⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Note: Missing finding numbers detected: F8, F9
Findings and Recommendations 9 findings
F1
Page 14
The company handling administrative actions for parking citations is paid once per citation.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
Page 14
Individuals do not receive sufficient information on the process of requesting an appeal to a parking citation or fully understand the information they are provided. They can obtain information either by writing to the address on the citation, or calling the toll-free number.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
Page 17
The Agency provides an insufficient level of training and instruction to the intermediaries and their respective real estate agents. An emphasis on the need to use the Affirmative Marketing Principles to “identify persons in the housing market who are not likely to apply for housing without special outreach” is lacking.
No recommendations for this finding
F4
Page 17
The Agency provides an insufficient level of training and/or instruction to the intermediaries and their staff on the NSP program beyond the construction/re-sale requirements. There is a lack of distinction placed on the purposes of increasing homeownership to those who may not know that they can achieve such status. This federal program is more than just the business as usual of rehabilitating homes and selling. 6 2011‐2012 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report COMMENDATION The Agency is to be commended for its programmatic focus of the NSP funds/projects to neighborhoods (specific streets in high crime areas and number of vacant SFR) which, as a consequence of the rehabilitation, resulted in an improved quality of life to the neighborhood inhabitants. The Grand Jury applauds the decision of the Agency in using the HUD vetted CHDO in the implementation of the next stage of NSP3, the ‘Local Street Reform and Protection.’ RECOMMENDATIONS 12-02 Provide more intensive monitoring of the activities of the intermediaries, and in the future, the CHDO, during the rehabilitation resale process so that the use of the MLS is not used to convey status of the properties that is incorrect and further, not to discourage the involvement of other agents. (Findings 1, 2) 12-03 Prohibit properties from being placed into the MLS without a written agreement with the Agency, and not until such time as the property has been appraised, has fair market value established, and is ready for sale. (Findings 1, 2, 4) 12-04 Prohibit real estate agents from placing the properties into the MLS in a “hold-do- not-show” status. This has the de-facto effect of depressing advertisement and/or widespread exposure of the property. (Findings 1 - 4) 12-05 Provide sufficient training and instruction to intermediaries and their real estate agents on the use of the Affirmative Marketing Principles so that a wider variety of qualified buyers can be identified. (Finding 3) 12-06 Provide training and/or instruction to all persons, intermediaries or CHDO, that will be involved in implementation of the NSP program. This instruction should extend beyond the construction/resale requirements to the NSP intrinsic principles. All efforts are to focus on reaching the greatest number of possible qualified homebuyers, while improving the quality of life for both the persons becoming a part of the neighborhood and those who are existing members of the neighborhood. (Findings 1 - 4) Responding Agency Recommendations Due Date City Manager, San Bernardino 12-02 through 12-06 September 29, 2012 7 2011‐2012 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO VERDEMONT COMMUNITY CENTER BACKGROUND The Grand Jury initiated an investigation into the construction of the Verdemont Community Center (VCC) within the City of San Bernardino (City), based on information contained in a newspaper article. The VCC was constructed on City Parks and Recreation Department property. The Building Inspection Department had not been contacted before construction of the VCC building began. A stop order was issued as a result of a supervising City Building Inspector by chance observing construction in progress. Three days later a building permit was issued. The VCC was opened for public use on September 30, 2011, without issuance of a “Certificate of Occupancy.” An inter-office memorandum dated December 19, 2011, from the Supervising Building Inspector was sent to the Community Development Department of the City describing the deficiencies the inspector observed. Beginning in 2012 the City Parks and Recreation Department took over management of the VCC. Members of the Grand Jury on May 3, 2012, visited the VCC. It is located on City-owned land within a park complex. The Grand Jury members identified problem areas as follows: Three of six air-conditioning/heating units were not operating The kitchen area lacked commercial sinks, proper wall covering, and there existed a gas-connected commercial grill with no vent or fire protection system, as required by the California Fire Code The entry area lacked the International “Sign of Accessibility.” Two major structural problems were identified by the City Operations and Maintenance Department: The air-conditioning/ heating unit ducts do not conduct air properly which will require repairs above the ceiling There is improper welding to secure the numerous steel piers supporting the floor of the building as verified by numerous photographs provided by an official from the City. FINDINGS 1. A Certificate of Occupancy is required and has yet to be issued. 1 8 2011‐2012 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 2. Construction of VCC was begun and completed without initial building permits and subsequent inspections during the construction process. 2 3. The grill connected to a natural gas outlet in the kitchen area of VCC lacks an exhaust hood, ducts, and a fire protection system as required by the California Fire Code and Mechanical Code. 3 4. The kitchen walls and sinks do not conform to Build It Right Guidelines for public food handling facilities. The VCC qualifies as a public food handling place by the San Bernardino County, Department of Public Health. 4 5. The Grand Jury found that staff within City Departments had a general lack of understanding of the building requirements for this project.
No recommendations for this finding
F5
Page 110
SCLAA Bond Expenditures The Victor Valley Economic Development Authority (VVEDA) Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement stipulates the uses of tax increment that is raised on parcels of the former George Air Force Base (GAFB), as well as the tax increment from the member jurisdictions’ territories. The VVEDA JPA specifically requires that tax increment revenues, which are to be allocated to GAFB shall only be used for purposes that directly benefit redevelopment of GAFB. The VVEDA JPA also delegates the authority of the management and operation of the GAFB parcels, including budgeting authority, redevelopment authority, and all management and operational authority to the Victorville City Council, “which shall act on behalf of the [VVEDA] Commission on all such matters.” The Victorville City Council, acting as the Southern California Logistics Airport Authority (SCLAA) Board of Directors, and City management mishandled SCLAA bond funds in three separate instances. In late 2005 and early 2006 the City, through its Redevelopment Agency, inappropriately purchased several parcels near city hall for the purpose of constructing a library using nearly $2 million of SCLAA bond funds that were restricted for the development and redevelopment of GAFB and not disclosed in the bond’s official statements. Attempts to correct the inappropriate use of such funds have been inadequate. In June 2005 the City purchased land for the I-15/Nisqualli Road interchange project using approximately $3.3 million of SCLAA bond funds. Although this project was listed in the bond disclosures, the expenditure was weakly justified. Further, the City has no controls to ensure that funds restricted to GAFB were not used for this expenditure. From June 2005 through 2010, the City procured professional services, land, and power generating equipment for the Victorville Power Plant 2 (Victorville 2) project using over $76 million of SCLAA bond funds that were restricted for the redevelopment of GAFB. City management has asserted that the power plant, which was to be built on parcels near GAFB, would benefit the redevelopment of GAFB by helping to attract commercial tenants with competitively priced electricity. However, official documentation of the project shows that it was primarily for the purposes of providing the City a revenue stream and to secure competitively priced electricity for its constituents and potentially for other jurisdictions in Southern California. Harvey M. Rose Associates, LLC 5-1 Section 5: SCLAA Bond Expenditures VVEDA JPA Stipulates the Development and Redevelopment of GAFB and the Surrounding Redevelopment Project Area The Victor Valley Economic Development Agency (VVEDA) was created in 1989 through a JPA between Victorville, Hesperia, Apple Valley, and the County of San Bernardino1 in response to the economic repercussions of the imminent closing of GAFB. In 1993 the VVEDA members established the original boundaries of the Victor Valley Project Area consisting of portions of each member’s jurisdictional boundary within an eight mile radius of GAFB. The VVEDA currently operates under the Fourth Amended and Restated JPA, which provided for the inclusion of the City of Adelanto in 2000. The current JPA enables each member entity to enter into transactions and execute agreements within their respective portions of the VVEDA project area without approval of the full VVEDA Commission, provided that any pledged tax increment revenue would be allocable to that member. The VVEDA JPA provides for the delegation and assignment of the member jurisdictions’ voting rights with respect to all issues directly affecting the operation and redevelopment of the former George Air Force Base to the Victorville City Council acting as the SCLAA Board. The responsibilities delegated to the City Council for SCLAA include: (1) all budgeting authority; (2) all redevelopment authority; and, (3) all operational and management authority affecting the GAFB parcels. Essentially, the Victorville City Council, acting as the SCLAA, has the authority to redevelop, operate, and manage all aspects of the former GAFB, now known as the Southern California Logistics Airport (SCLA). Notably, the City of Victorville fulfilled the responsibilities for the treasury function of VVEDA (separate from its responsibilities over SCLAA finances) until 2009, when the VVEDA Board transferred such responsibility to the City of Apple Valley. VVEDA JPA Stipulates the Allocation of Tax Increment Revenues The VVEDA JPA sets out how tax increment revenues are to be divided and allocated between the redevelopment of the former GAFB and the surrounding project area. The VVEDA JPA also places restrictions on certain portions of the tax increment revenues to be set aside for low and moderate-income housing and for eligible annual reimbursements to member jurisdictions for outstanding balances of prior contributions. As illustrated in Chart 5.1 and Chart 5.2 below, the VVEDA JPA sets specific restrictions on the allocation of tax increment revenues raised on and off the GAFB parcels to comply with State redevelopment law and to ensure that there are sufficient resources to develop and redevelop the former air force base. The County of San Bernardino Redevelopment Agency was the authorized recipient of tax increment accrued within unincorporated areas of the Victor Valley Project Area. Harvey M. Rose Associates, LLC 5-2 Section 5: SCLAA Bond Expenditures Restrictions on Use of Tax Revenue Raised on GAFB Parcels As illustrated in Chart 5.1 below, the VVEDA JPA requires that all tax increment revenues from the GAFB parcels be allocated for use on GAFB with the understanding that Victorville, acting as the SCLAA Board, shall set aside 20 percent of these revenues for low and moderate-income housing purposes. Restrictions on Use of Tax Revenue Raised in Member Jurisdictions’ Territories As illustrated in Chart 5.2 below, the VVEDA JPA places several stipulations on the allocation of tax increment revenue that is raised within individual member jurisdictions’ territories of the VVEDA project area. The VVEDA JPA specifically states that: The first 20 percent of participating jurisdictions’ tax increment revenues shall be set aside for low and moderate income housing purposes and will be allocated for use by each member jurisdiction in its own portion of the VVEDA project area. VVEDA JPA Stipulations on Use of “Net Revenues” As illustrated in Chart 5.2 below, the VVEDA JPA states that the tax revenues raised from within individual member jurisdictions’ territories, after the first 20 percent is allocated to low and moderate income housing, shall be referred to as the “net revenues.” The VVEDA JPA places the following stipulations on net revenues: 40 percent of net revenues shall be allocated solely for use on the GAFB parcels; 40 percent of net revenues shall be allocated for use in the originating member’s territory within the VVEDA project area; 20 percent of net revenues shall be placed into a separate reimbursement fund of the VVEDA and shall be paid out annually at the commencement of each fiscal year for eligible reimbursements to each member in proportion to the outstanding balance of any prior contributions. After such reimbursements are made, such moneys may be used to reimburse member contributions. Harvey M. Rose Associates, LLC 5-3 Section 5: SCLAA Bond Expenditures Chart 5.1 Allocation of VVEDA Tax Increment Revenue from GAFB (SCLA) Parcels TAX REVENUE FROM GAFB (SCLA) PARCELS 20% LMI Housing 80% GAFB Redevelopment (SCLA) Harvey M. Rose Associates, LLC 5-4 Section 5: SCLAA Bond Expenditures Chart 5.2 Allocation of VVEDA Tax Increment Revenue from Member Jurisdictions (Outside of GAFB/SCLA) TAX REVENUE FROM MEMBER JURISDICTIONS 40% to Original Member’s 20% Territory LMI Housing 40% to GAFB (SCLA) 80% “Net Revenues” 20% to Other Reimbursement Fund Upon full reimbursement of each member’s contribution, the remainder goes to: 50% to Original 50% to GAFB Member’s Territory (SCLA) Restrictions on Use of Pledged Revenues The VVEDA JPA also places restrictions on the use of proceeds of SCLAA debt issuances. Specifically, the VVEDA JPA states that: Victorville, the Victorville RDA, or the SCLA Authority may pledge that portion of Participating Member’s Tax Increment Revenues which is to be allocated to GAFB along with any GAFB Tax Increment Revenues, to secure the issuance of tax increment bonds or similar indebtedness, provided, however, that the proceeds of any such debt issuance shall only be used for the purposes of causing the redevelopment and development of GAFB. SCLAA Redevelopment Project Priorities Delegated to Victorville The VVEDA JPA delegates authority over the prioritization of development and redevelopment projects to the City of Victorville, subject to the restrictions as previously described. Specifically, the VVEDA JPA states: Harvey M. Rose Associates, LLC 5-5 Section 5: SCLAA Bond Expenditures With respect to the GAFB Parcels, Victorville shall determine the priority as to which projects should be undertaken on the GAFB Parcels provided that such projects will be consistent with the provisions of the Redevelopment Plan and the intent of this Agreement. (emphasis added) City Poorly Managed Expenditure of SCLAA Bond Funds in Several Instances The Victorville City Council, acting in its delegated authority as the Board of Directors of SCLAA, and City management repeatedly mishandled SCLAA bond expenditures. In at least three instances the SCLAA Board and City management mishandled SCLAA bond funds by either: (1) poorly justifying expenditures; (2) failing to properly identify funding sources and accounting for Victorville’s pledged amount to SCLAA; or, (3) potentially expending funds allocated to GAFB on parcels outside of GAFB and not primarily or directly for the redevelopment of GAFB. These instances include expenditures on: (1) the purchase of several parcels near city hall for the construction of a city library; (2) the purchase of land for the I- 15/Nisqualli Road interchange project; and, (3) for professional services, land purchases, and the procurement of power generation equipment for a City-owned power plant. Each of these instances is described below. Purchase of Parcels for a Library Constituted Inappropriate Use of SCLAA Bond Funds; Attempts to Correct the Mistake are Inadequate In November 2005 and February 2006, the City inappropriately used approximately $1.9 million of SCLAA Tax Allocation Parity Bonds (Series 2005 Schedule A) for the purchase of land parcels near city hall. These expenditures were an inappropriate use of SCLAA bond funds since they: (1) were not spent on the development and redevelopment of the GAFB parcels; (2) involved using bond proceeds that were to be repaid from tax increment from other VVEDA members for a City-owned asset without sufficient justification or accounting of revenues pledged from Victorville’s portion of the VVEDA project area; and, (3) the official bond statements did not disclose that the bond proceeds would be used for a City-owned library facility. City Management Intended to Repay SCLAA Bond Fund According to two memorandum drafted around the time the properties were purchased, it was the intension of a previous City Manager to repay the 2005 SCLAA Bond Fund for the funds used to purchase the library parcels. Although it isn’t clearly stated why the Victorville Redevelopment Agency would be repaying the bond fund, both SCLAA and Victorville Redevelopment Agency resolutions point out that the costs, “shall be paid from funds derived from the City’s portion of the VVEDA Project Area.” However, there has been no formal accounting of SCLAA bond fund expenditures which delineate between funds that are derived from revenues allocated to the airport versus revenues derived from the City’s portion of the VVEDA project area that had been pledged to the airport. Harvey M. Rose Associates, LLC 5-6 Section 5: SCLAA Bond Expenditures Loan Documentation Not Established as Intended in 2005 and 2006 In 2010 it came to the attention of City management that no loan documentation had been put in place to repay the 2005 SCLA Bond Fund as intended in late 2005 and early 2006. According to a September 21, 2010 staff report from the City Attorney (and SCLAA Counsel), “at the time the properties were acquired, through inadvertence, the loan documentation was not completed.” Accordingly, in October 2010, the City Council adopted a resolution approving a loan agreement in the amount of $1,903,000 between the City and SCLAA. October 2010 Loan Agreement Permits Unlimited Deferral of Payments to SCLAA The promissory note established in October 2010 allows the City to defer payment back to SCLAA for an unlimited amount of time. Although the note has a term of only six months, the note states that “the term of this note shall be automatically renewed until there are sufficient funds in the Development Impact Fee Fund to fully repay all amounts due…” As of March 2012, the City had made no payments under the loan agreement. Loan Agreement Set Up in an Incorrect Fund for an Incorrect Amount The loan agreement established in October 2010 was set up for an incorrect amount and under the incorrect fund. Although all documentation associated with this loan, including the promissory note, Council resolution, and associated City Attorney staff report state that the loan is to be repaid from Development Impact Fee funds, the loan was booked onto the City’s General Fund. Although the loan documentation established by the City Council and signed by the Mayor states that the loan amount is $1,903,000, the loan was booked at $1,895,090. There is no explanation offered in the financial statements for the discrepancy. Loan Agreement Does Not Require Payment of Back Interest to SCLAA Although the funds were borrowed from the SCLAA by the City in late 2005 and early 2006, the loan documents established in 2010 did not take into account funds owed for past unpaid interest. Rather, according to the financial statements, the loan has only accrued interest for part of the 2010-11 fiscal year. If the City were to pay SCLAA interest for the entire length of time that the funds had been made available, the actual amount of interest owed would be approximately $250,000. City management should adjust the loan amount to reflect the amount of interest owed since funds were disbursed for use by Victorville in late 2005. Purchase of Parcels for La Mesa/Nisqualli Interchange Project Were Not Well Justified or Accounted For In June 2005 the City expended $4,306,295 in SCLAA bond funds2 for the purchase of land related to the La Mesa/Nisqualli Interchange Project, which is unrelated to the development or redevelopment of the former GAFB. While City management has asserted that Victorville’s portion of the VVEDA tax increment has been pledged to pay a portion of the bond issuance, 2 SCLA Tax Allocation Parity Bonds Series 2005 Schedule A Harvey M. Rose Associates, LLC 5-7 Section 5: SCLAA Bond Expenditures there has been no accounting or analysis to show that the Victorville pledge is sufficient to pay for this project and there are no apparent controls to ensure that other JPA members’ tax increment is not used for projects that are not for the development or redevelopment of the former GAFB. Project Expenditures Poorly Justified in Official Bond Documents The City has pledged tax increment revenue raised within its portion of the VVEDA project area that would have otherwise been designated for projects within Victorville’s territory (see “40% to Original Members Territory” in Chart 5.2) to SCLAA for the purpose of issuing tax increment revenue bonds. City management has asserted that this pledge justifies the City’s use of SCLAA bond proceeds for the interchange project, which is unrelated to the development and redevelopment of the former air force base, even though the bond’s official statement proclaims that the SCLAA “will use the proceeds of the sale of the Bonds to (i) finance certain public capital improvements benefiting the Southern California Logistics Airport, (ii) fund a Reserve Account for the Bonds, and (iii) pay cost of issuance of the Bonds.” (emphasis added) While the expenditure of SCLAA bond proceeds on the Interchange Project is unlikely to be illegal, it was poorly justified in official bond documentation. Although these expenditures were listed on official bond documents as “public capital improvements benefiting the SCLA,” the expenditures were not on GAFB parcels and there is no direct link to the development and redevelopment of the former air force base. Rather, the parcels purchased are approximately a 10 mile drive from the Southern California Logistics Airport and do not have a direct benefit to the Airport. The description of the project in the official statement of the bonds is brief and gives only a cursory explanation of the project and its benefit to the VVEDA project area. The description concludes that the Interchange “project has been determined as a benefit to the VVEDA project area.” (emphasis added) Weak Controls for Use of SCLAA Bond Funds The use of tax increment from Victorville’s portion of the VVEDA project area for the interchange project by and of itself does not appear to be inappropriate. Rather, the pledging of this tax increment revenue to SCLAA and the subsequent use of such funds for a purpose that is inconsistent with the purpose of the SCLAA bonds without strong justification and proper controls is troubling. Interviews with several members of City management revealed that no controls have been put in place over SCLAA bond proceeds to ensure that tax increment revenue designated for GAFB redevelopment (see “40% to GAFB (SCLA)” in Chart 5.2) is used by Victorville for non-GAFB purposes. Even if the Victorville pledged revenues are sufficient to pay for the interchange project expenditures, City management should establish stronger controls over expenditure of SCLAA bond funds to ensure that such funds are not used inappropriately. . Victorville 2 Power Plant Expenditures Appear to Have Disproportionally Benefitted City of Victorville From June 2005 through December 2010, the City expended over $76.2 million in SCLAA bonds for the development of the Victorville Power Plant 2 (Victorville 2) project. The use of Harvey M. Rose Associates, LLC 5-8 Section 5: SCLAA Bond Expenditures SCLAA bond funds for this project appear inappropriate because it: (1) was not an investment in the GAFB parcels; (2) did not have a primary purpose of directly benefitting the development and redevelopment of the GAFB; and (3) had a disproportionate benefit to the City of Victorville. As detailed in Section 3 of this report, the purpose of the Victorville 2 Project was to acquire land and permits for a 500 megawatt power plant. Once the plant had been “entitled,” or in a “build ready” state, the City would have the option of either (1) selling the development rights to a third party for the construction and operation of the plant, or (2) constructing and operating the plant itself through a municipal utility service. Funds Were to Primarily Benefit City of Victorville, Not SCLAA or other JPA Members Official documentation relating to the Victorville 2 Project shows that, contrary to assertions made by City management, the power plant was being developed primarily to benefit the City, not SCLA. This documentation includes a March 2005 evaluation of the project by Inland Energy; the Development Agreement between the City and Inland Energy; the contract for the purchase of power generation equipment from General Electric and related Council and SCLAA resolutions; and, a City press release dated November 29, 2007 announcing the execution of the contract with General Electric. March 2005 Evaluation of Victorville 2 Project An evaluation of the proposed 500 megawatt power plant, prepared by Inland Energy, Inc. in March 2005 for City officials, made no mention of any benefit to the efforts of redeveloping the former GAFB. Contrary to assertions from City management that the power plant was being built to service the current and future tenants of SCLA, there is no mention of their current or estimated future power needs or analysis showing that tenants would receive less expensive power. Rather, the evaluation only mentions the potential benefits that the City may see from the project including the potential for “the City to control its own energy destiny.” Inland Energy Development Agreement with City The Inland Energy contract makes no mention of the SCLAA as having any interest in or receiving a direct benefit from the Victorville 2 project. Rather, the contract speaks to the interests of the City in building a 500 megawatt power plant. The contract specifically states, the Victorville Municipal Utility Services was formed for the purpose of, among other things, providing electricity to its constituents, accomplishment of which purpose may include development and entitlement of power plant facilities for the generation or transmission of electrical energy for public or private uses within the state of California. Agreement between City and General Electric The City’s contract with General Electric is further evidence that the Victorville 2 Project was not initiated to primarily serve the interests of SCLAA. Specifically, SCLAA is not a party to the contract. Rather, the Authority’s involvement in the purchase is limited to providing funds for the security agreement and purchase of the equipment. SCLAA Resolution 07-008, adopted in Harvey M. Rose Associates, LLC 5-9 Section 5: SCLAA Bond Expenditures December 2007 to authorize the security agreement with General Electric for the purchase of Victorville 2 power generation equipment, provides only a vague justification for the use of SCLAA bond funds. Specifically, the resolution states that SCLAA is: empowered to raise revenues by the issuance of bonds secured by incremental financing proceeds collected within the Project Area in order to finance redevelopment activities within and benefitting the Project Area. While the resolution does not define or specify the “Project Area,” the City generally refers to the Project Area as the parcels outside of the GAFB that have been designated as part of the VVEDA Redevelopment Project Area. While the Victorville 2 project does fall within this project area, it is not within the powers of the SCLAA to cause the redevelopment outside of the former GAFB parcels or than for improvements “adjacent to and directly benefitting the GAFB Parcels.”3 (emphasis added) City Press Release Announcing Agreement with General Electric On November 29, 2007 the Victorville Director of Public Information posted a press release announcing that the City had entered into a contract with General Electric for power generation equipment. The press release is additional evidence that the Victorville 2 project used SCLAA bond funds for the primary benefit of the City of Victorville. Specifically, the press release touts that the “project is going to change Southern California’s energy supply picture and place Victorville on the global energy map.” The document also confirms that the project is owned by the City, not by the SCLAA. Specifically, the press release states that the City could sell the development rights to the plant or: the City could retain ownership [of the power plant] and use the project as the centerpiece of a Community Choice Aggregation entity, which would allow its member communities to receive the benefit of lower priced electricity. The Community Choice Aggregation entity mentioned in the quote above refers to a joint powers agency that the City had formed with the City of San Marcos and described in Section 3 of this report. Specifically, the JPA with San Marcos formed the California Clean Energy Resources Authority (Cal-CLERA). City officials had previously considered the potential of Cal-CLERA as a vehicle for selling power to other jurisdictions from the Victorville 2 Plant. The only mention of the airport in the press release states that the project will be built at the Southern California Logistics Airport and that it will be a “major milestone in the complex.” The actual parcels designated for this project are outside of the former GAFB approximately two miles north of the airport. Unclear Tax Increment Benefit to SCLAA Although City management has asserted that questioning the benefit of the Victorville 2 power plant ignores the benefits received by the previously built High Desert Power Plant, it is unclear that SCLAA would see the same benefits with this second plant. Specifically, the High Desert Power Plant provides increased tax increment financing to SCLAA. However, the Victorville 2 3 Fourth Amended and Restated VVEDA JPA Section 8 (Delegation of Authority). Harvey M. Rose Associates, LLC 5-10 Section 5: SCLAA Bond Expenditures plant would be located approximately two miles outside of the former GAFB parcels on purchased land. Given that these parcels are not within the former GAFB, but rather within the Victorville portion of the VVEDA project area, it is unclear whether tax increment derived from such property would be designated to SCLAA or to the City of Victorville. Delegated Governance and Management of SCLAA Creates a Potential Conflict of Interest for City of Victorville The delegated authority that the VVEDA Commission has given to Victorville for the governance and management of SCLAA creates a potential conflict of interest for the City. Even if the projects discussed in this section were deemed as appropriate by all members of the VVEDA, there remains an appearance that decisions made by Victorville City Council and Victorville management may have been biased in favor of the City’s interests, instead of the interests of all of the members of the JPA. The poorly justified use of SCLAA bond funds illustrates the potential conflicts of interest that the City Council and City staff have between representing the interests of the City and representing the interests of all JPA members in redeveloping the former GAFB. The JPA members of the VVEDA Commission should consider a review of the delegated authority provided to the City of Victorville for governance and administration of SCLAA to ensure representation of each individual jurisdictions’ interests in the governance and administration of redevelopment activities. Conclusions The VVEDA JPA stipulates the uses of tax increment raised on parcels of the former GAFB as well as tax increment from the member jurisdictions’ territories. The VVEDA JPA specifically requires that tax increment revenues which are to be allocated to GAFB should only be used for purposes that directly benefit the redevelopment of GAFB. The VVEDA JPA also delegates the authority of the management and operation of the GAFB parcels, including budgeting authority, redevelopment authority, and all management and operational authority to the Victorville City Council, “which shall act on behalf of the [VVEDA] Commission on all such matters.” The Victorville City Council, acting as the SCLAA Board of Directors, appears to have repeatedly mishandled SCLAA bond expenditures. In at least three instances the SCLAA Board and City management mishandled SCLAA bond funds by either: (1) poorly justifying expenditures; (2) failing to properly identify funding sources and accounting for Victorville’s pledged amount to SCLAA; or, (3) potentially expending funds allocated to GAFB on parcels outside of GAFB and not primarily or directly for the purpose for the redevelopment of GAFB.
No recommendations for this finding
F6
Page 132
The Counties of Riverside and Orange Fleet Management Departments administer and service all county vehicles, including the Sheriff’s Department. In these counties, law enforcement vehicles are given priority service due to public safety concerns. In those 18 2011‐2012 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report counties, the Sheriff’s Department and Fleet Management work together to ensure that the vehicles are serviced safely and in a timely manner.
No recommendations for this finding
F7
Page 133
FLTM is working with the CFD to evaluate the organizational structure and operations of its fleet division to determine if cost savings and/or operational efficiencies can be obtained. A committee consisting of both Fleet Management and County Fire personnel meet bi-monthly to determine best practices and cost savings while maintaining public safety.
No recommendations for this finding
F10
Page 201
Risk Management has not conducted a Risk Assessment of the facility.
No recommendations for this finding
F11
Page 201
Maintenance of the CalOSHA 300 Logs is not being performed at SID. However, the 300 Logs provided to the Grand Jury by Risk Management for SID were not complete with the detail including locations of where injuries occurred.
No recommendations for this finding
Conclusions 21
-
CL1 Page 169Denied white roll exchanged None; met Title 15
-
CL2 Page 169Missing phone time The time left on phone card was accurate
-
CL3 Page 169Waited 12 hours for medical Reminded nurse to check waiting area often when busy
-
CL4 Page 169Constraints were too tight & not loosened The constraints were within policy; inmate was a security risk
-
CL5 Page 169Seen by Mental Health denied services Determined to not need meds; was evaluated by Mental Health on 2 occasions, 10 days apart
-
CL6 Page 169Felt property was taken without cause Unsubstantiated; inmate did not clean up; property put in proper bin
-
CL7 Page 169Inmate roof of mouth burned by hot food Inmate instructed to blow on food to cool; offered medical services; declined
-
CL8 Page 169Inmate felt intake evaluation points did Another volunteer clergy was scheduled to C not require maximum security; not enough block inmates; inmate status remained the same religious contact & materials available
-
CL9 Page 169Grieved improper discipline After investigation, discipline upheld
-
CL10 Page 169Inmate grieved not receiving pain Was scheduled for medication review within 24 medications as prescribed hours
-
CL11 Page 169Contesting discipline for not working Found that it was for “poor work” not no work and adjusted discipline from 40‐10 days loss of good work days
-
CL12 Page 169Inmate grieved that sentence was for CDC is primarily a pre‐sentence facility GHRC, wanted CDC closer to home; no $ to get home once released; wanted to be transported to CDC upon release
-
CL13 Page 169Grieved improper medical care by LVN for Was seen by RN within 24 hours; LVN cannot headache provide independent medical care
-
CL14 Page 169Wanted to move back to Dorm 1 from The housing was determined to be within the Dorm 2, due to fear and intimidation policies
-
CL15 Page 169Inmate’s friend was questioned about Deputy discussed with inmate that sometimes amount of deposit – why? inmates are forced by others to have $ deposited for extortion Total Complaints reviewed: 15 Total Complaints during past five months: 64 51 2011‐2012 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report MAJOR INCIDENTS: TYPES RESOLUTIONS Battery, serious bodily injury No changes – victim denied – DA filed Possession of controlled substance in a jail To DA for review and filing Battery – hands and feet Case cleared by exceptional means; no prosecution Assault likely to produce great injury Battery on peace officer To DA for review and filing Vandalism Forward to DA Burglary Case cleared by exceptional means ‐ DA Battery Arrest – to DA for filing Telephone theft regarding pin numbers Cleared by investigation; no prosecution Incident – theft of access card or information Station file only Drug paraphernalia DA for filing Battery Victim does not desire prosecution Possession of heroin Ongoing – forward to SBSD Narcotics Battery Cleared by exceptional means Battery Forward to DA for review and filing Battery with serious bodily injury Case pending further leads Battery Station file only Misc. incident – work crew Station file only Riot – racial 50‐60 involved Station file only Possession of controlled substance in jail Unable to prove – cleared by exceptional means Total Complaints reviewed: 20 Total Complaints during past five quarters: 65 52 2011‐2012 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report POLICIES AND OPERATIONS MANUALS Review the following sections, making notes of each: Inmate Grievances: Policies for Inmate Programs and Services, Article 6. 1061 – 1073 included Inmate grievance procedures. This was found minimum standards for local detention centers. Citizen Complaints: All citizen complaints are accepted and logged at GHRC then forwarded to Internal Affairs for investigation and action, if necessary. Major Incidents: Policies for incidents reports included in minimum standards for local detention facilities. OBTAIN A COPY OF THE TABLE OF CONTENTS OF THE MANUAL(S) Copies of Table of Contents for policy manuals were provided to the Grand Jury and reviewed. 53 2011‐2012 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report SITE TOUR AREA INSPECTED/REVIEWED (Please Check) QUALITY OF LIFE PROGRAMS PERSONS INTERVIEWED X Physical Plan X Educational Inmates ‐ None X Meals/Nutrition X Vocational X Facility Manager‐Captain X Mental Health Community Services Medical X Physical/Dental Health X Domestic Violence School Staff No dental X Religious Services Victim/Gang Awareness Mental Health Staff X Visiting X Substance Abuse Line Staff X Volunteer Involvement Other Food Services Staff None Other Other Any additional information/notes: This facility operates the Work Release Program for the Sheriff’s Department. This includes the Court ordered sentence for one to five days a week of manual labor under local government supervision, where crews clean up parks and highways/freeways shoulders. Also, under the Work Release Program is the Electronic (“E”) Monitoring Program, which requires inmates, in lieu of custody time to be under house arrest from 6:00 pm to 5:00 am. The “E” monitoring program is self‐sufficient in that the participant pays up to $15.00 per day for the equipment and services, as approved by the Board of Supervisors. This allows the participant to live at home and maintain employment. The Sheriff’s Office checks one time to verity the home address. The equipment is owned by the company who conducts 24‐hour monitoring. Over the last year and a half there have been 25 alert alarms that were over four hours and only one alert that resulted in an escape. 54 2011‐2012 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report Note the following items as you tour the facility: Condition of the exterior and interior of the building noting graffiti, peeling paint, unpleasant odors, or other signs of deterioration o Facility in good condition, landscaping in park‐like condition, no peeling paint. Graffiti was nominal, but viewed in one of the blocks; scratched into the wall Condition of the grounds, exercise areas, playing fields, and exercise equipment o Well maintained; basketball hoops, weights, pull‐up bars, and hand ball courts. General cleanliness of the facility including windows, lighting, lockers, desks, conditions of the mattresses, bedding and pillows o Clean and in good order. Condition of sleeping room door panels o This was the location of viewed graffiti in block unit, otherwise good condition. Temperature of living units o Maintained by central thermostat unit. Safety and security issues including fencing, outdoor lighting, location of the weapons locker o Security strategically located to control situations, weapons locker within each area includes rubber bullets, bean bags, and mace. No weapons; Tasers only. If a court holding area is present in the facility, ensure access to toilet and drinking water o Yes. Atmosphere of classroom: o Quiet and studious, orderly. Are there adequate supplies (books, paper, computers, etc.)? o Yes. 55 2011‐2012 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report INTERIOR OF BUILDINGS (walls, paint, floors, drains, plumbing fixtures working, air vents, windows) Are cleaning fluids and chemicals labeled and safely stored? Yes, and checked in and out three times a day. Weapons locker present. Yes, personal weapons are in deputies’ private lockers and in armory at the Bridge in dorms, and at front gates. Weapons in inmate Units are pepper spray, Tasers; weapons with live ammunition are in locked units. Recreation/sports equipment. Are the hallways clear, are doors propped open or closed? Hallways are clear and doors are locked and closed at each end. Holding areas (cells/rooms) – (if present), is there access to drinking water and toilet? Yes Are there individual cells/rooms, or dormitories? GHRC is primarily a dormitory facility, but includes individual cells in the blocks for maximum security inmate. There are separate dormitories for males and females. Beds – Type of bed and is it off the floor? Yes, single and double bunk beds. Adequate lighting. Yes. Temperature. Controlled by thermostats and at level required by Title 15. INDIVIDUAL CELLS/ROOM Condition of walls. No peeling paint; made of cement. Personal possessions allowed in cell/room (Art, Books, etc.) Yes, in tubs in view of deputies. Graffiti present. Yes, in Block Units 1 and 2. Ample bedding. Yes. 56 2011‐2012 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF INMATES What is the appearance of inmates (dirty, unkempt, well groomed, etc.)? Clean. Showers – frequency, privacy, maintained, supervised by staff? Allowed as many as they want. Are there any reported assaults by inmates on inmates? Yes, see incident reports. Condition of clothing (does the clothing fit; is it appropriate for the weather, etc.)? Appropriate for weather and are given whites twice a week and orange/blue once a week. COMMENTS: A) The Kitchen: Cooks all meals for all detention centers. In the bakery there are 6,000 bagels and dinner rolls, 1,500 loaves of bread, and 20,000 cookies baked each week. B) The female inmates at Glen Helen provide the labor for a call center which schedules inmate visitation sessions for all the County detention centers. A staff of 12 inmates handles 1,100‐ 1,500 calls per day. 57 2011‐2012 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report INSPECTION FORM * * * * * * Please fill out those sections that apply to the facility you are inspecting FACILITY NAME: INSPECTION DATE: Central Detention Center (CDC) December 12, 2011 FACILITY CAPACITY: LAST CSA INSPECTION DATE: 1,103 April 5, 2011 ADDRESS: TELEPHONE NUMBER: 909‐386‐0945 630 E. Rialto Avenue San Bernardino, CA 92415 FAX NUMBER: 909‐386‐0924 TYPE OF FACILITY: Type II DETENTION CENTER: X REHABILITATION CENTER: OTHER: Any Additional Information/Notes: The Facility closed in 1991 due to West Valley Detention Center (WVDC) opening; it reopened in 1994 primarily to house Federal inmates, on a cost‐reimbursement basis through a Federal contract. U.S. Marshal housing provides for 330‐370 inmates. These are Federal inmates being held for transition to a Federal facility; they are airlifted out once a week. Since October 1, 2011 (AB109), 570 inmates have been sentenced or in pre‐sentencing. 58 2011‐2012 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report GENERAL INFORMATION What is the capacity of the facility? 1,103. On 12/12/11, 918 total inmates ‐ 160 women will be transferred to WVDC in anticipation of making room for ‘protective custody’ male inmates from Glen Helen Rehabilitation Center. This will consolidate all female inmates at WVDC. What is the number of pre‐trial inmates? 537 Has the facility exceeded capacity since the last state CSA inspection? No What is the average length of detention? Six months What is the inmate classification system? Describe: Detention & Corrections Bureau, Policy & Procedures. Per Policy 9.800–Inmate Classification Procedures & Policy 9.900–Inmate Classification Types Number of weekend offenders? None Are inmates oriented to rules and procedures? Yes, inmate receives booklet (English & Spanish) and watches video Are rules and grievance procedures posted? In booklet and video Are rules and grievance procedures understood by inmates? Yes, translator available, if needed Are there procedures for handling citizen complaints? Yes Number of inmate suicides in the past year? None Number of attempted suicides? Two Number of deaths from other causes? None Number of escapes? None Date of last fire/emergency drill? June 23, 2011 59 2011‐2012 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report STAFFING Is there enough staff to monitor inmates? Yes: One Captain, One Lieutenant, Six Sergeants, 60 Deputies, 82 Support Staff; Medical Staff: one doctor, one Physician’s Assistant, five Registered Nurses, and four License Vocational Nurses. Does staff communicate in languages that an inmate can understand? Yes Diversity of staff. Males: eight African American, 45 Caucasian, 33 Hispanic, six others; Females: eight African American, 30 Caucasian, 21 Hispanic, and four others. Impression of staff/inmate interactions. Very good PROGRAMS Exercise: o Is it inside or out? Both; recreation yard has basketball hoops, dip bar, pull‐up bar o How frequently? Inside ‐ one hour daily; Outside ‐ three hours weekly o Do men get more exercise time than women? N/A Are there clergy available to inmates upon request? Yes, full‐time Chaplain o Are there religious services? Yes, Tuesday through Sunday Are anger management and other applicable programs available? None Are medical services available? Yes, both doctor and dentist o How frequently is medical staff on‐site? Both Registered and Licensed Vocational Nurses at all times; Doctors on Monday‐Wednesday‐Friday; Physician’s Assistant – Friday; Dental and Mental Health Monday‐Wednesday‐Friday o How long do inmates wait to be seen? As needed o Is a physician available by phone or comes to the facility? Both Are mental health services available? Yes 60 2011‐2012 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report o How frequently is mental health staff on‐site? Psychiatric Clinician, weekly o How long do inmates wait to be seen? As needed Are vocational classes available? No o If so, what types: N/A TELEPHONE Do inmates have access to telephones? Yes CORRESPONDENCE Is there a limited free postage for inmates without money? Legal mail packages only Incoming/outgoing – are inmates aware that mail can be read? Yes, advised that all mail is scanned Confidential correspondence – letter to attorneys, legislators, CSA, etc., ‐ how is it handled? Per policy, available to inmates; each is opened in presence of inmate and deputy VISITING Is there adequate space, convenient times or accommodations to family’s work schedule, etc.? Yes, rotate times during mornings and evenings Are there provisions for special visits with attorneys/clergy? Yes, in official areas Does staff supervise visits? Yes Do all inmates have access to visiting? Yes o If not, give reason: Except for disciplinary actions, for a maximum of 30 days; the average is 3 – 4 days 61 2011‐2012 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report MEALS/NUTRITION The kitchen area – Is it clean? Yes Are knives and chemicals locked? Yes Have the inmates working in the kitchen been trained? Yes, all have food handlers’ licenses Have the inmates had a medical clearance/review before assignment? Yes Are meals served in the cell, day room or at a central cafeteria? All. The big dining room has the capacity for 200 inmates; there are two rooms on different levels, with only one used at a time Are inmates permitted to converse during meals? No Length of time allowed for eating? 15 minutes HEALTH What type of on‐site health facility is available to inmates? Two clinics, east/west side of facility What type of on‐site dental facility is available to inmates? Dentist on‐site Monday ‐ Friday What off‐site hospital is used for serious health issues? Arrowhead Regional Medical Center How are inmates transported to off‐site facilities? By custody transport or ambulance How is security handled? Inmate is shackled and custody transport is followed by an additional deputy 62 2011‐2012 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report DOCUMENT REVIEW INMATE GRIEVANCES/COMPLAINTS: TYPES RESOLUTIONS Inmates shoes confiscated in shake down because Inmate account credited amount of shoes and “name” not on them inmate told to mark shoes in future Inmate stated he was only offered a shower Staff directed to offer showers between 0430‐ between 0100‐0400, and he was being mocked 2300 and told to treat inmates on a “strictly about being a Mexican mature and professional level” Inmate stated his stamps and drawing were Staff took drawings (naked women) and later destroyed returned them and the stamps, per staff, were used stamps. Considered contraband Inmate stated neither doctor nor nurse would Inmate rescheduled for doctor appointment in two provide joint pain medication days Inmate stated wife was told he was “not available” Investigation showed wife was “no show” one day, for visits (twice), noting she only spoke Spanish she was scheduled for another day but was denied visit; possibly due to language; other visit date inmate was off facility, in court Inmate stated his “medically approved” shoes Shoes were confirmed as “medically approved” were taken by a deputy and returned to inmate Inmate stated he was strip searched and his legal Strip search was on all transported inmates, documents were taken looking for possible handcuff key; note paper, considered contraband was kept, but court papers were returned Inmate complained of racial mistreatment for Inmate was given written discipline for not “black” inmates; six grievance for same action following rules of grievances, not to issue/write grievance for a class of inmates – only for individual grievances Inmate stated he had reported (five times) his pain A doctor changed his diet and ordered Motrin; and vomiting blood after gallstones removed; he resulting to no more food issues; action taken in stated he reported it in May, June and now in late August August Inmate appealed decision on the allegation he was Actions taken were found “to be within “beaten” by two officers and asked that the video department and industry standards” and be reviewed, wants to press charges allegations of threats were found to be unsubstantiated. Review of original complaint and the video review showed all actions were within department standards Total Complaints reviewed: 43 Total Complaints during past five quarters: 10 63 2011‐2012 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report MAJOR INCIDENTS: TYPES RESOLUTIONS Minor injuries; inmate punched deputy in face Medical care; forwarded the file to the District with closed fist Attorney (DA) for review; arrested Assault; inmate to inmate, deputy Forwarded to DA for review for criminal charges Battery, inmate to inmate Declined to press charges Battery; two females pushing and grabbing Station filed – Pending Battery; lunch To Sheriff’s records Battery; genitalia assault Declined to press charges Battery; inmate to inmate Forwarded to DA for review Battery; mutual combat Station filed Battery, inmate to inmate Station filed Battery; inmate pushed down stairs ARMC for stitches; declined to pursue Battery; inmate to inmate, eye injury Declined to prosecute Battery; inmate to inmate in property room Neither will prosecute Battery; seven inmates/assault; injuries Station filed only Battery; females fighting in food line Station filed Battery; returning from court/inmates No prosecution Battery; punched in head Uncooperative/refused to identify assailant Battery; inmate to inmate, 11 in fight ARMC for treatment Battery; inmate to inmate, female Station filed Battery; inmate to inmate, female Sent to DA for filing; victim wishes to press charges Battery; 32 inmates/ five deputies in cell block Three inmates with injuries; some arrested, station fight filed Total Complaints reviewed: 81 Total Complaints during past five quarters: 20 64 2011‐2012 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report POLICIES AND OPERATIONS MANUALS Review the following sections, making notes of each: Inmate Grievances: A copy of the Policy was produced to the Grand Jury and was reviewed. Citizen Complaints: Four Internal Affairs reviews every six months, per audit/log. A copy of the procedures for handling Citizen’s Complaints was reviewed by the Grand Jury. Major Incidents: A copy of the Policy was provided to the Grand Jury and was reviewed. 65 2011‐2012 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report SITE TOUR AREA INSPECTED/REVIEWED (Please Check) QUALITY OF LIFE PROGRAMS PERSONS INTERVIEWED X Physical Plan No Educational No Inmates X Meals/Nutrition No Vocational X Facility Manager X Mental Health No Community Services X Medical X Physical/Dental Health No Domestic Violence N/A School Staff X Religious Services No Victim/Gang Awareness N/A Mental Health Staff X Visiting No Substance Abuse N/A Line Staff X Volunteer Involvement Other N/A Food Services Staff Other Other Any additional information/notes: Potential Impacts of AB109: It is projected that there will be more split sentencing by Court, i.e. if sentenced to 5 years, 2.5 as an inmate and 2.5 remainder of sentence on probation/parole. County facilities are not designed for long‐term sentencing and/or programs; possible potential law suits to conform with state requirements The average level of criminality of inmates is drastically rising from prior inmates detained for Driving Under the Influence (DUI) to now First Degree burglaries and assaults. This situation exposes staff to more danger and will result in a need to increase staffing levels in all facilities, which in turn will increase costs 66 2011‐2012 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report Note the following items as you tour the facility: Condition of the exterior and interior of the building noting graffiti, peeling paint, unpleasant odors, or other signs of deterioration o Adequate, good, no odors; floors had wax build‐up Condition of the grounds, exercise areas, playing fields, and exercise equipment o Appeared in good condition General cleanliness of the facility including windows, lighting, lockers, desks, conditions of the mattresses, bedding and pillows o Generally clean Condition of sleeping room door panels o Adequate Temperature of living units o Good Safety and security issues including fencing, outdoor lighting, location of the weapons locker o Good If a court holding area is present in the facility, ensure access to toilet and drinking water o Yes Atmosphere of classroom: o N/A Are there adequate supplies (books, paper, computers, etc.)? o N/A 67 2011‐2012 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report INTERIOR OF BUILDINGS (walls, paint, floors, drains, plumbing fixtures working, air vents, windows) Are cleaning fluids and chemicals labeled and safely stored? Yes, locked; no chemicals Weapons locker present? Yes Recreation/sports equipment? Yes Are the hallways clear, are doors propped open or closed? Locked/closed electronically Holding areas (cells/rooms) – (if present), is there access to drinking water and toilet? Yes Are there individual cells/rooms, or dormitories? The facility has all three types Beds – Type of bed and is it off the floor? Bunks, single and double; off floor Adequate lighting? Yes Temperature? Adequate INDIVIDUAL CELLS/ROOM Condition of walls? Clean, freshly painted Personal possessions allowed in cell/room (art, books, etc.)? Yes, kept in clear plastic tubs; can order from commissary; books from library once a week Graffiti present? None Ample bedding? Yes, two blankets 68 2011‐2012 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF INMATES What is the appearance of inmates (dirty, unkempt, well groomed, etc.)? Adequate Showers – frequency, privacy, maintained, supervised by staff? Daily during tier time (30 minutes) Are there any reported assaults by inmates on inmates? See reviews on page seven Condition of clothing (does the clothing fit; is it appropriate for the weather, etc.)? Good for weather; clothing change issued twice per week; “whites” issued once per week; jumpsuit issued daily for workers COMMENTS/CONCERNS OBSERVED DURING TOUR: 69 2011‐2012 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report DISASTER PREPAREDNESS AN EVALUATION OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY’S STATUS
-
CL16 Page 25An analysis of the City of Victorville financial statements, as well as those of the agencies for which the City has fiduciary responsibility, reveal that the City’s solvency, capacity to provide current services, and ability to repay large debt obligations is a growing concern. As of June 30, 2011, the General Fund balance was $3,103,630, which was $4,978,874 or 61.6 percent less than the Government Finance Officers Association’s target reserve level of $8,082,504, or two months reserve based on annual expenditures in FY 2010-11. A General Fund balance of that level exposes the General Fund to the risk of not being able to meet cash flow requirements, economic uncertainties, or other financial hardships. The General Fund balance has been depleted over the years as the result of several fiscal years when expenditures have exceeded revenues, leading to an operating deficit and a need to use reserves to meet expenditure obligations. Additionally, the General Fund has loaned or transferred money to other City funds, in the form of subsidies, to support the operations of other entities that receive the majority of funding from restricted sources. The financial conditions of the Southern California Logistics Airport Authority, Victorville Municipal Utility Services, and City Golf Course are similarly weakened by operating deficits. More importantly, the financial conditions of SCLAA and VMUS are threatened by excessive debt and an inability to make debt service payments due to insufficient revenue and fund balance reserves. The General Fund’s risk exposure is increased due to a potential need to absorb VMUS liabilities and obligations. Additionally, SCLAA, has already defaulted on a debt payment. While the General Fund is not obligated to pay SCLAA’s bond indebtedness, the General Fund has supported SCLAA through advances to cover year-end negative cash balances. The City Manager has indicated that additional short term borrowing may be necessary at the end of the current fiscal year to again cover negative cash balances. The repeated use of advances on annual financial statements points to a serious cash flow problem. Further, a cycle of borrowing and repaying these short-term advances can also be interpreted as a mechanism for creating longer- term debt, while complying with the technical requirements of repaying the advances within the shorter one-year timeframe. With the dissolution of the Victorville Redevelopment Agency and the City’s assumption of VVRDA’s assets and liabilities as the Successor Agency, the City’s General Fund is further exposed to additional risk of having to absorb, but not being able to meet VVRDA’s financial obligations. These obligations include bond indebtedness, payments to third party contractors, inter-fund loans and administrative costs associated with operating as the Successor Agency. Although the City will receive some amount of tax increment funds to meet these obligations, historical analysis suggest ongoing risk exposure, since the General Fund will likely be required to absorb obligations not being met by the tax increment. Harvey M. Rose Associates, LLC 1-19 Section 1: Financial Condition
-
CL17 Page 26Although the City of Victorville finally adopted an Inter-fund Loan Policy on May 3, 2011, after repeated recommendations from independent auditors and City management dating back to 2009, the policy contains significant weaknesses. These weaknesses include a lack of guidelines and required analysis to determine: (1) the borrowing or lending funds’ solvency, or ability to pay obligations; (2) timeframes for analysis and approval of the loan prior to June 30 of each fiscal year to prevent backdating of inter-fund loans; and, (3) financial planning or monitoring of the repayment of inter-fund loans. Therefore, the Inter-fund Loan Policy as it currently exists, does not ensure that inter-fund loans do not: (a) significantly weaken the financial condition of a lending fund and its ability to pay obligations; (b) become a permanent contribution from the lending fund to the borrowing fund; or, (c) complicate or misrepresent the financial condition of all funds involved. Analysis of existing inter-fund loans revealed that the City had $69.7 million in outstanding inter-fund loans as of June 30, 2011, which includes the original loan amount and accrued interest. Though each of the loans has a five year term, a majority of the loans have not had any payments made toward the outstanding balance and internal controls are not formalized to ensure timely repayment. Further, the repayment of $38.1 million, or 54.7 percent of the $69.7 million in outstanding inter-fund loans is highly questionable. This is because these loans were made to the SCLAA and VMUS, two entities with significant debt obligations, structural cash flow difficulties and revenue concern. However, the City Manager has asserted that the City anticipates that approximately $45 million will be repaid upon receipt of approximately $52 million in judgment proceeds in FY 2012-13, resulting from a suit against a former contractor that was responsible for engineering work on the failed Foxborough Power Plant project. The suit is currently under appeal. Finally, a review of the inter-fund loans made from the Victorville Water District (VWD) to VMUS and the transfer of funds from the Sanitary District to the General Fund suggest that the City may have violated State laws and local resolutions restricting the use of revenue collected for the delivery of property-related utility services. In particular, water fees and charges collected by the VWD were loaned to VMUS to support capital improvement and operation of electrical and power utility services. While the California Constitution does not prohibit investments or short-term loans, the financial state of VMUS and its inability to pay obligations may result in the inter-fund loan becoming a permanent contribution to VMUS, exposing the City to the risk of violating the Constitution. Similarly, restricted property tax revenue was transferred to the General Fund, without assurance that the revenue would be used for Sanitary District purposes. Harvey M. Rose Associates, LLC 2-15 Section 2: Inter-fund Loans and Use of Restricted Funds Further, the transfer of Sanitary District funds to the General Fund violates the LAFCO resolution which states that all Sanitary District assets should remain in a separate enterprise account.
-
CL18 Page 28The City of Victorville and the Southern California Logistics Airport Authority (SCLAA) initiated large, high risk electrical generation-related capital projects in the mid 2000’s without proper pre-project risk assessments or project controls. The analysis supporting such decision making has been based on recommendations from contractors who have had an interest in the projects. Further, this decision making has not been transparently presented to the public. The subsequent failure of these projects has resulted in substantial losses and contributed to a heavy long-term debt burden for the City and the Airport. In September 2005, the City, acting as the governance board for the SCLAA, initiated a project to develop a 500 megawatt power plant, known as Victorville 2. The Victorville 2 project was never completed and ultimately cost the Southern California Logistics Airport over $50 million in losses with over $76 million invested to date. City management did not conduct proper due diligence before initiating the project, entering into an onerous and open-ended agreement with Inland Energy Inc., or entering into a high risk $182 million agreement to purchase power generation equipment from General Electric. Further, City management did not enforce all contract terms and has not formally managed the use of an open-ended provision in the agreement. In addition, the agreement with General Electric was adopted without proper transparency in closed session, likely violating the Brown Act. Harvey M. Rose Associates, LLC 3-18 Section 3: Power Plant Developments In June 2004, the City began procuring no-bid professional services from Carter and Burgess, an architecture and engineering firm, to design, develop, and construct, a cogeneration power plant to service the energy needs of certain tenants at the Foxborough Industrial Park. The project was undertaken by the City without a thorough assessment of risks, a formal business plan or budget, or sufficient controls in place. Through a series of mishaps the project was never completed, resulting in the loss of tens of millions of dollars in public funds. Ultimately, the City was awarded $52 million as a result of civil trial litigation against Carter and Burgess and its parent company, but this award, even if fully paid, would still leave the City with approximately $40 million in losses.
-
CL19 Page 30In September 2005 the City Council, in its role as the Southern California Logistics Airport Authority (SCLAA) Board of Directors, entered into a no-bid agreement with CBS Aviation Development, LLC for the construction of hangar facilities at Southern California Logistics Airport. The development agreement was based on a proposal put forward by the manager/owner of CBS Aviation Development, an individual with no prior relationship to the City and whose background and competency was not fully known. Further, there is no evidence that sufficient background research was conducted on CBS Aviation Development or its owner until two months after the SCLAA entered into a ground lease agreement with the contractor. 2 It is unclear the sources of funding provided to KND Affiliates by SCLAA. Harvey M. Rose Associates, LLC 4-11 Section 4: SCLA Hangar Development Although the original hangar development agreement called for the construction to be completely funded by CBS Aviation Development, the SCLAA spent approximately $54 million for CBS Aviation Development work on the hangar development project and nearly an additional $50 million for a second firm, KND Affiliates, LLC, to complete the project after City management lost confidence in the abilities of CBS Aviation Development. The hangar development project may have ultimately cost SCLAA approximately $103 million to complete four aircraft hangars. The hangar development project at the Southern California Logistics Airport was undertaken without proper controls to prevent cost overruns, the misuse or loss of public funds, or fraud. Specifically, there is no evidence that City management clearly estimated costs or presented the SCLAA Board (City Council) with a clear project budget or development plan before disbursing funds to CBS Aviation Development. Further, City and SCLAA management did not put proper controls in place during the project to ensure that outside contractors: (1) properly performed their duties; (2) used public funds efficiently; or, (3) were prevented from misusing public funds. The lack of controls is evidenced by the inability of City management to account for the entirety of public funds, including nearly $13 million provided to CBS Aviation Development.
-
CL20 Page 30The VVEDA JPA stipulates the uses of tax increment raised on parcels of the former GAFB as well as tax increment from the member jurisdictions’ territories. The VVEDA JPA specifically requires that tax increment revenues which are to be allocated to GAFB should only be used for purposes that directly benefit the redevelopment of GAFB. The VVEDA JPA also delegates the authority of the management and operation of the GAFB parcels, including budgeting authority, redevelopment authority, and all management and operational authority to the Victorville City Council, “which shall act on behalf of the [VVEDA] Commission on all such matters.” The Victorville City Council, acting as the SCLAA Board of Directors, appears to have repeatedly mishandled SCLAA bond expenditures. In at least three instances the SCLAA Board and City management mishandled SCLAA bond funds by either: (1) poorly justifying expenditures; (2) failing to properly identify funding sources and accounting for Victorville’s pledged amount to SCLAA; or, (3) potentially expending funds allocated to GAFB on parcels outside of GAFB and not primarily or directly for the purpose for the redevelopment of GAFB.
-
CL21 Page 197The police chiefs interviewed demonstrated dedication and professionalism in their approach to managing the police force within their cities. Each is actively seeking new technologies and regional alliances to enhance their efforts to become more efficient and cost effective. Their combined stated priority is to ensure public safety is at the highest level of achievement for their populace. The reviews were successful in that the 10 municipal law enforcement agencies are effectively managing their departments, in some cases administering more responsibilities than law enforcement activities, and continue to provide comprehensive public safety. Responding Agency Recommendations Due Date No Response Required 79 2011‐2012 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SHERIFF-CORONER SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATIONS DIVISION
Commendations 3
-
CM1 Page 18The Agency is to be commended for its programmatic focus of the NSP funds/projects to neighborhoods (specific streets in high crime areas and number of vacant SFR) which, as a consequence of the rehabilitation, resulted in an improved quality of life to the neighborhood inhabitants. The Grand Jury applauds the decision of the Agency in using the HUD vetted CHDO in the implementation of the next stage of NSP3, the ‘Local Street Reform and Protection.’
-
CM2 Page 195Each of the entities examined, including the volunteer forces, is to be commended for their dedication and professionalism in serving the public. The citizens of San Bernardino County can take pride in the preparation and skill that the County has achieved to respond to disasters. More importantly, they can take comfort in the capacity of the County to respond and rescue. They are equipped and ready to assist.
-
CM3 Page 219The Grand Jury commends the Public Administrator and the Public Guardian for implementing the recommendations of the 2004-2005 Grand Jury.
Comments 1
-
CO1 Page 175A) The Kitchen: Cooks all meals for all detention centers. In the bakery there are 6,000 bagels and dinner rolls, 1,500 loaves of bread, and 20,000 cookies baked each week. B) The female inmates at Glen Helen provide the labor for a call center which schedules inmate visitation sessions for all the County detention centers. A staff of 12 inmates handles 1,100‐ 1,500 calls per day. 57 2011‐2012 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report INSPECTION FORM * * * * * * Please fill out those sections that apply to the facility you are inspecting FACILITY NAME: INSPECTION DATE: Central Detention Center (CDC) December 12, 2011 FACILITY CAPACITY: LAST CSA INSPECTION DATE: 1,103 April 5, 2011 ADDRESS: TELEPHONE NUMBER: 909‐386‐0945 630 E. Rialto Avenue San Bernardino, CA 92415 FAX NUMBER: 909‐386‐0924 TYPE OF FACILITY: Type II DETENTION CENTER: X REHABILITATION CENTER: OTHER: Any Additional Information/Notes: The Facility closed in 1991 due to West Valley Detention Center (WVDC) opening; it reopened in 1994 primarily to house Federal inmates, on a cost‐reimbursement basis through a Federal contract. U.S. Marshal housing provides for 330‐370 inmates. These are Federal inmates being held for transition to a Federal facility; they are airlifted out once a week. Since October 1, 2011 (AB109), 570 inmates have been sentenced or in pre‐sentencing. 58 2011‐2012 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report GENERAL INFORMATION What is the capacity of the facility? 1,103. On 12/12/11, 918 total inmates ‐ 160 women will be transferred to WVDC in anticipation of making room for ‘protective custody’ male inmates from Glen Helen Rehabilitation Center. This will consolidate all female inmates at WVDC. What is the number of pre‐trial inmates? 537 Has the facility exceeded capacity since the last state CSA inspection? No What is the average length of detention? Six months What is the inmate classification system? Describe: Detention & Corrections Bureau, Policy & Procedures. Per Policy 9.800–Inmate Classification Procedures & Policy 9.900–Inmate Classification Types Number of weekend offenders? None Are inmates oriented to rules and procedures? Yes, inmate receives booklet (English & Spanish) and watches video Are rules and grievance procedures posted? In booklet and video Are rules and grievance procedures understood by inmates? Yes, translator available, if needed Are there procedures for handling citizen complaints? Yes Number of inmate suicides in the past year? None Number of attempted suicides? Two Number of deaths from other causes? None Number of escapes? None Date of last fire/emergency drill? June 23, 2011 59 2011‐2012 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report STAFFING Is there enough staff to monitor inmates? Yes: One Captain, One Lieutenant, Six Sergeants, 60 Deputies, 82 Support Staff; Medical Staff: one doctor, one Physician’s Assistant, five Registered Nurses, and four License Vocational Nurses. Does staff communicate in languages that an inmate can understand? Yes Diversity of staff. Males: eight African American, 45 Caucasian, 33 Hispanic, six others; Females: eight African American, 30 Caucasian, 21 Hispanic, and four others. Impression of staff/inmate interactions. Very good PROGRAMS Exercise: o Is it inside or out? Both; recreation yard has basketball hoops, dip bar, pull‐up bar o How frequently? Inside ‐ one hour daily; Outside ‐ three hours weekly o Do men get more exercise time than women? N/A Are there clergy available to inmates upon request? Yes, full‐time Chaplain o Are there religious services? Yes, Tuesday through Sunday Are anger management and other applicable programs available? None Are medical services available? Yes, both doctor and dentist o How frequently is medical staff on‐site? Both Registered and Licensed Vocational Nurses at all times; Doctors on Monday‐Wednesday‐Friday; Physician’s Assistant – Friday; Dental and Mental Health Monday‐Wednesday‐Friday o How long do inmates wait to be seen? As needed o Is a physician available by phone or comes to the facility? Both Are mental health services available? Yes 60 2011‐2012 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report o How frequently is mental health staff on‐site? Psychiatric Clinician, weekly o How long do inmates wait to be seen? As needed Are vocational classes available? No o If so, what types: N/A TELEPHONE Do inmates have access to telephones? Yes CORRESPONDENCE Is there a limited free postage for inmates without money? Legal mail packages only Incoming/outgoing – are inmates aware that mail can be read? Yes, advised that all mail is scanned Confidential correspondence – letter to attorneys, legislators, CSA, etc., ‐ how is it handled? Per policy, available to inmates; each is opened in presence of inmate and deputy VISITING Is there adequate space, convenient times or accommodations to family’s work schedule, etc.? Yes, rotate times during mornings and evenings Are there provisions for special visits with attorneys/clergy? Yes, in official areas Does staff supervise visits? Yes Do all inmates have access to visiting? Yes o If not, give reason: Except for disciplinary actions, for a maximum of 30 days; the average is 3 – 4 days 61 2011‐2012 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report MEALS/NUTRITION The kitchen area – Is it clean? Yes Are knives and chemicals locked? Yes Have the inmates working in the kitchen been trained? Yes, all have food handlers’ licenses Have the inmates had a medical clearance/review before assignment? Yes Are meals served in the cell, day room or at a central cafeteria? All. The big dining room has the capacity for 200 inmates; there are two rooms on different levels, with only one used at a time Are inmates permitted to converse during meals? No Length of time allowed for eating? 15 minutes HEALTH What type of on‐site health facility is available to inmates? Two clinics, east/west side of facility What type of on‐site dental facility is available to inmates? Dentist on‐site Monday ‐ Friday What off‐site hospital is used for serious health issues? Arrowhead Regional Medical Center How are inmates transported to off‐site facilities? By custody transport or ambulance How is security handled? Inmate is shackled and custody transport is followed by an additional deputy 62 2011‐2012 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report DOCUMENT REVIEW INMATE GRIEVANCES/COMPLAINTS: TYPES RESOLUTIONS Inmates shoes confiscated in shake down because Inmate account credited amount of shoes and “name” not on them inmate told to mark shoes in future Inmate stated he was only offered a shower Staff directed to offer showers between 0430‐ between 0100‐0400, and he was being mocked 2300 and told to treat inmates on a “strictly about being a Mexican mature and professional level” Inmate stated his stamps and drawing were Staff took drawings (naked women) and later destroyed returned them and the stamps, per staff, were used stamps. Considered contraband Inmate stated neither doctor nor nurse would Inmate rescheduled for doctor appointment in two provide joint pain medication days Inmate stated wife was told he was “not available” Investigation showed wife was “no show” one day, for visits (twice), noting she only spoke Spanish she was scheduled for another day but was denied visit; possibly due to language; other visit date inmate was off facility, in court Inmate stated his “medically approved” shoes Shoes were confirmed as “medically approved” were taken by a deputy and returned to inmate Inmate stated he was strip searched and his legal Strip search was on all transported inmates, documents were taken looking for possible handcuff key; note paper, considered contraband was kept, but court papers were returned Inmate complained of racial mistreatment for Inmate was given written discipline for not “black” inmates; six grievance for same action following rules of grievances, not to issue/write grievance for a class of inmates – only for individual grievances Inmate stated he had reported (five times) his pain A doctor changed his diet and ordered Motrin; and vomiting blood after gallstones removed; he resulting to no more food issues; action taken in stated he reported it in May, June and now in late August August Inmate appealed decision on the allegation he was Actions taken were found “to be within “beaten” by two officers and asked that the video department and industry standards” and be reviewed, wants to press charges allegations of threats were found to be unsubstantiated. Review of original complaint and the video review showed all actions were within department standards Total Complaints reviewed: 43 Total Complaints during past five quarters: 10 63 2011‐2012 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report MAJOR INCIDENTS: TYPES RESOLUTIONS Minor injuries; inmate punched deputy in face Medical care; forwarded the file to the District with closed fist Attorney (DA) for review; arrested Assault; inmate to inmate, deputy Forwarded to DA for review for criminal charges Battery, inmate to inmate Declined to press charges Battery; two females pushing and grabbing Station filed – Pending Battery; lunch To Sheriff’s records Battery; genitalia assault Declined to press charges Battery; inmate to inmate Forwarded to DA for review Battery; mutual combat Station filed Battery, inmate to inmate Station filed Battery; inmate pushed down stairs ARMC for stitches; declined to pursue Battery; inmate to inmate, eye injury Declined to prosecute Battery; inmate to inmate in property room Neither will prosecute Battery; seven inmates/assault; injuries Station filed only Battery; females fighting in food line Station filed Battery; returning from court/inmates No prosecution Battery; punched in head Uncooperative/refused to identify assailant Battery; inmate to inmate, 11 in fight ARMC for treatment Battery; inmate to inmate, female Station filed Battery; inmate to inmate, female Sent to DA for filing; victim wishes to press charges Battery; 32 inmates/ five deputies in cell block Three inmates with injuries; some arrested, station fight filed Total Complaints reviewed: 81 Total Complaints during past five quarters: 20 64 2011‐2012 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report POLICIES AND OPERATIONS MANUALS Review the following sections, making notes of each: Inmate Grievances: A copy of the Policy was produced to the Grand Jury and was reviewed. Citizen Complaints: Four Internal Affairs reviews every six months, per audit/log. A copy of the procedures for handling Citizen’s Complaints was reviewed by the Grand Jury. Major Incidents: A copy of the Policy was provided to the Grand Jury and was reviewed. 65 2011‐2012 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report SITE TOUR AREA INSPECTED/REVIEWED (Please Check) QUALITY OF LIFE PROGRAMS PERSONS INTERVIEWED X Physical Plan No Educational No Inmates X Meals/Nutrition No Vocational X Facility Manager X Mental Health No Community Services X Medical X Physical/Dental Health No Domestic Violence N/A School Staff X Religious Services No Victim/Gang Awareness N/A Mental Health Staff X Visiting No Substance Abuse N/A Line Staff X Volunteer Involvement Other N/A Food Services Staff Other Other Any additional information/notes: Potential Impacts of AB109: It is projected that there will be more split sentencing by Court, i.e. if sentenced to 5 years, 2.5 as an inmate and 2.5 remainder of sentence on probation/parole. County facilities are not designed for long‐term sentencing and/or programs; possible potential law suits to conform with state requirements The average level of criminality of inmates is drastically rising from prior inmates detained for Driving Under the Influence (DUI) to now First Degree burglaries and assaults. This situation exposes staff to more danger and will result in a need to increase staffing levels in all facilities, which in turn will increase costs 66 2011‐2012 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report Note the following items as you tour the facility: Condition of the exterior and interior of the building noting graffiti, peeling paint, unpleasant odors, or other signs of deterioration o Adequate, good, no odors; floors had wax build‐up Condition of the grounds, exercise areas, playing fields, and exercise equipment o Appeared in good condition General cleanliness of the facility including windows, lighting, lockers, desks, conditions of the mattresses, bedding and pillows o Generally clean Condition of sleeping room door panels o Adequate Temperature of living units o Good Safety and security issues including fencing, outdoor lighting, location of the weapons locker o Good If a court holding area is present in the facility, ensure access to toilet and drinking water o Yes Atmosphere of classroom: o N/A Are there adequate supplies (books, paper, computers, etc.)? o N/A 67 2011‐2012 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report INTERIOR OF BUILDINGS (walls, paint, floors, drains, plumbing fixtures working, air vents, windows) Are cleaning fluids and chemicals labeled and safely stored? Yes, locked; no chemicals Weapons locker present? Yes Recreation/sports equipment? Yes Are the hallways clear, are doors propped open or closed? Locked/closed electronically Holding areas (cells/rooms) – (if present), is there access to drinking water and toilet? Yes Are there individual cells/rooms, or dormitories? The facility has all three types Beds – Type of bed and is it off the floor? Bunks, single and double; off floor Adequate lighting? Yes Temperature? Adequate INDIVIDUAL CELLS/ROOM Condition of walls? Clean, freshly painted Personal possessions allowed in cell/room (art, books, etc.)? Yes, kept in clear plastic tubs; can order from commissary; books from library once a week Graffiti present? None Ample bedding? Yes, two blankets 68 2011‐2012 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF INMATES What is the appearance of inmates (dirty, unkempt, well groomed, etc.)? Adequate Showers – frequency, privacy, maintained, supervised by staff? Daily during tier time (30 minutes) Are there any reported assaults by inmates on inmates? See reviews on page seven Condition of clothing (does the clothing fit; is it appropriate for the weather, etc.)? Good for weather; clothing change issued twice per week; “whites” issued once per week; jumpsuit issued daily for workers COMMENTS/CONCERNS OBSERVED DURING TOUR: 69 2011‐2012 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report DISASTER PREPAREDNESS AN EVALUATION OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY’S STATUS
No Responses Found 3
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors
Elected County Office
San Bernardino County Fire Protection District
Fire District
San Bernardino County Sheriff
Elected County Office