The County of Fresno Grand Jury

Fresno County owns marginal real estate that has little apparent purpose to the County, is not regularly maintained, and is poorly tracked. The County partially agrees with the finding as leadership had already become aware of the shortcomings inherited from previous leadership and is actively working on corrections. This report confirms what we already know; however, it did give us additional details that is very helpful in addressing the issues, for which a consultant has been retained.

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. The County partially agrees with this finding. See No. Hall of Records / 2281 Tulare Street, Room 304 / Fresno, California 93721 / (559) 600-1710 / FAX (559) 600-1230 The County of Fresno is an Equal Employment Opportunity Employer The Honorable Houry A. Sanderson, Presiding Judge July 9, 2024

F4. 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. 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. 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. 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.

Today, the Finance Department staff appears to be following policy and exhibiting sound business practices. 10

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.

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.

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.

EHD’s website is difficult to navigate, not always current, and is a barrier to consumers. FQ EHD appears to be without a policy for its Food Inspectors on the standard use of County automobiles for travel to inspect food facilities.

non-inspecting job classifications to assist with to handle many of the administrative tasks. For more details, please see response to R4. Permit, food inspection, and reinspection fees appear to be low when compared to similar inspection fees charged elsewhere, including those charged by the City of Fresno and other Fresno County departments. Response: The Board of Supervisors agrees with this finding. The EHD is working on bringing an amendment to the Board of Supervisors for their consideration to make fees sufficient to cover costs. Subjectivity and inconsistency in inspections are an impediment to the mission of ensuring food safety within Fresno County. Response: The Board of Supervisors partially agrees with this finding. The EHD will be providing additional training to ensure efficiency and effectiveness to help alleviate subjectivity issues. For more details, please see response to R6. Code violation enforcement and fine collection appear to be inconsistent and based on the subjectivity of individual inspectors and supervisors. Response: The Board of Supervisors partially agrees with the finding given the methodology used for the staff evaluation portion of the recommendation. There will always be a level of subjective judgement require due to the varying circumstances, but the goal is to be as standard as possible. The EHD will bring new reinspection fees to the Board of Supervisors for approval and a new policy for implementation to reduce the subjectivity. The State is sponsoring a training in Fall 2024 that can assist with standardization across the field. The EHD plans to attend the training. EHD’s website is difficult to navigate, not always current, and is a barrier to consumers. Response: The Board of Supervisors partially agrees with this finding and is currently working on improving the website some of which have already been implemented. For more details, please see response to R8. EHD appears to be without a policy for its Food Inspectors on the standard use of County automobiles for travel to inspect food facilities. Response: The Board of Supervisors partially agrees and will provide vehicles when it is in the best interest of the County to do so. For more details, please see response to R10.