Stanislaus County Grand Jury
2002-2003
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
12 findings
F1:
The California Revenue and Taxation Code 5362 requires counties to assess all aircraft “habitually situated” in their county.
F2:
The California Revenue and Taxation Code 5362 requires the airports to provide their county Assessors with names of owners and operators of aircraft that use the site as a “base of operations.”
F3:
One multiple-engine aircraft grounded at Oakdale Airport for at least one year because of an inoperative engine was not reported to or assessed by the county.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
That the Stanislaus County Tax Assessor develop a plan to aggressively identify and stop tax losses at all airports in Stanislaus County.
F4:
The Stanislaus County Assessor depends almost entirely upon the City of Oakdale’s annual report for determining which aircraft are habitually located at that site.
F5:
The Stanislaus County Assessor depends almost entirely upon the City of Oakdale’s report for determining which aircraft use the Oakdale site as a “base of operations.”
F6:
The County Assessor does not have a clear definition for “habitually situated.”
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
That the Stanislaus County Assessor provide an objective written definition for determining when an aircraft is “habitually located” in the county.
F7:
The County Assessor does not have a clear definition of “base of operations.”
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
That the Stanislaus County Assessor develop a written definition for “base of operations” that is objective and can be understood by any interested party for determining which aircraft in the county will be assessed.
F8:
The Oakdale Airport has no legal requirement to document how much time any tenant’s aircraft spends at the airfield.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
That the Stanislaus County Tax Assessor develop a plan to aggressively identify and stop tax losses at all airports in Stanislaus County.
F9:
Tenants at Oakdale Airport are not required to keep a log of how long their aircraft spend at this site.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
That the Stanislaus County Tax Assessor develop a plan to aggressively identify and stop tax losses at all airports in Stanislaus County.
F10:
Rent revenue far exceeds tax revenue as a source of income for the airport.
F11:
Oakdale City Airport personnel were very helpful and cooperative, providing answers to all questions.
F12:
The Stanislaus County Assessor’s Office provided all information requested in a timely and helpful manner. CONCLUSIONS
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The Turlock High School Board sought advice from their private legal counsel, and found no cause to recuse themselves from voting on matters of placing unification on public ballot.
F2:
California Government Code 1090 prohibits a public official from any financial interests in any contract or sale while in their official capacities.
F3:
The purpose of California Government Code1090 is to make certain that every public officer be guided solely by the public interest rather than by a personal interest.
F4:
Voting and placing unification on public ballots does not, in and of itself, provide any immediate or direct financial gain to anyone.
F5:
Should unification be voted, current high school and elementary boards will be dissolved, requiring public vote to select a new unified school board of trustees. No current Board member would be guaranteed a seat on a new, unified Board. CONCLUSIONS We have determined that was no conflict of interest.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
39 findings
F1:
On October 17, 1995, the Beltran property appraisal was submitted to the Stanislaus County Public Works Department
F2:
On January 23, 1996, the Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors approved the Siting Element, which is required by California law and which provides for a minimum of 15 year capacity.
F3:
On May 25, 1999, the Board of Supervisors’ Action Agenda Summary used the 1995 Siting Element as justification for the purchase of the Vogel property.
F4:
The only property identified in the Siting Element was the original Beltran property -- 354 acres – and not the 2100 acre Vogel property.
F5:
The Siting Element adopted by the county in 1995 allowed the county to expand the landfill by approximately 350 acres.
F6:
In the Siting Element adopted in 1995, the county “tentatively reserved” 300 acres for landfill expansion.
F7:
On April 25, 1996, the Vogel property owner offered to sell to county 394 acres at $2,800 per acre.
F8:
On July 15, 1996, the Vogel property owner offered to sell to county the 394 acres at a price in the range of $900-$2,800 per acre.
F9:
No further records regarding Vogel-County negotiations for the 394 acres were found or obtained subsequent to the July 15, 1996, memorandum.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
“Contracts for Services” between Stanislaus County and consultants should be reviewed and monitored by the Board of Supervisors.
F10:
On February 11, 1997, the Beltran property purchase of 354 acres for $381,000 was approved by the Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors.
F11:
On May 29, 1997, the Beltran Environmental Impact Report included an 83 acre footprint to handle 12 million cubic yards of waste. The capacity of this 83 acres would be reached in year 2076 based upon use projections.
F12:
On August 10, 1998, the county consultant’s contractual duties consisted of valuation and the potential privatization of the landfill and the importation of waste from other counties to Stanislaus County.
F13:
On January 11, 1999, the county consultant submitted to county CEO a report regarding the privatization and valuation of the landfill.
F14:
On March 16, 1999, the Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors authorized the Stanislaus County CEO to negotiate purchase of 2100 acres of Vogel property for expansion of the landfill.
F15:
On May 25, 1999, the Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors authorized purchase of 2100 acres of Vogel property at a cost of $14,000,000. This price is approximately $6,600 per acre.
F16:
The county and the taxpayers have lost the use of and interest income on the $14 million.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
The Board of Supervisors should sell the excess land to reimburse the landfill enterprise funds enabling interest to resume and property tax revenue to be restored to the county. 6
F17:
The county and the taxpayers have lost the property tax revenue on said land.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
The Board of Supervisors should sell the excess land to reimburse the landfill enterprise funds enabling interest to resume and property tax revenue to be restored to the county. 6
F18:
On July 25, 1999, the county consultant’s compensation was increased and contract extended.
F19:
In May 2000, county consultant provides Stanislaus County staff a draft letter of intent with Norcal Waste Systems to include medical waste.
F20:
On January 30, 2001, the County Board of Supervisors voted to pursue the county consultant’s proposal for importation of waste from other counties to Stanislaus County 4
F21:
On October 8, 2002, the Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors voted to revise the Environmental Impact Report to accommodate a smaller site.
F22:
CEO Special Project funds were expended to evaluate the concept of expanding and selling the landfill to a private company prior to the Vogel property purchase.
F23:
CEO Special Project funds were expended also to study importation of medical waste and garbage from other communities.
F24:
No county official, elected or hired, publicized the concept of privatization prior to or subsequent to the Vogel property purchase.
Related Recommendations (2)
R6:
The county should expand public notices regarding meetings and agendas by publishing in county newspapers.
R7:
Language used in public notices should be clear enough for the general public to understand and know about the issues pending before the County Board of Supervisors.
F25:
No county official, elected or hired, publicized the concept of medical waste and garbage from other communities prior to the Vogel purchase.
Related Recommendations (2)
R6:
The county should expand public notices regarding meetings and agendas by publishing in county newspapers.
R7:
Language used in public notices should be clear enough for the general public to understand and know about the issues pending before the County Board of Supervisors.
F26:
On December 9, 2002, prior to obtaining approval of the nine incorporated cities of Stanislaus County, the Five Year CIWMP final report was sent to the California Integrated Waste Management Board with an incorrect map.
F27:
One supervisor testified to the Civil Grand Jury that he knew of the CEO’s possible plans for the landfill and another supervisor testified he did not know.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
The Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors should thoroughly investigate and question all agenda items before voting on them.
R3:
The Board of Supervisors should closely monitor the activities of their committees, the CEO and his staff.
F28:
The California Government Code says the Board of Supervisors can establish enterprise funds. Activities which may be accounted for in enterprise funds are designated in regulations adopted by the State Controller and printed in Accounting Standards and Procedures for Counties.
F29:
Enterprise funds are intended to finance current operations, repay long-term liabilities and meet capital outlay requirements. Neither a deficit nor a gain in an enterprise fund should become large.
F30:
The County Auditor/Controller has fiduciary responsibility over all county expenditures including enterprise funds.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
The County Auditor/Controller should exercise his fiduciary responsibilities for all county expenditures including enterprise funds.
F31:
Wrongful expenditures of public funds can lead to personal liability against the Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors, the county CEO and the county Auditor/Controller.
Related Recommendations (4)
R4:
The Board of Supervisors should develop a policy that acknowledges the seriousness of ethics violations and provides redress.
R5:
The Board of Supervisors should develop a policy that requires all county personnel to receive annual ethics and conflict of interest training.
R8:
Public officials should understand that expenditure of public money should be treated seriously.
R9:
The County Auditor/Controller should exercise his fiduciary responsibilities for all county expenditures including enterprise funds.
F32:
The county consultant testified that the WTE plant will last 40-50 years.
F33:
One supervisor testified to the Civil Grand Jury that the expenditure of $14 million was not significant considering the “$980 million” county budget. CONCLUSIONS
F34:
Letter from Stanislaus County Public Works to SCS Engineers with purchase order and agreement to complete the revisions to the Initial Study for the Soil Transfer Project at Fink Road Landfill.
F35:
Records from the City of Modesto Solid Waste Department.
F36:
State of California Accounting Standards and Procedures for Counties, Chapter 13.
F37:
California Government Codes 25252, 25261 and 30200.
F38:
Memo dated July 15, 1996, between senior county civil engineer and Vogel property owner.
F39:
A draft letter of intent from Norcal Waste Systems to the City of Modesto. FINDINGS 1. On October 17, 1995, the Beltran property appraisal was submitted to the Stanislaus County Public Works Department 2. On January 23, 1996, the Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors approved the Siting Element, which is required by California law and which provides for a minimum of 15 year capacity.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The internal audit presented to the Board of Supervisors on October 8, 2002, listed mostly clerical problems at the department level. Staff reported to the Board that for the reporting year there had been an estimated saving of $518,207 in county processing costs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Auditor Controller establish a system for oversight of revenue collection where other entities are billed for Capital Projects. II. PURCHASE CARD PROGRAM PROCEDURES FOLLOWED
F2:
Five employees currently have a monthly credit limit of $50,000 each. Forty-six employees have limits between $5,000 and $50,000. No formal documentation is required to increase credit limits.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Grand Jury also reviewed the credit or purchase card policies of the selected cities and districts.
F3:
The County’s monthly liability for Purchase Card Debt is limited to $1,400,000.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Grand Jury interviewed the Auditor-Controller following his release of the draft audit for the current year.
F4:
The County Purchasing Agent is responsible for and charged with purchasing quality commodities at the best cost. The purchasing agent negotiates discounts with local vendors and is cognizant of the county’s purchasing needs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Board of Supervisors review and update the Purchase Card Policy by June 30, 2004. III. SELECTED CITIES AND DISTRICTS PROCEDURES FOLLOWED The Grand Jury requested certain specific financial information, including but not limited to outside audit reports, purchasing policies, travel policies, investment policies, computer security as well as security for other assets.
F5:
The County Auditor-Controller is charged with the authority and responsibility of overseeing the County’s finances as an independent elected official. CONCLUSIONS
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
12 findings
F1:
Maintenance issues are reported to and handled by Stanislaus County Public Works. 1
F2:
A secure tunnel runs from the basement of the jail to the basement of the Stanislaus County Superior Court building, which houses a holding cell. Inmates scheduled for a court appearance are transferred through this tunnel. Inmates are held in the holding cell until called into the courtroom.
F3:
The Men's Jail is an aged building requiring continual repairs to maintain safety.
F4:
Inmates have use of televisions.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Use existing televisions for educational purposes on a regular basis.
F5:
Public Health Department does some health training.
F6:
There is a secure staffed infirmary on site. A two-bed cell is used for crisis cases, but housed the same inmate for more than one and a half years. CONCLUSIONS
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Limit two-bed infirmary to acute care.
F7:
Kitchen jobs are assigned without considering ergonomic rotation. CONCLUSIONS
F8:
Every juvenile receives a medical examination within 48 hours of booking. This exceeds the state requirement of examination within 72 hours. A thorough physical is completed once a year.
F9:
Every minor admitted to Juvenile Hall is also given a mental health evaluation for the purpose of identifying suicide risks.
F10:
Nutrition and physical exercise are part of the daily routine.
F11:
Booking, fingerprinting, interview room and clerical staff presently are located in one large, open area.
F12:
An expansion of the facility was in progress. CONCLUSIONS
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R2:
Provide regularly scheduled ongoing training including classes on prevention of sexually transmitted diseases, drug and alcohol addiction, anger management and job seeking skills.
R4:
Investigate the need for a chronic care facility. Stanislaus County Correctional Facilities Inspection Grand Jury Case No. 03-25-AP 2002-2003 REASON FOR INVESTIGATION As mandated by Penal Code Section 919 (b), “The Grand Jury shall inquire into the condition and management of the public prisons within the county.”
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
14 findings
F1:
Prior to April 28, 2003, the city of Hughson had no written credit card policy.
F2:
On April 28, 2003, the Hughson City Council adopted Resolution No. 03-17, which established basic policies and procedures for using city credit cards.
F3:
The following have access to city credit cards: Mayor, City Manager, Public Works Director, Special Projects Director/worker, and City Clerk.
F4:
Prior to April 28, 2003, the mayor used a city credit card for personal use.
Related Recommendations (3)
R2:
A complete audit should be conducted of all credit card use for the period prior to April 28, 2003, with a reasonable period to include at least twelve months prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 03-17.
R4:
Any personal use of credit cards identified in the audit be reimbursed to the city immediately.
R5:
Any misuse should be addressed by the city council and all appropriate action be taken.
F5:
When the mayor used a city credit card for personal needs the city was not reimbursed.
Related Recommendations (4)
R2:
A complete audit should be conducted of all credit card use for the period prior to April 28, 2003, with a reasonable period to include at least twelve months prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 03-17.
R3:
The mayor reimburse the city for all personal credit card use.
R4:
Any personal use of credit cards identified in the audit be reimbursed to the city immediately.
R5:
Any misuse should be addressed by the city council and all appropriate action be taken.
F6:
The city credit card ordinance, adopted April 28, 2003, provides that personal use is prohibited.
F7:
The city has no written policy on personal use of city cellular phones.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The City of Hughson should enact a written policy for city cellular phone use. B. Use of city employee and funds for work on private property.
F8:
From December 2001 through May 2003, the mayor used a city cellular phone for personal calls.
F9:
The mayor’s calls regularly exceeded the standard monthly charge and he reimbursed the city.
F10:
The city’s purchasing policy since 1984, City Ordinance No. 84-03, was replaced in 2002 by City Ordinance No. 02-01.
F11:
During the last two years, not all receipts were turned in to substantiate business use of city credit cards.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Hughson City Ordinance No. 03-17 should be amended to include a provision for review of credit card use by the city manager.
F12:
Invoices, receipts, and credit card statements are reviewed by the city manager or his designee before being submitted to the city council for review and approval, and before being paid by the city clerk, or her designee.
F13:
The city council receives all documents provided by credit card users before the city council meetings in which these payments are approved.
F14:
All credit card purchases are not documented and/or verified as city expenses. CONCLUSIONS
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
The first was the financial factor dominated by the assumption of losses.
F2:
Other factors were: St. Joseph’s commitment for enhancement of the clinic system; a significantly easier and less costly transition from an acute to 1 ambulatory system; retention of 450 employees in the short term; and the culture of St. Joseph’s as expressed in their presentations.” Findings: On 1/28/97, County Board of Supervisors on a motion by Supervisor Simon and seconded by Supervisor Blom voted 3 to 2 to authorize exclusive negotiations with Tenet Health Systems. All of the nine Negotiating Committee members had voted for St. Joseph’s instead of Tenet. Health Services enterprise fund losses from 1998 through 2002 totaled $26,100,000. A loss of $3,700,000 is forecasted for 02/03. Therefore, since signing a 20-year contract with Tenet, the County Health Services Agency will have absorbed $29,800,000 of losses through June 30,2003. Tenet did make a one-time payment of $12,000,000 for clinic operation that has not been used to reduce the $29,800,000 loss. H.S.A. expects to breakeven for the ’03-’04 year and return to $7-$9 million dollar losses in the next two years. CONCLUSIONS Following the Negotiating Committee’s recommendations of 1/27/97 could have significantly reduced the $29,800,000 loss as St. Joseph’s agreement would have covered any losses from operations for 12 years.