Stanislaus County Grand Jury
• 2002-2003
Stanislaus County - Landfill Civil Grand Jury Case No. 03-19 Ga
⚠️ 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.
Findings and Recommendations 39 findings
F1
On October 17, 1995, the Beltran property appraisal was submitted to the Stanislaus County Public Works Department
No recommendations for this finding
F2
On January 23, 1996, the Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors approved the Siting Element, which is required by California law and which provides for a minimum of 15 year capacity.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
On May 25, 1999, the Board of Supervisors’ Action Agenda Summary used the 1995 Siting Element as justification for the purchase of the Vogel property.
No recommendations for this finding
F4
The only property identified in the Siting Element was the original Beltran property -- 354 acres – and not the 2100 acre Vogel property.
No recommendations for this finding
F5
The Siting Element adopted by the county in 1995 allowed the county to expand the landfill by approximately 350 acres.
No recommendations for this finding
F6
In the Siting Element adopted in 1995, the county “tentatively reserved” 300 acres for landfill expansion.
No recommendations for this finding
F7
On April 25, 1996, the Vogel property owner offered to sell to county 394 acres at $2,800 per acre.
No recommendations for this finding
F8
On July 15, 1996, the Vogel property owner offered to sell to county the 394 acres at a price in the range of $900-$2,800 per acre.
No recommendations for this finding
F9
No further records regarding Vogel-County negotiations for the 394 acres were found or obtained subsequent to the July 15, 1996, memorandum.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
“Contracts for Services” between Stanislaus County and consultants should be reviewed and monitored by the Board of Supervisors.
F10
On February 11, 1997, the Beltran property purchase of 354 acres for $381,000 was approved by the Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors.
No recommendations for this finding
F11
On May 29, 1997, the Beltran Environmental Impact Report included an 83 acre footprint to handle 12 million cubic yards of waste. The capacity of this 83 acres would be reached in year 2076 based upon use projections.
No recommendations for this finding
F12
On August 10, 1998, the county consultant’s contractual duties consisted of valuation and the potential privatization of the landfill and the importation of waste from other counties to Stanislaus County.
No recommendations for this finding
F13
On January 11, 1999, the county consultant submitted to county CEO a report regarding the privatization and valuation of the landfill.
No recommendations for this finding
F14
On March 16, 1999, the Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors authorized the Stanislaus County CEO to negotiate purchase of 2100 acres of Vogel property for expansion of the landfill.
No recommendations for this finding
F15
On May 25, 1999, the Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors authorized purchase of 2100 acres of Vogel property at a cost of $14,000,000. This price is approximately $6,600 per acre.
No recommendations for this finding
F16
The county and the taxpayers have lost the use of and interest income on the $14 million.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10
The Board of Supervisors should sell the excess land to reimburse the landfill enterprise funds enabling interest to resume and property tax revenue to be restored to the county. 6
F17
The county and the taxpayers have lost the property tax revenue on said land.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10
The Board of Supervisors should sell the excess land to reimburse the landfill enterprise funds enabling interest to resume and property tax revenue to be restored to the county. 6
F18
On July 25, 1999, the county consultant’s compensation was increased and contract extended.
No recommendations for this finding
F19
In May 2000, county consultant provides Stanislaus County staff a draft letter of intent with Norcal Waste Systems to include medical waste.
No recommendations for this finding
F20
On January 30, 2001, the County Board of Supervisors voted to pursue the county consultant’s proposal for importation of waste from other counties to Stanislaus County 4
No recommendations for this finding
F21
On October 8, 2002, the Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors voted to revise the Environmental Impact Report to accommodate a smaller site.
No recommendations for this finding
F22
CEO Special Project funds were expended to evaluate the concept of expanding and selling the landfill to a private company prior to the Vogel property purchase.
No recommendations for this finding
F23
CEO Special Project funds were expended also to study importation of medical waste and garbage from other communities.
No recommendations for this finding
F24
No county official, elected or hired, publicized the concept of privatization prior to or subsequent to the Vogel property purchase.
Related Recommendations (2)
R6
The county should expand public notices regarding meetings and agendas by publishing in county newspapers.
R7
Language used in public notices should be clear enough for the general public to understand and know about the issues pending before the County Board of Supervisors.
F25
No county official, elected or hired, publicized the concept of medical waste and garbage from other communities prior to the Vogel purchase.
Related Recommendations (2)
R6
The county should expand public notices regarding meetings and agendas by publishing in county newspapers.
R7
Language used in public notices should be clear enough for the general public to understand and know about the issues pending before the County Board of Supervisors.
F26
On December 9, 2002, prior to obtaining approval of the nine incorporated cities of Stanislaus County, the Five Year CIWMP final report was sent to the California Integrated Waste Management Board with an incorrect map.
No recommendations for this finding
F27
One supervisor testified to the Civil Grand Jury that he knew of the CEO’s possible plans for the landfill and another supervisor testified he did not know.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2
The Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors should thoroughly investigate and question all agenda items before voting on them.
R3
The Board of Supervisors should closely monitor the activities of their committees, the CEO and his staff.
F28
The California Government Code says the Board of Supervisors can establish enterprise funds. Activities which may be accounted for in enterprise funds are designated in regulations adopted by the State Controller and printed in Accounting Standards and Procedures for Counties.
No recommendations for this finding
F29
Enterprise funds are intended to finance current operations, repay long-term liabilities and meet capital outlay requirements. Neither a deficit nor a gain in an enterprise fund should become large.
No recommendations for this finding
F30
The County Auditor/Controller has fiduciary responsibility over all county expenditures including enterprise funds.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9
The County Auditor/Controller should exercise his fiduciary responsibilities for all county expenditures including enterprise funds.
F31
Wrongful expenditures of public funds can lead to personal liability against the Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors, the county CEO and the county Auditor/Controller.
Related Recommendations (4)
R4
The Board of Supervisors should develop a policy that acknowledges the seriousness of ethics violations and provides redress.
R5
The Board of Supervisors should develop a policy that requires all county personnel to receive annual ethics and conflict of interest training.
R8
Public officials should understand that expenditure of public money should be treated seriously.
R9
The County Auditor/Controller should exercise his fiduciary responsibilities for all county expenditures including enterprise funds.
F32
The county consultant testified that the WTE plant will last 40-50 years.
No recommendations for this finding
F33
One supervisor testified to the Civil Grand Jury that the expenditure of $14 million was not significant considering the “$980 million” county budget. CONCLUSIONS
No recommendations for this finding
F34
Page 3
Letter from Stanislaus County Public Works to SCS Engineers with purchase order and agreement to complete the revisions to the Initial Study for the Soil Transfer Project at Fink Road Landfill.
No recommendations for this finding
F35
Page 3
Records from the City of Modesto Solid Waste Department.
No recommendations for this finding
F36
Page 3
State of California Accounting Standards and Procedures for Counties, Chapter 13.
No recommendations for this finding
F37
Page 3
California Government Codes 25252, 25261 and 30200.
No recommendations for this finding
F38
Page 3
Memo dated July 15, 1996, between senior county civil engineer and Vogel property owner.
No recommendations for this finding
F39
Page 3
A draft letter of intent from Norcal Waste Systems to the City of Modesto. FINDINGS 1. On October 17, 1995, the Beltran property appraisal was submitted to the Stanislaus County Public Works Department 2. On January 23, 1996, the Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors approved the Siting Element, which is required by California law and which provides for a minimum of 15 year capacity.
No recommendations for this finding
Conclusions 10
-
CL1 Page 5The 1997 Beltran property purchase satisfied all county landfill disposal capacity needs through 2076, as provided by the 1995 Siting Element.
-
CL2 Page 5The Vogel property purchased in 1999 for $14 million was not necessary for county landfill needs.
-
CL3 Page 5The $2 million Environmental Impact Report expenditure on the Vogel property in 1999 was not necessary for landfill needs.
-
CL4 Page 5Stanislaus County lost property tax revenue of at least $60,000 per year and interest of $320,000 per year on the $16 million spent on the Vogel property.
-
CL5 Page 5The County Board of Supervisors and/or the CEO did not fully disclosure their plans for the landfill projects.
-
CL6 Page 5The position of the supervisors was inconsistent about their knowledge of the CEO’s plans for the Vogel property. 5
-
CL7 Page 6The Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors did not thoroughly investigate nor question the Vogel purchase before voting affirmatively.
-
CL8 Page 6The manner in which the Vogel property was purchased demonstrated a lack of proper procedure and oversight in Stanislaus County government.
-
CL9 Page 6A lack of checks and balances is demonstrated by the county staff’s December 9, 2002, five year review sent to the California Integrated Waste Management Board. The review included the wrong site map. It was sent without prior approval of the nine incorporated cities. This was in blatant disregard of the October 8, 2002, directive of the Board of Supervisors.
-
CL10 Page 6There appears to be inconsistencies in the rules regarding purchases made from an enterprise fund or for maintaining prudent capital reserves.
No Responses Found 3
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
Stanislaus County
County
Stanislaus County Auditor-Controller
Elected County Office
Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors
Elected County Office