📋
Extraído del Informe Consolidado
Esta investigación fue publicada originalmente como parte de un informe consolidado más amplio que contiene múltiples investigaciones. Consulte el PDF consolidado para ver el documento completo.
Fresno County Grand Jury
• 2023-2024
• Agency Response
Fresno County Grand Jury Final Reports and Responses Response to Report #1 From the Clovis Cemetery District
⚠️ Aviso de traducción: Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings 9 findings
F1
Page 72
Fresno County owns marginal real estate that has little apparent purpose to the County, is not regularly maintained, and is poorly tracked. Response: The Board of Supervisors supports the County Administrative Officer’s (CAO) responses to all Findings within this report. As indicated within the CAO’s consolidated response to this report, leadership had already become aware of the shortcomings inherited from previous leadership and is actively working on corrections. This report confirms what current leadership is aware; however, it did give us additional details that is very helpful in addressing the issues, for which a dedicated temporary position has been developed and filled.
F2
Page 72
Fresno County’s current ability to track, manage and plan for its current and future real estate needs is problematic given the county’s size and complexity and has likely led to ownership of unnecessary property, less than timely processes, and financial loss. Response: The Board of Supervisors partially agrees with the finding. See No. 1.
F3
Page 72
The challenges the County faces in reforming its real estate practices appear to be systemic and long-held and will require cultural change and ongoing commitment to accomplish. Response: The Board of Supervisors partially agrees with the finding. See No. 1.
F4
Page 72
The current staffing level and organizational structure are likely less robust than that required to plan for, fully monitor, or oversee, the County’s real estate holdings. Response: The County is currently assessing the needs and staffing levels and is dedicated to ensuring they are appropriate. 2
F5
Page 73
Fresno County apparently lacks a comprehensive strategic plan to guide the management of its real estate assets, nor does it appear to have a comprehensive deferred capital maintenance plan adequately funded to fully maintain the County’s buildings over time. Response: The Board of Supervisors agrees with the finding. See No. 1.
F6
Page 73
The system currently used by the County to collect and maintain property data is inadequate given the number of identified errors and incompleteness of property history and other information. Response: The Board of Supervisors agrees with the finding. See No. 1.
F7
Page 73
The processes for leasing property for County use as well as the process of leasing property to others are poorly tracked, fragmented, and likely create the opportunity for error and mistake. Response: The Board of Supervisors agrees with the finding. See No. 1.
F8
Page 122
EHD’s website is difficult to navigate, not always current, and is a barrier to consumers.
F9
Page 122
EHD appears to be without a policy for its Food Inspectors on the standard use of County automobiles for travel to inspect food facilities.
Recommendations 1
-
R4Page 75Standardize management and tracking of County owned properties leased to others which would: 1. Provide an overview of leases in the annual property management report in
Conclusions 2
-
CL1 Page 120No doubt EHD has a dedicated staff that works hard to accomplish its mission of ensuring food safety, but it also faces numerous obstacles in doing so, which have been discussed in this investigative report. From the preponderance of the evidence presented, obtained through ride-along inspections with EHD inspectors, interviews conducted during the investigation, and document and website reviews, the Grand Jury has concluded that EHD cannot always assure food safety in Fresno County restaurants. The subjectivity and inconsistency apparent in restaurant inspections, as well as an overwhelming workload for Food Inspectors contribute to our conclusion, as does the apparent difficulty of closing restaurants in violation of the Food Code, a process made more challenging by the requirement to obtain a supervisor’s approval, even though an imminent health hazard exists. As a final note, the Grand Jury observes that Fresno County does not include letter grades in the restaurant inspection reports, though many California counties do. 17
-
CL2 Page 121Letter grades are not mandated by the State, though the Grand Jury believes assigning a letter grade increases transparency as well as provides an incentive for local food businesses to strive for excellence, to properly and safely prepare food in a clean and sanitary environment.
No Responses Found 2
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
Clovis Cemetery District
Special District
Fresno LAFCO
Lafco