⚠️ 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.
Recommendations 7
-
R1(December 5, 2008) by Carter Goble Lee, consultant to Vanir Construction; Comprehensive Study of the Alameda County Juvenile Justice System
-
R2(December 31, 2004), Huskey & Associates; Redesigned Wilmont Sweeney Camp Program (undated final draft); 2010-2011 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report
-
R3Correction Program Assessment Inventory - Camp Wilmont Sweeney
-
R4(September 1, 2005 by Edward Latessa); and Corrections Standards Authority Inspection (January 6, 2010).
-
R5Camp Sweeney The Grand Jury was appalled at what we heard and saw during our November 2010 visit to Camp Sweeney. There were overgrown weeds throughout the unkempt facility; old abandoned mops in buckets sat outside the cafeteria; several bulletin boards showed photos of activities that had not been updated in years; the room that the interim camp supervisor identified as the library appeared more like a ransacked storage room, smelling of mold and mildew; and outside one door was a dead mouse. The Grand Jury also saw:
-
R6that it greatly impacted the safety of the juveniles; and A large open dormitory that was the only location for sleeping, risking the
-
R7safety of detainees and staff. In a 2008 report to the Alameda County Board of Supervisors, the chief probation officer at the time described the camp as the only Alameda County facility for chronic offenders with high-level needs (such as mental health issues) who had previously been committed to the State Division of Juvenile Justice (juvenile state prison). The chief stated that these juvenile offenders required a fully supported secure care facility and that the Probation Department could not provide the level of care required using the existing facility. 2010-2011 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report Camp Sweeney is housed in facilities that were built in 1957. In June 2008, a needs assessment was conducted to evaluate the current and future safety and security requirements of Camp Sweeney. Carter Goble Lee wrote that, "[Camp Sweeney] is an aged, obsolete facility that needs earthquake retrofitting, and it should be replaced as soon as feasible . . . it is inappropriately designed for secure care, in a condition which does not merit renovation, and presents unusual liability to the community and County. Camp Wilmont Sweeney should undergo planning for replacement." The report further stated that Camp Sweeney, "does not comply with minimal standards and criteria of the California Title 24 statute. Several required standards for fire safety, health and sanitation, sleeping areas for general and disabled, medical and mental health, acoustics, and security are deficient." There were so many areas of building non-compliance that the report recommended the buildings be torn down and new facilities built. The Alameda County Board of Supervisors approved the recommendation and authorized the chief probation officer to execute a funding grant from the state. Funding for the project was estimated in 2008 at $38.9 million with the county assuming responsibility for $7.8 million of the total. The Carter Goble Lee report also stated that, "The current physical plant does not support a therapeutic evidence-based program. Best practices for juvenile treatment call for facilities that support small groups to enhance personal contact and involvement of staff with youth." In the meantime, the new Juvenile Justice Center, a secure facility, was built and began operation in 2007. But, to this date, no visible progress has been made in tearing down and constructing a new Camp Sweeney. The Grand Jury was told that the facility was unlocked by plan, but there is a fence surrounding the property that provides a sense of security. That feeling of security evaporates quickly when the fence is examined more closely. It contains holes that allow offenders to escape. In addition, the camp is not equipped to 2010-2011 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report house females or males who are a danger to the community. It is also not an option for gang members because there is no capability for rival members to be separated. Programs Camp Sweeney, a large group environment, is intended as a place where juvenile offenders have individualized treatment plans with the goal of returning each minor to his community in a positive frame of mind as a productive citizen. The detainees attend school on-site daily. Classes are administered by the Alameda County Office of Education. The Probation Department relies on outside community-based organizations and governmental agencies to provide a majority of additional programming. The Grand Jury heard testimony that programming is not always focused on the specific needs of the offenders. In the past, if outside organizations were able to secure grant funding for a program, there was a good chance they would be invited to offer their programs without evidence that the specific programming was of any value. Camp Sweeney offers a number of programs, including literacy and construction skills. The basic literacy tutoring class is offered to 10 to 12 of the 50 detainees. The Grand Jury learned that on average only three to six of the 50 residents take part in language arts and math tutoring. Based on witness testimony, the Grand Jury surmised that there has not been enough emphasis on literacy classes for detainees. The Grand Jury heard repeated testimony that programming must be strengthened and basic literacy instruction outside of existing classes should be required for all residents. Having a library program at Camp Sweeney would support this goal. Camp Sweeney offers a good emergency medical technician (EMT) program, but not many camp detainees have taken advantage of it due to their low literacy rates. Problems with basic math also make a sophisticated training such as EMT more challenging. 2010-2011 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report One of the few programming options offered and administered by probation personnel is the Aggression Replacement Training (ART) program. The ART program is intended to educate the juveniles about dispute resolution and dealing with aggression. The Grand Jury heard testimony that it currently is only offered to a small percentage of residents because only a few of the camp counselors are trained as instructors. The ART program should be mandatory for all detainees. Another surprising fact the Grand Jury learned was that camp detainees are not asked to participate in the upkeep of the camp. The Grand Jury heard that the detainees are not always cooperative when asked to help clean up, so such attempts have been abandoned. At the time of our tour, it appeared that no one was responsible for the upkeep of the camp. Camp Sweeney is staffed by juvenile institutional officers and probation officers. Staff assignments for the juvenile institutional officers - case managers and counselors - are not chosen by the camp administration. The Grand Jury learned that the Probation Department's memorandum of understanding with its labor organization allows juvenile institution officers with the most seniority to choose their assignments regardless of competency or commitment to the position. The Grand Jury heard testimony that this leads to a stagnant culture. Probation officers assigned to duties within Camp Sweeney are not supervised by the camp's director. Probation officers answer directly to a separate supervisor located outside of the camp, adding to the problem that the camp director lacks full control of the camp's staff. Data Collection When the Grand Jury toured the Juvenile Justice Center, one of the first questions asked of leadership was about juvenile recidivism rates in the county (or the rates at which the juveniles re-offend). The Grand Jury was told that such data was not collected. This is unacceptable. 2010-2011 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report The new chief probation officer recently acknowledged publicly that the department lacks coordination of services, and that staff has been experimenting with its own approaches in lieu of a systematic approach. He went on to say this was partly due to ineffective collection of key data to track the effectiveness of programs, particularly the rate at which youth re-offend. The Grand Jury also heard testimony that no effective system was in place to collect essential data to allow for a broad evaluation of the programs offered. This data is invaluable to probation officers assigned to evaluate juvenile offenders. Probation officers must provide recommendations to juvenile judges regarding rehabilitative opportunities. Without broad evaluation of their successes and failures, individual probation officers have been forced to make programming recommendations based on their own personal experiences with specific programs and individuals. Without long-term planning, the department appears to lack a clear strategic direction. The Grand Jury heard testimony that when specific data was collected, it was often used for a one-time purpose of obtaining grants or to satisfy state mandates. There was also concern that the data gathered was sometimes unreliable and incomplete. Training of Probation Department Staff Over the past two years, there were several high profile escapes that highlight lapses in training and procedures. One escape involved two detainees accused of murder and another accused of assault with a deadly weapon. The three jumped over a fence at the JJC and escaped at the end of the workday. There were accusations that some of the staff responsible for supervision of the detainees had violated department policy and were inappropriately distracted. Another embarrassing escape incident involved allegations that employees had refused to follow direct orders, had received poor training, and had provided inaccurate explanations of the event. 2010-2011 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report These events can be partially attributed to the fact that the Probation Department lacks an updated comprehensive field operational manual. We heard testimony that the department has been working on updating the document for nearly a decade, but that no one had taken a leadership role in finishing the project. The Grand Jury heard testimony that some employees do not always know what their jobs are. Specific protocols addressing a multitude of key situations and roles are absent. The Grand Jury heard testimony that, without established procedures, employees are hesitant to make decisions for fear of failure. One witness described the situation as, "you can't get in trouble for not doing your job, but you can get in trouble for doing your job." The Grand Jury received a draft copy of the proposed Juvenile Services Manual. One explanation for the manual still being in draft form was that it had not been presented yet to the affected labor organizations. Without clear written policies and procedures, adherence to state mandates and legal obligations can become inconsistent over time. One such legal mandate involves referring cases for prosecution in a timely manner. The Grand Jury heard evidence that the Probation Department often does not refer out-of-custody cases to prosecutors for up to two months after the event due to the volume of cases and lack of resources. The law requires that the Probation Department refer felonies to prosecutors within 48 hours of their receipt. Any delay can have dire consequences, because the suspected juvenile offender is walking the streets with no supervision, without home monitoring, and without therapy or treatment. In addition, there appears to be no system in place that notifies victims that these alleged offenders are out of custody and not being monitored by Probation. Probation Department Leadership The Probation Department has been without consistent leadership for over a decade. There have been five different probation chiefs since 1993. Key 2010-2011 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report leadership positions in the department have been held by interim, retired annuitants for some time. This hiring delay prevented building a leadership team that could establish long-term goals. Awareness among staff that leadership is temporary can damage morale and discourage loyalty and trust. Lack of energy to build a comprehensive strategy for the whole department has led to a dysfunctional and fractured organization. Continuity is a key ingredient to institutional strength and integrity. The Grand Jury is also troubled by repeated testimony that staffing decisions are often a result of negotiated labor agreements. This creates an atmosphere in which leaders of the department are taking all of the responsibility for the success and failure of the organization without the power to make staffing changes necessary to improve the organization. Assignments should be based on an individual employee's ability. Leaders must be able to fill key staff positions with individuals who are the best qualified and not based solely on seniority. It is very difficult to build a team working towards a specific goal when there is a perception by many of the staff that some co-workers are merely "keeping a seat warm" until they can begin collecting their pensions. It also discourages employees from trying to be innovative when rewards only come about through longevity. In 2010, the Probation Department had an opportunity to apply for a state grant through the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) that would have provided a comprehensive assessment of juvenile probation services. The Grand Jury learned that the Probation Department was strongly encouraged by several of its governmental agency partners with offers of assistance to seek the grant. While it appears the department submitted a proposal to the AOC, when it came time to interview with AOC staff in Sacramento, the Probation Department inexplicably withdrew its application without telling its partners. The presiding judge of the juvenile court drove to Sacramento in support of Alameda County's grant, only to be told when she arrived that the Probation Department was no longer interested in the assessment. 2010-2011 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report The Grand Jury was unable to conclusively determine why the department failed to follow through on such a promising opportunity. One explanation provided by a witness was that senior leadership in the department did not feel that Probation's partners would be supportive of the process. This was clearly contrary to all other information provided to the Grand Jury, considering that Probation's partners were the ones to inform the department of the grant in the first place. It should be noted that the assessment would have been led, in part, by a nationally recognized juvenile justice expert who had previously provided a very critical assessment of Camp Sweeney nearly a decade prior to that time. Whether this was a result of fear that the Probation Department would be scrutinized critically, or failure due to common negligence, this example highlights the department's need to improve communication and relationships with its partners and to be open to change and innovation.
Conclusions 10
-
CL1ACOE-appointed fiscal advisor in 2003-2006 and again in 2010. The contentious behavior of the board, which had a detrimental effect on
-
CL2the school district, appears to have diminished. Through a failure to address its budget issues, HUSD is facing a possible state takeover resulting in a loss of local control. It is incumbent upon the elected board of education to accurately project their budget needs including best-case and worst-case scenarios. State takeovers are extremely costly for the community and highly disruptive to the educational process. 2010-2011 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report
-
CL3The Grand Jury recognizes that interoperability and internal operability are complex problems. However, the persistent problems and the breakdown in relationships necessary to resolving the issues are of the utmost seriousness. They merit pro-active intervention by elected officials and top administrators in all the jurisdictions of both counties. Although the Grand Jury realizes all radio communication is important, internal operability among police emergency personnel is of the highest immediate concern. It is unacceptable that a police radio communication system should ever fail, risking the lives of police and citizens of Oakland. The Grand Jury is very concerned about Oakland's radio communication system and the potential for life-threatening problems when it fails. The city of Oakland should reconsider its "go it alone" mentality. Oakland and EBRCSA must work together to agree on a mechanism for mediation to determine reasonable compromises. The process requires top-down leadership. This means getting the vendors in the same room and telling them, "You will make this work." Compliance with P-25 standards is just the first step. In practice, regional emergency communication also requires effective governance, standardized operating procedures, effective training and exercises, and inter- jurisdictional coordination. 2010-2011 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report
-
CL4The Grand Jury concludes that there are serious problems with the Camp Sweeney facility and its programming. From our observation and the 2008 Alameda County Juvenile Facilities Needs Assessment Final Report, we learned that Camp Sweeney is unfit to house, rehabilitate, educate and protect juvenile Juveniles assigned to the camp have many different needs and detainees. juvenile institution officers and probation officers must work together to better meet those needs by developing and implementing individualized programming as recommended in the report, Redesigned Wilmont Sweeney Camp Program. The Grand Jury questions why nothing has been done to improve an obviously substandard situation. While we can certainly understand why a new facility has been delayed due to budget constraints, the Probation Department should not abdicate its responsibility for the basic upkeep of the existing facility. The new Camp Sweeney leadership is encouraging. The Grand Jury hopes the leadership will commit to and implement their vision as described in the Redesigned Wilmont Sweeney Camp Program report: "The camp will be focused on 2010-2011 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report residential treatment, accountability, rehabilitation and transition services to enable youth to return home better prepared to be law-abiding, productive and self-sufficient." The Grand Jury further believes that implementation of a strong vision statement must incorporate the goal that a juvenile, when released, should be a better and more productive person, rather than returning to the same criminal behavior. There are also serious problems throughout the juvenile division of the Probation Department including: no system to collect data and evaluate programs, inadequate training to improve performance, and an absence of effective and sustained leadership. We also heard that there has been a lack of consistent communication between levels of leadership personnel. Based on witness testimony, the Grand Jury suggests reestablishing a juvenile justice advisory committee with the participation of citizens, community based organizations, service providers, the county and the Probation Department. A previous advisory committee was under the leadership of a former member of the Board of Supervisors, but has since been suspended. The Grand Jury found the advisory committee filled an important need. The reestablishment of this advisory group would be very helpful in making suggestions for the department including the new Camp Sweeney design and programming and advocating for reforms in juvenile justice. The Grand Jury commends many of the men and women in the Probation Department who -- in the past, and now in the present -- rehabilitate, counsel, educate and protect juveniles under their supervision. They need to be provided the necessary tools and strategies to ensure positive outcomes for the juveniles and the community. 2010-2011 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report
-
CL5While the new system may not solve all parking citation problems, the Grand Jury is pleased that the city of Oakland's Parking Bureau is keeping up with new technology. To make the system more effective, it would be valuable to have 100% of those issuing tickets use this electronic system. The Parking Bureau should track performance of the new system carefully to document strengths and weaknesses, continue to train staff on its use, and make adjustments as necessary. 2010-2011 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report
-
CL6Building Services' code enforcement inspectors have aggressively pursued blight and sub-standard properties throughout Oakland as determined by their individual interpretations of the applicable city code. This has led to an inconsistent enforcement program backed by inspectors' threats of filing large liens on the offending properties. This creates an institutional reluctance to lend on these properties and reluctance by property owners to improve their properties. 2010-2011 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report In 2000 an Alameda County Grand Jury recommended that Building Services limit the use of prospective liens. The city's 2000 response suggested that it would consider use on a case-by-case basis. The current Grand Jury finds that the use of prospective liens continues to be abusive and inappropriate in that they are excessive in number; the amounts are open-ended; liens are not always mailed to the correct property owner; these prospective liens encumber the property title whether intended or not, and there is a perception that the fees associated with the liens are used by the city as a source of revenue. The 1999- 2000 Grand Jury recommended that prospective liens should only be used as a last resort. The current Grand Jury recommends that Building Services stop using prospective liens altogether. The Grand Jury found that property owners complained that it is extremely difficult to understand the process for appealing a citation, or to resolve issues with Building Services inspectors. Testimony confirmed there are no standard operating manuals or guidelines for Building Services inspectors. Property owners were frustrated by their inability to speak with inspectors who are only available for short periods of time on an irregular schedule. The Grand Jury found an atmosphere of hostility and intimidation toward property owners within the Building Services division. When property owners complained, they were sometimes threatened with more fines or, in one case, even loss of their home. Some inspectors inappropriately used their law enforcement authority and their city-issued badges to intimidate property owners. Therefore, the Grand Jury believes that the city of Oakland should reevaluate its policy of granting law enforcement authority and related badges to building inspectors. The Grand Jury is appalled by the actions of the city of Oakland's Building Services Division and its impact on property owners of Oakland. The significant contradictions between the testimony of Building Services employees and the testimony of property owners and contractors are disturbing. The division's 2010-2011 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report practices and its treatment of property owners appear to be a direct reflection of poor management, lack of leadership, and ambiguous policies and procedures. The Grand Jury concludes from witness interviews and reviews of documents that the city of Oakland's Building Services Division is an organization that needs a comprehensive outside management review, and one that could benefit from benchmarking other cities and counties. 2010-2011 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report
-
CL7The investigation revealed that there has never been a comprehensive cost analysis of this program. The Grand Jury is concerned about the county's inability to measure the cost effectiveness of its SLEB program. It can identify the percent of contracts awarded to companies certified as SLEBs, but it has not identified the total cost of the SLEB programs. Furthermore, it cannot measure the impact on the cost of county contracts of favoring SLEB contractors because it has not tracked SLEB vs. non-SLEB bids. At times it does not receive non-SLEB bids because such contractors know they will not be awarded contracts. The Grand Jury also heard anecdotal evidence that additional expenses were incurred by county departments to compensate for inexperience and poor performance of some SLEB contractors. At a minimum, GSA should conduct a thorough evaluation and cost effectiveness study of the program as set forth under recommendations below. While the Grand Jury understands there are important social and economic benefits of encouraging SLEBs within the county, we are concerned about the bureaucracy created in three different departments (GSA, the Auditor- 2010-2011 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report Controller's Office of Contract Compliance, and the County Administrator's Office of Risk Management's Special Contractor Bonding Assistance Program). Individual departments using contract services also must comply with additional procedures under the SLEB programs. Procurement is inevitably controversial. Thus, it is all the more important that the county communicate more fully about the criteria being used and the results being accomplished. This should help increase the public's understanding of SLEB's purposes and confidence in the fairness of the program. 2010-2011 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report
-
CL8The Grand Jury concludes that the IHSS program's current design and lack of accountability allows for abuse, increases client dependency, does not adequately eliminate fraud, and creates a new entitlement at a very high public cost. IHSS was intended to help the elderly and disabled to stay in their homes at a cost savings to the state, but instead the program has grown into a massive social program often compensating family members to provide services that have traditionally been provided by families without government support. In some cases, the county ends up paying for services where services may not even be needed. Although the Grand Jury believes the IHSS program has merit, the current design of the program places emphasis on the disbursement of funds while the prevention of abuse and fraud appears to be a low priority. 2010-2011 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report
-
CL9The Alameda County Waste Management Authority was originally formed to develop and implement a plan to reduce and manage solid waste disposal. Next, 2010-2011 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report it grew to include the management of hazardous waste. It then added recycling programs, which required education and community outreach. As the scope of ACWMA's responsibilities grew so did the staff size (StopWaste) and the Recycling Board was added. California has established limits for the amount of solid waste that can be put into landfill. As time progresses and solid waste diversion goals are met, the size of the organization that achieved these goals should diminish. As the Grand Jury's investigation progressed we found that this is not the case at all. It appears that StopWaste has no intention of downsizing, even though ACWMA is steadily approaching its mandated goal of a 75% diversion from landfill. In fact it would seem that it is determined to stay in business, as noted in this statement from the StopWaste's Strategic Workplan 2020 (March 2010 Draft), "If possible, sustain the size of the Agency by diversifying revenue sources. Although there are some who would like the Agency to shrink as our tonnage-based revenue declines, and others who want to steadily raise fees on landfill materials, the majority opinion was that the organization needs to diversify its revenue sources and continue to deliver innovative services related to the entire materials management cycle, not just discard management." The Grand Jury is concerned about the environment and proper management of solid waste and recycling. But the Grand Jury is also keenly aware of the problem of redundancy and how government agencies tend to grow over time into larger and larger bureaucracies. An excellent model of an agency that fulfilled its purpose and dissolved was the Bay Area Sewer Services Agency. This agency was formed several decades ago to create a plan for the collection and treatment of sewage in the nine Bay Area Counties. Once this plan for waste disposal was complete, the board disbanded because it had accomplished its intended purpose. The Grand Jury finds that the redundancy of these boards, the growth of the staff, and some of the functions of StopWaste are questionable in an economy where 2010-2011 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report more emphasis is being placed on better use of taxpayer money. Some of these functions have been duplicated by the growth of both public and private organizations devoted to recycling, reuse and reduction of waste. The 17 jurisdictions that signed the JPA must look closely at ACWMA and its Board and consider if it should be restructured, combined with the Recycling Board, or disbanded. Member agencies can dissolve a JPA when it no longer serves their interests. Given the current economic problems, the Grand Jury believes governments must aggressively assess agencies and programs to reduce or eliminate any that are unnecessary, outdated or redundant. 2010-2011 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report
-
CL10It is suggested that future grand juries monitor the district's progress, with particular attention to the measures taken to avoid the shortcomings of the past. Of particular importance will be the ability of the board of trustees to effectively conduct its leadership role in making educated financial decisions based upon current and accurate data. Central to that function will be conservative financial decisions that ensure responsible stewardship of tax dollars. The board and district suffered by following the ineffective leadership of the previous chancellor whom the board had appointed. The board must be alert to red flags, such as missing financial reports, which were due periodically but never completed or filed. Implementation and evaluation of PCCD's Corrective Action Matrix will take place over time. It appears to the Grand Jury that the financial management of the district is now in competent hands. Since the trustees are now receiving 2010-2011 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report timely and accurate financial data, they are in a stronger position to make informed financial decisions. The Grand Jury concludes that the current board is now heeding the advice of its expert consultant as outlined in the Corrective Action Matrix, which the ACCJC requires. Periodic reviews and training sessions are currently taking place. The appointment of the present interim chancellor through June 2012 is a positive development for the district, both in terms of stability and continuity, showing promise to guide the district through the recovery plan. The Grand Jury believes it is critical that the board hire a permanent chancellor with experience in community college governance and fiscal recovery. The Grand Jury hopes that the board has learned from past mistakes and will take every necessary step to remedy the district's financial situation. 2010-2011 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report
Comments 6
-
CO1processes, whereas the Oakland code appears to allow prospective liens as a way of notifying the property owner of a demand for payment (Municipal 2010-2011 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report Code section 15.08.13). San Jose and San Francisco use liens only after all invoices have been sent to the owner and payment has not been received within 30 days. San Francisco's code authorizes summary abatement (immediate
-
CO2abatement by the city) only if there is imminent danger in the adjacent public right-of-way. Oakland's code gives Building Services much more discretion in undertaking summary abatement actions. San Jose and San Francisco allow 30 days for payment of invoices for fees
-
CO3and abatement costs. Oakland allows only 7 days. San Jose and San Francisco call for contract bidding for abatement work to be handled in the same manner as other city contract bids, whereas Oakland uses a bidding process unique to the Building Services Division. San Jose and San Francisco specify fees that appear to be based on the
-
CO4actual cost of handling abatement violations. Their fees and charges appear to be invoiced toward the end of the process, after appeals have been considered. In Oakland, significant fees and fines begin immediately and are a central part of the abatement process. For instance, a compliance plan is essentially a list of fees; there is a fee for every action taken by Building Services, including generating and receiving individual documents it requires from the property owner. (See Exhibit F, Master Fee Schedule)
-
CO5Vacant home. Damaged Excessive prospective lien Property was vacant with no abatement work interior wall and ceilings. because it was transferring performed by the city. Building unsecured. ownership at the time. Prospective lien for $50K was filed 29 days from initial notice of violation. No remediation work had been done by the city. New owner required to sign a compliance plan and pay fees incurred by previous owner before prospective lien was released. Trash and debris. Excessive prospective lien Prospective lien amount in with cleanup performed by Abandoned construction excess of $827K plus city in January 2010. site. interest. Excessive fees/fines. Trash and debris, blight. "Trash and debris, blight" turned out to be children's toys in the yard. This resulted in fees/fines of over $18K and having to demolish a garage converted to an indoor/outdoor recreation room that had been approved more than 20 years earlier. 2010-2011 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report (Examples of Liens, Fees and Fines, continued) Alleged Violation Issue
-
CO6Excessive lien. Contract to clean up and fill Overgrown vegetation and trash and debris and feces swimming pool with dirt in rear yard. Stagnant cost the city $25K. water in partially filled Prospective lien placed for $45K. swimming pool. Prospective lien amount Excessive prospective lien Parking lot - overgrown with cleanup performed by vegetation, trash, debris, was $50K plus interest. and graffiti. city. After owner cleaned up and Excessive prospective lien Overgrown vegetation, graffiti, trash, debris, case was closed on with NO work performed by broken windows. 8/7/2009, prospective lien city. for $35K was placed on 8/10/2009. Egregious abuse of Blight, overgrown Building inspectors had a vegetation, trash and authority. warrant for entry to substandard interior. premises for inspection only (not to remove items); they removed and disposed of EVERYTHING in the house and had animal control take the property owner's dog. Subsequently the city recorded a lien for $30K. Fees/liens paid and Permit violation/owner Previous owner paid off all fees and liens on closing. reapplied. change. Within 2 weeks, Building Services reapplied all charges, fees and liens in the amount of $29K to the new owner - with no work done by the city. 2010-2011 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report (Examples of Liens, Fees and Fines, continued) Alleged Violation Issue
No Responses Found 1
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
Oakland
City
* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.