📋
Extracted from Consolidated Report

This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.

Kings County Grand Jury • 2014-2015

Kings Mosquito Abatement District

Published: February 22, 2016 61 pages
View PDF View Full Original

Findings 31 findings

F1
The Kings County Animal Services and Shelter is lacking sufficient space to efficiently conduct daily operations.
F2
The Kings County animal intake area is used for specialty and canned food storage and is lacking workspace.
F3
The Kings County Animal Services does not accept checks, credit or debit cards. Recommendation 3 The County should investigate the implementation and acceptance of debit cards to make the programs more user friendly for the public. This would also reduce the need to keep cash at the Shelter and make the process safer for the staff and public. This method of payment is allowed by Cal.FAC §3125519 if the County of Kings Board of Supervisors authorize it. A surcharge may be imposed to cover the rate of discount that the credit or debit card issuer debits the local agency. Avenal Animal Control and Shelter
F4
A large percentage of animals from Avenal and Corcoran are euthanized at the Avenal Animal Shelter. Appendix (5) Recommendation 4 The Avenal Shelter should expand their outreach with no kill rescue shelters so more animals are adopted instead of being euthanized.
F5
The Avenal Animal Shelter does not spay/neuter or vaccinate animals.
F6
The Avenal Animal Shelter does not implant microchips.
F7
The Avenal Shelter reports that they do not fine the owner of any unaltered animal that is impounded. This does not comply with Cal. FAC §30804.720. Recommendation 7 Comply with California Food and Agriculture Code §30804.721. Hanford Animal Control
F8
The City of Hanford charges $15 for a one-year license for a spayed or neutered dog and $25 for a nonspayed or unneutered dog, which is in violation of CGC §38792(b)22 and Cal. FAC §30804.523. Appendix (4) 21 Appendix (4) 22 Appendix (1) 23 Appendix (3)
F9
Hanford Animal Control reports that they do not fine the owner of any animal that is impounded by animal control that has not been spayed or neutered. This does not comply with Cal. FAC §30804.724. Recommendation 9 Comply with California Food and Agriculture Code §30804.7.
F10
Hanford Animal Control does not accept credit or debit cards.
F11
The Hanford Animal Control Officers do not have access to drugs to euthanize animals that are severely injured.
F12
Lemoore charges $15 for a one-year license for a spayed or neutered dog and $25 for a nonspayed or unneutered dog. This does not comply with CGC §38792(b)26 and Cal. FAC §30804.527 24 Appendix (4) 25 Appendix (5) 26 Appendix (1) 27 Appendix (3) Recommendation 12 Comply with CGC §38792(b) and Cal. FAC §30804.5.
F13
Lemoore does not accept credit or debit cards. Recommendation 13 Lemoore should investigate the implementation and acceptance of debit and/or credit cards to make the programs more user friendly for the public. This would also reduce the need to keep cash at the Shelter and make the process safer for the staff and public. This method of payment is allowed by Cal. FAC §3125528 if the City Council would authorize it. A surcharge may be imposed to cover the rate of discount that the credit or debit card issuer debits the local agency.
F14
Lemoore reports that they do not fine the owner of any unaltered animal impounded by animal control and has not been spayed or neutered. This does not comply with Cal. FAC §30804.729.
F15
The Corcoran Animal Control Officer reports they do not always fine the owner of any animal that is impounded by animal control, whether or not it has been spayed or neutered. This does not comply with Cal. FAC §30804.730. Recommendation 15 Comply with California Food and Agriculture Code §30804.7.
F16
Corcoran does not post any pictures of animals impounded which are available for public viewing. Recommendation 16 28 Appendix (5) 29 Appendix (4) 30 Appendix (4) Post pictures at a location in Corcoran or establish a web address where the public could check for lost animals. REQUEST FOR RESPONSES Required Response Pursuant to Penal Code, §933.(c)31 And §933.0532, the Grand Jury requests responses from individuals and governing groups as follows: Sheriff, Kings County responds to findings and recommendations 1, 2, and 3. Board of Supervisors, Kings County responds to findings and recommendations 1, 2, and 3. Avenal City Council responds to findings and recommendations 4, 5, 6, and 7. Hanford City Council responds to findings and recommendations 8, 9, 10 an 11 Lemoore City Council responds to findings and recommendations 12,13 and 14 Corcoran City Council responds to findings and recommendation 15 and 16. Invited Responses Kings County Animal Services Manager is invited to respond to findings and
F17
CORE software indicated an error of over six thousand dollars at one time when comparing the District information to the bookkeeper's information. This error reportedly occurred because of a loss of power at the District Office.
F18
Testimony by community members indicated their bills had been paid but were listed as delinquent. One instance presented was the inability of the manager to verify and relay any information about a delinquent payment to a customer or when the delinquency had occurred.
F19
Delinquent fees are not added to monthly billing charges in accordance with California Government Codes § 61115 (a) (3) (C)
F20
The Grand Jury was informed during interviews that the CORE software does not include an audit system. The Grand Jury was informed that some entries were changed and there was no way to tell who made the change.
F21
No policy or procedure manual was made available to the Grand Jury which included the policy and procedures required by the Government Codes. Recommendation 21 California Government Code § 61063 (a) "Each district shall adopt policies and procedures, including bidding regulations, governing the purchasing of supplies and equipment not governed by Article 43 (commencing with Section 20680) of Chapter 1 of Part 3 of the Public Contract Code. Each district shall adopt these policies and procedures by rule or regulation pursuant to Article 7 (commencing with Section 54201) of Chapter 5 of Division 2 of Title 5."
F22
The Grand Jury found no indication of any budget or Board minutes which indicate any plans in place to support and maintain the park after completion. Recommendation 22 The District should put in place plans to provide financing for the upkeep of the Park after it is turned over to the District. This would require a Proposition 218 of 1996 hearing.
F23
Many of the Board minutes indicating a closed session did not include the information required to be on the agenda. This is required by the California Government Code § 54954.5.
F24
The Grand Jury discovered the District did not have a records retention program in place as required by California Government Code. A number of documents requested by the Grand Jury could not be produced. The Grand Jury was informed that these records were destroyed by previous employees and/or Board Members. No records as required were available indicating what documents were destroyed.
F25
Notification to the County Elections Division of a vacancy on the Board were not made in a timely manner and did not comply with California Government Code § 1780. Recommendation 25 Within fifteen days after a notification of a vacancy on the board, the County Elections Division must be notified. The vacancy must be posted for at least fifteen days in at least three places within the District. An appointment to fill the vacancy must be made by the Board within 60 days of the original notification.
F26
Newly elected directors were not sworn in until the end of the January meeting.
F27
The Grand Jury found that the Directors did not have proper training in the Brown Act. Newly elected Directors come under the Brown Act when the elections are certified by the County Elections Division.
F28
The Grand Jury could not find any documents which appointed a District Secretary, or Treasurer. The 'District Manager' of the District does not perform the duties as listed in the California Government Code § 61050 for Community Service Districts for general managers. Investigations revealed the Manager exhibited limited knowledge of the job and did not appear to have the authority of the Board to perform the duties as required. A third party is contracted as the bookkeeper of the District. Recommendation 28 The District should comply with California Government Code § 61050. "(a) The board of directors shall appoint a general manager. (b) The county treasurer of the principal county shall serve as the treasurer of the district. If the board of directors designates an alternative depositary pursuant to Section 61053, the board of directors shall appoint a district treasurer who shall serve in place of the county treasurer. (c) The board of directors may appoint the same person to be the general manager and the district treasurer. (d) The general manager and the district treasurer, if any, shall serve at the pleasure of the board of directors.... (f) The board of directors may require the general manager to be bonded. The board of directors shall require the district treasurer, if any, to be bonded. The district shall pay the cost of the bonds." The duties and responsibilities for the general manager include those listed in California Government Code § 61051. "The general manager shall be responsible for all of the following: (a) The implementation of the policies established by the board of directors for the operation of the district. (b) The appointment, supervision, discipline, and dismissal of the district's employees, consistent with the employee relations system established by the board of directors. (c) The supervision of the district's facilities and services. (d) The supervision of the district's finances." Additional duties may be assigned at the direction of the Board. It is recommended that the District utilize the Kings County Treasurer as the District Treasurer and Bookkeeper.
F29
The Grand Jury had requested agendas be faxed to the Grand Jury when published. This has rarely been done without a phone call to the District. Recommendation 29 California Government Code § 54954 states: "Any person may request that a copy of the agenda or a copy of all the documents constituting the agenda packet, of any meeting of a legislative body be mailed to that person. If requested, the agenda and documents in the agenda packet shall be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12132), and the federal rules and regulations adopted in implementation thereof."
F30
An additional fee was found by the Grand Jury to be added to contracted services. These services include sewer, trash, and street lighting. Ten percent is added to these services without a Proposition 218 of 1996 hearing. A California court case10 verified that user taxes masquerading as any other fee violate the law. The appellate court found against the City: 1) the California Constitution, as amended by Proposition 218, prohibits local governments from imposing new or increased taxes without first obtaining voter consent; 2) the City did not seek voter approval of the surcharge; and 3) the surcharge is an illegal tax listed as a franchise fee. Jacks v. City of Santa Barbara (2015) 234 Cal. App. 4th 925.
F31
The Grand Jury found no increase in water rates since 2007. Power requirements are increasing because of the lowering of the water table, the increase in electrical charges, a rising cost of chemicals and the removal of sludge developed by the arsenic treatment plant have increased the cost of water delivery. Recommendation 31 The District needs to closely monitor its expenses in providing service. REQUEST FOR RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal Code § 933 and § 933.05, the Grand Jury requests responses as follows: Required Responses From the following governing bodies: Kings County Board of Supervisors Home Garden Community Service District Board of Directors Invited Responses • General Manager of Home Garden Community Service District COMMENTS The Kings County Grand Jury thanks the members of the Board and the Staff of the Home Garden Community Service District and residents for their help and support during this review. It is recommended that the Kings County Board of Supervisors arrange for oversight, training and guidance for the District. It is recommended that the 2015-2016 Kings County Grand Jury look into the findings and recommendations of the 2014-2015 Grand Jury for compliance. The HGCS Board is commended for the change in contractors. JOE NEVESSTRATFORD-LEMOORE, DIST, I COUNTY OF KINGS RICHARD VALLE CORCORAN -AVENAL, DIST. II BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DOUG VERBOON NORTH HANFORD – NORTH LEMOOORE, DIST. III MAILING ADDRESS: KINGS COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, HANFORD, CA 93230 RICHARD FAGUNDES OFFICES AT: 1400 W. LACEY BLVD., ADMINISTRATION BUILDING # 1, HANFORD HANFORD, DIST.V (559) 852-2362, FAX: (559) 585-8047 Web Site: http://www.countyofkings.com CRAIG PEDERSEN HANFORD-ARMONA, DIST. IV July 28, 2015 Honorable Thomas DeSantos Kings County Superior Court 1426 South Drive Hanford, CA 93230 Dear Judge DeSantos: In accordance with Section 933 of the California Penal Code, this letter is the Kings County Board of Supervisors' response to the Grand Jury Report entitled: "Home Garden Community Service District", received by the County on June 24, 2015. In the "Comments" section of the report, it states: It is recommended that the Kings County Board of Supervisors arrange for oversight, training and guidance for the District. Home Garden CSD is an independent government agency, and is charged with knowledge of the law and proper government procedures. Nonetheless, County agencies frequently receive requests for information and assistance from smaller local agencies, and County employees respond to those requests as appropriate. The County stands ready, willing, and able to do the same for Home Garden CSD in response to specific requests. Sincerely, Richard Plagardes Richard Fagundes Chairman, Board of Supervisors Home Garden Community Service District 11677 2nd Place Hanford, CA 93230 Phone (559) 582-4503 Fax(559) 582-4555 Tuesday, 8 September, 2015 Honorable Thomas DeSantos Kings County Superior Court 1426 South Drive Hanford, CA 93230 Dear Judge DeSantos In accordance with Section 933 of the California Penal Code, this letter is the Home Garden Community Services District's response to the Grand Jury Report entitled, "Home Garden Community Service District." For the reasons set forth below in the District's responses to each of the Grand Jury's findings and

Recommendations 30