📋

Extracted from Consolidated Report

This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.

Kings County Grand Jury • 2012-2013

Stratford Waste Water Treatment Facility (wwtf) Synopsis The Waste Water Treatment Facility is 62 years old. During

Published: June 28, 2013 98 pages

View PDF View Full Original

⚠️ 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.

Note: Missing finding numbers detected: F19, F20

Findings 19 findings

While the rates in the ACSD are higher than many surrounding areas, there appears to be justification for the 2008 action. The arsenic content in the local water caused increased operational costs, and an additional well was required to meet state fire regulations.

Though ACSD followed all required legal procedures including public hearings and customer notices, there was no evident public concern expressed until the 2012 rate increase occurred. RESPONSE REQUIRED None 2 KINGS MOSQUITO ABATEMENT DISTRICT (KMAD) WHY THE GRAND JURY INVESTIGATED A complaint was received, and public interest AUTHORITY California Penal Code 933.5 A Grand jury may examine the books, duties and records of any special purpose taxing district in the county. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION After receiving a complaint, the Grand Jury interviewed the complainant, attended a board meeting, toured the KMAD headquarters and facility, interviewed the District Manager and reviewed documents. BACKROUND AND FACTS KMAD is a special district funded only by property taxes. It was established in April 1961 and is regulated by the State. KMAD has a five member board of trustees, appointed by their respective governing bodies, composed of one representative of the cities of Hanford, Lemoore and Corcoran, a representative from Tulare County and one from Kings County. The District employs 11 full time employees and approximately 15 seasonal employees. KMAD has an annual budget of over two million dollars. Employees who work in the field are equipped with handheld computers which work off GPS and show all areas of potential mosquito infestation, including, but not limited to, swimming pools, ditches and standing water in irrigated fields. The computers allow the employees to enter the type and quantity of chemicals they use in the field and this also provides an inventory record. The months from April through September are normally the period when mosquitoes are the most active. During this period, seasonal employees are brought in to supplement and assist the fulltime staff. The potentially infected areas are treated with chemicals that are approved by Federal and State authorities. Mosquito fish are a natural enemy of mosquito larvae. KMAD makes these fish available to the public at no cost. KMAD also is charged with the monitoring and control of the West Nile Virus which is primarily carried by mosquitoes and birds. The public is encouraged to report dead birds to KMAD. The birds are collected and sent to the University of California at Davis to be tested for the presence of West Nile Virus. If the tests are positive, the public is notified and steps are taken to eradicate the infestation. At this time KMAD is considering building a new facility at a different location. The present facility is located on a landfill owned by Kings County and is not American Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant. The Grand Jury was told that KMAD has approximately half the funds available to purchase property and build a new facility. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Grand Jury observed that there were no security lights on the west side of the building near the emergency exit.

The Grand Jury observed there were no security cameras on the facility grounds.

The Department will look into identification badges for staff working at the Longfield Center. ADMINISTRATION 559-585-2527 + RECEPTION 559·585-2525 + FACSIMILE: 559-582-1152

The Grand Jury observed that the outside drinking fountain was not American Disabilities Act (ADA) approved.

The Grand Jury was informed that the computer room equipment can only be used when trained staff is present.

The basketball courts and the weight room were being used by all ages.

Both parties involved m the joint agreement to build a hospital should have negotiated an agreement with affordable lease rate terms and the buyout terms before engaging an architect and spending any money on design work and other related costs. About $240,000 was spent on design work. There may have been other expenses incurred relating to this project. CDH will not confirm nor deny the validity of the Grand Jury's opinion as to "affordable lease rate"

F10

An area of over one acre will remain unimproved until a future hospital or other structure is built. CDH administration was interviewed and was vague as to plans to enhance this property. CDH partially disagrees with this Finding 10. CDH agrees that the land will be unimproved until a structure is built on the particular real property. CDH disagrees that it was "vague as to plans to enhance this property. " Rather, CDH is presently considering construction of a replacement clinic on this property as part ofi ts Phase Op roject.

F11

If Phase O is to be pursued, all continuing design and plan approval efforts on Phase I (future seismically correct hospital) may not be needed and may be wasted bond money. CDH says those services are part of a negotiated package. Per CDH, the architect still has approximately $80,000 worth of services to deliver. Terminating the Phase 1 design and plan check work will likely yield significant savings to CDH. CDH partially disagrees with this Finding 11. The future hospital is Phase II

F12

If Phase O planning is implemented, new architectural designs will have to be drawn. The current Design/Build agreement does not relate to Phase 0. CDH agrees with this Finding 12.

F13

The Bylaws are not dated nor are they posted on the CDH website. CDH partially disagrees with this Finding 13. Its Bylaws are dated on the front cover sheet.

F14

Any item in the Bylaws can be changed by a simple board vote. CDH agrees with this Finding 14.

F15

The board meeting agendas and minutes are not readily available to the citizens of the district . . CDH wholly disagrees with this Finding 15. The board meeting agendas and minutes are posted prior to all meetings, and minutes are made available to any citizen of the District who requests a copy.

F16

CDH has not been able to locate some financial statements and board minutes for past years. CDH wholly disagrees with this Finding 16. Financial statements and Board minutes can be and have been located on request.

F17

As of this year the board has instituted a policy whereby the administration can contact the Board Chair and an additional board member to get their approval for non-budgeted expenditures that have to be made prior to the next board meeting. Due to reasonable availability of those people, this is a sound policy. The board will now be participating in matters that they seem to have inappropriately avoided in the past. CDH agrees with this Finding 17. Re('.ommendation 17 A lower limit may be more prudent and appropriate. If a higher sum is needed, gaining the needed interim (between posted public meetings) board approval can be readily done in a short time frame based on the new board enacted policy, or by calling a special meeting of the board. The CDH Board is comfortable with its recently enacted policy requesting interim Board approval for non-budgeted expenditures. It will monitor the frequency and amounts of these interim approvals throughout the year and will consider revising the present limit as needed.

F18

An Administrative employee related to a seller appeared to have been inappropriately involved in a real estate transaction. CDH cannot confirm whether there was an appearance of inappropriate involvement by an administrative employee in a real estate transaction.

F21

Prior to the Grand Jury's visit in April of 2013, most of these violations had been corrected.

Recommendations 17

R1

Supervisors and all employees should follow the Employee Handbook and adhere to the policies therein.
R2

If the existing facility is retained and occupied, it should be brought up to ADA standards. COMMENTS The Grand Jury found that the complaint, which concerned personnel matters, had no merit.
R3

The Parks and Recreation Department may want to consider installing security lights around the outside of the facility.
R4

The Parks and Recreation Department may want to consider installing security cameras around the facility.
R5

26 Management may want to consider issuing visible identification badges.
R6

Compliance with the ADA is recommended.
R7

Management may want to consider training all staff to maximize service to the public.
R8

This approach serves the public well. It is our hope this will continue. COMMENTS: The Grand Jury found, through observations at the Longfield Center, that there was no evidence of illegal activities alleged in the complaint. RESPONSE REQUIREMENT: Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05 require that specific responses to both the
R9A

Do a full audit accounting report of the actual cost of this joint agreement project including related costs. Such an audit is unnecessary and is prohibitively expensive.
R9B

Consider seeking to recover 50% of the project cost due to this having been a partnership. CDH will consider this Recommendation.
R11

Put a hold on all work on Phase I during the time that Phase O is being considered. Refunds should be sought from both the architect and OSHPD. In mid-April, CDH notified its consultants and OSHPD that all work was being suspended on Phase JI (the new acute hospital is not Phase I) while Phase O is being analyzed Work on Phase II was completed by the consultants at the direction of CDH, and therefore their fees have been earned and paid
R12

If CDH proceeds with Phase 0, the board should seriously consider retaining other qualified architects and builders to perform the needed tasks. The current DBD & Architect could also bid as separate entities. This approach will potentially yield significant savings and a higher level of design creativity compared to the current design/build approach. It is suggested that architects and builders have experience with OSHPD projects of a similar magnitude. CDH continues to consider this Recommendation and other potential approaches in order to choose the best approach for CDH and the community.
R13

Consider putting a footer or header on the Bylaws showing the most recent revision date, the page number and the total number of pages in the document. Consider posting them on the website and updating that posting whenever the Bylaws change. No response is required on this Recommendation 13.
R14

Consider placing limitations on certain provisions in the Bylaws by requiring more than a simple board vote without extra notification to the public to make changes to those provisions. CDH will consider this Recommendation 14.
R15

With regards to public records, agendas are to be posted at least 72 hours prior to board meetings to conform to Brown Act Section 54954.2(a) meeting public notification requirements. Meeting minutes should be posted within ten days after the meeting date. Posting this information on the CDH web site would be beneficial. CDH does post its agendas at least 72 hours prior to Board meetings. CDH intends to implement a procedure by which both its agendas and meeting minutes will be posted on the CDH website in addition to the usual distribution methods.
R16

CDH needs to develop an effective system for storing financial statements, board minutes and other key documents in their computer and at a secure backup storage site. A yearly audit should be done to assure that this system is in place. CDH stores its financial statements, Board minutes, and other key documents both electronically and on hard copies.
R18

Hospital administration must ms1st that all administrative employees, board members and other CDH employees with possible ethical and/or financial conflicts are not to be involved in any way in transactions in which they or their families could benefit. CDH should have a Conflict of Interest Code and related reporting requirements per the Political Reform Act as outlined in detail by the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) on their website. Policies conforming with these requirements should be enacted by the board and recorded in the minutes. The CDH Board presently does have in place a Conflict ofI nterest Code for its members, and for its CEO and its CFO; current Administration policy does insist that its employees report possible conflicts and avoid involvement in any transactions in which they could be construed as having ethical or financial conflicts. The Board will consider expanding its present Conflict ofI nterest Code to other employees. d. UA( 'f L . r 1 .r JOE NEVES STRATFORD-LEMOORE, DIST.I COUNTY OF KINGS RICHARD VALLE CORCORAN -AV ENAL, DIST. Ill BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DOUG VERBOON NORTH HANFORD - NORTH LEMOOORE, DIST. Ill MAILING ADDRESS: KINGS COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, HANFORD, CA 93230 RICHARD FAGUNDES OFFICES AT: 1400 W. LACEY BLVD., ADMINISTRATION BUILDING# I, HANFORD HANFORD, DIST.V (559) 582-3211, EXT. 2362, FAX: (559) 585-8047 TONY BARBA Web Site: hitp://www.countyofkings.com HANFORD-ARMONA, DIST. IV August 21, 2012 Honorable James LaPorte Kings County Superior Court 1426 South Drive Hanford, CA 93230 Dear Judge LaPorte: In accordance with Section 933 of the California Penal Code, this letter is the Kings County Board of Supervisors' response to the Grand Jury Report entitled, "Kings County Probation Department," received by the County on May 25, 2012. Under the Findings Section of the Report the Grand Jury states: 1. Allegations of a possible conflict of interest are unfounded as they relate to the defendant and the probation officer. The officer was in court as a parent and not in an official capacity. The Board of Supervisors neither agrees nor disagrees with this finding. The Grand Jury stated that it received a written complaint letter, and that the result was unfounded. 2. Allegations of a conflict of interest between the District Attorney's office and the defendant are unfounded. An additional suspect in this matter who is related to the Deputy District Attorney was not cited and the defendant has no relationship with the Deputy District Attorney. The Board of Supervisors neither agrees nor disagrees with this finding. The Grand Jury stated that it received a written complaint letter, and that the result was unfounded. 3. Allegations that the court acted improperly by excluding the complainant from a closed meeting in the judge's chambers are unfounded. It was determined that the victim's counsel was present in chambers thus providing proper representation. The Board of Supervisors neither agrees nor disagrees with this finding. The Grand Jury stated that it received a written complaint letter, and that the result was unfounded. 4. During the course of this investigation it was discovered that the probation department has no written policy for conflict of interest cases coming from the courts regarding presentenced investigations. Their practice is to ask another county's probation department to do the investigation for the purpose of sentencing. Conflict cases generally are those successful prosecutions of law enforcement agency members or their family members. The Board of Supervisors agrees with this finding. At the time of the Grand Jury investigation there was no written policy. 5. The grand jury observes in this matter that it was only when the complainant hired an attorney that the case was put back on calendar. A question remains as to what would happen to a citizen who is unable to afford legal counsel. The Board of Supervisors disagrees with the finding. Any complainant would have the right to request a conference with the District Attorney's office to request to re-open the case. Under the Recommendations Section of the Report the Grand Jury states: 1. None. 2. None. 3. None. 4. This is far too important a matter to be implemented by practice alone. It is recommended that the probation department develop written policies and procedures addressing conflict of interest issues. The Board of Supervisors agrees with this recommendation. To comply with the recommendation, a policy will be incorporated into the Probation Department's Policy and Procedures. A copy of the Probation Department's response and the new policy is attached for your review. 5. None. tJ SincerelY,,) j I· ')_ f jZfJl11t} L~ Richard Fagundes Chairman, Board of Supervisors 2 JOE NEVES STRATFORD-LEMOORE. DIST. I COUNTY OF KINGS RJCBARD VALLE CORCORAN -A VENAL, DIST. Ill BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DOUG VERBOON NORTH HANFORD - NORTH LEMOOORE, DIST. Ill MAILING ADDRESS: KINGS COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, HANFORD, CA 93230 RICHARD FAGUNDES OFFICES AT: 1400 W. LACEY BL VD., ADMINISTRATION BUILDING# 1, HANFORD HANFORD, DIST. V (559) 582-3211, EXT. 2362, FAX: (559) 585-8047 TONY BARBA Web Site: http://www.countyofkings.com HANFORD-ARMONA, DIST. IV August 21, 2012 Honorable James LaPorte Kings County Superior Court 1426 South Drive Hanford, CA 93 23 0 Dear Judge LaPorte: In accordance with Section 933 of the California Penal Code, this letter is the Kings County Board of Supervisors' response to the Grand Jury Report entitled, "Child Protective Services Emergency Response," received by the County on May 25, 2012. Under the Findings Section of the Report the Grand Jury states: 1. While there are exceptions, there has been minimal interagency communications or cross training between CPS and Law enforcement agencies. The content of this communication and cross training pertains to the procedures each entity is to follow when working with children in an emergency placement situation. The 2008-09 Grand Jury Report recommended CPS work with law enforcement agencies to develop an interagency training program relative to agency response requirements. In response, CPS stated, "the recommendation to develop a training program will be presented to all law enforcement entities in Kings County by CPS management with the outcome contingent upon the willingness or ability of law enforcement to participate. The invitation to collaborate in the creation of a training program will be initiated by June 2009". Compliance has not been attained as of April 2012. The Board of Supervisors agrees and disagrees with the finding. The Human Services Agency Management had not acted on this primarily because of economic reasons, however Management did offer training on child welfare legislation, regulations, and policies, as well as how to recognize child abuse and neglect to the Lemoore Police Department, the Naval Criminal Investigative Services, and the Lemoore Naval Air Station's (NAS) Security Department. More recently Child Protective Services (CPS) staff has trained Lemoore Police Department and base security and investigator staff on child abu.se and neglect symptomology. In June, 2012, the Human Services Agency met with the other law enforcement agencies in the county including A venal, Corcoran, Hanford, and Lemoore Police Departments, as well as the Kings County Sheriffs Office and agreed that CPS would provide annual training on welfare regulations, legislation, and procedures. Training was conducted in late June for A venal and Lemoore Police Departments, in July for Corcoran Police Department, and is being scheduled for Hanford Police Department and the Sheriffs Department. Under the Recommendations Section of the Report the Grand Jury states: 1. This grand jury agrees that CPS initiate and work with law enforcement agencies to develop a training program where both law enforcement officers and the emergency response social workers become aware of each other's views and requirements of their duties. This recommendation is consistent with the previous recommendation in 2008-2009 Kings County Grand Jury Report. The Board of Supervisors agrees with the finding. The Human Services Agency has had difficulty developing a formal training program due to economic instability, which continues to be ongoing. However, the Human Services Agency started meeting with all of the law enforcement agencies in the county in June of 2012 and provided training on welfare regulations, legislation, and procedures. The Human Services Agency will provide this training annually, and all of the law enforcement agencies agreed to send officers to applicable training as invited by the Child Protective Services division. 2. Assign a qualified liaison from CPS to work with law enforcement agencies. The Board of Supervisors agrees with this recommendation. The agency has assigned a Child Protective Services (CPS) Social Work Practitioner as the point of contact for law enforcement agencies to contact for briefing training throughout the year. There has also been a CPS Supervisor assigned over training ongoing who will continue to serve as the point of contact for law enforcement entities to coordinate training arrangements. The Human Services Agency has provided a response to the Board that is attached to this letter. Sincerely, a1~1w7 ;fo~~ Richard Fagundes, Chairman, Board of Supervisors 2 F<ECEIVEO MAR n r:: .·.; \,; J ,; CITY OF HANFORD POLICE DEPARTMENT CARLOS A. MESTAS, CHIEF OF POLICE August 2, 2012 Honorable Donna L. Tarter Superior Court of the State of California Advising Judge to County of Kings Grand Jury County of Kings Hanford, CA 93230 Dear Judge Tarter and the County of Kings Grand Jury: We received the Kings County Grand Jury, Final Report for 2011-2012. We would like to thank those that served on the Grand Jury and we appreciate the service they provided. Upon review of the Final Report we have responded below to the, "Hanford Police Department (HPD) Burglary Response" Section.