Madera County Grand Jury
2010-2011
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
Development of over 600 affordable housing units over half of which provide an ownership opportunity for first-time homebuyers
F2:
New Madera Police Facility
F3:
John Wells Community Center
F4:
Acquisition and clearing of land in preparation for Crossroads Shopping Center
F5:
Acquisition and clearing of land in preparation for Madera County Courthouse and related parking facilities. The Grand Jury concludes that the elimination of the RDA will result in the loss of one of the few tools available to eliminate blight and address infrastructure deficiencies in the City.
F6:
Development of over 600 affordable housing units over half of which provide an ownership opportunity for first-time homebuyers
F7:
New Madera Police Facility
F8:
John Wells Community Center
F9:
Acquisition and clearing of land in preparation for Crossroads Shopping Center
F10:
Acquisition and clearing of land in preparation for Madera County Courthouse and related parking facilities. The Grand Jury concludes that the elimination of the RDA will result in the loss of one of the few tools available to eliminate blight and address infrastructure deficiencies in the City.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The property tax program Megabyte is used to maintain ownership, description, valuation, and tax data for all property within the county. Scanned images of deeds are imported into Megabyte from the County Recorder’s system. This enables staff to do side by side comparison of the deed information with that contained in Megabyte, verify that ownership and description data are accurate, and update Megabyte with the new deed information. Megabyte is shared with the Auditor and Tax Collector for issuance of tax bills and collection of taxes. Updates and modifications to Megabyte have occurred over the past four years at a cost of $224,000 to the County. The software lease cost for fiscal year 2011-2012 will be about $200,000 – an increase of $50,000. The Assessor has determined that the cost to change to a different system would exceed $1,000,000. Megabyte is used by 22 other counties in the state.
F2:
Staff accesses the County Resource Management Agency’s permit tracking system to obtain data for reappraisals when new construction occurs.
F3:
The appraisers utilize two programs developed in-house, using Excel and ACCESS, to perform appraisals and to determine the appropriate adjustment levels for Prop 8 reassessments. Programs developed by Madera appraisers are being used by assessors in other counties.
F4:
AutoCAD is used by the cadastral drafting section in the preparation and modification of the set of maps which shows each parcel of property within the county.
F5:
The County’s Geographic Information System (GIS) is maintained by the cadastral drafting section and shared with other County departments. Copies of GIS layers are available for purchase, including the base map containing parcel configuration and assessor’s parcel numbers, ownership layer, tax rate area layer, use code layer, and situs layer which shows the physical address of all parcels.
F6:
The department utilizes a spreadsheet for tracking assessment appeals filed with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. There is no automated interface with the Board Clerk’s Office. The Grand Jury found that staffing for the department includes the Assessor, a Chief Appraiser, 3 Auditor-Appraisers, 12 Appraisers, 2 Cadastral Drafting Technicians, 12 Assessment Technicians, and an Assessment Office Manager. Additional allocated positions which are unfunded due to budget cuts are 3 Appraisers, 1 Cadastral Drafting Technician, and 2 Office Assistants. Five of the Assessment Technician positions are budgeted and filled at the Office Assistant level. The appraisal staff is divided among four major areas: business property, agricultural, residential, and commercial/industrial. Each group has a position designated as supervisor, as has the drafting section. The Grand Jury found that some of the current staff members are new to the department. Thirteen long-term, experienced staff, including the Assessment Office Manager, retired in April 2010 when the County offered retirement incentives. The Assessor was allowed to rehire retirees as temporary extra help to provide 400 hours of training for the remaining staff. The department has been allocated $28,000 this year to employ temporary extra help to backfill vacancies during critical times when establishing the assessment roll. The Grand Jury found the Assessor, appraisal staff, and cadastral drafting staff to be very knowledgeable about their assigned functions and the operation of the department. Current staff members in these sections have been able to manage their on-going workload. With temporary assistance in the residential appraisal section, the staff have been able to manage the increased workload in reassessing and reviewing Prop 8 properties from March to June. The Grand Jury found that the Assessment Technicians are learning new tasks which were previously performed by the retirees and are simultaneously assisting and training the new Office Assistants. They have not been able to keep their workload current. In preparation for establishment of the 2011 assessment roll, the clerical staff focused on processing deeds which were several months backlogged. Deed processing for 2010 has been completed, and property ownership records are current. Other tasks, such as exemption application processing, were delayed pending completion of the deeds. The Grand Jury found that the new Assessment Office Manager, hired in June 2010, has not been trained on and is not knowledgeable about Megabyte. She has requested a copy of the system manual from Megabyte and is seeking other training sources. She is experienced in and knowledgeable of the clerical functions of property assessment. The Grand Jury found that available staff work time has been reduced by 2 days each month due to required furlough days. The furlough days do not follow a consistent schedule, causing the public to unexpectedly find offices closed when they attempt to access services. The Grand Jury found that the State Board of Equalization conducts an audit of the Assessor’s assessment practices every five years. Such audit was completed in February 2011, and a report of findings and recommendations will be issued within two years. Conclusions: The Grand Jury concludes that the Assessor’s office is well organized and has more than adequate work and storage space. The Grand Jury concludes that the appraisal and cadastral drafting staffing levels are adequate to handle the normal, on-going workload. An additional residential appraiser is needed annually to assist with the short-term increase in workload for reviewing and reassessing Prop 8 properties. The budget provides adequate funding for this temporary position. The Grand Jury concludes that the Assessor, appraisal staff, and cadastral drafting staff are knowledgeable, proficient, and effective. The Grand Jury concludes that the appraisal staff has shown initiative and progressive thinking through the in-house development of computer programs. The Grand Jury concludes that the Assessor has been diligent in reassessing properties under Prop 8. The Grand Jury concludes that the simultaneous retirement of several long-term clerical employees and the Assessment Office Manager substantially impacted the efficiency and effectiveness of the remaining clerical workforce. The Assessment Technicians were not prepared to assume the duties previously performed by the retirees, and newly hired Office Assistants require a great deal of training. The workload is expected to be accomplished by fewer staff and in less time due to furlough days. The Grand Jury concludes that the new Assessment Office Manager needs to receive training in the Megabyte system. The Grand Jury concludes that while maintenance costs for Megabyte continue to increase, it is the most cost-effective property tax program for the Assessor’s Office at the present time. The Grand Jury concludes that an automated system which interfaces with the Board Clerk’s Office for tracking assessment appeals is needed. The Grand Jury concludes that the public is adversely affected by the inconsistent scheduling of furlough days by the County.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings & Recommendations
14 findings
F1:
Curricular Clubs: Academic Decathlon, Art, Drama, California Cadet, Coyote Drama Productions, California Scholarship Federation, Fashion, Future Business Leaders of America, Forensics, Health Occupation Students of America, Literary Magazine, Mock Trial, Robotics, Science, Sports Medicine, Teachers of Tomorrow, and Vocational Industrial Clubs of America;
F2:
Special Interest Clubs: Asian-American, Bike, Black Student Union, Block “M”, Blue Crew, Bowling, Chess, Folkloric, Hip Hop, Indo Pak, Impact, Madera Academic Youth Alliance, Mexican-American, and Teen Parent;
F3:
Athletic Programs: Cross country, Football, Golf, Tennis, Volleyball, Water Polo, Basketball, Soccer, Wrestling, Baseball, Softball, Swimming, and Track;
F4:
Co-Curricular activities: Band, Choir, Color Guard, "Maderan" (newspaper), Pep & Cheer, Student Government, and Yearbook;
F5:
Foreign language classes: French, Spanish, and Chinese. The Grand Jury found that:
F6:
College eligible students are offered the opportunity to take college preparation classes and receive college credits at the Madera Community College;
F7:
The Engineering & Technology Robotics team took 3rd place out of 54 schools in a recent competition. The team will be attending the national competition in St. Louis. This team also mentors robotics teams at Hoover, Madison, and Clovis High Schools;
F8:
Students completing the Nursing course take the state Certified Nursing Assistant certification test and receive priority registration at Fresno City College to complete their studies to become an LVN or RN;
F9:
The Information Technology course offers a computer repair course; software, hardware, and network computer applications; and training in customer service troubleshooting. Students build a complete computer and take an A+ Certification test upon completion of the course. The students have installed and maintain a complete wireless system throughout the campus;
F10:
The culinary course kitchen is fully equipped with restaurant grade equipment with which the students must become proficient. The students learn table service and etiquette. Lunches that have been ordered and paid for by the teachers are prepared daily. Students receive a certificate of competency upon completing the course. Once a week a chef from the Vineyard Restaurant works with the students. The teacher of this course is trying to form a similar alliance with Chukchansi restaurants;
F11:
The drama course offers acting classes, stage design, theatrical lighting, and production;
F12:
The Criminal Justice course is the most frequently requested class. Students participate in a Mock Trial at the courthouse;
F13:
The library is fully equipped with computer work stations for student use;
F14:
The Madera High Marching Band & Colorguard has received many awards for its talent. In November 2009, the band placed 7th at the Western Band Association Grand Championships with a score of 83.95. The Grand Jury found that pregnant students are encouraged to remain in school up to the time of delivery. They can then participate in the Home Instruction Service until they are able to return to school. MHS has a fully equipped nursery located on campus with qualified teachers that have a degree in child development. Students who enroll their babies in the nursery upon returning to school must take parenting classes. The Grand Jury found that MHS has a variety of after school programs funded by Madera County Office of Education which include remedial classes and tutoring. The Grand Jury found that MHS offers Short-Term Independent Study for students in good standing that have to leave school for family travel or community service. Both the parent and student sign an agreement that all assigned work will be completed and turned in to the counselor when they return to school. The Grand Jury found that the Office of Student Services of MUSD provides Home Instruction Service to students whose illness or injuries make it necessary for them to be absent from school for periods longer than three weeks. The Grand Jury found that MHS offers the Employability Card program. This is a joint effort between MUSD and the local Chamber of Commerce to pre-qualify students for employment. Standards have been developed by local businesses and the school district. The Grand Jury found that MHS has a Mock Interview Graduation Requirement. Each Junior must create an employment portfolio consisting of a resume, employment application, and at least one letter of recommendation. The student must participate in a one-on-one interview with a local businessperson. Training is provided by the English Department and local business partners. The Grand Jury found that many community business leaders are involved with MHS, including collaboration with the Career Schools’ Advisory Committees, classroom participation, donations, and participation on the Business and Education Alliance. The Chamber of Commerce Education Committee provides support for the mock interview and portfolio process required for the Occupational Education II graduation performance standard. The Grand Jury found that to graduate, a student must successfully complete 230 credits, pass the California High School Exit Examination, earn a 2.0 or above grade point average, and achieve a proficiency level score of 4 or higher on the Graduation Requirement for Occupational Education. Eighty-two percent of the 2010 class graduated. Students who do not pass the qualifications for graduation are given a certificate of completion and encouraged to take the California Exam course at Furman High. They have two years to complete this course to obtain a diploma. The Grand Jury found MHS has improved its Academic Progress Index (API) score for seven years. MHS' score for 2010 was 716, which is below the state API goal of 800. Conclusions: The Grand Jury concludes that MHS is an efficient, well maintained school with many opportunities for students. The Grand Jury concludes that the Principal and staff are highly motivated, knowledgeable, caring, and concerned about students and their success.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings & Recommendations
17 findings
F1:
Office staff administers periodic mandated tests to growers who apply to use pesticides.
F2:
The department offers on-line access to its 55-page manual, The Answer Book 2003, which contains the basic regulatory requirements for pesticide use and ways to simplify compliance. This manual has not been updated since it was published. It is no longer available in hard copy.
F3:
Growers may consult with department staff on the use and handling of regulated pesticide materials.
F4:
Through random inspections, ag inspectors enforce the use of precautionary measures to be taken in the use of pesticides, including the wearing of specific articles of clothing and storage of chemical materials in their original containers with labels prominently displayed. Pest prevention is pursued on three levels to prevent the spread of pests, including insects, weeds, plant diseases, and animals. These levels are:
F5:
The pest exclusion program seeks to prevent the introduction of detrimental pests that are not common in the county. Annual inspections to ensure pest cleanliness are performed at all nursery locations. Incoming shipments of plant material are inspected for potentially harmful pests, and non-plant material shipments, such as beehives, may also be inspected.
F6:
Insect traps and surveys are used in the pest detection program to discover foreign pests which may have eluded exclusion efforts. The program attempts to detect small, isolated areas of possible infestation so that these pests can be eradicated before they spread to other areas.
F7:
The integrated pest control program strives to eradicate small infestations of new pests before they become widespread. Control of pests already established in the county, including harmful insects, weeds, and rodents, is the goal of the pest management program. Control measures include:
F8:
The vertebrate pest management program provides information and materials to growers and homeowners for the control of certain depredating vertebrate pests, such as gophers and moles. Gas cartridges for the control of ground squirrels are available for purchase at the Ag Dept. It no longer sells Diphacinone Grain bait. Fresno is now the closest location where growers can obtain this material.
F9:
Natural parasites and predators are used to reduce populations of insects and weeds in the biological control program.
F10:
The Glassy-Winged Sharpshooter program uses traps, surveys, and inspections of incoming shipments of plant materials to detect and control the pest. The sharpshooter is particularly threatening to county agriculture because it is a vector for Pierce’s Disease, a potentially catastrophic disease of vineyards. The intent of the nursery inspection program is to prevent the spread of injurious pests through infested nursery stock. The program aims to assure that consumers receive nursery stock which is reasonably free of common pests and in viable condition. Wholesale nurseries are inspected annually and more frequently when non-compliance issues are found. The certified seed program seeks to assure purity, viability, and identity of agricultural and vegetable seed by:
F11:
Ag inspectors check agricultural, vegetable, grass, and flower seed at retail and wholesale outlets throughout the county to ensure compliance with the California Seed Law. Seed must be labeled correctly as to purity, germination, percentage, kind or variety, and contaminants.
F12:
Official samples of seed are submitted to the California Department of Food and Agriculture Seed Laboratory for analysis. The results are then compared to the label on the sampled seed container to verify that the labeling truly represents the commodity.
F13:
Seed lots are inspected for possible insects of quarantine significance, noxious weeds, and noxious seeds. The fruit and vegetable quality control program is responsible for assuring that fruits, nuts, and vegetables entering the marketplace meet minimum marking, container, and quality standards. The main crops tested in the county are apples, grapes, and pomegranates. Enforcement of regulations pertaining to quality, weight, and marking requirements for shell eggs is provided through the egg quality control program. Eggs are inspected regularly throughout the county at various retail and wholesale establishments, or when there is reasonable suspicion of a violation, and upon receiving a consumer complaint. Producers, handlers, and processors who wish to market their commodities as organic are required to register annually with the California Department of Food and Agriculture. The Ag Dept. makes available the annual registration packets. Records inspections are performed as well as investigations of complaints concerning non-compliances relating to the California Organic Foods Act. The certified producer program provides oversight of all growers who sell their crop directly to consumers at farmers’ markets. The Ag Dept. registers certified producers and conducts inspections of the growing site to assure that the sellers produce the products they market. Apiary services are provided through the bee protection and colony strength programs by two methods:
F14:
Beekeepers may register their bees with the Ag Dept. to receive notification when bee toxic materials will be applied near their hives. To protect against large losses of bees due to pesticide use, growers must report any planned application of a bee kill material.
F15:
Inspectors assess the colony strength by random sampling of the hives to determine the number of frames per hive the bees are actively using for the colony. The Ag Dept. compiles and publishes the annual Agricultural Crop Report for the county. Crop yield information is collected by conducting surveys among the county’s growers to generate a representation of Madera County agriculture. The most recent report available, for 2009, shows Madera County’s agricultural production ranking twelfth among counties of California and twenty-first among counties of the United States. Nine of the county’s commodities are exported to sixty-four countries around the world. The Ag Dept. staff has established visibility in the agricultural community through random patrolling and enforcement of regulations by issuance of citations when violations are found. Local growers and merchants have found the staff to be professional, efficient, competent, and timely in the provision of services. Ag inspectors must be qualified, through training, testing, and State licensure, to work in each program to which they are assigned. Five of the current ag inspectors have attained the number of individual licenses required for classification as a Senior Agricultural Inspector. However, they tend to become specialists in their assigned program(s). The Grand Jury found that, due to budget cuts, the permanent inspection staffing level has been reduced by four positions (from 14 to 10) in the past two years. Available staff has been reduced by two mandatory furlough days each month. Department staff is concerned that, with reduced staffing levels and less work time, they may not be able to provide timely services for time- sensitive operations, such as inspection and certification of crops to be exported, or to maintain a satisfactory level of enforcement of regulations. Eight seasonal employees are hired for the months of April through November to perform insect trapping activities associated with State contracts. The County is fully reimbursed by the State for all expenditures incurred for these seasonal programs. Department staff is concerned about the level of employee turnover. The reason for such turnover they believe is higher salaries offered by other counties and private industry. The Grand Jury found that the issue of comparable salaries for County employees generally has been addressed frequently in past Grand Jury reports. Some non-mandated services are provided on a fee-for-service basis. The department reported that fees charged are outdated and do not cover the cost of providing the service. The Board of Supervisors has requested that each department review fee schedules for possible modification. The Weights and Measures Division of the Ag Dept. is responsible for consumer and merchant protection through regulation of all weight or measuring devices used in commercial transactions, and inspection of packaged goods for proper labeling and accurate quantity. This is accomplished in two ways:
F16:
Merchants’ weight and measuring devices are subject to annual inspection by the Sealer of Weights and Measures. The Sealer’s services also are required for inspection and certification of new or repaired devices. Common devices inspected include gas pumps, grocery store scales, jewelry scales, propane meters, water dispensers, taximeters, and timers.
F17:
Routine inspections of packers, distributors, and retailers are conducted to audit the contents of packaged products. Sample packages are tested to see that the contents equal the amount stated on the label. Every type of packaged commodity is subject to quantity control inspection, including food, seed and garden products, bread and bakery items, cheese and dairy products, farm products and supplies, building materials and maintenance supplies, feed and grain, and automotive and industrial lubricants, chemicals, and cleaners. Recently, the inspector who performed the Sealer of Weights and Measures duties left the department. The department reported that, although other inspectors are licensed for that program, on-the-job training is needed to perform the actual duties, and none of the other inspectors had received the requisite training. Conclusions: The Grand Jury concludes that consumers benefit from the services provided by the Ag Dept. The county’s agricultural production level is significant for the county, the state, the nation, and the world. The success of local agricultural enterprises is critical to the county’s economy. The services provided by the Ag Dept. contribute significantly to the success of the agricultural community. A reduction in the level of critical services provided could have serious, possibly even disastrous, effects on agricultural production and the county’s economy. The positive reports by growers and merchants regarding the high quality and quantity of services received from the Ag Dept. indicate that their needs have been met by prior staffing levels. The reduction in the number of ag inspectors by 28.5% over the past two years could result in insufficient levels of services available in critical areas and serious negative impacts on the local agricultural community in the future. The Grand Jury concludes that the Ag Dept.’s ability to provide specific services is hindered when turnover occurs and the remaining staff members are unable to fill in, even on a temporary basis. Cross-training of staff to provide services in several program areas can lessen the disruptive effects of turnover. The Grand Jury concludes that The Answer Book 2003 was published eight years ago and may contain information which is outdated, incomplete, or no longer valid. Growers may be relying on misinformation. The Grand Jury concludes that the County may be foregoing a significant amount of revenue from recoverable costs by charging service fees which are out-of-date and do not cover the costs of providing the services. The Grand Jury concludes that growers who have to obtain Diphacinone Grain bait from Fresno are inconvenienced.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
11 findings
F1:
Add one Operator and one Firefighter to Station #8
F2:
Add two On-Duty Firefighters to Station #8
F3:
During the winter months, the County could staff the CAL FIRE Coarsegold station with two positions. This would directly help Station #8 due to the proximity of CAL FIRE Coarsegold to the Casino. From May through October, CAL FIRE staffs both engines at Coarsegold at four person staffing levels. The Fire Captain indicated that they do have support from several sources, specifically, volunteers from Yosemite Lakes Park Fire Station #10, Coarsegold Fire Station #13, and CAL FIRE Coarsegold located at 34555 Highway 41, Coarsegold, CA. Winter responsibilities of Station #8 are expanded due to the Amador program, which designates station closure during non-fire season. Originally the Amador program affects four CAL FIRE stations in this area: Ahwahnee, Bass Lake, Rancheria, and Raymond. These designated stations close from November through April of each year. Public evacuation drills at the Casino have been lax due to logistics and financial considerations. Staff evacuation drills are conducted on a yearly basis. The Casino takes the lead. Personnel from Station #8 are present. Written emergency preparedness/ evacuation expectations were not available. The Division Chief reported preventative pre-planning has been done to ensure the safety of patrons and personnel. Firefighting gear and equipment have been placed at various levels of the building, and state-of-the-art materials and construction methods have been incorporated. Staff living quarters at Station #8 have not been connected to the existing emergency power supply. This issue was noted in the Grand Jury Final Report for 2009 – 2010. Connection costs are estimated to be less than $2,000. There is no response to this
F4:
The staff living quarters at Station #8 should be connected to the emergency power system. This is a repeat recommendation from the 2009-2010 Grand Jury Final Report, which to date has not been responded to by the Board of Supervisors as required by law.
F5:
A clear emergency preparedness plan should be posted.
F6:
The County should fund CAL FIRE Station located at 34555 Highway 41 to remain in operation on a year-round basis.
F7:
The MOU between the County of Madera and the Tribe needs to be re-negotiated to reflect realistic staffing needs, vehicle replacement needs, and comprehensive emergency preparedness planning. Respondent: Written response required pursuant to PC933(c) Madera County Board of Supervisors 200 West Fourth Street Madera, CA 93637 Respondents: Response Optional Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians Chairperson 46575 Road 417 Coarsegold, CA 93614 Chukchansi Gold Resort and Casino Manager 46575 Road 417 Coarsegold, CA 93614 Madera County Fire Chief 14225 Road 28 Madera, CA 93638 CAL FIRE State Fire Marshall P.O. Box 944246 Sacramento, CA 94244-2460
F8:
The staff living quarters at Station #8 should be connected to the emergency power system. This is a repeat recommendation from the 2009-2010 Grand Jury Final Report, which to date has not been responded to by the Board of Supervisors as required by law.
F9:
A clear emergency preparedness plan should be posted.
F10:
The County should fund CAL FIRE Station located at 34555 Highway 41 to remain in operation on a year-round basis.
F11:
The MOU between the County of Madera and the Tribe needs to be re-negotiated to reflect realistic staffing needs, vehicle replacement needs, and comprehensive emergency preparedness planning. Respondent: Written response required pursuant to PC933(c) Madera County Board of Supervisors 200 West Fourth Street Madera, CA 93637 Respondents: Response Optional Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians Chairperson 46575 Road 417 Coarsegold, CA 93614 Chukchansi Gold Resort and Casino Manager 46575 Road 417 Coarsegold, CA 93614 Madera County Fire Chief 14225 Road 28 Madera, CA 93638 CAL FIRE State Fire Marshall P.O. Box 944246 Sacramento, CA 94244-2460
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
Technical assistance and advice to the Incident Commander at incidents involving hazardous materials within Madera County and to others under mutual aid
F2:
Personnel and specialized equipment at Hazmat incidents
F3:
Sampling and assistance in the field identification of hazardous materials
F4:
Tactical operations within the scope of the Hazmat Response Team capabilities and training to contain and mitigate Hazmat emergencies
F5:
Assisting Environmental Health with the clean-up of minor spills
F6:
Technical support for medical health considerations of first responders A 911 call will normally initiate a response by the appropriate agency. When it has been determined that a release of hazardous material is involved, the Hazmat Response Team will be called. Appropriate personnel will be dispatched depending on the level of the incident. When the incident involves an unknown substance classified as level 1, the Hazmat Response Team from Station #19 will be sent to the location. The spill is observed from a distance to determine its nature. Additional assistance is called as deemed appropriate. In a Level 2 incident, which is considered a standard call, the station and the team members are paged to meet at the incident. A minimum of six Hazmat Response Team members are required if the team must enter an exclusion zone. An exclusion zone is the area around the spill for which protective gear is required. For complex operations, ten Hazmat Response Team members are required. The only exception to this policy is an immediate life threat. The mission of the Hazmat Response Team is to control the spill and eliminate any imminent public hazard. The business or property owner is responsible for the clean-up and proper disposal of the hazardous material. Grant money is available to assist the responsible party in some circumstances. Responsible parties should consult with Environmental Health to determine if money is available when faced with a hazardous material clean-up. The Grand Jury finds that county Hazmat incidents were low in 2010. During 2010 there were four chemical spills at gas stations, two chemical suicides, and a waste oil complaint. In 2003 there were 110 meth lab incidents which gave Madera County the dubious distinction of being the #1 county in the nation for this type of problem. Incidents involving meth labs have declined significantly. The Hazmat Response Team characterized their operation as low in number of incidents but high in public impact. The staff of Station #19 require many hours of specialized training to achieve different levels of expertise. Training required to reach each level is expensive and funds are limited. Staff wishing to upgrade their skills by attending the required training are often required to pay for their training. Madera County has a small budget for training and there are also grants available to pay for some training opportunities. The cost of backfilling a position, however, makes many training opportunities cost prohibitive. Different teams involved in Hazmat clean-up use different breathing apparatus. The cost of replacing the breathing equipment used by Station #19 would be around $72,000, which would provide equipment that holds a larger supply of air and is interchangeable with that used by the Merced Hazmat team. Funds to replace this equipment are currently coming from uncertain Homeland Security grants. Safety suits cost about $2,400 and expire after 5 years, used or not. These suits must also be replaced any time they fail to pass a required pressure test. The current tool budget for Station #19 is $5,500. Twenty- seven hundred dollars is required to replace equipment that can no longer be used due to expiration. The Grand Jury was supplied a Hazardous Material Area Plan and several draft copies of excerpts from what is to become the Madera-Mariposa-Merced Policy and Procedure Handbook. These excerpts deal with a variety of topics that guide critical components of the Hazmat Team’s day-to-day operations. The Grand Jury finds that the Policy and Procedure Handbook in draft form indicates a lack of agreement and enforcement capability. Conclusions: The Grand Jury concludes that the highly motivated Hazmat Team is an asset to the community. The Grand Jury concludes that training requirements to maintain the current level of expertise are extensive, and adequate staff to backfill for training is not being provided. The Grand Jury concludes funding for Station #19 replacement of tools and equipment is uncertain. The Grand Jury concludes that the policy and procedures handbook for Hazmat operations needs to be put in final form and distributed. The Grand Jury concludes that Station #19 breathing equipment should be compatible with equipment used by other agencies.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings & Recommendations
22 findings
F1:
County has not been consistent with sound government practices, especially in the areas of contracting, oversight, and fiduciary responsibility. Response 1. During the past thirty years, the County has maintained an appropriate and acceptable level of oversight in monitoring the operations of the Solid Waste Management and Recycling operations. The , County has met its fiduciary obligations in the areas of contracting for these services.
F2:
The County employs two personnel who report to the RMA Director who in turn coordinates with the CAO who reports directly to the Board of Supervisors. Response 2. The Board of Supervisors agrees with this finding.
F3:
Solid waste collection involves multi millions of dollars yearly and requires adequate oversight. Trash collection in the cities of Madera and Chowchilla is mandatory. Trash collection in the unincorporated areas of the county is by subscription. Response 3. The Board of Supervisors agrees with this finding.
F4:
The cities of Madera and Chowchilla have mandatory curbside recycling. The unincorporated areas of the county do not. Response 4. The Board of Supervisors agrees with this finding. 06/2011 ---
F5:
The cities of Madera and Chowchilla along with the County of Madera contract with several vendors to collect solid waste. The County contracts with a vendor to operate the Fairmead Landfill and Material Recovery Facility. The vendor who operates the landfill and MRF along with collections of solid waste in the unincorporated areas of the county below 1000' was sold to a national corporation. Contract 5363-C-98 expires in 2017. a. Contracts 3293-C-81 and 5363A-C-98 were written without adequate specific requirements to include tonnage, actual operating costs, or a negotiated reasonable profit for contractor. b. Contracts 3293-C-81 and 5363-C-98 are deficient of performance criteria and enforcement provisions to protect County. Contract affords contractor multiple renewals at contractor's discretion. c. The contractor has initiated and benefited from all renewals that have been related to rate adjustments and expansion of facilities. d. There has been serious lack of fiduciary responsibility and due diligence by elected and appointed county officials in initiating and managing contracts over the past 30 years. There is an appearance at best of impropriety in the granting and managing of the contract. Response 5. The Board of Supervisors agrees with paragraph 1. The Board of Supervisors agrees with paragraph 2. The Board of Supervisors agrees with paragraph 3. a. Contract 3293-C-81 was the initial contract with the current vendor operating the Fairmead Landfill. That contract was superseded by Contract 5363-C-94 as amended by 5363A-C-98. The Board of Supervisors holds that the terms and conditions agreed to in contract 5363-C-94, as amended by 5363A-C-98 (hereinafter referred to as the "Fairmead Contract"), were appropriate at the time of signing. Without limiting the foregoing, section 16 of the Fairmead Contract requires the vendor to file monthly reports with the County Engineering Department specifying total tonnage of refuse deposited at the Fairmead Landfill. The reports must break out from the total the tonnage received from the North Fork and Oakhurst Transfer stations, the County Engineering Department and the Road Department broken out separately. The vendor must provide with such report with an accounting of funds collected by the vendor. The tipping fees which are specified in the contract represent the vendor's only compensation for services provided under the contract. The amount of the tipping fees can only be changed on application to and approval by the County. The County, in this process, has the power to control the vendor's profit. The Fairmead contract is not a cost plus contract. The vendor must pay all of its expenses for operation of the Fairmead Landfill from its share of the tipping fees. lfthe fees charged by the vendor don't cover its costs, the contractor must bear the burden of that deficit unless and until the County agrees to an increase in fees that may be charged by the contractor. Finally, the vendor does not control the amount oftonnage deposited at the Fairmead Landfill. Rather, the amount of tonnage disposed of at the landfill is dependent on what is collected and delivered to it. b. The Board of Supervisors holds that the terms and conditions agreed to in contract 5363-C-98 were appropriate at the time of signing. Contract 3293-C-81 (which as discussed above is no longer in force) provided for a term commencing July 1, 1981, continuing through June 30, 1984. There was no optional or automatic extension of the term in the contract. The contract provided that on mutual 06/2011 --- consent of both parties, the contract could be extended. Thus, neither the County nor the vendor had the right to extend the term of the contract. In fact, the contract was extended by Contract 3660-C- 84, which superseded 3293-C-81, for a period to continue through December 31, 1994. In this contract, the County had the right to extend the contract an additional five years. The vendor did not have a similar right to extend the term. By contract 4422-C-89, which superseded 3660-C-84 neither party had a right to extend the term of the contract. The current Fairmead Landfill contract is contract 5363-C-94 as amended by 5363A-C-98. The contract will continue through November of 2012. The contractor has the right to extend this contract for one additional five-year period through November 2017. The reason for the extension and option was to provide time for the contractor to amortize and repay a private activity bond obtained to permit various construction activities, including installation of a gas extraction system, complete the liner system for Waste Management Unit 2, and to continue closure work on Fill Areas One. As to lack of performance standards the contract provides: "All operations must be strictly in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations; the vendor must accept all waste from sources within the County and is not to receive waste from any source outside the County without written authorization by the County;" c. The Board of Supervisors holds that only contract 5363-C-98 involved an extension of term and rate adjustments, which are all related to capital outlay by the contractor. See response to (b) above as well. d. The Board of Supervisors agrees with finding 5-d in as much as over 30 years, multiple boards, and administrators were responsible for contract management and administration, and that there may have been lapses in relation to appropriate oversight of the solid waste operations in Madera County. The Board of Supervisors disagrees with that portion of finding 5-d that infers impropriety in the granting and management of the contract.
F6:
Contract 3293-C-81 was awarded without bid. In contract 3293-C-81 contractor was required to operate the landfill as a bale fill operation. The contract to operate the landfill and MRF were extended several times without bid. Board Resolution 94-237 authorized no bid contracting for solid waste services. a. There is a history of unacceptable expediency and cronyism along with a lack of due diligence in contracting for management of the landfill. b. Appearance of impropriety in existing contracts. c. Competitive bidding will likely result in lower cost of operations that can be passed on to county residents. d. Current landfill fees are significantly higher than those of surrounding counties. e. Landfill not being operated as a bale fill operation. That the contractor saves money by not utilizing bale fill reducing costs and maximizing profit with impunity. Response 6. Board of Supervisors holds that contract 3293-C-81 was awarded after the County solicited bids for the operation of the sanitary landfill. (See contract 3293-C-81 , lines 10-11) Board of Supervisors finds no evidence that bale fill was mandatory and that over the term of the contract newer more 06/2011 --- effective means of compaction were identified and put into practice. The Board agrees that the landfill and MRF agreements were extended without bid; however the Board of Supervisors holds that all appropriate policies and procedures, guidelines and regulations have been followed in issuing and extending current contracts. a. The Board of Supervisors holds that processes followed in awarding contracts and contract extensions followed all appropriate laws, guidelines, and practices in place at the time of signing. Public Resources Code Section 40059 specifically authorizes such contracts to be negotiated and entered into with or without competitive bidding. b. The Board of Supervisors holds no position in reference to appearances. c. The Board of Supervisors acknowledge that competitive bidding generally results in lower costs; however, in this specific case due to the specialized nature of some services this may not be the case. d. RMA has gathered information concerning fees of surrounding counties and find that a measurement of apples to apples shows Madera County fees to be appropriate. e. Analysis of bale fill vs. traditional compaction shows comparable cost and no significant savings to either method.
F7:
The Cities of Madera and Chowchilla contract with the County for use ofthe landfill and MRF. The Cities have negotiated a tipping fee lower than the unincorporated areas of the county. The Cities pay no tipping fee at the landfill for recyclable material. The City of Madera gave notice to the County that it would solicit bids for landfill service after 2012 claiming overcharges for landfill use. This would reduce MRF recycling and trash tonnage in the landfill significantly. Response 7. The Board of Supervisors agrees with this finding.
F8:
A no-bid contract was issued to build and operate the Material Recovery Facility and landfill. A surcharge of $3.05 was added to the tipping fee to recover the contractor's capital outlay. The estimate of 10 years to retire the debt was conservative and the tonnage estimate was low. The debt was retired early but the surcharge is still being assessed. Response 8. Board of Supervisors holds that contract 3293-C-81 was awarded after the County solicited bids for the operation of the sanitary landfill. (See contract 3293-C-81 , lines 10-11) It was by a separate contract, contract 5266-C-93 dated November 9, 1993, that the County contracted with the contractor to build and operate the Material Recovery Facility {'1MRF") at the Fairmead landfill site. An RFP was issued by the County in April of 1992 (see lines 16 to 23 of page one of the contract). Ultimately, the County chose the current vendor to build and operate the MRF. Contract 5266-C-93 does provide and records show that a surcharge of $3.05 was authorized and was assessed to recover the contractor's capital outlay for the construction of the MRF beginning in the 1995-96 fiscal year. This surcharge continued to be assessed through the 2005-06 fiscal year at which time the surcharge had been reduced to $.96. Fiscal year 2005-06 was the last year the surcharge was assessed to the tipping fees.
F9:
The contractor is making overly excessive profits that were not intended in the contract. Response 9. An audit is being conducted by an independent accounting firm. (See the draft report in Attachment "A".) The Board of Supervisors holds that contracts 5266-C-93 and 5266A-C-98 specify the profit to which the contractor is entitled. Contract 5266-C-93, Article II-Cost and Compensation, Section C,lines 17- 06/2011 --- 20 state, "It is further agreed that a ten percent (10%) profit shall be allowed to MDSI in the calculation of its operational costs for the MRF." The exact operational costs ofthe MRF are being analyzed by the independent accounting firm and will be reviewed by County Administrative staff. If it is found in the audit that more than 110% of operating costs are being retained by contractor, necessary steps will be taken to correct the issue and recover moneys owed the County, if appropriate.
F10:
The Materials Recovery Facility was designed and permitted to operate as a "dirty'' MRF meaning that all trash is run through and recyclable commodities are removed prior to baling and burial of no recyclable refuse. It is contended that the MRF is now being operated as a "clean" MRF due to several factors which include but are not limited to, volume, commodity rich loads (cities with recycle programs) vs. commodity poor loads (all unincorporated county) and facility capacity. Contractor told the Grand Jury that most dirty trash is no longer baled but is compacted at the landfill face, which is more efficient. a. The intent of the contract is that all dirty trash is to be processed through the MRF. b. The intent of the contract is that the contractor process the trash to effectively divert recyclable materials and to expand the facility as needed to achieve this goal. c. The contractor has not added staff, expanded the facility nor has he increased hours of operation to increase the MRF to handle all dirty trash as intended in the contract. Response 10. The Board of Supervisors accepts the statements as presented by the Grand Jury in the opening paragraph of this finding. a. The Board of Supervisors holds that the contract is silent to the operation of the MRF as "dirty" vs. "clean". Contract 5266-C-93, Article VII, Section E states, "All of the Exhibits attached hereto and referenced in this Agreement are hereby incorporated in the Agreement as if fully set forth." In attachment "A", MDSI Proposal dated June 1992, , Materials Recovery Facility states, "MDSI proposes to construct and operate what is typically referred to as a 'Dirty MRF'. This facility would process all co-mingled solid waste collected from a dedicated waste stream within Madera County and currently delivered to the landfill for disposal. The MRF proposes to utilize a combination of human and mechanical sorting to process paper, glass, metals, plastics, and wood. The initial design processing capacity will be equal to the peak daily delivery of 125 tons per day and divert approximately 65 tons per day from landfill disposal." The Board of Supervisors holds that the intent of the contract is to meet the mandates set in AB 939 and that how the MRF is operated is subordinate to that goal. If the contractor is able to meet the AB 939 mandates as guaranteed in contract 5266-C-93, Article Ill-Performance and Environmental Guarantees, the operation of the MRF as "dirty" or "clean" is inconsequential. b. The Board of Supervisors holds that the contract is silent to speed of the MRF operation. We do agree with the finding, however, that the contractor is to effectively divert recyclable materials in compliance with AB 939 mandates. c. The Board of Supervisors accepts the statements as presented by the Grand Jury.
F11:
The County has been overcharged for the operation ofthe MRF by millions of dollars over several years. 06/2011 --- Response 11. An audit is being conducted by an independent accounting firm. (See the draft report in Attachment "A".) The Board of Supervisors holds that contracts 5266-C-93 and 5266A-C-98 specify the profit to which the contractor is entitled. Contract 5266-C-93, Article II-Cost and Compensation, Section C, lines 17- 20 state, "It is further agreed that a ten percent (10%) profit shall be allowed to MDSI in the calculation of its operational costs for the MRF ." The exact operational costs of the MRF are being analyzed by the independent accounting firm and will be reviewed by County Administrative staff. If it is found in the audit that more than 110% of operating costs are being retained by contractor, necessary steps will be taken to correct the issue and recover moneys owed the County, if appropriate.
F12:
There seems to be no evidence that the County has received payments or credits for the sale of recyclables, in 2007 or any other year, in direct violation of the terms of the contract. a. Contractor in violation of the provision of the contract requiring the County to receive 100% from the sale of recyclables (less 10% profit for the contractor). b. County RMA is lax in enforcing contract obligations. Response 12. a. Contract 5266-C-93, Article II -Cost and Compensation, Section C, lines 14-20 read, "In the review of the operational costs, County shall receive credit for one hundred percent (100%) of all revenues MDSI may receive from the sale of recovered/recycled materials from the MRF. It is further agreed that a ten percent (10%) profit shall be allowed to MDSI in the calculations of its operational costs for the MRF." The Board of Supervisors holds that the County is due revenue from the sale of recyclables after the contractor has paid all operating costs of the MRF plus 10% profit. The exact operational costs of the MRF are being analyzed by the independent accounting firm and will be reviewed by County Administrative staff. If it is found in the audit that more than 110% of operating costs are being retained by contractor, necessary steps will be taken to correct the issue and recover moneys owed the County, if appropriate. b. The Board of Supervisors agrees that to some extent RMA has done a marginal job of monitoring and enforcing the terms and conditions of the contract since 1993.
F13:
The Board of Supervisors should extend recycling to the unincorporated areas of the County and develop options and a timetable to achieve such a goal. Response 13. The Board of Supervisors agrees.
F14:
Over several years, the contractor has retained a significant sum of revenue due to a dispute. County officials have apparently made only limited attempts to resolve this issue and recover monies owed the County. Response 14. The Board of Supervisors agrees with the finding and will direct staff to settle this dispute immediately.
F15:
County contracts 5364A-C-2001 and 6601A-C-2001 provide the contractor's service fees to increase automatically when contractor's requests for fee increases are not acted upon by the Board of Supervisors. Calculations for fee increases are based on Southern California Consumer Price Index (CPI). Response 15. Section E specifically says, "This Agreement provides for an automatic rate increase, the Board of Supervisors shall have the opportunity to provide for full public disclosure of the scheduled rate 06/2011 --- increases at the regularly scheduled Board of Supervisors meeting." The contractor presents the report to staff calculating the CPI factor and the County can agree or disagree with the report. However, the only thing the County could disagree with is the calculation, not the entitlement to the CPI increase.
F16:
County entered into a no bid contract 5266-C-93 to construct and operate a Household Hazardous Waste Facility. The Grand Jury found improperly labeled, handled, and stored hazardous waste on September 27, 2010, when visiting the landfill. Response 16. The Board of Supervisors holds that contract 5266-C-93 was put out for bid. We find no evidence to dispute or concur with the finding of the Grand Jury of improperly labeled, handled, and stored hazardous waste on September 27, 2010 while visiting the landfill.
F17:
The County in a no-bid process granted contractor in contract 5365-C-94 for the operation of the North Fork Transfer Station as long as the landfill contract is valid. Response 17. The Board of Supervisors holds that in contract 5365-C-94, , item 6, lines 24 through 28 and on , lines 1 through 3 attaches the term of this agreement to contract 5266-C-93-the Materials Recovery Facility at Fairmead Landfill rather than contract 5363-C-94-Operation of the Fairmead Landfill. This agreement is an extension of the original agreement 2944-C-79 which was a no-bid agreement.
F18:
There is storage of commercial toilets on County property. a. The contractor is taking improper advantage of its contract by storing portable toilets on the landfill. b. The contractor is taking improper advantage of its contract by operating a business on the landfill. c. The CAO, RMA Director, and subordinate office are negligent for failing to take proper action in pursuing matters to protect County interest. Response 18. The Board of Supervisors concurs and will direct staff to take immediate action to look into the potential contract violation and take proper action to insure the Counties interest is protected.
F19:
There is an appearance of co-mingling of staff, resources, and facilities among the various businesses conducted by the contractor at the landfill. Response 19. The Board of Supervisors concurs and will direct staff to take immediate action to look into the potential contract violation and take proper action to insure the Counties interest is protected.
F20:
The Department of Environmental Health is lax in protecting the health and safety of the residents of Madera County regarding the various operations at the landfill. The relationship between County inspectors and the contractor are too informal for effective regulation. Response 20. The landfill and MRF/Transfer Station are inspected monthly by the Madera County Local Enforcement Agency (LEA), with reports submitted to the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CaiRecycle). The County and/or its operator have received both Areas of Concern and Notice of Violations from the LEA.
F21:
The relationship between County overseers and the contractor is too informal for effective regulation. Response 21. The County, along with County's contractor, is regulated extensively by the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery or Cal Recycle (formerly the California Integrated Waste Management Board 06/2011 --- CIWMB), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD), Local Enforcement Agency (LEA), Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA), Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC), and Madera County Environmental Health; all perform inspections to ensure that the County and contractor are operating in compliance with applicable Federal, State and local regulations. Sincerely, Madera County Board of Supervisors Attachment 06/2011 --- INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANT'S REPORT ON APPLYING AGREED-UPON PROCEDURES To the Board of Supervisors of the County of Madera Madera, California We have performed the agreed-upon procedures (County) has specified, listed in the attached schedule, which were · to the Fairmead Landfill (the Landfill. This agreed-upon procedures with attestation standards established by the American Institute sufficiency of the procedures is solely the responsibility of the maK:e';'1no representation regarding the sufficiency of the proce<:J, .described bei~W.;?ilt;'ier this report has been requested or for any other pu· 1· . note~'i~,~~:;~tf~~~l)E:J.<:I Our procedures and findings are as We were not engaged to, ~O<:I['Pi<:IJlot condudt7:a~audiC'ifi.~·:g~j§ctive · · would be the expression of an opinion on the Lan9wmnnanCif3l~ir;7cords. A~~~rding!yi::"/Vei~?'H;!Pt such an opinion. Had we performed additional B~Ci§e'dures, otn~r. matters ijligl;l~jff~ve coinettO,pur attention that would have been reported to you. :I;:f!h,. ,,;'f;: L'~?>t>"'' ·· · :~:.·~~~§ •.~ ti~>n and1q~~pf the County of Madera, the City of Chowchilla C:f9'4·;#nPE:l and(~~puld not be used by anyone other than these ··::s::~~~· ~. -<;·,-:-if" 1 06/2011 --- County of Madera Fairmead Landfill Schedule of Agreed-Upon Procedures and Findings PROCEDURES WITH RESPECT TO THE LANDFILL OPERAT OR Procedure 1 - Establish the basis for compensation received by the landfill operator from all ~ We compared the surcharge rates stated on the Solid Waste Surcharge Report (the source report for the revenue calculation) to the County's established rates. Finding All users pay in accordance with the rates established by the County. A breakdown of the rates is found under Procedure 3 of this report. ·· Procedure 2 -Identify the revenues generated and the payments received from all users of all facilities located within Madera County. · · · · ·· ·· · Finding . /' _,,.. Revenues generated by the Operator aqhe Fairmead landfill include: a. Cash and credit payments fromallus~rs · ·· · · b. Revenue generated from the No(th Fork. station . c. Revenue generated from the trash sortedff()IT1 Madera Mammoth Recycling (MMR) Revenues generated by the Qperator at the Madera MamriJothRecyclillg (MMR) include: a. A processing charge tojhe Landfill for so(ting recyclable materials out of trash loads b. Sales of recyclable materials · df th~ "~sh We selected a sample receipts/revehues from log deposits report" and traced the transactions to the generalle~g~r andirwor:ne statement without exception. compc)~C:mts ~h~rges J~vied Procedure 3 -IC:h:!ntifvthe ofali by the landfill operator for use of any facility. · · · · · · · · ·. ·· · ··· ·· · · · The components of the tipping· fees are id~f')tified in the schedule below: . COUNTY/PUBLIC RATE CllYRATE · $55. 13/ton $39.13/ton 7.·:•. ·:·.~·..·..·..·· ·· ·· ..................... . i/ ··>-·: .. .. /~ ~ Operator share · County share Operator share County share $23.85/ton $31.28/ton $15.65/ton $23.48/ton [a] [a] /~ /~ Landfill MMR* Landfill MMR* $15.65/ton $8.20/ton $15.65/ton $0/ton * MMR = Madera Mammoth Recycling [a] Breakdown of the County share is shown below as a blended rate at $24.96/ton. 2 06/2011 --- Based on the current rates of $55.13/ton for the County/Public and $39.13/ton for the City of Madera and Chowchilla residential, the actual and projected tonnages received, and the mid-year tipping fee reductions ($53.39/ton for the County/Public, and $37.39/ton for the City of Madera and Chowchilla), the County used the blended rate of $47.31 for development of the 2010-2011 budget. The calculation of the blended rate is shown below: Estimated County/Public Estimated Tonnage Rate Percentage Revenue %of Rate County 16,750 $55.13 current rate 15% $923,428 $8.17 mid-year tipping 50,250 $53.39 fee reductions [1] 44% $2,682,848 $23.74 Ci[X.Rate City 11,500 $39.13 current rate ,10% $449,995 $3.98 mid-year tipping. 34,500 $37.39 fee reductions [1] 31% $1,289,955 $11.42 Total 113,000 100%' $5,346,225 $47.31 [1] Mid year tipping fee reductions related to the one time ~egl.llatory items/ costs from the 2ml9tipping fee increase. The adjustment has not been made to the tipping fee. The blended rate of $47.31 consists of: 1. $22.35/ton for the operational expi:m::;es (Ope~ator): a. $15.65/ton pays for the contr:Cictual bpE;lrator at the Landfill. b. $6.70/toncoversthe cost of operating the 1\Jladera Mc'm1moth Recycling (MMR). 2. $24.96/ton fortheCountyS~rcharges: a. $1.40/torrpays for ttierState surchar~e:tor administrative costs. b. $0.44/ton covers the costs incurred by Environmental Health as the Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) relatedJ()thEl State mandated oversight of landfill operations. c. , , $1.06/ton covers Jhe.loan pay111er1ts over an 18-year period to construct the gas extractionsystem;new liner, closure of old site, and two groundwater monitoring wells. This loan Will be paid (.)tf in 2016. $0.78/ton covers, services .for monitoring of the monolithic cover, landfill gas, and hazard water disposal: ,•,• ,'.,,.,',' e: $J4.71/ton retained,by the County of Madera for the costs associated with the operational costs of the Landfill and the indirect costs. f. The (e111aining of ${):57/ton pays for the Fairmead Liner Fund for future expansions, including permitting activities, acquisitions, design, and construction. 3 06/2011 --- Procedure 4 -Identify all rate schedules and compare the fees charged to the cost for operating each facility. We identified all rate schedules and compared the fees charged (revenues) to the cost for operating each facility. We also compared and analyzed the Landfill and the Madera Mammoth Recycling revenues and expenditures from July to October of 2010. We performed inquiries of County management and reviewed the agreement between the County and the Operator to determine if there was any profit limit for the Operator of the Landfill. We identified the factors used in calculating the amount of the last rate increase that was implemented for any fee by obtaining the rate increase schedule. We reviewed, verified, and recalculated the rate increase schedule. Findings 1. The Landfill's total net income/( loss) for the months.~ ili~Ho October 2010 was ($61 ,503), $54,968, $31,337, $55,498, respectively (See Ex~i~t'/ ·"J &'2')y;; . ;:'::.~-'. 2. The Madera Mammoth Recycling facility tot~.l/' •. 'come/(loss)'~~{(t:l~ months from July to October 2010 was ($12,444), ($16,781}, ~? · ; $27,566 respectiv~i~;t~~e Exhibit 8(1 & 2)). d' 3. There is no limit on the profit the operator ~ft~[Ji,ll}ake with r~gard to th;'" . ~II contract. However, there is a 10% limit on the profit theCip,~x~tor ShJ~)JZtr;Jake with rega'tct.~P the Madera Mammoth Recycling contract per agreement number:. 5266"C~93, article II, ifem:G,. ·. ·:.,::;_,; ;.''· .. ·-·.·:·,,:: .;--· ~-,.:::. •; ;:~: ;;·:':-,,:; / --~~'. ·,::·::- 4. The last rate increase occurred'itW~ato~7J of 2009 ~ifacW:~s based on the solid waste delivery agreements with the Cities of Madera•anqJC:hC?wchilla. · Th~:jncrease was based on the "Engineering News-Record lndex"(Bt'f%),i>lugtt:l~additiori'0J;;r~gulatory items. This increased the rates for the Coup!Y,<:md Self Haol~t~ frorri $S,();~qper ton to'.$?5.13 per ton. The rates for each city increas.~~;ftpm,~~?.OO per ton.·tq $39.1 ;t"J:f~ri{Qp,_ The operator has not received nor requested an i!JS(Ei~se id·r~(~~.since fisc~[;·}{e<:i1?:4092~200:;3,::T!le rate increases are supported by · · ··· · the calculatiorH~;f~~.~ibit C. •· ,. I,;;0.~J: Procedure 5 - Trace postiilijs to re~erves. replac~rn~nt accounts or other accounts representing a componentoffhefeestructt:.ire:tllafistto'b:eset asideffor a future use. Determine if amounts set aside are'timel\fii'nd·fn:the propei'ainounf • ·· · ·· ·· .· <:{?/~·~·.' ,)_ ... _., The Operat6~1~~l5 no requirem~rl't~!9 set a~fd~:·any amounts for a future use. Reserve accounts are established aftt)«¥;founty. 'i{Ji~. ·••· · Procedure 6 -lde~flW'all cost cehtirs created by the Landfill operator and determine the revenues and costs assigned to each. Confirm whether revenues are properly matched to costs for the operation of each facilifY..t Y'> .;,';;;c: i"' Operator';~,f~trand We reviewed the loss statement for the months of July and August 2010 and selected the two largest expenditure categories: fuel and parts/materials. We verified those charges to the fuel log inventory report, invoices, and other supporting documents to determine the propriety of the charges. Finding Fuel charges agreed to the fuel inventory report. Parts and materials charges agreed to the invoices. During our testing for the month of August, we identified only one charge which was based on allocation. The method used for the allocation was based on the year-to-date purchases trend from January through June 2010. The basis used for the allocation of this cost appeared reasonable. 4 06/2011 --- Procedure 7 -Examine the overhead cost allocation model used to distribute local office and corporate office overhead charges to each cost center and determine the appropriateness of the allocation to each. We made inquiries of the Operator's District Controller and obtained the cost basis methodology for the overhead calculation. Finding According to the District Controller, the overhead charges are based on a corporate allocation formula which uses total corporate overhead costs and total corporate revenues. Prior to October 2010, the Operator used actual revenue numbers in the formula and subsequently used budgeted revenue numbers in calculating the overhead charges. Corporate office overhead charges were calculated as follows: 4008-Landfill August September October Account70149 Corporate overhead allocation per P&L. 12,441 12,223 11,722 Actual revenues per P&L 337,633 337,036 Budgeted revenue per detailed monthly .IC report 334,910 Percentage * 3.68% 3:63% 3.50% Overhead allocation 12,425 12,223 11,722 4009-MRF Account70149 Corpqr~te·overhead .~uocation perP&L 5,358 5,410 4,368 Actual reve11ues per P&L 145,402 149,150 Budgeted r~Y8nue petp~tailed monthly IC report 124,801 P~rcentage .,. · 3.68% 3.63% 3.50% ··.overhead allocation 5,351 5,414 4,368 * Based on oVerhead costs and total revenues for the regions. This percentage is provided by the Corporate Office based on managemenfs decision. 5 06/2011 --- Procedure 8 - Confirm the staffing plan for each operation and determine whether the resulting allocation of salaries and benefits is appropriate. We selected payroll expenditures and verified them against the payroll register report. We obtained the Operator's salary allocation schedule and determined whether or not the allocated payroll charges were in accordance with the schedule. Finding Payroll expenditures were supported by the payroll register and allocations were in accordance with the allocation schedule prepared by the District Manager. Procedure 9 - ldenti all sources of fixed and variable costs a ' 'li~able to each cost center and determine that they are properly reflected. We selected all Landfill variable costs for the months of Ma}{~ p~t 2010 and traced the charges to invoices and/or other supporting documentation to verify,:;tt::JE¥'' pnetY;~~\Q~ charge. ·•--"o-;::.-,.-:;_o. Finding lo~~:~t~tement month:~~Wr~~X Variable costs reported on the Landfill profit and for tile and August 2010 were properly supported by invoices and/or other sup~oftrng dOClj . ~Qtation and Wer~!allocated to the ·•cf:;*" ; • ,.·. correct cost center. ,_;,':··, ":~:?~,. - -.. ::_. ~~:';~~~·;:::.::::····· We did not identify any fixed costs assotiMt~d!~i\hJhe Landfiii~~;ih~ Madera Mammoth Recycling. Procedure 10 -Identify the contractual r~tiUire~~rlf~cimposed a~fthe landfill operator for processing recyclable matei'ialand confirm'the revenues;receive(ffrom the handling/sale of ,n•·<<··· · · · ·• ., . · recyclables. ·;·~·,,_ ~ x·c·:y: v•-• .·. . ~::~v -_-:._,;~--~:~:'~-:> .-:(·:.·.-.· <{·:<·:~~~-·-/ We obtained a copy ofth~o/1adera M~$~oth Recy~ij~~'~greement B~lween the County and the Operator. We compared'reyenues re§~iYed by the Cq~~ty from the Operator for the sale of recyclable materials to thELSQiid Waste ~l.lf<::;har9.~R¢P9r1· ·· ' · <;):...'.>-? /.-,;·;:.~:~·;:_-::·: We pe~R~~d:~fi'~liMy§!M9 det&hhrE~whethe'ftH~~I'!lOtirit of recyclable materials received at the MMR reasona~l~(agreed with thE!',iimount ofif~gyclable rriaterj'81s sold for the period from July 2010 to October 2010. ··· ."''>.:.:.'.L. ··•x.;_:~v~ <':~; ,, Finding . ·· ;l\ ~-;~-~/-~-: -s~~ The MMR agree~~/1im?~66-C-93, :~ttfcle II, item C) between the County and the Operator includes a 10% limit on the profit the '&p~tator sha ,·· ake with regard to the Madera Mammoth Recycling contract. Further, the agreementst~l,~§ tr,~ Jthe review of operational costs, the County shall receive credit for 100% of all revenues the Op~~~tP:r;'may receive from the sale of recyclables. Therefore, the agreement does not require the Operator:{c).pay the County for the sale of recyclables rather, the Operator should apply the sale proceeds to reduce MMR operating costs. Our testing revealed that the amount of recyclable materials sold was greater than the amount of recyclable materials received at the facility. The reason for the difference is related to the amount of recyclable materials recovered from commingled trash. The Operator does not maintain an accounting of the amount of recyclable materials recovered from commingled trash and we were not able to determine whether the total amount of recyclable material received and recovered reasonably agreed with the amount of recyclable material sold. 6 06/2011 --- Procedure 11 -Identify the contractual requirements imposed on the Landfill operator to make payments and/or apply credits to Madera County and the Cities of Madera and Chowchilla and determine whether all payments/credits are being made timely. Finding The Operator remits monthly payments to the County. These payments are made within 90 days of the last day of the month in which the collections were received. All payments tested were in accordance with the agreement between the County and the Operator, except for the commercial/roll off rate for the Cities of Madera and Chowchilla. The County contends that they should have received $23.48/ton for the commercial/roll off for the Cities but the Operator has only remitted $15.28/ton which left a discrepancy of $8.20/ton. The total balance in question as of October 2010 was approximately $500,000 according to County Solid Waste management. The Operator does not make any payments or apply any credits to the City of Madera or the City of Chowchilla. · PROCEDURES WITH RESPECT TO THE COUNTY OF MADERA Procedure 13 -Confirrnthat revenu~s and expenses related to refuse services provided to the unincorporated areas are segregated from all other activities as necessary. Finding The re\leht.ies and expens~sr~lated tol'efuse services provided to the unincorporated areas are not segregated. Jhey are codedtoqrganizatiortkey 01380 (RMA Refuse Disposal). According to the County Solid Waste Mar~ager there is no. contractual agreement to make this segregation . .· . . -~ '··. :·.. :' moni~s Procedure 14-d()nfirm that received from the Landfill operator are being deposited into the proper accounts for holding monies needed for future capital costs. ··:.··;·.·.: .. :_ >;:.·:.-:.:-·/ by We selected the payments maqe the Operator to the County for the months of May through August 2010. We recalculated the alllourits related to reserve accounts (i.e. Fairmead Liner Fund, Local Enforcement Agency Fund and State Surcharge Fund) and we tested for proper posting in the County's accounting system. Finding The monies received from the Operator were properly deposited into the reserve accounts: Fairmead Liner Fund, Local Enforcement Agency Fund, and State Surcharge Fund. 7 06/2011 --- Procedure 15 ,.. Confirm that interest is properly allocated to each account that holds funds for a future capital use. Finding The interest is properly calculated and allocated to each account that holds funds for a future capital use. Interest is allocated by the County to the Fairmead Liner Fund and the Fairmead Closure Funds. The Treasurer's office is responsible for posting the interest earnings into the County accounting system. The interest earned is credited to the funds quarterly based on the daily cash balance for all funds in the County of Madera. Procedure 16-Confirm the process used for allocating indirect overhead charges to each landfill cost center and determine if the resulting charges are appropriate: Finding According to the County cost allocation plan, the indirect overh~ad charge for the year ended June 30, 2010 should have been $210,176. The actual amount charged to the Laqdfill by the County was $460,325, resulting in an overcharge of $250,149. · · The County uses only one fund to account for all L~ricmll activity. The County all~cates indirect charges to the Landfill based on an indirect cost allocation plan. Jhis cost all?.cation plan was prepared by a consultant and is based on actual expen~es for the 2007/2008 fiscaLyear for use in the?009/201 0 fiscal year. Procedure 17-Review the process used for determining the amount of funds required for future capital outlay. · · · · Finding We identified two purposE)swhich wol]ldrequire futurecapital outlays, the Fairmead Liner Fund and the Closure/Post-Closure Fund. The Courity has established a rate of $6.57 per ton as the amount to be deposited to the Fairmead Uner.Fund (refer to procedurE)3 for breakdown). . . . . . - In practice this established. rate is nolcharged oru~ed to determine the amount of the deposits to the Fairmead Liner Fund. Instead, the ar;nollnt deposited to the Fairmead Liner Fund is the residual balance after deposits are made to the. General, Local Enforcement Agency and the State Surcharge Funds. ~in~rfund is~alculated The overageJ(shortage) of the below: Tonnages Required deposit Amount deposited into Overage/ Period re~ived amount @$6.57 Fairmead Liner Fund (Shortage) July 1, 2008-June 30, 2do9 114)121.70 $753,721.57 $753,214.77 ($506.80) July 1, 2009-June 30, 2010 ' 1.10,391.26 $725,270.58 $746,668.29 $21,397.71 The County does not currently make any deposits to the Closure/Post-Closure Fund. However, we did recalculate the calculation of the closure/post-closure liability prepared by the County and determined that the liability was fairly stated in accordance with GASB 18. 8 06/2011 --- Procedure 18 -Identify the components of the current tip fee and determine whether the charges properly match the costs of operations at the landfill. Finding The County's net profit/loss statement for Landfill operations is attached as Exhibit D. As can be seen in Exhibit D, over the last four years, the Landfill has had net income and net losses. Please refer to Procedure 3 for the components of the tipping fees. 9 06/2011 --- 10 06/2011 --- EXHIBIT AC1l (LANDFILL) Account #',Revenues July August September October 36000 Landfill Revenue $ 146,831 $ 144,287 $ 139,026 $ 150,952 36009 Landfill Revenue-MSW Intercompany 190,552 193 346 198,010 179636 Landfill Revenue , 337,383 337,633 337,036 330,588 43001 Taxed and Pass Thru Fees 213,249 172,935 185,919 183,406 Net Revenue 124,134 164,698 151,117 147,182 PriiTlary L.:apor 50020 Wages Regular 10,614 7,996 10,369 6,569 50025 Wages OT 4,521 4,091 4,503 2,153 50035 Safety Bonuses 467 1,000 934 (1,734) 50050 Payroll Taxes 1,175 1,116 1,051 662 50060 Group Insurance 728 592 2,487 501 50065Vacation Pay 546 1,745 158 564 50070 Sick Pay 372 (3) 246 (93) 50086 Safety and Training 88 (88) 50015 Pension and Profit Sharing 86 51 59 Total Primary Labor 18,597 • 16,500 19,807 8,622 Truck Variabl~ ::·· ..... , ··· ······ 52010 Salaries ·· 1,818 1,818 1,818 52020 Wages Regular J!,348 7,049 7,690 6,398 52025 Wages OT 3,294 3,554 2,702 3,071 52035 Safety Bonuses 67 400 134 (1 ,111) 52050 Payroll Taxes 867 799 ,, 746 791 52060 Group Insurance 1,568 1,275 (620) 1,438 52065 Vacation Pay 280 108 336. 1,870 52070 Sick Pay 318 (151) 52086 Safety and Training 21 65 52090 Uniforms 137 181 139 52115 Pension and Profit Sharing 139 89 90 93 52120 Parts and Materials 14,388 1,537 2,852 2,800 52125 Operating Supplies 1,305 612 1,068 52140 Tires 852 1,375 11,560 1,707 52142 Fuel Expense 7,957 13,796 11,953 11,202 52146 Oil and Grease 674 585 749 1,446 52147 Outside Repairs 8,592 344 3,543 52149 Allocated Exp In Out-District 1,735 52150 Utilities · 109 1,577 691 52165 Communications 92 91 204 52335 Mscellaneous 3 3 3 Total Truck Variable .··· ;,··: 33,703 43,313 35,869 ¢!lii!ainer: Expense ~"2ij{• •~z: ·¥· •{z;;,:c;.),c; ·· 55065 Vacatio•&.~~;:·s; 57125 Operating Supplies 309 (24) 3,271 12 57147 Bldg & Property 2,048 98 (799) 57150 utilities 69 55 190 356 57165 Communications 143 412 57275 Property Taxes 1 424 1 381 1 352 1 266 · .. , •. Total OtherOp~r~ting 1,945. 3,460. 4,911 1,247 lnsuranpe f:Xperi~lf • • ; ·· · ·~i'E•'{.• ' •ZJ;i :!;! 59340 Self Insurance Premium 1,348 1,321 1,283 59343 WC-Current Year Claims 1,341 1,090 (4,180) 1,544 59400 Damages paid by District 633 Total Insurance Expense 1,341 2,438 (2,859) 2,194. Total Cost of Operations 83845 62771 72095 54906 Total Gross Profit .40,289 101,927 79,022: 92,276 11 06/2011 --- EXHIBIT A(2) (LANDFILL) Account# ~J'l~@i!lriiZ~41'9I~§~~K~~i,f 'iii:i 'S-'iif, ,:, '' July August Septelriler October 7001 0 Salaries 7,178 70020 Wages Regular 2,328 6!993 6,922 (2,175) 70025Wages O.T 376 934 777 (214) 70030 Corp Allocated Bonus (60) 700360ther Bonus/Commission Non-Safety 20 (133) 70050 Payroll Taxes 251 1,144 871 (457) 70060 Group Insurance 1,125 1,026 174 70065Vacation Pay 762 365 631 530 70070 Sick Pay 43 142 235 70095 Empi&Commun Activ 299 139 70105 Employee Relocation 233 233 233 70110 Contributions 48 70116 Pension and Profit Sharing 99. 317 313 316 70147 Bldg & Property Maintenance " 307 882 709 70148 Allocated Exp in ~District ~ 5,260 4,606 4,524 70165 Communications 158 1,565 1,228 1,430 70167 Cellular Telephone . 203 218 165 70170 Real Extate Rentals 25<1, 254 416 70175. EquipNehicle Rental 91 17 54 70185 Postage 58 211 346 70196 Club Dues 48 70200 Travel 109 10 70202 ·Excursions rvleetings 107 70203 Lodging 576 37 70205 Travel-Auto 139 61 70206. rvleals 60 159 42 70210 Office Supplies and Equip 1,068 690 1,212 70214 Credit Card Fees 565 624 793 70215 Bank Charges . . 461 231 231 70245 Payroll Processing Fees 133 133 133 70301 Computer Sofiware 200 70302 Computer Supplies 217 91 7031 0 Bad Debt Profision (8,434) (3,607) (1 ,290) 70320 Credit and Collection 12 70336 Coffee Bar 52 35 49 Total Generc~l and Admil'l 74,589. 12,844 17,968. 7,957 Total EBITDA b/ CO ·. (34,300) 89,083 61,054 84,319 ,(}y~fu~~~ §~~&~~@;~:';;i~'~;i','\2;J;'~;r{);};~3 '; '';;;}~'~ 70149 Corporate Overhead Allocation 11,925 12,441 12,223 11,722 EBITDA (46,225) 76,642 48,831 72,597 E~ITI~)\w/() Ins (44,884) 79,080 45,972 74,791 9~1?E~9i~[~rj;;; N'':~';'~' 'rc:i:Z~' ,z:r:,L''''',~,;:t;tl Total Depreciation 15,278 15277 15,278. 15,277 > EBIT (Eal"r:l!ng Before · lnterestal"ld Taxes) From dps, · ··· (61,503) 61,365 33,553 57,320 ;;. ~Qfu.~-~~-~-~~Q.~;~~~IfJ:: 1~"/:~~fj;f~: ~;;:~1~2:~~~~;·.; ·-~---:c;.':~nc::<:k;_2 80099 Interest Allocation 6,397 2,216 1,822 Total Other Expenses 6,397 2216 1,822 EB\T (Earning Before Taxes) From Ops 55,498 Net lncome/(Loss) 55,498 12 06/2011 --- EXHIBIT 8(1) (MADERA MAMMOTH RECYCLING) Account# Revenues July August September October 35500 MRF Processing $ 97,546 $ 97,546 $ 91,141 $ 91,590 35510 Proceeds-OCC 15,026 15,852 18,835 22,651 35511 Proceeds -ONP 2,904 2,960 3,332 3,185 35512 Proceeds-Other Paper 4,610 2,454 6,223 5,688 35513 Proceeds-Aluminum 1,551 2,301 2,497 2,259 35514 Proceeds -Metal 8,814 7,517 8,686 9,373 35515 Proceeds -Glass 1,116 1,092 813 796 35516 Proceeds-Plastic 11,490 17,927 6,499 5,858 35517 Proceeds -Other Recyclables 14,595 (2,247l 11,124 5,707 Total Recycling Proceeds 60,106 47,856 58,009 55,517 Total Revenues 157,652 145,402 149,150 147,107 40109 Disposal Landfill Intercompany 8,899 11,392 13,183 40129 Disposal Other Intercompany 14,756 40861 Processing Fees MRF 16,328 11,220 1,550 1,015 43001 Taxes and Pass Thru Fees 57,150 55,959 49,918 50,813 44168 Cost of l'vlaterials -Other Recyclables 4,081• 4,501 (961l (6,149l Total Revenue Reductions 86,458 c) 83,072 63690. 60435 Net Revenue 71;194 62,330 85,460 86,672 Primary Labgr ·· 50010 Salaries (22,178) 50020 Wages Regular 27,481 22,399 23,893 21,756 50025 Wages O.T. 2,557 3,335 3,238 3,638 50035 Safety Bonuses .1,000 3,200 2,000 (1,933) 50050 Payroll Taxes 2,628 2,560 2,087 2,047 50060 Group Insurance 728 512 912 497 50065 Vacation Pay 4,319 2,858 2,266 1,645 50070 Sick Pay 431 711 (161) 895 50086 Safety and Training 716 (558) 66 (440) 50090 Uniforms 1,559 1,127 1,526 1,051 50115 Pension and Profit Sharing 361 219 212 280 Total Primary labor 19,602 36,363 36,039 29,436 TruckVariable ·. · ·· ··· ·· · ,. ..• 52010 Salaries 1,212 1,212 1,212 52020 Wages Regular 1,455 4,194 2,430 3,886 52025 Wages O.T. 62 157 73 189 52035 Safety Bonuses : 134 200 268 (430) 52050 Payroll Taxes 340 311 293 267 52060 Group Insurance 364 256 (144) 199 .52065 Vacation Pay 3,443 29 (306) 718 52070 Sick Pay 1,626 (770) 52086 Safety and Training 10 33 '52090 Uniforms · 69 91 70 52115 Pension and Profit Sharing 135 89 92 89 52120 Parts and l'vlaterials 2,431 3,922 2,259 4,304 52125 Operating Supplies 664 306 534 52135 Equipment and 1\Aaint Repair 40 1,509 52142 Fuel Expense 1,358 2,231 1,915 1,680 52146 Oil and Grease 337 292 375 723 52147 Outside Repairs 1,469 805 52149 Allocated Exp In Out~ [)isinct 1,157 52150 Utilities 73 1,051 461 52165 Communications 61 61 136 52335 Mscellaneous 1 ; 1 1 Total Truck Variable 13,404 13,453 13,373 13,485 container Expens¢t < -'·~;":;': g;~;{0i{~}1~~~:~~ h 55065 Vacation Pay c:· ... ·., 19 (13l 15 Supeivisory·El~os~ :'0}~.2~.;:~~;:;; J:}l~&::{:;.; ::5JS:;·~t.~ 70149 Corporate Overhead Allocation 5,843 5358 5,410 4368 EBITDA (51541) (8,483) 91386 35,645 EBITDA w/o Ins (4,884) (Sz023) 91978 36,967 be.Pre<:i~tioo• . ·•• • •·•·'?J·K;; :: ; ~ . , ·, ~ :• · , > ,< ·, __ : · ~( > · ~ , ~; i:~£{5:~~:t~tir.'~g Total Depreciation 6903 6903 6903 6903 EBIT (Earning Before Interest and Taxes) From Ops (12,444) (15,386) 2,483 28,742 - ,pttier;E~p~r1ses• '.:~.~~\{_.;~flf::~~~~ 800991nterest Allocation 1,395 1,243 1,176 Total Other Expenses 1,395 1243. 1,176 EB\T (Earning Before Taxes) From Ops (12,444) {16,781) 1,240 27,566 14 06/2011 --- EXHIBITC TIPPING FEE INCREASE TieeJna Fee Increase Total Cities• Chowchilla* Madera• County Current lipping Fee (per ton}-Trash $35.00 $35.00 $35.00 $50.00 Tipping Fee Increase per Ton-Los Angeles Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index-February 2009 $2.35 $2.35 $2.35 $3.35 New Tipping Fee (per Ton) w/ ENR Index $37.35 $37.35 $37.35 $53.35 Regulatory Items Tonnage3 113,000.00 54,240~00 ..... · 13,017.60 41,222.40 58,760.00 .,• .. },· •.. •· Landfill Gas Compliance Regulations-Probe Plan & Installation' $125,430 $60;206.40 $14,449.54 $45,756.86 $65,223.60 <· '> . Rate Increase per Ton $1.11 $1:11 $1.11 $1.11 $1.11 Air Board & EPA litle V Regulations' $71,190 ·•.. $34,171.20 I $8,201.09 $25,970.11 $37,018.80 Rate Increase per Ton $0.63 .··. $0.63 : $0.63 $0.63 $0.63 Sharps Ban in Landfills-Managed by HHW Facility2 $4;520 $2,169.60 ''$520.70 $1,648.90 $2,350.40 • w:o4 Rate Increase per Ton . $0.04 : • '$0.04 $0.04 $0.04 ./:. Subtotal of Regulatory Items $201,140 .. $96,54h20 $23,171.33 ;. $73,375.87 $104,592.80 ... Tipping Fee Increase per Ton-Regulatory Items $1.78 $1)8 $1.78 I '> ··• . $1.78 $1.78 .·· . : ;; . •'•:: TOTAL-Tipping fee increase per ton ·;·: . .. ·.···· ·.· · $ . 4.13 $4.13 $4.13 $5.13 :•· .. .. ·: New Tipping Fee w/ the ENR Index and Regulatory Items ·;.· (per Ton) ·. . ··:L $39.13 I······ $39.13 $39.13 $55.13 .. . ..... ·.·. ·• ·. . : 'one time costs; "on-going costs; 'based on CIW'MB Dispo~al Reports; *Gra/\Naste br 13~1/ean.Wast;;..rrash. Absent a Blue Can or Curbside Recycling Program, the tipping fee rate or total disposal fee will default to the current Public Rates as adopted b.y. the County Board of Super\isors . .· · . ·•.·• 15 06/2011 --- ·-'• EXHIBITD FAIRMEAD REVENUES AND EXPENSES 2009 2008 ~ ~ Operating Revenues Charges for services $ 2,424,146 $ 2,662,844 $ 2,959,853 $ 2,698,084 Other 10,880 Total operating revenues 2,424,146 2,662,844 2,970,733 2,698,084 Operating Expenses Refuse disposal 2,559,604 2;787,667 2,508,986 2,384,717 Depreciation 258,342 215,499 161,359 126,434 Total operating expenses 2,817,946 , .•.• 3,003,16~ ~ 6 2,670,345 2,511,151 Operating Income (Loss) (393,800) (340;322) 300,388 186,933 •N on-operating Revenues (Expenses) Revenue from use of money and property 187;~03 310,556 43~~280 151,460 Interest and fiscal charges . {14,358) {41,190) {47,819) {50,750) Total non-operating revenues (expenses)~ 173,545 269,366 386,461 100,710 Changes in net assets (220,255) . (70,956} 686,849 287,643 Net Assets Beginning of year i3,608,o66 3;679,022 2,992,173 2,704,529 End of year $ 3,387,811 $ 3,608,066 $ 3,679,022 $ 2,992,172 FinancialStatem~nt~ e~~·~d Ju~e The for the fis6aLyear 3o, 2006, were audited by Quady & Leal, LLP. The Fina~cial Statements fortt}e fiscal years ended June 30, 2007 through 2009, were audited by anq Caporicd Larson. ~ ~. . 16 06/2011 --- This page intentionally left blank 06/2011 --- 2010-2011 Madera County Grand Jury Final Report Chowchilla City Fire Department 06/2011 --- 2010-2011 Madera County Grand Jury Final Report Chowchilla City Fire Department Introduction: The Grand Jury felt it appropriate to review the Chowchilla City Fire Department. The last review was completed by the 2008-2009 Grand Jury. Consequently, on October 13, 2010, the Grand Jury visited the Chowchilla City Fire Department located at 240 North 1st Street, Chowchilla, California 93610, west of Highway 99. Findings: The Grand Jury reviewed the recommendations made in the 2007-2008 and the 2008- 2009 Grand Jury Final Reports. The Grand Jury met with the Fire Chief, who has been with the Department since November, 1998. His expertise and involvement with all facets of the Chowchilla City Fire Department were most evident. There is no permanent full-time staff at the fire station. It is staffed by the Fire Chief and fourteen (14) Volunteers. The cost of operation is paid by the City of Chowchilla, Public Donations and Grants. Recent grants from Chukchansi in the amounts $75,000 and $48,849 were received and were used to purchase equipment in 2010. It should also be noted that the Chowchilla City Fire Station is not staffed on a 24-hour basis. All fire calls go through the Chowchilla Police Department who, in turn, contacts the volunteers. This process appears cumbersome and cannot help but impact response time. The group of volunteers receives $400 per month, to do with as they choose. In the past, they have used these funds for the purchase of fire equipment, food for their meetings, a television set for the station, and annual Christmas and summer parties for their families. The Chief stated that the Chowchilla fire station serves approximately 18,000 residents, including the Women’s Prison population. The Chief also noted the continuing fire-fighting concerns and constraints posed by the lack of an overpass, over the railroad tracks running through Chowchilla. He further stated that one compensating factor to this dilemma is the Fire Station at the Women’s Prison helps with fire fighting coverage for the East side of the City. 06/2011 --- The Chief also noted that they do not handle medical calls. Such calls are handled by the Chowchilla Police Department and local ambulance services. The station does not routinely respond to out-of-town fires. They do, however, cover other areas of Madera County if they are called upon to do so. The Grand Jury found the existing station to be outdated, but adequate to maintain the status-quo. The Grand Jury questions if “status-quo” is in the best interest of the City of Chowchilla and its residents. Conclusions: The Grand Jury concludes that fire protection utilizing volunteer staff may not be adequate for a growing city. The Grand Jury concludes that recommendations made in previous Grand Jury reports have not been addressed. Items such as the addition of a ladder truck, which the Chief indicated would greatly enhance the Fire Department’s fire-fighting capabilities, have not been procured. The Grand Jury concludes that the need to build a fire station on the east side is an appropriate long-range goal.
F99:
The Grand Jury recommends that the City strengthen its mutual aid relationship with other agencies within the County. The Grand Jury recommends that the County and the City of Chowchilla pursue the construction of an overpass of the railroad track running through the City of Chowchilla. The Grand Jury recommends that the City of Chowchilla continue to pursue grants and donations on behalf of its fire department. 06/2011 --- Respondents: Written response required pursuant to PC933(c) Chowchilla City Council 240 North First Street Chowchilla, CA 93610 Responses Optional: Fire Chief City of Chowchilla 201 Second Street Chowchilla, CA 93610 Madera County Board of Supervisors 200 West Fourth Street Madera, CA 93637 06/2011 --- Madera County Grand Jury Responses to Item 06/2011 --- City Council l' City of Chowchilla 130 S Second Street Civic Center Plaza Chowchilla CA 93610 Ph: 559-665-8615 *Fax: 559-665-7418 www.ci.chowchilla.ca.us RECEIVED March 3, 2011 Madera County Grand Jury MAR 1 1 2011 P.O. Box 534 Madera CA 93637 MADERA COUN1Y GRAND JURY Re: Chowchilla City Fire Department Dear Foreman Haugen, This letter affirms the City of Chowchilla's receipt of your letter dated February 3, 2011 regarding the Chowchilla City Fire Department and attached report. The Council would like to point out that the current method of dispatching fire is the current standard for dispatching a volunteer fire department nationwide. Calls come in to a 911 center and then are redirected via radio broadcast or pager broadcast to the firefighters for response. In regards to fire response to our local prison facilities, the primary responsibility falls with the fire station located at CCWF. While Council acknowledges that the fire station is approaching 20 years old it does not appear to be outdated nor has the City received any feedback from the department or the community about this issue, prior to your letter. The Council appreciates your recommendations for upgrades in staffing, facilities and construction of an overpass over the UPRR railroad tracks. Unfortunately no funding source exists to accomplish any of these recommendations at this time. The City will continue to engage in mutual aid responses through CaiFire and other agencies as well as pursuing grant opportunities to improve fire service in our community. If you have any further questions or comments regarding this letter, please contact me at (559) 313-0363. Sincerely, ~~ David Alexander Mayor Cc: Jay Varney, City Administrator 06/2011 --- 2010-2011 Madera County Grand Jury Final Report Citizen Complaint Regarding Department of Social Services 06/2011 --- 2010-2011 MADERA COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT CITIZEN COMPLAINT REGARDING DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES Introduction: On August 27, 2010, the Grand Jury received a Citizen Complaint setting forth a broad array of concerns involving the Madera County Department of Social Services (DSS), e.g., discrimination, aiding of “illegals” to reside in the United States, college tuition issues, and violation of immigration and sheltering laws. The complaint alleged that: • DSS discriminated by denying complainant admittance to the non-English speaking Medi-Cal orientation class; • U.S. citizens are required to submit multiple forms of identification while non-U.S. citizens are exempted from all identification requirements; • Civil laws are violated by providing food and housing, with “20 million illegals knowingly drawing from our social programs”; • Illegals are receiving free college education in California. The Grand Jury decided to do a preliminary investigation into the merits of the complaint. Findings: On September 17, 2010, the Grand Jury visited DSS and spoke to the Director concerning the allegations set forth in the complaint. The Grand Jury discussed the various aspects of the complaint with the Director. The Director indicated awareness of the complainant and his concerns. She related that some of her staff who knew of the complainant felt that he was a threat. The Director concurred that something should be done to de-escalate the situation with the complainant. The Grand Jury found the Director cooperative and eager to assist. She agreed to have a very skilled DSS staff person contact the complainant to discuss his concerns. She indicated that she would report back to the Grand Jury. After the meeting with DSS, the Grand Jury responded to the complainant in a letter dated September 17, 2010, acknowledging his complaint and informing him that the Grand Jury met with DSS on his behalf. The letter advised the complainant that he would be contacted by DSS to assist him. On September 20, 2010, the Grand Jury received a telephone call from the DSS Director reporting that their contact with the complainant “did not go well.” She informed the Grand Jury 06/2011 --- that the complainant was not interested in talking to DSS and that he had filed a lawsuit against the DSS Director. The Director stated that she advised Madera County Counsel of the possible lawsuit and was directed not to talk further with the complainant. Subsequently, two separate recorded telephone messages were received, several weeks apart, from the complainant at the Grand Jury Office. Both recorded messages were liberally laced with profanity. The Grand Jury finds that the complainant rejected offers of assistance. Conclusion: Because the complainant indicated that he has initiated litigation on this matter, the Grand Jury concludes no further action is appropriate at the present time. Respondents: Response optional Board of Supervisors County of Madera 200 West Fourth Street Madera, California 93637 Director Madera County Department of Social Services 700 East Yosemite Avenue Madera, California 93638 County Counsel 200 West Fourth Street Madera, California 93637 06/2011 --- This page intentionally left blank 06/2011 --- 2010-2011 Madera County Grand Jury Final Report Madera County Hazardous Material Response Team 06/2011 --- 2010-2011 Madera County Grand Jury Final Report Madera County Hazardous Material Response Team Introduction: The Madera County Grand Jury visited Fire Station #19 located at 35141 Bonadelle Avenue on September 29, 2010, to conduct an investigation of the Hazardous Material Response Team (Hazmat) that has a special trailer on site. The Grand Jury wanted to understand the operation and format of how the Hazmat Response Team responds to emergencies. Findings: Station #19 houses Madera County’s Hazmat personnel and equipment that are called upon to respond, 24/7, to incidents involving the uncontrolled release of hazardous materials. The Grand Jury finds Station #19 is clean, well maintained, and staffed with exceptional people. The Hazmat truck and trailer were fully equipped with safety gear for the team, numerous educational devices, wireless internet, emergency guide book and a lab which was put on display for our inspection. The people who staff Station #19 are part of a group of Cal Fire employees from Madera, Mariposa, and Merced Counties who, along with staff from Environmental Health, form a team and through mutual aid agreements have established the Hazmat Response Plan for their areas. There is a similar group established in Merced County with specially trained personnel and equipment but no such group exists in Mariposa County. The Grand Jury met with a group of six people: the Madera County Fire Chief, a Madera County Fire Captain, two Cal Fire Specialists, and two individuals from Environmental Health. Team members explained the process of dealing with a hazardous material spill and the role various agencies play in the process. A clear “Incident Command Authority/Responsibility” has been established for the area. The law enforcement agency with jurisdictional responsibility takes on the role of Incident Commander. The Madera County Fire Department Hazmat Response Team provides the following services: • Technical assistance and advice to the Incident Commander at incidents involving hazardous materials within Madera County and to others under mutual aid • Personnel and specialized equipment at Hazmat incidents • Sampling and assistance in the field identification of hazardous materials • Tactical operations within the scope of the Hazmat Response Team capabilities and training to contain and mitigate Hazmat emergencies • Assisting Environmental Health with the clean-up of minor spills • Technical support for medical health considerations of first responders 06/2011 --- A 911 call will normally initiate a response by the appropriate agency. When it has been determined that a release of hazardous material is involved, the Hazmat Response Team will be called. Appropriate personnel will be dispatched depending on the level of the incident. When the incident involves an unknown substance classified as level 1, the Hazmat Response Team from Station #19 will be sent to the location. The spill is observed from a distance to determine its nature. Additional assistance is called as deemed appropriate. In a Level 2 incident, which is considered a standard call, the station and the team members are paged to meet at the incident. A minimum of six Hazmat Response Team members are required if the team must enter an exclusion zone. An exclusion zone is the area around the spill for which protective gear is required. For complex operations, ten Hazmat Response Team members are required. The only exception to this policy is an immediate life threat. The mission of the Hazmat Response Team is to control the spill and eliminate any imminent public hazard. The business or property owner is responsible for the clean-up and proper disposal of the hazardous material. Grant money is available to assist the responsible party in some circumstances. Responsible parties should consult with Environmental Health to determine if money is available when faced with a hazardous material clean-up. The Grand Jury finds that county Hazmat incidents were low in 2010. During 2010 there were four chemical spills at gas stations, two chemical suicides, and a waste oil complaint. In 2003 there were 110 meth lab incidents which gave Madera County the dubious distinction of being the #1 county in the nation for this type of problem. Incidents involving meth labs have declined significantly. The Hazmat Response Team characterized their operation as low in number of incidents but high in public impact. The staff of Station #19 require many hours of specialized training to achieve different levels of expertise. Training required to reach each level is expensive and funds are limited. Staff wishing to upgrade their skills by attending the required training are often required to pay for their training. Madera County has a small budget for training and there are also grants available to pay for some training opportunities. The cost of backfilling a position, however, makes many training opportunities cost prohibitive. Different teams involved in Hazmat clean-up use different breathing apparatus. The cost of replacing the breathing equipment used by Station #19 would be around $72,000, which would provide equipment that holds a larger supply of air and is interchangeable with that used by the Merced Hazmat team. Funds to replace this equipment are currently coming from uncertain Homeland Security grants. Safety suits cost about $2,400 and expire after 5 years, used or not. These suits must also be replaced any time they fail to pass a required pressure test. The current tool budget for Station #19 is $5,500. Twenty- seven hundred dollars is required to replace equipment that can no longer be used due to expiration. The Grand Jury was supplied a Hazardous Material Area Plan and several draft copies of excerpts from what is to become the Madera-Mariposa-Merced Policy and Procedure Handbook. These excerpts deal with a variety of topics that guide critical components of the Hazmat Team’s day-to-day operations. The Grand Jury finds that the Policy and Procedure Handbook in draft form indicates a lack of agreement and enforcement capability. Conclusions: 06/2011 --- The Grand Jury concludes that the highly motivated Hazmat Team is an asset to the community. The Grand Jury concludes that training requirements to maintain the current level of expertise are extensive, and adequate staff to backfill for training is not being provided. The Grand Jury concludes funding for Station #19 replacement of tools and equipment is uncertain. The Grand Jury concludes that the policy and procedures handbook for Hazmat operations needs to be put in final form and distributed. The Grand Jury concludes that Station #19 breathing equipment should be compatible with equipment used by other agencies.
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends the County establish and fund an additional position to relieve paid staff for training purposes. The Madera County Fire Department recognizes that staffing levels of the Fire Department limit many opportunities including training. The Fire Department would like to have increased staffing for training purposes as well as for general staffing throughout the County. The Fire Department will continue to work with the Madera County Administration Office as well as the Madera County Board of Supervisors to accomplish this goal. This recommendation will continue to be analyzed annually and will be accomplished when the funds are more readily available.
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the County fully fund the cost of replacing equipment that expires. The Madera County Fire Department has an ever-limiting budget and an ever expanding service need across the County. The Fire Department will continue to provide excellent service throughout the County to the best of its ability while utilizing the finest equipment available at the time. Fire Department funds will continue to be distributed, and redistributed as necessary, to maintain current equipment and supplies. The Fire Department will continue to work with the Madera County Administration Office as well as the Madera County Board of Supervisors to accomplish this goal. This recommendation will continue to be analyzed annually and will be accomplished when the funds are more readily available.
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that the County work with other mutual aid agencies to standardize the firefighter equipment. The Madera County Fire Department has a commitment to standardization. Self Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) equipment is sold by many vendors. Agencies often choose breathing apparatus systems based on cost, reliability, and performance of the equipment, however knowledge of the brand and experience working with it can also be contributing factors. Currently the joint Madera-Merced County Hazmat Team, Merced County Fire Department and Madera County Fire Department use Survivair SCBA equipment. However, the joint Madera-Merced County Hazmat Team and Merced County Fire Department are in the process of getting MSA SCBA equipment. Once this occurs, the Madera County Fire Department would be the only agency in the area using Survivair SCBA equipment since the Madera City Fire-Department and CAL FIRE currently use MSA SCBA equipment. Page2 06/2011 --- Due to the high cost of this equipment, this recommendation will continue to be analyzed and will be implemented when necessary factors associated with this decision have been fully determined.
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends the prompt completion, publication. and implementation of a policy and procedures handbook for the Madera-Mariposa Merced Hazmat Response Team. The Madera County Hazmat Team and the Merced County Hazmat Team are a joint team and Merced has established the current policy and procedures handbook for the hazmat team. This policy and procedures handbook is currently in draft form because it is awaiting approval by the CAL FIRE Acting Unit Chief of Madera-Merced-Mariposa Unit/Madera County Acting Fire Chief. This recommendation has not been implemented, however it is likely it will be once the new CAL FIRE Unit Chief/Madera County Fire Chief is hired. Page3 06/2011 --- 2010-2011 Madera County Grand Jury Final Report Madera City Fire Department, Station #6 06/2011 --- 2010-2011 Madera County Grand Jury Final Report Madera City Fire Department, Station #6 Introduction: The Grand Jury visited Fire Station #6 located at 317 North Lake Street, Madera, California 93638, and met with the Battalion Chief, a Fire Captain and a Firefighter.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings & Recommendations
21 findings
F1:
After extensive review of Madera County’s solid waste management contracts and related materials, numerous interviews and analysis, the Grand Jury found the arrangements pursued by the County over the past thirty or more years have not been consistent with sound government practices, especially in the areas of contracting, oversight, and fiduciary responsibility.
F2:
Madera County’s Division of Solid Waste Management has two employees, a Manager and his assistant. The Solid Waste Manager reports to the County Engineer and through him to the Director, Resource Management Agency (RMA). The RMA Director coordinates with the County Administrative Officer (CAO) and reports directly to the Board of Supervisors (BoS). The duties of the Division of Solid Waste Management are outlined in a Memorandum from the County Engineer to the CAO dated September 5, 2007.
F3:
Solid waste management in Madera County involves multimillions of dollars a year and requires adequate oversight. Trash collection is mandatory within the cities of Madera and Chowchilla. Collection is by subscription (residents elect to have trash collection and pay a monthly fee for that service) in the rest of the county.
F4:
The cities have mandatory curb-side recycling. The unincorporated areas of Madera County do not.
F5:
Madera County contracts with several entities including two private contractors (A and B) to manage solid waste in the county. The cities of Madera and Chowchilla also contract for waste disposal. The County contracts with contractor A for the operation of the Fairmead Landfill (landfill) and the Materials Recovery Facility (MRF). The cities contract with the County for the use of the landfill. The contracts with the private contractors are for services required by the County and could be awarded to a bidder based on a request for proposal and/or competitive bidding process. The County operated the landfill in the early 1970’s; after that, contractor B 2 operated the landfill for a brief period. Contractor A, as an independent local company, operated the landfill under contract (Contract No. 3293-C-81) from 1981. In 1997, contractor A was purchased and is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of a multi-state corporation. The current contract (Contract No. 5363A-C-98) now extends to the year 2017. a. The Grand Jury examined the contract and found it was written without adequate specific requirements, such as, expected tonnage of trash to be handled, or a target tonnage as the basis of calculating contractor reimbursement. The contract does not address actual costs nor a negotiated reasonable profit for contractor A. b. The contract is deficient of contractor performance criteria and is without specific enforcement provisions to protect the interests of the County. The contract entitles the contractor to multiple renewals at the contractor’s discretion. c. The contractor has initiated and benefited from all renewals. The renewals and extensions have been related to rate adjustments and expansions of facilities. d. The Grand Jury finds a serious lack of fiduciary responsibility and due diligence by elected and appointed County officials in initiating and managing such a series of contractual activities over the past thirty or more years. The Grand Jury finds, at best, an appearance of impropriety in the granting and management of the contract.
F6:
Contractor A received a no-bid contract (Contract No. 3293-C-81) from the BoS in 1981 to operate the landfill as a bale-fill landfill. In such a landfill, the contractor is required to compact and bale trash before it is placed in the landfill. The contract has been renewed and extended (Contract Nos. 5363-C-94, 5363A-C-98) several times without bid until the year 2017— resulting in a no-bid, contractual relationship in excess of thirty-six (36) years. BoS Resolution No. 94-237 justified a single consolidated provider of services as being in the best interest of Madera County and used that argument to grant contractor A a no-bid contract. The Grand Jury could find no objective evidence which would have supported such a sweeping finding that contractor A was the only or best company to accomplish such a service. Clearly many other companies could service consolidated operations. The argument that contractor A is a local company is no longer valid after their purchase by a multi-state corporation in 1997. The contractor clearly benefited from such a finding, not only by expected revenues but also by making the company more attractive for acquisition. a. The Grand Jury finds this history highly suggestive of unacceptable “expediency”, at best, and of cronyism and a lack of due diligence in contracting for the management of the landfill. b. The Grand Jury finds the existing contracts continue the appearance of impropriety. 3 c. The Grand Jury finds that utilization of the competitive bidding process will likely result in lower costs of operations which can be passed on to county residents. d. The Grand Jury finds that the landfill fees are significantly higher than those of surrounding counties. e. The Grand Jury finds that the landfill is not being operated as a bale-fill landfill. Trash is dumped directly into the landfill and compacted there without baling because it saves the contractor time and money. The contractor stated that baling in the MRF did not compact the trash as well as compacting the trash at the landfill face. The Grand Jury finds that the contractor appears to disregard contract intent and provisions by adopting procedures that reduce the contractor’s costs to a minimum thereby maximizing its profits with impunity.
F7:
The cities of Madera and Chowchilla contract separately with the County for the use of the landfill and the MRF. The cities renegotiated lower tipping fees effective in 2008. Tipping fees are the price per ton for waste disposed at the landfill. The cities currently pay no tipping fees on recyclable material at the landfill. Trash is charged at $39.13/ton. The unincorporated areas of the County saw tipping fees increased to $55.13/ton. Recently, the City of Madera gave the County notice that it will solicit bids for a landfill contract after 2012 claiming overcharges for landfill use. This would reduce MRF recycling and trash tonnage in the landfill significantly.
F8:
Contractor A was granted a no-bid contract (Contract No. 5266-C-93) to build and operate the MRF at the landfill. Contractor A contracted to construct the MRF at a cost of $2,500,000 to be offset by an additional tipping fee of $1.00/ton from January to July of 1994 and $3.05/ton from July 1994 until the cost of constructing the facility was amortized. The County estimated the debt could be retired in 10 years. To retire the debt by 2004 would require an average of 20,253 tons per month. The debt was retired early. The early retirement of the debt suggests that the tonnage estimates were far too conservative; conversely, the fee to retire the debt may have been set at too high a level. The Grand Jury finds that the $3.05/ton fee is still being collected by contractor A.
F9:
Contractor A collects a set fee for every ton of trash that crosses the scale at the landfill to pay for processing the trash through the MRF, except for the recyclable loads from the cities since the contract with the cities was renegotiated in 2007 to become effective in 2008. The MRF fee was originally negotiated at $8.00/ton, was raised to $8.81/ton for several years, and was reduced in 2008 to $8.20/ ton. Expenses estimated in 1994 to operate the MRF were $57,235 (at $8.00 per ton that translates to 7,154 tons per month). Contractor A collected $8.00/ton on over 20,253 tons per month from 1994 until 2004, a minimum of $162,024 per month, or $104,789 per month in profit from the $8.00 plus tipping fee. The annual profit for the contractor to operate the MRF based on these figures is a minimum of $1,000,000. Revenues in 2007, as reported by the contractor, from material recycling processing were $1,397,980 with expenses of $60,993 for a 4 profit of $1,336,885. Revenues in 2008 in a depressed economy, as reported by the contractor were $1,133,818. The Grand Jury finds these overly excessive profits were not intended in the contract, and are not in the best interests of Madera County.
F10:
The MRF was designed and granted a state permit to recycle dirty trash, i.e., trash collected from the curb that has not been separated. Currently, the contractor operates the MRF between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. and processes all recyclable loads from the cities and other recycling, then separates and bales the different types of recovered materials separately. The contractor representative stated that the MRF is now operated as a clean MRF. He also stated that most dirty trash is no longer baled, but is compacted more efficiently at the landfill face. The Grand Jury found that nearly all of the trash from the unincorporated areas is routed directly to the landfill bypassing the MRF. The contractor justifies this practice by saying the MRF will not handle the volume. a. The Grand Jury finds that the intent of the contract is that all dirty trash is to be processed through the MRF. b. The Grand Jury also finds that it is the intent of the contract that the contractor process the trash at a speed to effectively divert recyclable materials and to expand the facility as needed to process the volume of trash received. c. The Grand Jury learned that no additional MRF workers have been added and that, in fact, the work force has been reduced. No physical improvements or additions to the MRF have been made since it was originally constructed, other than the baler has been relined. The Grand Jury also finds that no additional shifts have been added. The Grand Jury finds that the contractor is in violation of the intent of the contract to operate the MRF and, as a result, has amassed excessive profits.
F11:
The Grand Jury finds that the County should not have allowed as profit the tipping fee dedicated to the operation of the MRF above 20,253 tons per month. While some adjustment to operational costs may be justified by wage increases, insurance, and other benefit packages, the Grand Jury finds that the County has been overcharged for the operation of the MRF by millions of dollars over a period of several years.
F12:
The language of the contract states that the County is to receive credit for 100% of the revenues derived from the sale of recyclables (less 10% profit for the contractor). In 2007, the contractor received $679,606 from the sale of recyclables. Contractor A’s representative stated that the County is “credited.” Attempts to clarify what was meant by “credited” were not successful. Income reports provided by the County Auditor/Controller detailing income for several years from the contractor were requested and reviewed. The Grand Jury found no 5 evidence that the County has received payments or credits for the sale of recyclables, in 2007 or any other year, in direct violation of the terms of the contract. a. The Grand Jury finds the contractor in violation of the provision of the contract requiring the County to receive 100% from the sale of recyclables (less 10% profit for the contractor). b. The Grand Jury finds the County RMA lax in enforcing contract obligations.
F13:
Until 2007 the State requirement for recycling was 50% of total county trash to be recycled. From 2004 to 2007, the County recycled in excess of 50% and as high as 78%, exceeding State standards for recycling. The County appears to be on target to meet State requirements under current law which is based on per capita population. However, this goal is met by calculating total recycling throughout the county, not just from the MRF, and, as noted above, very little if any trash from the unincorporated portions of the county is recycled. There appears to be little clarity in the county’s goal for recyclables. If the BoS is serious about the extent of such an effort, especially in the unincorporated areas of the county, a clear policy would permit the staff to develop options and a timetable to achieve such a goal.
F14:
For several years contractor A has retained a significant amount of revenue due to a dispute regarding the distribution of the 2007 adjustment in tipping fees. County officials have apparently made only limited attempts over the years to resolve this issue and recover monies owed the County. The contractor has effective control of such funds, might well use the funds for purposes other than contractual obligations, and the County not only is unable to account for such monies but has failed to resolve the matter in a timely fashion.
F15:
The County entered into contracts with contractors A and B (Contract No. 5364A-C-2001 and Contract No. 6601(A)-C-2001) for collecting solid waste in the unincorporated areas of the county and hauling waste to the landfill. These contracts provide for contractors’ service fees to increase automatically when contractors’ requests for fee increases are not acted upon by the BoS. The requested fee increases are calculated using changes in the Southern California Consumer Price Index (CPI). Contractors’ actual operating costs are not required to be considered in the calculations. The Grand Jury finds no reasonable correlation between changes in the Southern California CPI and the increases in services fees charged to residents in the unincorporated areas of Madera County.
F16:
The County entered into a no-bid contract for the construction and operation of a Household Hazardous Waste Facility (BOS File No. 0614). The Grand Jury did not investigate this portion of the solid waste management system. However, the Grand Jury did find improperly labeled, handled, and stored hazardous waste on September 27, 2010, when visiting the landfill. 6
F17:
The County in a no-bid process granted contractor A a contract (Contract No. 5365-C-94) for the operation of the North Fork Transfer Station as long as the landfill contract is valid. The contractor listed revenue for 2007 at $569,440 and $538,244 for 2006. The Grand Jury did not investigate the contractor operations at the North Fork Transfer Station.
F18:
The Grand Jury found the storage of numerous commercial portable toilets on County property. The Grand Jury asked to see a contract which authorizes contractor A to conduct other commercial activities on County property. Contractor A’s representative provided the Solid Waste Manager of Madera County a contract (Contract No. 3297-C-81) that purported to allow businesses supported by contracts (Contract No. 1790-C-72, Contract No. 2944-C-79, and Contract No. 3293-C-81). That contract only allows for the storage of equipment from related business activities, and specifically does not include portable toilet storage. a. The Grand Jury finds that the contractor is taking improper advantage of its contract with the County by storing portable toilets on County property. b. The Grand Jury finds that the contractor is taking improper advantage of their contract with the County by operating businesses authorized for equipment storage only. c. The Grand Jury finds that county officials were aware that the contractor was storing equipment from a portable toilet business on County property at the landfill for some time. The Grand Jury finds the CAO, the RMA Director, and subordinate officials negligent for failure to take proper action in pursuing matters consistent with looking after County interests.
F19:
The Grand Jury observed staff at the landfill office fielding telephone calls relating to landfill operations, contract hauler operations, and portable toilet operations. Business cards of the staff listed all these businesses on the same card. Licenses and permits for such non-related businesses were posted in the landfill office. The Grand Jury finds that there is an appearance of co-mingling of staff, resources, and facilities among the various businesses conducted by the contractor at the landfill. The contractor stated that a percentage of each employee’s time is allocated to each business.
F20:
The Grand Jury observed improper labeling, handling, and storage of hazardous waste at the landfill. The Grand Jury found that the County Department of Environmental Health has issued no formal citations for violations concerning any operation at the landfill. While a portion of the fees collected is designated for the department’s use, inspections are done only on a monthly basis; with limited staffing, such inspections may be cursory at best. Infractions, when found, were generally handled informally, with little documentation, and the contractor was given significant time to correct the problem. Moreover, tracking of recurring problems, i.e., trending, was apparently not done. The Grand Jury finds that the Department of Environmental Health is lax in protecting the health and safety of the residents of Madera County regarding the various operations at the landfill for which they have responsibility. The Grand Jury finds the relationship between County inspectors and the contractor to be too informal for effective regulation.
F21:
The Grand Jury finds that the Division of Solid Waste Management, the Engineering Department, the RMA Director, and the CAO have not satisfactorily monitored or enforced the contract to operate the landfill, the MRF, or the Household Hazardous Waste Facility and, therefore, have not protected the interests of the residents of Madera County. Independent audits have not been routinely conducted; while an audit is now underway, the County historically has had no independent means to verify claimed expenses or revenues. The Grand Jury finds the relationship between County overseers and the contractor is too informal for effective regulation. Conclusions:
* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.