17 Summary

Response: Disagree Partially Score: 0

the City disagrees partially with this Finding 1.

Response: Implemented

requested documentation. Response 1: As it pertains to the City of Madera, the City disagrees partially with this Finding 1. Given the MCGJ's admonition of secrecy, current staff does not have adequate information to ascertain what was requested of the City, nor what was produced to the MCGJ for review. The finding, as written, provides insufficient information to either agree or disagree. However, we are noting that the City "disagrees partially" because of the mandated method for response. To demonstrate the City's good faith, the City is committed to providing staff training to judiciously ...

Response: Disagree Score: -1

adequate Public Notice for the closure of Runway 8-26. As it pertains to the City of Madera, the City disagrees with this finding. The Response 2: following is a list of actions and meetings that were subject to public notice requirements during all relevant times. The closure of Runway 8-26, also known as Runway 7-25, has been planned for since 1993. The following provides a summary actions taken followed by a synopsis of each: A. 1993 Madera Municipal Airport Master Plan (see Exhibit A, page 48) B. 2015 Madera Countywide Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) (see Exhibit B, Map MAD-3...

Response: Agree Score: +1

The MCGJ finds that the City of Madera spent taxpayer's money to purchase additional acreage for a fire station. Response 3: The City agrees with the finding in that taxpayer money was used to purchase additional acreage for a fire station. The respondent disagrees with the underlying inference that this expenditure was somehow inappropriate. The observation that City of Madera expended taxpayer money is accurate. However, placement of a City facility at the airport would not necessarily come at Page 6 of 11 a reduced or no cost agreement as placement of the fire station at the airport would ...

Response: Implemented

The MCGJ finds that the City of Madera spent taxpayer's money to purchase additional acreage for a fire station. Response 3: The City agrees with the finding in that taxpayer money was used to purchase additional acreage for a fire station. The respondent disagrees with the underlying inference that this expenditure was somehow inappropriate. The observation that City of Madera expended taxpayer money is accurate. However, placement of a City facility at the airport would not necessarily come at Page 6 of 11 a reduced or no cost agreement as placement of the fire station at the airport would ...

Response: Agree Score: +1

The City agrees with Finding 1.

Response: Implemented

recognition of the City's effort to foster and strengthen relationships with our community. The City believes that when it comes to public safety, nothing is more important than trust and mutual respect between Police Officers and the community. For this reason, the Police Department will continue to explore new and innovative ways to connect with our community. MCGJ recommends that during Fiscal Year 21/22 currently open positions at the R2. Madera Police Department be filled. This recommendation has not yet been implemented but the City plans to Response: implement it when it adopts the Fi...

Response: Disagree Partially Score: 0

The City disagrees partially with Finding 2.

Response: Implemented

. the Madera County Board of Supervisors to provide adequate mental health services. Response 3: This recommendation has been implemented. More specifically, earlier this year, Police Chief Lawson attended a meeting with the Madera County Mental Health Department where the focus was on improving mental health services. The Police Department is also assisting the Mental Health Department pursue mental health grant opportunities. Thank you for your service to the community. Please let us know if you need additional information. Sincerely, Amelda Parigo<br>Arnoldo Rodriguez City Manager City of ...

Response: Disagree Score: -1

The Madera County Grand Jury (MCGJ) finds that Madera County is not effectively handling the individuals Madera Police Department identifies as having a mental health crisis (5150). Response: Disagree with the finding per California Penal Code 933.05. BHS has a long history of working as a collaborative community partner with Madera Police Department and other local Law Enforcement. Madera County has a Community Wide Collaborative that includes BHS, all local law enforcement, both local hospitals, Madera County Department of Corrections, and other community stakeholders. This collaborative has...

Response: Unknown

This recommendation is already in effect. Madera County has a Community Wide Collaborative that includes BHS, all local law enforcement, both local hospitals, Madera County Department of Corrections, and other community stakeholders. This collaborative has developed the Madera County 5150 Response Protocol. The 5150-response protocol was updated in 2019 and outlines all stakeholders agreed upon roles in addressing our community members in crisis. The collaborative meets quarterly to address any issues or breakdowns within the system of crisis care. BHS is currently in collaboration with Madera...

Response: Unknown

BOS and HR Department in Madera County have been excellent to work with. The jail currently has Ten Vacancies and fiscal year 2020-21 provided funding to hire all ten with qualified candidates. Madera County has a continuous testing on meeting the need and commitment of the department. The department does have unfunded positions and in my ten years of being the director, I've never had the opportunity to ask for the opportunity to fill because of no vacancies. I hope with the start of the new SB1022 Construction Project, We will have an opportunity to address unfunded frozen positions. R2. The...

Response: Agree Score: +1

concur) F2.

Response: Agree Score: +1

concur) F3.

Response: Unknown Score: 0

Response: Unknown

Response: Unknown Score: 0

Response: Unknown Score: 0

Response: Unknown

Response: Agree Score: +1

Agree. However, neither the Transportation Development Act (TDA) nor the California PUC provide guidance on the definition for "Unmet Transit Needs" or "Reasonableness to Meet". PUC-99401.5(c) The definition adopted by the transportation planning agency for the terms "unmet transit needs" and "reasonable to meet" shall be documented by resolution or in the agency's minutes. The MCTC legally complies with the TDA and California PUC requirements - Sections 99400- 99408. There is no statute for these definitions related to the geography, demographics, and economic inequity in a region. The Social...

Response: Unknown

</b> The MCTC definition of "unmet transit needs," is concise. "Unmet Transit Needs," includes all essential trip requests by transit-dependent persons for which there is no other convenient means of transportation. MCTC staff will include an item on the next SSTAC meeting agenda, scheduled for April 1, 2021, to discuss and take action to accept or amend the definition. If a recommendation is made to amend the definition, it would initiate a process that would ultimately require action from the MCTC Policy Board. MCTC staff will initiate a fixed quarterly SSTAC meeting, and report quarterly to...

Response: Unknown Score: 0

MCTC respectfully responds that this finding does not pertain to a matter under its control. Instead, matters pertaining to

Response: Unknown Score: 0

MCTC respectfully responds that this finding does not pertain to a matter under its control. Instead, matters pertaining to

Response: Unknown

As explained above, MCTC respectfully notes this matter is outside the control of MCTC. As such, MCTC does not have the legal authority to respond regarding the implementation of the recommendation as requested [see Penal Code Section 933(b)].

Response: Implemented

R.1 The MGJ recommendation has been implemented.

Response: Implemented

R.3 The MCJ recommendation has been implemented.