Madera County Grand Jury
2010-2011
From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (21)
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
The Grand Jury found that on June 7, 2011, the Board of Supervisors (BoS) recognized that $11,176,110 had not been transferred from various trust funds to the County General Fund.
F2:
The Grand Jury found that the Auditor-Controller maintains approximately 700 accounts and trust funds. a. Many of the accounts and trust funds have not been reviewed or audited annually. b. The report prepared for the County by MGT of America showed that 165 of the accounts and trust funds pertain to the school districts. c. The Auditor-Controller duplicates the record keeping performed by the Madera County Office of Education (MCOE) for these funds.
F3:
The Grand Jury found that in 2010 the Auditor-Controller developed policies and procedures covering accounting, capital assets, fraud, and travel.
F4:
The Grand Jury found that since 2009 there have been three appointed, acting, or elected Auditor-Controllers.
F5:
The Grand Jury found that the BoS recently considered and rejected a proposal to combine the elected offices of Auditor-Controller and Treasurer-Tax Collector into an appointed Director of Finance.
F6:
The Grand Jury found that the BoS appointed a new Auditor-Controller who assumed her duties in January 2012.
F7:
The Grand Jury found that the Auditor-Controller’s Office has experienced vacancies in key positions over the past several years.
F8:
The Grand Jury found that in the past the County has been ineligible for grant awards due to lack of timely completion of financial reports.
F9:
The Grand Jury found that the County uses the Integrated Financial Accounting System (IFAS). a. IFAS is built on an obsolete platform which does not provide a solid foundation upon which to build or attach other functional components. b. IFAS requires routine operational assistance from the analyst staff of the County Information Technology Department (IT). c. Some of the system’s capabilities, e.g., the budget component, are not being utilized.
F10:
The Grand Jury found that use of the IFAS payroll component is made considerably more complex because of the County’s practice of issuing employee paychecks prior to the end of the pay period. Conclusions:
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 & 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 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: