📋
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.

Tulare County Grand Jury • 2010-2011

Tulare County Grand Jury Report 2010-2011

Published: February 01, 2011 5 pages
View PDF View Full Original

Findings 11 findings

F1 Page 66
An Administrative Hearing (hearing) was held on January 21, 2009. The Hearing Administrator found the PO to be in compliance because a Special Use Permit Application (SUPA) was filed prior to notification of the hearing. Fines in excess of $7,000 were waived and the PO was instructed to pay an Administrative Fee in the amount of $270. Unfortunately, the Hearing Administrator did not know the SUPA could not be processed because it was incomplete and was therefore invalid. Prior to the hearing the PO was notified the SUPA could not be processed until the application was filled out in its entirety.
F2 Page 66
Between the January hearing and the hearing mentioned below, the PO did not complete the SUPA process.
F3 Page 66
On December 2, 2009 a second hearing was held. The PO was notified of the hearing and failed to appear. It was ruled that the PO was in violation of the following: 63 TULARE COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT 2010-2011 a. Installation of a seatrain without a Building Permit or required inspections b. Operating a trucking business in an AE-10 Zone without a SUP c. Storage of inoperative vehicles and parts stored outside an enclosed building in an AE-10 Zone d. Accumulation of solid waste in an AE-10 Zone
F4 Page 67
Again the PO was assessed an Administrative fee in the amount of $270. As of November 2010, the PO had not paid the assessment.
F5 Page 67
Since the December hearing, RMA has failed to bring the PO into compliance.
F6 Page 67
An employee of RMA questioned the status of this particular PO and was instructed to “leave it alone”. CONCLUSION RMA is either unwilling or unable to bring this particular PO into compliance with the zoning laws of Tulare County.
F7 Page 69
As of February 1, 2011, there were seven full time and two part time Zone and Building Inspectors. Not one had s pecific training for code violations or code compliance.
F8 Page 69
Between January 2, 2010 and Decem ber 30, 2010 RMA received 457 66 code complaints. The status of those complaints was as follows: a. 115 had verified code violations b. 105 had no violations c. 46 were duplicate complaints d. 20 were not applicable as they belonged to other area agencies such as a city e. Between June 29 and December 30, 2010 RMA Out of those 200 complaints, 53 were anonymous complaints and 13 were of unknown origin.
F9 Page 69
A partial list of information recorded in a ledger of accounts (ledger) owing fines include: a. Violation number b. Violation status c. Parcel number d. Client (actual or business name) e. Date of Fine (Hearing) f. Amount of fine g. Total payments h. Balance due
F10 Page 69
Some of the information conc erning two clients recorded in the ledger of accounts includes the following: a. Client Number One: the parcel number recorded is 888-888-88, client name recorded is “COUNTY VI OLATOR”, Date of F ine is 1/1/2006, fine amount is $2,500, no payments and the Balance Due is $4,715.07. On March 24, 2011, RMA provided a revised ledger that “COUNTY VIOLATOR” is actually an e xample of how to fill o ut the ledger. b. Client Number Two: client name is recorded as “Tulare County Deputy Sheriff”, Date of Fine (Hearing) 07/ 17/2007, fine amount is $270. The violations were corrected; however, there have been
F11 Page 69
The ledger, mentioned in Findings 9 and 10, is one example of inaccurate recorded information. A sec ond is a file log on Areas one through eight and Redevelopment. One parcel re corded in Area six, has a Site Inspection/Confirmation date of 12/30/2011 and the Courtesy Notice

Recommendations 3