⚠️ 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 12 findings
F01
When the Bond was passed in 2002, the budget for the Sheriff’s rent at the Academy was $1 per year. The $2.6 million rent to be received by VCCCD was not authorized by the voters when they approved the Bond. (FA-01, 07)
No recommendations for this finding
F02
Prior to the passage of the Bond, the Sheriff and VCCCD publicly agreed to partner in a program for a new Sheriff’s academy where cadets would receive credits toward an associate’s degree in criminal justice in conjunction with Academy training. (FA-01–03)
No recommendations for this finding
F03
The subsequent failure of VCCCD and the Sheriff to agree on terms of a partnership in education and training at the Academy led to the execution of a lease dated 2010 between the parties as landlord/tenant with an exponential increase in rent. (FA-04, 07–09)
No recommendations for this finding
F04
Payment of rent to VCCCD by the Sheriff for a facility built with the Bond funds is an unaccounted cost absent from the ballot when the Bond was passed in 2002. Now it is an unintended expense for County taxpayers who are already paying for the facility with the repayment of Measure S bonds. (FA-01, 04, 07-09)
No recommendations for this finding
F05
Absent an agreement to partner in education and training, as well as the potential loss of academic accreditation at VCCCD colleges, a future partnership is improbable for VCCCD and the Sheriff at the Academy. (FA-04, 10,)
No recommendations for this finding
F06
According to VCCCD, it would prefer not to be a landlord. The lease is the only agreement that obligates VCCCD to be a landlord at a time where their attention should be focused on maintaining accreditation and other obligations to its students. (FA-07, 10, 11)
No recommendations for this finding
F07
The Academy is underutilized according to the Bond’s promise “. . . to prepare students for jobs and four year colleges. . . .” (FA-01, 12) Recommendations
No recommendations for this finding
F08
According to the lease, the monthly rent for year eight through year fifteen shall increase on the anniversary date of the lease by an amount equal to the increase in the Riverside-Los Angeles Consumer Price Index using the base month of January preceding the adjustment date. (Att-05)
No recommendations for this finding
F09
There is no provision in the lease for decreases in years one through seven, while an increase in rent may begin in year eight. This will result in rental costs to County taxpayers of at least $2.6 million over fifteen years. (Att-05)
No recommendations for this finding
F10
The colleges of VCCCD are currently on probation and threatened with loss of accreditation from the Accrediting Commission of Community and Junior Colleges, due in part, to lack of proper district governance. According to VCCCD, it would prefer not to be a landlord. [Ref-03-08] Sheriff’s Academy and Bond Measure S 3
Related Recommendations (1)
R02
VCCCD should concentrate on “proper governance” of its three colleges, retaining its accreditation, and transferring the Academy building’s control to the Sheriff. (FI-02, 06) [Ref-02–06] 4 Sheriff’s Academy and Bond Measure S
F11
Colleges must be accredited for students to receive federal financial aid and transfer their credits to other colleges and universities. [Ref-04, 05]
No recommendations for this finding
F12
The Academy is not functioning full-time in training cadets and is operated for that purpose one to three times a year. Findings
No recommendations for this finding
Agency Responses 1
Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.