Gran Jurado del Condado de Kings
2023-2024
From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (7)
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
5 hallazgos
F1:
In Kings County, the five-member Kings County Board of Supervisors acts as the Board of Equalization and, by default, the assessment appeals board.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
3 2 2 * e i n e * r o g s r c i f a l A C E s s o s e m c a p s s m m e 5 1 7 1 3 2 e r d e c n i a t s l *** When an application is filed, the Kings County Board of Equalization has two years to hold the hearing. Some applications have filed for a waiver so that it is possible to have additional time for all parties to research and submit information. This might lead to a hearing not being necessary. In general, the appeals board is limited to the evidence presented by the assessor and the taxpayer. (See the Assessment Appeals Manual, May 2003-Reprinted January 2015.) An appeals board decision is final and may not be reheard by the appeals board even if requested by the assessor or taxpayer unless by order of the court. A reviewing court may only set aside an appeals board decision if it is determined to be fraudulent, arbitrary, involve an abuse of discretion, or unless the appeals board failed to follow standards prescribed by the Legislature. An appeals board’s findings on legal issues, such as the valuation method used, are subject to complete review by a court on appeal. Findings F1. In Kings County, the five-member Kings County Board of Supervisors acts as the Board of Equalization and, by default, the assessment appeals board. F2. The members of the Kings County Board of Supervisors are not required by the State of California to have any official training to serve as the county’s assessment appeals board. F3. The Kings County Board of Supervisors members sit on many boards and commissions and have many duties and responsibilities that are of great importance to the citizens of Kings County. F4. There may be a perceived conflict of interest and/or transparency issues in a board of supervisors hearing assessment appeals. F5. There are operational options available for the County of Kings when it comes to addressing assessment appeals. These include maintaining the status quo, creating a professional assessment appeals board, creating a hearing officer program, or mandating the same training for the Kings County Board of Supervisors sitting as the Board of Equalization that is required of a professional assessment appeals board member. Recommendations R1-5 The Kings County Board of Supervisors should consider their available operational choices for the County of Kings when it comes to handling assessment appeals. These include: A. Create a professional assessment appeals board. B. Create a hearing officer program. C. Mandate the same training for the Kings County Board of Supervisors sitting as the Board of Equalization that is required by law of an assessment appeals board member. REQUIRED RESPONSE Pursuant to Penal Code Section §933 (c), provided in part: “No later than 90 days after the Grand Jury Submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body and every elected county officer or agency head for which the Grand Jury had responsibility pursuant to Section §914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court…” Kings County Board of Supervisors Administration Bldg. 1 1400 Lacey Boulevard Hanford, Ca 93230 7 INVITED RESPONSES Kristine Lee Kings County Assessor/Clerk/Recorder 1400 W. Lacey Blvd. Hanford, Ca 93230 SEND FINAL REPORT RESPONSES TO: Respond with Original to: Judge Jennifer Giuliani, Presiding Judge Kings County Superior Court 1640 Kings Court Drive Hanford, CA 93230 Respond with Copy to: Kings County Civil Grand Jury P O Box 1562 Hanford, CA 93232 8
F2:
The members of the Kings County Board of Supervisors are not required by the State of California to have any official training to serve as the county’s assessment appeals board.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2:
To determine the full value and, where appealed, the base year value of the property that is the subject of the hearing,
F3:
The Kings County Board of Supervisors members sit on many boards and commissions and have many duties and responsibilities that are of great importance to the citizens of Kings County.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3:
To hear and decide penalty assessments, and to review, equalize, and adjust escaped assessments on that roll except escaped assessments made pursuant to Revenue and Taxations Code section 531.12,
F4:
There may be a perceived conflict of interest and/or transparency issues in a board of supervisors hearing assessment appeals.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4:
To determine the classification of the property that is the subject of the hearing, including classifications within the general classifications of real property, improvements, and personal property. Such classifications may result in the property so classified being exempt from property taxation.
F5:
There are operational options available for the County of Kings when it comes to addressing assessment appeals. These include maintaining the status quo, creating a professional assessment appeals board, creating a hearing officer program, or mandating the same training for the Kings County Board of Supervisors sitting as the Board of Equalization that is required of a professional assessment appeals board member.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R5:
To determine the allocation of value to property that is the subject of the hearing, and
Recomendaciones adicionales
1
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R6:
To exercise the powers specified in section 1605.5 of the Revenue and Taxation Code: a. Except as provided in subsection (a)(4), the board has no jurisdiction to grant or deny exemptions or to consider allegations that claims for exemption from property taxes have been improperly denied. b. The board acts in a quasi-judicial capacity and renders its decision only on the basis of proper evidence presented at the hearing.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
4 hallazgos
F1:
The Kings County Assessor/Clerk/Recorders Office online presence lacks examples of documents used by County and City departments, and the requirements to record those legal documents are not available.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
Include on the Kings County Assessor/Clerk/Recorders Office website, templates and examples of documents frequently used by City and County departments and the requirements that need to be met to record those legal documents.
F2:
County departments in Kings County and cities in Kings County do not have a physical in- house manual of examples and requirements showing how to record legal documents specific to their particular department.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2:
Each department should produce its own manual of commonly used documents, templates, examples of those documents, what information is required, and how it should be presented to be acceptable for recording in the Kings County Assessor/Clerk/Recorders Office.
F3:
Communication between the Kings County Assessor/Clerk/Recorders Office, County departments, and the departments of the four incorporated cities in Kings County could be improved as to the recording of documents because the requirements seemingly change frequently.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3:
An emphasis should be placed on the importance of frequent communication by both County of Kings departments, City departments, and the Assessor/Clerk/Recorders Office.
F4:
Documents presented for recording are treated inconsistently.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4:
The Kings County Assessor/Clerk/Recorders Office should conduct more frequent training of personnel to provide consistent, uniform information and service to County and City departments in Kings County. REQUIRED RESPONSE Pursuant to Penal Code Section § 914.1 provided in part: “No later than 60 days after the Grand Jury Submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body and every elected county officer or agency head for which the Grand Jury had responsibility…” pursuant to Section § 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court…” Kings County Assessor/Clerk/Recorder 1400 W. Lacey Blvd. Hanford, CA 93230 Pursuant to Penal Code Section § 933 (c), provided in part: “No later than 90 days after the Grand Jury Submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body and every elected county officer or agency head for which the Grand Jury had responsibility pursuant to Section § 914.1 shall comment within 90 days to the presiding judge of the superior court…” Kings County Board of Supervisors 1400West Lacey Boulevard Hanford, CA 93230 Respond with Original to: Judge Jennifer Giuliani, Presiding Judge Kings County Superior Court 1640 Kings Court Drive Hanford, CA 93230 Respond with Copy to: Kings County Civil Grand Jury P O Box #1562 Hanford, CA 93230 8
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
6 hallazgos
F1:
At the beginning of every school year parents and students are provided with handbooks that lay out the expectations, responsibilities, and rules that apply to a student and the repercussions of their conduct. This gives adequate notification of what is expected of students and parents.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
Parents should read and take seriously the Parent Handbook that is provided at the beginning of each school year to know what is expected as well as what resources and recourses are available.
F2:
The Corcoran administrator in charge of the original investigation followed the Corcoran Joint Unified School Policy and Procedures.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2:
School administrators should continue to be familiar with and follow the Corcoran Joint Unified School Policy and Procedures.
F3:
The Corcoran High School website does have a link/method for students to report incidents of bullying, sexual assault, etc. anonymously.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3:
Open communication should be continuous and made a priority between students, parents, and school staff/administration.
F4:
The complainants were not made aware or did not clearly understand the appeals process. Decisions made by the Local School Board may be appealed to the County Board of Education.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4:
Parents should be encouraged to read and understand the parent handbook. Parents should contact the school when questions arise.
F5:
The Administrative Hearing Panel did not follow the school administrator’s
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R5:
The Administrative Hearing Panel should follow the recommendations of the administrators and staff of their schools.
F6:
The School Board did not follow the school administrator’s recommendations regarding this incident.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R6:
The school board should follow the administrators and staff’s recommendations of their schools and not be swayed by the rumblings of the general public. REQUIRED RESPONSE Pursuant to Penal Code Section § 933 (c), provided in part: “No later than 90 days after the Grand Jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body and every elected county officer or agency head for which the Grand Jury had responsibility pursuant to Section § 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court…” Corcoran Joint Unified School District Board of Trustees 1520 Patterson Avenue Corcoran, Ca 93212 Andre Pecina, Superintendent Corcoran Joint Unified School District 1520 Patterson Avenue Corcoran, Ca 93212 INVITED RESPONSES Kings County Board of Education c/o Todd Barlow, Superintendent 1144 West Lacey Boulevard Hanford, Ca 93230 SEND FINAL REPORT RESPONSES TO: Original to: Judge Jennifer Giuliani, Presiding Judge Kings County Superior Court 1640 Kings Court Drive Hanford, CA 93230 Copy to: Kings County Civil Grand Jury P O Box #1562 Hanford, CA 93230 8
Recomendaciones adicionales
5
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R7:
Messaging, grabbing, fondling, stroking, or brushing the body
R8:
Touching an individual’s body or clothes in a sexual way
R9:
Impeding or blocking movements or any physical interference with school activities when directed at an individual on the basis of sex
R10:
Displaying sexually suggestive objects
R11:
Sexual assault, sexual battery, or sexual coercion Restrictions on freedom of students' dress will be imposed whenever the mode of dress is in question. 14
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
3 hallazgos
F1:
The Corcoran Cemetery District has improved the upkeep of the Corcoran Cemetery grounds.
F2:
The Corcoran Cemetery District has not produced a publicly available professional type of brochure.
F3:
The Corcoran Cemetery District currently offers a single page typed “clean up” schedule that is only posted at the office door, entrances to the cemetery and in the local newspaper.
Recomendaciones adicionales
3
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
The Corcoran Cemetery District should continue to prioritize the upkeep and maintenance of the Corcoran Cemetery grounds. 2
R2:
The Corcoran Cemetery District should immediately create a professional brochure in English and Spanish, that makes it clear to the community the burial service options, grave sites costs, and what all cemetery policies are.
R3:
The Corcoran Cemetery District should add a “clean up” schedule to their professional brochure. REQUIRED RESPONSE Pursuant to Penal Code Section § 933 (c), provided in part: “No later than 90 days after the Grand Jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body and every elected county officer or agency head for which the Grand Jury had responsibility pursuant to Section § 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court…” Board of Trustees Corcoran Cemetery District Post Office Box 805 Corcoran, CA 93212 INVITED RESPONSES Corcoran Cemetery District Manager Post Office Box 805 Corcoran, CA 93212 SEND FINAL REPORT RESPONSES TO: Original to: Judge Jennifer Giuliani, Presiding Judge Kings County Superior Court 1640 Kings Court Drive Hanford, CA 93230 Copy to: Kings County Civil Grand Jury P O Box #1562 Hanford, CA 93230 3
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
2 hallazgos
F1:
The Kings County LAFCO Policies and Procedures Manual was last updated on March 22, 2006 (18 years ago).
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
The Kings County LAFCO Policies and Procedures Manual should be reviewed and/or updated every five years.
F2:
The Kings County LAFCO MSR for Cities and Community Districts was last updated on October 24, 2007 (17 years ago).
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2:
The Kings County LAFCO MSR should be reviewed and/or updated every five years. REQUIRED RESPONSE Pursuant to Penal Code Section § 933 (c), provided in part: “No later than 90 days after the Grand Jury Submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body and every elected county officer or agency head for which the Grand Jury had responsibility pursuant to Section § 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court…” Chuck Kinney, Executive Officer Kings County LAFCO 1400 Lacey Boulevard Hanford, Ca 93230 INVITED RESPONSE Kings County Board of Supervisors 1400 Lacey Boulevard Hanford, Ca 93230 Mail Original to: Judge Jennifer Giuliani, Presiding Judge Kings County Superior Court 1640 Kings Court Drive Hanford, CA 93230 6 Mail Copy to: Kings County Civil Grand Jury P O Box #1562 Hanford, CA 93230
Recomendaciones adicionales
5
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R3:
The present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services that the agency provides or is authorized to provide.
R4:
The existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if the commission determines that they are relevant to the agency.
R5:
For a city or special district that provides public facilities or services related to sewers, municipal and industrial water, or structural fire protection, the present and probable need for those public facilities and services of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities within the existing sphere of influence. Prior to, or in conjunction with an agency’s SOI update, LAFCo is required to conduct a Municipal Service Review (MSR) for each agency. A MSR is a comprehensive review of an agency’s ability to provide service(s) to those persons and businesses within its current boundaries. Per the Act, the Commission prepares written statements of its determinations with respect to each of the following factors:
R6:
Accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure and operational efficiencies.
R7:
Any other matter related to effective or efficient service delivery, as required by commission policy. The Commission's Municipal Service Review Policy establishes the MSR Program's goal:"...To provide cities and special districts with an assessment on their provision of services, make recommendations regarding areas of improvement, and determine whether or not an agency is equipped to effectively provide services within its existing or expanded SOI." The Commission determines the SOI boundary for local agencies under LAFCo's jurisdiction. The SOI is a planning boundary outside an agency's service area that means, a plan for the probable physical boundaries and service area of a local agency. The Commission adopts, updates, and evaluates an SOI using a 20-year planning horizon. An SOI is the Commission's best estimate of the probable service area for an agency over time, depending upon information collected during the MSR update process. (For text of the law, see the Government Code, Sections 56425; 56430; and Fresno LAFCo Policies, Standards and Procedures Manual - Policy 107.)
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
3 hallazgos
F1:
The Dual Enrollment Program is an important way to expand educational opportunities, improve the community, and improve economic mobility while helping to meet California’s growing workforce needs.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
Avenal High School administration and staff continue to support their students with programs and services which lead to academic excellence.
F2:
Wonderful Agriculture Career Prep Program allows first-generation students to receive a head start on their college education and create a culture of high expectations for the community. 4
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2:
Avenal High School administration and staff should continue to work with the Wonderful Agriculture Career Prep Program which provides educational opportunities for Avenal High School students.
F3:
Two of Avenal High School administrators and one teacher were awarded the SDCOE (Category #7) Lighthouse Award in November of 2023.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3:
Reef-Sunset Unified School District should provide public recognition for these achievements both for students and staff. The Kings County Civil Grand Jury commends Avenal High School administrative staff and teachers for their outstanding achievements and hard work. REQUIRED RESPONSE Pursuant to Penal Code Section §933 (c), provided in part: “No later than 90 days after the Grand Jury Submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body and every elected county officer or agency head for which the Grand Jury had responsibility pursuant to Section §914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court…” Reef-Sunset Unified School District Board of Trustees Reef-Sunset Unified School District 205 N. Park Avenue Avenal, CA 93204 INVITED RESPONSES Principal of Avenal High School Reef-Sunset Unified School District 601 Mariposa Street Avenal, CA 93204 Original to: Copy to: Judge Jennifer Giuliani, Presiding Judge Kings County Civil Grand Jury Kings County Superior Court P O Box #1562 1640 Kings Court Drive Hanford, CA 93230 Hanford, CA 93230 5
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
3 hallazgos
F1:
Just because "this type of fraud is a common occurrence, and the perpetrator was experienced and had stoken from seven other counties, three of which were other municipalities" it should not be acceptable or occurring in the Finance Department.
F2:
Kings County Department Heads approve the expenditures of their departments without independent review from the Finance Depaltment.
F3:
"The Grand Jury found that there are many ponable basketball hoops in residential neighborhoods of Hanford. The City of Hanford is currently issuing wamings and citations to homeowners that have the portable courts on the street and sidewalks in front of their homes." City's Response to Finding 3: The City concurs with Finding 3 to the extent that there are basketball hoops in residential neighborhoods and that the City issues warnings and citations for right-of-way obstructions, including, but not limited to, basketball hoops.
Recomendaciones adicionales
3
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
"The Grand July believes that the City of Hanford should make it a priority to invest in the development of quality parks and sports facilities in each quarter section of the City of Hanford. The Grand Jury concludes that there is a need for more basketball courts in the north side of Hanford. A full court is needed in Freedom Park, and Hidden Valley Park. The Grand Jury recommends that in the future, plans be made to add a basketball court to other parks that do not cunently have one, such as Earl F. Johnson Park." 70 City's Response to Recommendation 1: The City's Capital Improvement Plan budget for fiscal year 2024 includes the addition of an outdoor basketball court at Earl F. Johnson Park. The City may also consider the addition of one (1) or more basketball courts at Hidden Valley Park, depending on the current engagement eff01ts to identify the features and amenities that the public desires for a potential Hidden Valley Park expansion, The City has not planned for the addition of a basketball court at Freedom Park, but the City may consider changing the Earl F. Johnson Park basketball court project so that the court is constructed at Freedom Park since Earl F. Johnson Park is located south of Grangeville Boulevard. Funding of construction of new basketball courts at existing parks is a challenge. Impact fees collected from residential developers are legally limited to the creation of new park acreage, and, as a result, impact fees may not be utilized to improve existing parks, including Freedom Park. As a result, the construction of new basketball courts at existing parks must be funded with General Fund monies. Since the City's General Fund monies are limited, the City is forced to prioritize parks projects that will be funded by that source. For example, priority is given to parks that require renovation, like Earl F. Johnson Park. Grand Jury Finding 2: "While there are many basketball courts located in Hanford schools, they are unavailable for use to the public due to insurance and vandalism concerns. The lack of access to school basketball courts has contributed to the need for additional courts in the City of Hanford Parks." City's Response to Finding 2: The City concurs with Finding 2 to the extent that basketball courts located at Hanford Elementary School District (HESD) and Pioneer Union ElementalY School District (PUESD) sites are unavailable for public use. With respect to Finding 2's statement as to why school-controlled basketball courts are closed to the public, HESD previously informed the City that it is unwilling to open its outdoor basketball courts to the public due to concern over vandalism, graffiti, and theft. The City fuflher concurs with Finding 2 to the extent that the lack of access to schoolcontrolled basketball courts deprives the public of use of those facilities If school-controlled outdoor basketball courts were open to the public during non-school hours, the public would have many more options to play basketball at locations closer to their homes and would allow the City to utilize public funds on other parks and recreation opportunities.
R2:
"The Grand Jury believes that a discussion should take place between the City of Hanford and its schools. An analysis should be done by the City of Hanford to see if it might be more cost effective to cover some of the insurance costs in lieu of adding basketball courts in multiple City parks, The City of Hanford should consider working with school districts to make the basketball couns that have been fenced off available to Hanford residents." City's Response to Recommendation 2: The City concurs with the Grand Jury Report's observation that Education Code Section 38131 announces the State Legislature's intent that "there is a civic center at each and every public school facility and grounds 71 The City has approached HESD on multiple occasions about allowing the public to utilize the district's outdoor recreational facilities in the spirit of Education Code Section 38131, but the district has not been receptive. Elementary schools, including HESD and PUESD, should follow the lead of Hanford Joint Unition High School District, which allows the public to utilize outdoor sports facilities during off hours, HESD voiced concerns over costs associated with vandalism, graffiti, and theft, but they are costs that school districts should bear. Every public agency should pay its fair share of costs so residents may utilize publicly owned facilities. For such reasons, the City is not inclined to "cover" a portion of a school district's insurance costs as the City is already paying its fair share of costs associated with City facilities that are available to the public. It is time for elementary schools to step up and bear their share of costs to allow the public to utilize outdoor recreational facilities that the public owns. Grand Jury Finding 3: "The Grand Jury found that there are many ponable basketball hoops in residential neighborhoods of Hanford. The City of Hanford is currently issuing wamings and citations to homeowners that have the portable courts on the street and sidewalks in front of their homes." City's Response to Finding 3: The City concurs with Finding 3 to the extent that there are basketball hoops in residential neighborhoods and that the City issues warnings and citations for right-of-way obstructions, including, but not limited to, basketball hoops.
R3:
"The Grand Jury recommends that the City of Hanford consider relaxing its enforcement of its encroachment code dealing with the City's Right of Way, specifically Title 12 of the City's Municipal Code, Chapter 12.04. The residents that have basketball hoops should move them on garbage days/street sweeping days but be allowed to keep them by their curb the rest of the week." City's Response to Recommendation 3: The City is considering options, including a permit system, that would allow residents to erect portable basketball hoops within public rights-of-way. There are three possibilities with respect to basketball hoops in rights-oßway: (i) within roadways; (ii) on parking strips (area between the curb and sidewalk) in neighborhoods where parking strips exist; and (iii) on sidewalks in neighborhoods that do not have parking strips. When considering a permit program, the City will consider numerous factors, including, without limitation: Public safety and convenience. Children playing in a roadway give rise to a safety issue because it increases the risk that a child will be hit by a vehicle. Basketball hoops within rights-of-way and parties utilizing them will serve as additional obstacles that vehicles must avoid. The City will consider the safety of drivers of vehicles, including large delivety trucks, fire tmcks, refuse collection trucks, and streetsweepers; pedestrians; bicyclists; and parties who will play basketball within roadways. A basketball hoop in the roadway may be difficult to see at night, resulting in a heighted collision risk. A basketball hoop located close to a street corner may create a hazard for drivers who turn onto a residential street and unexpectedly encounter basketball players in the road. A falling basketball hoop may create a hazard. A hoop could, during windy conditions, fall into a travel lane causing a vehicular collision, or it could fall on a passing vehicle or pedestrian. Portable basketball hoops are often found on cul-de-sacs. On-street parking in such areas is limited, and basketball hoops in the roadway will further reduce on-street parking opportunities. Accessibility. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) will serve as a limiting factor with respect to the placement of portable basketball hoops. Per of the March 2018 edition of the California Department of Transportation's Permanent Pedestrian Facilities ADA Compliance Handbook, a minimum clearance of forty-eight inches (48") is required for sidewalks; provided however, clearance may be reduced to thirty-two inches (32") for a length of twenty-four inches (24") as long as reduced access segments are separated by full-access segments that are forty-eight inches (48") long and forty-eight inches (48") wide. In many of the City's residential subdivisions, no parking strip exists and the distance between curb face and back of sidewalk is only sixty inches (60"). Unless a basketball hoop can be placed within a sixty inch (60") wide space that leaves sufficient clearance for pedestrian access, it cannot be placed on a sidewalk without violating the ADA. Impacts to City Services Portable basketball hoops found on cul-de-sacs affect the placement of refuse cans due to the limited street frontage of each residence. Refuse containers are often placed very close to basketball hoops without adequately accommodating the width of the backboard. Refuse truck drivers attempt to account for such circumstances, but, occasionally during the refuse collection process, a refuse container contacts a basketball hoop 's backboard causing damage to the backboard and/or the refuse truck's arm. Portable basketball hoops in rights-ofpway also impact the City's street sweeping efforts. Due to the height of the City's street sweepers and portable basketball hoops, a street sweeper operator must swing wide around a hoop within a roadway to avoid contract. This practice leaves a wide section of the street un-swept and results in complaints by residents. If the City allows basketball hoops within rights-of-way, the City may require that hoops be temporarily moved on days that refuse is collected and streets are swept, but it is foreseeable that some residents will not observe the requirement, which may create a larger number of code violations than those existing today. Liability Potential liability to the City will be another important factor for the City to consider. The City could be exposed to liability, or at least additional claims, if it sanctions the use of its roadways for basketball activities and injuries arise from such activities. Defense of claims will result in the City's use of public funds that may otherwise be dedicated to the enhancement of the City's parks and recreational facilities. In Opinion No. 92-1004, the California Attorney General (AG) rendered an opinion that: "A city may authorize its residents to install basketball standards in the public rightof-way between the sidewalks and street curbs of residential neighborhoods so that the backboards face the streets and extend beyond the curbs, provided that the safety and convenience of the traveling public are protected." The AG evaluated a matter in which a city adopted a permit system for portable basketball hoops under which the city considered the following factors and implemented the following limitations and requirements: Location restrictions — cul-de-sacs and sh01t residential streets. Minimum specified distance from property lines. Adequate visibility for motorists. Adequate sidewalk and roadway clearances. Consent from residents of neighboring homes. Limitation on hours of use. Evidence that a permit recipient possesses public liability and propetty damage insurance. The City will, per Penal Code Section 93 further assess a basketball hoop permit program within six (6) months of the publication of the Report. COUNTY OF KINGS GARDEN BOARD OF SUPERVISORS wcr MAILING ADDREss: KINGS COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, HANFORD, ca 93230 OFFICES AT: 1400 W, LACEY nuvD., ADMINISTR ( A S T O I ) O 8 N 52 B -2 U 36 I 2 L r D ING N HANFORD S Web Site: 74 July 25, 2023 The Honorable Michael J. Reinhart, Presiding Judge Kings County Superior Court 1640 Kings County Drive Hanford, CA 932.30 RE: Grand Jury Repotl•: "Finance Department" Dear Judge Reinhart, The Kings County Board of Supervisors appreciates the opportunity to respond to the Kings County Grand Jury's report dated April 28, 2023 "Finance Department" received on May 22, 2023. The Grand Jury had identified the Kings County Board of Supervisors as a "Required Response". As such, this response is being submitted as required by California Penal Code Section 933 & 933.5.
Additional documents
Documents found alongside this year's reports — not grand jury reports or responses.