Gran Jurado del Condado de Orange

2004-2005

6 informes

From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
View the full annual report (PDF)
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (6)
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 1 hallazgos
F7: 1.) 8.2 Adequate and consistent funding: The OC Board of Supervisors should budget consistent, annual financial support to the Orange County Human Relations Commission. (See Finding 7.2.) Responses to Recommendations 8.1 and 8.2 are required from the Orange County Board of Supervisors. Responses to Recommendation 8.1 and 8.2 are requested from the Orange County Human Relations Commission. Report—Can Orange County Afford To Lose the Human Relations Commission? 9. Bibliography 1. Publication: ”An Attack Against One – Is an Attack Against All,” publication from the Asian Pacific American Legal Center, Orange County Human Relations Commission Study for Consideration during the County Strategic Financial Planning, Fall 2002 2. Brochures, OC Human Relations Commission: (cid:131) “Hate Crime Annual Report,” 2003-2004, 2004-2005 (cid:131) “OC Human Relations Bear Paw Preserve,” Bridges brochure (cid:131) “What Kind of Conflict Do You Have?” Bridges brochure (cid:131) “OC—Let’s Talk, Let’s Connect” Bridges brochure (cid:131) “How Will You Make a Difference?” Bridges brochure (cid:131) “Building Bridges, the newsletter of OC Human Relations,” 2002, 2004-2005 (cid:131) “Hate Crime Victim Services,” OCHRC brochure (cid:131) “T.U.R.N Program (Teaching, Understanding, Respect, & Nonviolence”), Bridges brochure (cid:131) “Mediation Certification Training,” Bridges brochure (cid:131) “Bridges, A School Inter-Ethnic Relations Program,” Bridges brochure 3. Other writings from OC Human Relations Commission: (cid:131) Agenda from Hate Crime Network, Quarterly Meetings—November 2004, February 2005, April 2005 (cid:131) OC Human Relations Commission Study for Considerations during the County Strategic Financial Planning, Fall 2002 4. Two legislative bills: (cid:131) AB 2428 Hate Crime Victim Safety Bill, “Kenny’s Law,” Legislator Judy Chu (cid:131) SB 1234 Hate Crimes Omnibus Bill Fact Sheet, Legislator Sheila Kuehl 10. Acronyms and Abbreviations in this Report 501(c) 3 Federal Internal Revenue Service (IRS) designation for tax-exempt non- profit organizations BOS Orange County Board of Supervisors BTSA Beginning Teachers Support and Assessment (a state program) DA Orange County District Attorney FTE full-time employee HCVAP Hate Crime Victim Assistance Partnership HR Human Relations HRC Human Relations Council, the 501(c) 3 non-profit arm of OCHRC OC Orange County OCHRC Orange County Human Relations Commission 17
Recomendaciones adicionales 5

No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.

R1: Publication: ”An Attack Against One – Is an Attack Against All,” publication from the Asian Pacific American Legal Center, Orange County Human Relations Commission Study for Consideration during the County Strategic Financial Planning, Fall 2002
R2: Brochures, OC Human Relations Commission: (cid:131) “Hate Crime Annual Report,” 2003-2004, 2004-2005 (cid:131) “OC Human Relations Bear Paw Preserve,” Bridges brochure (cid:131) “What Kind of Conflict Do You Have?” Bridges brochure (cid:131) “OC—Let’s Talk, Let’s Connect” Bridges brochure (cid:131) “How Will You Make a Difference?” Bridges brochure (cid:131) “Building Bridges, the newsletter of OC Human Relations,” 2002, 2004-2005 (cid:131) “Hate Crime Victim Services,” OCHRC brochure (cid:131) “T.U.R.N Program (Teaching, Understanding, Respect, & Nonviolence”), Bridges brochure (cid:131) “Mediation Certification Training,” Bridges brochure (cid:131) “Bridges, A School Inter-Ethnic Relations Program,” Bridges brochure
R3: Other writings from OC Human Relations Commission: (cid:131) Agenda from Hate Crime Network, Quarterly Meetings—November 2004, February 2005, April 2005 (cid:131) OC Human Relations Commission Study for Considerations during the County Strategic Financial Planning, Fall 2002
R4: Two legislative bills: (cid:131) AB 2428 Hate Crime Victim Safety Bill, “Kenny’s Law,” Legislator Judy Chu (cid:131) SB 1234 Hate Crimes Omnibus Bill Fact Sheet, Legislator Sheila Kuehl
R10: Acronyms and Abbreviations in this Report 501(c) 3 Federal Internal Revenue Service (IRS) designation for tax-exempt non- profit organizations BOS Orange County Board of Supervisors BTSA Beginning Teachers Support and Assessment (a state program) DA Orange County District Attorney FTE full-time employee HCVAP Hate Crime Victim Assistance Partnership HR Human Relations HRC Human Relations Council, the 501(c) 3 non-profit arm of OCHRC OC Orange County OCHRC Orange County Human Relations Commission 17
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 1 hallazgos
F5: 2.) 6.3 Septic systems: The county should continue to work with the annexing city to develop a cooperative plan to provide sewer service to residents and businesses that are currently using a septic system. (See Finding 5.3.) 6.4 Generating revenue: Board of Supervisors should inform island residents of the possibility of an assessment district and associated costs if the annexation process fails. (See Finding 5.4.) 6.5 LAFCO will miss due dates for MSRs and SOIs: Orange County LAFCO should fill its vacant positions in order to complete the MSRs and SOIs in as timely a manner as possible. (See Findings 5.5 and 5.6.) Responses to Recommendations 6.1 through 6.5 are required from the Orange County Board of Supervisors. Responses to Recommendation 6.5 are required from LAFCO. 7. Acronyms and Abbreviations in this CKH Act Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Act Unincorporated Island County-run area surrounded by cities LAFCO Local Agency Formation Commission MSRs Municipal Service Reviews OC Orange County SOI Sphere of Influence VLF Vehicle License Fee 8. Bibliography 1. LAFCO Strategic Plan – 2005 2. LAFCO Strategic Plan - 2004 3. What is LAFCO? 4. An Introduction to LAFCO 5. LAFCO Unincorporated Islands Program 6. Legal Issues – The Law and LAFCO – Best Best & Krieger LLP 7. The Vehicle License Fee (VLF) for Property Tax Swap of 2004 8. A Guide To The LAFCO Process For Incorporations, October 2003 9. LAFCO Public Workshop, Incorporation of Aliso Viejo and Westside Annexation to the City of Laguna Hills – August 8, 2000 10. Incorporation Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis – Incorporation of Leisure World Laguna Hills – January 20, 1998 11. Orange County Stormwater Program – Septic System Inventory and Assessment – June 2003 12. Septic System Locations 13. Septic System Survey Areas Report— LAFCO, Is It Working? 14. Orange County Septic Tank Locations 15. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region General Waste Discharge Requirements for Sewage Collection Agencies in Orange County within the Santa Ana Region – April 26, 2002 16. Study of Unsewered Properties, District #7 – January 1989 17. Municipal Service Review Reports of March 9, 2005 (cid:131) Los Alamitos/Seal Beach/Rossmoor/Sunset Beach (cid:131) Orange/Villa Park/Orange Sphere of Influence 18. Map of Current City and County Annexations since June 2001 19. Municipal Service Review Law, Government Code Section 56430 20. Sphere of Influence Law, Government Code Section 56425
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R5: LAFCO Unincorporated Islands Program
Recomendaciones adicionales 18

No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.

R1: LAFCO Strategic Plan – 2005
R2: LAFCO Strategic Plan - 2004
R4: An Introduction to LAFCO
R6: Legal Issues – The Law and LAFCO – Best Best & Krieger LLP
R7: Acronyms and Abbreviations in this CKH Act Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Act Unincorporated Island County-run area surrounded by cities LAFCO Local Agency Formation Commission MSRs Municipal Service Reviews OC Orange County SOI Sphere of Influence VLF Vehicle License Fee
R8: A Guide To The LAFCO Process For Incorporations, October 2003
R9: LAFCO Public Workshop, Incorporation of Aliso Viejo and Westside Annexation to the City of Laguna Hills – August 8, 2000
R10: Incorporation Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis – Incorporation of Leisure World Laguna Hills – January 20, 1998
R11: Orange County Stormwater Program – Septic System Inventory and Assessment – June 2003
R12: Septic System Locations
R13: Septic System Survey Areas Report— LAFCO, Is It Working?
R14: Orange County Septic Tank Locations
R15: California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region General Waste Discharge Requirements for Sewage Collection Agencies in Orange County within the Santa Ana Region – April 26, 2002
R16: Study of Unsewered Properties, District #7 – January 1989
R17: Municipal Service Review Reports of March 9, 2005 (cid:131) Los Alamitos/Seal Beach/Rossmoor/Sunset Beach (cid:131) Orange/Villa Park/Orange Sphere of Influence
R18: Map of Current City and County Annexations since June 2001
R19: Municipal Service Review Law, Government Code Section 56430
R20: Sphere of Influence Law, Government Code Section 56425
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 5 hallazgos
F1: Summary Between 1997 and 2004, the City of Placentia spent $52.7 million on a project to separate at grade rail/auto intersections and move the trains below grade (OnTrac). The money represents about 10% of the estimated total cost of the project – the remainder was to come from state and federal transportation funds. Those funds never materialized, leaving the city to dig deeper and deeper into its own funds. The grand jury became interested in the City of Placentia’s trials with the OnTrac system through complaints and newspaper articles outlining the city’s problems. Because other agencies are investigating specific areas of the project, the grand jury focused on the following two areas: (cid:131) Was the purchase of a specific property under eminent domain handled fairly as an arm’s-length transaction, or did favoritism cause the property to be purchased for well over its market value? (cid:131) Did the city properly use and account for various grant revenues, or were monies improperly shifted from grants to fund OnTrac? The grand jury concluded that the eminent domain acquisition was handled fairly, and that the city did not use grant monies inappropriately.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: Various documents from the County Assessor’s Office
F2: Purpose of the Study The grand jury investigated allegations that the eminent domain taking of a property on Placentia Avenue resulted in a windfall to the property owner. The city purchased the property for $1.3 million, and the actual property appraisal was represented to be $300,000. The jury also investigated whether the city improperly diverted grant monies to OnTrac.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2: City Council minutes
F3: Method of Study The grand jury interviewed city and county employees, performed site visits and record searches, and reviewed extensive documentation.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3: Citizens for a Better Placentia
F4: Background The City of Placentia is traversed by 60 or more trains daily, an average of about one every half hour, carrying cargo traffic from the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach through the Orange County Gateway. In addition, Amtrak and Metrolink use the rails. The noise, the traffic delays, and the public safety impact of having multiple intersections blocked by rail traffic already impair the quality of life in the city. By 2020 rail traffic is trains a day or an average of about one every 11 minutes. The city therefore decided to explore the possibility of moving rail traffic below street level. At the time of the initial discussions in 1997, the city council believed that there would be federal and state transportation funds available to cover most costs of reconstructing the intersections. OnTrac was created in 2000 to obtain the funding and to coordinate and subcontract engineering studies and eminent domain takings. More than $28 million in federal and state funds were quickly secured, and the project gathered momentum. Between the economic downturn in 2000 and the negative economic repercussions of 9/11 in 2001, transportation money evaporated from both the federal and state budgets. The City of Placentia, having begun acquiring property and letting contracts for engineering and construction, made the decision to go ahead with the project, hoping that the federal and state money would materialize. As the costs of funding the project grew, the city diverted more and more funds from other areas, spending more than $27 million in grant funds and borrowed money. Finally, in 2002, the city considered 1) outsourcing the police department and 2) cutting some services. This led to a public outcry, and, in the 2004 city council election, OnTrac funding became a key issue. 4.1 Eminent Domain Property One of the properties taken through the eminent domain process, in order to provide a turnout for the trains (shoofly) during construction of an underpass, was a property on Placentia Avenue. The firm had been in business there since 1966 as an equipment rental enterprise. It was a sole proprietorship, and some time later a large builder’s supply warehouse opened across the street. The grand jury received information alleging that at the time of transfer of ownership in September of 2002, the business was in decline. In addition, it was alleged that the site had environmental issues because it used to be a gas station. It was also alleged that because the business owner was a former city council member, he had received a large premium over the true value of the property. The grand jury visited the site and reviewed the eminent domain paperwork, as well as all available information on the history of the subject property. Placentia retained a well- known eminent domain consultant to develop a value for the property, along with several other properties. The consultant based its recommended compensation on three factors: (cid:131) appraised value of land and improvements (cid:131) relocation expense (cid:131) loss of goodwill The consultant’s appraised value of land and improvements was $524,285. The relocation expense was estimated at $75,000, but the consultant was unable to find a suitable relocation site. An equipment rental business is considered a “dirty” business by many cities and would be relegated to an industrial area. Its location across from the builder’s supply warehouse was actually beneficial to their business, according to income Report— OnTrac and the City of Placentia figures. Segregating the business in an industrial area would isolate them from their customer base. Indeed, no location could be found in Placentia, Fullerton, or Anaheim; Santa Ana was the nearest city that would accept the business. The estimate of the loss of goodwill was subcontracted to a professional goodwill appraiser. It estimated the lost goodwill at $300,000. Additionally, estimated litigation expenses of $90,000—a not infrequent expense with eminent domain proceedings—were added to the valuation. Therefore the eminent domain consultant recommended a total purchase price to the city of $989,285. The property owner disagreed with the estimates and insisted the business would not be able to be relocated and re-established. The city and the owner held a settlement conference, and the city agreed to completely buy out the business and the goodwill. The chart below shows the components of the agreement: Original Offer Negotiated Agreement Land and improvements $524,285 $625,770 Fixtures and equipment -- 93,000 Relocation exposure 75,000 -- Litigation expenses 90,000 -- Loss of goodwill 300,000 581,230 Total $989,285 $1,300,000 Because the agreement settled all claims, litigation expenses were avoided. Although the final number was some 30 percent higher than the city’s initial offer, the consultant recommended the city accept the offer, pointing out: our relocation agents could not find a suitable location for this business. . . . The bottom line here is that relocating this business would be impossible–leaving the City open to a complete loss of business goodwill claim. The grand jury concluded that the purchase price was reasonable and the sale was conducted without favoritism. However, during the normal investigation of this site, a Phase I environmental assessment was conducted by an outside firm. It determined there was a probability there were unremediated underground storage tanks at the property and recommended a Phase II environmental assessment be conducted. The grand jury was concerned that the city chose not to conduct a Phase II environmental assessment. Although there is no record of underground tanks with any regulatory agency, there is evidence of tanks in the county assessor’s records, and it is unclear whether they had been removed. The grand jury believes the city was short-sighted in not following the recommendation of its own environmental consultant to conduct a Phase II assessment. If tanks had been found, the city’s purchase price might have been reduced, and the city could have avoided liability for future cleanup. .2 Grant Money Diversion As reports of Placentia’s borrowing increased, the grand jury was concerned that monies might have been improperly diverted from federal and state grants to backfill the city’s budget. The jury reviewed 1999-2003 disbursements for the following programs: (cid:131) Asset Seizure fund (cid:131) Air Quality fund (cid:131) COPS grants The grand jury has concluded that monies were disbursed in accordance with the rules of the granting agencies and no money was improperly diverted. However, it did not conduct a forensic audit and does not feel qualified to affirm that accounting procedures met all public finance requirements. In fact, the most troubling accounting practice discovered is that a city employee approved his own invoices. This gave him one of the two signatures required for payment. However, since other entities are responsible for investigating potential conflicts of interest, the grand jury did not pursue the issue.
F5: Findings Under California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, responses are required to all findings. The 2004-2005 Orange County Grand Jury has arrived at the following finding: 5.1 Phase II Assessment: The City of Placentia did not conduct a Phase II assessment as recommended by their environmental consultant, which may have reduced the purchase price of the property and may have revealed an environmental hazard. Responses to Finding 5.1 are required from the Placentia City Council.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R5: Orange County Gateway: An OnTrac Project
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 1 hallazgos
F6: 3.) Responses to Recommendations 7.1, 7.2, and 7.3 are required from the OCTA Board of Directors. 8. Sources 1. 2004-2005 OCTA Approved Budget 2. 2004 OCTA Executive Summary 3. 2004-2030 OCTA Long-Range Strategic Plan 4. Express Lanes Brochure – 2003 5. Assembly Bill 1010 (2002)
Recomendaciones adicionales 5

No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.

R1: 2004-2005 OCTA Approved Budget
R2: 2004 OCTA Executive Summary
R3: 2004-2030 OCTA Long-Range Strategic Plan
R4: 91 Express Lanes Brochure – 2003
R5: Assembly Bill 1010 (2002)
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 1 hallazgos
F7: 4.4, .) 8.4.3 County election officials should explore the possibility of combining the various voting methods used in the November 2nd election. (See Para. 7.3, Election Day, finding 7.3.1, ; and Para. 7.4, The Count, finding 7.4.2, .) 8.4.4 The ROV should address mechanical difficulties encountered in processing paper ballots. (See Para. 7.4, The Count, finding 7.4.3, .) Responses to Recommendations 8.1.3 (Poll Worker Training); 8.3.2 (Election Day); and 8.4.1, 8.4.2, and 8.4.3 (The Count) are required from the Board of Supervisors. Responses to Recommendations 8.1.1 through 8.1.3 (Poll Worker Training), 8.2.1 through 8.2.4 (Early Voting), 8.3.1 through 8.3.4 (Election Day), and 8.4.1 through 8.4.4 (The Count) are requested from the Registrar of Voters. 9. Commendation To the management and staff of Orange County’s Registrar of Voters Office and to the thousands of temporary workers recruited to conduct the November 2, 2004, general election, . Bibliography (cid:131) State of California Elections Code (cid:131) “Identification of 2004 March Primary Election Issues,” Orange County Board of Supervisors Subcommittee on Elections, May 18, 2004.
Recomendaciones adicionales 2

No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.

R9: Commendation To the management and staff of Orange County’s Registrar of Voters Office and to the thousands of temporary workers recruited to conduct the November 2, 2004, general election, -2005 confers high praise for a job well done.
R10: Bibliography (cid:131) State of California Elections Code (cid:131) “Identification of 2004 March Primary Election Issues,” Orange County Board of Supervisors Subcommittee on Elections, May 18, 2004.
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 5 hallazgos
F1: Summary In 1997 the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) contracted for an integrated transit Acronyms & communications system. State-of-the-art voice and data Abbreviations in this transmission plus key management information, Report including automatic vehicle location and route schedule adherence, was promised. After eight years, $12.7 OCTA Orange County million, and three project managers, OCTA has a system Transportation that: Authority (cid:131) provides some data transmission and poor voice PM Project Manager transmission (cid:131) provides fair vehicle location RFP Request for Proposal (cid:131) frequently drops calls or fails altogether (cid:131) frustrates dispatchers, coach operators, field supervisors, transit police—virtually everyone who uses the system on a regular basis In addition, there is an atmosphere where some employees fear voicing their concerns to management. Therefore, continuing problems with the system are not reported or fixed.
F2: Purpose of the Study The purpose of the study is to investigate the practical operation of the OCTA integrated transportation communication system to determine: (cid:131) whether there was appropriate oversight of the project (cid:131) whether the allegations of garbled transmission, dead spots, inoperative equipment and poor program management are valid 3. Method of Study To conduct this study, the grand jury: (cid:131) interviewed OCTA employees and board members, contractors, and other county employees, ) reviewed documents, including the contract and contract amendments, news articles, the 2002 OCTA internal audit report, system fault logs, incident reports, internal and interagency letters and memoranda, and (cid:131) observed the radio system in operation, both at the dispatch center and on board OCTA buses.
F3: November 13, 2000: Added additional microwave relay sites to improve coverage, and added an automatic passenger counter and fleet expansion program to the system.
F4: Background 4.1 Contract Development On April 4, 1997, Orange County Transportation Authority sent out a request for proposal for an ITCS (integrated transit communication system). The project called for a state-of- the-art wireless digital voice/data mobile radio system, consisting of three subsystems: 1) a digital radio frequency communications subsystem with 800-megahertz frequency, using two microwave towers, 2) a computer-aided dispatching subsystem, and 3) a vehicle subsystem. The system was to provide route schedule adherence and automatic vehicle locator functions to automatically display the location of each bus and graphically depict whether it was meeting its route schedule. The system was to be installed in three phases: (cid:131) Phase I: Base radio system to provide voice and data communications to the fixed route vehicles and voice communications to the support vehicles. (cid:131) Phase II: Automatic vehicle locator (cid:131) Phase III: Paratransit system (transportation for special needs) Three bids were received. A “best and final” offer was accepted by OCTA on September 22, 1997. Completion of Phase I was scheduled for December 12, 1999. The first project manager (PM1) was appointed. Between acceptance of the contract and December of 2001, the contract was amended four times, as follows: 1. August 24, 1998: Combined Phases I and II, with a revised completion date of November 2000.
F5: 1.) 6.2 Internal audit: Internal audit should monitor contract implementation to ensure payment follows performance. (See
Página 1