Madera County Grand Jury
2011-2012
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 (22)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
16 findings
F1:
The Grand Jury found that the goal of the Housing Authority is to move residents to market rate housing as soon as reasonably possible through resident educational programs regarding home ownership and career opportunities.
F2:
The Grand Jury found that the Housing Authority pays out approximately $374,000 monthly for rent subsidies in the HCV program.
F3:
The Grand Jury found that the Housing Authority maintains waiting lists of program applicants. a. There are approximately 1,900 applicants on the waiting list for Public Housing. b. The waiting list for the HCV program has about 800 applicants.
F4:
The Grand Jury found that the HCV program provides preferences for homeless families that: a. are referred from support service agencies; and b. qualify under the Domestic Violence, Displaced, Family Unification, Behavioral Health, or Veterans programs.
F5:
The Grand Jury found that less than 30% of low-income and affordable housing needs in Madera are met by the Housing Authority.
F6:
The Grand Jury found that, due to current economic conditions, the need for low-income and affordable housing has increased while funding has decreased.
F7:
The Grand Jury found that the loss of the Redevelopment Agency created a significant reduction in funding for the Housing Authority.
F8:
The Grand Jury found that Housing Authority program participants must meet eligibility requirements on an annual basis: a. income limits; b. U.S. citizen or eligible immigration status; c. passing criminal background check; d. landlord references; e. credit check; and f. no money owed to the program nation-wide.
F9:
The Grand Jury found that eligible families who receive their voucher from the HCV program can search for their own rental housing in the private market. a. The rental unit must pass HUD Housing Quality Standards. b. The rent amount must be comparable to unassisted rental units in the immediate area.
F10:
The Grand Jury found that rent assistance is based on a formula using the family's income, rent amount, and utility expenses. a. Generally, families do not pay more than 30% of their adjusted income. b. The remainder of the rent is paid directly to the landlord in rent subsidy.
F11:
The Grand Jury found that participants who violate Housing Authority rules may be banned from the program for specific periods of time.
F12:
The Grand Jury found that the Housing Authority has 31 full-time and 1 part-time staff positions. Interns are utilized through Ready, Set, Go, a training program for young adults.
F13:
The Grand Jury found that the Housing Authority employs a full time City Police Officer who: a. patrols all units to provide a secure and safe living environment for program participants; b. performs criminal background checks (1,000 per year) for program applicants; c. investigates criminal activity and fraud; and d. educates tenants about crime and fraud prevention.
F14:
The Grand Jury found that the Housing Authority units are well maintained. The maintenance staff: a. provides repair and maintenance services requested by tenants; b. paints, repairs, and sanitizes vacated units for occupancy by the next tenant within 15 days; and c. performs no maintenance or repair services on HCV units.
F15:
The Grand Jury found that 16 public housing units have been sold. a. Five units were sold to tenants. b. Capital was reinvested in acquisition and preservation of new affordable housing.
F16:
The Grand Jury found that MORES is a partner in a new 65 unit multi-family development in north Madera. Conclusions:
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
1. The Grand Jury recommends that the Housing Authority staff be recognized and commended for their dedication and the outstanding services they provide to participants in the agency's programs. Respondent: written response required pursuant to PC 933(c) Madera City Council/ Housing Authority Board of Commissioners 205 W. Fourth St. Madera, CA 93637 Informational: response optional Housing Authority, City of Madera Executive Director 205 N. G St. Madera, CA 93637 Madera City Police Department 330 S. C St. Madera, CA 93638
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The Grand Jury found that the Division is not utilizing the County's formal safety and first aid program known as the Injury and Illness Prevention Program (IIPP).
F2:
The Grand Jury found that contractors are used for large maintenance and new installation projects.
F3:
The Grand Jury found that the Engineering Department is responsible for facilitating the preparation and monitoring of the contracts.
F4:
The Grand Jury found that the Division Manager has limited input into the budget process.
F5:
The Grand Jury found that the County is a member of the Underground Service Alert (USA) Program for marking and locating underground facilities. a. The Division does not have complete emergency response plans to deal with a catastrophe or line break. b. The Engineering Department does not have or maintain a mapping system, but relies on “as built” or engineering drawings. c. The Division does not generate or maintain required marking and locating documentation.
F6:
The Grand Jury found that the Division currently has two unfilled funded positions, an operations manager and an electrician. Conclusions:
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
12 findings
F1:
The Grand Jury found that Risk Management is in the process of revitalizing the IIPP, which complies with Cal/OSHA standards and requirements.
F2:
The Grand Jury found that the County has documented 100 to 115 worker’s compensation claims per year.
F3:
The Grand Jury found that, as stated in the OSHA guidelines, there is a direct correlation between an effective IIPP and the reduction of worker's compensation claims and County liability exposure.
F4:
The Grand Jury found that the County does not have a full-time designated safety coordinator.
F5:
The Grand Jury found that Department heads are responsible for the implementation of the IIPP within their department, including the development/management of the program tailored to their individual department.
F6:
The Grand Jury found that there is disparity among departments with regard to the IIPP implementation, and some departments are not in full compliance.
F7:
The Grand Jury found that the IIPP is currently available in hard copy only.
F8:
The Grand Jury found that safety and health inspections, with follow-up procedures to ensure necessary corrective actions, are not consistently being accomplished.
F9:
The Grand Jury found that safety training is not consistently conducted and not properly documented.
F10:
The Grand Jury found that the County does not provide basic First Aid/CPR training to employees.
F11:
The Grand Jury found that the County does not have Automatic Emergency Defibrillators (AEDs) available in appropriate locations.
F12:
The Grand Jury found that the application of AEDs is associated with the doubling of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest survival rates per studies reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. Conclusions:
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
13 findings
F1:
The Grand Jury found that all library facilities are County-owned except the Madera Ranchos branch.
F2:
The Grand Jury found that in addition to books and other reference materials, library patrons have access to: a. free usage of computers; b. free internet access; c. printing and copying; d. CDs and DVDs; and e. space for tutoring.
F3:
The Grand Jury found that three of the libraries have specially dedicated and designed stand-alone computers with numerous learning programs for young children.
F4:
The Grand Jury found that the children’s summer reading program: a. is popular and well attended by 2 to 12 year old children; b. is educational; c. promotes reading; d. recognizes reading achievement; and e. offers fun activities based upon the chosen theme.
F5:
The Grand Jury found that the libraries have increased utilization of volunteers.
F6:
The Grand Jury found that SJVLS provides: a. home access to the data bases; b. the ability to borrow books and materials from any library that belongs to SJVLS; c. online access to the index of library books and materials; and d. the convenience of borrowing and returning books and materials to any library in the SJVLS.
F7:
The Grand Jury found that membership in SJVLS has an annual cost of $70,000.
F8:
The Grand Jury found that the State has reduced and may eliminate all public library funding.
F9:
The Grand Jury found that budget reductions impacted the libraries by: a. reducing staff; b. reducing public access hours; and c. eliminating funds for purchase of new books and periodical subscriptions.
F10:
The Grand Jury found that the libraries are not currently able to provide the following services requested by the public: a. faxing; b. e books; and c. wireless internet access.
F11:
The Grand Jury found that some of the libraries are not equipped with smoke detectors and a sprinkler system.
F12:
The Grand Jury found that some of the libraries lack security, outdoor lighting, and alarms.
F13:
The Grand Jury found that the current library administration: a. has restored some of the previously reduced hours of public access, with BoS approval; b. has implemented weekly meetings to increase staff communications; and c. is looking for ways to improve the appearance and functionality of the library facilities. Conclusions:
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
16 findings
F1:
The Grand Jury found that in the past three years the County settled a claim for approximately $67,000 for false arrest related to a warrant issue.
F2:
The Grand Jury found that the Courts issue all warrants within their jurisdiction including bench warrants and warrants of arrest.
F3:
The Grand Jury found that the Court Clerk prepares warrants daily.
F4:
The Grand Jury found that the warrants are picked up by Sheriff's personnel and delivered to the Sheriff’s Office daily.
F5:
The Grand Jury found that up to 200 new warrants are issued weekly, and an equivalent number are recalled.
F6:
The Grand Jury found that warrants with a bail amount of $5,000 or greater are entered by Sheriff's Records personnel into the state-wide warrant system via the California Law Enforcement Telecommunication System (CLETS).
F7:
The Grand Jury found that the California Department of Justice requires that CLETS terminals be located in CLETS-approved secured locations, and personnel authorized to access CLETS must pass a background check.
F8:
The Grand Jury found that the Sheriff's Office and MCDC have personnel with the appropriate CLETS security clearance.
F9:
The Grand Jury found that all warrants are processed into the Sheriff’s local automated system by Sheriff's Records personnel.
F10:
The Grand Jury found that the Court Clerk faxes a list of warrant recalls daily for immediate entry into the system.
F11:
The Grand Jury found that Sheriff’s Records personnel process the recalled warrants by: a. pulling the hard copy from the files; b. updating the local and statewide automated systems; and c. returning the original warrants to the Court for disposition.
F12:
The Grand Jury found that Sheriff's Records day shift personnel process warrant recalls daily.
F13:
The Grand Jury found that warrant recalls arriving toward the end of the day shift are sometimes held over for processing on the next scheduled work day.
F14:
The Grand Jury found that if the arrested prisoner has an outstanding local warrant, the arresting officer is required to stop at the Sheriff’s Office to obtain the hard copy of that warrant prior to booking.
F15:
The Grand Jury found that the arresting officer must leave the handcuffed prisoner unattended in the vehicle while retrieving the hard copy of the warrant.
F16:
The Grand Jury found that after retrieval of the hard copy warrant, the arresting officer proceeds to the Jail and completes the transfer of the prisoner. Conclusions:
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The Grand Jury found that the Auditor does not provide the districts with timely accounting of revenue which is required in the calculation of the utility rates.
F2:
The Grand Jury found that there are multiple billing cycles for the districts. a. One district is billed annually. b. Three districts are billed monthly. c. The balance of the districts is billed quarterly.
F3:
The Grand Jury found that there are approximately one half million dollars in unpaid utility bills.
F4:
The Grand Jury found that approximately 6% of the accounts are delinquent. a. Delinquent accounts are included on the annual property tax bill. b. There is no financial penalty or service cut-off policy for non-payment.
F5:
The Grand Jury found that the current utility billing and accounting software is inadequate and does not meet the needs of the Auditor or the districts. Conclusions:
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
26 findings
F1:
The Grand Jury found the campus to be well-maintained, clean, and free of all graffiti.
F2:
The Grand Jury found that approximately 4 acres are designated for a farm and barn for FFA students.
F3:
The Grand Jury found that the farm currently houses pigs, chickens, and rabbits, and the greenhouse has been completed.
F4:
The Grand Jury found that construction is expected to start soon on a $4 million agriculture facility.
F5:
The Grand Jury found that the student eating area is open-air, without walls or roof.
F6:
The Grand Jury found that the two schools share a combined staff of twenty-one certificated and eight classified staff members.
F7:
The Grand Jury found that all MCS teachers are appropriately credentialed by the State of California.
F8:
The Grand Jury found that a counselor meets with each MCS student four times a year.
F9:
The Grand Jury found that MCS teachers are readily available to parents and students by cell phone and email. They also are available before and after school to provide students with extra help.
F10:
The Grand Jury found that MCS strives to prepare students for the workforce and that the rules emulate the standards found in most employers’ policy handbook.
F11:
The Grand Jury found that MCS focuses on career options in media, arts, science, agriculture, military science, and fire science.
F12:
The Grand Jury found that student assignments are project-based using modern technology.
F13:
The Grand Jury found that MCS students are able to take online college classes.
F14:
The Grand Jury found that all MCS students are provided with an Apple laptop computer, to be used for school work.
F15:
The Grand Jury found that hours of use of the laptops are limited to 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. weekdays and five hours per day on weekends.
F16:
The Grand Jury found that school hours are 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. with a 45-minute lunch break.
F17:
The Grand Jury found that students take eight classes on an odd/even schedule with four 85-minute classes each day.
F18:
The Grand Jury found that students from throughout the valley attend MCS.
F19:
The Grand Jury found that transportation is not provided for students outside the district attendance boundaries.
F20:
The Grand Jury found that the MCS student attendance rate is 96%, much higher than that of traditional high schools.
F21:
The Grand Jury found that parent involvement is required at MCS.
F22:
The Grand Jury found that MCS receives annually from the State approximately $1,000 less per student than traditional schools receive.
F23:
The Grand Jury found that MCS receives monetary and other forms of support from businesses, organizations, and residents within the district.
F24:
The Grand Jury found that MCS is scheduled for review by Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) to begin the accreditation process.
F25:
The Grand Jury found that graduation from a WASC-accredited school is required or preferred for matriculation to higher level institutions.
F26:
The Grand Jury found that MCS students are courteous, enthusiastic, and show pride in their school. Conclusions:
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
The Grand Jury found that the plant operators have current, required state certifications.
F2:
The Grand Jury found that the plant is routinely monitored for contaminants in the drinking water according to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and state laws.
F3:
The Grand Jury found that required water quality tests are conducted by a state certified laboratory in Fresno.
F4:
The Grand Jury found that the annual Consumer Confidence Report delivered to area residents showed the quality of the water to be within state parameters for potable water.
F5:
The Grand Jury found that the plant requires many adjustments to accommodate the rapid changes in river water quality.
F6:
The Grand Jury found that the plant is capable of a combined production of 180 gallons of potable water per minute.
F7:
The Grand Jury found that the plant currently provides water service to 34 of a potential 49 homes.
F8:
The Grand Jury found that the current water volume capacity is insufficient during the summer months.
F9:
The Grand Jury found that there was an excessive amount of rust on the exterior of the piping and holding tanks.
F10:
The Grand Jury found that sodium hypochlorite is delivered to the plant by a vendor who is responsible for the storage tank and the required spill containment system. Conclusions:
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
17 findings
F1:
The Grand Jury found that the Road Department is authorized 86 positions, of which approximately 11 are vacant.
F2:
The Grand Jury found that there are two major divisions within the Department: the Engineering & Traffic Division and the Maintenance & Operations Division (M&O). In addition, there is a small administrative and accounting support unit.
F3:
The Grand Jury found that the Department’s support unit assists with the administrative work and accounting of the other RMA departments.
F4:
The Grand Jury found that road repair priorities are established by safety issues, traffic volume, and road condition.
F5:
The Grand Jury found that the contract awarding process follows Federal, State, and local contracting requirements. There has been only one formal protest in the last 5 years.
F6:
The Grand Jury found that the Department's Engineering Division provides complete contracting processes including request for proposal, bid review, award, and project oversight.
F7:
The Grand Jury found that the Engineering Division, by performing more projects in- house, has reduced costs. In-house project completion has increased from an average of 5 in past years to 10 projects completed in 2011.
F8:
The Grand Jury found that the Department uses current communications technology and automation. a. Online processes are provided for reporting road repair issues. b. Twitter and Facebook are used to communicate with the public.
F9:
The Grand Jury found that within the M&O Division there are 5 road crews, a weed abatement crew, and a graffiti removal crew. a. Three of the road crews work from outlying yards in Raymond, Chowchilla, and North Fork. b. Two road crews plus the weed abatement and graffiti removal crews report daily to the Almond Avenue Yard in Madera. c. A crew is comprised of 5 to 7 workers.
F10:
The Grand Jury found that in-house work consists of smaller repairs, shoulder grading, blacktop overlay, culvert installation, drainage issues, minor bridge repairs, road signage, weed abatement, and graffiti and litter removal.
F11:
The Grand Jury found that the M&O Division is aware of the need for additional training of workers in current road repair materials and methodologies.
F12:
The Grand Jury found that there have been no recent feasibility studies regarding lease versus purchase of heavy equipment.
F13:
The Grand Jury found that the Road Shop maintains 270 vehicles and other pieces of equipment, including: a. 71 vehicles (sedans, vans, SUVs, and various pickup trucks), 6 of which are being surplused for disposal; b. 16 pickup trucks and 3 small sedans which operate on compressed natural gas (CNG), limiting their range due to lack of available fueling facilities; and c. some pickup trucks which have special equipment installed for specific duties such as weed spraying, sign installation and removal, vehicle recovery, and arrow displays for safety of road crews.
F14:
The Grand Jury found that Department mechanics are not properly trained to repair the modern equipment.
F15:
The Grand Jury found that both County Central Garage and the Road Shop perform repair and maintenance of sedans, vans, and light pickup trucks.
F16:
The Grand Jury found that there are no Road Department policies or procedures for vehicle pre-operation checks, e.g., oil level, tire inflation, and visual safety inspection.
F17:
The Grand Jury found that the Almond Avenue Yard has experienced vandalism and theft. Conclusions:
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
17 findings
F1:
In regard to the 2010-2011 Recommendation "that the County should avoid the appearance of impropriety in the granting and management of contracts in the area of solid waste management as millions of dollars are involved", the Grand Jury found that on March 27, 2012, the BoS contracted with consulting firm Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. (Contract No. MCC 9543-C-2012) to perform a business needs assessment, develop a scope of work to be sent out to bid, and solicit/select a new contractor(s) to assume responsibility for the various operations.
F2:
In regard to the 2010-2011 Recommendation "that the RMA, subject to appropriate BoS guidance, give thirty days (30) notice to contractor A for contract non-compliance", the Grand Jury found that on March 31, 2011 the BoS gave the thirty (30) day notice to contractor for contract non-compliance.
F3:
In regard to the 2010-2011 Recommendation "that the County renegotiate the contracts for the operation of the landfill and the MRF [Materials Recovery Facility] to better represent the interests of the residents of Madera County", the Grand Jury found that the BoS is considering options for future operation of the Landfill and MRF.
F4:
In regard to the 2010-2011 Recommendation "that, in the future, contracts for solid waste management should be awarded on the basis of competitive bid", the Grand Jury found that the BoS has contracted with a consulting firm to develop a scope of work to be sent out for bid.
F5:
In regard to the 2010-2011 Recommendation "that the landfill revert to a County operation resulting in increased control, cost savings, and opportunities for substantial revenue from recycling", the Grand Jury found that: a. the County does not have the in-house expertise to operate the Landfill; and b. options for future operation of the Landfill will be studied by the contracted consulting firm.
F6:
In regard to the 2010-2011 Recommendation "that … the request for proposal should include hauling, managing the landfill and MRF, and managing the North Fork Transfer Station", the Grand Jury found that the BoS has given notice of termination for the contracts for these four operations.
F7:
In regard to the 2010-2011 Recommendation "that the BoS take the necessary steps to amend the agreements with contractors A and B in regard to the process used to determine appropriate increases in service fees for collection of solid waste in the unincorporated areas of the county … based upon legitimate changes in operating costs", the Grand Jury found that this issue has not been addressed.
F8:
In regard to the 2010-2011 Recommendation "that the MRF should be operated as a dirty MRF as required by the contract and state permit", the Grand Jury found that the County has taken the position that it does not matter whether the MRF is operated as clean or dirty.
F9:
In regard to the 2010-2011 Recommendation "that the County fund a method for separating recyclable materials in the unincorporated areas of the county to increase recycling", the Grand Jury found that no action has been taken; however, County staff is exploring options for partial implementation of recycling efforts in the unincorporated areas.
F10:
In regard to the 2010-2011 Order that "the District Attorney … recover funds and reasonable interest for the over-charges collected by the contractor for that portion of the tipping fee designated for operation of the MRF", the Grand Jury found that: a. the District Attorney's request for the funding needed to comply with this Order was denied by the BoS; and b. the BoS has filed a lawsuit (Case No. MCV059402) against the contractor to recover these funds along with 10% interest.
F11:
In regard to the 2010-2011 Order that "the District Attorney … recover monies generated from the sale of recyclable materials as called for in the contract", the Grand Jury found that: a. the District Attorney's request for the funding needed to comply with this Order was denied by the BoS; and b. the BoS has filed a lawsuit (Case No. MCV059402) against the contractor to recover these funds along with 10% interest.
F12:
In regard to the 2010-2011 Recommendation that "special attention be paid to insure that the contractor is not co-mingling expenses from the various businesses that it operates out of the landfill", the Grand Jury found that the BoS addressed this issue in pending litigation No. MCV059402.
F13:
In regard to the 2010-2011 Recommendation "that the County complete a comprehensive, independent audit of the landfill and MRF operations every three years", the Grand Jury found that the BoS has caused an independent audit to be performed.
F14:
In regard to the 2010-2011 Recommendation "that the [current] audit … should be reviewed in detail by the BoS and a copy provided promptly to the Grand Jury. Deficiencies noted should result in a thirty (30) day notice of contract non-compliance and steps needed for the contractor to come into compliance", the Grand Jury found that: a. the BoS has reviewed the audit report; b. the Grand Jury was not provided with a copy of the audit report; and c. the BoS issued a thirty (30) day notice of contract non-compliance.
F15:
In regard to the 2010-2011 Recommendation "that the BoS require that enforcement of the contract receive active and direct attention by the CAO, the RMA Director, County Counsel, and the Division of Solid Waste Management [with] frequent, scheduled reports as to such activities from County agencies", the Grand Jury found that weekly monitoring and reporting on the Landfill operations are being performed by RMA staff.
F16:
In regard to the 2010-2011 Recommendation "that the Department of Environmental Health develop stricter inspection and documentation procedures to insure that the proper handling and storage of household hazardous wastes is in compliance with health and safety regulations", the Grand Jury found that the handling and storage of household hazardous waste appears to be in compliance with regulations.
F17:
In regard to the 2010-2011 Recommendation "that the BoS pursue corrective action to insure that the contractor ceases and desists from operating unrelated businesses on County property, until such time as a negotiated agreement for the contractor to pay fair market value to do so is in effect", the Grand Jury found that the BoS has entered into a contract (Agreement No. 9434-C-2011) with the Landfill operator for lease of property on which to store his equipment for other businesses. Conclusions:
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
The Grand Jury found that the facility was clean and well maintained.
F2:
The Grand Jury found that the required reclaimed water quality tests are conducted by a state certified laboratory in Fresno.
F3:
The Grand Jury found that the heavy equipment assigned to the facility is old but functional.
F4:
The Grand Jury found that the heavy and miscellaneous equipment is serviced by the plant employees.
F5:
The Grand Jury found that the assigned light vehicles are delivered to and serviced by the Madera County Central Garage.
F6:
The Grand Jury found that plant operators are required to have current state certifications. a. Operator certifications are posted in the plant office. b. The plant supervisor monitors the certification of the operators.
F7:
The Grand Jury found that sodium hypochlorite is delivered to the plant by a vendor who is responsible for the storage tank and the required spill containment system.
F8:
The Grand Jury found that the plant is not utilizing the County's formal Safety and First Aid Program.
F9:
The Grand Jury found that the sludge removed through the treatment process is stored on the ground and covered with a large tarp. a. The sludge is subjected to moisture seeping under the tarp. b. Storage of the sludge on the ground subjects the ground water to possible contamination. Conclusions:
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
The Grand Jury found that the facilities were clean and well maintained.
F2:
The Grand Jury found that the plant cannot fully meet the demand for sewage disposal service at peak usage times.
F3:
The Grand Jury found that the required reclaimed water quality tests are conducted by a state certified laboratory in Fresno.
F4:
The Grand Jury found that the plant's complete treatment process is recorded, monitored, and logged on a daily basis.
F5:
The Grand Jury found that the County received a grant from the Environmental Protection Agency for purchase of new heavy equipment, of which a backhoe and utility vehicle have been purchased. a. The staff requires training on the operation and maintenance of the new equipment. b. The equipment manufacturer(s) can provide the needed training.
F6:
The Grand Jury found that the assigned light vehicles are delivered to and serviced by the Madera County Central Garage.
F7:
The Grand Jury found that plant operators are required to have current state certifications. a. Operator certifications are posted in the plant office. b. The plant supervisor monitors the certification of the operators. c. Not all of the posted certificates were current on December 15, 2011.
F8:
The Grand Jury found that sodium hypochlorite is delivered to the plant by a vendor who is responsible for the storage tank and the required spill containment system.
F9:
The Grand Jury found that the plant is not utilizing the County's formal Safety and First Aid Program.
F10:
The Grand Jury found that the sludge removed through the treatment process is stored on the ground and covered with a large tarp. a. The sludge is subjected to moisture seeping under the tarp. b. Storage of the sludge on the ground subjects the ground water to possible contamination. Conclusions:
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
The Grand Jury found that the allegations outlined in the complaint were valid.
F2:
The Grand Jury found that there have been numerous incidents reported to the Sheriff’s Office including dog bites, attempted assault, fires set to storage area, fighting, theft of property, accumulation of trash, public drunkenness, destruction of public property, panhandling, and drug dealing.
F3:
The Grand Jury found that the Library grounds are patrolled by law enforcement infrequently.
F4:
The Grand Jury found that law enforcement generally responds in a timely manner when called.
F5:
The Grand Jury found that four or more persons were loitering on and around the Library grounds on each of several visits.
F6:
The Grand Jury found that Friends of the Oakhurst Library provided security services at the Library for approximately one month, making patrons and staff feel more secure.
F7:
The Grand Jury found that on February 14, 2012, the Board of Supervisors, at the request of the County Sheriff, adopted Ordinance No. 653 which prohibits loitering on County Library property and possessing or consuming alcohol on such property.
F8:
The Grand Jury found that the ordinance specifies signs to be posted as follows: “Trespassing and Loitering Prohibited” and “Alcoholic Beverages Prohibited”. Conclusions:
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
12 findings
F1:
The Grand Jury found that on November 4, 2011, VSPW had an inmate population of 3,358.
F2:
The Grand Jury found that on February 8, 2012, CCWF had an inmate population of 3,118.
F3:
The Grand Jury found that since implementation of AB 109 in October 2011, inmate population decreased at CCWF by at least 800. AB 109 requires that non-violent, non- sexual offenders and parole violators be incarcerated in county jails rather than state prisons.
F4:
The Grand Jury found that VSPW conversion to a men’s facility is targeted to be completed by July 2013.
F5:
The Grand Jury found that once the conversion of VSPW is completed, CCWF will be the only reception center for women prisoners in California. After sentencing, all women prisoners will be sent to CCWF for evaluation and classification. Some will then be transferred to other facilities.
F6:
The Grand Jury found that CCWF is the only facility to house condemned women in California. a. CCWF does not have the facilities to perform an execution. b. Executions are performed at San Quentin State Prison.
F7:
The Grand Jury found that food preparation and service at both facilities adhere to strict state guidelines and operate in a clean and efficient manner.
F8:
The Grand Jury found that meals are prepared to address religious, dietary, and medical needs.
F9:
The Grand Jury found that medical treatment for inmates is provided by California Correctional Health Care Services Division, independent from the prison management, as a result of federal court actions.
F10:
The Grand Jury found that both facilities provide academic education, vocational training, counseling, and specialized programs for the purpose of successful reintegration into society.
F11:
The Grand Jury found that inmates can submit complaints as follows: a. by an appeal process called “602” California Prison Grievance Process; b. by accessing a toll-free number to register complaints; c. by submitting a complaint in a locked box that can be opened only by an ombudsman; or d. through the Women’s Advisory Council which is an inmate operated program.
F12:
The Grand Jury found that both facilities are clean, well-managed, and well maintained. Conclusions:
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
22 findings
F1:
The Grand Jury found that Central Garage was well organized and very clean.
F2:
The Grand Jury found that the lighting for the bays was located on the 20 to 22 foot high ceiling of the garage.
F3:
The Grand Jury found that the facility's security measures include perimeter fencing topped with razor wire, internal motion detector alarms, an external gate alarm, and after- hour card key access.
F4:
The Grand Jury found that the fuel dispensing system at Central Garage is currently being automated to capture vehicle and driver identification data, vehicle mileage, and quantity of gasoline obtained.
F5:
The Grand Jury found that only frequently used parts are stocked at Central Garage, minimizing inventory costs.
F6:
The Grand Jury found that when non-stocked parts are needed, the parts assistant purchases from local parts suppliers based on price and availability.
F7:
The Grand Jury found that the automotive technicians are required to furnish their own tools.
F8:
The Grand Jury found that the automotive technicians are reimbursed 50% of tool purchases annually, up to $500.
F9:
The Grand Jury found that the staff works as a cooperative team, sharing specialty tools and brainstorming ideas for solving difficult repair problems.
F10:
The Grand Jury found that Central Garage staff alternate mandatory furlough days, thus keeping the garage open for business Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
F11:
The Grand Jury found that Central Garage schedules every vehicle for preventative maintenance every 4 months or 4,000 miles.
F12:
The Grand Jury found that with the use of synthetic oil, oil changes are performed with every other preventative maintenance service.
F13:
The Grand Jury found that the Central Garage operation is self-supported by charging County departments for services provided: a. Departments which use pool vehicles or have assigned vehicles are charged standard rates based upon mileage utilization and type of vehicle. b. Annual standard rates are set to include the costs of vehicle maintenance and repair, fuel, and future vehicle replacement. c. Departments which own their vehicles are charged the actual costs of fuel used and maintenance and repair services provided.
F14:
The Grand Jury found that Central Garage outsources some repair jobs, such as automatic transmission and body work.
F15:
The Grand Jury found that Central Garage currently services and maintains about 340 vehicles in the County’s fleet.
F16:
The Grand Jury found that on October 25, 2011, the Board of Supervisors (BoS) adopted the “Vehicle Replacement and Disposal Policy and Guidelines” which defines replacement/disposal criteria for the various types of vehicles in the County’s fleet.
F17:
The Grand Jury found that on October 25, 2011, the BoS approved reduction of the County’s fleet through salvage of 41 vehicles identified as high mileage, older inefficient models.
F18:
The Grand Jury found that the mountain area vehicles have to be brought 50 miles to the Central Garage in Madera for servicing or repairs.
F19:
The Grand Jury found that it requires approximately 5 man-hours when a mountain area vehicle is brought to and serviced at Central Garage.
F20:
The Grand Jury found that on August 8, 2011, the County issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) to determine the viability and options for servicing and inspecting County fleet vehicles in the mountain area. As of the August 25, 2011 submission deadline, only one response to the RFP had been received.
F21:
The Grand Jury found that the shop supervisor is exploring the possibility of establishing a satellite garage in the mountain area to perform the vehicle maintenance and repair services.
F22:
The Grand Jury found that the County departments which utilize Central Garage services are very satisfied with the services received and the condition of vehicles provided. Conclusions:
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
23 findings
F1:
The Grand Jury found that the Jail operation consists of those activities required to safely accommodate inmate booking, incarceration, and release or transfer to prison.
F2:
The Grand Jury found that both sentenced and non-sentenced inmates are housed in the Jail.
F3:
The Grand Jury found that the population of the Jail on September 27 was 382, of which 47 were females. a. Prior to October 2011, non-sentenced inmates comprised approximately 80% of the inmate population. b. The number of illegal aliens in the inmate mix averages between 10% and 15%.
F4:
The Grand Jury found that $30 million in grant funding was awarded to Madera County for construction of a new jail housing unit adjacent to the current Jail. The funding was made available as a result of AB 900 passed in 2007. a. The new unit is scheduled for completion in the Spring of 2013. b. Staffing for the new unit is included in the current position allocation; however, 20 of these positions are unfunded in the current 2010-11 budget.
F5:
The Grand Jury found that the new unit will provide housing for an additional 144 inmates. a. MCDC currently plans to use the new unit to house low risk inmates with a small area for segregated inmates. b. AB 109, implemented in October 2011, stipulates that offenders who have been sentenced for non-violent, non-sex related crimes will serve their time in the county where sentenced. c. MCDC projects that 30 to 35 inmates per year will be added to the Jail population as a result of AB 109. After a four year period, the intake and release cycle will level off, yielding an estimated additional permanent population of 135. Of that number, approximately 15% will be female.
F6:
The Grand Jury found that qualified inmates may be released from custody to the supervision of the Probation Department with the use of electronic ankle bracelets. a. There are currently 30 to 40 inmates in this program. b. The program cost of $14 per day is borne by the inmate. c. With the implementation of AB 109, MCDC anticipates a significant increase in the use of electronic monitoring.
F7:
The Grand Jury found that all inmates are classified for the purpose of officer and inmate safety. Inmate classification enables the officers to know which inmates are more likely to cause trouble, to become violent, or are suicidal, mentally unstable and/or medically dependent. Special handling of these inmates is accommodated based on classification. a. The classification process is based first upon charges so that individuals with less serious crimes such as child support delinquency or other civil citations are classified as “segregated” and kept away from the general population. b. Uniforms are color coded for immediate recognition of inmate classification. c. Unlike male inmates, females are not separated by their classification regardless of charges, gang affiliation, or sexual orientation.
F8:
The Grand Jury found that physical security of the Jail is enhanced by facility layout. a. The housing modules are self-contained, consisting of exam, interview, handicap and multi-purpose rooms, visiting booths, cells, and exercise yards. b. The use of self-contained modules eliminates the need to move inmates out of their assigned module.
F9:
The Grand Jury found that Jail security is maintained by rigid procedures, including but not limited to Direct Supervision. a. Direct Supervision puts the officer with the inmates during Program Time when appropriately classified inmates are together in the day room and/or exercise yard. b. Direct Supervision enables the officer to develop communication with and more closely observe inmates, and to determine if there is unusual activity.
F10:
The Grand Jury found that there are 46 cameras strategically placed for monitoring inmate activity, excluding private areas such as the bathroom and shower. The camera system allows for multiple monitoring locations throughout the Jail.
F11:
The Grand Jury found that the Jail does not have nor provide stab vests.
F12:
The Grand Jury found that the officers receive a $25 monthly uniform allowance with which they can purchase the vests.
F13:
The Grand Jury found that armed officers responsible for transporting inmates are required to wear ballistic vests.
F14:
The Grand Jury found that inmates have available a formal grievance process. If a grievance is unresolved at the Jail, it may culminate in a Court hearing using the writ process.
F15:
The Grand Jury found that the Jail offers GED training to inmates.
F16:
The Grand Jury found that the kitchen is managed by civilians, and the inmates do the cooking.
F17:
The Grand Jury found that inmates who volunteer to wash and wax the floors, paint, and keep the areas clean are rewarded with extra food, yard time, and visitation.
F18:
The Grand Jury found that the booking unit uses Jail Management System (JMS) to book inmates into the Jail. a. The inmate is searched, photographed, fingerprinted, and classified. A warrant check is conducted, and a DNA sample is collected. b. All information collected in the booking process is immediately transmitted to the FBI-NCIC database. c. After the initial booking process, the inmate is placed in a holding cell with access to a telephone to arrange bail if possible. d. Inmates who are a danger to themselves are held in a padded cell. e. Inmates under the influence are held in cells with padded floors to reduce the risk of injury.
F19:
The Grand Jury found that the Jail uses an automated State database to check for warrants.
F20:
The Grand Jury found that the Jail contracts with a vendor for medical services. a. The services include 24/7 onsite staffing with nurse practitioners, RNs, and CNAs. b. A physician is scheduled for visits on a weekly basis and is on call in case of emergency. c. Pregnant inmates are checked by the medical staff within the first 24 to 72 hours of incarceration and are then transported to an outside OB/GYN. The medical staff monitors their progress until the eighth month, when they are transported weekly to an outside OB/GYN. d. Medical personnel go to the housing units twice daily to treat inmates and dispense medications. e. Inmates are seen immediately for emergencies and, if taken to a hospital, are guarded by a private security company under contract. f. Psychiatric services are available via video conferencing once a week. g. Crisis workers are on call, and anger management services are available. h. Emergency dental services are available.
F21:
The Grand Jury found that JMS is an automated records storage and retrieval system as well as a case management and tracking system. JMS is maintained by three clerical employees who brought the system current, enabling the archival of the paper files.
F22:
The Grand Jury found that the budget and staffing for the Jail have been reduced for the past several years. The current budget is $10.3 million of which approximately $6.1 million is appropriated for salaries and benefits. The allocated staffing level includes 6 vacancies plus 20 unfunded positions.
F23:
The Grand Jury found that in addition to the vacancies, Jail staff are required to take two furlough days per month. The Jail management stated that operating with reduced staffing puts the officers and inmates at risk. Conclusions:
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
The Grand Jury found that the purpose of the substation is to provide a greater presence of the Madera County Sheriff Department to better serve the citizens of Eastern Madera County.
F2:
The Grand Jury found that the facility was well planned and suitably designed.
F3:
The Grand Jury found that a private cleaning service is currently contracted to clean the facility twice a week.
F4:
The Grand Jury found that the facility was clean and neat. However, staff expressed dissatisfaction with the facility's condition between cleanings.
F5:
The Grand Jury found that security cameras were located in and around the building. These cameras did not cover the North side or completely cover the East side of the building where prisoners are received.
F6:
The Grand Jury found that monitoring equipment for the security cameras was located in the wiring closet.
F7:
The Grand Jury found that the security camera equipment was not consistently monitored during normally staffed hours and not at all after hours and on weekends.
F8:
The Grand Jury found that the touch pad to open the automatic gate to enter the compound is located out of reach of the driver of a vehicle. Conclusions:
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
16 findings
F1:
The Grand Jury found no information regarding land purchased by the City without obtaining clear title and deed.
F2:
The Grand Jury found that RDA funding was used for water system improvements.
F3:
The Grand Jury found that redevelopment agencies have been abolished by the Governor effective February 1, 2012.
F4:
The Grand Jury found that the City Council had, at one time, considered declaring bankruptcy as an option for dealing with the City’s financial issues.
F5:
The Grand Jury found that the City Council adopted a balanced budget for fiscal year 2011-2012.
F6:
The Grand Jury found that the City Council receives for its approval a monthly report of all bills to be paid.
F7:
The Grand Jury found that there is on-going litigation by the City against the former City Manager.
F8:
The Grand Jury found that the build-out east of Hwy. 99 includes a school, church, golf course, shopping center, businesses, and large housing developments.
F9:
The Grand Jury found that increased traffic flow, narrow walking paths, and inadequate railing present safety issues for vehicles and pedestrians on the Robertson Blvd. overpass.
F10:
The Grand Jury found that there has been no expansion of and only minor improvements to the Robertson Blvd. overpass at Hwy. 99 to address the traffic and safety issues.
F11:
The Grand Jury found that impact fees, dedicated for overpass development, are required for building on the east side of Hwy. 99.
F12:
The Grand Jury found that a portion of the impact fees collected have been spent on required planning for the overpass.
F13:
The Grand Jury found that the City’s General Plan includes a 5-lane overpass on Robertson Blvd. which will cost about $30 million, including the purchase of additional land.
F14:
The Grand Jury found that the west side water quality remains the same as it has historically been and that the east side water pressure is the lowest.
F15:
The Grand Jury found that the swimming pool, built with a private donation from a Chowchilla family, is owned by the high school and opened to the public when life guard services can be provided.
F16:
The Grand Jury found that a particular Council Member does not recuse himself from discussing or voting on City Council agenda items which could impact the value of property owned by a source of substantial income to his business. Conclusions:
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
27 findings
F1:
The Grand Jury found that the County no longer needs to expand the landfill within 5 years as previously expected. a. The County has been granted a permit which allows the height of the landfill to increase to 70 feet. b. The new allowable height for the landfill extends the need for future expansion to 10 or more years.
F2:
The Grand Jury found that the County has acquired all except 2 of the parcels located along Road 19 1/2. a. One un-acquired parcel, located between 2 County-owned parcels, is 4.95 acres with a small, occupied residence. b. The other un-acquired parcel, located at the north corner of Road 19 1/2, is 13.58 acres and also has an occupied residence.
F3:
The Grand Jury found that most of the acquired properties are undeveloped land or contain abandoned structures in varying stages of deterioration.
F4:
The Grand Jury found that the County has rented out 2 pieces of the acquired property. a. Three acres have been rented for commercial storage of materials and equipment. b. One parcel has been rented for residential occupancy.
F5:
The Grand Jury found that, on July 26, 2011, the BoS entered into Lease Agreement No. 9434-C-2011 with the landfill operator to permit the storage of materials and equipment for an unrelated business. The lease agreement: a. is for 5 years; b. allows for the use of 3 acres of undeveloped land; c. requires monthly rental payments of $1,500; and d. may be terminated with 90 days written notice.
F6:
The Grand Jury found that Lease Agreement No. 9434-C-2011 is intended to provide revenue to the County General Fund in the amount of $18,000 annually.
F7:
The Grand Jury found that, on December 15, 2009, the BoS entered into Agreement No. 9049-C-2009 to lease a residential parcel (APN 027-192-025) which the County had purchased in September, 2009. The lease agreement: a. is month-to-month, not to exceed 5 years; b. requires monthly rental payments of $900; c. specifies maintenance and upkeep responsibilities of the County and renter; and d. may be terminated with 30 days written notice.
F8:
The Grand Jury found that the leased residential property consists of: a. a parcel of land measuring 4.95 acres with dry pasture in the back; and b. a single-family residence of 4,400 square feet, 6 bedrooms, and 3 bathrooms.
F9:
The Grand Jury found that the following are included as Recitals in the lease agreement for the residential property: a. The County wished to rent the property only to employees of RMA with experience in grounds keeping or building maintenance for County properties. b. Through RMA the County advertised the opportunity to rent the property to RMA employees. c. The selected renter was the only person to offer to live on the property.
F10:
The Grand Jury found that other RMA employees were unaware of the rental opportunity for this residential property.
F11:
The Grand Jury found that the residential property renter, at the time of selection, was an RMA employee with experience in grounds keeping for County properties.
F12:
The Grand Jury found that the residential property renter is no longer employed by the County.
F13:
The Grand Jury found that the selected residential property renter expressed a possible interest in purchasing and moving the residence in the future. a. At the December 1, 2009 meeting, the BoS action taken to proceed with rental of the residential property included direction that the lease agreement contain a provision giving the renter first option to purchase the residence for removal from the property. b. No such option was included in the lease agreement.
F14:
The Grand Jury found that members of the BoS offered the following as justifications for selection of a particular person as renter of the residential property: a. He would be a watchman for landfill and other County properties. b. He has done a good job, and we should take care of our own. c. He has offered a good rent. d. He will take care of it, and he has the capability of fixing it up, making it better. e. He will clean up all around. f. He will assist with paleontology and provide security for the museum. g. Security for the museum would cost more than the difference between the offered rent and a higher amount which might be obtained.
F15:
The Grand Jury found that none of the above justifications are included in the residential property lease agreement as requirements for the renter. The responsibilities specified in the agreement are those customarily required of any residential property renter.
F16:
The Grand Jury found that the contractor for operation of the landfill is responsible for all landfill property, including the acquired undeveloped parcels.
F17:
The Grand Jury found that the most important factors considered in determining the fair market value (FMV) rental amount for residential property are number of bedrooms, total square footage, condition, type of flooring, with or without air conditioning, and location.
F18:
The Grand Jury found that the rental amount offered and agreed upon for the residential property is far below the FMV for the property, even adjusted for landfill nuisances. a. The average published rental amount for 4 bedroom, 2 bathroom, less than 2,000 square feet houses without acreage in this area is $1,500 per month. b. The average published rental amount for 5 bedroom, 2 bathroom, up to 2,200 square feet houses without acreage in this area is $1,665 per month. c. The average published rental amount for 6 bedroom, 2 bathroom, up to 2,900 square feet houses without acreage in this area is $2,035 per month. d. The FMV rental amount for the 6 bedroom, 3 bathroom, 4,400 square feet house on 4.95 acres, adjusted for landfill nuisances, is estimated between $2,000 and $2,500 per month.
F19:
The Grand Jury found that the BoS excluded the lease of the residential property from normally required bidding procedures by following the procedures outlined in Madera County Code Section 2.92.020, as follows: a. posting a notice, dated December 4, 2009, in the office of the county clerk; b. publishing the notice one time in a newspaper of general circulation within the county; c. establishing a rental amount less than $2,000 per month; and d. limiting the term of the rental agreement to 5 years.
F20:
The Grand Jury found that Section 28 of the lease agreement for the residential property provides for month-to-month tenancy after expiration of the 5 year term.
F21:
The Grand Jury found that Section 20 of the lease agreement acknowledges that the residential property and all improvements on the property were in good order, repair and condition as of the date of occupancy.
F22:
The Grand Jury found that the renter of the residential property requested and utilized County equipment to perform weed abatement on the property.
F23:
The Grand Jury found that the Fossil Discovery Center has had no County employees as workers or volunteers since opening.
F24:
The Grand Jury found that the Fossil Discovery Center has no paid or volunteer security service.
F25:
The Grand Jury found that the District 1 Supervisor did not fully participate in the decision to lease the residential property to the selected renter. a. At the December 1, 2009 BoS meeting, the District 1 Supervisor supported renting the property for 3 to 6 months while the County actively pursued the sale and removal of the residence. b. The District 1 Supervisor was absent from the December 15, 2009 BoS meeting at which the lease agreement was acted upon.
F26:
The Grand Jury found that the required annual weed abatement on the undeveloped and abandoned properties had not been performed as of several days past the May 1, 2012 deadline.
F27:
The Grand Jury found that, under direction from a County official, County employees delivered a tractor and equipment which belong to the County to be used by the residential property renter for maintenance of the leased property. Conclusions:
Findings & Recommendations
32 findings
F1:
The Grand Jury found that Central Garage was well organized and very clean.
F2:
The respondent agrees with the finding
F3:
The respondent agrees with the finding
F4:
The respondent agrees with the finding FS: The respondent agrees with the finding
F5:
The Grand Jury found that only frequently used parts are stocked at Central Garage, minimizing inventory costs.
F6:
The respondent agrees with the finding
F7:
The respondent agrees with the finding
F8:
The respondent agrees with the finding
F9:
The respondent agrees with the finding FlO: The respondent agrees with the finding Where the futures of children are driven by their aspirations, not bound by their circumstances. Fll: The respondent agrees with the finding
F10:
The Grand Jury found that Central Garage staff alternate mandatory furlough days, thus keeping the garage open for business Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
F11:
The Grand Jury found that Central Garage schedules every vehicle for preventative maintenance every 4 months or 4,000 miles.
F12:
The respondent agrees with the finding
F13:
The respondent agrees with the finding
F14:
The respondent agrees with the finding FlS: The respondent agrees with the finding
F15:
The Grand Jury found that Central Garage currently services and maintains about 340 vehicles in the County’s fleet.
F16:
The respondent agrees with the finding
F17:
The respondent agrees with the finding
F18:
The respondent agrees with the finding
F19:
The respondent agrees with the finding
F20:
The respondent agrees with the finding
F21:
The respondent agrees with the finding
F22:
The respondent agrees with the finding
F23:
The respondent agrees with the finding
F24:
The respondent agrees with the finding
F25:
The respondent agrees with the finding
F26:
The respondent agrees with the finding
F27:
The respondent agrees with the finding
F28:
The respondent agrees with the finding
F29:
The respondent agrees with the finding
F30:
The respondent agrees with the finding
F31:
The respondent agrees with the finding
F32:
The respondent agrees with the finding RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATIONS Rl: The respondent agrees with the recommendation and Madera High School continues to work towards improving its API score.
Additional Recommendations
12
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors close Station #15 and transfer or sell all equipment and property. Madera County Fire Station # 15 Raymond is located at 32604 Road 600 in Raymond, CA. It was a CAL FIRE station and was sold to the County several years ago. CAL FIRE's newer Raymond Fire Station is located at 34951 Road 606, approximately one mile away. The community of Raymond is located several miles into the State Responsibility Area (SRA), where CAL FIRE has wildland fire protection responsibility. However, even in the SRA the County has structure fire protection responsibility so County apparatus are necessary. While the current Madera County Fire Station # 15 Raymond is run down and in need of repair, it is still an integral part of Madera County's fire protection response system. The removal of this station and the apparatus from the County's fire protection response system will increase response times to the community of Raymond. The next closest County fire station is approximately 15 miles away. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not reasonable. The station will be repaired as funds become available. Page2 July 6, 2011 Honorable Mitchell C. Rigby Presiding Judge Madera County Superior Court 209 West Yosemite Avenue Madera, Ca 93637 Lawrence A Haugen Madera County Grand Jury PO Box 534 ~. .1. adera, Ca 93639 RE: Response to Grand Jury Report on City of Madera Community Development Department Gentlemen, The City of Madera City Council has reviewed the 2010-2011 Madera County Grand Jury report entitled "Community Development Department." A response to this report from the City Council has been required by the Grand Jury. After reviewing the report, the Council found that it had no objection to the findings outlined in the Grand Jury Report. With regard to the Grand Jury's recommendations, the City's response is as follows: Recommendation: Street maintenance and repair should be made a high priority when funding becomes available. If casino-related revenue is received, the fund designated for roads should be utilized expeditiously. City Response: The City agrees to implement this recommendation. The City will prioritize street maintenance and repair as funding becomes available, and will participate in expeditious programming of casino-related revenue to the extent such funding may fall within the City's purview. Recommendation: City administrative staff and the management staff of the Community Development Department should be recognized for their commitment to Madera residents. City Response: This recommendation has been implemented. City staff has been recognized by the City Council for their commitment to Madera residents through comments made to staff during the budgeting development and approval process. Thank you for the opportunity to provide a response to the 2010-2011 Grand Jury Report. ZtrH9r-L Robert L. Poythress, Mayor 205 W. Fourth Street • Madera, CA 93637 • TEL (559) 661-5400 • (559) 674-2972 www.cityofmadera.org VAllEY CENTRAl October 5, 2011 Mr. Lawrence A. Haugen, Foreman Madera County Grand Jury P.O. Box 534 Madera, Ca 93639 Dear Mr. Haugen: The Purpose of this letter is to respond to your recommendations relative to the Madera Redevelopment Agency. 1. a. Agree with finding. b. In August 2011, the unemployment rate for the City of Madera was 20.2%: This has created a certain amount of stress on the City/County agencies that provide programs for the economically disadvantaged. 2. a. Agree with finding. b. Since 1993, the Redevelopment Agency has acquired 205 parcels. Most required the removal of hazardous materials (asbestos) and the demolition of substandard structures. Many of the parcels have been redeveloped with affordable housing, community facilities or retail/commercial projects. 3. a. Agree with finding. b. In 1993, the Redevelopment Agency created a revolving loan fund to encourage the development of affordable housing in the Project Area. The loan program was originally funded with $590,000.00, in tax increment and to date $11,556,221.45 in loans and interest has been repaid. 4. a. Agree with finding. b. Originally funded with redevelopment tax increment, the Down Payment Assistance program is administered by the City and funded primarily with HOME funds. 5. a. Agree with finding. b. The Neighborhood Stabilization Program was imp:emented by the City's Grants Department. The Foreclosure Ordinance is implemented by the Neighborhood Revitalization Program. To date, $80,008.00 in registration fees and $148,467.67 in fines have been collected. There are currently 302 registered foreclosures. 6. a. Agree with finding. b. The 2010/2011 Neighborhood Revitalization activity report was as follows: (1) Abandoned Vehicles- 887 (2) Public Nuisance-729 (3) Zoning-505 (4) Foreclosed Properties-412 (5) Substandard Housing -102 (6) Recreational Vehicles- 68 (7) Uniformed Building Code -17 (8) Demolitions-6 The property owners voluntarily complied in an overwhelming majority of the cases. W. Fourth Street • Madera, CA 93637 • TEL (559) 661-5400 • FAX (559) 674-2P9a7g2e 154 of 180 www. madera.ca-gov Page2 October 5, 2011 7. a. Agree with finding. b. Through the acquisition/demolition of substandard buildings and under-utilized parcels, the Agency is currently monitoring 219 single family owner-occupied units. All of the units are occupied by persons or families in the targeted income range. 8. a. Agree with finding. b. The Agency has two (2} programs aimed at preserving older housing stock. The Targeted Single Family Rehabilitation Program is focused on the older Victorian style homes in "Central Madera." Five (5) homes have been completed. The Exterior Home Improvement Grant program is a citywide program. To date, 71 projects have been completed. 9. a. Agree with finding. b. The Redevelopment Agency has spent $15.5 million to address infrastructure deficiencies around Project Area schools. Typically, this includes the construction of curb, gutter, sidewalks, handicapped ramps and the installation of streetlights. Projects have been completed at: (1) Martin Luther King Middle School (2) Sierra Vista Elementary School (3) Millview Elementary School (4} Washington Elementary School (5} James Monroe Elementary School 10. a. Agree with finding. b. Since its creation in 1991, the Redevelopment Agency has funded a wide variety of City projects. The most visible are the John Wells Community Center, new police facility and Skate Park. Less visible are the street widening, neighborhood improvement and handicapped ramp installation programs. 11. a. Agree with finding. b. In June 2011, Governor Brown signed ABx1 26 and 27. ABx126 effectively dissolves redevelopment in the State of California. ABxl 27 establishes the "Voluntary Alternative Redevelopment Program (VARPt which allows redevelopment to continue to exist as long as substantial financial resources are transferred to the State. The City Council has voted to comply with the conditions of the voluntary program although the League of California Cities and California Redevelopment Association have filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionally of the legislation. The suit is pending before the California Supreme Court. 12. a. Agree w!th finding. b. At the time of the Grand Jury Report, the Agency had taken action to transfer title on 5 East Yosemite/120 North 'E' Street and 428 East Yosemite from the Agency to the City. This action has since been rescinded and the Agency has retained title to all three (3) properties. Recommendations: 1. The Grand Jury recommends that the City Council continue to support the retention of redevelopment agencies. The City Council has been extremely active in lobbying to reject the governor's proposal to eliminate redevelopment. Meetings have been held with Senators Cannella and Berryhill, and with Assembly Members Halderman and Olson. Their district staff members have been given individual tours of the Project Area. Additionally, contact has been made with Agency vendors (civil engineers, architects and contractors). In addition to opposing the governor's proposal, we have sent letters of support for SB450 (Lowenthal) and SB286 (Wright). Both bills propose significant reforms related to redevelopment housing expenditures, reporting, blight findings and restrictions on administrative expenses. The bills would not significantly impact the programs, projects or administrative record keeping of the Madera Redevelopment Agency. October 5, 2011 2. The Grand Jury recommends that the City Council seek alternative funding to eliminate blight and address infrastructure deficiencies in Madera. Through the City's Grants Department, Madera has been extremely aggressive and relatively successful in applying for state and federal grants. Annually, we have received Community Development Block Grant, HOME, COPS, and several grants dealing with waste tires. The grants have provided the opportunity to fund a number of programs and projects; however, they do not replace a stable funding source (i.e. redevelopment) in a,ddressing blight and infrastructure deficiencies. In November 2010, 5.7 million voters (60.7%) supported Proposition 22 to stop the state from taking local government funds, including redevelopment, to balance the state budget. Obviously, the will of the voters is meaningless unless it comes to raising taxes. In conclusion, on behalf of the City Council, I would like to thank the 2010/2011 Grand Jury for taking the time to study and evaluate the Redevelopment Agency and the impact it has on the City of Madera and its residents. Sincerely, /J~A~ Robert L. Poythress, Mayor City of Madera ....-.. East Yosemite Avenue 1"' ~ Madera M.dera, California. 93638 it i ll P edeve-opmen c Phone: (559) 661-5110 -~- ao-e "'"'~/- - -~ f-ax: (559) 674-7018 June 8, 2011 Mr. Lawrence A Haugen, Foreman Madera County Grand Jury P.O. Box 534 Madera, CA 93639 Dear Mr. Haugen: The purpose of this letter is to respond to your recommendations relative to the· Madera Redevelopment Agency. 1. The Grand Jury recommends that the City Council continue to support the retention of redevelopment agencies. The Agency Board/City Council has been extremely active in lobbying to reject the governor's proposal to eliminate redevelopment. Meetings have been held with Senators Cannella and Berryhill, and with Assemblymembers Halderman and Olson. Their district staff members have been given individual tours of the Project Area. A sampling of letters and petitions of support are attached. Additionally, contact has been made with Agency vendors (civil engineers, architects and contractors). In addition to opposing the governor's proposal, we have sent letters of support for SB450 (Lowenthal) and SB286 (Wright). Both bills propose significant reforms related to redevelopment housing expenditures, reporting, blight findings and restrictions on administrative expenses. The bills would not significantly impact the programs, projects or administrative recordkeeping of the Madera Redevelopment Agency. 2. The Grand Jury recommends that the City Council seek alternative funding to eliminate blight and address infrastructure deficiencies in Madera. Through the City's Grants Department, Madera has been extremely aggressive and relatively successful in applying for state and federal grants. Annually, we have received Community Development Block Grant, HOME, COPS, and several grants dealing with waste tires. The grants have provided the opportunity to fund a number of programs and projects; however, they do not replace a stable funding source (i.e. redevelopment) in addressing blight and infrastructure deficiencies. In November 2010, 5. 7 million voters (60.7%) supported Proposition 22 to stop the state from taking local government funds, including redevelopment, to balance the state budget. Obviously, the will of the voters is meaningless unless it comes to raising taxes. In conclusion, on behalf of the Agency Board/City Council, I would like to thank the 2010/2011 Grand Jury for taking the time to study and evaluate redevelopment and the impact we have on the City of Madera and its residents. Sincerely, t=-L1 ~<>.A c, James E. Taubert, Executive Director Madera Redevelopment Agency JET:sb State of California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation M emorandum HECEIVEC Date: ,JURY DIV!SION To: Debra Herndon SUPERV/SOH Associate Director Female Offender Programs and Services . ·-- _, ..... -. ·-· - ... Subject: MADERA COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT On March, 10, 2011, the Madera County Grand Jury visited Valley State Prison for Women (VSPW), to inquire into the condition and management of the public prisons within their respective county. Upon review of the final report generated by the Grand Jury lt was conC:Iuded that there were several issues that could cause an undesired effect on the health and safety of the inmates incarcerated at VSPW. The Grand Jury also listed recommendations to these issues that would remedy these conditions. 1. The Grand Jury concluded that prolonged exposure to the high noise level in the Central Kitchen Area may contribute to health issues. • The Grand Jury recommends that the noise levels in the Central Kitchen area be evaluated for possible safety hazards. On June 1, 2011, VSPW, Business Services Division conducted a sound test within the Central Kitchen area. The test was completed to determine if the decibel levels are hazardous for staff and inmates. Upon conclusion of the test it was determined that the decibel levels in the Central Kitchen Scullery area exceed the criterion decibel level which wilr require hearring protection as outlined by the Division of Occupational Safety and Health. VSPW has purchased and provided hearing protection for all staff and inmates assigned to the Central Kitchen Scullery area. 2. The Grand Jury concluded that dispensing generic medications whenever possible could result in significant annual savings. • The Grand Jury recommends that generic medications be dispensed whenever possible. All medications that are prescribed by our physicians are filled with generic medications when these forms are available. There are some instances when a patient may be prescribed a brand name medication when there is no generic available. This is seen predominantly in Mental Health patients, and as well in some hyperlipidemia, asthma, and oncology patients. Our assessment of brand name use corresponds directly with state-wide formulary approved items in greater than 90% compliance with these items. Clinically indicated medication assessments have been provided by our medical doctors to justify when these items, which do not have a generic available, are needed for patient health and safety. Overall, our pharmacy dispenses upwards of 90% generic medication daily to our patients, and we are using 95% formulary approved medications. 3. The Grand Jury concluded that special treatment of inmates in Housing Units 01 and 03 may not follow requirements for fair and impartial treatment. Debra Herndon, Associate Director Madera County Grand Jury Final Report . • The Grand Jury recommends that VSPW Administration evaluate whether the facility is in compliance with the requirements for fair and impartial treatment of inmates. Within the findings of the Grand Jury Final Report it is alleged that inmates housed in Facility D, Housing Unit 03 are allowed to choose their own roommates, eat and shop in canteen before other inmates. This information is inaccurate. The inmates assigned to Housing Unit 03 report to the Facility Dining Hall in an order established by the Facility D Custody Staff in which the current order for Housing Unit 03 is second with a total of four housing units. The inmates assigned to Housing Unit D3 shop canteen in order accordance with the Facility D Canteen schedule. This schedule has been in use since January 2010 to the present day. The schedule is as follows: Housing Unit 01 Housing Unit 02 Housing Unit 03 Housing Unit 04 Housing Units 03 and D4 rotate each calendar month thus changing the rotation for the 3rd and 41 h position six times per year. · Inmates assigned to the Facility 0, Housing Unit D1 (Honor Dorm), are afforded special privileges that are not provided to general population at VSPW. However, this housing unit is accessible for all inmates who meet the criteria established in VSPW, Operational Procedure #1 0223, Inmate Lighthouse, which are enumerated below; · 1. Minimum of two consecutive years in CDCR. 2. Must be Work Group/Privilege Group A1/A. 3. Minimum of two years left to serve on remainder of sentence. 4. Minimum of two years with no serious Rules Violation Reports. 5. Minimum of five years with no Serious Rules Violation Reports, if the inmate has been found guilty of an "A" or "B" offense or has had a SHU Term imposed. 6. Any inmate who has been housed in the Lighthouse and been removed from the Lighthouse due to disciplinary issues, failure to maintain Lighthouse resident standards or at their own request may re-apply. Re-housing in the Lighthouse will be on a case by case basis only. The criteria established within this procedure were designed as an incentive for inmates to exhibit behavioral and social standards that are above reproach. Inmates are required to maintain an exemplary work ethic, remain discipiinary free, submit to random drug testing, abstain from restricted sexual behavior and abstain from all alcohol or tobacco, or any controlled or restricted substance. If you have any questions, please contact me at (559) 665-6100, extension 5503. ~ Warden (A) Valley State Prison for Women cc: Associate Warden, Housing and Central Services Associate Warden, ADA GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 2010-2011 CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN VALLEY STATE PRISON FOR WOMEN May 24, 2011 COMPLETION ITEM RECOMMENDATION/DESCRIPTION STAFF RESPONSIBLE CORRECTIVE ACTION DATE This information is not accurate. The inmates It is alleged that D-3 Inmates are allowed to choose assigned to Housing Unit D-3 do not eat or shop in 1 their own roommates, eat and shop in Canteen Housing Division N/A Canteen first. They also are not allowed to pick their before other inmates. own roommates. - No action required Inmates assigned to the Honor Dorm (Housing Unit 0-1) are afforded special privileges. However, this It is alleged that inmates in D-1 receive special 2 Housing Division housing unit is open to all inmates who meet the N/A privileges not afforded_to other inmates. criteria, and is an incentive for better behavior. - No action required - Business Services had a sound test conducted on June 1, 2011, to see if the decibel levels are hazardous for staff and inmates. It has been It is alleged that the noise level in the Central Kitchen determined that the decibel levels in the scullery 3 Business Services July 15,201.1 is too loud. area will require hearing protection as outlined by CAL-OSHA. Hearing protection will be ordered and provided for all staff and inmates assigned to that area of the Central Kitchen A review of medications dispensed reveals that It is alleged that the Use of generic medication could overall the pharmacy dispenses upward of 90% 4 Health CarE? Services N/A result in significant annual savings. generic medications daily to the patients and 95% Formulary Approved medications. Co(/r!v W. MILLER Date Warden (A) MADERA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT_ ___ _, September 27, 2007 1902 Howard Road Madera, CA 93637 (559) 675-4500 / Fax: (559) 675-1186 ,/ Presiding Judge www.madera.k12.ca.us Madera County Superior Court Gustavo Balderas 209 West Yosemite Avenue Superintendent Madeia, CA 93637 Jake Bragonler Public Information Officer bragonier [email protected] 12.ca.us Madera County Grand Jury P.O. Box 534 Board of Trustees: Robert E. Garibay, President Madera, CA 93639 Ricardo Arredondo. Clerk Lynn Cogdill, Truste~ Jose Rodriguez, Trustee RE: 2010-2011 Madera County Grand Jury report Michael Salvador, Trustee Ray G. Seibert Trustee Madera High School Maria Velarde-Garcia, Trustee The Trustees of Madera Unified School District have reviewed the Grand Jury's report submitted in May 2011 and are in agreement with the findings contained therein. Best regards, ") / . ,.../- ~ ;-r) . , / . \(.<"'t.x ...._ \ .. (.,__ ,_~c, ~1 Robert E. Garibay President of the Board of Trustees Where the futures of children are driven by their aspirations, not bound by their circumstances. MADERA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT~-----..~ October 11, 2011 Presiding Judge J!Jr~ ~·· 1 y' ' , ..'·.. ...... ,. Madera County Superior Court wC' J-~':JFr• " 1,/ f ! J \ . ~. .. . r- 1 ·: ; - 1902 Howard Road 209 West Yosemite Avenue Madera, CA 93637 (559) 675-4500 Madera, CA 93637 Fax: (559) 675-1186 www.madera.k12.ca.us Madera County Grand Jury Gustavo Balderas P.O. Box 534 Superintendent Madera, CA 93639 Jake Bragonier Public Information Officer [email protected] RE: 2010-2011 Madera County Grand Jury Report Board of Trustees: Madera High School Robert E. Garibay, President Ricardo Arredondo, Clerk Lynn Cogdill, Trustee Following is Madera Unified School District Trustees amended response to the Jose Rodriguez, Trustee 2010-2011 Madera County Grand Jury report: Madera High School. A copy of Michael Salvador, Trustee Ray G. Seibert, Trustee the Grand Jury report with numbered Findings and Recommendations is Maria Velarde-Garcia, Trustee enclosed for reference. RESPONSE TO FINDINGS Fl: The respondent agrees with the finding
R2:
The respondent agrees with the recommendation and Madera High School continually strives to improve its graduation rate. On behalf of the Madera Unified School District Trustees, thank you for your hard work and dedication. Sincerely, Robert E. Garibay President of the Board of Trustees BOARD OF SUPER\'ISORS MEMBERS OF THE BOARD COUNTY OF MADERA FRANK BIGELOW DAVID ROGERS MADERA COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER RONN DOMINICI 200 WEST.FOURTH STREET I MADERA. CALIFORNIA 93637 MAX RODRIGUEZ (559) 675-7700 I FAX (559) 673-3302 I TDD (559) 675-8970 TOM WHEELER T ANNA G. BOYD. Chief Clerk of the Board July 20, 2011 Honorable Mitchell C. Rigby Presiding Judge Madera County Superior Court 209 West Yosemite Avenue Madera, CA 93637 Re: Response of the Madera County Board of Supervisors to the 2010-2011 Grand Jury Report on the "Citizen's Complaint Regarding District Attorney" Honorable Mitchell C. Rigby: In accordance with Penal Code section 933.05, the Madera County Board of Supervisors submits this response to the Madera County Grand Jury pertaining to matters over which it has control and additionally over matters where the Madera County Grand Jury has asserted that the Board has control.
R3:
16% of the responses disagreed, and 2% partially disagreed with the findings.
R4:
35% of the responses confirmed that the recommendations have been implemented, and 24% indicated they will be implemented.
R5:
40% of the responses indicated that the recommendations were not warranted or not reasonable and would not be implemented. 1% needed additional time to study the recommendation.
R6:
The Madera County Board of Supervisors declined to respond to 58% of the findings and 37% of the recommendations which pertained to matters under its control. Implementation of 2010-2011 Grand Jury recommendations:
R7:
The Grand Jury recommended that the DA review and strengthen the control and release authority for confidential documents, especially those dealing with minors. The DA initiated a confidentiality and disclosure policy.
R8:
The Grand Jury made numerous recommendations in regard to solid waste management and recycling. The current status of implementation of those recommendations is presented in the 2011-2012 Grand Jury Final Report: "Madera County Solid Waste Management and Recycling Revisited", contained in this publication. Evaluation of responses to the 2011-2012 Grand Jury Final Reports, received to date:
R9:
a. Agree with finding. b. The Redevelopment Agency has spent $15.5 million to address infrastructure deficiencies around Project Area schools. Typically, this includes the construction of curb, gutter, sidewalks, handicapped ramps and the installation of streetlights. Projects have been completed at: (1) Martin Luther King Middle School (2) Sierra Vista Elementary School (3) Millview Elementary School (4} Washington Elementary School (5} James Monroe Elementary School
R10:
a. Agree with finding. b. Since its creation in 1991, the Redevelopment Agency has funded a wide variety of City projects. The most visible are the John Wells Community Center, new police facility and Skate Park. Less visible are the street widening, neighborhood improvement and handicapped ramp installation programs.
R11:
a. Agree with finding. b. In June 2011, Governor Brown signed ABx1 26 and 27. ABx126 effectively dissolves redevelopment in the State of California. ABxl 27 establishes the "Voluntary Alternative Redevelopment Program (VARPt which allows redevelopment to continue to exist as long as substantial financial resources are transferred to the State. The City Council has voted to comply with the conditions of the voluntary program although the League of California Cities and California Redevelopment Association have filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionally of the legislation. The suit is pending before the California Supreme Court.
R12:
a. Agree w!th finding. b. At the time of the Grand Jury Report, the Agency had taken action to transfer title on 5 East Yosemite/120 North 'E' Street and 428 East Yosemite from the Agency to the City. This action has since been rescinded and the Agency has retained title to all three (3) properties. Recommendations:
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: