Madera County Grand Jury

Recommendations 12

• R1
  The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors close Station #15 and transfer or sell all equipment and property. Madera County Fire Station # 15 Raymond is located at 32604 Road 600 in Raymond, CA. It was a CAL FIRE station and was sold to the County several years ago. CAL FIRE's newer Raymond Fire Station is located at 34951 Road 606, approximately one mile away. The community of Raymond is located several miles into the State Responsibility Area (SRA), where CAL FIRE has wildland fire protection responsibility. However, even in the SRA the County has structure fire protection responsibility so County apparatus are necessary. While the current Madera County Fire Station # 15 Raymond is run down and in need of repair, it is still an integral part of Madera County's fire protection response system. The removal of this station and the apparatus from the County's fire protection response system will increase response times to the community of Raymond. The next closest County fire station is approximately 15 miles away. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not reasonable. The station will be repaired as funds become available. Page2 July 6, 2011 Honorable Mitchell C. Rigby Presiding Judge Madera County Superior Court 209 West Yosemite Avenue Madera, Ca 93637 Lawrence A Haugen Madera County Grand Jury PO Box 534 ~. .1. adera, Ca 93639 RE: Response to Grand Jury Report on City of Madera Community Development Department Gentlemen, The City of Madera City Council has reviewed the 2010-2011 Madera County Grand Jury report entitled "Community Development Department." A response to this report from the City Council has been required by the Grand Jury. After reviewing the report, the Council found that it had no objection to the findings outlined in the Grand Jury Report. With regard to the Grand Jury's recommendations, the City's response is as follows: Recommendation: Street maintenance and repair should be made a high priority when funding becomes available. If casino-related revenue is received, the fund designated for roads should be utilized expeditiously. City Response: The City agrees to implement this recommendation. The City will prioritize street maintenance and repair as funding becomes available, and will participate in expeditious programming of casino-related revenue to the extent such funding may fall within the City's purview. Recommendation: City administrative staff and the management staff of the Community Development Department should be recognized for their commitment to Madera residents. City Response: This recommendation has been implemented. City staff has been recognized by the City Council for their commitment to Madera residents through comments made to staff during the budgeting development and approval process. Thank you for the opportunity to provide a response to the 2010-2011 Grand Jury Report. ZtrH9r-L Robert L. Poythress, Mayor 205 W. Fourth Street • Madera, CA 93637 • TEL (559) 661-5400 • (559) 674-2972 www.cityofmadera.org VAllEY CENTRAl October 5, 2011 Mr. Lawrence A. Haugen, Foreman Madera County Grand Jury P.O. Box 534 Madera, Ca 93639 Dear Mr. Haugen: The Purpose of this letter is to respond to your recommendations relative to the Madera Redevelopment Agency. 1. a. Agree with finding. b. In August 2011, the unemployment rate for the City of Madera was 20.2%: This has created a certain amount of stress on the City/County agencies that provide programs for the economically disadvantaged. 2. a. Agree with finding. b. Since 1993, the Redevelopment Agency has acquired 205 parcels. Most required the removal of hazardous materials (asbestos) and the demolition of substandard structures. Many of the parcels have been redeveloped with affordable housing, community facilities or retail/commercial projects. 3. a. Agree with finding. b. In 1993, the Redevelopment Agency created a revolving loan fund to encourage the development of affordable housing in the Project Area. The loan program was originally funded with $590,000.00, in tax increment and to date $11,556,221.45 in loans and interest has been repaid. 4. a. Agree with finding. b. Originally funded with redevelopment tax increment, the Down Payment Assistance program is administered by the City and funded primarily with HOME funds. 5. a. Agree with finding. b. The Neighborhood Stabilization Program was imp:emented by the City's Grants Department. The Foreclosure Ordinance is implemented by the Neighborhood Revitalization Program. To date, $80,008.00 in registration fees and $148,467.67 in fines have been collected. There are currently 302 registered foreclosures. 6. a. Agree with finding. b. The 2010/2011 Neighborhood Revitalization activity report was as follows: (1) Abandoned Vehicles- 887 (2) Public Nuisance-729 (3) Zoning-505 (4) Foreclosed Properties-412 (5) Substandard Housing -102 (6) Recreational Vehicles- 68 (7) Uniformed Building Code -17 (8) Demolitions-6 The property owners voluntarily complied in an overwhelming majority of the cases. W. Fourth Street • Madera, CA 93637 • TEL (559) 661-5400 • FAX (559) 674-2P9a7g2e 154 of 180 www. madera.ca-gov Page2 October 5, 2011 7. a. Agree with finding. b. Through the acquisition/demolition of substandard buildings and under-utilized parcels, the Agency is currently monitoring 219 single family owner-occupied units. All of the units are occupied by persons or families in the targeted income range. 8. a. Agree with finding. b. The Agency has two (2} programs aimed at preserving older housing stock. The Targeted Single Family Rehabilitation Program is focused on the older Victorian style homes in "Central Madera." Five (5) homes have been completed. The Exterior Home Improvement Grant program is a citywide program. To date, 71 projects have been completed. 9. a. Agree with finding. b. The Redevelopment Agency has spent $15.5 million to address infrastructure deficiencies around Project Area schools. Typically, this includes the construction of curb, gutter, sidewalks, handicapped ramps and the installation of streetlights. Projects have been completed at: (1) Martin Luther King Middle School (2) Sierra Vista Elementary School (3) Millview Elementary School (4} Washington Elementary School (5} James Monroe Elementary School 10. a. Agree with finding. b. Since its creation in 1991, the Redevelopment Agency has funded a wide variety of City projects. The most visible are the John Wells Community Center, new police facility and Skate Park. Less visible are the street widening, neighborhood improvement and handicapped ramp installation programs. 11. a. Agree with finding. b. In June 2011, Governor Brown signed ABx1 26 and 27. ABx126 effectively dissolves redevelopment in the State of California. ABxl 27 establishes the "Voluntary Alternative Redevelopment Program (VARPt which allows redevelopment to continue to exist as long as substantial financial resources are transferred to the State. The City Council has voted to comply with the conditions of the voluntary program although the League of California Cities and California Redevelopment Association have filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionally of the legislation. The suit is pending before the California Supreme Court. 12. a. Agree w!th finding. b. At the time of the Grand Jury Report, the Agency had taken action to transfer title on 5 East Yosemite/120 North 'E' Street and 428 East Yosemite from the Agency to the City. This action has since been rescinded and the Agency has retained title to all three (3) properties. Recommendations: 1. The Grand Jury recommends that the City Council continue to support the retention of redevelopment agencies. The City Council has been extremely active in lobbying to reject the governor's proposal to eliminate redevelopment. Meetings have been held with Senators Cannella and Berryhill, and with Assembly Members Halderman and Olson. Their district staff members have been given individual tours of the Project Area. Additionally, contact has been made with Agency vendors (civil engineers, architects and contractors). In addition to opposing the governor's proposal, we have sent letters of support for SB450 (Lowenthal) and SB286 (Wright). Both bills propose significant reforms related to redevelopment housing expenditures, reporting, blight findings and restrictions on administrative expenses. The bills would not significantly impact the programs, projects or administrative record keeping of the Madera Redevelopment Agency. October 5, 2011 2. The Grand Jury recommends that the City Council seek alternative funding to eliminate blight and address infrastructure deficiencies in Madera. Through the City's Grants Department, Madera has been extremely aggressive and relatively successful in applying for state and federal grants. Annually, we have received Community Development Block Grant, HOME, COPS, and several grants dealing with waste tires. The grants have provided the opportunity to fund a number of programs and projects; however, they do not replace a stable funding source (i.e. redevelopment) in a,ddressing blight and infrastructure deficiencies. In November 2010, 5.7 million voters (60.7%) supported Proposition 22 to stop the state from taking local government funds, including redevelopment, to balance the state budget. Obviously, the will of the voters is meaningless unless it comes to raising taxes. In conclusion, on behalf of the City Council, I would like to thank the 2010/2011 Grand Jury for taking the time to study and evaluate the Redevelopment Agency and the impact it has on the City of Madera and its residents. Sincerely, /J~A~ Robert L. Poythress, Mayor City of Madera ....-.. East Yosemite Avenue 1"' ~ Madera M.dera, California. 93638 it i ll P edeve-opmen c Phone: (559) 661-5110 -~- ao-e "'"'~/- - -~ f-ax: (559) 674-7018 June 8, 2011 Mr. Lawrence A Haugen, Foreman Madera County Grand Jury P.O. Box 534 Madera, CA 93639 Dear Mr. Haugen: The purpose of this letter is to respond to your recommendations relative to the· Madera Redevelopment Agency. 1. The Grand Jury recommends that the City Council continue to support the retention of redevelopment agencies. The Agency Board/City Council has been extremely active in lobbying to reject the governor's proposal to eliminate redevelopment. Meetings have been held with Senators Cannella and Berryhill, and with Assemblymembers Halderman and Olson. Their district staff members have been given individual tours of the Project Area. A sampling of letters and petitions of support are attached. Additionally, contact has been made with Agency vendors (civil engineers, architects and contractors). In addition to opposing the governor's proposal, we have sent letters of support for SB450 (Lowenthal) and SB286 (Wright). Both bills propose significant reforms related to redevelopment housing expenditures, reporting, blight findings and restrictions on administrative expenses. The bills would not significantly impact the programs, projects or administrative recordkeeping of the Madera Redevelopment Agency. 2. The Grand Jury recommends that the City Council seek alternative funding to eliminate blight and address infrastructure deficiencies in Madera. Through the City's Grants Department, Madera has been extremely aggressive and relatively successful in applying for state and federal grants. Annually, we have received Community Development Block Grant, HOME, COPS, and several grants dealing with waste tires. The grants have provided the opportunity to fund a number of programs and projects; however, they do not replace a stable funding source (i.e. redevelopment) in addressing blight and infrastructure deficiencies. In November 2010, 5. 7 million voters (60.7%) supported Proposition 22 to stop the state from taking local government funds, including redevelopment, to balance the state budget. Obviously, the will of the voters is meaningless unless it comes to raising taxes. In conclusion, on behalf of the Agency Board/City Council, I would like to thank the 2010/2011 Grand Jury for taking the time to study and evaluate redevelopment and the impact we have on the City of Madera and its residents. Sincerely, t=-L1 ~<>.A c, James E. Taubert, Executive Director Madera Redevelopment Agency JET:sb State of California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation M emorandum HECEIVEC Date: ,JURY DIV!SION To: Debra Herndon SUPERV/SOH Associate Director Female Offender Programs and Services . ·-- _, ..... -. ·-· - ... Subject: MADERA COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT On March, 10, 2011, the Madera County Grand Jury visited Valley State Prison for Women (VSPW), to inquire into the condition and management of the public prisons within their respective county. Upon review of the final report generated by the Grand Jury lt was conC:Iuded that there were several issues that could cause an undesired effect on the health and safety of the inmates incarcerated at VSPW. The Grand Jury also listed recommendations to these issues that would remedy these conditions. 1. The Grand Jury concluded that prolonged exposure to the high noise level in the Central Kitchen Area may contribute to health issues. • The Grand Jury recommends that the noise levels in the Central Kitchen area be evaluated for possible safety hazards. On June 1, 2011, VSPW, Business Services Division conducted a sound test within the Central Kitchen area. The test was completed to determine if the decibel levels are hazardous for staff and inmates. Upon conclusion of the test it was determined that the decibel levels in the Central Kitchen Scullery area exceed the criterion decibel level which wilr require hearring protection as outlined by the Division of Occupational Safety and Health. VSPW has purchased and provided hearing protection for all staff and inmates assigned to the Central Kitchen Scullery area. 2. The Grand Jury concluded that dispensing generic medications whenever possible could result in significant annual savings. • The Grand Jury recommends that generic medications be dispensed whenever possible. All medications that are prescribed by our physicians are filled with generic medications when these forms are available. There are some instances when a patient may be prescribed a brand name medication when there is no generic available. This is seen predominantly in Mental Health patients, and as well in some hyperlipidemia, asthma, and oncology patients. Our assessment of brand name use corresponds directly with state-wide formulary approved items in greater than 90% compliance with these items. Clinically indicated medication assessments have been provided by our medical doctors to justify when these items, which do not have a generic available, are needed for patient health and safety. Overall, our pharmacy dispenses upwards of 90% generic medication daily to our patients, and we are using 95% formulary approved medications. 3. The Grand Jury concluded that special treatment of inmates in Housing Units 01 and 03 may not follow requirements for fair and impartial treatment. Debra Herndon, Associate Director Madera County Grand Jury Final Report . • The Grand Jury recommends that VSPW Administration evaluate whether the facility is in compliance with the requirements for fair and impartial treatment of inmates. Within the findings of the Grand Jury Final Report it is alleged that inmates housed in Facility D, Housing Unit 03 are allowed to choose their own roommates, eat and shop in canteen before other inmates. This information is inaccurate. The inmates assigned to Housing Unit 03 report to the Facility Dining Hall in an order established by the Facility D Custody Staff in which the current order for Housing Unit 03 is second with a total of four housing units. The inmates assigned to Housing Unit D3 shop canteen in order accordance with the Facility D Canteen schedule. This schedule has been in use since January 2010 to the present day. The schedule is as follows: Housing Unit 01 Housing Unit 02 Housing Unit 03 Housing Unit 04 Housing Units 03 and D4 rotate each calendar month thus changing the rotation for the 3rd and 41 h position six times per year. · Inmates assigned to the Facility 0, Housing Unit D1 (Honor Dorm), are afforded special privileges that are not provided to general population at VSPW. However, this housing unit is accessible for all inmates who meet the criteria established in VSPW, Operational Procedure #1 0223, Inmate Lighthouse, which are enumerated below; · 1. Minimum of two consecutive years in CDCR. 2. Must be Work Group/Privilege Group A1/A. 3. Minimum of two years left to serve on remainder of sentence. 4. Minimum of two years with no serious Rules Violation Reports. 5. Minimum of five years with no Serious Rules Violation Reports, if the inmate has been found guilty of an "A" or "B" offense or has had a SHU Term imposed. 6. Any inmate who has been housed in the Lighthouse and been removed from the Lighthouse due to disciplinary issues, failure to maintain Lighthouse resident standards or at their own request may re-apply. Re-housing in the Lighthouse will be on a case by case basis only. The criteria established within this procedure were designed as an incentive for inmates to exhibit behavioral and social standards that are above reproach. Inmates are required to maintain an exemplary work ethic, remain discipiinary free, submit to random drug testing, abstain from restricted sexual behavior and abstain from all alcohol or tobacco, or any controlled or restricted substance. If you have any questions, please contact me at (559) 665-6100, extension 5503. ~ Warden (A) Valley State Prison for Women cc: Associate Warden, Housing and Central Services Associate Warden, ADA GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 2010-2011 CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN VALLEY STATE PRISON FOR WOMEN May 24, 2011 COMPLETION ITEM RECOMMENDATION/DESCRIPTION STAFF RESPONSIBLE CORRECTIVE ACTION DATE This information is not accurate. The inmates It is alleged that D-3 Inmates are allowed to choose assigned to Housing Unit D-3 do not eat or shop in 1 their own roommates, eat and shop in Canteen Housing Division N/A Canteen first. They also are not allowed to pick their before other inmates. own roommates. - No action required Inmates assigned to the Honor Dorm (Housing Unit 0-1) are afforded special privileges. However, this It is alleged that inmates in D-1 receive special 2 Housing Division housing unit is open to all inmates who meet the N/A privileges not afforded_to other inmates. criteria, and is an incentive for better behavior. - No action required - Business Services had a sound test conducted on June 1, 2011, to see if the decibel levels are hazardous for staff and inmates. It has been It is alleged that the noise level in the Central Kitchen determined that the decibel levels in the scullery 3 Business Services July 15,201.1 is too loud. area will require hearing protection as outlined by CAL-OSHA. Hearing protection will be ordered and provided for all staff and inmates assigned to that area of the Central Kitchen A review of medications dispensed reveals that It is alleged that the Use of generic medication could overall the pharmacy dispenses upward of 90% 4 Health CarE? Services N/A result in significant annual savings. generic medications daily to the patients and 95% Formulary Approved medications. Co(/r!v W. MILLER Date Warden (A) MADERA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT_ ___ _, September 27, 2007 1902 Howard Road Madera, CA 93637 (559) 675-4500 / Fax: (559) 675-1186 ,/ Presiding Judge www.madera.k12.ca.us Madera County Superior Court Gustavo Balderas 209 West Yosemite Avenue Superintendent Madeia, CA 93637 Jake Bragonler Public Information Officer bragonier [email protected] 12.ca.us Madera County Grand Jury P.O. Box 534 Board of Trustees: Robert E. Garibay, President Madera, CA 93639 Ricardo Arredondo. Clerk Lynn Cogdill, Truste~ Jose Rodriguez, Trustee RE: 2010-2011 Madera County Grand Jury report Michael Salvador, Trustee Ray G. Seibert Trustee Madera High School Maria Velarde-Garcia, Trustee The Trustees of Madera Unified School District have reviewed the Grand Jury's report submitted in May 2011 and are in agreement with the findings contained therein. Best regards, ") / . ,.../- ~ ;-r) . , / . \(.<"'t.x ...._ \ .. (.,__ ,_~c, ~1 Robert E. Garibay President of the Board of Trustees Where the futures of children are driven by their aspirations, not bound by their circumstances. MADERA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT~-----..~ October 11, 2011 Presiding Judge J!Jr~ ~·· 1 y' ' , ..'·.. ...... ,. Madera County Superior Court wC' J-~':JFr• " 1,/ f ! J \ . ~. .. . r- 1 ·: ; - 1902 Howard Road 209 West Yosemite Avenue Madera, CA 93637 (559) 675-4500 Madera, CA 93637 Fax: (559) 675-1186 www.madera.k12.ca.us Madera County Grand Jury Gustavo Balderas P.O. Box 534 Superintendent Madera, CA 93639 Jake Bragonier Public Information Officer [email protected] RE: 2010-2011 Madera County Grand Jury Report Board of Trustees: Madera High School Robert E. Garibay, President Ricardo Arredondo, Clerk Lynn Cogdill, Trustee Following is Madera Unified School District Trustees amended response to the Jose Rodriguez, Trustee 2010-2011 Madera County Grand Jury report: Madera High School. A copy of Michael Salvador, Trustee Ray G. Seibert, Trustee the Grand Jury report with numbered Findings and Recommendations is Maria Velarde-Garcia, Trustee enclosed for reference. RESPONSE TO FINDINGS Fl: The respondent agrees with the finding
• R2
  The respondent agrees with the recommendation and Madera High School continually strives to improve its graduation rate. On behalf of the Madera Unified School District Trustees, thank you for your hard work and dedication. Sincerely, Robert E. Garibay President of the Board of Trustees BOARD OF SUPER\'ISORS MEMBERS OF THE BOARD COUNTY OF MADERA FRANK BIGELOW DAVID ROGERS MADERA COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER RONN DOMINICI 200 WEST.FOURTH STREET I MADERA. CALIFORNIA 93637 MAX RODRIGUEZ (559) 675-7700 I FAX (559) 673-3302 I TDD (559) 675-8970 TOM WHEELER T ANNA G. BOYD. Chief Clerk of the Board July 20, 2011 Honorable Mitchell C. Rigby Presiding Judge Madera County Superior Court 209 West Yosemite Avenue Madera, CA 93637 Re: Response of the Madera County Board of Supervisors to the 2010-2011 Grand Jury Report on the "Citizen's Complaint Regarding District Attorney" Honorable Mitchell C. Rigby: In accordance with Penal Code section 933.05, the Madera County Board of Supervisors submits this response to the Madera County Grand Jury pertaining to matters over which it has control and additionally over matters where the Madera County Grand Jury has asserted that the Board has control.
• R3
  16% of the responses disagreed, and 2% partially disagreed with the findings.
• R4
  35% of the responses confirmed that the recommendations have been implemented, and 24% indicated they will be implemented.
• R5
  40% of the responses indicated that the recommendations were not warranted or not reasonable and would not be implemented. 1% needed additional time to study the recommendation.
• R6
  The Madera County Board of Supervisors declined to respond to 58% of the findings and 37% of the recommendations which pertained to matters under its control. Implementation of 2010-2011 Grand Jury recommendations:
• R7
  The Grand Jury recommended that the DA review and strengthen the control and release authority for confidential documents, especially those dealing with minors. The DA initiated a confidentiality and disclosure policy.
• R8
  The Grand Jury made numerous recommendations in regard to solid waste management and recycling. The current status of implementation of those recommendations is presented in the 2011-2012 Grand Jury Final Report: "Madera County Solid Waste Management and Recycling Revisited", contained in this publication. Evaluation of responses to the 2011-2012 Grand Jury Final Reports, received to date:
• R9
  a. Agree with finding. b. The Redevelopment Agency has spent $15.5 million to address infrastructure deficiencies around Project Area schools. Typically, this includes the construction of curb, gutter, sidewalks, handicapped ramps and the installation of streetlights. Projects have been completed at: (1) Martin Luther King Middle School (2) Sierra Vista Elementary School (3) Millview Elementary School (4} Washington Elementary School (5} James Monroe Elementary School
• R10
  a. Agree with finding. b. Since its creation in 1991, the Redevelopment Agency has funded a wide variety of City projects. The most visible are the John Wells Community Center, new police facility and Skate Park. Less visible are the street widening, neighborhood improvement and handicapped ramp installation programs.
• R11
  a. Agree with finding. b. In June 2011, Governor Brown signed ABx1 26 and 27. ABx126 effectively dissolves redevelopment in the State of California. ABxl 27 establishes the "Voluntary Alternative Redevelopment Program (VARPt which allows redevelopment to continue to exist as long as substantial financial resources are transferred to the State. The City Council has voted to comply with the conditions of the voluntary program although the League of California Cities and California Redevelopment Association have filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionally of the legislation. The suit is pending before the California Supreme Court.
• R12
  a. Agree w!th finding. b. At the time of the Grand Jury Report, the Agency had taken action to transfer title on 5 East Yosemite/120 North 'E' Street and 428 East Yosemite from the Agency to the City. This action has since been rescinded and the Agency has retained title to all three (3) properties. Recommendations: