⚠️ Aviso de traducción: Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Note: Missing finding numbers detected: F9
Findings 15 findings
F1
Page 89
There is a pond in the left field of the softball field at Heritage Park.
F2
Page 89
The City has a number of unaddressed ADA deficiencies in all of the city parks and recreation facilities.
F3
Page 93
The March 7, 2007 Board of Directors Meeting Agenda included an item related to the Board considering a policy that all purchases over $10,000.00 by the District must be approved by the Board. However, such item was tabled, and no vote occurred. Therefore, such policy was not, and has not, been adopted or implemented by the Board.
F4
Page 93
The current CEO and Board have knowledge of, and adhere to the Brown Act, the District Bylaws, and Local Hospital District Law. However, the previous CEO and Board may have had questionable knowledge and adherence to the Brown Act, District Bylaws, and Local Hospital District Law.
F5
Page 94
Money from Measure "C" may have been spent for operations which is not an appropriate Measure "C" expenditure. The Board believes that the former CEO and CFO did not provide the Board with adequate information for the Board to consider or adequately oversee such expenditures.
F6
Page 94
The Grand Jury states in the Background and Facts portion of its Findings that "substantial" salary increases were given during the time YEAR IS of Measure C expenditures. CDH disputes that "substantial" increases were given, or any increases were given greater than the norm. CDH agrees that during 2007, salary increases were not discussed and adopted in open session Board meetings.
F7
Page 116
CDH disagrees with the Grand Jury's opinion as to most economical method of construction.
F8
Page 116
CDH cannot confirm nor deny that it will lose revenue and profits if the project takes longer than 10 months.
F10
Page 117
CDH agrees that the land will be unimproved until a structure is built on the particular real property. CDH disagrees that it was "vague as to plans to enhance this property." Rather, CDH is presently considering construction of a replacement clinic on this property as part of its Phase 0 project.
F11
Page 117
The future hospital is Phase II.
F12
Page 118
Recommendation 12 If CDH proceeds with Phase 0, the board should seriously consider retaining other qualified architects and builders to perform the needed tasks. The current DBD & Architect could also bid as separate entities. This approach will potentially yield significant savings and a higher level of design creativity compared to the current design/build approach. It is suggested that architects and builders have experience with OSHPD projects of a similar magnitude. CDH continues to consider this
F13
Page 118
Its Bylaws are dated on the front cover sheet.
F14
Page 118
Recommendation 14 Consider placing limitations on certain provisions in the Bylaws by requiring more than a simple board vote without extra notification to the public to make changes to those provisions. CDH will consider this
F15
Page 119
The board meeting agendas and minutes are posted prior to all meetings, and minutes are made available to any citizen of the District who requests a copy.
F16
Page 119
Financial statements and Board minutes can be and have been located on request.
Recommendations 7
-
R1Page 89Fix it. City Comments: Heritage Park was designed in 1989 as a Community Park. As such, it was intended to serve many purposes. Attachment A is the original Schematic Design for the park. As you can see, the pond on the south end of the park was an intended feature of the park. Additionally, areas around the pond and towards the softball field are graded for the purpose of serving as a storm drainage basin. Because of this, during wet periods, much of the southern portion of the park can flood. The softball field was intended for recreational uses, as opposed to competitive adult play. It is adequate for Little League and Youth Softball practice. Finally, there have been some changes to the intended buildout of the park. Rather than being constructed as originally planned, much of the presently undeveloped area will be planted with trees, and house a disc golf course, with natural features, in an effort to curb maintenance costs.
-
R2Page 89The Lemoore City Council should work with the Parks and Recreation Department to alleviate ADA deficiencies in the parks and recreation facilities. City Comments: The City of Lemoore is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. In fact, in December of 2008, the City commissioned an Access Compliance Survey to be conducted for all City Facilities, including parks, by Sally Swanson Architects, Inc. The complete survey report was completed and accepted by the City in October of 2009. The report "In God We Trust" clearly details compliance recommendations for all of the City's facilities. In fact, the report calls for over $500,000 in ADA upgrades at City Park, Heritage Park, D Street Plaza Park, and Lions Park. The City Council is committed to making the needed upgrades when funding is available. Additionally, as repairs or upgrades are made in the parks, the new items installed improve ADA access. DESCRIPTION OF THE <b>CORCORAN</b> <b>DISTRICT HOSPITAL</b> August 31, 2011 Honorable Donna L. Tarter, Superior Court of the State of California Advising Judge to the Kings County Grand Jury, 1426 South Drive, Hanford, CA 93230 To The Honorable Judge Donna L. Tarter, In accordance with Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the following is the response to the
-
R7Page 116Finding 8 The contract with the DBD contains no penalty to the DBD if the project is completed later than the promised 10 months. CDR [sic] will lose significant revenue and profits if a construction project is completed late. CDH partially disagrees with this
-
R8Page 116Finding 9 Both parties involved in the joint agreement to build a hospital should have negotiated an agreement with affordable lease rate terms and the buyout terms before engaging an architect and spending any money on design work and other related costs. About $240,000 was spent on design work. There may have been other expenses incurred relating to this project. CDH will not confirm nor deny the validity of the Grand Jury's opinion as to "affordable lease rate"
-
R10APage 117Recommendation 10B Consider dedicating the unused portion of the property to an interim use beneficial to the community. No response is required on this
-
R10BPage 117Finding 11 If Phase 0 is to be pursued, all continuing design and plan approval efforts on Phase I (future seismically correct hospital) may not be needed and may be wasted bond money. CDH says those services are part of a negotiated package. Per CDH, the architect still has approximately $80,000 worth of services to deliver. Terminating the Phase 1 design and plan check work will likely yield significant savings to CDH. CDH partially disagrees with this
-
R13Page 118Finding 14 Any item in the Bylaws can be changed by a simple board vote. CDH agrees with this