Fresno County Grand Jury
2002-2003
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R67:
Fresno County provide inpatient child and adolescent mental health facilities in the County of Fresno.
R68:
Fresno County Department of Child and Adolescent Mental Health Care continue to increase the number of child psychiatrists in this area. LAW ENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
Designated meeting dates, times, and locations
F2:
Compensation for members, if any
F3:
Name and telephone number of the city staff representative
F4:
List of current members including term expiration dates
F5:
Number of authorized board members for each Board G. The functional description of each Board is not included in the records of appointments, but is stated in a separate document entitled “Functions of Boards & Commissions.” H. The current appointment records are outdated and incomplete. I. Applications for Board appointments are available at the City Clerk’s office. Completed applications must be filed with the City Clerk’s office. J. When a position becomes available on a Board, a list of prospective applicants is transmitted from the City Clerk’s office to the office of the Mayor, members of the Fresno City Council, or any other appointing authority, for consideration. K. Generally, a board member is appointed for a term of two to four years. Some terms run concurrently with the term of the elected official who makes the appointment. L. The City is studying reformatting and placing of information regarding Boards on the City of Fresno website. M. In the past, some applicants have not followed the designated procedure. They have taken their applications directly to an appointing authority. N. Information provided by applicants is not validated or verified by the appointing authority. O. Boards represent a productive utilization of volunteer citizens. P. Some Boards are provided with an operating budget.
Additional Recommendations
7
Not linked to specific findings.
R20:
The Fresno City Manager authorize the City Clerk to develop procedures to maintain accurate and current information on records of appointments to Boards by the City Council and Mayor. 14
R21:
The City Clerk’s office develop an appointment document to be placed on the City of Fresno website to include the following: a. A proper name to identify each Board. b. A concise and clear description of the purpose of each Board. c. Designated meeting dates, times, and locations for the Board. d. Annual budget and the remuneration for each Board member, if any. e. The name, telephone number and e-mail address of the city staff representative who is assigned to each Board. f. The length of term and expiration date for each Board member. g. Application form.
R22:
The City Clerk notify the appointing authority of an appointee’s expiration date no less than 90 days prior to the end of the term.
R23:
The City Clerk publicize Board member vacancies by posting them at City Hall and listing them on the City of Fresno website.
R24:
The Fresno City Manager verify all information on applications.
R25:
The Fresno City Manager advise appointing authorities to route all applications to the office of the City Clerk.
R26:
The Fresno City Manager direct appointing authorities to inform the City Clerk’s office of new appointments. 15
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R30:
Budget adequate funds to complete the full revision of the Zoning Ordinance.
R31:
Assign a member of the City Attorney’s staff to specifically assist in the revision of the Zoning Ordinance.
R32:
Direct the City Clerk’s office to use an 81/2 x 11 inch format in the revision of the ordinance.
R33:
Place the newly formatted Zoning Ordinance on the City’s website and update it every six months.
R34:
Make available hard copies of the Zoning Ordinance for distribution at a nominal cost. FRESNO COUNTY COMMITTEE
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R61:
The Fresno County Office of Education insure that all high schools are in compliance with the existing law requiring that driver education be included in the curriculum during the school day. HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE Mort Rosenstein, M.D., Chair
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R45:
The Fresno County Board of Supervisors support the special fire districts in the county.
R46:
The Fresno County Board of Supervisors implement a plan to qualify Fresno County Fire Protection District and other fire districts within the County to receive Proposition 172 funds, as approved by California voters in 1993.
R47:
The Fresno County Board of Supervisors authorize and allocate developer impact fees for fire districts in the County.
R48:
The boards of the fire districts in the county develop a plan to consolidate all districts into one district with one administration.
R49:
The Fresno County Fire Protection District re-establish full time staffing of the Riverdale Fire Station. 29
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R43:
No assignments of certificates of sale of delinquent properties be made by the Fresno Irrigation District.
R44:
The Fresno County Auditor-Controller/Treasurer-Tax Collector assume billing and collection of all assessments by Fresno Irrigation District and management of any delinquency sales of property. 27
Quick View
Full Details →
Additional Recommendations
8
Not linked to specific findings.
R50:
A complete and thorough security survey be conducted by either the Fresno County Sheriff or the United States Marshals Service.
R51:
Based upon the findings of the security review, a new management directive on work site security be written and issued by the County of Fresno.
R52:
The County of Fresno place and monitor security cameras in appropriate locations in county garages and buildings. 31
R53:
Access gates be placed at all entrances to the Plaza garage where none currently exist.
R54:
Pedestrian access into the Plaza Building and the Hall of Records be restricted to only one entrance into and one exit door from each building and both buildings be closely monitored by security personnel.
R55:
A management directive be issued making it mandatory that all County employees wear identification badges in the work place.
R56:
Fresno County Board of Supervisors increase security for the safety of all employees and the public, and for the protection of the facilities of Fresno County.
R57:
The 2003/2004 Fresno County Grand Jury continue to monitor the progress of the implementation of security improvements throughout the County of Fresno. EDUCATION, LIBRARY & YOUTH COMMITTEE
Quick View
Full Details →
Additional Recommendations
8
Not linked to specific findings.
R35:
Construction of a new Coroner’s office, morgue, and autopsy suite be given top priority by the Fresno County Board of Supervisors.
R36:
Violations cited by CAL/OSHA be promptly corrected.
R37:
The Offices of Coroner and Public Administrator/Public Guardian be separated.
R38:
The Fresno County Charter be amended to eliminate the office of Coroner, and an office of Medical Examiner be created and filled.
R39:
The Coroner-Public Administrator/Public Guardian provide a technically advanced system for control of all inventoried properties. 24
R40:
The Coroner-Public Administrator/Public Guardian provide a technically advanced system for control of all files and autopsy specimens.
R41:
The Coroner-Public Administrator/Public Guardian dispose of all files and autopsy specimens not required by law to be maintained.
R42:
The Coroner-Public Administrator/Public Guardian dispose of all unclaimed bodies in the morgue without delay. 25
Additional Recommendations
12
Not linked to specific findings.
R35:
Construction of a new Coroner’s Office, morgue, and autopsy suite be given top priority by the Fresno County Board of Supervisors. Fresno County’s Response to Recommendation #35: Fresno County agrees with the findings relating to the inadequacy of the existing Coroner facility. The recommendation has been implemented. On March 11, 2003, the Board of Supervisors approved the establishment of a capital project for a new Coroner- Public Administrator/Public Guardian facility. In addition, on May 20, 2003, the Board of Supervisors approved the selection of Kaplan McLaughlin Diaz to prepare the needs assessment, space program, and schematic design for the new facility. Completion of the needs assessment, space program, and conceptual design is scheduled for presentation to the Board of Supervisors in December 2003. The County has also selected a Real Estate firm to conduct a search for potential sites for the new facility upon completion of the space program. To date, a total of $1,300,000 has been appropriated for the project.
R36:
Violations cited by CAL/OSHA be promptly corrected. Fresno County’s Response to Recommendation #36: Fresno County partially disagrees with the finding that a CAL/OSHA inspection resulted in a finding of multiple violations. Only one condition noted by CAL/OSHA was considered a violation of health and safety standards. In response, a Bloodborne Pathogen Exposure Control Policy was written and approved by CAL/OSHA. The recommendation has been implemented.
R37:
The Offices of Coroner and Public Administrator/Public Guardian be separated. Fresno County’s Response to Recommendation #37: The County of Fresno agrees with the findings related to the duties of the Public Administrator and Public Guardian (PA/PG). The recommendation will not be implemented, as a separation of the Coroner-PA/PG offices may negatively impact service delivery and is fiscally unjustified. The relationship between the office of the Coroner and the PA/PG is common throughout the State of California. The offices were established as separate elective offices under the Fresno County Charter, but were later combined through resolutions by the County Board of Supervisors as being in the County’s best interest. The combination of these functional areas provides direct benefits to consumers and taxpayers. Common staffing provides a continuity of related services and allows for a redistribution of resources within the offices as workload fluctuations occur, helping to ensure uninterrupted service delivery. These staffing efficiencies may be lost if the offices are separated or combined with other County departments. Taxpayers benefit from reduced costs of having one elected official managing both offices, thereby minimizing overhead and administrative costs. The current Coroner-Public Administrator/Public Guardian assumed the office in January 2003 and began an internal review of processes to maximize efficiencies within both offices. Any viable alternative methods of organizing the offices of the Coroner or PA/PG, resulting from this internal review, will be presented to the Board of Supervisors.
R38:
The Fresno County Charter be amended to eliminate the office of Coroner, and an office of Medical Examiner be created and filled. Fresno County’s Response to Recommendation #38: The County of Fresno disagrees with the finding that many counties in California have eliminated the office of Coroner and have substituted a system requiring the appointment of a licensed Medical Examiner in place of the Coroner. The recommendation will not be implemented. Only four counties in California have Medical Examiner systems, all of which have been in place for many years. At this time, the Fresno County office of Coroner is adequately staffed with two full-time licensed Forensic Pathologists conducting all medical examinations and identifying the cause of death. The Coroner then reviews these findings and upon certifying the manner of death, signs the death certificate. There is insufficient evidence to support an action to amend the Fresno County Charter.
R39:
The Coroner-Public Administrator/Public Guardian provide a technically advanced system for control of all inventoried properties. Fresno County’s Response to Recommendation #39: Fresno County agrees with the finding that property storage rooms are now more organized than in the past. The recommendation requires further analysis to determine if inventory control capability can be provided within the framework of the current case management program. A determination will be made by December 31, 2003.
R40:
The Coroner-Public Administrator/Public Guardian provide a technically advanced system for control of all files and autopsy specimens. Fresno County’s Response to Recommendation #40: Fresno County agrees with the findings regarding the need for additional space and controls for files and specimens. The recommendation has been implemented with the installation of a new computer system in the Coroner Division.
R41:
The Coroner-Public Administrator/Public Guardian dispose of all files and autopsy specimens not required by law to be maintained. Fresno County’s Response to Recommendation #41: Fresno County agrees with the finding that old files and specimens are still being stored. The recommendation requires further investigation of legal and evidence matters related to retention. Until the investigation is complete, no items will be disposed of. Office clean-up measures have been implemented to organize record and material storage, and the proper disposal of tissue specimens is being explored through contracted services. 37
R42:
The Coroner-Public Administrator/Public Guardian dispose of all unclaimed bodies in the morgue without delay. Fresno County’s Response to Recommendation #42: Fresno County agrees with the findings regarding the disposition of unclaimed bodies. The recommendation has been implemented. Court-ordered delayed death certificates have been obtained for all individuals deceased longer than one year enabling proper disposition. New policies and procedures have been implemented to prevent any recurrence of past practices. Fresno County Coroner-Public Administrator/Public Guardian’s Response to Recommendations #35 - #42: See . FRESNO IRRIGATION DISTRICT Recommendations The 2002-2003 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that:
R43:
No assignments of certificates of sale of delinquent properties be made by the Fresno Irrigation District.
R44:
See . FRESNO COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Recommendations The 2002-2003 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that: 45. The Fresno County Board of Supervisors support the special fire districts in the County. Fresno County’s Response to Recommendation #45: Fresno County agrees with the findings that the Fresno County Fire Protection District is the largest fire district in Fresno County; that the district provides fire protection to most residents of the unincorporated areas of Fresno County and to some incorporated cities; that district fire stations are approximately 12 miles apart with 8 to 12 minute response times; and, that the Fresno County Fire Protection District is one of five special districts that provide fire protection for County residents. The recommendation has been implemented in that the Board of Supervisors continues to be supportive of the special fire districts, as well as all fire protection service providers, in Fresno County. In addition to the Board-sponsored Countywide fire protection study completed earlier this year, the County's legislative platform includes support for legislation to establish an adequate revenue base for fire protection districts, including a return of property taxes that were transferred to the State through the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF), while not harming those fire protection districts receiving funds through this program. The Fresno County Fire Protection District, in particular, loses a significant portion of its property tax allocation as a result of ERAF. 46. The Fresno County Board of Supervisors implement a plan to qualify Fresno County Fire Protection District and other fire districts within the County to receive Proposition 172 funds, as approved by California voters in 1993. Fresno County’s Response to Recommendation #46: Fresno County agrees with the finding that the County has not provided Proposition 172 funds to the Fresno County Fire Protection District. The recommendation will not be implemented. The Fresno County Board of Supervisors does not have the legal authority to distribute Proposition 172 funds to the Fresno County Fire Protection District or any of the other fire protection districts in Fresno County. This conclusion is based on a legal opinion by County Counsel, provided in a Board Legal Report dated January 22, 2003, and released as a public document, concluding that the Fresno County Fire Protection District ('District') "does not qualify for Prop. 172 funds under the Local Public Safety Protection & Improvement Act of 1993" and that the Board of Supervisors "does not have discretionary authority to allocate Prop. 172 funds to the District". While this legal opinion was for the specific case of the Fresno County Fire Protection District, its conclusions extend to the other four fire protection districts within Fresno County. 39
R45:
The Fresno County Board of Supervisors support the special fire districts in the County. Fresno County’s Response to Recommendation #45: Fresno County agrees with the findings that the Fresno County Fire Protection District is the largest fire district in Fresno County; that the district provides fire protection to most residents of the unincorporated areas of Fresno County and to some incorporated cities; that district fire stations are approximately 12 miles apart with 8 to 12 minute response times; and, that the Fresno County Fire Protection District is one of five special districts that provide fire protection for County residents. The recommendation has been implemented in that the Board of Supervisors continues to be supportive of the special fire districts, as well as all fire protection service providers, in Fresno County. In addition to the Board-sponsored Countywide fire protection study completed earlier this year, the County's legislative platform includes support for legislation to establish an adequate revenue base for fire protection districts, including a return of property taxes that were transferred to the State through the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF), while not harming those fire protection districts receiving funds through this program. The Fresno County Fire Protection District, in particular, loses a significant portion of its property tax allocation as a result of ERAF.
R46:
The Fresno County Board of Supervisors implement a plan to qualify Fresno County Fire Protection District and other fire districts within the County to receive Proposition 172 funds, as approved by California voters in 1993. Fresno County’s Response to Recommendation #46: Fresno County agrees with the finding that the County has not provided Proposition 172 funds to the Fresno County Fire Protection District. The recommendation will not be implemented. The Fresno County Board of Supervisors does not have the legal authority to distribute Proposition 172 funds to the Fresno County Fire Protection District or any of the other fire protection districts in Fresno County. This conclusion is based on a legal opinion by County Counsel, provided in a Board Legal Report dated January 22, 2003, and released as a public document, concluding that the Fresno County Fire Protection District ('District') "does not qualify for Prop. 172 funds under the Local Public Safety Protection & Improvement Act of 1993" and that the Board of Supervisors "does not have discretionary authority to allocate Prop. 172 funds to the District". While this legal opinion was for the specific case of the Fresno County Fire Protection District, its conclusions extend to the other four fire protection districts within Fresno County. 39
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
Section 06.00 of the above order, General Call Handling, states: “When responding to use a canine in a specific situation, the handler shall evaluate whether the use of the canine is feasible 52 within the capability of the canine, and whether the request is consistent with Department policy. The handler shall determine when the canine is deployed.”
F2:
Section 07.02 of the above order, Active Tracking, states: “Canine teams may be deployed for “active tracking” (fleeing suspects attempting to avoid detection of the handler). “Active” tracking may be accomplished either “on lead” or “ off lead”. The handler shall consider the area’s geography, nature of the offense, presence of weapons, and the possibility of the interference by or injury to bystanders.” H. There is no provision in the above orders directing the use of ballistic vests for the canines. I. The FPD does possess ballistic vests for canines. J. Funds for ballistic vests were made available through private donations and a fund raising event. K. Ballistic vests are utilized at the discretion of the handler. L. Those interviewed stated that ballistic vests, currently possessed by the Canine Operation, are not satisfactory and diminish the effectiveness and stamina of the canine for the following reasons: • Too heavy • Too bulky, which restricts mobility • Out-of-date technology and materials retain heat M. Canine training with ballistic vests is conducted. N. New ballistic vests, utilizing lightweight materials and the most current technology, are available. The Department is researching the feasibility and costs with various vendors, to make a determination on purchasing new ballistic vests. O. The following statistics are attributable to the Canine Operation for the Year ending June 30, 2002: • Placates (peaceful resolutions) 1,542 • Arrests 444 • Finds 148 53 Conclusions A. The Canine Operation is an essential component of the Fresno Police Department. B. Divisional Order No. 4.1.23, entitled Canine Operations, issued on December 20, 2001, needs to be revised to include guidelines for proper deployment of canines with ballistic vests. C. Standing Order 2.3.1 establishes the authority for the Canine Operations Manual. D. Canine ballistic vests currently possessed are outdated. E. New ballistic vests, utilizing lightweight materials and the most current technology, are available. F. Deploying canines without ballistic vests may be hazardous and has resulted in serious injury to a canine. G. Injury to a canine results in a great deal of emotional strain on the Fresno Police Department. H. Canine training with ballistic vests is inadequate.
F3:
Driving under the influence (DUI)
F4:
Pedestrian involved C. The City of Fresno has a total police force of approximately 1,100 officers to cover an area of about 100 square miles. However, only 22 officers were assigned to traffic enforcement in 2002. Since that time the police department has added 15 traffic officers. D. The City of Fresno authorized the installation of cameras, under its “Red Light Camera Enforcement Program,” at the following intersections: Herndon and Blackstone, Herndon and First Street, and First Street and McKinley, with operation commencing in April 2002. E. Initially, the images captured by the cameras, excluding exempt vehicles (police officers, funeral processions, out-of-state, and exempt licenses) resulted in citations issued to only 21% of the violators. Following camera adjustments, this percentage of citations issued has increased to 35%. F. Additional experience with the “Red Light” cameras is needed to obtain statistical information upon which to base future decisions regarding the cameras. G. In 2002, the monthly average of traffic infraction filings in the Fresno Division of the Traffic Courts was 4,830; this average increased to 8,750 for the first four months of 2003, and is projected to remain at this level through 2003. H. The increase in the filing of traffic infractions created a processing backlog. This problem was further compounded by a court staff reduction caused by the state’s fiscal problems. I. The backlog continued to rise until the City of Fresno provided the courts with added staff assistance. The backlog currently stands at 6,786, while the manageable level is about 500 to 600. J. In 2002, the City and County of Fresno entered into an agreement whereby the County shares a portion of the revenues derived from traffic fines and forfeitures generated from citations issued within the City. Such revenues are stipulated for use in traffic safety enforcement and related education activities. The City has failed to allocate funding under the new agreement for traffic related education activities. K. The Fresno City Police Department reported that in 2002 the greatest number of drivers involved in injuries and fatal traffic accidents were in the 19-29 age group. L. National statistics reveal that automobile accidents are the leading cause of death for youths in the age group 15-19; this group comprises 7% of the driving population, but is involved in 17% of fatal accidents. M. Some high schools in Fresno County do not offer driver education as required by Section 51220(j), of the California Code.
Additional Recommendations
27
Not linked to specific findings.
R74:
The Fresno Police Chief’s Advisory Board establish a website to include: • Mission statement • Board member names and term expiration dates • Agenda • Meeting minutes, excluding confidential information • Process for bringing concerns or complaints to the Board • Application for membership to the Board
R75:
The Fresno Police Chief’s Advisory Board establish and publicize a procedure for citizens to file concerns or complaints.
R76:
The Fresno Police Chief and City Council promptly replace members upon expiration of their terms or when vacancies arise. FRESNO POLICE DEPARTMENT CANINE UNIT
R77:
Amend Divisional Order No. 4.1.23,entitled Canine Operations, issued on December 20, 2001, to include clearly defined procedures as to the use of canine with ballistic vests.
R78:
Amend Standing Order 2.3.1, Canine Operations Manual, to include clearly defined procedures as to the deployment of canines with ballistic vests.
R79:
Provide funds to purchase the most technologically advanced canine ballistic vests.
R80:
Improve training for canines and their handlers, on the use and deployment of ballistic vests. ELKHORN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
R81:
Fresno County Personnel Department modify the hiring process to give extra- help Juvenile Correctional Officers credit for a specific number of hours for on the job training, and be able to waive the county interview for a permanent position without taking the same entry written test a second time.
R82:
Fresno County Probation Department allocate additional positions for Juvenile Correctional Officers to meet staffing needs for 200 cadets.
R83:
Fresno County Probation Department allocate additional positions for staff to assist at special events, transportation of cadets, and farming.
R84:
Fresno County Probation Department modify the current philosophy of the program at Elkhorn to assure the criteria for commitments be tightened to reduce the flow of cadets into Elkhorn so a consistent program can be taught and cadets are provided with an improved chance to become a productive citizen.
R85:
Fresno County Probation Department modify the current philosophy of the program at Elkhorn to assure that Delta Cadets be kept separated from the regular Boot Camp Cadets.
R86:
The City of Fresno continue to fund one million dollars each year for Elkhorn. TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
R87:
The Fresno City Police Department allocate more police officers to traffic safety enforcement and related education activities.
R88:
The Fresno City Police Department continue to compile statistics which will provide additional information to determine the effectiveness of “Red Light” cameras.
R89:
The Fresno City Police Department, in compliance with the 2002 revenue sharing agreement on traffic fines and forfeitures between the City and County of Fresno, use a portion of its revenues for traffic education activities.
R90:
The County and City of Fresno assist the traffic court in an effort to expedite the processing of traffic citations.
R91:
All Fresno County school districts comply with the California Education Code by requiring that high schools in the districts offer a driver education course as part of their curriculum. FRESNO YOSEMITE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CONCOURSE EXPANSION PROJECT
R92:
The City adopt a new bidding procedure for selection of low bidders on projects requiring competitive bidding.
R93:
The City involve the Public Works Department much more intimately in connection with major construction projects within the City, including hiring specialists for such projects, instead of contracting with consultants for overall management.
R94:
The City carefully monitor possible conflicts of interest of parties involved in City projects.
R95:
The City aggressively pursue its claims for liquidated and other damages. TRANSIT CONSOLIDATION
R96:
The Council of Fresno County Governments and affiliated agencies continue their discussions directed toward consolidation of the transit services in the county, and that those discussions specifically include school busses.
R97:
A transit district, rather than a Joint Powers Authority, be formed in the interests of efficiency in management, cost effectiveness, and to better serve the environmental needs of the valley in the future.
R98:
The transit district include areas outside the County, such as portions of Madera County. 68
R99:
The Board of Directors of the Council of Fresno County Governments appoint a transportation expert to organize and promote a new countywide transit district. JOINT JURISDICTIONAL STREETS BETWEEN COUNTY AND CITY OF FRESNO
R100:
The City and County of Fresno enter an agreement that addresses the maintenance of joint jurisdictional streets to replace the terminated Agreement.