributable to Parlier’s Redevelopment Agency. In addition, $525.17 and $177.07 of the expenditures on two other statements totaling $5,037.59 and $1,980.00, respectively, were attributable to the Measure C – Transportation Authority, Sales Tax Proceeds fund (Measure C). In addition, when costs are charged to the Measure C program that cannot be substantiated and, therefore may not be in compliance with program requirements, Parlier’s future allocations may be withheld and reimbursements of such funds to the Fresno County Auditor-Controller/Treasurer- Tax Collector may be required. Such funds would only be released when exceptions are resolved and Parlier is in compliance with program requirements. Compliance issues regarding redevelopment agencies are addressed by various regulatory agencies as explained in the Parlier Redevelopment Agency section on .
F6:
It was noted during testing of expenditures, that the Finance Director used the City of Parlier’s Office Depot credit card on two separate occasions to purchase personal items such as movie videos, games, a chair, bookcases, etc. totaling $768.06. Both the Finance Director and City Manager stated the card was used by mistake and that actions were taken to reimburse the City through payroll deductions. However, when this matter was brought to the Finance Director’s attention by our audits staff, the Finance Director researched and determined that Parlier had not yet been reimbursed. Although this matter should have been followed up more timely, on April 2, 2001, the Finance Director did reimburse the City $914.77 which includes interest. 8
F7:
Health & Safety Code Section 33490 requires redevelopment agencies to submit a 5-year plan to the State Controller’s Office on or before December 31, 1994 and every 5 years thereafter. The RDA submitted a 5-year plan in 1994. However, based on information provided, Parlier’s 5-year plan, which was due on or before December 31,1999, had not been submitted to the State Controller’s Office as of the date of this review.
F8:
It was noted that the RDA appropriately recorded $747,015 in revenues for fiscal year 1998/99. However, only $145,496 of this amount was transferred to the low-income housing fund, which was less than the 20% required by Health & Safety Code Section 33487 by $3,907. The calculation was based on the net amount received by the RDA instead of the gross apportionment as required by the Code. The transfer to the low-income housing fund was properly calculated for fiscal year 1999/00. 9
F9:
It was noted during a review of Parlier’s financial statements that redevelopment notes receivable in the amount of $1,257,180 were erroneously listed in the general long-term debt account group in the 1998/99 statements. These notes receivable were properly reclassified by Parlier staff in the 1999/00 statements, which resulted in a $1,257,180 increase in the capital projects beginning fund balance; however, there was no disclosure explaining this material change.
F10a:
According to Parlier’s City Manager, all redevelopment loan programs must be approved by the RDA Board, which is Parlier’s City Council. We reviewed all available loan files for the sixteen redevelopment loans issued by Parlier as identified below, which were made between 1993 and 1996. There are nine individual loans and seven commercial loans. Based on documentation provided, it could not be determined that any of the loans were properly approved by the RDA Board. The Executive Director of the RDA is authorized to execute loan documents on behalf of the RDA, and we verified that he did sign agreements for all of the loans except as noted in Findings #10b, c and d below. In addition, based on information provided in loan files, we could not determine if any of the borrowers met the RDA criteria needed to obtain the loans. The City Manager stated that it is unlikely that any of the borrowers would not meet the criteria due to Parlier’s demographics. In addition, both the City Manager and Finance Director stated that there may be additional RDA loans that they do not know about. They said that loan files were incomplete when they began working for the City, and they had to piece together documentation for the loans as it was located. Based on the documentation provided, all nine individual loans were charged 5% interest. However, of the six commercial loans that had any supporting documentation (the seventh loan did not), one was charged 4.39% interest, three were charged 5%, and two others were charged 8%. Parlier staff did not know how these various interest rates were determined or why it was decided to charge different borrowers different rates. Based on our review of redevelopment guidelines, no provisions could be found that addressed the matter of interest rates on outstanding loans. In addition, except as noted in Finding #10b, we could not determine that any of the borrowers were related to City officials at the time of the issuance of the loans; however, this should not necessarily be an issue provided all borrowers met RDA loan criteria as addressed above.
F10b:
Nine of the sixteen loans issued by Parlier were “written off” for financial statement purposes and seven were not. Except as noted below, payments on six of these seven loans were received regularly and currently from the borrowers. Four of these six loans were provided to individuals in the amounts of $6,013, $7,000, $13,782, and $15,000. The fifth and sixth loans were commercial loans for $102,000 and $488,000 at a 4.39% and 5% interest rates, respectively. The seventh of these loans, which did not have any supporting documentation, is addressed in Finding #10d. The $15,000 individual loan noted above was issued in 1995 to a relative of the mayor. No payments were received by the RDA until the previous Finance Director contacted the borrower in April 1997 requesting copies of loan documents, which Parlier did not have at that time. Shortly after that, the borrower began to make regular payments on the loan and has continued making payments through the date of this review. These loan payments are included in a schedule in our workpapers. In addition, based on our review of loan documentation provided by the City, the agreement for this $15,000 loan was signed only by the borrower. Therefore, it is not clear whether the loan was properly executed by the Executive Director, or whether the loan was properly approved by the RDA Board as addressed in finding #10a. Based on documentation provided, we did find evidence that the Executive Director authorized $5,000 of the loan, because he approved two checks issued on this loan totaling $5,000.
F10c:
One of eight reportable conditions in Parlier’s 1998/99 audit report stated “The RDA has made numerous redevelopment loans to individuals and businesses. Many of these are totally non- performing.” The corresponding recommendation stated “Staff should contact each delinquent borrower to determine if stronger collection action is required, or if the loan cannot be reasonably collected, then it should be written off.” Parlier’s response was “RDA receivables were turned over to a professional collection service. Collection of the majority of housing loans is not possible, since the loans were not secured by real property. The issue of whether to pursue or forgive these loans is a policy for the Council to pursue.” 11 For 1999/00 financial statement purposes, the RDA “wrote off” four commercial loans and five individual loans totaling $46,736. Based on information provided, Parlier’s City Council did not approve writing off these loans, although it was disclosed in Parlier’s 1999/00 financial statements that the “City wrote off” the loans. During our review, Parlier staff explained that it was not the City’s intention to officially write off loans as they just wanted to report loans for financial statement purposes net of amounts considered to be uncollectible, and they are continuing to pursue collection of these loans. Based on information provided during our review, Parlier referred the delinquent loans to one collection agency who declined to pursue collection of the loans. According to Parlier staff, based on that collection agency’s response that these loans were not collectible, it was decided not to try to obtain further collection agency services. As of the date of this review, Parlier has not referred these loans to any other collection agency. The RDA continues to send invoices monthly on the “written off” loans to all of the individual borrowers but to none of the commercial borrowers, which, according to the City Manager, are no longer in business. However, no payments have been made by the loan recipients in several years. Information received on these “written off” loans is indicated below. The loan type is designated by a C for Commercial or I for Individual as follows: Loan Loan Loan Interest Unpaid Date of Type Year Loan Recipient Amount Rate Balance Last Pmt C 1993 El01 $12,500 8% $10,000 7/97 C 1993 Gor02 5,500 8% 4,940 11/93 C 1995 Sal03 2,390 5% 1,647 1/98 C 1995 Ant04 2,550 5% 513 7/97 I 1995 Mar05 5,000 5% 3,062 4/97 I 1995 And06 3,044 5% 2,639 4/97 I 1995 Noe07 2,500 5% 2,048 12/96 I 1996 Elo08 14,430 5% 14,430 None I 1996 Man09 7,683 5% 7,457 12/96 Total $55,597 $46,736 In addition, based on our review of the related loan documentation, the following exceptions were noted for these “written-off” loans: 1. The signed loan agreement for loan recipient Gor02 specified a loan amount of $4,000, but the amortization schedule included in the documentation provided an amended loan total of $5,500, yet there was no authorized amendment to the loan agreement. 12 2. The loan documentation for loan recipient El01 (El01) did not contain a loan agreement but contained other miscellaneous documents including a 1993 request from the attorney in fact for a $12,500 loan; an incomplete and unofficial copy of a 1993 RDA minutes indicating that the RDA Board approved a $12,000 loan to El01, and a copy of a $12,500 check signed by the RDA Executive Director and made out to El01 in 1993. Therefore, there was a conflict between the $12,000 amount that appeared to have been approved by the RDA Board and the $12,500 check approved by the Executive Director.
F10d:
During our review of the seven outstanding loans that were not “written off”, we noted that the financial statements disclosed that “…the Agency has a receivable … relating to low-income housing assistance provided in prior years. As long as …” the borrower “…continues renting to low-income individuals, they will be required to pay back a discounted amount equaling the annual installments, without interest, in the amount of $83,418 beginning in December 2013.” Parlier staff was able to provide us with a recorded deed of trust for this loan in the amount of $1,668,366; however, they could not provide a copy of the loan agreement. Therefore, we were not able to verify whether the borrower has complied with the terms of the agreement or whether the agreement was properly approved as discussed in finding #10a. Also, we were not able to determine whether interest will accrue if the borrower does not continue renting to low-income individuals or any other details about the loan.
F11:
It was noted during fieldwork that reimbursement requests submitted to the Fresno County Public Works Department were properly supported by invoices to outside entities. However, transactions were not properly recorded in the City of Parlier’s general ledger. Payments made by Fresno County to Parlier during fiscal year 1998/99 were understated in Parlier’s CDBG general ledger by $14,271.61, thereby understating CDBG revenues on the 1998/99 financial statements. The difference was due to a check issued by Fresno County in the amount of $149,271.61 on May 13, 1999. It was confirmed that Parlier received and endorsed the check for $149,271.61; however, only $135,000 of this amount was recorded in Parlier’s CDBG fund. The balance of $14,271.61 was recorded in Parlier’s general fund. Also, we were not able to trace 2 of 30 (6%) invoices totaling $4,370 to Parlier’s CDBG fund. However, we were able to confirm with the vendor that the invoices had been paid. Parlier staff has not been able to provide information regarding where these expenditures were recorded. Additionally, during a test of CDBG expenditures recorded in the general ledger, Parlier staff were not able to locate supporting documentation for 2 of 8 (25%) expenditures tested. Accurate and complete records are essential for restricted revenue funds to ensure continued funding and enhance internal controls.
F12:
During a review of Parlier’s financial statements for fiscal years 1998/99 and 1999/00, it was noted that the Child Development Fund listed expenditures for capital projects, which is not in compliance with the terms of the grant. Further analysis found that capital expenditures were not made in violation of the grant provisions. Instead, expenditures were not properly classified in the general ledger or the financial statements. 14
F13:
During a review of grant agreements for fiscal years 1998/99 and 1999/00, it was determined that grant expenditures recorded in the general fund and reported in the financial statements were in compliance with grant provisions except for a 1998/99 expenditure of $582.50 for engineering expenses.
F14:
During a review of the general ledger it was determined that expenditures do not agree with reports submitted to the State. The general ledger for fiscal year 1999/00 reports grant revenues of $283,950.97 plus $10,216.73 interest revenue for a total of $294,167.70. The general ledger also indicates total expenditures of $81,966.58 for 1999/00. The audit report sent to the State, which was prepared by the subcontractor’s CPA, indicates costs of $1,094,953.00 and revenue received of $72,808.00 for 1999/00. It appears that this audit report was prepared to reflect revenues and expenditures of the subcontractor and not the City of Parlier’s Child Development revenues and expenditures.
F15:
During the review, it was noted that payments made by the State Controller’s Office (SCO) to Parlier, which were posted on the SCO’s website did not agree with totals recorded in Parlier’s accounting system for fiscal years 1998/99 and 1999/00. For fiscal year 1998/99, the SCO recorded payments of $197,403.36 and Parlier recorded revenues of $218,610.40 for a variance of $21,207.04. For fiscal year 1999/00, the SCO recorded payments of $200,512.18 and Parlier recorded revenues of $202,545.85 for a variance of $2,033.67. Based on our review and documentation provided we could not determine whether the variances were due to timing differences or other factors.
F18:
During a review of the audit report issued by an independent accounting firm for fiscal year 1998/99, it was noted that the report contained an unqualified opinion despite the insufficiently supported expenditures discussed in findings #1-3 and the understated revenues discussed above. The same firm is conducting an audit of the Local Transportation fund for fiscal year 1999/00 but has not yet issued their report. During a conversation on March 26, 2001 with a staff member of the independent firm, the staff member said that the firm is questioning the method that Parlier uses to apply administrative overhead costs to this fund. The staff member also stated that the 1999/00 report will contain findings and recommendations related to the overhead application process.
F19:
Parlier’s Finance Director said that the City uses LLEBG money to pay for overtime expenditures in the Police Department since the amount of the grant is not enough to hire an additional police officer. Although overtime used to increase or enhance police services is an appropriate expenditure for this grant; based on information reviewed, we could not determine that overtime expended was an inappropriate use of grant monies. One officer’s salary is charged to the fund as an equivalent to the law enforcement overtime costs incurred outside of the fund. The amount of the 1998 grant was $19,623 and overtime for that period was $92,705. The amount of the 1999 grant was $19,097 and overtime for that period was $65,135. The Finance Director stated that he spoke with personnel in the US Department of Justice (DOJ) who told him that he can account for the fund in this manner as long as he can support the amount of overtime claimed on the grant. We contacted the DOJ and were told that this practice is not appropriate. DOJ staff stated that the actual expenditures paid with LLEBG money must be recorded in the fund established to account for the grant. During our review, expenditures for equipment were tested. During fiscal year 1998/99, 4 of 5 (80%) equipment expenditures tested did not appear to be appropriate for fund purposes based on information provided. As confirmed with the DOJ, LLEBG money is to be used to increase or enhance law enforcement services. The expenditures questioned include chairs for $1,356.68, rug runners for $343.73, and office supplies for $161.61. 17
F22:
During a test of expenditures for fiscal year 1999/00, the City of Parlier was not able to provide support for $769.50 charged to salaries and benefits recorded through a journal entry. The City’s Finance Director stated that the support for the journal entry could not be located.
F23:
Based on our review, another COPS program (AB3229, Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund) was charged $886.13 for an officer’s salary that was also included in a Universal Hiring Grant report submitted to the DOJ for the period 10/1/98 to 3/31/99. In addition, the salary included in this report also included overtime which is not allowable according to Universal Hiring Grant provisions.
Additional Recommendations
99
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
To be in compliance with the above restricted revenue requirements and regulations and to eliminate the appearance that restricted revenues are being used to fund general fund expenditures, the City of Parlier should ensure that such restricted revenues are clearly used for the related program purposes. Costs charged to the special revenue funds should reflect actual costs attributable to the program and should be supported by applicable documentation such as time tracking. The City of Parlier should obtain clarification from the applicable regulatory agency to determine if their current cost allocation methodology is acceptable.
R2:
In the absence of fully supportable cost allocation methodologies or regulatory approval of existing cost allocation methodologies, the City of Parlier should reverse the $268,224 and $393,602 in overhead costs charged to the special revenue funds listed above. In addition, any other insufficiently supported cost allocations that were not noted in this report should also be reversed.
R3:
In order to provide for sound accounting and budgeting practices and to ensure a clear audit trail, appropriations and expenditures should be initially recorded in the originating department/fund where the activities are incurred.
R4:
The City of Parlier Finance Department should implement procedures that provide segregation of duties related to accounts payable. Specifically, the person who approves payments should not be the same person who signs checks and submits requests for payments. When it is necessary for the 7 Finance Director to submit a request for payment, the payment should be sufficiently reviewed and approved by another authorized staff member (e.g. the City Manager).
R5:
To strengthen internal controls over expenditures in special revenue funds and to ensure that funding does not need to be reimbursed or that future funding is withheld, the City of Parlier should ensure that program costs incurred are fully supported and are in compliance with program requirements. This can be achieved in part by requiring that receipts for credit card purchases be retained for supporting documentation and submitted to the Finance Department for review and approval.
R6:
To prevent losses and enhance internal controls, the City of Parlier should immediately implement procedures to ensure that the City’s charge accounts and credit cards are not used for personal purchases. Parlier Redevelopment Agency (RDA) Compliance issues involving redevelopment funding are addressed by the State Controller’s Office, the State Attorney General and the Court. Based on Section 33080.8 of California’s Health & Safety Code, the State Controller compiles lists of redevelopment agencies that appear to have uncorrected major violations, based on the annual independent audit reports filed by such agencies. The Attorney General can pursue filing lawsuits against redevelopment agencies having uncorrected violations, and the Court can prohibit the agency from performing various activities until the Court determines that the major violations are corrected. Since the RDA’s annual audit reports for 1998/99 and 1999/00 contained unqualified opinions, it is unlikely that it was determined that Parlier had any major violations, and it is not known what actions, if any, the above regulatory entities would take as a result of the redevelopment findings noted in this separate report. This report may affect the findings and opinion of independent accounting firms performing future redevelopment audits; however, it is not known if these
R7:
In compliance with the above code sections and to ensure that funding is not withheld, the RDA should immediately submit a 5-year plan to the State Controller’s Office and submit all future required documents when due.
R8:
In order to comply with Health & Safety Code Section 33487 and to ensure that funding is not withheld, the RDA should transfer $3,907 to the low income housing fund for fiscal year 1998/99 from the RDA Capital Projects Fund.
R9:
In order to explain material changes in the financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, the City of Parlier should provide adequate disclosure in the notes to the financial statements. For example, Parlier could have identified the above increase in the capital projects fund balance as a “restated” fund balance in the financial statements. In addition, a note disclosure should have been provided to reconcile the restated fund balance to the prior year ending balance. The disclosure should have also explained the reason(s) for the restatement. Parlier should consider this for future reporting purposes.
R10:
a, b, c, and d To ensure that funding is not withheld, the RDA should ensure all proper procedures and legal requirements are followed when issuing loans and all appropriate documents are maintained in their loan files and that all loans are properly authorized. Parlier staff should review all available loan records since the formation of the RDA to try to locate all missing loan documentation and criteria information on the sixteen known loans addressed above. Parlier staff should also determine if there are any additional outstanding loans not currently known that should be followed up on. Also, even though Parlier has indicated that the commercial borrowers of the “written off” loans are out of business, Parlier should continue to bill the business owners until these loans are officially written off by the City Council. Proper procedures must be followed to assure that all redevelopment loans are repaid timely and in full. Redevelopment loans determined to be uncollectible should be written off by the City Council and referred to a collection agency as appropriate. Parlier should consider following up with other collection agencies or pursue other means of recouping unpaid balances, e.g. through small claims processes, other lawsuits, etc. In addition, Parlier should ensure and be able to support that interest charged on Redevelopment loans is charged fairly and equitably. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
R11:
To enhance internal controls, ensure the accuracy of the City’s accounting records, and ensure continued funding, Parlier should implement formal procedures to ensure proper accounting for and reconciliation of restricted revenues. In addition, all transactions and supporting documentation must be maintained until such records have been audited by all appropriate oversight agencies. Finally, the City of Parlier should make the appropriate general ledger entries within the special revenue fund to record these transactions. Child Development Grant
R12:
The City of Parlier should post transactions to proper accounts and subsequently classify expenditures appropriately in their financial statements.
R13:
In order to comply with terms of the Child Development Grant, the City of Parlier should reimburse the Child Development fund the $582.50 noted above and only make expenditures appropriate for grant purposes from this fund.
R14:
In order to comply with terms of the Child Development Grant, the City of Parlier should obtain an annual audit of the Child Development Program that conforms to the terms of the grant agreement and reports on Child Development revenues and expenditures of the City of Parlier. In addition, the City of Parlier should consistently review any audit reports prepared for their program prior to finalization of the report. Measure “C” – Transportation Authority, Sales Tax Proceeds It was noted during our review that insufficiently supported overhead allocations were applied to the Measure “C” special revenue fund. See findings and recommendations #1 - 3. Highway User Tax (Gas Tax)
R15:
In order to properly account for and report Gas Tax revenues, the City of Parlier must reconcile any variances between revenues paid by a funding entity and revenues recorded by the City. Local Transportation Fund
R16:
In order to properly administer the Local Transportation Fund and ensure proper financial statement presentation, the City of Parlier must reconcile the Local Transportation fund to receipts and implement procedures to ensure that all transactions are properly recorded and reported.
R17:
The City of Parlier should either provide supporting documentation for the $70,702 reduction of revenues or reverse this adjustment as appropriate. 16
R19:
The City of Parlier should contact the DOJ for written clarification of what constitutes acceptable expenditures for this grant. The City of Parlier should comply with the information provided by the DOJ related to this audit finding. Unauthorized expenditures of grant funds must be reimbursed or a waiver should be requested from the grantor agency. COPS Grant AB3229
R20:
The City of Parlier should ensure that actual interest is allocated to the COPS fund for 1998/99, 1999/00 and thereafter. In addition, the City should ensure that adequate interest allocation methodologies are used to ensure that all restricted revenues are accurately calculated, allocated and available to be used for restricted program purposes or returned to regulatory agencies as necessary in the event of non-compliance with program requirements.
R21:
In compliance with the provisions of Government Code Section 30061 as stated above, the City of Parlier should ensure that the appropriation of COPS grant monies for 2000/01 and thereafter are separately presented to and approved by Parlier’s City Council as required.
R22:
The City of Parlier should maintain support for all financial transactions that affect special revenue funds as well as other funds until all oversight agencies conduct periodic audits. Unauthorized expenditures of grant funds must be reimbursed or a waiver should be requested from the grantor agency. Universal Hiring Grant (COPS)
R23:
The City of Parlier should implement procedures to ensure that expenditures are not claimed/reported twice and that overtime costs are not claimed in compliance with Universal 19 Hiring Grant provisions. Parlier should also adjust the above reports and charges to reverse duplicated expenditures and inappropriate overtime costs. Office of Emergency Services (OES)
R24:
The City of Parlier should investigate the difference of $2,404 between revenues reported in their general ledger for OES revenues and the amount of payments confirmed through the State OES or have support for the variance readily available.
R25:
The City of Parlier should immediately revise the Project Completion and Certification Report to reflect actual costs for the disaster period. They should provide support for costs claimed or return $36,136 claimed inappropriately to the State OES. 20
R26:
To ensure accuracy of records, enhance internal controls, and ensure the availability of current and future funding, the City of Parlier should properly maintain files containing supporting documentation for transactions and retain these records until audited by all appropriate oversight agencies. Transportation Equity Act No reportable conditions were noted during our review of the Transportation Equity Act, which provides funding for street improvements. Based on our review, only $14,761 was spent for this program in 1999/00 for preliminary engineering on street improvement projects, which is in compliance with program provisions.
R27:
The Parlier City Manager confer with the City Council before engaging in city projects costing over $10,000 as required by PMC.
R28:
Bidding and contracting of services be in compliance with PMC.
R29:
The City Manager and City Council be held responsible for implementing the directives set forth in PMC.
R30:
Compensation of employees and/or contractors be in compliance with existing State and Federal laws. PARLIER ANIMAL CONTROL Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury received complaints relating to animal control and conditions at the City of Parlier Animal Shelter. Recommendations regarding animal control and the animal shelter were included in the 1997/1998 Grand Jury Report. The City Manager responded as follows: “The City will continue efforts to create innovative ways to obtain funding and attract community support for animal control operations and facilities, this shall include seeking grants, encouraging participation by local organizations and volunteers, the Humane Society and SPCA.” “The City will continue to enforce leash and licensing laws and to collect fees and/or fines to generate revenue for animal control services. The city code has animal control codes, which it enforces; the city has adopted animal licensing fees and fines to offset some of the costs of these activities. The City Council reviews fees on an annual basis and adjusts them, as it deems appropriate. The City will review and update its animal control codes and fees during fiscal 1998-1999.”
R31:
The City hire an animal control officer.
R32:
The animal shelter be relocated within the city to make it more accessible.
R33:
Leash and licensing laws be enforced.
R34:
The City educate the community regarding licensing, vaccinations, leash laws, spaying and neutering.
R35:
The City establish a fee schedule for costs incurred in animal control.
R36:
All record keeping relating to animal control be current.
R37:
State guidelines be followed for the ultimate disposal of any animal.
R38:
Polaroid photographs of mi pounded dogs be posted at city hall in order for citizens to see if their dog has been impounded. CARPETING OF PARLIER CITY HALL Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury investigated a complaint from a concerned citizen about the method used by the City Manager in the purchase and installation of carpet in the Parlier City Hall.
R39:
The Parlier Municipal Code and Purchasing Ordinance be followed.
R40:
Shortcuts that violate the existing code not be considered. CODE ENFORCEMENT IN PARLIER Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury investigated a written complaint from a citizen that cited the lack of code enforcement in the City of Parlier.
R41:
The present policy of code enforcement be changed to a more aggressive system which addresses all violations existing in the City of Parlier.
R42:
Written policy and procedures be developed to provide for the tracking and documented resolution of all complaints.
R43:
The city hire a code enforcement officer, supported with sufficient staff.
R44:
Adequate training be provided for the code enforcement officer and staff, including instruction in property owner and tenant rights.
R45:
A written manual providing guidelines on how to resolve code enforcement disputes be developed and implemented.
R46:
The City of Parlier inform and educate the public on current code enforcement policy.
R47:
A current copy of the Parlier Municipal Code be available for public use at City Hall and the public library. PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT WITHIN THE CITY OF PARLIER Introduction An employee of the City of Parlier provided testimony to the 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury regarding an unfair disciplinary experience while employed by the city. Subsequently, the Grand Jury received additional testimony from other current and former employees who indicated they too had not been treated in an equitable manner.
R48:
The City of Parlier formulate and implement written policies and procedures regarding labor relations.
R49:
The City develop written job classifications for all positions and issue them to all employees.
R50:
The City require department heads to adhere to the PMC sections covering their areas of responsibility.
R51:
A current copy of the PMC be made available to City Council members.
R52:
The City prepare, and provide to all employees, a handbook informing them of employee rights as stated in the PMC.
R53:
Employees be advised, in writing, of their rights of representation at all disciplinary hearings.
R54:
Written annual job performance evaluations of all employees be conducted, a copy placed in the employee’s permanent file and a copy provided to the employee.
R55:
A written salary schedule for each position be prepared and a copy made available to each employee.
R56:
The city develop and issue a written policy regarding advancement and salary increases. NEPOTISM IN THE CITY OF PARLIER Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury received several complaints from employees of the City of Parlier regarding nepotism as it exists in the city and the effect it has on their work environment. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary definition of nepotism is “favoritism shown to relatives or close friends by those in power (as by giving them jobs).” Nepotism is defined by the Parlier Municipal Code (PMC) Section 4.01.080 as “Applicants for employment with the city who are related within the third degree, by blood or marriage, to a person currently employed by the city, shall not be employed in the same department as the applicant’s relative, if it is determined on a case-by case review that employment of the applicant in the same department as his or her relative would create or aggravate problems relating to safety, security, supervision, morale or conflicts of interest in such department.”
R57:
PMC section 4.01.080 be rewritten to more clearly state the city’s policy on nepotism as defined by Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, “favoritism shown to relatives or close friends by those in power (as by giving them jobs).”
R58:
The policy of the city be to recruit, employ, and promote the best-qualified individuals. PARLIER PERSONNEL HEARING BOARD Introduction During the year 2000, a decision was made by the City manager to establish a Personnel Hearing Board (PHB). The Parlier Municipal Code (PMC) Section 4.02. (1997) describes the duties and responsibilities of the Board. Such a Board had never been established. The Board consists of two City Council members and a citizen at large. The purpose of the Board is to hear the final appeal of employees who have been disciplined and have exhausted all options for redress. The citizen at large position is to be filled by an applicant who is a resident of the City and at least 18 years of age. This position is to be noticed and described in the local newspaper and posted at City Hall.
R59:
The current PHB be dissolved.
R60:
The position for citizen at large be advertised (noticed).
R61:
The position for citizen at large be posted at City Hall.
R62:
All citizens who submit applications for this position be given equal consideration. PARLIER POLICE DEPARTMENT Introduction For many years, the Parlier Police Department has suffered from a lack of leadership and corresponding departmental ineffectiveness. The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury has undertaken a review of the causes and possible remedies. During the past 10 years, the City of Parlier has had 13 Chiefs of Police. Turnover by employees has been high due to low pay, low morale and lack of leadership. There have been continuing allegations of corruption, inefficiency and favoritism.
R63:
The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that the Parlier Police Department be closed immediately and the policing of Parlier be contracted with the Fresno County Sheriff. CITY COMMITTEE Rene Lastreto, Chair Robert Boehringer Mikie Kapigian Louis Olais Juliana Pherson Leo Shishmanian 42 CITY COMMITTEE
R64:
Continue the broad public education program to increase awareness of the need to meet recycling goals.
R65:
Tailor educational efforts to target each culture within our community in a way that has proven most effective for that group. FRESNO CITY PARKS SANITATION FACILITIES Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury inspected toilet facilities at Roeding Park, Woodward Park and six neighborhood parks. Conditions reviewed: Ø Cleanliness and cleaning schedules Ø Condition of fixtures and stalls Ø Privacy locks on toilet doors Ø Presence of soap Ø Presence of hand drying materials or machines Ø Plumbing leaks
R66:
Increase the budget to provide for care of the new parks.
R67:
Add personnel to help maintain the park sanitation facilities.
R68:
Provide adequate funds for replacement of fixtures with more durable ones. CITY COUNCIL INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDS Introduction The Fresno City Council discretionary infrastructure budget was examined by the 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury.
R69:
Distribution of the City Council discretionary infrastructure funds be reviewed and approved by the City Manager prior to disbursement. 48
R70:
Consideration be given to reducing the current allotment from $140,000 to $70,000 per district.
R71:
Carryover of any unused infrastructure funds be eliminated.
R72:
Future Grand Juries continue to monitor the program. CITY OF FRESNO WATER METERS Introduction Upon review of the 1999/2000 Fresno County Grand Jury report, the 2000/2001 Grand Jury investigated the current status of water availability and management.
R73:
The Mayor, City Council and all civic groups unite to promote the installation of water meters.
R74:
Homeowners and businesses that currently have meters be excluded from further meter installation costs.
R75:
The city utilities department continue to publish average water bills for various family sizes with and without meters.
R76:
Water police be reactivated to prevent water waste. BASEBALL/MULTI-USE STADIUM Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury reviewed the reports of the 1998/1999 and 1999/2000 Grand Juries. During the tenure of the present Grand Jury, the Fresno City Council approved the stadium project. Work has commenced on the site.
R77:
The City require an annual independent audit of the financial statements of FDG.
R78:
All seventeen dates the city controls be devoted to for-profit events to enhance the City’s revenues.
R79:
The public be assured of coordinated parking and security by FDG and the City. CITY OF FRESNO FIRE DEPARTMENT Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury investigated the City of Fresno Fire Department's (FFD) rating as established by the Insurance Services Office, Inc. (ISO). This organization evaluates the level of fire protection, the ability to receive and answer alarms, and the adequacy of water supply. A maximum of 100% credit is available. The percentages are broken into ten ISO Public Protection Classes. Class 1 equates to the top rating of 90-100%. Class 10 equates to the lowest rating, 0-9%. When last evaluated in 1995, the City of Fresno was rated a Class 4, achieving a rating of 66.07%. These classifications were developed for fire insurance rating purposes only. Insurance companies may use the agency’s classification to assist in setting property insurance premiums.
R80:
The fire department have a budgeted vehicle replacement plan. The city should consider replacement of vehicles after seven or eight years while they still have significant value on the used fire vehicle market.
R81:
The inventory of fire fighting tools be increased so that all spare engines/trucks are fully equipped.
R82:
The city recognize the need to increase the number of fire fighting personnel.
R83:
The City of Fresno revisit its traffic light pre-emption plan and budget funds to complete this program.
R84:
The Fresno Fire Department develop a plan to reduce response times to the NFPA standards. COUNTY COMMITTEE Rick Allen, Chair James Cotton Fred Goldring Ann Thaxter James Torosian Donald Wilson 57 COUNTY COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury County Committee’s primary function is to oversee all aspects of county government, incorporated cities not including Fresno, and special districts. Among the committee’s responsibilities is to insure that county monies and operations are handled in an efficient, effective and appropriate manner that best serve the interest of the citizens. The Grand Jury received requests for inquiries into various government operations within the County of Fresno. The County Committee conducted inquiries of the following: A. The operations and management of the Office of the Public Administrator/Public Guardian. B. Operation of the Coroner’s Office. Allegations of misconduct regarding utility bill collection policies in the City of Mendota. C. Complaints regarding the management of the City of Parlier. (The result of this investigation is presented in this report under the heading - Ad Hoc Committee, City of Parlier). D. The operations of the Elkhorn Correctional Facility. E. The need for a Briefing Book for newly elected members of the Fresno County Board of Supervisors and Fresno City Council. In the course of conducting these inquiries the committee gathered facts, interviewed many citizens, officials, department heads and employees of the County of Fresno and cities within the County of Fresno. During the process of the investigations, the committee made numerous field trips to government facilities within the county. OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC ADMINSTRATOR/PUBLIC GUARDIAN Introduction The 1999/2000 Fresno County Grand Jury Report prompted a review by this jury panel of the Public Administrator/Public Guardian Office (PA/PG).
R85:
The PA/PG evaluate the use of the County Treasury Pool.
R86:
Storage be improved for case records and client assets. Construction of an on-site storage building would eliminate the need for expensive off-site mini-storage.
R87:
Evaluate the need for additional deputies due to the implementation of the new Elder Abuse Referral Law SB 1742.
R88:
PA/PG add the services of a Registered Nurse to staff. This person would aid in evaluating and inspecting medical care facilities as well as review proposed client treatment and prescription history.
R89:
PA/PG evaluate the purchase of Long Term Care Insurance for those clients who would be eligible. OFFICE OF THE FRESNO COUNTY CORONER Introduction The 1999/2000 Fresno County Grand Jury report prompted an unannounced visit to the facilities of the Fresno County Coroner on December 19, 2000 by the 2000/2001 Grand Jury.
R90:
A plan be developed for a new morgue before the County reaches a crisis situation.
R91:
A new commercial washing machine be purchased for on-site laundering needs and/or use a commercial laundry.
R92:
Reference be made to the Grand Jury reports of 1998/1999 and 1999/2000 regarding the need for improvement of record storage. MENDOTA UTILITY BILL COLLECTIONS Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury received a written complaint regarding bill collection policies in the City of Mendota. The complaint included the following allegations: A. Some employees of the City of Mendota had not paid their water/utility bill for a period in excess of one year. B. Some elected officials were not making timely payments of their water/utility bills. C. This activity had been disclosed by the City Manager and/or City Attorney. It was alleged that the entire City office staff was involved. D. The 2000/2001 Grand Jury issued a subpoena for certain records covering the payment of water/utility bills by current and former Mendota city employees and elected officials. These records were provided to the Grand Jury on August 30, 2000.
R93:
The monthly shutoff list and notices be reviewed by an individual independent of the accounting department of the City of Mendota.
R94:
The subject of outstanding utility bills be reviewed during the annual financial audit conducted by an outside auditor.
R95:
The City establish and maintain training for all employees on the use of the Municipal Code and written procedures and policies regarding the collection of utility bills. ELKHORN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury followed up on the recommendation of the 1998/1999 Grand Jury to monitor the operation of the Elkhorn Correctional Facility (Juvenile Boot Camp). The Grand Jury toured the Elkhorn Correctional Facility (ECF) on September 1, 2000. The director and support staff provided a briefing on the history of the facility and its goals. Information was received from Elkhorn management, members of the Fresno County Board of Supervisors, the Chief Probation Officer and officials of the City of Fresno.
R96:
The Fresno County Board of Supervisors review commitments made in the February 11, 1997, letter issued by a former County Chief Administrative Officer and assure the neighbors of ECF that the County intends to honor these commitments. If certain commitments cannot be met, the County should negotiate with the neighbors to reach an equitable arrangement.
R97:
The Board of Supervisors continue to fund and maintain the present level of services at ECF.
R98:
The City of Fresno continue to fund Elkhorn Correctional Facility at no less than the current rate of $1,000,000 per year with no sunset provision.
R99:
The County provide boot camp facilities for female juvenile offenders.
R100:
Future Grand Juries continue to monitor the activities at the Elkhorn Correctional Facility. BRIEFING BOOK FOR NEWLY ELECTED OFFICIALS Introduction As the result of testimony received from newly elected members of the Fresno City Council and Fresno County Board of Supervisors, the Grand Jury reviewed the procedure for providing information to these individuals prior to assuming office.
Additional Recommendations
16
Not linked to specific findings.
R85:
The PA/PG evaluate the use of the County Treasury Pool.
R86:
Storage be improved for case records and client assets. Construction of an on-site storage building would eliminate the need for expensive off-site mini-storage.
R87:
Evaluate the need for additional deputies due to the implementation of the new Elder Abuse Referral Law SB 1742.
R88:
PA/PG add the services of a Registered Nurse to staff. This person would aid in evaluating and inspecting medical care facilities as well as review proposed client treatment and prescription history.
R89:
PA/PG evaluate the purchase of Long Term Care Insurance for those clients who would be eligible. OFFICE OF THE FRESNO COUNTY CORONER Introduction The 1999/2000 Fresno County Grand Jury report prompted an unannounced visit to the facilities of the Fresno County Coroner on December 19, 2000 by the 2000/2001 Grand Jury.
R90:
A plan be developed for a new morgue before the County reaches a crisis situation.
R91:
A new commercial washing machine be purchased for on-site laundering needs and/or use a commercial laundry.
R92:
Reference be made to the Grand Jury reports of 1998/1999 and 1999/2000 regarding the need for improvement of record storage. MENDOTA UTILITY BILL COLLECTIONS Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury received a written complaint regarding bill collection policies in the City of Mendota. The complaint included the following allegations: A. Some employees of the City of Mendota had not paid their water/utility bill for a period in excess of one year. B. Some elected officials were not making timely payments of their water/utility bills. C. This activity had been disclosed by the City Manager and/or City Attorney. It was alleged that the entire City office staff was involved. D. The 2000/2001 Grand Jury issued a subpoena for certain records covering the payment of water/utility bills by current and former Mendota city employees and elected officials. These records were provided to the Grand Jury on August 30, 2000.
R93:
The monthly shutoff list and notices be reviewed by an individual independent of the accounting department of the City of Mendota.
R94:
The subject of outstanding utility bills be reviewed during the annual financial audit conducted by an outside auditor.
R95:
The City establish and maintain training for all employees on the use of the Municipal Code and written procedures and policies regarding the collection of utility bills. ELKHORN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury followed up on the recommendation of the 1998/1999 Grand Jury to monitor the operation of the Elkhorn Correctional Facility (Juvenile Boot Camp). The Grand Jury toured the Elkhorn Correctional Facility (ECF) on September 1, 2000. The director and support staff provided a briefing on the history of the facility and its goals. Information was received from Elkhorn management, members of the Fresno County Board of Supervisors, the Chief Probation Officer and officials of the City of Fresno.
R96:
The Fresno County Board of Supervisors review commitments made in the February 11, 1997, letter issued by a former County Chief Administrative Officer and assure the neighbors of ECF that the County intends to honor these commitments. If certain commitments cannot be met, the County should negotiate with the neighbors to reach an equitable arrangement.
R97:
The Board of Supervisors continue to fund and maintain the present level of services at ECF.
R98:
The City of Fresno continue to fund Elkhorn Correctional Facility at no less than the current rate of $1,000,000 per year with no sunset provision.
R99:
The County provide boot camp facilities for female juvenile offenders.
R100:
Future Grand Juries continue to monitor the activities at the Elkhorn Correctional Facility. BRIEFING BOOK FOR NEWLY ELECTED OFFICIALS Introduction As the result of testimony received from newly elected members of the Fresno City Council and Fresno County Board of Supervisors, the Grand Jury reviewed the procedure for providing information to these individuals prior to assuming office.
Additional Recommendations
26
Not linked to specific findings.
R31:
The City hire an animal control officer.
R32:
The animal shelter be relocated within the city to make it more accessible.
R33:
Leash and licensing laws be enforced.
R34:
The City educate the community regarding licensing, vaccinations, leash laws, spaying and neutering.
R35:
The City establish a fee schedule for costs incurred in animal control.
R36:
All record keeping relating to animal control be current.
R37:
State guidelines be followed for the ultimate disposal of any animal.
R38:
Polaroid photographs of mi pounded dogs be posted at city hall in order for citizens to see if their dog has been impounded. CARPETING OF PARLIER CITY HALL Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury investigated a complaint from a concerned citizen about the method used by the City Manager in the purchase and installation of carpet in the Parlier City Hall.
R39:
The Parlier Municipal Code and Purchasing Ordinance be followed.
R40:
Shortcuts that violate the existing code not be considered. CODE ENFORCEMENT IN PARLIER Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury investigated a written complaint from a citizen that cited the lack of code enforcement in the City of Parlier.
R41:
The present policy of code enforcement be changed to a more aggressive system which addresses all violations existing in the City of Parlier.
R42:
Written policy and procedures be developed to provide for the tracking and documented resolution of all complaints.
R43:
The city hire a code enforcement officer, supported with sufficient staff.
R44:
Adequate training be provided for the code enforcement officer and staff, including instruction in property owner and tenant rights.
R45:
A written manual providing guidelines on how to resolve code enforcement disputes be developed and implemented.
R46:
The City of Parlier inform and educate the public on current code enforcement policy.
R47:
A current copy of the Parlier Municipal Code be available for public use at City Hall and the public library. PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT WITHIN THE CITY OF PARLIER Introduction An employee of the City of Parlier provided testimony to the 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury regarding an unfair disciplinary experience while employed by the city. Subsequently, the Grand Jury received additional testimony from other current and former employees who indicated they too had not been treated in an equitable manner.
R48:
The City of Parlier formulate and implement written policies and procedures regarding labor relations.
R49:
The City develop written job classifications for all positions and issue them to all employees.
R50:
The City require department heads to adhere to the PMC sections covering their areas of responsibility.
R51:
A current copy of the PMC be made available to City Council members.
R52:
The City prepare, and provide to all employees, a handbook informing them of employee rights as stated in the PMC.
R53:
Employees be advised, in writing, of their rights of representation at all disciplinary hearings.
R54:
Written annual job performance evaluations of all employees be conducted, a copy placed in the employee’s permanent file and a copy provided to the employee.
R55:
A written salary schedule for each position be prepared and a copy made available to each employee.
R56:
The city develop and issue a written policy regarding advancement and salary increases. 33
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R64:
Continue the broad public education program to increase awareness of the need to meet recycling goals.
R65:
Tailor educational efforts to target each culture within our community in a way that has proven most effective for that group. FRESNO CITY PARKS SANITATION FACILITIES Introduction The 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury inspected toilet facilities at Roeding Park, Woodward Park and six neighborhood parks. Conditions reviewed: Ø Cleanliness and cleaning schedules Ø Condition of fixtures and stalls Ø Privacy locks on toilet doors Ø Presence of soap Ø Presence of hand drying materials or machines Ø Plumbing leaks
R66:
Increase the budget to provide for care of the new parks.
R67:
Add personnel to help maintain the park sanitation facilities.
R68:
Provide adequate funds for replacement of fixtures with more durable ones. CITY COUNCIL INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDS Introduction The Fresno City Council discretionary infrastructure budget was examined by the 2000/2001 Fresno County Grand Jury.
R69:
Distribution of the City Council discretionary infrastructure funds be reviewed and approved by the City Manager prior to disbursement. 48