Score: +14 (14/3/0)
Madera County Grand Jury • 2011-2012

2011-2012 Madera County Grand Jury Final Report on Madera County Solid Waste Management and Recycling Revisited

Published: March 27, 2012 5 pages
View Original PDF

Findings and Recommendations 17 findings

F1
In regard to the 2010-2011 Recommendation "that the County should avoid the appearance of impropriety in the granting and management of contracts in the area of solid waste management as millions of dollars are involved", the Grand Jury found that on March 27, 2012, the BoS contracted with consulting firm Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. (Contract No. MCC 9543-C-2012) to perform a business needs assessment, develop a scope of work to be sent out to bid, and solicit/select a new contractor(s) to assume responsibility for the various operations.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
In regard to the 2010-2011 Recommendation "that the RMA, subject to appropriate BoS guidance, give thirty days (30) notice to contractor A for contract non-compliance", the Grand Jury found that on March 31, 2011 the BoS gave the thirty (30) day notice to contractor for contract non-compliance.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
In regard to the 2010-2011 Recommendation "that the County renegotiate the contracts for the operation of the landfill and the MRF [Materials Recovery Facility] to better represent the interests of the residents of Madera County", the Grand Jury found that the BoS is considering options for future operation of the Landfill and MRF.
No recommendations for this finding
F4
In regard to the 2010-2011 Recommendation "that, in the future, contracts for solid waste management should be awarded on the basis of competitive bid", the Grand Jury found that the BoS has contracted with a consulting firm to develop a scope of work to be sent out for bid.
No recommendations for this finding
F5
In regard to the 2010-2011 Recommendation "that the landfill revert to a County operation resulting in increased control, cost savings, and opportunities for substantial revenue from recycling", the Grand Jury found that: a. the County does not have the in-house expertise to operate the Landfill; and b. options for future operation of the Landfill will be studied by the contracted consulting firm.
No recommendations for this finding
F6
In regard to the 2010-2011 Recommendation "that … the request for proposal should include hauling, managing the landfill and MRF, and managing the North Fork Transfer Station", the Grand Jury found that the BoS has given notice of termination for the contracts for these four operations.
No recommendations for this finding
F7
In regard to the 2010-2011 Recommendation "that the BoS take the necessary steps to amend the agreements with contractors A and B in regard to the process used to determine appropriate increases in service fees for collection of solid waste in the unincorporated areas of the county … based upon legitimate changes in operating costs", the Grand Jury found that this issue has not been addressed.
No recommendations for this finding
F8
In regard to the 2010-2011 Recommendation "that the MRF should be operated as a dirty MRF as required by the contract and state permit", the Grand Jury found that the County has taken the position that it does not matter whether the MRF is operated as clean or dirty.
No recommendations for this finding
F9
In regard to the 2010-2011 Recommendation "that the County fund a method for separating recyclable materials in the unincorporated areas of the county to increase recycling", the Grand Jury found that no action has been taken; however, County staff is exploring options for partial implementation of recycling efforts in the unincorporated areas.
No recommendations for this finding
F10
In regard to the 2010-2011 Order that "the District Attorney … recover funds and reasonable interest for the over-charges collected by the contractor for that portion of the tipping fee designated for operation of the MRF", the Grand Jury found that: a. the District Attorney's request for the funding needed to comply with this Order was denied by the BoS; and b. the BoS has filed a lawsuit (Case No. MCV059402) against the contractor to recover these funds along with 10% interest.
No recommendations for this finding
F11
In regard to the 2010-2011 Order that "the District Attorney … recover monies generated from the sale of recyclable materials as called for in the contract", the Grand Jury found that: a. the District Attorney's request for the funding needed to comply with this Order was denied by the BoS; and b. the BoS has filed a lawsuit (Case No. MCV059402) against the contractor to recover these funds along with 10% interest.
No recommendations for this finding
F12
In regard to the 2010-2011 Recommendation that "special attention be paid to insure that the contractor is not co-mingling expenses from the various businesses that it operates out of the landfill", the Grand Jury found that the BoS addressed this issue in pending litigation No. MCV059402.
No recommendations for this finding
F13
In regard to the 2010-2011 Recommendation "that the County complete a comprehensive, independent audit of the landfill and MRF operations every three years", the Grand Jury found that the BoS has caused an independent audit to be performed.
No recommendations for this finding
F14
In regard to the 2010-2011 Recommendation "that the [current] audit … should be reviewed in detail by the BoS and a copy provided promptly to the Grand Jury. Deficiencies noted should result in a thirty (30) day notice of contract non-compliance and steps needed for the contractor to come into compliance", the Grand Jury found that: a. the BoS has reviewed the audit report; b. the Grand Jury was not provided with a copy of the audit report; and c. the BoS issued a thirty (30) day notice of contract non-compliance.
No recommendations for this finding
F15
In regard to the 2010-2011 Recommendation "that the BoS require that enforcement of the contract receive active and direct attention by the CAO, the RMA Director, County Counsel, and the Division of Solid Waste Management [with] frequent, scheduled reports as to such activities from County agencies", the Grand Jury found that weekly monitoring and reporting on the Landfill operations are being performed by RMA staff.
No recommendations for this finding
F16
In regard to the 2010-2011 Recommendation "that the Department of Environmental Health develop stricter inspection and documentation procedures to insure that the proper handling and storage of household hazardous wastes is in compliance with health and safety regulations", the Grand Jury found that the handling and storage of household hazardous waste appears to be in compliance with regulations.
No recommendations for this finding
F17
In regard to the 2010-2011 Recommendation "that the BoS pursue corrective action to insure that the contractor ceases and desists from operating unrelated businesses on County property, until such time as a negotiated agreement for the contractor to pay fair market value to do so is in effect", the Grand Jury found that the BoS has entered into a contract (Agreement No. 9434-C-2011) with the Landfill operator for lease of property on which to store his equipment for other businesses. Conclusions:
No recommendations for this finding

Conclusions 4

Agency Responses 1

Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.