⚠️ 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 19 findings
F1
The Grand Jury did not find any compelling nor financially sound reasons in the March 4, 2008 HHS building lease to justify why the HHS Director, the County Counsel, the CAO and all County Supervisors decided to amend the October 17, 2006 HHS building lease. The March 4, 2008 HHS building lease significantly increased the value of the HHS building to the LLC (the original property owners.) The LLC sold the HHS building for $3.3 million over the assessed value shortly after the renegotiated lease was approved.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
The HHS Director, the County Counsel, the CAO, and all the BOS’ actions exposed the County to unnecessary financial risk. All of them agreed to eliminate the mandated early termination clause contingent on available State and Federal funding, and to increase the term of the HHS lease from 15 years to a guaranteed 20 years even though all of them knew that the contracts with the California Department of Mental Health and Department of Drug and Alcohol contracts had termination clauses contingent on available State and Federal funding.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3
Void the Contract: Since the Board of Supervisors agreed to accept a $400,000 one- time cash payment and $500,000 in other considerations to eliminate the County mandated early termination clause based on available State and Federal funding and to extend the term of the HHS building lease five years, the Grand Jury recommends a third party State or Federal government Medi-Cal program oversight agency review the case to determine if the March 4, 2008 HHS building lease can be voided based on a violation of State or Federal regulations.
R4
Negotiate New Contract: The Grand Jury recommends the County take steps to negotiate a new contract with the current owners pursuant to County Ordinances and Policies.
F3
Prior to March 4, 2008, the HHS Director, the CAO, the County Counsel and the BOS knew the California Department of Mental Health had restored funding to the County’s Department Mental Health’s Proposition 63 realignment funds and that the State could terminate its contracts with the County at any time contingent on the availability of State and Federal funds.
No recommendations for this finding
F4
Prior to the March 4, 2008, Board of Supervisors meeting, the CAO, the HHS Director, the County Counsel, and all the County Supervisors knew that the contract between the County and the California Department of Mental for MHSA Proposition 63 funds prohibited any executive officer or employee of the County or an elected official in the County to solicit or accept money or any other consideration from a third person, for the performance of an act reimbursed in whole or in part by the County or State.
No recommendations for this finding
F5
But for accepting the $400,000 cash payment and the $500,000 in other consideration from the LLC to eliminate the County’s termination clause based on available County, State, and Federal funding, the County would have been able to renegotiate or terminate the 2006 HHS building lease starting in July 2015 if the Proposition 63 realignment funds were inadequate to fund Department of Mental Health programs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
Void the Contract: Since the Board of Supervisors agreed to accept a $400,000 one- time cash payment and $500,000 in other considerations to eliminate the County mandated early termination clause based on available State and Federal funding and to extend the term of the HHS building lease five years, the Grand Jury recommends a third party State or Federal government Medi-Cal program oversight agency review the case to determine if the March 4, 2008 HHS building lease can be voided based on a violation of State or Federal regulations.
F6
The HHS Director, the County Counsel, the CAO and the BOS knew there were other options to address Health and Human Services Agency’s FY 2007-2008 $400,000 deficit. These options included but are not limited to: (1) Transfer funds from the County’s legitimate County Reserve Fund to cover any short falls relating to the HHS building rent payments; (2) Pursuant to California Welfare and Institutions Code Section 17600.20(a) pertaining to the transfer of realignment funds from one trust fund to another trust fund, the BOS should have transferred excess funds from the Public Health Trust Fund or the Social Services Trust Fund to the Mental Health Trust Fund; (3) Not fill vacant non-HHS departments’ positions funded by the County’s General Fund and use the salary savings from the General Fund to cover the shortfall at HHS. Laying off HHS employees would have been counter–productive because the State funded most if not all of the HHS agency’s salaries and benefits; (4) Since, the DHS Director, the County Counsel, and the BOS knew the County would be occupying the HHS building in early December 2007, the County could have given a 6 month notice to the Lessors of the Jackson buildings that the County was going to vacate the building in July 1, 2007; and (5) Use any combination of the four options.
No recommendations for this finding
F7
The $400,000 one-time cash payment the LLC paid to the County for the March 4, 2008 HHS building lease and the elimination of the $500,000 penalty for terminating the October 17, 2006 lease before July 1, 2015, were not gifts or donations but were payment and consideration to the County to ensure that the Board of Supervisors would approve a 20 year guaranteed HHS building lease without the mandatory early termination clause contingent on available County, State or Federal funding.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
Void the Contract: Since the Board of Supervisors agreed to accept a $400,000 one- time cash payment and $500,000 in other considerations to eliminate the County mandated early termination clause based on available State and Federal funding and to extend the term of the HHS building lease five years, the Grand Jury recommends a third party State or Federal government Medi-Cal program oversight agency review the case to determine if the March 4, 2008 HHS building lease can be voided based on a violation of State or Federal regulations.
F8
If the LLC did not give the County the $400,000 cash payment prior to the March 4, 2008, Board of Supervisors meeting the CAO, the County Counsel and two County Supervisors would have pulled the matter concerning the “Amended and Restated Lease Agreement” between the County and the LLC from the March 4, 2008 agenda.
No recommendations for this finding
F9
Since at least January 1997 to present, Amador County has had written policies and procedures to direct employees, department heads, executive staff and elected officials, including the Board of Supervisors, in acquiring property either by lease or by purchase. However, the HHS Director, the County Counsel, the CAO, and the County Supervisors chose to ignore them by deliberately keeping the GSA Director and Auditor from reviewing the March 4, 2008 HHS Building lease before the BOS approved the lease.
Related Recommendations (4)
R4
Negotiate New Contract: The Grand Jury recommends the County take steps to negotiate a new contract with the current owners pursuant to County Ordinances and Policies.
R5
Investigate Brown Act Violations: The Grand Jury recommends that the District Attorney’s office or the California Attorney General’s office be referred the case to determine if any violations of the Brown Act occurred.
R6
Agenda Review Committee Procedures: The Grand Jury recommends the present informal County Agenda Review Committee become a formal committee whose membership includes the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, County Counsel, the County Administrative Officer, and the General Services Administration Director, the Auditor-Controller, and the Administrative Division Risk Manager, or their designee. The formal Agenda Review Committee should be required to meet on a regular basis to review each submitted Agenda Transmittal Form and its supporting documents. There should be an agenda and minutes of the meetings.
R8
ATF Review: The Grand Jury recommends that before an item regarding a contract or lease for more than $25,000 be placed on the Board of Supervisors agenda that all appropriate county employees and executive officers have reviewed the contract and supporting documents. The Grand Jury further recommends that all contracts for the purchase or lease of real property be placed on the Board of Supervisors agenda for public discussion on at least two dates two weeks apart unless an emergency necessitates more immediate action. Additionally, all ATFs specifically should state the full amount to be paid in any contract or lease over the full term, and the funding source for the contract or lease. In no case should such an item be placed on the consent agenda.
F10
Between December 2007 and March 4, 2008, the HHS Director, the CAO, the County Counsel, and the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors prevented the County Auditor from executing the Auditor’s duties as identified in the County’s GSA Purchasing Policy 5-100, the County’s GSA Contract Policy 1-310.
Related Recommendations (2)
R6
Agenda Review Committee Procedures: The Grand Jury recommends the present informal County Agenda Review Committee become a formal committee whose membership includes the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, County Counsel, the County Administrative Officer, and the General Services Administration Director, the Auditor-Controller, and the Administrative Division Risk Manager, or their designee. The formal Agenda Review Committee should be required to meet on a regular basis to review each submitted Agenda Transmittal Form and its supporting documents. There should be an agenda and minutes of the meetings.
R8
ATF Review: The Grand Jury recommends that before an item regarding a contract or lease for more than $25,000 be placed on the Board of Supervisors agenda that all appropriate county employees and executive officers have reviewed the contract and supporting documents. The Grand Jury further recommends that all contracts for the purchase or lease of real property be placed on the Board of Supervisors agenda for public discussion on at least two dates two weeks apart unless an emergency necessitates more immediate action. Additionally, all ATFs specifically should state the full amount to be paid in any contract or lease over the full term, and the funding source for the contract or lease. In no case should such an item be placed on the consent agenda.
F11
Between December 2007 and March 4, 2008, the CAO, the HHS Director, the County Counsel, and members of the Board of Supervisors deliberately excluded the GSA Director from the negotiations and a review of the March 4, 2008 HHS building lease and from executing the GSA Director’s duties as identified in the County’s GSA Purchasing Policy 5-100, the County’s GSA Contract Policy 1-310.
Related Recommendations (3)
R5
Investigate Brown Act Violations: The Grand Jury recommends that the District Attorney’s office or the California Attorney General’s office be referred the case to determine if any violations of the Brown Act occurred.
R6
Agenda Review Committee Procedures: The Grand Jury recommends the present informal County Agenda Review Committee become a formal committee whose membership includes the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, County Counsel, the County Administrative Officer, and the General Services Administration Director, the Auditor-Controller, and the Administrative Division Risk Manager, or their designee. The formal Agenda Review Committee should be required to meet on a regular basis to review each submitted Agenda Transmittal Form and its supporting documents. There should be an agenda and minutes of the meetings.
R8
ATF Review: The Grand Jury recommends that before an item regarding a contract or lease for more than $25,000 be placed on the Board of Supervisors agenda that all appropriate county employees and executive officers have reviewed the contract and supporting documents. The Grand Jury further recommends that all contracts for the purchase or lease of real property be placed on the Board of Supervisors agenda for public discussion on at least two dates two weeks apart unless an emergency necessitates more immediate action. Additionally, all ATFs specifically should state the full amount to be paid in any contract or lease over the full term, and the funding source for the contract or lease. In no case should such an item be placed on the consent agenda.
F12
Amador County’s Board of Supervisors, the Board of Equalization, former County Supervisors and the County Counsel knew that the March 4, 2008 HHS building lease with the LLC presented no risk to the LLC, that it had the highest per square foot cost of any commercial building lease in the County and possibly the Central Valley, that the March 4, 2008 HHS building increased in value because the County extended the term five years to twenty years and the County eliminated the County policy mandated early termination clause contingent on available County, State and Federal funding for multi-year contracts.
No recommendations for this finding
F13
There is a conflict in legal opinions between the former County Counsel and the present County Counsel’s office regarding who is liable for paying the property taxes up to the first $13.6 million. This issue should be resolved by a third party government attorney’s office with the proper real estate tax law expertise.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9
Property Tax Recovery: The internal conflict between the former County Counsel and the current County Counsel’s office regarding the interpretation of Article 6.5 of the HHS building lease should be resolved by a third party government attorney with the proper real estate tax law expertise.
F14
The HHS Director, the CAO, and BOS knew or should have known that by not publicly acknowledging the acceptance of the $400,000 from the LLC and by depositing the $400,000 in the County Reserve Fund under the guise of a HHS Reserve Fund, that it would be very difficult or nearly impossible for the general public, an independent auditor or a State or Federal government agency to determine the original source of the $400,000 if funds were transferred to other accounts.
No recommendations for this finding
F15
The HHS Director, the CAO, and members of BOS used deceptive methods to move over $240,000 of $400,000 LLC money to various HHS departments’ trust accounts to hide the LLC money trail. About $167,000 of the $400,000 was traced back to paying the LLC for the HHS building rent, $45,000 was traced to the County’s CMSP Medi-Cal program, and about $28,800 went general operating expenses funded by the Mental Health Trust Fund.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1
Referral to a State or Federal Agency: Since the Grand Jury does not have the staff to conduct a full audit of the three HHS trust funds; the case should be referred to a State or Federal oversight agency that has oversight over Medi-Cal providers to conduct a full audit of all three trust funds.
R2
Release Evidence to State or Federal Agency: The Grand Jury recommends that the evidence gathered during this investigation be turned over to the State or Federal oversight agency to assist them in determining whether a full audit of Amador County's Health and Human Services Agency is necessary.
F16
The Grand Jury finds that the staff at County’s Auditor’s Office, the Tax Collector’s, Office, and the Health and Human Services Agency to have unquestionable integrity and character when the Grand Jury requested their assistance.
No recommendations for this finding
F17
The County had two methods to assess the property tax for the HHS building and property. The first property tax assessment method which was used for the LLC was based on the market value. The second property tax assessment method for the new owners was based on the value of the HHS building’s guaranteed twenty year income from the lease. The two tiered system favored the LLC which had the same lease as the new owners, but they paid about 25% less property taxes. If the LLC did not sell the HHS building, the LLC would have paid approximately 25% less in property taxes each year.
No recommendations for this finding
F18
On May 25, 2010, the County Counsel, the BOS acting as the BOE, and the County Assessor clearly believed that pursuant to Article 6.5 of the March 4, 2008 HHS building lease that the LLC and the new property owners of the HHS building did not pay the property taxes on the first $13.6 million of assessed value but rather that these taxes were paid by the County. This is belief was one factor as to why the BOE believed the HHS building lease is “gold”.
No recommendations for this finding
F19
While the new owners contradicted the county’s claim that the County was paying the taxes on the first $13.6 million of assessed value, this conflict was not resolved by the BOE prior to their ruling against the new owner’s appraisal appeal. The Grand Jury has determined that new owners were correct in stating that they were paying the taxes on the first $13.6 million of assessed value and consequently that the BOE based their decision in part on the BOE’s misunderstanding of property tax payments. Note that this misunderstanding was not simply a misinterpretation of the terms of the Article 6.5 of the lease but rather was a fact whose truth or falsehood could have been determined by an examination of the tax payment records by the BOE and County Assessor’s Office either prior to the BOE hearing or prior to the July 13, 2010 BOE finding to deny the reduction in assessed value of the HHS building.
No recommendations for this finding
Additional Recommendations 2
These recommendations are not explicitly linked to specific findings.
-
R000The property owner put up a property tax bond with the County to develop what is now called Amador Central Business Park (ACBP) which included the lot for 10877 Conductor Boulevard, Sutter Creek, CA. Starting in 2005, the property owner developed these previously identified and vacant parcels into the ACBP by sub-dividing the parcels and building the streets and infrastructure. The previously identified parcels happened to be in an area the RFP had selected as a possible location for the HHS building. Once the original parcels were split, new parcels were created. The parcels were divided into lots. Parcel 044-054-010-000, Lot 43, was a newly created lot on one of the parcels and its street address is 10877 Conductor Boulevard, Sutter Creek, CA. This 5.66 acre lot was selected as the HHS building location. On August 27, 2007, the property owner sold Lot 43 to the LLC for $1.49 million and the Assessor’s office reassessed the property. Property Taxes for Parcel 044-010-122-000, Amador Central Business Park According to Amador County 2007 property tax records for parcel 044-010-122-000, on October 15, 2007 the County paid the property tax for the property owners, a corporate partner of the LLC. Amador County property tax records reveal that the December 10, 2007 property tax payment of $11,482.36 and the April 10, 2008 property tax of $11,482.36 were paid by the County. The property taxes were reimbursed by the property owner’s property tax bond. However, the County Assessor's office completed a tax assessment on the building on December 31, 2007, but did not complete a full tax assessment for the HHS building and land on Lot 43 at 10877 Conductor Boulevard, Sutter Creek, CA, until several months later. The County’s first combined assessment which included the land and the HHS building was completed on April 18, 2008, but only after the LLC requested the reassessment. Resolutions 7-145 and 7-146 County Partnership Agreement with the Property Owner to Obtain Highway Encroachment Permits The following is a sample of a bond a developer would place with the County when developing property. On July 17, 2007, the BOS voted to unanimously to approve Resolutions 7-145 and 7-146. These resolutions were agreements between the County and the property owner of Amador County Parcels 044-010-114-000 and 044-010-122-000 that acknowledged a partnership between the County and the property owner to develop the roads and infrastructure in ACBP to connect to the adjacent State highways. The BOS agreed to apply for Caltrans highway encroachment permits for the roads, Locomotive Lane and Conductor Boulevard, which connected the ACBP to State Highways 104, aka Ridge Road. Additionally, the County agreed that it would apply for the encroachment permits to Highway 88 from a road that has not been completed. In return, the property owner agreed that it would build Locomotive Lane and Conductor Boulevard and their entrances/encroachments to Highway 104 and Highway 88. The encroachment for the entrances to the ACBP via Locomotive Lane and Conductor Boulevard were completed prior to the County occupying the HHS building. On March 25, 2008, the County BOS passed Resolution 8-045 acknowledging the road and encroachment project for the Martell Business Park Phase II Subdivision No. Amador Central Business District was completed. The BOS ordered the release of the $3,011,201.28 bond to the property owners. County records show that the original bond was returned to the property owners on April 29, 2008. (Please note that March 25, 2008 was four days after the HHS building went into escrow.) The County BOS that approved Resolutions 7-145 and 7-146 included former Supervisor 1, Supervisor 2, Former Supervisor 3, and Supervisor 4. The County BOS that approved Resolutions 8-045 included former Supervisor 1, Supervisor 2, Former Supervisor 3, Supervisor 4 and Supervisor 5. Why A $400,000 HHS Building Trust Fund? During the Grand Jury’s investigations, including the 2014-2015 investigation, current and former County executive officers and elected officials told the Grand Jury that the State withheld and or reduced Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) Proposition 63 realignment funds from the County. The reduction in funds caused the County's HHS agency to have very serious financial issues, including the reduction in funding by the State for the mental health services for the County. This Grand Jury re-interviewed former and current executive officials, elected officials, and administrative staff regarding FY 2007-2008 deficit issues that were caused by the State reducing the MHSA alignment funds the County had expected. Former Supervisor 1, Supervisor 2 and Supervisor 4, and the CAO knew that the HHS agency was having financial problems in FY 2007-2008 because the State had withheld mental health program’s realignment funds. They were aware that the County needed cash, i.e., the $400,000, to help balance the budget for HHS and the Mental Health Programs. However, not one county employee, executive officer or elected official could explain why the County wanted $400,000 and not any other amount of cash. The Grand Jury learned that HHS Director tried to assure the CAO and the County BOS that the shortfall in realignment funds was only temporary, that the State would make adjustments, and the realignment funding would return to anticipated and required levels of funding. The Grand Jury discovered that in FY 2008/2009 the California Department of Mental Health resumed funding for MHSA programs and services after the BOS approved the March 4, 2008. According to the CAO a major portion of the HHS' fiscal problem was caused because the only person who controlled the HHS budget prior to FY 2007-2008 was the HHS Director. It was alleged the HHS Director would transfer funds from one HHS Trust Fund to another HHS Trust Fund without her, the CAO, knowing that the transfer of funds took place. (Note that prior to 2011, the HHS Director was a direct report to the Board of Supervisors and the HHS Director did not have to advise the CAO of inter-department transfers. Department heads would submit an ATF to the BOS to request the transfer of revenue from one trust fund to another trust fund. The BOS would put the item on the BOS meeting agenda for a vote. However, the CAO can approve intra-department transfer of funds.) HHS Building Rent Payments – Pay Back To the HHS Building Owner Department of Mental Health Rent-Lease Payments FY 2007-2008 Documents provided by the various County departments reveal how the distribution of the $119,070 of the HHS lease was apportioned from January 1, 2008 to May 30, 2008. The County Department of Mental Health received about $2,517,000 in revenue from the State, but did not pay any rent ($0) in FY 2007-2008. However, a review of the audit trail and expenditures reports and other county records reveal that from December 26, 2007 to May 30, 2008 the Department of Social Services actually paid for the Department of Mental Health’s rent for its portion of the HHS building lease through account 11600-5106-52600. The DMH portion of the rent was about $22,632 per month. Beginning January 1, 2008, the Department of Social Services paid $76,713 per month for rent. The amount included the following allocation of funds: DSS - $50,565 DMH -$22,63211 IHSS - $1176* HRC - $2340* (*sub-leases) The Department of Public Health paid $38,357 per month and the County's Drug and Alcohol Services Program paid $4000 per month for their share HHS building monthly rent. Rental Payment Process According to the HHS staff statements and financial reports, and the Auditor’s office expenditure reports, from January 1 to May 30, 2008, Amador County’s Department of Public Health paid the HHS building rent in one lump sum to the LLC. The Department of Social Services which included the Department of Mental Health Services portion of the rent, the Alcohol and Drug Services program and sub-leasers transferred or reallocated their share of the rent payment to the Department of Public Health’s Fund 11800-101180 to pay their share of the rent for the lease of the HHS building. Once the entire rent was collected, the Public Health Department would allocate its share of the HHS building rent and a request was made to the Auditor’s office to release $119,070 in funds to pay the LLC for the lease. The LLC should have been the vendor listed for the lease payments from the first payment on December 26, 2007 to May 30, 2008 on the Department of Public Health’s Expenditure Audit Trail report for account 11800-4000-52600. However, “Federal Aviation” is listed as the vendor for the first prorated rent payment on December 26, 2007; T1732 is listed as the vendor with no name for the January 29, 2008; and “Concord Crowne P” is listed as the vendor for the rental payments made on February 26, 2008, March 11, 2008, April 15, 2008, and May 13, 2008. The LLC is not listed as a vendor for any payments for the HHS building lease. Starting with the June 17, 2008 payment the Department of Social Services paid the current owners the HHS building lease payment. Presently, the Amador County Department of Social Services pays the HHS building rent in one lump sum to the owners of the HHS building. As of April 2016, the HHS building rent payment is $132,635.00 per month. During the FY 2007-2008 the Auditor’s office was reusing “vendor identification numbers”. This caused the incorrect vendor names or no names to be entered on the Auditor’s computerized records. Thus, the LLC’s name never showed up on the Auditor’s records as being paid by the County for the HHS lease. However, the Auditor’s office has ended this practice. ADP’s $75,000 Request for Rent Payment to THE LLC In FY 2007-2008, the County’s Alcohol and Drug Services Program (ADP) was under the Department Public Health even though the ADP was receiving funds from the CDMH and the CDAP contracts that were made with the Amador County Department of Mental Health and 11 The $22.632 per month for DMH’s share of the rent was obtained from DSS records. Department of Behavioral Services. The County’s ADP is now a department within the County’s Department of Behavioral Health Services, which includes the Department of Mental Health. It is important to note that between FY 2005/2006 to the present ADP funding sources, included but not limited to, Federal Drug and Alcohol Program Funds, State Welfare Administration Funds, and State Proposition 36 Substance Abuse Funds. Currently, the County’s ADP is receiving Short-Doyle Medi-Cal program funds. Fiscal Year 2007/2008 Alcohol and Drug Services Program Rent Budget Deficit The Grand Jury reviewed HHS departments' expenditure reports, Board and Supervisors' meeting agendas, numerous HHS building lease documents, Amador County’s Final County Budget Reports and the 2013-2014 Grand Jury HHS building report. Based on the review of all these documents the BOS knew or should have known that the FY 2007/2008 approved budget did not allocate adequate funds for the ADP to pay for rent at both its former Jackson location and at the HHS building present location. Prior to the FY 2007-2008 budget being approved, the BOS, the County Counsel and the HHS Director knew that in December 2007, the ADP would be moving to the HHS building in Sutter Creek, CA. This meant that the County HHS Director and County Counsel would have to terminate the leases at the two HHS buildings located in Jackson, CA. As previously discussed, the County Counsel was aware of the termination clauses in the lease for 1003 Broadway, Jackson, CA, and the County knew that in December 2007 the County would have to provide notice to the owners of the Jackson buildings to terminate the HHS leases on June 30, 2007 if the County did not want to pay rent for a vacant building in Jackson. This did not happen. When the BOS Supervisors approved the FY 2007-2008 budget they severely underfunded the ADP’s rent budget. On July 10, 2007, the beginning balance for ADP’s’ 4003-52600 rental fund account was $52,390 for FY 2007-2008. The $52,390 would only cover the costs for the Jackson building for FY 2007/2008, and not the additional rent for the HHS building when the County planned to occupy the HHS building in December 2007 per the October 17, 2006 HHS building lease. The ADP’s budget actually needed over $82,000 to cover its rent payments. ADP Request for $75,000.00 for Rent After the County moved in the HHS building on December 10, 2007, ADP started to pay $4,000 for monthly rent for space at the new HHS building in addition to the rent and property taxes at the Jackson HHS building location. Between December 26, 2007 and June 30, 2008, ADP paid about $ $27,000 in rent for the HHS building to the LLC. On March 26, 2008, the ADP requested $75,000 be transferred from the HHS Reserve Fund account, Number “31101-101225-201002” to the ADP’s account 4003-47890 “Miscellaneous Revenue” account. According to the ADP’s documents, $75,000 was then transferred to ADP’s account 4003-52600 which is the ADP’s’ “Rents-Leases, Buildings” account. However, on April 30, 2008, according to the Auditor’s records, $75,000 from ADPs' account 4003-47890 “Miscellaneous Revenue” was actually transferred to the Department of Public Health’s cash account fund 11800-101180 from ADP’s accounts. On May 6, 2008, the Board of Supervisors approved the transfer of $75,000 to Public Health Fund 11800, Department Drug and Alcohol Program fund 4003, Account 52600 Rents and Leases. Between May 30, 2008 and June 30, 2008, ADP allocated $12,086 of the $75,000 to rent for the HHS Building and the former Jackson location of HHS. $8,000 can be traced directly to being allocated to pay the LLC for rent for the HHS building and about $29,000 was used to pay off the deficit that was caused by ADP allocating funds to pay the LLC for the HHS building rent and the $4,086 in rent at the Broadway building Inter-Department Transfer of $45,351- Journal Entry127A and 167A On June 16, 2008, $14,030 of the $75,000 was reallocated in the department’s budget at the ADP’s request. The Auditor’s office records, Transaction Journal Entry Number 127-A, reveal $14,030 was transferred from ADP’s rental funds account (4003-52600) to ADP’s Professional/and Specialized Services account (4003-52300). Requests to change an Adopted Budget Expense Line Account within the same Department by Budget Transfers are frequently made by Departments. When Budget Transfers are made between expenses such as services and supplies as in this case, they only require the CAO’s approval. The Grand Jury obtained a copy of the original request to transfer the $14,030. The request was made by the then Director of the ADP on May 26, 2008 and approved by the CAO on May 28,
-
R7Research County Owned Non-Profit: The Grand Jury recommends that the County explore creating a County owned non-profit corporation to own and operate buildings in which County departments and agencies operate. This would allow the County Departments and Agencies to receive State and Federal funding at their maximum rate, while allowing the County’s non-profit corporation to own the building when the loan for the building is paid. This is done elsewhere in the state and the County Supervisors Association of California could provide assistance.