County Services and Special Districts Committee Mission Statement The County Services and Special Districts Committee

Comments 44

• CO1
  On May 20, 2015, the Committee was present at a properly agendized and posted Emergency Board Meeting. The meeting was convened by three newly seated District Board Members (a quorum) for the purpose of electing officers and dealing in closed session with a personnel issue. Two District Board Members and the General Manager did not attend.
• CO2
  Interaction between Directors and District staff appeared to be strained, and this prolonged District business during the April 21, 2015 Meeting. COMMENTS: The Committee would like to thank the Directors and the District staff for their time and information during this inquiry. During the investigation the Committee was impressed with the District Secretary’s and Auditor’s professionalism and preparedness.
• CO3
  The staff provides background information on District business to Directors for agendized items.
• CO4
  Most Directors appear to lack sufficient understanding of water rates including tiered rate structures.
• CO5
  The District has approached the Kern County Board of Supervisors to terminate the agreement for the operation of the Rosamond Community Pool and Recreation Center; no money has been allocated to the 2015-2016 District Budget for recreational activities.
• CO6
  Following the November 2014 General Election, the Kern County Elections Division certified a five member board for the District.
• CO7
  Also on May 20, 2015, the District’s motor-grader, an essential piece of equipment, was inoperable due to flat tires and other maintenance issues.
• CO8
  District records show a purchase of five gift cards totaling $125 at Albertsons in November 2011, which appears to be a gift of public funds.
• CO9
  Records show purchases unrelated to the mission of the District. COMMENTS: The Committee has not had sufficient time to fully investigate all issues that have appeared and strongly encourages that the 2015-2016 Grand Jury conduct an in-depth investigation.
• CO10
  The District is overdue for water and sewer rate studies.
• CO11
  As a grower-funded program, growers are assessed $10.76 per 100 trees on their commercial acreage. The assessment appears on their annual property tax bill.
• CO12
  The District is managed by a five-member Board of Directors who are commercial citrus growers in Kern County and are appointed by the Kern County Board of Supervisors.
• CO13
  Board members receive no compensation and receive Ethics and Sexual Harassment training.
• CO14
  The Board is bound bythe Brown ActandProposition 218. 176
• CO15
  In a Proposition 218 election, votes would be given to growers on a per acre of production basis.
• CO16
  The District states its mission is to, “Control or eradicate citrus pests in commercial citrus acreage within Kern County.” B. The District’s current focus is the control of CTV.
• CO17
  The District notifies growers with infected trees of the exact locations of the trees to be removed.
• CO18
  The grower removes the tree to ground level and the stump is injected with herbicide. • Within a few months the stump and root system is totally destroyed allowing a new tree planting
• CO19
  The CCTEA budget for the fiscal year 2014-2015 is $2,262,493.00. FINDINGS: F1. The Board complies with the Brown Act and Proposition 218. F2. The Board is trainedin Ethics and Sexual Harassment. F3. The Board works closely with the Kern County Agricultural Commissioner in eradication and control ofCTV and other citrus pests. F4. The District compensates the grower the legislated amount for tree removal which may not represent the actual cost to the grower. F5. The CCTEA is very proactive in protecting the citrus growing industry in the Central Valley. COMMENTS: The Committee would like to thank the Kern County Citrus Pest Control District and the Central California Tristeza Eradication Agency for their time, information and cooperation during this inquiry. The Committee noted that the CCTEA has a well maintained, utilitarian facility, which is not lacking any necessary equipment; and both the District and CCTEA exhibit fiduciary responsibility.
• CO20
  The Director oversees the administration of 46 parks, five campgrounds, 40 picnic areas, 39 buildings, 21 ball fields, and four fishing and boating areas. These numbers are subject to change as facilities are added or eliminated.
• CO21
  Total Department staffing currently includes 87 funded positions of which 72 are filled.
• CO22
  The Director and Park Managers are required to take Ethics and Sexual Harassment Training and comply with the Ralph M. Brown Act (Brown Act).
• CO23
  The Department has experienced a significant reduction in staff.
• CO24
  No recreation programs have been provided since 1979 after the passage of Proposition 13.
• CO25
  Kern County General Services provides some equipment and labor exchangeas well as fleet maintenance.
• CO26
  Overtime is compensated strictlythrough compensatory time off.
• CO27
  In addition to the General Fund, income is obtained through grants from Federal, State and private sources. • Two planners are dedicated to writing grants • Low income and high pollution areas receive the highest priority for grants B. The Maintenance Department oversees facilities, grounds, Veterans’ and Senior Centerbuildings,and equipment.
• CO28
  According to agendas and minutes, Directors have met 16 times in four months between January 1, 2015, and April 30, 2015. • Directors are compensated $100 per meeting • Directors receive a maximum of $600 per month
• CO29
  Evidence shows that Directors discussed unagendized items during closed session.
• CO30
  Approval of Board meeting minutes is being delayed and approved in batches; the Board recently voted to reduce minutes to minimum required by law.
• CO31
  Live streaming capabilities have been acquired by the District but have not been implemented by the Board.
• CO32
  Cost of Living Adjustments have been granted for all employees except for staff with contracts. B. Directors are pursuing the acquisition of the Golden Hills Sanitation Company.
• CO33
  Disagreement exists between Directors and staff as to how to proceed with the street lighting issues.
• CO34
  Directors and staff have stated that plans are in place to re-evaluate lighting fees. C. The District provides sewer collection services for a flat rate established via a 2009 rate study which included incremental rate increases.
• CO35
  California Government Code §54950 (Brown Act) prohibits a quorum (three or more Directors) from meeting to conduct District business without a properly posted agenda. • Directors are permitted to meet individually with District staff to discuss District business • District staff is available to educate Directors and provide information about District business
• CO36
  Agendas and approved meeting minutes are traditionally posted on the District’s website. • The amount of time for approval and posting of minutes has exceeded typical District timelines • The Board voted to have audio recordings of five Board meeting minutes transcribed, including two meetings prior to seating of new Directors • Bills cannot be paid or actions begun without approved minutes
• CO37
  On April 21, 2015, the Committee attended a regular District Board meeting. • Attendees exceeded available seats • Closed session action was not presented during the open session • Public comment was permitted at the podium • Comments made by Directors could not always be heard • Roll call votes were not taken on action items B. The District serves as a collector of the $1 monthly street lighting fee.
• CO38
  The cost of street lighting currently exceeds revenues generated.
• CO39
  In order to increase fees, an election was held on May 14, 2014, establishing 40 new street lighting zones of benefit. • These new zones brought the total to 51 zones of benefit • Proposition 218 standards were followed • The results of the election were mixed; some zones voted to pay increased fees and others voted not to • In the areas that voted not to pay fee increases, some lighting was turned off
• CO40
  The Rosamond Community Services District should post a copy of this report where it will be available for public review.
• CO41
  Persons wishing to receive an email notification of newly released reports may sign up at: www.co.kern.kern.ca.us/grandjury.
• CO42
  Present and past Kern County Grand Jury Final Reports and Responses can be accessed on the Kern County Grand Jury website: www.co.kern.ca.us/grandjury. RESPONSE REQUIRED WITHIN 90 DAYS PRESIDING JUDGE KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE, SUITE 212 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 CC: FOREPERSON KERN COUNTY GRAND JURY 1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE, SUITE 600 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301
• CO43
  The Committee would like to thank the Board Members and the District staff for their time and information during this investigation. RECOMMENDATIONS: R1. Board Members who have relatives employed by the District should recuse themselves from any financial or personnel discussions or votes on issues relating to such relatives’ employment. (Finding 2) R2. Board Meetings should be improved by:  Limiting discussion and public comment to the time allotted  Reserving lengthy discussions for town hall meetings or working groups  Providing sufficient seating and an audio system that can be heard by all  All Board Members having the same access or materials in front of them during the meeting  Explaining and enforcing public comment rules (Finding 4) R3. The District should continue to evaluate effectiveness of solar energy as cost savings to the District. (Finding 5) R4. The District should continue to expedite the work towards pine bark beetle abatement. (Finding 6) R5. The Board should further explore options for treating effluent as a less expensive source of water for lake-fill. (Finding 7) 165 R6. The District should consider alternatives to the BVPD, such as:  Consolidation of police departments in surrounding communities  Solicitation of new clients for dispatch services (Finding 8) R7. The District should resolve the pending BVPD personnel litigation in a timely manner in order to mitigate legal costs. (Finding 9) R8. The District should review the possibility of receiving compensation for flood control from Kern County. (Finding 10) NOTES:  The Bear Valley Community Service District should post a copy of this report where it will be available for public review.  Persons wishing to receive an email notification of newly released reports may sign up at: www.co.kern.kern.ca.us/grandjury.  Present and past Kern County Grand Jury Final Reports and Responses can be accessed on the Kern County Grand Jury website: www.co.kern.ca.us/grandjury. RESPONSE REQUIRED WITHIN 90 DAYS TO: PRESIDING JUDGE KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE, SUITE 212 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 CC: FOREPERSON KERN COUNTY GRAND JURY 1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE, SUITE 600 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 DISCLAIMER: This report was issued by the Grand Jury with the exception of a juror pursuant to PC §916.2(a). The juror recused her/himself from all parts of the inquiry/investigation, including interviews, deliberations, and the writing and approval of this report. 166
• CO44
  DESERT LAKE COMMUNITY SERVICE DISTRICT SUMMARY: The statewide drought has forced water issues to the forefront, and water rates continue to rise. Small rural districts are experiencing difficult times. Boron’s Desert Lake Community Service District (District) faces challenges not seen in similar districts. During an inquiry into the District, it was noted that the drought exacerbated other problems. Due to decreases in reserves, funding is insufficient for long term sustainability. Much needed well repairs areunfunded and high arsenic content renders a second well unusable. PURPOSE OF INQUIRY: The County Services and Special Districts Committee (Committee) of the 2014-2015 Kern County Grand Jury (Grand Jury) reviewed the District pursuant to California Penal Code §933. The District was last reviewed by the Kern County Grand Jury in 2012-2013. PROCESS: The Committee interviewed the District’s Board of Directors, the Board Recording Secretary and the General Manager. The Committee reviewed the District’s past audits, California Form 700s, Ethics Training Certificates and Board meeting agendas and minutes for 2014. In addition, Grand Jurors attended the October 15, 2014 Board meeting. The Committee also consulted with the California Rural Water Association (CRWA), the California Department of Water, the Antelope Valley East Kern Water Agency (AVEK) and the Kern County Auditor Controller. In addition, the Committee reviewed the “Desert Lake CSD Rate Study and Review” (Study) completed by the CRWA for the District in 2014.