Summary of Responses to the 2016-2017 Stanislaus County Civil Grand Jury’s Final Reports

R2

Will implement the recommendation

R3

Further analysis needed 1

R4

Will not implement the recommendation/Other California Penal Code §933.05(h)(3) requires that respondents indicating “further analysis needed” must conclude each study from the date of the publication of the Civil Grand Jury report. The SCCGJ developed a chart to track responses from county officials, agencies, municipal, and other public entities. The following chart reflects each entity’s responses to the Findings and Recommendations of the 2015-2016 SCCGJ final report. Please note that the responses filed by the board of supervisors and the agencies are much more extensive than indicated in the following pages. All Civil Grand Jury reports and the responses can be viewed on the following website: www.stanct.org/final-report. City of Oakdale Residents Property Tax Bill 17-03C Reason for Investigation The 2016-2017 Stanislaus County Civil Grand Jury (SCCGJ) received a complaint from an Oakdale city property owner regarding a portion of the non-itemized 1% General County Tax (GCT) listed on the Stanislaus County property tax bill. The complaint questioned the authority of the OID portion of the tax levied on City property owners and what property owners received in return for the assessed tax. The complaint further alleges the Stanislaus County Auditor-Controller’s Office (SCAC) did not disclose information about the property tax paid by Oakdale city property owners eventually being distributed to the Oakdale Irrigation District (OID). Agencies Asked to Respond  Oakdale City Council  OID Board of Directors Agencies Invited to Respond  Stanislaus County Auditor-Controller  Oakdale General Manager  Board of Supervisors  City of Oakdale-City Manager d * r e e h d t e O Findings g n id n iF /w e e r g A y lla itr a P s e e r g A y llo h W s e e r g a s iD Recommendations d e t n e m e lp m tn e m e lp m I lliW r u F e N s is y la n A r e h tr u F /t n e m e lp m I t o N lliW I Oakdale Office of the City Council F1. The SCCGJ found no information X R1. The SCCGJ recommends X was readily available to the City of that the SCAC Office create a Oakdale taxpayers explaining where way to explain the 1% ad valorem the assessed 1% tax went and what, if tax that is on property owners tax any, services OID provided. bills or add an insert to the property tax bill explaining what this tax covers. F2. Oakdale City residents pay over X R2. The SCCGJ recommends the X $1 million annually in property taxes SCAC Office explore ways of to the OID. providing a link on its website that is user friendly and explains the breakdown of the tax. F3. The 1% tax that the Oakdale city X R3. The SCCGJ recommends X residents pay is based on the Tax Rate that OID commence dialog with Assessment (TRA) based on the City of Oakdale residents Proposition 13 in 1978 and assessed regarding services provided by value of their property. OID in regard to this 1% tax. F4. The OID and the City of Oakdale X R4. The SCCGJ recommends X are aware of the possible disparities that OID and the City of Oakdale between property taxes paid and continue to work collaboratively services provided to property owners. on their Cooperation Action Plan Both OID and the City of Oakdale are and their Mutual Aid Agreement. engaged in a dialog regarding this issue. Oakdale Irrigation District, Board of Directors F1. The SCCGJ found no information X R1. The SCCGJ recommends X was readily available to the City of that the SCAC Office create a Oakdale taxpayers explaining where way to explain the 1% ad valorem the assessed 1% tax went and what, if tax that is on property owners tax any, services OID provided. bills or add an insert to the property tax bill explaining what this tax covers. F2. Oakdale City residents pay over X R2. The SCCGJ recommends the X $1 million annually in property taxes SCAC Office explore ways of to the OID. providing a link on its website that is user friendly and explains the breakdown of the tax. F3. The 1% tax that the Oakdale city X R3. The SCCGJ recommends X residents pay is based on the Tax Rate that OID commence dialog with Assessment (TRA) based on the City of Oakdale residents Proposition 13 in 1978 regarding services provided by and assessed value of their property. OID in regard to this 1% tax. F4. The OID and the City of Oakdale X R4. The SCCGJ recommends X are aware of the possible disparities that OID and the City of Oakdale between property taxes paid and continue to work collaboratively services provided to property owners. on their Cooperation Action Plan Both OID and the City of Oakdale are and their Mutual Aid Agreement. engaged in a dialog regarding this issue. Stanislaus County Auditor Controller F1. The SCCGJ found no information X R1. The SCCGJ recommends X was readily available to the City of that the SCAC Office create a Oakdale taxpayers explaining where way to explain the 1% ad valorem the assessed 1% tax went and what, if tax that is on property owners tax any, services OID provided. bills or add an insert to the property tax bill explaining what this tax covers. F2. Oakdale City residents pay over X R2. The SCCGJ recommends the X $1 million annually in property taxes SCAC Office explore ways of to the OID. providing a link on its website 4 that is user friendly and explains the breakdown of the tax. F3. The 1% tax that the Oakdale city X R3. The SCCGJ recommends X residents pay is based on the Tax Rate that OID commence dialog with Assessment (TRA) based on the City of Oakdale residents Proposition 13 in 1978 and assessed regarding services provided by value of their property. OID in regard to this 1% tax. F4. The OID and the City of Oakdale X R4. The SCCGJ recommends X are aware of the possible disparities that OID and the City of Oakdale between property taxes paid and continue to work collaboratively services provided to property owners. on their Cooperation Action Plan Both OID and the City of Oakdale are and their Mutual Aid Agreement. engaged in a dialog regarding this issue. Conclusion The 2017-2018 SCCGJ is satisfied that all entities requested to respond to the findings and recommendations of the 2016-17 SCCGJ report did so satisfactorily within the time frame stipulated by the California Penal Code Section 953 (c). Stanislaus County Library 17-18GJ Reason for Investigation The Stanislaus County Civil Grand jury believed that it would be beneficial to the public to review the Stanislaus County Library. A review of the library had not been done since the 1992-93 Grand Jury term, and tremendous changes have been implemented and challenges faced by the Stanislaus County Library in recent years. Agencies Asked to Respond  Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors Agencies Invited to Respond  None d * r e e h d t e O Findings g n id n iF /w e e r g A y lla itr a P s e e r g A y llo h W s e e r g a s iD Recommendations d e t n e m e lp m tn e m e lp m I lliW r u F e N s is y la n A r e h tr u F /t n e m e lp m I t o N lliW I Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors F1. The Stanislaus County Library X R1. The Stanislaus County Civil X funding is dependent on a portion of Grand Jury recommends that a the county sales tax revenue that must more stable source of funding be be voter-approved on a regular basis. found for the Stanislaus County Failure to receive voter approval Library. A concerted effort needs would result in cuts of approximately to be undertaken to explore 85% of library services for the additional revenue streams to residents of the county. The Stanislaus augment the Library’s budget. County Civil Grand Jury finds this budgetary uncertainty to be a limiting factor in the Library’s strategic planning for future needs and operations of the library system. Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors F2. The Stanislaus County Library X R2. The Stanislaus County Civil X does not provide discarded materials Grand Jury recommends that the to other agencies, students, teachers, Stanislaus County Library non-profit organizations or inmates in Administration continue to pursue county correctional facilities. all appropriate avenues to provide discarded materials to public and non-profit agencies. The current disposal protocol of these materials appears to be a waste of resources that could be utilized elsewhere in the community. F3. The Stanislaus County Civil X R3. The Stanislaus County Civil X Grand Jury finds that additional Grand Jury recommends that the technology, especially computer Stanislaus County Library workstations, wireless printers, and an continues to budget for additional extension of Wi-Fi capabilities are up-to-date technology in order to needed to keep up with the demands of meet the evolving needs of library the public. patrons. F4. The Stanislaus County Civil X R4. The Stanislaus County Civil X Grand Jury finds a need for additional Grand Jury recommends that the skilled volunteers to assist with more Stanislaus County Library challenging library tasks. continue to explore all means and methods to increase the number of skilled library volunteers to assist with the more complicated library tasks. Conclusion The 2017-2018 SCCGJ is satisfied that all entities requested to respond to the findings and recommendations of the 2016-17 SCCGJ report did so satisfactorily within the time frame stipulated by the California Penal Code Section 953 (c). Oakdale Irrigation District Redistricting Case # 17-19C Reason for Investigation The 2016-2017 Stanislaus County Civil Grand Jury’s (SCCGJ) decision to conduct an investigation into the Oakdale Irrigation District’s (OID) failure to redistrict its Board of Directors’ voting districts following the 2010 Federal Census was prompted by a complaint submitted to the Grand Jury by an Oakdale area resident and articles in The Modesto Bee. The complainant alleges OID chose not to follow the requirements of the law to redistrict after the release of the Federal Census every 10 years. Furthermore, the complainant alleges that one or more of the five districts do not meet California Elections Code Division 21, Section 21500-21506 and Voting Rights Act requirements as it relates to equal populations in each of the five voting districts. Agencies Asked to Respond  OID Board of Directors  OID General Manager Agencies Invited to Respond  None d * r e e h d t e O Findings n iF /w e e g r n g i A d y lla itr a P s e e r g A y llo h W s e e r g a s iD Recommendations d e t n e m e lp m tn e m e lp m I lliW r u F e N s is y la n A r e h tr u F /t n e m e lp m I t o N lliW F1. OID-BOD’s voting districts are X R1. The OID-BOD should X I not equal in population. Based on the comply with the existing 2010 Federal Census, the largest redistricting law, including district has a population of California Election Code Sections approximately 8,358, and its smallest 21500-21506 and 22000-22001, district has a population of and redraw its voting districts approximately 4,305. The largest boundaries no later than 180 days district is 30.3% larger than the prior to the November 2017 calculated average of the OID districts election of the OID’s Board of and the smallest district is 32.5% Directors. smaller than the calculated average OID district. F2. OID-BOD is required by Federal X R2. OID-BOD should X and State law to redistrict, as immediately develop and necessary, after each Federal Census. implement a district policy to redistrict within the first six- month period after the release of each Federal Census, to ensure redistricting is done, as required by law when voting districts differ by more than 5%. F3. OID-BOD failed to take action X R3. OID-BOD should determine X after becoming aware that OID voting if redistricting is needed after the districts were out of compliance with release of every upcoming Federal and State redistricting laws in Federal Census population data in 2011 2021, 2031, 2041, and subsequent years. OID-BOD should redistrict in a timely manner, as consistent with the law. F4. OID-BOD last redistricted in X R4. None 1991, after the 1990 Federal Census release. Therefore, it has been over 25 years since OID has redrawn its voting districts. F5. OID-BOD failed to reapportion X R5. None its five voting districts, as needed and in a timely manner, after both the 2000 Census release and again after the 2010 Census release. F6. OID currently has no formal X R6. None policy on record to redistrict after each Federal Census data release. Conclusion The 2017-2018 SCCGJ is satisfied that all entities requested to respond to the findings and recommendations of the 2016-17 SCCGJ report did so satisfactorily within the time frame stipulated by the California Penal Code Section 953 (c). Stanislaus County Detention Facilities Inspections Case # 17-20GJ Reason for Investigation The 2016 – 2017 Stanislaus County Civil Grand Jury (SCCGJ) conducted its annual detention and other facility inspections as required by California Penal Code 919(b). These inspections included the jail facilities, the Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Office Coroner’s Division (SCSOCD), Stanislaus Regional 911 (SR911), Juvenile Commitment Facilities (JDF), and the Day Reporting Center (DRC). The Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Office Coroner’s Division, a state-of-the-art facility that determines individuals’ cause of death for the population of three counties: Mariposa, Stanislaus, and Tuolumne. The Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department detention facilities are also state of the art. The SCCGJ participated in ride-along programs offered by Stanislaus County law enforcement agencies. SCCGJ commends the Sheriff’s Department, Modesto Police Department, and Turlock Police Department for their cooperation and assistance during the various inspections and tours. The SCCGJ conducted physical inspections of each facility between September 9, 2016 and March 21, 2017. Agencies Asked to Respond  Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors Agencies Invited to Respond  Stanislaus County Sheriff – Coroner’s Division  Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department d * r e h e d t O e e /t Findings Recommendations N n g n id n iF /w e e r g A y lla it r a P s e e r g A y llo h W s e e r g a s iD d e t n e m e lp m I t m n e I m lli e W lp r u F s is y la n A r e h t r u F e m e lp m I t o N lliW Stanislaus County Board of Supervisor Responses F1. The Stanislaus County Sheriff’s X R1. The Stanislaus Sheriff’s X Department is extremely adept at Department should develop a plan managing and maintaining its to better utilize the CJ. detention facilities 10 F2. The CJ is approaching the end of X R2. The SCCGJ recommends X its useful life and is using valuable Stanislaus County Probation correctional resources that could be Department screen for hepatitis B better utilized at newer detention and C during the intake process. facilities. F3. The Stanislaus County Sheriff’s X R3. The Coroner’s Office needs X Department was proactive in securing to acquire its own X-ray machine. AB900 state project funding. Needless time and money is spent transporting autopsy cases to Doctors Medical Center for X- rays. The facility currently has room for this machine to be installed. F4. During booking procedures at X R4. The Stanislaus Regional X Juvenile Hall, male and female 9-1-1 should consider developing inmates are screened for syphilis but a resource plan that would not hepatitis B or C. identify potential solutions in minimizing overtime, increase the retention of current workers, and reduce the loss of candidates during the hiring process. F5. Working from a state of the art X facility, the Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Office Coroner’s Division facility provides much utilized services to assist in determining causes of death. F6. With the implementation of the X new CAD system, the staff was provided adequate training and the system is now in full operation. Additionally, Stanislaus Regional 911 will now be responsible for receiving 911 cell phone calls. F7. The MPD, SCSD, and TPO are X committed to protecting and serving the citizens of their respective cities. F8. AMR operates a new program X called Community Ambulance to assist SCSD officers when they are dealing with a person with possible mental health issues. The Community Ambulance program follows through with the subject, allowing officers to proceed with their duties. Conclusion The 2017-2018 SCCGJ is satisfied the Stanislaus County Probation Department is taking appropriate actions regarding its responsibilities to screen and test for hepatitis B & C. Stanislaus County Probation Department Case # 17-30C Reason for Investigation The Stanislaus County Civil Grand Jury (SCCGJ) received a complaint alleging the Stanislaus County Probation Department (SCPD) acted in an illegal manner when conducting a property search, failed to follow SCPD procedures, and intimidates citizens from filing formal complaints. SCCGJ chose to investigate the complainant’s allegation that the SCPD Citizen Complaint Form and Citizen Complaint Declaration language may prevent citizens from filing complaints. The SCCGJ agrees and recommends SCPD review their Citizen Complaint and Declaration Forms with the intent of removing any language that would discourage citizen input. There may also be an issue with the current form’s language not meeting the requirement of a recent judicial opinion. Agencies Asked to Respond  Stanislaus County Chief Probation Officer Agencies Invited to Respond  Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors d e d e e Find ings g n id n iF /w e e r g A y lla it r a P s e e r g y llo h W s e e r g a s iD Recomme ndations d e t n e m e lp m t n e m e lp m I lliW r u F N s is y la n A r e h t r u F t o N lliW * r e h t O /t n e m e lp m A I I F1. The Stanislaus County X R1. SCCGJ recommends that X Probation Department’s current the SCPD review their Citizen Citizen Complaint and Citizen Complaint and Declaration Declaration forms may discourage forms to foster filing of some citizens from filing a formal legitimate complaints and to complaint due to the 148.6 CPC come into compliance with the declaration. ruling of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on Section 148.6 CPC. Conclusion The 2017-2018 SCCGJ is satisfied that all entities requested to respond to the findings and recommendations of the 2016-17 SCCGJ report did so satisfactorily within the time frame stipulated by the California Penal Code Section 953 (c).