Madera County Grand Jury
• 2011-2012
2011-2012 Madera County Grand Jury Final Report on Fairmead Landfill Properties Usage
⚠️ 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 27 findings
F1
The Grand Jury found that the County no longer needs to expand the landfill within 5 years as previously expected. a. The County has been granted a permit which allows the height of the landfill to increase to 70 feet. b. The new allowable height for the landfill extends the need for future expansion to 10 or more years.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
The Grand Jury found that the County has acquired all except 2 of the parcels located along Road 19 1/2. a. One un-acquired parcel, located between 2 County-owned parcels, is 4.95 acres with a small, occupied residence. b. The other un-acquired parcel, located at the north corner of Road 19 1/2, is 13.58 acres and also has an occupied residence.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
The Grand Jury found that most of the acquired properties are undeveloped land or contain abandoned structures in varying stages of deterioration.
No recommendations for this finding
F4
The Grand Jury found that the County has rented out 2 pieces of the acquired property. a. Three acres have been rented for commercial storage of materials and equipment. b. One parcel has been rented for residential occupancy.
No recommendations for this finding
F5
The Grand Jury found that, on July 26, 2011, the BoS entered into Lease Agreement No. 9434-C-2011 with the landfill operator to permit the storage of materials and equipment for an unrelated business. The lease agreement: a. is for 5 years; b. allows for the use of 3 acres of undeveloped land; c. requires monthly rental payments of $1,500; and d. may be terminated with 90 days written notice.
No recommendations for this finding
F6
The Grand Jury found that Lease Agreement No. 9434-C-2011 is intended to provide revenue to the County General Fund in the amount of $18,000 annually.
No recommendations for this finding
F7
The Grand Jury found that, on December 15, 2009, the BoS entered into Agreement No. 9049-C-2009 to lease a residential parcel (APN 027-192-025) which the County had purchased in September, 2009. The lease agreement: a. is month-to-month, not to exceed 5 years; b. requires monthly rental payments of $900; c. specifies maintenance and upkeep responsibilities of the County and renter; and d. may be terminated with 30 days written notice.
No recommendations for this finding
F8
The Grand Jury found that the leased residential property consists of: a. a parcel of land measuring 4.95 acres with dry pasture in the back; and b. a single-family residence of 4,400 square feet, 6 bedrooms, and 3 bathrooms.
No recommendations for this finding
F9
The Grand Jury found that the following are included as Recitals in the lease agreement for the residential property: a. The County wished to rent the property only to employees of RMA with experience in grounds keeping or building maintenance for County properties. b. Through RMA the County advertised the opportunity to rent the property to RMA employees. c. The selected renter was the only person to offer to live on the property.
No recommendations for this finding
F10
The Grand Jury found that other RMA employees were unaware of the rental opportunity for this residential property.
No recommendations for this finding
F11
The Grand Jury found that the residential property renter, at the time of selection, was an RMA employee with experience in grounds keeping for County properties.
No recommendations for this finding
F12
The Grand Jury found that the residential property renter is no longer employed by the County.
No recommendations for this finding
F13
The Grand Jury found that the selected residential property renter expressed a possible interest in purchasing and moving the residence in the future. a. At the December 1, 2009 meeting, the BoS action taken to proceed with rental of the residential property included direction that the lease agreement contain a provision giving the renter first option to purchase the residence for removal from the property. b. No such option was included in the lease agreement.
No recommendations for this finding
F14
The Grand Jury found that members of the BoS offered the following as justifications for selection of a particular person as renter of the residential property: a. He would be a watchman for landfill and other County properties. b. He has done a good job, and we should take care of our own. c. He has offered a good rent. d. He will take care of it, and he has the capability of fixing it up, making it better. e. He will clean up all around. f. He will assist with paleontology and provide security for the museum. g. Security for the museum would cost more than the difference between the offered rent and a higher amount which might be obtained.
No recommendations for this finding
F15
The Grand Jury found that none of the above justifications are included in the residential property lease agreement as requirements for the renter. The responsibilities specified in the agreement are those customarily required of any residential property renter.
No recommendations for this finding
F16
The Grand Jury found that the contractor for operation of the landfill is responsible for all landfill property, including the acquired undeveloped parcels.
No recommendations for this finding
F17
The Grand Jury found that the most important factors considered in determining the fair market value (FMV) rental amount for residential property are number of bedrooms, total square footage, condition, type of flooring, with or without air conditioning, and location.
No recommendations for this finding
F18
The Grand Jury found that the rental amount offered and agreed upon for the residential property is far below the FMV for the property, even adjusted for landfill nuisances. a. The average published rental amount for 4 bedroom, 2 bathroom, less than 2,000 square feet houses without acreage in this area is $1,500 per month. b. The average published rental amount for 5 bedroom, 2 bathroom, up to 2,200 square feet houses without acreage in this area is $1,665 per month. c. The average published rental amount for 6 bedroom, 2 bathroom, up to 2,900 square feet houses without acreage in this area is $2,035 per month. d. The FMV rental amount for the 6 bedroom, 3 bathroom, 4,400 square feet house on 4.95 acres, adjusted for landfill nuisances, is estimated between $2,000 and $2,500 per month.
No recommendations for this finding
F19
The Grand Jury found that the BoS excluded the lease of the residential property from normally required bidding procedures by following the procedures outlined in Madera County Code Section 2.92.020, as follows: a. posting a notice, dated December 4, 2009, in the office of the county clerk; b. publishing the notice one time in a newspaper of general circulation within the county; c. establishing a rental amount less than $2,000 per month; and d. limiting the term of the rental agreement to 5 years.
No recommendations for this finding
F20
The Grand Jury found that Section 28 of the lease agreement for the residential property provides for month-to-month tenancy after expiration of the 5 year term.
No recommendations for this finding
F21
The Grand Jury found that Section 20 of the lease agreement acknowledges that the residential property and all improvements on the property were in good order, repair and condition as of the date of occupancy.
No recommendations for this finding
F22
The Grand Jury found that the renter of the residential property requested and utilized County equipment to perform weed abatement on the property.
No recommendations for this finding
F23
The Grand Jury found that the Fossil Discovery Center has had no County employees as workers or volunteers since opening.
No recommendations for this finding
F24
The Grand Jury found that the Fossil Discovery Center has no paid or volunteer security service.
No recommendations for this finding
F25
The Grand Jury found that the District 1 Supervisor did not fully participate in the decision to lease the residential property to the selected renter. a. At the December 1, 2009 BoS meeting, the District 1 Supervisor supported renting the property for 3 to 6 months while the County actively pursued the sale and removal of the residence. b. The District 1 Supervisor was absent from the December 15, 2009 BoS meeting at which the lease agreement was acted upon.
No recommendations for this finding
F26
The Grand Jury found that the required annual weed abatement on the undeveloped and abandoned properties had not been performed as of several days past the May 1, 2012 deadline.
No recommendations for this finding
F27
The Grand Jury found that, under direction from a County official, County employees delivered a tractor and equipment which belong to the County to be used by the residential property renter for maintenance of the leased property. Conclusions:
No recommendations for this finding
Conclusions 12
-
CL1The Grand Jury concluded that the County owns property which is currently idle and which could be offered to rent for appropriate uses.
-
CL2The Grand Jury concluded that the deteriorating structures on the acquired properties present potential safety hazards and liability exposure for the County.
-
CL3The Grand Jury concluded that the County has not monitored the maintenance of its acquired properties to minimize risk and liability exposure.
-
CL4The Grand Jury concluded that four members of the BoS had pre-selected the same individual to rent the residential property prior to the decision being made that the property should be rented.
-
CL5The Grand Jury concluded that other potential renters were excluded from the residential property rental opportunity by the County's failure to adequately advertise the opportunity, as well as the tailoring of selection criteria to fit a particular individual.
-
CL6The Grand Jury concluded that members of the BoS had no factual basis nor reasonable expectation that any of the justifications given for selection of a particular individual as renter for the residential property would become reality.
-
CL7The Grand Jury concluded that the County made no attempt to establish the FMV rental amount for the residential property or to maximize the revenue to be derived from it.
-
CL8The Grand Jury concluded that the BoS knew, or should have known, that the FMV for rental of the 5 acres with a large residence was much greater than $900 per month, given that 18 months later it rented out 3 undeveloped acres located nearby for $1,500 per month.
-
CL9The Grand Jury concluded that, under the terms of the rental agreement, the renter could be permitted to rent the residential property at the rate of $900 per month for more than 10 years, until it is needed for expansion of the landfill.
-
CL10The Grand Jury concluded that the County has lost $32,000 to $47,000 in potential rental revenue from the residential property since December, 2009. If the current lease agreement continues unchanged for the full 5 years, the County will lose an additional $33,000 to $49,000. If the residential property continues to be rented at the current rate until it is needed for expansion of the landfill, the total loss of potential revenue to the County could exceed $200,000. This is a significant gift of public funds.
-
CL11The Grand Jury concluded that permitting non-employees to use County equipment exposes the County to potential liability.
-
CL12The Grand Jury concluded that the BoS has exercised poor stewardship in its utilization and management of the acquired properties adjacent to the landfill.