Home
Kern County Grand Jury final report
To link to this object, paste this link in email, IM or document
To embed this object, paste this HTML in website
Kern County Grand Jury final report
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
|
|
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Inside Front Cover
Members of the 2005- 2006 Kern County Grand Jury
Photograph of 2005- 2006 Kern County Jury
Table of Contents
Presiding Judge for the Superior Court, Assistant Presiding Judge ( hard copy only). 1
Support Staff ( hard copy only) ................................................................................... 2
Grand Jury Officers................................................................................................. 3
Grand Jury Foreman, Pro Tem................................................................................ 4
Grand Jury Foreman’s Letter to Judge.................................................................... 5
Do you know what the Grand Jury does for your Community? ( hard copy only) ..... 7
Grand Jurors’ Oath.................................................................................................. 8
Grand Jury Formal Statement of Position............................................................... 9
Oversight Responsibilities of Grand Jury Committees......................................... 11
Organization and Committees Chart......................................................... 12
Administration and Audit
Mission Statement..................................................................................... 14
Committee Photograph ( hard copy only) ..................................................... 15
Kern County Assessor............................................................................... 16
Response ( Web site only)
Response – Board of Supervisors ( Web site only – added 8/ 30/ 06)
Kern County Recorder .............................................................................. 18
Response ( Web site only)
Response – Board of Supervisors ( Web site only – added 8/ 30/ 06)
Arvin Edison Water Storage District
Qualified Retirement Plan............................................................. 20
Response ( Web site only)
Cities and Joint Powers
Mission Statement..................................................................................... 25
Committee Photograph ( hard copy only) ..................................................... 26
City of Arvin ............................................................................................. 27
Response ( Web site only)
City of Bakersfield .................................................................................... 32
City of California City .............................................................................. 34
City of Delano........................................................................................... 37
City of Maricopa ....................................................................................... 39
Response ( will be on Web site only)
City of McFarland..................................................................................... 42
Response....................................................................................... 45
City of Ridgecrest ..................................................................................... 48
Response ( Web site only)
City of Shafter........................................................................................... 52
Response....................................................................................... 55
City of Taft................................................................................................ 56
Response....................................................................................... 60
City of Tehachapi...................................................................................... 62
City of Wasco............................................................................................ 66
Response....................................................................................... 70
Health, Education, and Social Services
Mission Statement..................................................................................... 73
Committee Photograph ( hard copy only) ..................................................... 74
Boron High School.................................................................................... 75
Department of Human Services
CalWORKS ( Web site only)
Response ( will be on Web site only)
Response – Board of Supervisors ( Web site only – added 8/ 30/ 06)
Desert High School ................................................................................... 78
Farm and Home Advisors ......................................................................... 81
Fruitvale Junior High School .................................................................... 84
Kern County Superintendent of Schools
Court Schools................................................................................ 86
South High School .................................................................................... 96
Response....................................................................................... 99
Law and Justice
Mission Statement................................................................................... 101
Committee Photograph ( hard copy only) ................................................... 102
Bakersfield Police Department ............................................................... 103
California City Correctional Center ........................................................ 109
California City Police Department.......................................................... 112
Camp Erwin Owen.................................................................................. 115
Response..................................................................................... 118
Kern County California Multi- Jurisdictional
Methamphetamine Enforcement Team ( CAL- MMET).......................... 120
Response..................................................................................... 122
Response – Board of Supervisors ( Web site only)
Kern County Sheriff’s Department Central Receiving Facility ( CRF)... 125
Response..................................................................................... 128
Response – Board of Supervisors ( Web site only)
Kern County Sheriff’s Department - Coroner Division.......................... 132
Response..................................................................................... 135
Response – Board of Supervisors ( Web site only)
Delano Police Department ...................................................................... 139
Response..................................................................................... 142
Kern County District Attorneys’ Office
Forensic Science Division ( Crime Lab).................................................. 144
Response..................................................................................... 147
Response – Board of Supervisors ( Web site only)
County of Kern, Frazier Park Sheriff’s Substation ................................. 150
Response..................................................................................... 153
Response – Board of Supervisors ( Web site only)
Golden State Medium Community Correctional Facility ....................... 158
Response ( Web site only – added 9/ 18/ 06)
Kern County Sheriff’s Department, Lerdo Jail Facilities ....................... 161
Response ( Web site only)
Response – Board of Supervisors ( Web site only – added 8/ 30/ 06)
Kern County Sheriff’s Department, McFarland Substation.................... 165
Response..................................................................................... 168
Response – Board of Supervisors ( Web site only)
McFarland Community Correctional Facility......................................... 172
Mesa Verde Community Correctional Facility....................................... 175
Response..................................................................................... 179
County of Kern Sheriff’s Department, Narcotic Division ...................... 181
Response..................................................................................... 184
Response – Board of Supervisors
North Kern State Prison .......................................................................... 187
Bakersfield Police Department, Narcotics Unit...................................... 190
Kern County Public Defender’s Office................................................... 192
Response – Board of Supervisors .............................................. 194
Larry J. Rhoades, Kern Crossroads Facility............................................ 195
Response..................................................................................... 197
Shafter Community Correctional Facility............................................... 199
Taft Community Correctional Facility.................................................... 201
Taft Correctional Institution.................................................................... 204
Taft Police Department ........................................................................... 207
Tehachapi California Correctional Institution ........................................ 210
Kern Valley State Prison......................................................................... 213
County of Kern Probation Department, Victim/ Witness Program ......... 216
Response..................................................................................... 218
Wasco State Prison Reception Center..................................................... 220
Special Districts
Mission Statement................................................................................... 224
Committee Photograph ( hard copy only) ................................................... 225
Cemetery Districts................................................................................... 226
Kern County Cemetery District # 1
Response ( Web site only – added 9/ 28/ 06)
Westside Cemetery District
Tehachapi Public Cemetery District
Response ( Web site only – added 9/ 28/ 06)
Kern River Valley Cemetery District
Response ( Web site only – added 9/ 28/ 06)
Community Service Districts .................................................................. 233
Stallion Springs Community Services
East Nile Community Services
Golden Hills Community Services
Tehachapi Valley Health Care District ................................................... 238
Response ( Web site only – added 8/ 2/ 06)
Water Districts ........................................................................................ 242
Response ( Web site only – added 8/ 16/ 06)
West Kern Water District
Tejon/ Castaic Water District
Wheeler Ridge/ Maricopa Water Storage District
Lamont Storm Water District
Arvin/ Edison Water Storage District
Operations
Continuity and Tracking Committee
Mission Statement................................................................................... 249
Committee Photograph ( hard copy only) ................................................... 250
Kern County Board of Supervisors......................................................... 251
Supervisorial District Map ( hard copy only).............................................. 253
Response ( hard copy only) ............................................................. 254
Response – Board of Supervisors
Tracking Summary.................................................................................. 256
Library Committee
Mission Statement................................................................................... 261
Public Relations
Mission Statement................................................................................... 263
Proclamation Letter ( hard copy only)......................................................... 264
Grand Jury Awareness Week Proclamation Certificate ( hard copy only).. 265
Photograph of Grand Jury Awareness and Recruitment
Window ( hard copy only) ........................................................................ 266
Photograph of Foreman, Publicity Chair ( hard copy only) ........................ 267
Ad- Hoc Committee
Committee Photograph ( hard copy only) ................................................... 269
Kern County Elections Division ............................................................. 270
Response..................................................................................... 272
Response – Board of Supervisors ( Web site only)
2005- 2006
Kern County Grand Jury
Also served: Raymond “ Bud” Cenis – Richard J. Oberholzer, Nominating Judge
Gerald R. Pelant – John I. Quinlen, Nominating Judge
Name Terms Served City Nominating Judge
Anderson R. Ross 2004- 2005, 2005- 2006 Bakersfield Robert Tafoya
Arnold, Fred W. 2004- 2005, 2005- 2006 Frazier Park Robert Tafoya
Aronson, Diana L. 2002- 2003, 2005- 2006 Tehachapi John I. Oglesby
Casper, Harold D. 2000- 2001, 2003- 2004,
2005- 2006
Bakersfield Arthur E. Wallace
Duffel, Patricia L. 2001- 2002, 2004- 2005,
2005- 2006
Bakersfield Charles P. McNutt
Fleming, Loretta M. 1996- 1997, 2002- 2003,
2005- 2006
Tehachapi John I. Oglesby
Gardiner, Robert J. 2005- 2006 Bakersfield Arthur E. Wallace
Haar, Richard L. 2005- 2006 Bakersfield Lee P. Felice
Hardy, Thomas H. 2001- 2002, 2002- 2003,
2005- 2006
Taft Lee P. Felice
Kline, Patrice S. 2001- 2002, 2002- 2003,
2004- 2005, 2005- 2006
Tehachapi Arthur E. Wallace
Miller, Lois C. 2005- 2006 Bakersfield Gary T. Friedman
Mooney, Margaret A. 2005- 2006 Bakersfield Gary T. Friedman
Mortimer, Raymond R. 1999- 2000, 2001- 2002,
2003- 2004, 2005- 2006
Taft Arthur E. Wallace
Rostad, Mary A. 2003- 2004, 2005- 2006 Bakersfield Lee P. Felice
Slater, Trudy 2005- 2006 Bakersfield Lee P. Felice
Sparks, Cherlyn G. 2005- 2006 Bakersfield Richard J. Oberholzer
Troxel, Gordon F. 2002- 2003, 2004- 2005,
2005- 2006
Delano Sidney P. Chase
Wells, Ethel V. 1995- 1996, 1999- 2000,
2004- 2005, 2005- 2006
Bakersfield Arthur E. Wallace
Williams, Richard D. 2005- 2006 Bakersfield Clarence Westra, Jr.
First Row: Trudy Slater, Cherlyn Sparks, Thomas Hardy, Patricia Duffel, Mary Rostad, Richard Haar,
Loretta Fleming, Margaret Mooney, Harold Casper, Fred Arnold, Gordon Troxel
Back Row: Raymond Mortimer, Lois Miller, Ethel Wells, R. Ross Anderson, Richard Williams,
Patrice Kline, Diana Aronson, Robert Gardiner
2005- 2006 Kern County Grand Jury
Officers
Ethel Wells R. Ross Anderson Richard Williams
Foreperson Pro Tem Foreman Sgt.- at- Arms
Robert Gardiner Patrice Kline Lois Miller
Parliamentarian Recording Secretary Asst. Sgt- at- Arms
2005- 2006 Kern County Grand Jury
R. Ross Anderson, Foreman
Ethel Wells, Foreperson Pro Tem
June 21, 2006
The Honorable Lee P. Felice
Presiding Judge
Kern County Superior Court
1415 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, California. 93301
Dear Judge Felice:
The one hundred and thirty- ninth session of the Kern County Grand Jury has now
been disempaneled and I am attaching our Final Report of investigations
completed by 2005- 2006 Grand Jury.
Nineteen people from all over Kern County have served on this Jury and I speak
for all of them in thanking you for the time you have devoted to the Grand Jury
during our term of office and also for the wisdom you displayed in the advice you
gave us.
We also wish to extend our thanks to Mr. Bernard C. Barmann, County Counsel
and Mr. Michael J. Yraceburn, Deputy District Attorney and their staff for the
invaluable advice given to us when required. In addition, the Jury received during
the year the benefit of various County, Cities and other agencies expertise in
running their enterprise.
To accomplish the compiling of the above mentioned report Jury members spent
an average of one thousand hours and traveled over one hundred thousand miles.
Among other things we inspected every County, State and Federal prison in the
County, visited all eleven incorporated cities, and monitored various Public
Agencies, Special Districts, and Non Profit Organizations. In addition in excess of
one hundred complaints were received from various parts of the County and
investigated or acknowledged.
Over the past few years the Grand Juries have visited Camp Erwin Owen and
reported their findings. In all cases recommendations were made to improve
conditions at the institution and this year’s Jury was no exception. However we
did find that one recommendation has been complied with, namely the updating
of the Mess Hall equipment. Still to be accomplished is the proposed trade of
land with the Bureau of Land Management and the expansion of the buildings.
The Jury extends its thanks to Sheriff Mack Wimbish for his willing provision of
transportation for the entire Jury to visit Edwards Air Force Base and the Dryden
Flight Research Station, and the Lerdo Correction Center. Sheriff Wimbish and
his staff members should be commended for their pleasantness and help.
Another highlight of this year’s work is that we have reached an agreement with
California State University Bakersfield where they will have two of the graduate
students in the Business and Public Administration School apply for membership
on every year’s Grand Jury. The applications will be made on the condition that
they must follow the same procedures as any other applicants. I understand that
they will receive credits for their Masters Degree should they be selected and
complete the term of the Grand Jury.
I greatly appreciate the confidence in choosing me as Foreman. It has been an
informative, interesting and rewarding year for me as Foreman. It has been a
privilege to work with such a diverse group of people.
Sincerely,
R. Ross Anderson, Foreman
2005- 2006 Kern County Grand Jury
GRAND JUROR’S OATH
The following oath is administered to Grand Jurors:
“ I do solemnly swear ( affirm) that I will support the Constitution
of the United States and of the State of California, and all laws
made pursuant to and in conformity therewith, will diligently
inquire into, and true presentment make, of all public offenses
against the people of this state, committed or triable within this
county, of which the grand jury shall have or can obtain legal
evidence. Further, I will not disclose any evidence brought before
the grand jury, nor anything which I or any other grand juror may
say, nor the manner in which I or any other grand juror may have
voted on any matter - before the grand jury. I will keep the charge
that will be given to me by the court.”
( Section 911, Penal Code, Amended June 2, 1983)
FORMAL STATEMENT OF POSITION
2005- 2006 KERN COUNTY GRAND JURY
Each year nineteen citizens of Kern County stand before the Presiding Judge of
the Superior Court and swear to uphold the Grand Juror’s Oath. The sworn
members will be active Grand Jurors for one year and will serve over 715,000
residents of Kern County.
All Grand Juries are an independent judicial body. Present day responsibilities
include investigating all aspects of County government, Special Districts, and the
cities in Kern County to ensure that these bodies are governed effectively. To
fulfill these responsibilities, the Grand Jury may supoena persons and/ or records
to obtain information on subjects under investigation. To protect the
Constitutional rights of the parties being investigated, the Grand Jury as a group
and as individuals are sworn to complete confidentiality. The Kern County Grand
Jury conducts criminal hearings that may result in indictments. The Jury may
issue accusations against public officials, if upheld by the courts and may result in
officials removal from office. Secrecy and confidentiality assure the protection
and privacy of everyone coming before the Grand Jury.
When the one year term is over the Grand Jury issues a Final Report to the
Presiding Judge. Portions of this document pertaining to investigative results
during the year have been previously released to encourage an action on urgent
matters. The reports include findings and recommendations of each Committee
and are available to the general public and the media and also on the Grand Jury
Website ( www. co. kern. ca. us/ grandjury)
Any action taken during the year is to be considered official Grand Jury business
and must be approved by at least twelve of nineteen Grand Jurors. The decision
will appear in the Grand Jury minutes as a vote taken, rejected or accepted. The
minutes are destroyed at the end of the Grand Jury’s tenure. Rejected matters are
no longer Grand Jury issues.
In some situations involving an issue that could not be completed within the year,
the Presiding Judge may hold over such issues to the next year if the previous
Grand Jury so requests.
The Grand Jury conducts business at a general meeting. Other days during the
week, Jurors are engaged in Committee work. Committees investigate
complaints, meet with city officials and visit State, County, and City facilities.
All management, revenue accounts, and records are examined to assure
compliance with applicable laws.
The 2005- 2006 Grand Jury received numerous communications from citizens,
civic groups, and government employees relating to real or perceived grievances.
The Jury investigates complaints as part of the duties of the Grand Jury.
All complaints addressed are submitted in writing by completing and signing a
Grand Jury complaint form. The Foreman determines that:
• The complaint deals with an area, agency or problem that falls within the
purview of the Grand Jury by law.
• The complaint has merit and sufficient information provided to make a
determination to proceed with an investigation.
• The complaint is without merit or does not come under the jurisdiction of the
Grand Jury. In such a case a closure letter notifies the complainant.
• A committee of the Grand Jury will be assigned responsibility to investigate
and report on the complaint.
Throughout the course of the 2005- 2006 year, the Grand Jury received a total of
118 complaints. The distribution of these complaints is as follows:
Administration and Audit Committee 12
Cities and Joint Power Committee 4
Special Districts 6
Health, Education, and Social Services 10
Law and Justice Committee 50
Complaints returned without action 36
When the Grand Jury year is concluded, the Grand Jury presents a Final Report to
the Presiding Judge. The report includes all releases issued during the year. The
printing of a Final Report concludes the responsibility of Grand Jurors for the
Kern County Superior Court. Grand Jurors must not disclose information obtained
as Grand Jurors; disclosure is a misdemeanor.
The 2005- 2006 Kern County Grand Jury anticipates the citizens of Kern County
have learned how a Grand Jury functions and the meaning of the Grand Juror’s
Oath. The Grand Jury service is a personally enriching experience and a
significant public service. Applicants are recruited throughout the year at County
functions, various service organizations, and through the Grand Jury website
( www. co. kern. ca. us/ grandjury). The formal recruitment period is February 1-
April 15 each year. The Grand Jury encourages citizens of Kern County to apply
to the Grand Jury.
.
OVERSIGHT RESPONSIBILITIES OF GRAND JURY COMMITTEES
BY COUNTY DEPARTMENT, AGENCY, CITY, & SPECIAL DISTRICT
ADMINISTRATION & AUDIT COUNTY SERVICES &
SPECIAL DISTRICTS
HEALTH, EDUCATION, &
SOCIAL SERVICES
LAW & JUSTICE CITIES & JOINT POWERS
Admin. Office ( CAO) Resource Mgt. Agency Aging & Adult Services District Attorney ( E) Cities
General Services Environmental Health Child Support Services D. A. Crime Lab Arvin
Construction Services Animal Control Emergency Med. Services Probation Bakersfield
Communications Engineering & Survey Employers’ Train. Resources Public Defender California City
Information Tech. Building Inspection Farm & Home Advisor Sheriff/ Coroner ( E) Delano
Insurance Programs Code Compliance Human Services Dept. Maricopa
Property Management Planning Dept. Kern Medical Center City Police Depts. McFarland
Purchasing Division Roads Dept. Libraries Jails & Prisons Ridgecrest
Revenue Sharing Prog. Mental Health Shafter
Taft
Agriculture Commissioner Parks & Rec. Dept. Public Health Dept. Tehachapi
Airports Dept. Waste Management Veterans Services Wasco
Airport Districts
Air Quality Districts Special Districts Hospital Districts Joint Powers
Assessor/ Recorder ( E) Cemetery School Districts County/ City Fire
Auditor/ Controller ( E) Comm. Service Dist. County Supt. of Schools Housing Authorities
County Clerk – Elections Irrigation Dist. Museum KernCOG
Board of Supervisors ( E) Mosquito Abatement Local Agency Form Comm.
( LAFCO)
Clerk of the Board Public Utility Districts Redevelopment Agencies
Board of Trade Park & Rec. Districts
County Counsel Resource Conservation
Risk Management Sanitation Districts
Economic Development Water Districts
GRAND JURY
OPERATIONS
COMMITTEE
Fire Dept. Water Storage Districts Tracking
Misc. Districts Continuity/ Manual
Public Relations LIBRARY COMMITTEE
County Service Areas 2005- 2006
Training Manual
Maintain/ Update
Final Reports & Responses for
current & past Grand Juries
Personnel Dept. Lamont Recruitment
Retirement Assoc. Oildale Fair
Treasurer/ Tax Collector ( E) Rosedale Exposure
Rosamond Online
Non- Profit Corps. Edit
Final Report
Grand Jury Budget
( E) Elected 06/ 02/ 06
2005- 2006 KERN COUNTY GRAND JURY
ORGANIZATION AND COMMITTEES CHART
OFFICERS:
R. Ross Anderson - Foreperson
Ethel V. Wells – Foreperson Pro Tem
Patrice S. Kline, Recording Secretary
Richard D. Williams – Sergeant- at- Arms
Lois C. Miller, Asst. Sergeant- at- Arms
Robert J. Gardiner – Parliamentarian
COMMITTEES:
Administration & Audit Law & Justice
Finance, audits, and administration concerns Investigates criminal justice agencies
Ethel V. Wells – Chairperson Diana L. Aronson - Chairperson
Richard Haar Lois C. Miller
Margaret Mooney Patrice S. Kline
Trudy Slater
Cities & Joint Powers
Cities and Joint Powers Agency Reviews Operations
Robert J. Gardiner – Chairperson Encompasses the coordination and administration of:
Harold D. Casper
Cherlyn G. Sparks • Continuity & Tracking
Special Districts
Maintains contact with Board of Supervisors,
tracks reports, formats final report book
Reviews Special Districts and County Services Loretta M. Fleming
Patricia L. Duffel – Chairperson
Raymond R. Mortimer • Library
Gordon F. Troxel Organizes research material
Edit • Public Relations
Format and grammatical review of final reports and jury
correspondence
Informs the public of the Grand Jury and its mission
Mary A. Rostad
Patricia L. Duffel – Chairperson Loretta M. Fleming
Patrice S. Kline
Mary A. Rostad • Recruitment
Aids the Court in recruiting the subsequent Grand Jury
Health, Education, and Social Services
Monitors health, education, and social services agencies
Mary A. Rostad
R. Ross Anderson
Richard D. Williams – Chairperson
Fred W. Arnold Mary A. Rostad, Chairperson
Thomas H. Hardy
Ad Hoc – Kern County Elections Division
Special Investigation
Lois C. Miller
Thomas H. Hardy
MISSION STATEMENT
ADMINISTRATION & AUDIT COMMITTEE
The Administration and Audit Committee of the 2005- 2006 Kern County Grand Jury is
responsible for reviewing and overseeing County Departments in their management,
performance, and execution of fiscal responsibilities to the County of Kern taxpayer. The
Committee investigates complaints from citizens who allege managerial or fiscal
irresponsibility. The Committee also assists other Grand Jury Committees with
managerial and fiscal matters.
KERN COUNTY ASSESSOR
PURPOSE:
The Administration and Audit Committee of the 2005- 2006 Kern County Grand Jury
visited the Kern County Assessor’s Office on March 28, 2006, pursuant to Penal Code
Section 925.
The Committee met with the Assessor, Chief Appraiser of Assessment Standards, Chief
Appraiser of Realty, Chief Appraiser of Agriculture, and Chief Appraiser of Special
Properties. The Committee also met with other staff members and toured the facility.
BACKGROUND:
The Assessor’s Office is located at 1115 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California. The
Assessor must locate all taxable property in the County, identify the owners, and describe
the property. The Assessor must also determine a value for all taxable property and apply
all legal exemptions and exclusions. The Assessor must complete an Assessment Roll
showing the assessed values for all property and maintain records of the above. The
Assessor does not set tax rates or collect taxes.
The primary goal of the Assessor is based on the premise that each and every customer
should always be treated fairly and equitably and with courtesy and respect. The staff
strives to accomplish the goals of professionalism and courtesy.
FINDINGS:
The Committee was well received with respect and courtesy by the officers and staff of
the Assessor’s Office. The Committee was given an informative Power Point
presentation and later an in- depth tour of the facilities. The two floors of the Assessor’s
Office are well maintained. The department heads and staff are to be commended for
outstanding and dedicated work in fulfilling duties for the citizens of Kern County. The
Committee would also like to commend the staff on the outstanding, reliable, and
advanced computer system which the Committee thinks is the best in California.
The Assessment Roll for the 2005- 2006 year is $ 58,541,512,508.00 an increase of
$ 7,741,495,907.00 from the 2004- 2005 year. The current top 10 property owners are:
PROPERTY OWNER. TOTAL VALUE
Occidental of Elk Hills, Inc. $ 4,415,536,857.00
Chevron USA, Inc. $ 4,374,617,492.00
Aera Energy, LLC $ 4,330,793,520.00
Plains Exploration & Prod Co. $ 547,613,561.00
La Paloma Generating Co., LLC $ 486,349,752.00
Pastoria Energy Facility, LLC $ 432,500,000.00
Pacific Gas & Electric Co. $ 404,037,055.00
Sunrise Power Company, LLC $ 375,100,000.00
Elk Hills Power, LLC $ 335,200,000.00
U. S. Borax, Inc. $ 335,011,768.00
Proposition 13 restricts both the tax rate and the rate of increase in valuation of real
property. The maximum amount of property tax cannot exceed 1% of a property’s
taxable per year value, plus bonds approved by the voters, service fees, improvement
bonds, and special assessments.
Proposition 8 ( Decline in Value) allows the Assessor to review both the factored base-year
value and the current market value of a property as of January 1st of each year and
enroll the lesser value. When the current market value replaces the higher Proposition 13
value the lower value is commonly referred to as a “ Prop. 8 Value.” Under no
circumstance can the Assessor value a property higher than the Proposition 13 factored
base- year value.
If a property owner has discussed the property assessment with the Assessor’s Office and
still feels that property is over- assessed the property owner may file a formal assessment
appeal.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Assessor’s Office should post a copy of this report where it will be available for
public review.
NOTE: Present and past Kern County Grand Jury Reports and Responses may be
accessed at the County Library and on the Kern County Grand Jury web- site:
www. co. kern. ca. us/ grandjury
NO RESPONSE REQUIRED
July 6th, 2006
Hon. Lee P. Felice, Presiding Judge
Kern County Grand Jury
1415 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Re: Kern Co. Grand Jury Response - Assessor's Department
Dear Honorable Judge Felice:
We appreciate the recent Kern County Grand Jury review of our Office. The Audit Committee was
courteous and thorough in their investigation. They made engaging and informative inquiries
during the course of our review. I want to thank you for your complimentary remarks. I am
extremely proud of our accomplishments. I feel we have utilized the taxpayers' dollars wisely and
efficiently. This past year we produced a record Assessment Roll. The taxes collected, through the
property tax system, will go directly to providing the necessary services to our citizens.
With no recommendations to address, I would again like to express my appreciation to the Kern
County Grand Jury for the courtesy and interest displayed while performing their audit of the Kern
County Assessor's Department.
JWF: kc
cc: Clerk of the Board
attachments ( Kern Co. Grand Jury report/ Assessor)
Kern County Board of Supervisors
Response to Grand Jury Final Report
KERN COUNTY ASSESSOR
Response to Findings:
The Board of Supervisors notes that the findings are substantially correct.
Response to Recommendations:
The Board of Supervisors concurs with the Assessor’s response.
POLGJASSESSORB
KERN COUNTY RECORDER
PURPOSE:
The Administration and Audit Committee of the 2005- 2006 Kern County Grand Jury
visited the Kern County Recorder’s Office on April 3, 2006, pursuant to Penal Code
Section 925. The Committee met with the Assessor, Assistant Recorder, Department
Heads, and Staff.
BACKGROUND:
The Recorder’s Office built in 1908 is a Bakersfield landmark and is located at 1655
Chester Avenue in Bakersfield, California.
The Recorder’s Office is responsible for providing constructive notice of private acts ( the
sale of property between private parties) and creating and maintaining custody of
permanent records for all documents filed and recorded in Kern County. In addition to
providing public access to information regarding land and land ownership the Recorder’s
Office is also the local registrar of marriages and maintains copies of all certificates of
marriages, births, and deaths which occur in Kern County.
The official records are open for public inspection ( vital statistics records may be viewed
on a specific and requested basis) and copies may be purchased from the Recorder’s
Office.
FINDINGS:
The Committee was well received with respect and courtesy by the Recorder and Staff.
The Committee was given an in depth tour of the facilities by the Recorder, Assistant
Recorder, and other Heads of Staff. The tour included the Recording Department, the
Deed Department, Title and Brands Department, Vital Statistics Department, Photo Lab,
and Public Assistance Department. The Committee was given a brief synopsis of each
department by the Department Heads.
Of great interest was the Title and Brands Department. The Committee was shown
brands recorded in the 1890’ s which are still in use today. The Committee was shown
land survey maps recorded in the late 1800’ s. A vast amount of Kern County history is
maintained in the Recorder’s Office.
Document filings must be recorded within 48 hours after receipt. The Committee found
employees were able to keep on schedule with assigned duties. All employees are cross
trained and are available to assist one another. A feeling of goodwill and cheerfulness
was radiated to the Committee. At present there are 25 full time employees and two part-time
employees.
Each day the Recorder’s Office receives approximately 200 phone calls from the public
between the hours of 8: 00 a. m. and 12: 00 noon and handles a total of 350 calls per day.
The phones are maintained by employees on a rotation basis. All documents are indexed
and filed within 48 hours of receipt. The employees are to be commended for the volume
of work accomplished with the limited amount of space and shortage of staff.
The Committee found having the Recorder’s and Assessor’s Offices in two separate
locations is less than ideal. Having offices in the same location would create a more
efficient Central Customer Service Counter and would benefit both departments. The
Committee noted there was enough room in the Administration Building located at 1115
Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California to combine the Departments.
The Committee also found parking at the Recorder’s Office had inadequate parking.
Relocating would give the Recorder’s Office more space to accommodate staff and
clients.
RECOMMENDATION:
It would be in the best interest of the County of Kern and citizens to move the Recorder’s
Office into the Kern County Administration Building.
The Kern County Recorder’s Office should post a copy of this report where it will be
available for public review.
Note: Present and past Kern County Grand Jury Final Reports and Responses may be
accessed at the County Library and on the Kern County Grand Jury website:
www. co. kern. ca. us/ grandjury
NO RESPONSE REQUIRED
July 6, 2006
Hon. Lee P. Felice, Presiding Judge
Kern County Grand Jury
1415 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Re: Kern County Grand Jury Response - Recorder's Department
Dear Honorable Judge Felice:
We appreciate the recent Kern County Grand Jury review of our Office. The Audit Committee was
courteous and thorough in their investigation. They made engaging and informative inquiries during
the course of our review.
We have seen a tremendous increase in the number of recordings. These numbers have nearly
doubled over the last few years. Additionally, the demand for vital statistics, birth and death records,
have been steadily increasing at an equally swift pace. I want to take this opportunity to thank and
compliment my staff for their diligent efforts in meeting these challenges.
Concerning the recommendation the Kern County Grand Jury made, as a result of their investigation,
that it would be in the best interests of the County of Kern and its citizens to relocate the Recorder's
Office into the Kern County Administrative Building, I fully agree. The advantages for both the
Assessor and Recorder's Offices is clearly obvious. This arrangement would immediately provide a
more functional facility and much needed parking for our citizens. Ample consideration must be
undertaken before a relocation of this type could occur. This move would require public input and the
creation of a " design team". I have personally brought this issue up to the Board of Supervisors in
relation to Unmet Needs Requests. We have begun initial discussions with key personnel regarding
this Recommendation.
Hon. Judge Lee P. Felice, Presiding Judge
Page Two
July 6th, 2006
Again, I want to thank you for your concerns and express our appreciation for the opportunity to
display our Office and to acknowledge the efforts of my staff.
Kern County Board of Supervisors
Response to Grand Jury Final Report
KERN COUNTY RECORDER
Response to Findings:
The Board of Supervisors notes that the findings are substantially correct.
Response to Recommendations:
The Board of Supervisors concurs with the Assessor’s response, noting that co- location of the
Assessor’s and Recorder’s functions will require considerable review to determine if the available
space can accommodate both functions.
POLGJRECORDERB
ARVIN EDISON WATER STORAGE DISTRICT
QUALIFIED RETIREMENT PLAN
PURPOSE OF INQUIRY:
Pursuant to Penal Code Section 933.5 the Administration and Audit Committee
( Committee) of the 2005- 2006 Kern County Grand Jury reviewed Arvin Edison Water
Storage District ( AEWSD). The investigation was in response to a citizen complaint
received by the Kern County Grand Jury. The Committee visited the District on
February 16, 2006.
PROCESS:
The Committee interviewed the District Manager, Assistant District Manager, and the
President of the Board of Directors. Witnesses were also interviewed by the Committee.
Financial records and retirement plan documents were reviewed. In order to make
comparisons regarding the Qualified Pension Plan the Committee interviewed three
Special Districts of comparable size.
BACKGROUND:
The Arvin Edison Water Storage District is located at 20401 Bear Mountain Boulevard,
Arvin, California. The facility is approximately three miles east of the City of Arvin.
The District was formed on January 19, 1942, with the intention of reducing groundwater
overdraft. The District serves landowners within the District’s surface water service area
and also provides water banking for Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.
The nine member Board of Directors is elected by the landowners within the District
boundaries.
FINDINGS:
• AEWSD has 52 budgeted positions; forty seven positions are hourly, seven positions
are salaried positions. Thirty employees of the District are represented by the Central
California Association of Public Employees Labor Organization ( CCAPE).
• AEWSD employees participate in the Qualified Retirement Plan. The District
contributes 12% each pay period to the Qualified Retirement Plan and the employees
contribute 4% each pay period to the Qualified Retirement Plan. Employees
completing three months service are eligible to participate in the Qualified Retirement
Plan. AEWSD employees are totally vested in the Qualified Retirement Plan after
seven years of employment with the District.
• A 457 Plan is offered in addition to the Qualified Retirement Plan. The 457 Plan is
not funded by the District. Participation in the 457 Plan is optional and is not being
addressed in the following report.
• A Pension Plan Advisory Committee comprised of the District Manager, Assistant
District Manager, a director of the Board, three employees, and one retiree is to meet
quarterly. The Committee’s investigation determined that the Pension Plan Advisory
Committee as stated in the procedure manual is “ to meet every quarter” had not met
for 18 months. The Pension Plan Advisory Committee resumed meeting in October
2005.
• The Financial Advisor for the District was a former employee of the District. After
leaving the District the former employee contracted with the District to provide the
service. The Advisor is located out of state. The Advisor was in contact with the
District on a daily basis recommending the purchase or sale of investments.
• The Committee found that one employee of the District, without consulting with
other officials of the District or the Pension Retirement Plan Advisory Committee,
makes investment decisions based on the advice of the Financial Advisor.
• The Committee found during a four month period an average of 18 stock trades were
made per month.
• Employees having questions regarding the Qualified Retirement Plan are not able to
obtain information on a timely basis. Participants in the Plan are often told that it is
too complicated for the employee to understand.
• Employees are to receive a quarterly statement giving balances of the account and
showing either a gain or a loss for the quarter. Some employee statements show a
gain while others show a loss. The District explained to the Committee how the
concept works and the Committee apparently is no different than the AEWSD
employees in comprehending the concept.
• California Public Employees’ Retirement System ( CalPERS) made a presentation to
the District and to the Pension Plan Advisory Committee. The District and the
Pension Plan Advisory Committee concluded the plan would not be financially
feasible for the District to participate in CalPERS.
• In January 2006 the District and the Pension Plan Advisory Committee met to discuss
the transfer of the Qualified Retirement Plan and interview two potential investment
providers and review investment strategies.
• The current Financial Advisor was notified in February that the service agreement
was being terminated; the required 30 day notice was then given.
• The AEWSD Board of Directors approved the transfer of the Qualified Retirement
Plan to a Brokerage firm at the Board of Directors meeting on March 14, 2006.
• The District is now in the process of transferring the Qualified Retirement Plan to a
brokerage firm. The completion of the transfer can take up to two or three months to
complete.
• The District is currently invested primarily in a Money Market Fund with the
remaining portion in individual stocks. New contributions are going into a Money
Market Account until the transfer of the Plan is complete. No additional investments
have been made to the Qualified Retirement Plan. Pension distributions are also
coming out of the Money Market Account.
• The Committee interviewed three Special District Managers to compare retirement
plans. The Committee found one District to be totally invested in a Money Market
Account earning 3.5% per year, one District participates in CalPERS, and one District
participates in Kern County Employees’ Retirement Association ( KCERA).
COMMENTS:
The most valuable asset the District has are dedicated employees. AEWSD has such
employees. The District’s answers to questions of concern the employees have regarding
the Qualified Retirement Plan is of extreme importance. Future financial planning for the
employees is critical and questions asked should be answered in a concise non-confrontational
manner.
The Committee found that in the past employees complaining to management have been
retaliated against by either demotion and/ or loss of job. The complainant bringing to
light the problem within the District has taken a great risk by filing the complaint with the
Kern County Grand Jury. The Committee has a fervent hope retaliation does not occur.
The Committee is encouraged by recent changes in the Qualified Retirement Plan.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. The Retirement Pension Plan Advisory Committee shall meet quarterly, meetings
should be scheduled in advance, should a postponement occur the meeting should
be rescheduled promptly. The brokerage firm should be present at the meetings to
advise the Retirement Pension Plan Committee of investment options and to
answer questions.
2. Employee recommendations should be submitted to the Retirement Pension Plan
Advisory Committee for review.
3. The Human Resource Department shall be available to answer questions that
employees may have regarding the Qualified Retirement Plan. The employee
designated to perform the function must be trained.
4. The brokerage firm shall provide training for all employees when assuming the
account. All District employees must attend the training sessions.
5. All Qualified Retirement Plan investment decisions shall be made by the
Retirement Advisory Committee.
The Arvin Edison Water Storage District should post a copy of this report where it will
be available for public review.
NOTE: Present and past Kern County Grand Jury Reports and Responses may be
accessed at the Kern County Library and on the Kern County Grand Jury web- site:
www. co. kern. ca. us/ grandjury.
RESPONSE REQUIRED
WITHIN 90 DAYS
TO PRESIDING JUDGE
KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301
cc: FOREMAN
KERN COUNTY GRAND JURY
1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301
1 o f 12
July 14, 2006
Lee P. Felice, Presiding Judge
Kern County Superior Court
1415 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
RE: Response to Grand Jury Report Titled “ Arvin- Edison Water Storage
District Qualified Retirement Plan.”
Dear Presiding Judge Felice:
The District submits the following response to the Grand Jury Report issued on June 9,
2006, concerning the Arvin- Edison Water Storage District Qualified Retirement Plan
(“ Report”). Unfortunately, we find the report to contain numerous unsubstantiable
accusations and allegations as well as significant errors of both fact and law, as noted
herein.
The Report was reviewed and this response approved at a meeting of the District’s Board of
Directors on July 11, 2006.
Please note that the Grand Jury, and the Grand Jury Committee, ( herein after collectively the
“ Grand Jury”) did not show the District the courtesy and provide the opportunity to be heard
on the findings in the Report before its release as provided for in Penal Code Section
933.05( d). The only notice the District received of the contents of this Report was the 48-
hour notice required by Penal Code Section 933.05( f). Unfortunately, even though the
District took the time to respond promptly within the 48 hour notice window, with the majority
of the corrections herein repeated from the District’s June 6, 2006 response, those
corrections were entirely disregarded in the Grand Jury’s June 9, 2006 Report.
This lack of courtesy and disregard for factual corrections offered by the District is very
unfortunate given:
1) The substantial factual and legal errors contained in the Report, which indicates a
careless attitude taken towards the Grand Jury’s responsibilities, investigative
techniques, factual accuracy, and the law; and,
2) The Report’s overall tone, which, whether intentional or not, shows a complete
disrespect for the District, its employees, and at times borders on outright libel; and,
3) The Report’s overall tone, which appears to insinuate that the District is not sincerely
concerned for the pension needs of its employees.
2 o f 12
The District is troubled by the Grand Jury’s complete disregard for the District’s input on the
accusations and allegations made in the Report, in particular the accusation that the District
has retaliated against employees in the past. At no time has the Grand Jury provided any
evidence to support this accusation. Additionally, the Grand Jury did not question the District
or its representatives regarding this serious accusation so that it may offer evidence to the
contrary. Given these facts, it is unfathomable that the Grand Jury would see fit to publish
such an accusation, and we would hope in the future the Grand Jury would refrain from such
conduct.
Following, we quote in italics those portions of the Report, which contain the most significant
errors. Our responses follow:
PROCESS
“ The Committee interviewed the District Manager, Assistant District Manager, and the
President of the Board of Directors. Witnesses were also interviewed by the Committee.
Financial records and retirement plan documents were reviewed.”
Response:
While ordinarily the District would not comment on the investigatory process used by the
Grand Jury, in this instance the District has no choice because of the numerous investigatory
and factual errors in this Report - all fed from an apparently inadequate process. Note, the
Grand Jury’s Report does not indicate that it did any of the following:
1) Review any District employee files.
2) Interview or review any files from the Employees’ Union regarding employee
terminations or demotions.
3) Interview the entire Pension Committee.
4) Interview the District’s General Counsel.
5) Interview the Financial Advisor mentioned in the report.
6) Review any documents or recommendations submitted by the Pension Committee to
the Board of Directors for consideration.
7) Interview or confer with any legal counsel on the very specific legal issues involving
trusts and pension plans.
8) Review Audited Financial Statements for the Pension Plan.
And yet based on this inadequate investigation, the Grand Jury sees fit in its Report to
comment on areas that clearly were not investigated at all, or at best in a superficial fashion.
The District is particularly troubled by the Grand Jury’s apparent oversight to seek legal
counsel in reviewing such highly technical legal issues regarding trusts and pension plans. It
is our understanding that at no time was Grand Jury counsel present during the interviews
with any of the representatives of the District, and clearly, given the numerous errors of law
in the Report, this oversight was a serious mistake on the part of the Grand Jury.
BACKGROUND
Paragraph 1:
“ The District serves landowners within the District’s surface water service area and also
provides water banking for Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.”
3 o f 12
Response:
This statement is partly correct. The District also actively manages groundwater
conjunctively with surface water for the benefit of all landowners within the District’s
groundwater service area.
FINDINGS
Paragraph 4:
“ A Pension Plan Advisory Committee comprised of the District Manager, Assistant District
Manager, a director of the Board, three employees, and one retiree is to meet quarterly. The
Committee’s investigation determined that the Pension Plan Advisory Committee as stated in
the procedure manual is “ to meet every quarter” had not met for 18 months. The Pension
Plan Advisory Committee resumed meeting in October 2005.”
Response:
The factual inaccuracies in this finding are numerous, and demonstrate the inadequate
investigation undertaken by the Grand Jury.
1) The Grand Jury was repeatedly informed by the District that the Pension Committee
consists of nine members, rather than seven; comprised of two members of the
District’s Board of Directors and two District managerial employees ( currently the
Engineer- Manager and the Assistant Manager) appointed by the Board of Directors,
and five plan participants elected by their fellow participants to serve for a specified
term.
It should be noted also that the Pension Committee is specifically so structured in
order to provide the District with significant input from the Plan’s participants, and that
the elected participant members of the Pension Committee consist of nearly 10
percent of the District’s work force.
2) The Grand Jury purports to quote from a procedural manual when it states that the
Pension Committee “ is to meet every quarter.” We are at a complete loss to know
what manual the Grand Jury is citing because no such manual exists. When the
Grand Jury was questioned on this matter they were unresponsive.
3) The Grand Jury appears to focus on the incorrect presumption that the Pension
Committee is required to meet quarterly. This is simply incorrect. The Pension
Committee does however have a “ goal” of meeting at least quarterly, and this
clarification was relayed to the Grand Jury. The purpose of such meetings is for the
Employees ( via the Pension Committee) to review the Plan’s performance and
address other matters for which the Board seeks input. It should be noted that the 18-
month period identified above spans two different Pension Plan years in which
Pension Plan average annual earnings for the two years was a little over 8%.
4) In an apparent oversight the Grand Jury made no inquiries into other Pension Plan
activities undertaken by Pension Committee members during this time period in lieu of
the quarterly meetings. Had the Grand Jury done so it would have discovered the
following:
4 o f 12
a) Various members of the Pension Committee were actively meeting in
subgroups during this time on numerous occasions. During those meetings,
the participating members reviewed potential changes to the Plan including the
complete divestiture of the Plan so that the District may enter the CalPERS
system.
b) The Financial Advisor continued to provide monthly reports on the Plan’s
investments to the District.
c) The Pension Committee subgroups, in cooperation with the Employees and the
Board held numerous meetings to fully investigate other pension plan
alternatives.
d) Various members of the Pension Committee met with the Employees’ Union on
four separate occasions.
e) Various members of the Pension Committee met with the Board on several
occasions.
f) Various members of the Pension Committee met with a pension plan expert on
several occasions to discuss the plan and potential modifications to it.
g) Various members of the Pension Committee met with and interviewed
representatives of Merrill Lynch twice.
h) The Pension Committee sponsored an open meeting with ALL District
employees to discuss and hear input on potential changes to the overall Plan
structure.
i) The Pension Committee also oversaw a vote by all employees as to Pension
alternatives.
j) The outcome of this intense effort was a proposal from the Employees,
supported by the Employees’ Union, and subsequently approved by the Board,
to increase contributions to the Pension Plan by both the District and the
Employees, as part of their annual Wage and Benefit package.
k) During this time there were no unanswered communications by a participant,
the Employees’ Union or any other interested party addressing the Pension
Committee and/ or the Board of Directors regarding the Plan.
Paragraph 5:
“ The Financial Advisor for the District was a former employee of the District. After leaving
the District the former employee contracted with the District to provide the service. The
Advisor is located out of state. The Advisor was in contact with the District on a daily basis
recommending the purchase or sale of investments.”
Response:
While it is true that the District’s Financial Advisor was a former employee, he holds a
business degree from a very reputable university and is a Certified Financial Planner. He left
5 o f 12
the District’s employment to pursue a full- time career in Financial Planning, and currently
holds a position as a Bank’s Senior Investment Trust Officer. Clearly, given these
qualifications, the Plan’s Financial Advisor was more than qualified to manage the Plan. It
should be noted also that during the 15 years this specific Financial Advisor managed the
investment portfolio, the plan returned an average of between 8% and 9% per annum.
As for the assertion that the Advisor is out of state, we are perplexed by the Grand Jury
mentioning this fact in today’s world of immediate electronic communications.
Paragraph 6:
“ The Committee found that one employee of the District, without consulting with other
officials of the District or the Pension Retirement Plan Advisory Committee, makes
investment decisions based on the advice of the Financial Advisor.”
Response:
This finding is completely inaccurate, and shows a serious defect in the Grand Jury’s
understanding of administration of the Plan and perhaps Trust law as well.
The employee in question is granted the authority by the Board to execute the investment
transactions as directed by the Financial Advisor and to further direct the movement of
District Plan funds which are held by the Trustee. The employee does NOT make
investment decisions; he simply plays a ministerial roll in the implementation of those
investment decisions between the Financial Advisor and the Trustee. All investment
decisions are made by the Financial Advisor who was hired to fulfill that specific function.
Also, all investment transactions are reported to the Pension Committee and must be made
in accordance with Plan’s adopted financial Investment Policy, a copy of which was provided
to the Grand Jury for review.
The Grand Jury failed to make any inquiries into the audit history of the Plan. If the Grand
Jury had done so, they would have discovered that the Plan is audited annually, that those
audits have uncovered no irregularities, and that all investment transactions were initiated by
the Financial Advisor.
Paragraph 8:
“ Employees having questions regarding the Qualified Retirement Plan are not able to obtain
information on a timely basis. Participants in the Plan are often told that it is too complicated
for the employee to understand.”
Response:
Employees receive regular written reports on the Plan’s performance. Additional information
about the Plan and its performance is available at all times. District representatives can, and
do, directly answer all administrative questions regarding the Plan. If the participant has a
question regarding the investment strategy, they are welcome to inquire through the Pension
Committee. As to understanding the complexity of the stock market and Trust law, it varies
greatly among employees, as this is a highly technical area, which requires years of
dedicated study, education, and experience.
Paragraph 9:
“ Employees are to receive a quarterly statement giving balances of the account and showing
either a gain or a loss for the quarter. Some employee statements show a gain while others
6 o f 12
show a loss. The District explained to the Committee how the concept works and the
Committee apparently is no different than the AEWSD employees in comprehending the
concept.”
Response:
The Grand Jury’s admission in this paragraph clearly indicates that the Grand Jury members
do not comprehend the very issues upon which they presume to report. This is particularly
troubling given that the issue was repeatedly explained in detail to them during the interview
process. First, it’s true; the employees, and other plan participants, receive a quarterly
statement giving balances of the account and showing either a gain or a loss for the quarter.
Second, it is not possible for one employee to receive a gain from their invested funds
( primarily the beginning balance) in the Plan while another shows a loss. The risk and
reward of the Plan’s investments are distributed evenly across the Plan’s participants on a
pro- rata basis. Therefore, if the Plan’s investments experience a one percent loss, all
participants receive that same one percent loss on the funds, which they have contributed to
the Plan. And third, the statements are quite simple and consistent with common industry
standards.
The statements each have four primary columns of information that are pertinent to the
issue: 1) the participant’s beginning balance for reported quarter; 2) the participant’s
gains/ losses attributable to the beginning balance ( and to some extent contributions) for the
reported quarter; 3) contributions made to the account during the reported quarter; and 4)
the ending balance calculated by totaling columns 1 though 3 mentioned above.
Note: All employees share gains/ losses on their beginning balances ( and contributions) on
the same pro- rata basis, and all employees make contributions of their salary on the same
pro- rata basis.
The following table example is provided to illustrate this basic concept. This hypothetical
example shows two employees currently working for the District and both making the same
salary, and thus contributing the same amount, but one employee who has been with the
District much longer than the other and therefore has a larger beginning balance. The table
also shows a retiree who no longer contributes to the plan but still has money invested in the
Plan and has not made any withdrawals in the period shown on the table. All three
employees share the same hypothetical loss in the plan of 1%:
Emp. Beginning
Balance
Gain/ Loss Employee
Contribution
Ending Balance
Emp. A $ 100,000 -$ 1,000 $ 250 $ 99,250
Emp. B $ 10,000 -$ 100 $ 250 $ 10,150
Ret. Emp. $ 300,000 -$ 3,000 $ 0 $ 297,000
As you can see from the “ ending balance” Employee B does have a gain in his/ her
statement’s “ ending balance” because their 1% loss on the “ beginning balance” amounted to
only $ 100 while Employee A’s 1% loss amounted to $ 1,000. ( It should be noted that
gains/ losses are calculated on the Beginning Balance and the Contributions as well, but the
effect from Contributions are minimal). When that month’s contributions of $ 250 are then
added so the ending balance properly reflects the inclusion of new contributions; Employee
A shows a net loss of $ 750 over the period while Employee B shows a net gain of $ 150 for
7 o f 12
the period, because Employee B’s contribution offset his/ her loss, which is not true of
Employee A. The Retiree, because there are no contributions, shows a loss of $ 3,000.
If the Grand Jury could not understand the foregoing regarding quarterly statements, they
should have sought additional clarification from the District or others before publishing the
Report.
Paragraph 10:
“ California Public Employees’ Retirement System ( CalPERS) made a presentation to the
District and to the Pension Plan Advisory Committee, the District and the Pension Plan
Advisory Committee concluded the plan would not be financially feasible for the District to
participate in CalPERS.”
Response:
The Pension Committee researched several different CalPERS plans at the request of the
Board and the Employees’ Union. The Board, with expert guidance, not the Pension Plan
Advisory Committee as stated above, concluded it would not be financially PRUDENT to
expose the District and its employees to the rising and uncontrollable costs of such programs
that have plagued so many other public agencies in California. Note that two years ago
there was a push to change the structure of CalPERS, initiated by the Governor, to a Plan
similar to the Plan the District has adopted.
Paragraph 11:
“ In January 2006, the District and the Pension Plan Advisory Committee met to discuss the
transfer of the Qualified Retirement Plan and interview two potential investment providers
and review investment strategies.”
Response:
The Pension Committee interviewed three, not two, potential advisors and had short- listed
the selection process to just two by January 2006.
Paragraph 16:
“ The Committee interviewed three Special District Managers to compare retirement plans.
The Committee found one District to be totally invested in a Money Market Account earning
3.5% per year, one District participates in CalPERS, and one District participates in Kern
County Employees’ Retirement Association ( KCERA).”
Response:
The District’s Plan is a non- defined benefit plan ( sometimes referred to as “ defined
contribution” plans), while CalPERS and KCERA are both defined benefit plans, and thus
cannot be compared to the District’s plan. We assume, based on the limited information in
the Report, that the Special District cited which totally invested in a Money Market Account is
also a non- defined benefit plan. That fact, however, is unclear given the wording of the
Report. What is clear is that the only Plan, which the Report mentions a return on, is
producing less then half what the District’s plan has. The District’s Plan has been averaging
about 8 to 9 percent per year for the last 15 years.
8 o f 12
COMMENTS
Paragraph 2:
“ The Committee found that in the past employees complaining to management have been
retaliated against by either demotion and/ or loss of job. The complainant bringing to light the
problem within the District has taken a great risk by filing the complaint with the Kern County
Grand Jury. The Committee has a fervent hope retaliation does not occur.”
Response:
We have taken note that this comment is neither in the Findings section of the Report, nor
was it given enough weight so as to require a Recommendation in the Report. We also note
that the District is only required to respond to findings and recommendations in Grand Jury
Reports.
Nevertheless, the District must respond given that this assertion is the most troubling
allegation made in this Report. It lacks any corroboration and is indicative of the
unprofessional attitude taken by the Grand Jury towards its responsibilities, accuracy, truth
and the law throughout the Report.
The Grand Jury did not, at any time, mention to the District, or its representatives, that it was
investigating any allegations of this nature, nor did it ask questions regarding employment
policies, nor did it ask any questions regarding termination and demotion processes, nor did
it ask for or review ANY personnel information, whatsoever. Given these facts it is simply
impossible for the Grand Jury to make such a finding. It is false and cannot be
supported or substantiated by the investigation conducted by the Grand Jury. Quite
frankly, it is both irresponsible and outrageous for the Grand Jury to make such a
claim based upon the limited investigation it conducted.
If the Grand Jury had taken its investigative responsibilities seriously and done even a
cursory investigation of the District’s employment policies and practices, they would have
found the following:
a) Full and complete documentation on each case of employment termination; and,
b) Full and complete documentation on each case of disciplinary action; and,
c) That, counter to the Grand Jury’s claim, there have been no contested terminations or
demotions of employees on the basis of “ retaliation.”
d) That it is the practice of the District to provide for additional hearings before a
termination becomes effective, similar to “ Skelly” hearings; and,
e) That every employee is made aware of these procedures before a termination and
may be represented by Union Representatives, or outside Counsel, at any termination
hearing; and,
f) That each employee is given detailed reasons for termination along with their history
of disciplinary action that eventually led to their termination; and,
g) That the Employees’ Union takes an active interest in terminations which involve
Union members, and have not even alluded to the allegations made by the Grand
Jury; and,
h) That the District has a standard grievance procedure that is accepted as a part of
normal, healthy employee management in which any employee may take part; and,
9 o f 12
i) That some employees, who have freely made use of the grievance procedures, have
been promoted to some of the highest levels of supervisory positions based on their
merit, and,
j) Any employees untruthfully claiming retaliatory termination were actually terminated
for just cause such as absence without leave, dishonesty, incompetence,
insubordination, neglect of duty, negligence, theft, violation of District policies and
procedures, excessive tardiness, harassment, or unsafe behavior.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. “ The Retirement Pension Plan Advisory Committee shall meet quarterly, meetings
should be scheduled in advance, should a postponement occur the meeting should be
rescheduled promptly. The brokerage firm should be present at the meetings to
advise the Retirement Pension Plan Committee of investment options and to answer
questions.”
Response:
The current policy of the District, which will remain unchanged, is for the Pension
Committee to meet as needed with the general goal that the Pension Committee
meets at least quarterly. However, if the Pension Committee members feel that it is
unneeded given the circumstances at the moment no meeting will be held. It should
be noted also that the participants’ elected representatives ( past and present
employees) drive the Committee’s action as they hold the majority, not District
management personnel.
As for the investment advisor attendance ( called the Financial Advisor), the current
practice will remain unchanged in that regard. Consistent with that practice the
Financial Advisor attends Pension Committee meetings either by phone or in person.
Additionally, the Financial Advisor is available every business day, not just quarterly.
2. “ Employee recommendations should be submitted to the Retirement Pension Plan
Advisory Committee for review.”
Response:
This is our current policy and practice. Employee recommendations are, and always
have been, welcomed both by the Pension Committee and the Board of Directors. It
would be helpful, however, that suggestions be presented in writing a few days before
scheduled meetings so the members of the Pension Committee, or the Board of
Directors, may reflect on them before the meeting. If a participant has a suggestion or
comment that he/ she feels may need attention before the next scheduled meeting the
participant may submit that suggestion or comment in writing to the District and it will
be passed on to Committee members and the Board as soon as practicable.
Additionally, it should be noted that the District meets with the Employees’ Union
several times annually to discuss various topics including the Plan and that policy and
practice will also continue.
3. “ The Human Resource Department shall be available to answer questions that
employees may have regarding the Qualified Retirement Plan. The employee
designated to perform the function must be trained.”
10 o f 12
Response:
This is our current policy and practice. The employees who fulfill this function are and
always have been available, and fully competent to explain administration of the Plan.
They do not attempt to explain individual investment decisions as they are not
qualified to do so and are not privy to all the considerations that go into the making of
such decisions by the Financial Advisor. If a participant, wishes to make such an
inquiry he/ she should direct their question to the Pension Committee, which will
contact the Financial Advisor to obtain an explanation.
4. “ The brokerage firm shall provide training for all employees when assuming the
account. All District employees must attend the training sessions.”
Response:
It is unclear as to what “ training” the Grand Jury is referring. District employees have
no hands- on responsibilities involving the investment portfolio decisions of the Plan
nor will they likely have in the future. Perhaps the Grand Jury is confused about the
differences between a non- defined benefit Plan such as the District’s and a traditional
401K Plan were the employees pick their own investment strategies.
It should also be noted that the District long ago chose this approach rather than a
traditional 401K plan specifically because this approach provides the Employees with
the benefit of a qualified professional investor making the investment decisions for the
employee’s pension portfolio. Under a traditional 401K, the employer has no
responsibility toward the investment pitfalls that an employee might fall into. The
District, however, out of a sincere concern for the well being of its employees, has
decided that it should ensure that the employee’s retirement “ nest eggs” are as
secure as possible in the volatile world of capital investments by providing a Plan in
which professional investors make investment decisions based upon their expertise,
rather than employees who have varying experience in investment markets making
those decisions.
For the above reasons, the District will not implement this Recommendation.
5. “ All Qualified Retirement Plan investment decisions shall be made by the Retirement
Advisory Committee.”
Response:
This recommendation is also wholly inappropriate, violates well- established Trust law
and demonstrates that the Grand Jury remains at best confused regarding the
Pension Committee’s role in the administration of the Plan and day- to- day
requirements of an investment Plan such as this one.
Moreover, the in- artful wording used by the Grand Jury in this Recommendation
requires a response on multiple legal and factual levels as the actual basis for this
Recommendation and the Grand Jury’s understanding of the Pension Committee’s
role in the Plan is unclear.
First, if the Grand Jury is under the impression that the Pension Committee is the
Trustee for this Plan and as such is responsible for all Plan decisions, the Grand Jury
is wrong both factually and legally. The Pension Committee is not and has never
11 o f 12
been the Trustee of this Plan. Additionally, the Pension Committee, as structured,
cannot legally hold the title of Trustee for this Trust, or any other trust, because the
Committee does not have the legal capacity to take and hold property as required by
law.
Second, assuming for a moment that the Pension Committee could legally be
appointed to the position of Trustee, and has been for this Plan, well settled law
mandates that the settlor ( in this instance the District) of a revocable trust ( which this
Plan is) will maintain ultimate authority over the trust and that authority cannot be
divested. Therefore, even assuming that the Pension Committee held the title of
Trustee it would still be subject to the mandates of the District and the Grand Jury’s
recommendation is wholly inappropriate because it places the Pension Committee in
a position of control over the District.
Third, while it is well settled law that the District has the ultimate authority over this
Plan, the District may within certain legally prescribed limits authorize others to invest
and manage the Trust assets under the supervision of the District. This authorization,
however, is extremely limited and requires that those authorized to invest the funds
meet the legal requirements of a “ prudent investor” under the Uniform Prudent
Investor Act. The Pension Committee and its members cannot meet those
requirements, and therefore, they are not, and will not be, authorized to make
investment decisions for this Plan.
Fourth, the Grand Jury’s Recommendation ignores the actual reality of the investment
world were investment decisions must be made on a day- to- day basis depending on
market conditions. To require that all decisions be made by a Committee that the
Grand Jury suggest should meet four ( 4) times a year is simply unworkable, and quite
likely, a clear violation of the Uniform Prudent Investor Act.
For the above reasons, the District will not implement this Recommendation.
Due to the Grand Jury’s confusion, the District feels it is appropriate, at this time, to
point out a few facts about the Pension Committee. The function of the Pension
Committee is NOT to make investment decisions. The Pension Committee’s function
is to periodically review the administration of the Plan, as it desires, and to serve as a
forum for employees to interface with the Board on the administration of the Plan, and
this function will remain unchanged unless the Pension Committee is disbanded.
Generally, the Pension Committee’s functions and duties are limited to:
a) Reviewing and commenting on the Investment Policy to the Board of
Directors which establishes the level of risk and rewards to which the Plan’s
funds are subjected.
b) Conferring with investment professionals on administration of the Plan
within the Investment Policy
c) Reviewing that the Financial Advisor maintains the Pension Plan assets
within the Investment Policy guidelines established by the District.
d) Review of periodic performance summaries on the Plan’s investments and
the professionals that work on the Plan.
12 o f 12
e) Receive suggestions from the participants about the administration of the
Plan and pass on the Committee’s recommendations regarding those
suggestions to the Board.
Closing Grand Jury Recommendation: “ The Arvin- Edison Water Storage District should
post a copy of this report where it will be available for public review.”
Response: This report will be made available for public review along with a copy of this
response.
District’s Closing Comments and Recommendations for the Grand Jury
It is very unfortunate that the Grand Jury published the Report without sufficient factual
and legal basis for many of its observations, findings, and recommendations, as
enumerated above. In the future, we recommend that the Grand Jury:
1) Seek legal and professional advice on investigative techniques and questioning so the
inadequacies in this report are not repeated;
2) Seek legal and professional advice when dealing with such complicated areas of law
as provided for in Penal Code Section 934 and Section 926;
3) Exercise its right under Penal Code Section 935.05( d) to provide “ a subject person or
entity with the opportunity to come before the Grand Jury for the purpose of reading
and discussing the findings of a grand jury report that relates to that person or entity in
order to verify the accuracy of the findings prior to their release.”
4) Be cognizant of the fact that Penal Code Section 930 provides that Grand Jury
members may be sued individually for libel as comments in civil grand jury reports are
not privileged.
Should you have any questions regarding the foregoing, please contact myself or our
District Counsel, Ernest Conant of Young Wooldridge, LLP, at ( 661) 327- 9661.
We also understand that pursuant to Penal Code 933, you are required to post our
response along with the report, and we ask that you do so as soon as possible, and to
please notify us once it is posted.
cc: Kern County Grand Jury
Bernard C. Barmann, Sr., County Counsel
Board of Directors, Arvin- Edison Water Storage District
Ernest A. Conant, Esq. District Counsel
SCC: sj\ Board\ KC. Grand Jury. Felice. pension. response. 07.06. doc
MISSION STATEMENT
CITIES AND JOINT POWERS COMMITTEE
The Cities and Joint Powers Committee of the 2005- 2006 Kern County
Grand Jury sees as its mission the improvement of the way of life of the
citizenry of Kern County. It feels that such a goal can be achieved through
the cooperative endeavor of the Committee with each of the Cities and of the
Joint Powers agencies which it studies to make equally available to each
resident the advantages provided by such agency.
CITY OF ARVIN
PURPOSE OF INQUIRY:
The Cities and Joint Powers Committee ( Committee) of the 2005- 2006 Kern County
Grand Jury visited the City of Arvin ( City) on December 8, 2005, and again on January
12, 2006, for the purpose of conducting an investigation of the City pursuant to the
provisions of Section 925a of the California Penal Code.
PROCESS:
The Committee reviewed past Kern County Grand Jury Final Reports and Responses
prior to visiting Arvin. While there the Committee interviewed the City Manager, the
Finance Director, and the City Clerk. At the time of the second visit the Interim Chief of
Police and the Fire Chief were added to the interview group.
BACKGROUND:
According to the 2005 Area wide Directory published by the Kern Council of
Governments ( Kern COG), the City of Arvin was “[ e] stablished in 1910 and incorporated
on December 21, 1960.” The City was named in memory of Arvin Richardson, an early
Pioneer in the area.
The review in Kern COG’s directory goes on to say: “ Uniform temperatures and miles of
rich soil make Arvin one of the most cultivated areas in the region. Products include a
bounty of grapes, carrots, deciduous fruits, cotton, alfalfa, sugar beets, and various
orchard fruits available to buyers across the nation during a long and vigorous season.”
Understandably Arvin is known as “ A Garden in the Sun.”
FINDINGS:
The interviews with the Management Staff revealed the following information:
• The new Arvin management team, which was installed beginning in May of 2003,
gives every indication of being a highly professional and well- educated group. The
City Manager is a Stanford University graduate, the Finance Director is a graduate of
the University of Southern California, and the City Clerk is a graduate of Fresno State
University and is currently utilizing an on- line class from San Joaquin Delta College
to complete City Clerk credentials. The Fire Chief and the present Interim Chief of
Police are well- qualified and experienced for the positions.
• During the first three years of the new Administration of Arvin the Management
Team has been involved in becoming acclimated to the atmosphere which was left by
the previous administration and in discovering the financial situation faced by the
City as a result of the governing actions of the previous administration. When the
new administration took over there was a $ 630,000 budget deficit and the former City
Manager had just returned a $ 1.5 million redevelopment grant. In addition there are
continuing major infrastructure problems and maintenance needs facing the City
because of a lack of foresight on the part of the earlier administration. Natural growth
of the City is causing additional strain in the areas. The Managers are developing a
team to help the City deal with an extension of the wastewater program, with waste
disposal, and with engineering, contractor, and planning needs. The team meets
weekly for planning review.
• From time to time unanticipated situations arise which impose on the City the need to
take remedial action. One example as noted in an earlier Grand Jury report, the City
was taking steps to convert an old migrant labor camp to a drug rehabilitation center.
Approximately one year ago the City received notice from a collection agency that a
$ 190,000 payment was due related to the conversion plan. The obligation was a
product of the Arvin Housing Authority which is now defunct. A bond was obtained
by the City on or about 1993 and only one bond payment had been made. The
payments were supposed to be made from the rent of the trailers on the property. The
site was approved by the State for the intended use, however, there was no
transportation for the residents of the center and the program was abandoned. A
judgment was taken against the now defunct Arvin Housing Authority and, upon
advice of counsel, the City agreed to release the land in favor of a satisfaction of
judgment.
• The 2004- 2005 Grand Jury recommended that the City make an in- depth analysis of
revenues and expenditures of all funds in order to determine what actions should be
taken to stem the tide of deficit spending in the City’s budget. Apparently the City
has undertaken the steps as the last adopted budget of the City was $ 37,000 in the
black. The City just received the City portion of the 2003 and 2004 Department of
Motor Vehicles Tax in the amount of $ 230,000. The City currently has $ 2,000,000 in
reserves. However, at mid- term of the 2005- 2006 fiscal year the City has a $ 180,000
budget deficit.
• The City owned wastewater treatment plant has a 30 year contract with the current
manager Violia Inc. According to City Management Violia appears to be doing a
good job. The capacity of the plant is two million gallons per day with an average
daily use of 1.2 to 1.4 million gallons. There is capacity for another 1,000 homes.
The effluent is spread upon adjoining land. The City needs to purchase more land to
use the plant to full capacity. The City is close to coming to agreement with a
community recycling company to extend piping to the Edison area west of the City to
spread the effluent. The City is also working with the City of Bakersfield and the
County of Kern in developing a regional wastewater plant for the area.
• Unimax Partnership rented the Smothermon Park for a child care center. A
prefabricated building was installed that accommodates 100 children 24 hours a day,
seven days a week. The City charged Unimax rent for the park of $ 1.00 per year for
five years. Two offices in the Adobe Plaza Complex in the City were to be rented for
$ 500 per month. The President of the company became ill and Unimax folded. The
State Department of Education contracted and rewrote the contract with the
Community Action Partnership, the organization currently operating the facility.
• Currently there is no landfill in the City. Residents must utilize the County landfill at
Bena. The State issued an order for compliance to implement recycling within the
City in nine areas, e. g., green waste, blue bins, construction debris, etc., by June 30,
2005. The City was not in compliance as of that date. A hearing was held by the
State on November 8, 2005. The City was fined $ 5,000 by the State for non-compliance.
The City must report quarterly to the California Integrated Waste
Management Board on progress made on compliance. A City- contracted private
corporation is currently attempting to comply with disposal problems.
• The $ 850,000 grant for apartments for farm workers was awarded to the Kern
Housing Authority not to the City of Arvin. The City is not aware of where the
money was spent, however, the money may have gone to the Arvin Sunset Labor
Camp or Ruben Blount Housing. The Committee made a visual inspection of the two
projects and the new housing has indeed been provided for farm workers. The
apartment grounds and exteriors are well kept with play areas for the children. The
grounds are surrounded with fencing and a gated entry.
• A year and a half ago the City spent part of a $ 121,500 grant for a recycle collection
program. Approximately $ 20,000 to $ 25,000 was utilized to collect household
recyclables. The Committee was informed that there has been a favorable response
from the citizens. A private consultant has been hired with the remainder of the
money to investigate ways for collection of household recyclable waste.
• The $ 200,000 grant for park and recreation capital outlay, including the skate park is
95% complete. Also included in the capital outlay were two children’s playgrounds
in City parks, T- Ball and baseball fields, and three soccer fields, small and regulation
size. The Interim Chief of Police advised that there is some vandalism because the
areas constitute an attractive nuisance.
• The mobile data computer system for the Police Department has not been completed.
There are a total of twelve police vehicles and at this time four are equipped with
mobile data reporting equipment.
• There is no disaster plan for the City. The County Fire Department covers fire
protection for the City and has an earthquake preparedness plan. The City is working
with County officials to develop emergency plans with 9/ 11 funds for enhancements.
• There were plans to remodel the Veteran’s Hall, however, the City decided that it was
cost prohibitive to follow the remodel plans. Instead, the door was replaced and the
windows were weatherized. The City continues to hold meetings in the building. A
$ 225,000 Community Development Block Grant ( CDBG) scheduled to be used for
the remodel was utilized for other projects but the City Manager and City Finance
Director did not know where the money was spent stating, “ this happened prior to the
current administration.”
• The Police Commission Advisory Group is not operating, however, there are plans to
begin again after the selection of a new Chief of Police.
• The City does not have a grant writer. The CDBG grant and a transportation grant
were written by the City Engineer.
• “ Citizens on Patrol” is a citizens’ service unit utilized to work in the police
department office performing non- law enforcement duties. The City does take
advantage of the work release program and community service orders from the court.
COMMENTS:
• The City Administration appears to be quite self- confident and proud of the job being
done. When asked what the Administration felt the strengths of the City are, the City
Manager replied, “ its citizens, because through their vote they were able to do what
the Sheriff, the District Attorney, and the Grand Jury were not able to do regarding
the previous Mayor of Arvin.”
• The City Administration is proud of the fact that the budget was in the black last
year. The City may not be in the same situation in the coming year.
• The City Administration continues to blame the prior administration for problems the
City has had in the past. The administrators should thoroughly investigate previous
financial transactions to insure that there will not be a repeat of the lawsuit regarding
the Arvin Housing Authority.
• The downtown area of the City continues to have empty buildings with weeds and
debris littering the area.
• An interesting note: The City Manager lives in Santa Barbara and commutes to
Arvin and the Finance Director lives in Twin Oaks and also commutes to work.
During interviews with other cities the Committee has learned commuting seemed to
be the standard. The Committee would hope that the current arrangement could be
changed with the Management living in the City.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. The City should insure that “ it gets what it pays for” when contracting with private
contractors. The City administration did not explain what the private contractor was
going to perform for the City other than vague comments regarding the balance of the
grant money for recyclable waste as the City is currently non- compliant with State
standards and is being fined by the State. In addition, the report from the East Los
Angeles Community Union appears to be useless and the City paid $ 100,000 for the
report.
2. The City should either hire or train an employee for grant writing. The grants
currently are not monitored and there are many opportunities for the City to seek
more grants.
3. The City should continue working with the City of Bakersfield and the County of
Kern to develop a regional waste treatment plant.
4. The City should seek Federal or State grants to complete the upgrade of the police
vehicles with mobile data reporting equipment.
5. The City Administrators should attempt to develop a City Pride and/ or Clean Up
program to encourage City dwellers to clean their property.
The City of Arvin should post a copy of this report where it will be available for public
review.
Note: Present and past Kern County Grand Jury Final Reports and Responses may be
accessed at the County Library and on the Kern County Grand Jury web- site:
www. co. kern. ca. us/ grandjury
RESPONSE REQUIRED:
WITHIN 60 DAYS
TO PRESIDING JUDGE
KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301
cc: FOREPERSON,
KERN COUNTY GRAND JURY
6TH FLOOR, 1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
PURPOSE OF INQUIRY:
The Cities & Joint Powers Committee ( Committee) of the 2005- 2006 Kern County Grand
Jury elected not to visit the City of Bakersfield ( City) for the purpose of conducting an
investigation of the City pursuant to the provisions of Section 925a of the California
Penal Code.
PROCESS:
After reviewing past Kern County Grand Jury Final Reports and Responses regarding the
City members of the Committee interviewed the City Manager by telephone.
BACKGROUND:
Bakersfield is the County Seat of Kern County, California. As of the 2000 census the
City had a total population of 247,057. The City's economy is based upon agriculture,
petroleum extraction, and refining. Bakersfield is one of the fastest growing cities in the
United States. As of 2005 the population is estimated at 307,471 according to local
municipal sources. Bakersfield is California's third largest inland city. In 1776 the
Spanish missionary Father Francisco Garces was the first European to reach the area. In
1851 gold was discovered in the Kern River and in 1865 the first discovery of oil was
made in the valley. Settlements grew up and the place soon became known as " Colonel
Baker's field", after one of the local settlers. When Colonel Thomas Baker was given the
assignment of surveying a township, in 1869, the town was given the official name of
" Bakersfield".
In the 1950’ s local country musicians such as Buck Owens, Merle Haggard, and Wynn
Stewart helped invent a rock and roll influenced country music style called the
Bakersfield Sound. The influence was so great that Bakersfield is second only to
Nashville, Tennessee in country music fame. Bakersfield continues to produce famous
country music artists.
Despite Bakersfield’s country music fame Bakersfield has also turned out a fair share of
hard rock, most notably KoЯn, Burning Image, and Adema.
FINDINGS:
The Committee interviewed the City Manager via telephone and discussed the 2004- 2005
Kern County Grand Jury Report and the City Response. Each of the recommendations
was appropriately addressed. In addition the recommendation that Code Enforcement
positions should be increased, the City has, in fact, hired five additional officers.
One of the major issues faced by the City is the proposed location of the new Federal
Courthouse in the southwest area of the City. The City Council and the Board of
Supervisors of Kern County, along with concerned citizens, are opposing the location and
suggest that the court house be located in the downtown area.
COMMENTS:
The City of Bakersfield is a fast growing city and is to be commended for utilizing smart
growth in new development. The City has outgrown the image presented by various
entertainment celebrities. The downtown center is to be envied by other cities.
Hallmarks of the Bakersfield community continue to be a high quality of life, a strong
family orientation, and the fact that people care.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The City should continue to work with the Kern County Board of Supervisors and
concerned citizens to insure that the Federal Courthouse is located in the downtown area.
The City of Bakersfield should post a copy of this report where it would be available for
public review.
Note: Present and past Kern County Grand Jury Final Reports and Responses may be
accessed at the County Library and on the Kern County Grand Jury web- site:
www. co. kern. ca. us/ grandjury
NO RESPONSE REQUIRED
CITY OF CALIFORNIA CITY
PURPOSE OF INQUIRY:
The Cities and Joint Powers Committee ( Committee) of the 2005- 2006 Kern County
Grand Jury visited the City of California City ( City) on March 7, 2006, for the purpose of
conducting an investigation of the City pursuant to the provisions of Section 925a of the
California Penal Code.
PROCESS:
The Committee reviewed past Kern County Grand Jury Final Reports and Responses
regarding the City prior to visiting the City. During the visit the Committee interviewed
several members of the City Administration including the Mayor, the City Manager, the
Assistant City Manager/ Finance Director, the Clerk, the Police Chief, and the Fire Chief.
In addition the Committee reviewed several documents descriptive of the City and the
surrounding area.
BACKGROUND:
California City is located in the high desert area of eastern Kern County. The City was
founded in May 1958 and was incorporated on December 10, 1965. A “ planned”
community, the City is the third largest incorporated city in land area in California and
the eleventh largest in the United States.
With easy access to the Mojave Desert and Edwards Air Force Base, California City is an
ideal area for military personnel and lovers of the wide open desert.
FINDINGS:
The interviews with the City Staff revealed the following information:
• The strengths of the City were described as small enough to be friendly, self
sufficient, and with affordable housing, clean air, good weather, and a capable City
staff. Additionally the City citizenry appear willing to pass and revise special taxes
for support services for the City.
• The City has a Foreign Trade Zone located at the airport and along with the
expansion of the airport has provided additional employment opportunities.
• The chief problems faced by the City are the maintenance of the infrastructure. The
City was designed for 60,000 homes and the full infrastructure was installed. The
current population is 12,000. The City has 463 miles of roads, plus water lines and
sewer lines covering 204 square miles
• All of the City firefighters are certified Emergency Medical Technicians or
Paramedics making California City Fire Department ( CCFD) the only fire department
within the county with such qualifications. The City has not acquired a helicopter for
the Fire Department. A private company is contracted to provide air ambulance
services.
• The City is currently conducting studies regarding the damage to the fire station as a
result of flooding last year. State funded disaster mitigation funds will be utilized to
repair the damage. The City has no plans to build a second fire station.
• The expansion of the airport has allowed a new business into the community. The
business is moving all operations from San Diego and has purchased the two old
concrete buildings by the airport containing 30,000 square feet each building. The
business will begin installing power, gas and phone systems within the next three
weeks. The City has submitted plans and applied to the Federal Aviation
Administration ( FAA) for funds to expand the runway of the airport. Expanding the
runway may provide new business for the airport, both private and charter. Currently
there are skydiving and glider businesses operating at the airport.
• The Hyundai Motor Company has just celebrated a second anniversary operating
within the City. The construction of the business was a 60 million dollar project and
provided 62 job opportunities for the citizens. Additional staff is provided by the
corporation from the home company.
• The City Police Department has just acquired five new vehicles and is requesting
another vehicle. One new officer has been added to the staff for a total of 15 sworn
personnel. One and a half years ago the Police Department received nine vehicles,
six of which were new. The Police Department has no plans to utilize mobile data
units or computers in the vehicles as the desert heat would damage the equipment.
There are four holding cells at the Police Department, however, the cells are detention
only and a prisoner can only be held for 12 hours. The Police Department must then
either transport the prisoner to the Kern County Sheriff’s Department Mojave
Substation for booking or release the prisoner.
• The City has received a loan from the United States Department of Agriculture to
downsize the infrastructure to 17 miles. The loan will be repaid with a water rate
increase. The City has reduced the number of water leaks from 350 last year down to
226 this year.
• The City has numerous inquiries each week regarding development. There are three
developers proposing super markets and there are significant small businesses. Sixty-nine
permits for new homes were taken out for the month of February with a total of
166 for the current year. There are currently 373 open building permits.
COMMENTS:
• It has taken over four years to come close to completion of the new high school. All
the plans are completed and are set to go out for bid in two months. However, the
State learned that the City had a prison within the City limits and required the City to
provide a plan to be utilized in the event a prisoner escaped. It is ironic to note that
the prison is located seven miles from the high school with rough high desert terrain
between the two locations.
• The City has no grant writer and feels that it is a hindrance to try to apply for grants
as the City finds it difficult to meet the matching funds requirement.
• The City feels it is not likely the City will receive the services of a branch court as the
City is 15 miles from the Mojave Court and 47 miles from the Ridgecrest Court.
• The Committee found that the members of the City Staff interviewed were very
professional and knowledgeable with regard to the responses given.
RECOMMENDATION:
The City of California City should post a copy of this report where it will be available for
public review.
Note: Present and past Kern County Grand Jury Final Reports and Responses may be
accessed at the County Library and on the Kern County Grand Jury web- site:
www. co. kern. ca. us/ grandjury
NO RESPONSE REQUIRED
CITY OF DELANO
PURPOSE OF INQUIRY:
The Cities and Joint Powers Committee ( Committee) of the 2005- 2006 Kern County
Grand Jury visited the City of Delano ( City) on September 8, 2005, for the purpose of
conducting an investigation of the City pursuant to the provisions of Section 925a of the
California Penal Code.
PROCESS:
After reviewing past Kern County Grand Jury Final Reports and Responses regarding the
City of Delano members of the Committee interviewed several key City officers. The
preparation for the interviews included reviews of City Council agendas, minutes of
Council Meetings, the most recent City Budget, and various media publications relating
to the City of Delano.
BACKGROUND:
Delano was established in 1870 as a Southern Pacific railhead, developed as a farming
town, and incorporated in 1915. Delano is an agricultural market center for Northern
Kern and Southern Tulare County farming interests. With easy access to markets Delano
benefits from the City’s location in the center of a two- county agribusiness area. Recent
population data places the City’s size at 45,056 which includes 10,800 prison inmates.
Community events include Philippine Weekend in July, 16th of September Celebration,
Mexican Independence Day in September, and the Annual Harvest Holidays in October.
FINDINGS:
Interviews of City Staff members and reviews of various documents lead to the following
findings:
• Water: Approximately 10 to 12 wells are affected by arsenic, however, the City is
drilling new wells.
• Sewer: The sewer systems are adequate at this time. The waste water plant is being
expanded.
• Roads: A pending roads project is two thirds complete.
• The City school system is a good system.
• A new transit station was opened eight months ago.
• A Bakersfield College campus was opened in the City in September 2005.
• New housing is mainly in the development stage.
• A proposed recreation field has been put on hold as the Federal Aviation Agency
( FAA) indicated the location of the field was too close to the airport runway.
COMMENTS:
• The Committee found there is strength in loyalty of the staff and the way a diverse
group of people have managed to work together with excellent results.
• The City applied for a grant to build a gymnasium, however, the City did not receive
the grant. There are plans to reapply for the grant.
• Some of the weaknesses are the City is financially strapped, there are major problems
with the City streets, the commercial growth is not keeping up with the population
growth, and almost 50% of the residents are living below poverty level.
RECOMMENDATION:
The City of Delano should post a copy of this report where it may be available for public
review.
Note: Present and past Kern County Grand Jury Final Reports and Responses may be
accessed at the County Library and on the Kern County Grand Jury web- site:
www. co. kern. ca. us/ grandjury
NO RESPONSE REQUIRED
CITY OF MARICOPA
PURPOSE OF INQUIRY:
The Cities & Joint Powers Committee of the 2005- 2006 Kern County Grand Jury
( Committee) visited the City of Maricopa ( City) on September 11, 2005, and again on
March 27, 2006, for the purpose of conducting an investigation of the City pursuant to
the provisions of Section 925a of the California Penal Code.
PROCESS:
After reviewing past Kern County Grand Jury Final Reports and Responses regarding the
City of Maricopa, members of the Committee interviewed the Mayor and the City
Administrator. The preparation for the interviews included reviews of City Council
agendas, minutes of Council Meetings, and various media publications relating to the
City of Maricopa.
BACKGROUND:
Maricopa is known as “ Gateway to the Sea” located on a direct route to beach cities.
Incorporated on July 25, 1911, the “ Mother City” of the prolific Midway- Sunset Oil
Fields is also the gateway to the Cerro Noreste/ Mount Pinos recreation area.
Maricopa is the name applied by a Pima Indian Tribe to a neighboring tribe of Uymas
inhabiting the Gila River Valley in southern Arizona. How the name reached California
is unknown but the name was given to the oil- booming community when a station on the
Sunset Western Railroad was established in 1903.
The real growth of Maricopa began with the Lakeview gusher in 1910. The famed
gusher helped make Kern County “ First in Oil” in the state and nation. The current
population is 1,147.
FINDINGS:
• Some of the strengths of the City are the independence of the citizens of the City and
the pride of the citizens in self- government.
• The City has developed a web page with information regarding history and location
of the City.
• Problems faced by the City are a lack of adequate funding for the City to attain the
City’s goals. Additionally the difference of opinion within the community sometimes
causes a slow- down in the progress of projects.
• The City anticipates an addition of $ 15,000 per year to the General Fund with an
easement agreement.
• The City has resisted an annexation to the City of Taft.
• The City has a proposed development within the year with a developer from Buellton,
California.
• There is little commercial use in the City as the businesses must find that Maricopa
will meet the needs of the businesses. Old structures must be brought into code
compliance regarding earthquakes and various infrastructure features.
• The Committee was informed of a new successful granite working business in the
City. The granite is imported from Greece and decorative objects are manufactured
from the material.
• Maricopa is working with the Kern Council of Governments ( Kern COG) regarding
updating of the sewer system. A feasibility study was conducted and four alternative
solutions were identified. The City Council chose alternative # 2 which will replace
the existing sewer system including the trunk line extending from the City to the
treatment ponds and build four new sewer ponds. The cost will be $ 4,015,848 which
will be paid for by raising the monthly fee for sewer service from $ 16.00 to $ 35.00
per residence. Since a referendum wasn’t needed the City Council voted to accept
alternative # 2. A special meeting was called for Monday, March 27, 2006, apparently
to announce the City Council’s decision. Unfortunately an oil company’s refusal to
relinquish land or to grant easements puts the entire plan on hold. Whether the City
will use the power of eminent domain to obtain the land needed for the project is
unknown.
• The City has received a park grant of $ 220,000 to upgrade the park and the Oil
Museum.
• The City has no disaster plan but will utilize the County Plan.
• The General Plan is “ way overdue and can’t be completed.”
• The City Attorney provides training regarding the Brown Act every two years or
whenever new Council members are elected.
COMMENTS:
• The City Administrator taking part in the first visitation to the City by the Committee
died within two months or so after the visitation. The Committee postponed the
follow- up visitation until the City had the opportunity to employ a new City
Administrator. In fact, at the time of the follow- up visitation the City Administrator
had been on the job for only three weeks.
• The Committee was provided a tour of the Congregational Church which was the first
church constructed on the west side of Kern County. Much of the original
construction is still in the building. The glass for the stained glass windows was
imported from Italy and is still in place. The Mayor also rang the church bell for the
Committee.
• Maricopa has been land- locked by oil companies and the companies are not interested
in selling property.
• Maricopa has developed and adopted a current budget. The City is finishing up the
2004- 2005 budget closing the books. Some confusion exists regarding the audit of
the books as requested by a previous Grand Jury. The City Administrator advised the
Committee that the “ audit” performed by the accounting agency indicated that the
City was following accounting rules. Additionally the City was audited for gas tax
monies.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. The City of Maricopa should make every effort to bring the City’s sewer
replacement project to a successful completion and should investigate all procedures
available to do so including the power of eminent domain.
2. The citizens of the City of Maricopa should make every effort to work cooperatively
such that necessary projects may be achieved.
The City of Maricopa should post a copy of this report where it will be available for
public review.
Note: Present and past Kern County Grand Jury Final Reports and Responses may be
accessed at the County Library and on the Kern County Grand Jury website:
www. co. kern. ca. us/ grandjury
RESPONSE REQUIRED:
WITHIN 60 DAYS
TO PRESIDING JUDGE
KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301
cc: FOREPERSON
KERN COUNTY GRAND JURY
1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE, 6th FLOOR
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301
CITY OF McFARLAND
PURPOSE OF INQUIRY:
The Cities and Joint Powers Committee of the 2005- 2006 Kern County Grand Jury
visited the City of McFarland on September 8, 2005, for the purpose of conducting an
investigation of the City pursuant to the provisions of Section 925a of the California
Penal Code.
PROCESS:
The Committee reviewed past Kern County Grand Jury Final Reports and Responses
prior to visiting McFarland. While there, the Committee interviewed the Mayor and the
City Administrator. The City Attorney was also present. Among other things the
strengths, weaknesses, and general plan of the City were discussed.
BACKGROUND:
The City of McFarland was incorporated July 18, 1957. It was named for J. B. McFarland
who, with W. F. Laird, established the townsite in 1908. Known as the “ Heartbeat of
Agriculture”, the City produces cotton, grapes, and almonds among other things. The
population is 12,179.
FINDINGS:
• The Committee was told the City’s strong point is the leadership from the City
Council.
• The City is financially unable to implement many new projects at this time because
the majority of the citizens have relatively low paying occupations which, in turn,
means there is less tax money to be spent. The City has a 2011 general plan which
should have been revised years ago and is in the process of being revised by the City
Council.
• The City Council is planning to form an umbrella plan for all City services to
promote better cooperation between elected officials and the public.
• Through the generosity and community commitment of Paramount Farms the City
recently obtained title to a twelve acre land area on the east side of Highway 99 to be
developed for a multi- use community oriented campus.
• The dairy which has long existed along Highway 99 south of the City is being
relocated away from the City. The land will then be available for development by the
City.
• The City Council is in the process of negotiating with developers concerning new
housing. Developers must pay all expenses, plus provide parks. There will be no
subsidies. The problem of providing services ( water, sewer, etc.) is still ongoing.
• The sewer capacity is large enough for 250 more new homes and is being converted
from an evaporating pond to a secondary waste system. There is an ample supply of
water to meet current needs. The City is in the process of drilling new wells for
future needs. At this time the water meets all EPA and State standards.
• Because of budget restrictions the City Council would rather outsource jobs than hire
new employees. The City Council, however, wants to hire a lobbyist who will work
for the City in Sacramento to help obtain more grants.
COMMENTS:
• The Committee is concerned about the schedule for updating the sewer system, since
the existing sewer system is only large enough for 250 new homes and approximately
1,300 new homes are in the planning stage.
• The Committee questions why the City Council wants to hire a lobbyist rather than a
grant writer when the City is outsourcing jobs rather than hiring any new employees
due to a budget shortfall.
• The Committee hopes that when the dairy relocates, the City Council will be able to
attract new business that will create more and better jobs for the residents and will
increase the tax revenue, thereby making the City more solvent.
• The Committee would like to see the promised improvements implemented as soon as
possible after the land from Paramount Farms becomes available.
• The Committee believes the City Council is doing an excellent job of bringing
McFarland into the mainstream and compliments the City.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
• The City should complete the conversion of the sewer system as quickly as possible
so the system will be up to code and will also be large enough to accommodate the
housing developments in the near future.
• The City Council should consider the merits of hiring a grant writer versus hiring a
lobbyist.
• The City Council should do everything possible to attract new business and should try
to make the existing business district more attractive to consumers.
The City of McFarland should post a copy of this report where it will be available for
public review.
Note: Present and past Kern County Grand Jury Final Reports and Responses may be
accessed at the County Library and on the Kern County Grand Jury web- site:
www. co. kern. ca. us/ grandjury
RESPONSE REQUIRED:
WITHIN 90 DAYS
TO PRESIDING JUDGE
KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE
BAKERSFIELD, CA. 93301
cc: KERN COUNTY GRAND JURY
SIXTH FLOOR, 1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301
CITY OF RIDGECREST
PURPOSE OF INQUIRY:
The Cities and Joint Powers Committee of the 2005- 2006 Kern County Grand Jury
visited the City of Ridgecrest ( City) on January 30, 2006, pursuant to the provisions of
Section 925a of the California Penal Code.
PROCESS:
Prior to the visitation, the members of the Committee reviewed earlier Grand Jury Final
Reports and Responses regarding the City as well as articles and other publications
concerning the City. The members of the Committee then traveled to the City and
conducted interviews of members of the management team of the City, including the City
Manager, the Deputy City Manager and the Chief of Police.
BACKGROUND:
Ridgecrest is a high desert community surrounded by four mountain ranges that include
the Sierra Nevada’s. Ridgecrest is mixture of old west and gold mining history combined
with the contemporary high technology of the Navy's top rated research and development
facility. Ridgecrest is known for its clear skies, good schools and low crime rate. The
current population is 27,000. The area supports many recreational venues, hiking,
camping, back packing, rock hounding and fishing. The historical petroglyphs, the Naval
Museum of Armament and Technology and the Maturango Museum are other areas of
interest.
FINDINGS:
The interviews of the Members of the management Team for the City led to the following
findings.
• The strengths of Ridgecrest were listed as low crime rate, low unemployment rate
and good schools. The City is located next to the China Lake Naval Air Warfare
Station, so the defense industry provides the majority of employment. The
unemployment rate is less than 5% and is the lowest in the county. The city
expects major changes from the decisions of the federal government Base
Reduction and Closure ( BRAC) program. With the closure of some bases
throughout the nation, the City expects to gain 2,600 new employees. Twenty-five
percent of these would be military employees. Currently there are
approximately 5,000 employees at the base, of those only 1,000 are military
personnel. The remaining are government employees or private contactors. The
City is preparing for a 2.3% city growth.
• Most challenges faced by the City arise from the fact that the major business is
the military base. The city needs diversity in businesses. The City is working
with Kern COG in developing a business park. There are some scientists on the
base who would like to have their products produced within the area, not exported
to other states or countries for production. The increase in population will create
problems for the police force, housing and schools. Currently there are two
schools located on the base and after 9/ 11 this created problems for the students.
The schools are old and need to be replaced.
• The City is looking to expand tourism. The major tourism attractions are the
desert wildflowers and petroglyphs. Two major hotel chains have purchased land
for development. Several physicians are opening clinics. The energy industry is
another option. There is a geothermal well on the base that will produce 360
megawatts of power. The City is also investigating private land wind energy
fields and solar energy. The college has produced a solar energy field that
provides all their electrical requirements and also allows excess energy produced
to be sold on the electrical grid. Investigation continues into producing electrical
energy “ peaking” plants in the area. These will allow the electrical grid to
redirect electricity into areas that are requiring more allocations.
• The City has one full time and two part- time grant writers. The city has numerous
grants including an Employment Resources Training Center hiring grant of
$ 68,000 that is utilized to employ youth, ages 14 to young adult. There is a transit
operating grant of $ 28,000. The Community Development Block Grant of
$ 200,000 is utilized for the infrastructure. A Department of Motor Vehicles grant
allowed the City to purchase three fuel efficient automobiles. The police
department received an $ 8,000 grant for the purchase of protective vests for the
officers. Community Oriented Police Services ( COPS) receives $ 100,000 per
year for community services. Highway and transportation grants are managed
through Kern COG. A $ 13,000,000 grant was received for the redevelopment of
Ridgecrest Boulevard. Currently $ 1,000,000 is being utilized for environmental
impact studies and conceptual design. The City has also applied for a grant to
develop three natural gas refueling stations.
• There was a housing slump about 10 years ago, however within the last 12
months 250 new homes have been built, 200 permits have been issued, and 23
tract maps are in the planning department. The City has had to hire extra help to
work on the tract maps. There has been some speculation purchasing however
houses are hard to rent. There is a new apartment complex proposed but there
have been objections by the nearby property owners. There are 1700 acres in the
city to be developed.
• Numerous businesses have opened within the last year, small businesses, medical
clinics, restaurants, and drug stores. A Wal- Mart Superstore is beginning an
environmental impact study. A company that built racing cars has not been able
to sustain the business and is leaving the area.
• The Teen Court has not re- opened because matching funds were not budgeted by
the county. Private funding is not available.
• Highways 14 and 395 continue to require maintenance and improvement. There
was a Tri- County team established between Kern, Inyo and Mono Counties with
one and half million dollars committed for improvement on these two highways.
• The City does not anticipate a sales tax increase at this time. The City will hold
off until after this year’s election due to the county “ Safe Roads” initiative. If this
initiative passes the city will receive approximately $ 42 million over the next 20
years.
• Development fees are being proposed for police, fire, roads and waste water
treatment. The County of Kern has two fire stations in the Ridgecrest area and a
third has been proposed.
• The Police Department does not have any type of computer or mobile data units
in the police vehicles. All calls are radio dispatched from the control center in the
department’s office. Checks for warrants and wants are checked by the dispatcher
and radioed to the officer in the field. The City has saved $ 280,000 in booking
fees, housing and transportation in an exchange with the Kern County Sheriff’s
Department utilizing the old police department building
COMMENTS:
The Committee made the following observations during the visit.
• Although the population of Ridgecrest is only about 27,000 there was a great deal
of activity in the City.
• The City is located in the arid, high desert area of eastern California and so was
found to be quite dry. It was noted that where landscaping was being carried out
around new construction the use of water for irrigation was carefully restricted.
• The city hall building is quite impressive both in size and in design.
• The members of the City Management Team were quite knowledgeable about the
characteristics of the City and its citizenry as well as about the short- and long-term
needs of both.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. The City should continue to seek new and various businesses not entirely
related to the military base. The new areas suggested by the City
administration are valid areas to pursue and every effort should be made to
attract these businesses.
2. The City is to be complemented on having a full time grant writer. Every
effort should be made to continue to seek new grants.
3. The City should be careful to utilize smart growth with new housing
development. The infrastructure should not be scattered over the 1,700 acres
to be developed. The developments should be located close to each other so
there is less stress on the infrastructure.
4. The City should insure that the development fees proposed meet the needs
required to support the police, fire, roads and waste water treatment.
5. The City should investigate the ins
Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.
Description
| Rating | |
| Title | Kern County Grand Jury final report |
| Subject | California. Grand Jury (Kern County)--Periodicals.; Kern County (Calif.)--Politics and government--Periodicals. |
| Description | Description based on: 2001/2002; title from opening screen of PDF.; Harvested from the web on 2/16/07 |
| Creator | California. Grand Jury (Kern County) |
| Publisher | Kern County Grand Jury] |
| Type | Text |
| Identifier | http://digitalarchive.oclc.org/request?id%3Doclcnum%3A144565677; http://www.co.kern.ca.us/grandjury/reports.asp |
| Language | eng |
| Format-Extent | 1 web site : digital, PDF files. |
| Relation-Requires | Mode of access: Internet.; System requirements: Adobe Acrobat Reader. |
| Transcript | TABLE OF CONTENTS Inside Front Cover Members of the 2005- 2006 Kern County Grand Jury Photograph of 2005- 2006 Kern County Jury Table of Contents Presiding Judge for the Superior Court, Assistant Presiding Judge ( hard copy only). 1 Support Staff ( hard copy only) ................................................................................... 2 Grand Jury Officers................................................................................................. 3 Grand Jury Foreman, Pro Tem................................................................................ 4 Grand Jury Foreman’s Letter to Judge.................................................................... 5 Do you know what the Grand Jury does for your Community? ( hard copy only) ..... 7 Grand Jurors’ Oath.................................................................................................. 8 Grand Jury Formal Statement of Position............................................................... 9 Oversight Responsibilities of Grand Jury Committees......................................... 11 Organization and Committees Chart......................................................... 12 Administration and Audit Mission Statement..................................................................................... 14 Committee Photograph ( hard copy only) ..................................................... 15 Kern County Assessor............................................................................... 16 Response ( Web site only) Response – Board of Supervisors ( Web site only – added 8/ 30/ 06) Kern County Recorder .............................................................................. 18 Response ( Web site only) Response – Board of Supervisors ( Web site only – added 8/ 30/ 06) Arvin Edison Water Storage District Qualified Retirement Plan............................................................. 20 Response ( Web site only) Cities and Joint Powers Mission Statement..................................................................................... 25 Committee Photograph ( hard copy only) ..................................................... 26 City of Arvin ............................................................................................. 27 Response ( Web site only) City of Bakersfield .................................................................................... 32 City of California City .............................................................................. 34 City of Delano........................................................................................... 37 City of Maricopa ....................................................................................... 39 Response ( will be on Web site only) City of McFarland..................................................................................... 42 Response....................................................................................... 45 City of Ridgecrest ..................................................................................... 48 Response ( Web site only) City of Shafter........................................................................................... 52 Response....................................................................................... 55 City of Taft................................................................................................ 56 Response....................................................................................... 60 City of Tehachapi...................................................................................... 62 City of Wasco............................................................................................ 66 Response....................................................................................... 70 Health, Education, and Social Services Mission Statement..................................................................................... 73 Committee Photograph ( hard copy only) ..................................................... 74 Boron High School.................................................................................... 75 Department of Human Services CalWORKS ( Web site only) Response ( will be on Web site only) Response – Board of Supervisors ( Web site only – added 8/ 30/ 06) Desert High School ................................................................................... 78 Farm and Home Advisors ......................................................................... 81 Fruitvale Junior High School .................................................................... 84 Kern County Superintendent of Schools Court Schools................................................................................ 86 South High School .................................................................................... 96 Response....................................................................................... 99 Law and Justice Mission Statement................................................................................... 101 Committee Photograph ( hard copy only) ................................................... 102 Bakersfield Police Department ............................................................... 103 California City Correctional Center ........................................................ 109 California City Police Department.......................................................... 112 Camp Erwin Owen.................................................................................. 115 Response..................................................................................... 118 Kern County California Multi- Jurisdictional Methamphetamine Enforcement Team ( CAL- MMET).......................... 120 Response..................................................................................... 122 Response – Board of Supervisors ( Web site only) Kern County Sheriff’s Department Central Receiving Facility ( CRF)... 125 Response..................................................................................... 128 Response – Board of Supervisors ( Web site only) Kern County Sheriff’s Department - Coroner Division.......................... 132 Response..................................................................................... 135 Response – Board of Supervisors ( Web site only) Delano Police Department ...................................................................... 139 Response..................................................................................... 142 Kern County District Attorneys’ Office Forensic Science Division ( Crime Lab).................................................. 144 Response..................................................................................... 147 Response – Board of Supervisors ( Web site only) County of Kern, Frazier Park Sheriff’s Substation ................................. 150 Response..................................................................................... 153 Response – Board of Supervisors ( Web site only) Golden State Medium Community Correctional Facility ....................... 158 Response ( Web site only – added 9/ 18/ 06) Kern County Sheriff’s Department, Lerdo Jail Facilities ....................... 161 Response ( Web site only) Response – Board of Supervisors ( Web site only – added 8/ 30/ 06) Kern County Sheriff’s Department, McFarland Substation.................... 165 Response..................................................................................... 168 Response – Board of Supervisors ( Web site only) McFarland Community Correctional Facility......................................... 172 Mesa Verde Community Correctional Facility....................................... 175 Response..................................................................................... 179 County of Kern Sheriff’s Department, Narcotic Division ...................... 181 Response..................................................................................... 184 Response – Board of Supervisors North Kern State Prison .......................................................................... 187 Bakersfield Police Department, Narcotics Unit...................................... 190 Kern County Public Defender’s Office................................................... 192 Response – Board of Supervisors .............................................. 194 Larry J. Rhoades, Kern Crossroads Facility............................................ 195 Response..................................................................................... 197 Shafter Community Correctional Facility............................................... 199 Taft Community Correctional Facility.................................................... 201 Taft Correctional Institution.................................................................... 204 Taft Police Department ........................................................................... 207 Tehachapi California Correctional Institution ........................................ 210 Kern Valley State Prison......................................................................... 213 County of Kern Probation Department, Victim/ Witness Program ......... 216 Response..................................................................................... 218 Wasco State Prison Reception Center..................................................... 220 Special Districts Mission Statement................................................................................... 224 Committee Photograph ( hard copy only) ................................................... 225 Cemetery Districts................................................................................... 226 Kern County Cemetery District # 1 Response ( Web site only – added 9/ 28/ 06) Westside Cemetery District Tehachapi Public Cemetery District Response ( Web site only – added 9/ 28/ 06) Kern River Valley Cemetery District Response ( Web site only – added 9/ 28/ 06) Community Service Districts .................................................................. 233 Stallion Springs Community Services East Nile Community Services Golden Hills Community Services Tehachapi Valley Health Care District ................................................... 238 Response ( Web site only – added 8/ 2/ 06) Water Districts ........................................................................................ 242 Response ( Web site only – added 8/ 16/ 06) West Kern Water District Tejon/ Castaic Water District Wheeler Ridge/ Maricopa Water Storage District Lamont Storm Water District Arvin/ Edison Water Storage District Operations Continuity and Tracking Committee Mission Statement................................................................................... 249 Committee Photograph ( hard copy only) ................................................... 250 Kern County Board of Supervisors......................................................... 251 Supervisorial District Map ( hard copy only).............................................. 253 Response ( hard copy only) ............................................................. 254 Response – Board of Supervisors Tracking Summary.................................................................................. 256 Library Committee Mission Statement................................................................................... 261 Public Relations Mission Statement................................................................................... 263 Proclamation Letter ( hard copy only)......................................................... 264 Grand Jury Awareness Week Proclamation Certificate ( hard copy only).. 265 Photograph of Grand Jury Awareness and Recruitment Window ( hard copy only) ........................................................................ 266 Photograph of Foreman, Publicity Chair ( hard copy only) ........................ 267 Ad- Hoc Committee Committee Photograph ( hard copy only) ................................................... 269 Kern County Elections Division ............................................................. 270 Response..................................................................................... 272 Response – Board of Supervisors ( Web site only) 2005- 2006 Kern County Grand Jury Also served: Raymond “ Bud” Cenis – Richard J. Oberholzer, Nominating Judge Gerald R. Pelant – John I. Quinlen, Nominating Judge Name Terms Served City Nominating Judge Anderson R. Ross 2004- 2005, 2005- 2006 Bakersfield Robert Tafoya Arnold, Fred W. 2004- 2005, 2005- 2006 Frazier Park Robert Tafoya Aronson, Diana L. 2002- 2003, 2005- 2006 Tehachapi John I. Oglesby Casper, Harold D. 2000- 2001, 2003- 2004, 2005- 2006 Bakersfield Arthur E. Wallace Duffel, Patricia L. 2001- 2002, 2004- 2005, 2005- 2006 Bakersfield Charles P. McNutt Fleming, Loretta M. 1996- 1997, 2002- 2003, 2005- 2006 Tehachapi John I. Oglesby Gardiner, Robert J. 2005- 2006 Bakersfield Arthur E. Wallace Haar, Richard L. 2005- 2006 Bakersfield Lee P. Felice Hardy, Thomas H. 2001- 2002, 2002- 2003, 2005- 2006 Taft Lee P. Felice Kline, Patrice S. 2001- 2002, 2002- 2003, 2004- 2005, 2005- 2006 Tehachapi Arthur E. Wallace Miller, Lois C. 2005- 2006 Bakersfield Gary T. Friedman Mooney, Margaret A. 2005- 2006 Bakersfield Gary T. Friedman Mortimer, Raymond R. 1999- 2000, 2001- 2002, 2003- 2004, 2005- 2006 Taft Arthur E. Wallace Rostad, Mary A. 2003- 2004, 2005- 2006 Bakersfield Lee P. Felice Slater, Trudy 2005- 2006 Bakersfield Lee P. Felice Sparks, Cherlyn G. 2005- 2006 Bakersfield Richard J. Oberholzer Troxel, Gordon F. 2002- 2003, 2004- 2005, 2005- 2006 Delano Sidney P. Chase Wells, Ethel V. 1995- 1996, 1999- 2000, 2004- 2005, 2005- 2006 Bakersfield Arthur E. Wallace Williams, Richard D. 2005- 2006 Bakersfield Clarence Westra, Jr. First Row: Trudy Slater, Cherlyn Sparks, Thomas Hardy, Patricia Duffel, Mary Rostad, Richard Haar, Loretta Fleming, Margaret Mooney, Harold Casper, Fred Arnold, Gordon Troxel Back Row: Raymond Mortimer, Lois Miller, Ethel Wells, R. Ross Anderson, Richard Williams, Patrice Kline, Diana Aronson, Robert Gardiner 2005- 2006 Kern County Grand Jury Officers Ethel Wells R. Ross Anderson Richard Williams Foreperson Pro Tem Foreman Sgt.- at- Arms Robert Gardiner Patrice Kline Lois Miller Parliamentarian Recording Secretary Asst. Sgt- at- Arms 2005- 2006 Kern County Grand Jury R. Ross Anderson, Foreman Ethel Wells, Foreperson Pro Tem June 21, 2006 The Honorable Lee P. Felice Presiding Judge Kern County Superior Court 1415 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, California. 93301 Dear Judge Felice: The one hundred and thirty- ninth session of the Kern County Grand Jury has now been disempaneled and I am attaching our Final Report of investigations completed by 2005- 2006 Grand Jury. Nineteen people from all over Kern County have served on this Jury and I speak for all of them in thanking you for the time you have devoted to the Grand Jury during our term of office and also for the wisdom you displayed in the advice you gave us. We also wish to extend our thanks to Mr. Bernard C. Barmann, County Counsel and Mr. Michael J. Yraceburn, Deputy District Attorney and their staff for the invaluable advice given to us when required. In addition, the Jury received during the year the benefit of various County, Cities and other agencies expertise in running their enterprise. To accomplish the compiling of the above mentioned report Jury members spent an average of one thousand hours and traveled over one hundred thousand miles. Among other things we inspected every County, State and Federal prison in the County, visited all eleven incorporated cities, and monitored various Public Agencies, Special Districts, and Non Profit Organizations. In addition in excess of one hundred complaints were received from various parts of the County and investigated or acknowledged. Over the past few years the Grand Juries have visited Camp Erwin Owen and reported their findings. In all cases recommendations were made to improve conditions at the institution and this year’s Jury was no exception. However we did find that one recommendation has been complied with, namely the updating of the Mess Hall equipment. Still to be accomplished is the proposed trade of land with the Bureau of Land Management and the expansion of the buildings. The Jury extends its thanks to Sheriff Mack Wimbish for his willing provision of transportation for the entire Jury to visit Edwards Air Force Base and the Dryden Flight Research Station, and the Lerdo Correction Center. Sheriff Wimbish and his staff members should be commended for their pleasantness and help. Another highlight of this year’s work is that we have reached an agreement with California State University Bakersfield where they will have two of the graduate students in the Business and Public Administration School apply for membership on every year’s Grand Jury. The applications will be made on the condition that they must follow the same procedures as any other applicants. I understand that they will receive credits for their Masters Degree should they be selected and complete the term of the Grand Jury. I greatly appreciate the confidence in choosing me as Foreman. It has been an informative, interesting and rewarding year for me as Foreman. It has been a privilege to work with such a diverse group of people. Sincerely, R. Ross Anderson, Foreman 2005- 2006 Kern County Grand Jury GRAND JUROR’S OATH The following oath is administered to Grand Jurors: “ I do solemnly swear ( affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and of the State of California, and all laws made pursuant to and in conformity therewith, will diligently inquire into, and true presentment make, of all public offenses against the people of this state, committed or triable within this county, of which the grand jury shall have or can obtain legal evidence. Further, I will not disclose any evidence brought before the grand jury, nor anything which I or any other grand juror may say, nor the manner in which I or any other grand juror may have voted on any matter - before the grand jury. I will keep the charge that will be given to me by the court.” ( Section 911, Penal Code, Amended June 2, 1983) FORMAL STATEMENT OF POSITION 2005- 2006 KERN COUNTY GRAND JURY Each year nineteen citizens of Kern County stand before the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court and swear to uphold the Grand Juror’s Oath. The sworn members will be active Grand Jurors for one year and will serve over 715,000 residents of Kern County. All Grand Juries are an independent judicial body. Present day responsibilities include investigating all aspects of County government, Special Districts, and the cities in Kern County to ensure that these bodies are governed effectively. To fulfill these responsibilities, the Grand Jury may supoena persons and/ or records to obtain information on subjects under investigation. To protect the Constitutional rights of the parties being investigated, the Grand Jury as a group and as individuals are sworn to complete confidentiality. The Kern County Grand Jury conducts criminal hearings that may result in indictments. The Jury may issue accusations against public officials, if upheld by the courts and may result in officials removal from office. Secrecy and confidentiality assure the protection and privacy of everyone coming before the Grand Jury. When the one year term is over the Grand Jury issues a Final Report to the Presiding Judge. Portions of this document pertaining to investigative results during the year have been previously released to encourage an action on urgent matters. The reports include findings and recommendations of each Committee and are available to the general public and the media and also on the Grand Jury Website ( www. co. kern. ca. us/ grandjury) Any action taken during the year is to be considered official Grand Jury business and must be approved by at least twelve of nineteen Grand Jurors. The decision will appear in the Grand Jury minutes as a vote taken, rejected or accepted. The minutes are destroyed at the end of the Grand Jury’s tenure. Rejected matters are no longer Grand Jury issues. In some situations involving an issue that could not be completed within the year, the Presiding Judge may hold over such issues to the next year if the previous Grand Jury so requests. The Grand Jury conducts business at a general meeting. Other days during the week, Jurors are engaged in Committee work. Committees investigate complaints, meet with city officials and visit State, County, and City facilities. All management, revenue accounts, and records are examined to assure compliance with applicable laws. The 2005- 2006 Grand Jury received numerous communications from citizens, civic groups, and government employees relating to real or perceived grievances. The Jury investigates complaints as part of the duties of the Grand Jury. All complaints addressed are submitted in writing by completing and signing a Grand Jury complaint form. The Foreman determines that: • The complaint deals with an area, agency or problem that falls within the purview of the Grand Jury by law. • The complaint has merit and sufficient information provided to make a determination to proceed with an investigation. • The complaint is without merit or does not come under the jurisdiction of the Grand Jury. In such a case a closure letter notifies the complainant. • A committee of the Grand Jury will be assigned responsibility to investigate and report on the complaint. Throughout the course of the 2005- 2006 year, the Grand Jury received a total of 118 complaints. The distribution of these complaints is as follows: Administration and Audit Committee 12 Cities and Joint Power Committee 4 Special Districts 6 Health, Education, and Social Services 10 Law and Justice Committee 50 Complaints returned without action 36 When the Grand Jury year is concluded, the Grand Jury presents a Final Report to the Presiding Judge. The report includes all releases issued during the year. The printing of a Final Report concludes the responsibility of Grand Jurors for the Kern County Superior Court. Grand Jurors must not disclose information obtained as Grand Jurors; disclosure is a misdemeanor. The 2005- 2006 Kern County Grand Jury anticipates the citizens of Kern County have learned how a Grand Jury functions and the meaning of the Grand Juror’s Oath. The Grand Jury service is a personally enriching experience and a significant public service. Applicants are recruited throughout the year at County functions, various service organizations, and through the Grand Jury website ( www. co. kern. ca. us/ grandjury). The formal recruitment period is February 1- April 15 each year. The Grand Jury encourages citizens of Kern County to apply to the Grand Jury. . OVERSIGHT RESPONSIBILITIES OF GRAND JURY COMMITTEES BY COUNTY DEPARTMENT, AGENCY, CITY, & SPECIAL DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION & AUDIT COUNTY SERVICES & SPECIAL DISTRICTS HEALTH, EDUCATION, & SOCIAL SERVICES LAW & JUSTICE CITIES & JOINT POWERS Admin. Office ( CAO) Resource Mgt. Agency Aging & Adult Services District Attorney ( E) Cities General Services Environmental Health Child Support Services D. A. Crime Lab Arvin Construction Services Animal Control Emergency Med. Services Probation Bakersfield Communications Engineering & Survey Employers’ Train. Resources Public Defender California City Information Tech. Building Inspection Farm & Home Advisor Sheriff/ Coroner ( E) Delano Insurance Programs Code Compliance Human Services Dept. Maricopa Property Management Planning Dept. Kern Medical Center City Police Depts. McFarland Purchasing Division Roads Dept. Libraries Jails & Prisons Ridgecrest Revenue Sharing Prog. Mental Health Shafter Taft Agriculture Commissioner Parks & Rec. Dept. Public Health Dept. Tehachapi Airports Dept. Waste Management Veterans Services Wasco Airport Districts Air Quality Districts Special Districts Hospital Districts Joint Powers Assessor/ Recorder ( E) Cemetery School Districts County/ City Fire Auditor/ Controller ( E) Comm. Service Dist. County Supt. of Schools Housing Authorities County Clerk – Elections Irrigation Dist. Museum KernCOG Board of Supervisors ( E) Mosquito Abatement Local Agency Form Comm. ( LAFCO) Clerk of the Board Public Utility Districts Redevelopment Agencies Board of Trade Park & Rec. Districts County Counsel Resource Conservation Risk Management Sanitation Districts Economic Development Water Districts GRAND JURY OPERATIONS COMMITTEE Fire Dept. Water Storage Districts Tracking Misc. Districts Continuity/ Manual Public Relations LIBRARY COMMITTEE County Service Areas 2005- 2006 Training Manual Maintain/ Update Final Reports & Responses for current & past Grand Juries Personnel Dept. Lamont Recruitment Retirement Assoc. Oildale Fair Treasurer/ Tax Collector ( E) Rosedale Exposure Rosamond Online Non- Profit Corps. Edit Final Report Grand Jury Budget ( E) Elected 06/ 02/ 06 2005- 2006 KERN COUNTY GRAND JURY ORGANIZATION AND COMMITTEES CHART OFFICERS: R. Ross Anderson - Foreperson Ethel V. Wells – Foreperson Pro Tem Patrice S. Kline, Recording Secretary Richard D. Williams – Sergeant- at- Arms Lois C. Miller, Asst. Sergeant- at- Arms Robert J. Gardiner – Parliamentarian COMMITTEES: Administration & Audit Law & Justice Finance, audits, and administration concerns Investigates criminal justice agencies Ethel V. Wells – Chairperson Diana L. Aronson - Chairperson Richard Haar Lois C. Miller Margaret Mooney Patrice S. Kline Trudy Slater Cities & Joint Powers Cities and Joint Powers Agency Reviews Operations Robert J. Gardiner – Chairperson Encompasses the coordination and administration of: Harold D. Casper Cherlyn G. Sparks • Continuity & Tracking Special Districts Maintains contact with Board of Supervisors, tracks reports, formats final report book Reviews Special Districts and County Services Loretta M. Fleming Patricia L. Duffel – Chairperson Raymond R. Mortimer • Library Gordon F. Troxel Organizes research material Edit • Public Relations Format and grammatical review of final reports and jury correspondence Informs the public of the Grand Jury and its mission Mary A. Rostad Patricia L. Duffel – Chairperson Loretta M. Fleming Patrice S. Kline Mary A. Rostad • Recruitment Aids the Court in recruiting the subsequent Grand Jury Health, Education, and Social Services Monitors health, education, and social services agencies Mary A. Rostad R. Ross Anderson Richard D. Williams – Chairperson Fred W. Arnold Mary A. Rostad, Chairperson Thomas H. Hardy Ad Hoc – Kern County Elections Division Special Investigation Lois C. Miller Thomas H. Hardy MISSION STATEMENT ADMINISTRATION & AUDIT COMMITTEE The Administration and Audit Committee of the 2005- 2006 Kern County Grand Jury is responsible for reviewing and overseeing County Departments in their management, performance, and execution of fiscal responsibilities to the County of Kern taxpayer. The Committee investigates complaints from citizens who allege managerial or fiscal irresponsibility. The Committee also assists other Grand Jury Committees with managerial and fiscal matters. KERN COUNTY ASSESSOR PURPOSE: The Administration and Audit Committee of the 2005- 2006 Kern County Grand Jury visited the Kern County Assessor’s Office on March 28, 2006, pursuant to Penal Code Section 925. The Committee met with the Assessor, Chief Appraiser of Assessment Standards, Chief Appraiser of Realty, Chief Appraiser of Agriculture, and Chief Appraiser of Special Properties. The Committee also met with other staff members and toured the facility. BACKGROUND: The Assessor’s Office is located at 1115 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California. The Assessor must locate all taxable property in the County, identify the owners, and describe the property. The Assessor must also determine a value for all taxable property and apply all legal exemptions and exclusions. The Assessor must complete an Assessment Roll showing the assessed values for all property and maintain records of the above. The Assessor does not set tax rates or collect taxes. The primary goal of the Assessor is based on the premise that each and every customer should always be treated fairly and equitably and with courtesy and respect. The staff strives to accomplish the goals of professionalism and courtesy. FINDINGS: The Committee was well received with respect and courtesy by the officers and staff of the Assessor’s Office. The Committee was given an informative Power Point presentation and later an in- depth tour of the facilities. The two floors of the Assessor’s Office are well maintained. The department heads and staff are to be commended for outstanding and dedicated work in fulfilling duties for the citizens of Kern County. The Committee would also like to commend the staff on the outstanding, reliable, and advanced computer system which the Committee thinks is the best in California. The Assessment Roll for the 2005- 2006 year is $ 58,541,512,508.00 an increase of $ 7,741,495,907.00 from the 2004- 2005 year. The current top 10 property owners are: PROPERTY OWNER. TOTAL VALUE Occidental of Elk Hills, Inc. $ 4,415,536,857.00 Chevron USA, Inc. $ 4,374,617,492.00 Aera Energy, LLC $ 4,330,793,520.00 Plains Exploration & Prod Co. $ 547,613,561.00 La Paloma Generating Co., LLC $ 486,349,752.00 Pastoria Energy Facility, LLC $ 432,500,000.00 Pacific Gas & Electric Co. $ 404,037,055.00 Sunrise Power Company, LLC $ 375,100,000.00 Elk Hills Power, LLC $ 335,200,000.00 U. S. Borax, Inc. $ 335,011,768.00 Proposition 13 restricts both the tax rate and the rate of increase in valuation of real property. The maximum amount of property tax cannot exceed 1% of a property’s taxable per year value, plus bonds approved by the voters, service fees, improvement bonds, and special assessments. Proposition 8 ( Decline in Value) allows the Assessor to review both the factored base-year value and the current market value of a property as of January 1st of each year and enroll the lesser value. When the current market value replaces the higher Proposition 13 value the lower value is commonly referred to as a “ Prop. 8 Value.” Under no circumstance can the Assessor value a property higher than the Proposition 13 factored base- year value. If a property owner has discussed the property assessment with the Assessor’s Office and still feels that property is over- assessed the property owner may file a formal assessment appeal. RECOMMENDATIONS: The Assessor’s Office should post a copy of this report where it will be available for public review. NOTE: Present and past Kern County Grand Jury Reports and Responses may be accessed at the County Library and on the Kern County Grand Jury web- site: www. co. kern. ca. us/ grandjury NO RESPONSE REQUIRED July 6th, 2006 Hon. Lee P. Felice, Presiding Judge Kern County Grand Jury 1415 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Re: Kern Co. Grand Jury Response - Assessor's Department Dear Honorable Judge Felice: We appreciate the recent Kern County Grand Jury review of our Office. The Audit Committee was courteous and thorough in their investigation. They made engaging and informative inquiries during the course of our review. I want to thank you for your complimentary remarks. I am extremely proud of our accomplishments. I feel we have utilized the taxpayers' dollars wisely and efficiently. This past year we produced a record Assessment Roll. The taxes collected, through the property tax system, will go directly to providing the necessary services to our citizens. With no recommendations to address, I would again like to express my appreciation to the Kern County Grand Jury for the courtesy and interest displayed while performing their audit of the Kern County Assessor's Department. JWF: kc cc: Clerk of the Board attachments ( Kern Co. Grand Jury report/ Assessor) Kern County Board of Supervisors Response to Grand Jury Final Report KERN COUNTY ASSESSOR Response to Findings: The Board of Supervisors notes that the findings are substantially correct. Response to Recommendations: The Board of Supervisors concurs with the Assessor’s response. POLGJASSESSORB KERN COUNTY RECORDER PURPOSE: The Administration and Audit Committee of the 2005- 2006 Kern County Grand Jury visited the Kern County Recorder’s Office on April 3, 2006, pursuant to Penal Code Section 925. The Committee met with the Assessor, Assistant Recorder, Department Heads, and Staff. BACKGROUND: The Recorder’s Office built in 1908 is a Bakersfield landmark and is located at 1655 Chester Avenue in Bakersfield, California. The Recorder’s Office is responsible for providing constructive notice of private acts ( the sale of property between private parties) and creating and maintaining custody of permanent records for all documents filed and recorded in Kern County. In addition to providing public access to information regarding land and land ownership the Recorder’s Office is also the local registrar of marriages and maintains copies of all certificates of marriages, births, and deaths which occur in Kern County. The official records are open for public inspection ( vital statistics records may be viewed on a specific and requested basis) and copies may be purchased from the Recorder’s Office. FINDINGS: The Committee was well received with respect and courtesy by the Recorder and Staff. The Committee was given an in depth tour of the facilities by the Recorder, Assistant Recorder, and other Heads of Staff. The tour included the Recording Department, the Deed Department, Title and Brands Department, Vital Statistics Department, Photo Lab, and Public Assistance Department. The Committee was given a brief synopsis of each department by the Department Heads. Of great interest was the Title and Brands Department. The Committee was shown brands recorded in the 1890’ s which are still in use today. The Committee was shown land survey maps recorded in the late 1800’ s. A vast amount of Kern County history is maintained in the Recorder’s Office. Document filings must be recorded within 48 hours after receipt. The Committee found employees were able to keep on schedule with assigned duties. All employees are cross trained and are available to assist one another. A feeling of goodwill and cheerfulness was radiated to the Committee. At present there are 25 full time employees and two part-time employees. Each day the Recorder’s Office receives approximately 200 phone calls from the public between the hours of 8: 00 a. m. and 12: 00 noon and handles a total of 350 calls per day. The phones are maintained by employees on a rotation basis. All documents are indexed and filed within 48 hours of receipt. The employees are to be commended for the volume of work accomplished with the limited amount of space and shortage of staff. The Committee found having the Recorder’s and Assessor’s Offices in two separate locations is less than ideal. Having offices in the same location would create a more efficient Central Customer Service Counter and would benefit both departments. The Committee noted there was enough room in the Administration Building located at 1115 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California to combine the Departments. The Committee also found parking at the Recorder’s Office had inadequate parking. Relocating would give the Recorder’s Office more space to accommodate staff and clients. RECOMMENDATION: It would be in the best interest of the County of Kern and citizens to move the Recorder’s Office into the Kern County Administration Building. The Kern County Recorder’s Office should post a copy of this report where it will be available for public review. Note: Present and past Kern County Grand Jury Final Reports and Responses may be accessed at the County Library and on the Kern County Grand Jury website: www. co. kern. ca. us/ grandjury NO RESPONSE REQUIRED July 6, 2006 Hon. Lee P. Felice, Presiding Judge Kern County Grand Jury 1415 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Re: Kern County Grand Jury Response - Recorder's Department Dear Honorable Judge Felice: We appreciate the recent Kern County Grand Jury review of our Office. The Audit Committee was courteous and thorough in their investigation. They made engaging and informative inquiries during the course of our review. We have seen a tremendous increase in the number of recordings. These numbers have nearly doubled over the last few years. Additionally, the demand for vital statistics, birth and death records, have been steadily increasing at an equally swift pace. I want to take this opportunity to thank and compliment my staff for their diligent efforts in meeting these challenges. Concerning the recommendation the Kern County Grand Jury made, as a result of their investigation, that it would be in the best interests of the County of Kern and its citizens to relocate the Recorder's Office into the Kern County Administrative Building, I fully agree. The advantages for both the Assessor and Recorder's Offices is clearly obvious. This arrangement would immediately provide a more functional facility and much needed parking for our citizens. Ample consideration must be undertaken before a relocation of this type could occur. This move would require public input and the creation of a " design team". I have personally brought this issue up to the Board of Supervisors in relation to Unmet Needs Requests. We have begun initial discussions with key personnel regarding this Recommendation. Hon. Judge Lee P. Felice, Presiding Judge Page Two July 6th, 2006 Again, I want to thank you for your concerns and express our appreciation for the opportunity to display our Office and to acknowledge the efforts of my staff. Kern County Board of Supervisors Response to Grand Jury Final Report KERN COUNTY RECORDER Response to Findings: The Board of Supervisors notes that the findings are substantially correct. Response to Recommendations: The Board of Supervisors concurs with the Assessor’s response, noting that co- location of the Assessor’s and Recorder’s functions will require considerable review to determine if the available space can accommodate both functions. POLGJRECORDERB ARVIN EDISON WATER STORAGE DISTRICT QUALIFIED RETIREMENT PLAN PURPOSE OF INQUIRY: Pursuant to Penal Code Section 933.5 the Administration and Audit Committee ( Committee) of the 2005- 2006 Kern County Grand Jury reviewed Arvin Edison Water Storage District ( AEWSD). The investigation was in response to a citizen complaint received by the Kern County Grand Jury. The Committee visited the District on February 16, 2006. PROCESS: The Committee interviewed the District Manager, Assistant District Manager, and the President of the Board of Directors. Witnesses were also interviewed by the Committee. Financial records and retirement plan documents were reviewed. In order to make comparisons regarding the Qualified Pension Plan the Committee interviewed three Special Districts of comparable size. BACKGROUND: The Arvin Edison Water Storage District is located at 20401 Bear Mountain Boulevard, Arvin, California. The facility is approximately three miles east of the City of Arvin. The District was formed on January 19, 1942, with the intention of reducing groundwater overdraft. The District serves landowners within the District’s surface water service area and also provides water banking for Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. The nine member Board of Directors is elected by the landowners within the District boundaries. FINDINGS: • AEWSD has 52 budgeted positions; forty seven positions are hourly, seven positions are salaried positions. Thirty employees of the District are represented by the Central California Association of Public Employees Labor Organization ( CCAPE). • AEWSD employees participate in the Qualified Retirement Plan. The District contributes 12% each pay period to the Qualified Retirement Plan and the employees contribute 4% each pay period to the Qualified Retirement Plan. Employees completing three months service are eligible to participate in the Qualified Retirement Plan. AEWSD employees are totally vested in the Qualified Retirement Plan after seven years of employment with the District. • A 457 Plan is offered in addition to the Qualified Retirement Plan. The 457 Plan is not funded by the District. Participation in the 457 Plan is optional and is not being addressed in the following report. • A Pension Plan Advisory Committee comprised of the District Manager, Assistant District Manager, a director of the Board, three employees, and one retiree is to meet quarterly. The Committee’s investigation determined that the Pension Plan Advisory Committee as stated in the procedure manual is “ to meet every quarter” had not met for 18 months. The Pension Plan Advisory Committee resumed meeting in October 2005. • The Financial Advisor for the District was a former employee of the District. After leaving the District the former employee contracted with the District to provide the service. The Advisor is located out of state. The Advisor was in contact with the District on a daily basis recommending the purchase or sale of investments. • The Committee found that one employee of the District, without consulting with other officials of the District or the Pension Retirement Plan Advisory Committee, makes investment decisions based on the advice of the Financial Advisor. • The Committee found during a four month period an average of 18 stock trades were made per month. • Employees having questions regarding the Qualified Retirement Plan are not able to obtain information on a timely basis. Participants in the Plan are often told that it is too complicated for the employee to understand. • Employees are to receive a quarterly statement giving balances of the account and showing either a gain or a loss for the quarter. Some employee statements show a gain while others show a loss. The District explained to the Committee how the concept works and the Committee apparently is no different than the AEWSD employees in comprehending the concept. • California Public Employees’ Retirement System ( CalPERS) made a presentation to the District and to the Pension Plan Advisory Committee. The District and the Pension Plan Advisory Committee concluded the plan would not be financially feasible for the District to participate in CalPERS. • In January 2006 the District and the Pension Plan Advisory Committee met to discuss the transfer of the Qualified Retirement Plan and interview two potential investment providers and review investment strategies. • The current Financial Advisor was notified in February that the service agreement was being terminated; the required 30 day notice was then given. • The AEWSD Board of Directors approved the transfer of the Qualified Retirement Plan to a Brokerage firm at the Board of Directors meeting on March 14, 2006. • The District is now in the process of transferring the Qualified Retirement Plan to a brokerage firm. The completion of the transfer can take up to two or three months to complete. • The District is currently invested primarily in a Money Market Fund with the remaining portion in individual stocks. New contributions are going into a Money Market Account until the transfer of the Plan is complete. No additional investments have been made to the Qualified Retirement Plan. Pension distributions are also coming out of the Money Market Account. • The Committee interviewed three Special District Managers to compare retirement plans. The Committee found one District to be totally invested in a Money Market Account earning 3.5% per year, one District participates in CalPERS, and one District participates in Kern County Employees’ Retirement Association ( KCERA). COMMENTS: The most valuable asset the District has are dedicated employees. AEWSD has such employees. The District’s answers to questions of concern the employees have regarding the Qualified Retirement Plan is of extreme importance. Future financial planning for the employees is critical and questions asked should be answered in a concise non-confrontational manner. The Committee found that in the past employees complaining to management have been retaliated against by either demotion and/ or loss of job. The complainant bringing to light the problem within the District has taken a great risk by filing the complaint with the Kern County Grand Jury. The Committee has a fervent hope retaliation does not occur. The Committee is encouraged by recent changes in the Qualified Retirement Plan. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. The Retirement Pension Plan Advisory Committee shall meet quarterly, meetings should be scheduled in advance, should a postponement occur the meeting should be rescheduled promptly. The brokerage firm should be present at the meetings to advise the Retirement Pension Plan Committee of investment options and to answer questions. 2. Employee recommendations should be submitted to the Retirement Pension Plan Advisory Committee for review. 3. The Human Resource Department shall be available to answer questions that employees may have regarding the Qualified Retirement Plan. The employee designated to perform the function must be trained. 4. The brokerage firm shall provide training for all employees when assuming the account. All District employees must attend the training sessions. 5. All Qualified Retirement Plan investment decisions shall be made by the Retirement Advisory Committee. The Arvin Edison Water Storage District should post a copy of this report where it will be available for public review. NOTE: Present and past Kern County Grand Jury Reports and Responses may be accessed at the Kern County Library and on the Kern County Grand Jury web- site: www. co. kern. ca. us/ grandjury. RESPONSE REQUIRED WITHIN 90 DAYS TO PRESIDING JUDGE KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 cc: FOREMAN KERN COUNTY GRAND JURY 1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 1 o f 12 July 14, 2006 Lee P. Felice, Presiding Judge Kern County Superior Court 1415 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 RE: Response to Grand Jury Report Titled “ Arvin- Edison Water Storage District Qualified Retirement Plan.” Dear Presiding Judge Felice: The District submits the following response to the Grand Jury Report issued on June 9, 2006, concerning the Arvin- Edison Water Storage District Qualified Retirement Plan (“ Report”). Unfortunately, we find the report to contain numerous unsubstantiable accusations and allegations as well as significant errors of both fact and law, as noted herein. The Report was reviewed and this response approved at a meeting of the District’s Board of Directors on July 11, 2006. Please note that the Grand Jury, and the Grand Jury Committee, ( herein after collectively the “ Grand Jury”) did not show the District the courtesy and provide the opportunity to be heard on the findings in the Report before its release as provided for in Penal Code Section 933.05( d). The only notice the District received of the contents of this Report was the 48- hour notice required by Penal Code Section 933.05( f). Unfortunately, even though the District took the time to respond promptly within the 48 hour notice window, with the majority of the corrections herein repeated from the District’s June 6, 2006 response, those corrections were entirely disregarded in the Grand Jury’s June 9, 2006 Report. This lack of courtesy and disregard for factual corrections offered by the District is very unfortunate given: 1) The substantial factual and legal errors contained in the Report, which indicates a careless attitude taken towards the Grand Jury’s responsibilities, investigative techniques, factual accuracy, and the law; and, 2) The Report’s overall tone, which, whether intentional or not, shows a complete disrespect for the District, its employees, and at times borders on outright libel; and, 3) The Report’s overall tone, which appears to insinuate that the District is not sincerely concerned for the pension needs of its employees. 2 o f 12 The District is troubled by the Grand Jury’s complete disregard for the District’s input on the accusations and allegations made in the Report, in particular the accusation that the District has retaliated against employees in the past. At no time has the Grand Jury provided any evidence to support this accusation. Additionally, the Grand Jury did not question the District or its representatives regarding this serious accusation so that it may offer evidence to the contrary. Given these facts, it is unfathomable that the Grand Jury would see fit to publish such an accusation, and we would hope in the future the Grand Jury would refrain from such conduct. Following, we quote in italics those portions of the Report, which contain the most significant errors. Our responses follow: PROCESS “ The Committee interviewed the District Manager, Assistant District Manager, and the President of the Board of Directors. Witnesses were also interviewed by the Committee. Financial records and retirement plan documents were reviewed.” Response: While ordinarily the District would not comment on the investigatory process used by the Grand Jury, in this instance the District has no choice because of the numerous investigatory and factual errors in this Report - all fed from an apparently inadequate process. Note, the Grand Jury’s Report does not indicate that it did any of the following: 1) Review any District employee files. 2) Interview or review any files from the Employees’ Union regarding employee terminations or demotions. 3) Interview the entire Pension Committee. 4) Interview the District’s General Counsel. 5) Interview the Financial Advisor mentioned in the report. 6) Review any documents or recommendations submitted by the Pension Committee to the Board of Directors for consideration. 7) Interview or confer with any legal counsel on the very specific legal issues involving trusts and pension plans. 8) Review Audited Financial Statements for the Pension Plan. And yet based on this inadequate investigation, the Grand Jury sees fit in its Report to comment on areas that clearly were not investigated at all, or at best in a superficial fashion. The District is particularly troubled by the Grand Jury’s apparent oversight to seek legal counsel in reviewing such highly technical legal issues regarding trusts and pension plans. It is our understanding that at no time was Grand Jury counsel present during the interviews with any of the representatives of the District, and clearly, given the numerous errors of law in the Report, this oversight was a serious mistake on the part of the Grand Jury. BACKGROUND Paragraph 1: “ The District serves landowners within the District’s surface water service area and also provides water banking for Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.” 3 o f 12 Response: This statement is partly correct. The District also actively manages groundwater conjunctively with surface water for the benefit of all landowners within the District’s groundwater service area. FINDINGS Paragraph 4: “ A Pension Plan Advisory Committee comprised of the District Manager, Assistant District Manager, a director of the Board, three employees, and one retiree is to meet quarterly. The Committee’s investigation determined that the Pension Plan Advisory Committee as stated in the procedure manual is “ to meet every quarter” had not met for 18 months. The Pension Plan Advisory Committee resumed meeting in October 2005.” Response: The factual inaccuracies in this finding are numerous, and demonstrate the inadequate investigation undertaken by the Grand Jury. 1) The Grand Jury was repeatedly informed by the District that the Pension Committee consists of nine members, rather than seven; comprised of two members of the District’s Board of Directors and two District managerial employees ( currently the Engineer- Manager and the Assistant Manager) appointed by the Board of Directors, and five plan participants elected by their fellow participants to serve for a specified term. It should be noted also that the Pension Committee is specifically so structured in order to provide the District with significant input from the Plan’s participants, and that the elected participant members of the Pension Committee consist of nearly 10 percent of the District’s work force. 2) The Grand Jury purports to quote from a procedural manual when it states that the Pension Committee “ is to meet every quarter.” We are at a complete loss to know what manual the Grand Jury is citing because no such manual exists. When the Grand Jury was questioned on this matter they were unresponsive. 3) The Grand Jury appears to focus on the incorrect presumption that the Pension Committee is required to meet quarterly. This is simply incorrect. The Pension Committee does however have a “ goal” of meeting at least quarterly, and this clarification was relayed to the Grand Jury. The purpose of such meetings is for the Employees ( via the Pension Committee) to review the Plan’s performance and address other matters for which the Board seeks input. It should be noted that the 18- month period identified above spans two different Pension Plan years in which Pension Plan average annual earnings for the two years was a little over 8%. 4) In an apparent oversight the Grand Jury made no inquiries into other Pension Plan activities undertaken by Pension Committee members during this time period in lieu of the quarterly meetings. Had the Grand Jury done so it would have discovered the following: 4 o f 12 a) Various members of the Pension Committee were actively meeting in subgroups during this time on numerous occasions. During those meetings, the participating members reviewed potential changes to the Plan including the complete divestiture of the Plan so that the District may enter the CalPERS system. b) The Financial Advisor continued to provide monthly reports on the Plan’s investments to the District. c) The Pension Committee subgroups, in cooperation with the Employees and the Board held numerous meetings to fully investigate other pension plan alternatives. d) Various members of the Pension Committee met with the Employees’ Union on four separate occasions. e) Various members of the Pension Committee met with the Board on several occasions. f) Various members of the Pension Committee met with a pension plan expert on several occasions to discuss the plan and potential modifications to it. g) Various members of the Pension Committee met with and interviewed representatives of Merrill Lynch twice. h) The Pension Committee sponsored an open meeting with ALL District employees to discuss and hear input on potential changes to the overall Plan structure. i) The Pension Committee also oversaw a vote by all employees as to Pension alternatives. j) The outcome of this intense effort was a proposal from the Employees, supported by the Employees’ Union, and subsequently approved by the Board, to increase contributions to the Pension Plan by both the District and the Employees, as part of their annual Wage and Benefit package. k) During this time there were no unanswered communications by a participant, the Employees’ Union or any other interested party addressing the Pension Committee and/ or the Board of Directors regarding the Plan. Paragraph 5: “ The Financial Advisor for the District was a former employee of the District. After leaving the District the former employee contracted with the District to provide the service. The Advisor is located out of state. The Advisor was in contact with the District on a daily basis recommending the purchase or sale of investments.” Response: While it is true that the District’s Financial Advisor was a former employee, he holds a business degree from a very reputable university and is a Certified Financial Planner. He left 5 o f 12 the District’s employment to pursue a full- time career in Financial Planning, and currently holds a position as a Bank’s Senior Investment Trust Officer. Clearly, given these qualifications, the Plan’s Financial Advisor was more than qualified to manage the Plan. It should be noted also that during the 15 years this specific Financial Advisor managed the investment portfolio, the plan returned an average of between 8% and 9% per annum. As for the assertion that the Advisor is out of state, we are perplexed by the Grand Jury mentioning this fact in today’s world of immediate electronic communications. Paragraph 6: “ The Committee found that one employee of the District, without consulting with other officials of the District or the Pension Retirement Plan Advisory Committee, makes investment decisions based on the advice of the Financial Advisor.” Response: This finding is completely inaccurate, and shows a serious defect in the Grand Jury’s understanding of administration of the Plan and perhaps Trust law as well. The employee in question is granted the authority by the Board to execute the investment transactions as directed by the Financial Advisor and to further direct the movement of District Plan funds which are held by the Trustee. The employee does NOT make investment decisions; he simply plays a ministerial roll in the implementation of those investment decisions between the Financial Advisor and the Trustee. All investment decisions are made by the Financial Advisor who was hired to fulfill that specific function. Also, all investment transactions are reported to the Pension Committee and must be made in accordance with Plan’s adopted financial Investment Policy, a copy of which was provided to the Grand Jury for review. The Grand Jury failed to make any inquiries into the audit history of the Plan. If the Grand Jury had done so, they would have discovered that the Plan is audited annually, that those audits have uncovered no irregularities, and that all investment transactions were initiated by the Financial Advisor. Paragraph 8: “ Employees having questions regarding the Qualified Retirement Plan are not able to obtain information on a timely basis. Participants in the Plan are often told that it is too complicated for the employee to understand.” Response: Employees receive regular written reports on the Plan’s performance. Additional information about the Plan and its performance is available at all times. District representatives can, and do, directly answer all administrative questions regarding the Plan. If the participant has a question regarding the investment strategy, they are welcome to inquire through the Pension Committee. As to understanding the complexity of the stock market and Trust law, it varies greatly among employees, as this is a highly technical area, which requires years of dedicated study, education, and experience. Paragraph 9: “ Employees are to receive a quarterly statement giving balances of the account and showing either a gain or a loss for the quarter. Some employee statements show a gain while others 6 o f 12 show a loss. The District explained to the Committee how the concept works and the Committee apparently is no different than the AEWSD employees in comprehending the concept.” Response: The Grand Jury’s admission in this paragraph clearly indicates that the Grand Jury members do not comprehend the very issues upon which they presume to report. This is particularly troubling given that the issue was repeatedly explained in detail to them during the interview process. First, it’s true; the employees, and other plan participants, receive a quarterly statement giving balances of the account and showing either a gain or a loss for the quarter. Second, it is not possible for one employee to receive a gain from their invested funds ( primarily the beginning balance) in the Plan while another shows a loss. The risk and reward of the Plan’s investments are distributed evenly across the Plan’s participants on a pro- rata basis. Therefore, if the Plan’s investments experience a one percent loss, all participants receive that same one percent loss on the funds, which they have contributed to the Plan. And third, the statements are quite simple and consistent with common industry standards. The statements each have four primary columns of information that are pertinent to the issue: 1) the participant’s beginning balance for reported quarter; 2) the participant’s gains/ losses attributable to the beginning balance ( and to some extent contributions) for the reported quarter; 3) contributions made to the account during the reported quarter; and 4) the ending balance calculated by totaling columns 1 though 3 mentioned above. Note: All employees share gains/ losses on their beginning balances ( and contributions) on the same pro- rata basis, and all employees make contributions of their salary on the same pro- rata basis. The following table example is provided to illustrate this basic concept. This hypothetical example shows two employees currently working for the District and both making the same salary, and thus contributing the same amount, but one employee who has been with the District much longer than the other and therefore has a larger beginning balance. The table also shows a retiree who no longer contributes to the plan but still has money invested in the Plan and has not made any withdrawals in the period shown on the table. All three employees share the same hypothetical loss in the plan of 1%: Emp. Beginning Balance Gain/ Loss Employee Contribution Ending Balance Emp. A $ 100,000 -$ 1,000 $ 250 $ 99,250 Emp. B $ 10,000 -$ 100 $ 250 $ 10,150 Ret. Emp. $ 300,000 -$ 3,000 $ 0 $ 297,000 As you can see from the “ ending balance” Employee B does have a gain in his/ her statement’s “ ending balance” because their 1% loss on the “ beginning balance” amounted to only $ 100 while Employee A’s 1% loss amounted to $ 1,000. ( It should be noted that gains/ losses are calculated on the Beginning Balance and the Contributions as well, but the effect from Contributions are minimal). When that month’s contributions of $ 250 are then added so the ending balance properly reflects the inclusion of new contributions; Employee A shows a net loss of $ 750 over the period while Employee B shows a net gain of $ 150 for 7 o f 12 the period, because Employee B’s contribution offset his/ her loss, which is not true of Employee A. The Retiree, because there are no contributions, shows a loss of $ 3,000. If the Grand Jury could not understand the foregoing regarding quarterly statements, they should have sought additional clarification from the District or others before publishing the Report. Paragraph 10: “ California Public Employees’ Retirement System ( CalPERS) made a presentation to the District and to the Pension Plan Advisory Committee, the District and the Pension Plan Advisory Committee concluded the plan would not be financially feasible for the District to participate in CalPERS.” Response: The Pension Committee researched several different CalPERS plans at the request of the Board and the Employees’ Union. The Board, with expert guidance, not the Pension Plan Advisory Committee as stated above, concluded it would not be financially PRUDENT to expose the District and its employees to the rising and uncontrollable costs of such programs that have plagued so many other public agencies in California. Note that two years ago there was a push to change the structure of CalPERS, initiated by the Governor, to a Plan similar to the Plan the District has adopted. Paragraph 11: “ In January 2006, the District and the Pension Plan Advisory Committee met to discuss the transfer of the Qualified Retirement Plan and interview two potential investment providers and review investment strategies.” Response: The Pension Committee interviewed three, not two, potential advisors and had short- listed the selection process to just two by January 2006. Paragraph 16: “ The Committee interviewed three Special District Managers to compare retirement plans. The Committee found one District to be totally invested in a Money Market Account earning 3.5% per year, one District participates in CalPERS, and one District participates in Kern County Employees’ Retirement Association ( KCERA).” Response: The District’s Plan is a non- defined benefit plan ( sometimes referred to as “ defined contribution” plans), while CalPERS and KCERA are both defined benefit plans, and thus cannot be compared to the District’s plan. We assume, based on the limited information in the Report, that the Special District cited which totally invested in a Money Market Account is also a non- defined benefit plan. That fact, however, is unclear given the wording of the Report. What is clear is that the only Plan, which the Report mentions a return on, is producing less then half what the District’s plan has. The District’s Plan has been averaging about 8 to 9 percent per year for the last 15 years. 8 o f 12 COMMENTS Paragraph 2: “ The Committee found that in the past employees complaining to management have been retaliated against by either demotion and/ or loss of job. The complainant bringing to light the problem within the District has taken a great risk by filing the complaint with the Kern County Grand Jury. The Committee has a fervent hope retaliation does not occur.” Response: We have taken note that this comment is neither in the Findings section of the Report, nor was it given enough weight so as to require a Recommendation in the Report. We also note that the District is only required to respond to findings and recommendations in Grand Jury Reports. Nevertheless, the District must respond given that this assertion is the most troubling allegation made in this Report. It lacks any corroboration and is indicative of the unprofessional attitude taken by the Grand Jury towards its responsibilities, accuracy, truth and the law throughout the Report. The Grand Jury did not, at any time, mention to the District, or its representatives, that it was investigating any allegations of this nature, nor did it ask questions regarding employment policies, nor did it ask any questions regarding termination and demotion processes, nor did it ask for or review ANY personnel information, whatsoever. Given these facts it is simply impossible for the Grand Jury to make such a finding. It is false and cannot be supported or substantiated by the investigation conducted by the Grand Jury. Quite frankly, it is both irresponsible and outrageous for the Grand Jury to make such a claim based upon the limited investigation it conducted. If the Grand Jury had taken its investigative responsibilities seriously and done even a cursory investigation of the District’s employment policies and practices, they would have found the following: a) Full and complete documentation on each case of employment termination; and, b) Full and complete documentation on each case of disciplinary action; and, c) That, counter to the Grand Jury’s claim, there have been no contested terminations or demotions of employees on the basis of “ retaliation.” d) That it is the practice of the District to provide for additional hearings before a termination becomes effective, similar to “ Skelly” hearings; and, e) That every employee is made aware of these procedures before a termination and may be represented by Union Representatives, or outside Counsel, at any termination hearing; and, f) That each employee is given detailed reasons for termination along with their history of disciplinary action that eventually led to their termination; and, g) That the Employees’ Union takes an active interest in terminations which involve Union members, and have not even alluded to the allegations made by the Grand Jury; and, h) That the District has a standard grievance procedure that is accepted as a part of normal, healthy employee management in which any employee may take part; and, 9 o f 12 i) That some employees, who have freely made use of the grievance procedures, have been promoted to some of the highest levels of supervisory positions based on their merit, and, j) Any employees untruthfully claiming retaliatory termination were actually terminated for just cause such as absence without leave, dishonesty, incompetence, insubordination, neglect of duty, negligence, theft, violation of District policies and procedures, excessive tardiness, harassment, or unsafe behavior. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. “ The Retirement Pension Plan Advisory Committee shall meet quarterly, meetings should be scheduled in advance, should a postponement occur the meeting should be rescheduled promptly. The brokerage firm should be present at the meetings to advise the Retirement Pension Plan Committee of investment options and to answer questions.” Response: The current policy of the District, which will remain unchanged, is for the Pension Committee to meet as needed with the general goal that the Pension Committee meets at least quarterly. However, if the Pension Committee members feel that it is unneeded given the circumstances at the moment no meeting will be held. It should be noted also that the participants’ elected representatives ( past and present employees) drive the Committee’s action as they hold the majority, not District management personnel. As for the investment advisor attendance ( called the Financial Advisor), the current practice will remain unchanged in that regard. Consistent with that practice the Financial Advisor attends Pension Committee meetings either by phone or in person. Additionally, the Financial Advisor is available every business day, not just quarterly. 2. “ Employee recommendations should be submitted to the Retirement Pension Plan Advisory Committee for review.” Response: This is our current policy and practice. Employee recommendations are, and always have been, welcomed both by the Pension Committee and the Board of Directors. It would be helpful, however, that suggestions be presented in writing a few days before scheduled meetings so the members of the Pension Committee, or the Board of Directors, may reflect on them before the meeting. If a participant has a suggestion or comment that he/ she feels may need attention before the next scheduled meeting the participant may submit that suggestion or comment in writing to the District and it will be passed on to Committee members and the Board as soon as practicable. Additionally, it should be noted that the District meets with the Employees’ Union several times annually to discuss various topics including the Plan and that policy and practice will also continue. 3. “ The Human Resource Department shall be available to answer questions that employees may have regarding the Qualified Retirement Plan. The employee designated to perform the function must be trained.” 10 o f 12 Response: This is our current policy and practice. The employees who fulfill this function are and always have been available, and fully competent to explain administration of the Plan. They do not attempt to explain individual investment decisions as they are not qualified to do so and are not privy to all the considerations that go into the making of such decisions by the Financial Advisor. If a participant, wishes to make such an inquiry he/ she should direct their question to the Pension Committee, which will contact the Financial Advisor to obtain an explanation. 4. “ The brokerage firm shall provide training for all employees when assuming the account. All District employees must attend the training sessions.” Response: It is unclear as to what “ training” the Grand Jury is referring. District employees have no hands- on responsibilities involving the investment portfolio decisions of the Plan nor will they likely have in the future. Perhaps the Grand Jury is confused about the differences between a non- defined benefit Plan such as the District’s and a traditional 401K Plan were the employees pick their own investment strategies. It should also be noted that the District long ago chose this approach rather than a traditional 401K plan specifically because this approach provides the Employees with the benefit of a qualified professional investor making the investment decisions for the employee’s pension portfolio. Under a traditional 401K, the employer has no responsibility toward the investment pitfalls that an employee might fall into. The District, however, out of a sincere concern for the well being of its employees, has decided that it should ensure that the employee’s retirement “ nest eggs” are as secure as possible in the volatile world of capital investments by providing a Plan in which professional investors make investment decisions based upon their expertise, rather than employees who have varying experience in investment markets making those decisions. For the above reasons, the District will not implement this Recommendation. 5. “ All Qualified Retirement Plan investment decisions shall be made by the Retirement Advisory Committee.” Response: This recommendation is also wholly inappropriate, violates well- established Trust law and demonstrates that the Grand Jury remains at best confused regarding the Pension Committee’s role in the administration of the Plan and day- to- day requirements of an investment Plan such as this one. Moreover, the in- artful wording used by the Grand Jury in this Recommendation requires a response on multiple legal and factual levels as the actual basis for this Recommendation and the Grand Jury’s understanding of the Pension Committee’s role in the Plan is unclear. First, if the Grand Jury is under the impression that the Pension Committee is the Trustee for this Plan and as such is responsible for all Plan decisions, the Grand Jury is wrong both factually and legally. The Pension Committee is not and has never 11 o f 12 been the Trustee of this Plan. Additionally, the Pension Committee, as structured, cannot legally hold the title of Trustee for this Trust, or any other trust, because the Committee does not have the legal capacity to take and hold property as required by law. Second, assuming for a moment that the Pension Committee could legally be appointed to the position of Trustee, and has been for this Plan, well settled law mandates that the settlor ( in this instance the District) of a revocable trust ( which this Plan is) will maintain ultimate authority over the trust and that authority cannot be divested. Therefore, even assuming that the Pension Committee held the title of Trustee it would still be subject to the mandates of the District and the Grand Jury’s recommendation is wholly inappropriate because it places the Pension Committee in a position of control over the District. Third, while it is well settled law that the District has the ultimate authority over this Plan, the District may within certain legally prescribed limits authorize others to invest and manage the Trust assets under the supervision of the District. This authorization, however, is extremely limited and requires that those authorized to invest the funds meet the legal requirements of a “ prudent investor” under the Uniform Prudent Investor Act. The Pension Committee and its members cannot meet those requirements, and therefore, they are not, and will not be, authorized to make investment decisions for this Plan. Fourth, the Grand Jury’s Recommendation ignores the actual reality of the investment world were investment decisions must be made on a day- to- day basis depending on market conditions. To require that all decisions be made by a Committee that the Grand Jury suggest should meet four ( 4) times a year is simply unworkable, and quite likely, a clear violation of the Uniform Prudent Investor Act. For the above reasons, the District will not implement this Recommendation. Due to the Grand Jury’s confusion, the District feels it is appropriate, at this time, to point out a few facts about the Pension Committee. The function of the Pension Committee is NOT to make investment decisions. The Pension Committee’s function is to periodically review the administration of the Plan, as it desires, and to serve as a forum for employees to interface with the Board on the administration of the Plan, and this function will remain unchanged unless the Pension Committee is disbanded. Generally, the Pension Committee’s functions and duties are limited to: a) Reviewing and commenting on the Investment Policy to the Board of Directors which establishes the level of risk and rewards to which the Plan’s funds are subjected. b) Conferring with investment professionals on administration of the Plan within the Investment Policy c) Reviewing that the Financial Advisor maintains the Pension Plan assets within the Investment Policy guidelines established by the District. d) Review of periodic performance summaries on the Plan’s investments and the professionals that work on the Plan. 12 o f 12 e) Receive suggestions from the participants about the administration of the Plan and pass on the Committee’s recommendations regarding those suggestions to the Board. Closing Grand Jury Recommendation: “ The Arvin- Edison Water Storage District should post a copy of this report where it will be available for public review.” Response: This report will be made available for public review along with a copy of this response. District’s Closing Comments and Recommendations for the Grand Jury It is very unfortunate that the Grand Jury published the Report without sufficient factual and legal basis for many of its observations, findings, and recommendations, as enumerated above. In the future, we recommend that the Grand Jury: 1) Seek legal and professional advice on investigative techniques and questioning so the inadequacies in this report are not repeated; 2) Seek legal and professional advice when dealing with such complicated areas of law as provided for in Penal Code Section 934 and Section 926; 3) Exercise its right under Penal Code Section 935.05( d) to provide “ a subject person or entity with the opportunity to come before the Grand Jury for the purpose of reading and discussing the findings of a grand jury report that relates to that person or entity in order to verify the accuracy of the findings prior to their release.” 4) Be cognizant of the fact that Penal Code Section 930 provides that Grand Jury members may be sued individually for libel as comments in civil grand jury reports are not privileged. Should you have any questions regarding the foregoing, please contact myself or our District Counsel, Ernest Conant of Young Wooldridge, LLP, at ( 661) 327- 9661. We also understand that pursuant to Penal Code 933, you are required to post our response along with the report, and we ask that you do so as soon as possible, and to please notify us once it is posted. cc: Kern County Grand Jury Bernard C. Barmann, Sr., County Counsel Board of Directors, Arvin- Edison Water Storage District Ernest A. Conant, Esq. District Counsel SCC: sj\ Board\ KC. Grand Jury. Felice. pension. response. 07.06. doc MISSION STATEMENT CITIES AND JOINT POWERS COMMITTEE The Cities and Joint Powers Committee of the 2005- 2006 Kern County Grand Jury sees as its mission the improvement of the way of life of the citizenry of Kern County. It feels that such a goal can be achieved through the cooperative endeavor of the Committee with each of the Cities and of the Joint Powers agencies which it studies to make equally available to each resident the advantages provided by such agency. CITY OF ARVIN PURPOSE OF INQUIRY: The Cities and Joint Powers Committee ( Committee) of the 2005- 2006 Kern County Grand Jury visited the City of Arvin ( City) on December 8, 2005, and again on January 12, 2006, for the purpose of conducting an investigation of the City pursuant to the provisions of Section 925a of the California Penal Code. PROCESS: The Committee reviewed past Kern County Grand Jury Final Reports and Responses prior to visiting Arvin. While there the Committee interviewed the City Manager, the Finance Director, and the City Clerk. At the time of the second visit the Interim Chief of Police and the Fire Chief were added to the interview group. BACKGROUND: According to the 2005 Area wide Directory published by the Kern Council of Governments ( Kern COG), the City of Arvin was “[ e] stablished in 1910 and incorporated on December 21, 1960.” The City was named in memory of Arvin Richardson, an early Pioneer in the area. The review in Kern COG’s directory goes on to say: “ Uniform temperatures and miles of rich soil make Arvin one of the most cultivated areas in the region. Products include a bounty of grapes, carrots, deciduous fruits, cotton, alfalfa, sugar beets, and various orchard fruits available to buyers across the nation during a long and vigorous season.” Understandably Arvin is known as “ A Garden in the Sun.” FINDINGS: The interviews with the Management Staff revealed the following information: • The new Arvin management team, which was installed beginning in May of 2003, gives every indication of being a highly professional and well- educated group. The City Manager is a Stanford University graduate, the Finance Director is a graduate of the University of Southern California, and the City Clerk is a graduate of Fresno State University and is currently utilizing an on- line class from San Joaquin Delta College to complete City Clerk credentials. The Fire Chief and the present Interim Chief of Police are well- qualified and experienced for the positions. • During the first three years of the new Administration of Arvin the Management Team has been involved in becoming acclimated to the atmosphere which was left by the previous administration and in discovering the financial situation faced by the City as a result of the governing actions of the previous administration. When the new administration took over there was a $ 630,000 budget deficit and the former City Manager had just returned a $ 1.5 million redevelopment grant. In addition there are continuing major infrastructure problems and maintenance needs facing the City because of a lack of foresight on the part of the earlier administration. Natural growth of the City is causing additional strain in the areas. The Managers are developing a team to help the City deal with an extension of the wastewater program, with waste disposal, and with engineering, contractor, and planning needs. The team meets weekly for planning review. • From time to time unanticipated situations arise which impose on the City the need to take remedial action. One example as noted in an earlier Grand Jury report, the City was taking steps to convert an old migrant labor camp to a drug rehabilitation center. Approximately one year ago the City received notice from a collection agency that a $ 190,000 payment was due related to the conversion plan. The obligation was a product of the Arvin Housing Authority which is now defunct. A bond was obtained by the City on or about 1993 and only one bond payment had been made. The payments were supposed to be made from the rent of the trailers on the property. The site was approved by the State for the intended use, however, there was no transportation for the residents of the center and the program was abandoned. A judgment was taken against the now defunct Arvin Housing Authority and, upon advice of counsel, the City agreed to release the land in favor of a satisfaction of judgment. • The 2004- 2005 Grand Jury recommended that the City make an in- depth analysis of revenues and expenditures of all funds in order to determine what actions should be taken to stem the tide of deficit spending in the City’s budget. Apparently the City has undertaken the steps as the last adopted budget of the City was $ 37,000 in the black. The City just received the City portion of the 2003 and 2004 Department of Motor Vehicles Tax in the amount of $ 230,000. The City currently has $ 2,000,000 in reserves. However, at mid- term of the 2005- 2006 fiscal year the City has a $ 180,000 budget deficit. • The City owned wastewater treatment plant has a 30 year contract with the current manager Violia Inc. According to City Management Violia appears to be doing a good job. The capacity of the plant is two million gallons per day with an average daily use of 1.2 to 1.4 million gallons. There is capacity for another 1,000 homes. The effluent is spread upon adjoining land. The City needs to purchase more land to use the plant to full capacity. The City is close to coming to agreement with a community recycling company to extend piping to the Edison area west of the City to spread the effluent. The City is also working with the City of Bakersfield and the County of Kern in developing a regional wastewater plant for the area. • Unimax Partnership rented the Smothermon Park for a child care center. A prefabricated building was installed that accommodates 100 children 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The City charged Unimax rent for the park of $ 1.00 per year for five years. Two offices in the Adobe Plaza Complex in the City were to be rented for $ 500 per month. The President of the company became ill and Unimax folded. The State Department of Education contracted and rewrote the contract with the Community Action Partnership, the organization currently operating the facility. • Currently there is no landfill in the City. Residents must utilize the County landfill at Bena. The State issued an order for compliance to implement recycling within the City in nine areas, e. g., green waste, blue bins, construction debris, etc., by June 30, 2005. The City was not in compliance as of that date. A hearing was held by the State on November 8, 2005. The City was fined $ 5,000 by the State for non-compliance. The City must report quarterly to the California Integrated Waste Management Board on progress made on compliance. A City- contracted private corporation is currently attempting to comply with disposal problems. • The $ 850,000 grant for apartments for farm workers was awarded to the Kern Housing Authority not to the City of Arvin. The City is not aware of where the money was spent, however, the money may have gone to the Arvin Sunset Labor Camp or Ruben Blount Housing. The Committee made a visual inspection of the two projects and the new housing has indeed been provided for farm workers. The apartment grounds and exteriors are well kept with play areas for the children. The grounds are surrounded with fencing and a gated entry. • A year and a half ago the City spent part of a $ 121,500 grant for a recycle collection program. Approximately $ 20,000 to $ 25,000 was utilized to collect household recyclables. The Committee was informed that there has been a favorable response from the citizens. A private consultant has been hired with the remainder of the money to investigate ways for collection of household recyclable waste. • The $ 200,000 grant for park and recreation capital outlay, including the skate park is 95% complete. Also included in the capital outlay were two children’s playgrounds in City parks, T- Ball and baseball fields, and three soccer fields, small and regulation size. The Interim Chief of Police advised that there is some vandalism because the areas constitute an attractive nuisance. • The mobile data computer system for the Police Department has not been completed. There are a total of twelve police vehicles and at this time four are equipped with mobile data reporting equipment. • There is no disaster plan for the City. The County Fire Department covers fire protection for the City and has an earthquake preparedness plan. The City is working with County officials to develop emergency plans with 9/ 11 funds for enhancements. • There were plans to remodel the Veteran’s Hall, however, the City decided that it was cost prohibitive to follow the remodel plans. Instead, the door was replaced and the windows were weatherized. The City continues to hold meetings in the building. A $ 225,000 Community Development Block Grant ( CDBG) scheduled to be used for the remodel was utilized for other projects but the City Manager and City Finance Director did not know where the money was spent stating, “ this happened prior to the current administration.” • The Police Commission Advisory Group is not operating, however, there are plans to begin again after the selection of a new Chief of Police. • The City does not have a grant writer. The CDBG grant and a transportation grant were written by the City Engineer. • “ Citizens on Patrol” is a citizens’ service unit utilized to work in the police department office performing non- law enforcement duties. The City does take advantage of the work release program and community service orders from the court. COMMENTS: • The City Administration appears to be quite self- confident and proud of the job being done. When asked what the Administration felt the strengths of the City are, the City Manager replied, “ its citizens, because through their vote they were able to do what the Sheriff, the District Attorney, and the Grand Jury were not able to do regarding the previous Mayor of Arvin.” • The City Administration is proud of the fact that the budget was in the black last year. The City may not be in the same situation in the coming year. • The City Administration continues to blame the prior administration for problems the City has had in the past. The administrators should thoroughly investigate previous financial transactions to insure that there will not be a repeat of the lawsuit regarding the Arvin Housing Authority. • The downtown area of the City continues to have empty buildings with weeds and debris littering the area. • An interesting note: The City Manager lives in Santa Barbara and commutes to Arvin and the Finance Director lives in Twin Oaks and also commutes to work. During interviews with other cities the Committee has learned commuting seemed to be the standard. The Committee would hope that the current arrangement could be changed with the Management living in the City. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. The City should insure that “ it gets what it pays for” when contracting with private contractors. The City administration did not explain what the private contractor was going to perform for the City other than vague comments regarding the balance of the grant money for recyclable waste as the City is currently non- compliant with State standards and is being fined by the State. In addition, the report from the East Los Angeles Community Union appears to be useless and the City paid $ 100,000 for the report. 2. The City should either hire or train an employee for grant writing. The grants currently are not monitored and there are many opportunities for the City to seek more grants. 3. The City should continue working with the City of Bakersfield and the County of Kern to develop a regional waste treatment plant. 4. The City should seek Federal or State grants to complete the upgrade of the police vehicles with mobile data reporting equipment. 5. The City Administrators should attempt to develop a City Pride and/ or Clean Up program to encourage City dwellers to clean their property. The City of Arvin should post a copy of this report where it will be available for public review. Note: Present and past Kern County Grand Jury Final Reports and Responses may be accessed at the County Library and on the Kern County Grand Jury web- site: www. co. kern. ca. us/ grandjury RESPONSE REQUIRED: WITHIN 60 DAYS TO PRESIDING JUDGE KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 cc: FOREPERSON, KERN COUNTY GRAND JURY 6TH FLOOR, 1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD PURPOSE OF INQUIRY: The Cities & Joint Powers Committee ( Committee) of the 2005- 2006 Kern County Grand Jury elected not to visit the City of Bakersfield ( City) for the purpose of conducting an investigation of the City pursuant to the provisions of Section 925a of the California Penal Code. PROCESS: After reviewing past Kern County Grand Jury Final Reports and Responses regarding the City members of the Committee interviewed the City Manager by telephone. BACKGROUND: Bakersfield is the County Seat of Kern County, California. As of the 2000 census the City had a total population of 247,057. The City's economy is based upon agriculture, petroleum extraction, and refining. Bakersfield is one of the fastest growing cities in the United States. As of 2005 the population is estimated at 307,471 according to local municipal sources. Bakersfield is California's third largest inland city. In 1776 the Spanish missionary Father Francisco Garces was the first European to reach the area. In 1851 gold was discovered in the Kern River and in 1865 the first discovery of oil was made in the valley. Settlements grew up and the place soon became known as " Colonel Baker's field", after one of the local settlers. When Colonel Thomas Baker was given the assignment of surveying a township, in 1869, the town was given the official name of " Bakersfield". In the 1950’ s local country musicians such as Buck Owens, Merle Haggard, and Wynn Stewart helped invent a rock and roll influenced country music style called the Bakersfield Sound. The influence was so great that Bakersfield is second only to Nashville, Tennessee in country music fame. Bakersfield continues to produce famous country music artists. Despite Bakersfield’s country music fame Bakersfield has also turned out a fair share of hard rock, most notably KoЯn, Burning Image, and Adema. FINDINGS: The Committee interviewed the City Manager via telephone and discussed the 2004- 2005 Kern County Grand Jury Report and the City Response. Each of the recommendations was appropriately addressed. In addition the recommendation that Code Enforcement positions should be increased, the City has, in fact, hired five additional officers. One of the major issues faced by the City is the proposed location of the new Federal Courthouse in the southwest area of the City. The City Council and the Board of Supervisors of Kern County, along with concerned citizens, are opposing the location and suggest that the court house be located in the downtown area. COMMENTS: The City of Bakersfield is a fast growing city and is to be commended for utilizing smart growth in new development. The City has outgrown the image presented by various entertainment celebrities. The downtown center is to be envied by other cities. Hallmarks of the Bakersfield community continue to be a high quality of life, a strong family orientation, and the fact that people care. RECOMMENDATIONS: The City should continue to work with the Kern County Board of Supervisors and concerned citizens to insure that the Federal Courthouse is located in the downtown area. The City of Bakersfield should post a copy of this report where it would be available for public review. Note: Present and past Kern County Grand Jury Final Reports and Responses may be accessed at the County Library and on the Kern County Grand Jury web- site: www. co. kern. ca. us/ grandjury NO RESPONSE REQUIRED CITY OF CALIFORNIA CITY PURPOSE OF INQUIRY: The Cities and Joint Powers Committee ( Committee) of the 2005- 2006 Kern County Grand Jury visited the City of California City ( City) on March 7, 2006, for the purpose of conducting an investigation of the City pursuant to the provisions of Section 925a of the California Penal Code. PROCESS: The Committee reviewed past Kern County Grand Jury Final Reports and Responses regarding the City prior to visiting the City. During the visit the Committee interviewed several members of the City Administration including the Mayor, the City Manager, the Assistant City Manager/ Finance Director, the Clerk, the Police Chief, and the Fire Chief. In addition the Committee reviewed several documents descriptive of the City and the surrounding area. BACKGROUND: California City is located in the high desert area of eastern Kern County. The City was founded in May 1958 and was incorporated on December 10, 1965. A “ planned” community, the City is the third largest incorporated city in land area in California and the eleventh largest in the United States. With easy access to the Mojave Desert and Edwards Air Force Base, California City is an ideal area for military personnel and lovers of the wide open desert. FINDINGS: The interviews with the City Staff revealed the following information: • The strengths of the City were described as small enough to be friendly, self sufficient, and with affordable housing, clean air, good weather, and a capable City staff. Additionally the City citizenry appear willing to pass and revise special taxes for support services for the City. • The City has a Foreign Trade Zone located at the airport and along with the expansion of the airport has provided additional employment opportunities. • The chief problems faced by the City are the maintenance of the infrastructure. The City was designed for 60,000 homes and the full infrastructure was installed. The current population is 12,000. The City has 463 miles of roads, plus water lines and sewer lines covering 204 square miles • All of the City firefighters are certified Emergency Medical Technicians or Paramedics making California City Fire Department ( CCFD) the only fire department within the county with such qualifications. The City has not acquired a helicopter for the Fire Department. A private company is contracted to provide air ambulance services. • The City is currently conducting studies regarding the damage to the fire station as a result of flooding last year. State funded disaster mitigation funds will be utilized to repair the damage. The City has no plans to build a second fire station. • The expansion of the airport has allowed a new business into the community. The business is moving all operations from San Diego and has purchased the two old concrete buildings by the airport containing 30,000 square feet each building. The business will begin installing power, gas and phone systems within the next three weeks. The City has submitted plans and applied to the Federal Aviation Administration ( FAA) for funds to expand the runway of the airport. Expanding the runway may provide new business for the airport, both private and charter. Currently there are skydiving and glider businesses operating at the airport. • The Hyundai Motor Company has just celebrated a second anniversary operating within the City. The construction of the business was a 60 million dollar project and provided 62 job opportunities for the citizens. Additional staff is provided by the corporation from the home company. • The City Police Department has just acquired five new vehicles and is requesting another vehicle. One new officer has been added to the staff for a total of 15 sworn personnel. One and a half years ago the Police Department received nine vehicles, six of which were new. The Police Department has no plans to utilize mobile data units or computers in the vehicles as the desert heat would damage the equipment. There are four holding cells at the Police Department, however, the cells are detention only and a prisoner can only be held for 12 hours. The Police Department must then either transport the prisoner to the Kern County Sheriff’s Department Mojave Substation for booking or release the prisoner. • The City has received a loan from the United States Department of Agriculture to downsize the infrastructure to 17 miles. The loan will be repaid with a water rate increase. The City has reduced the number of water leaks from 350 last year down to 226 this year. • The City has numerous inquiries each week regarding development. There are three developers proposing super markets and there are significant small businesses. Sixty-nine permits for new homes were taken out for the month of February with a total of 166 for the current year. There are currently 373 open building permits. COMMENTS: • It has taken over four years to come close to completion of the new high school. All the plans are completed and are set to go out for bid in two months. However, the State learned that the City had a prison within the City limits and required the City to provide a plan to be utilized in the event a prisoner escaped. It is ironic to note that the prison is located seven miles from the high school with rough high desert terrain between the two locations. • The City has no grant writer and feels that it is a hindrance to try to apply for grants as the City finds it difficult to meet the matching funds requirement. • The City feels it is not likely the City will receive the services of a branch court as the City is 15 miles from the Mojave Court and 47 miles from the Ridgecrest Court. • The Committee found that the members of the City Staff interviewed were very professional and knowledgeable with regard to the responses given. RECOMMENDATION: The City of California City should post a copy of this report where it will be available for public review. Note: Present and past Kern County Grand Jury Final Reports and Responses may be accessed at the County Library and on the Kern County Grand Jury web- site: www. co. kern. ca. us/ grandjury NO RESPONSE REQUIRED CITY OF DELANO PURPOSE OF INQUIRY: The Cities and Joint Powers Committee ( Committee) of the 2005- 2006 Kern County Grand Jury visited the City of Delano ( City) on September 8, 2005, for the purpose of conducting an investigation of the City pursuant to the provisions of Section 925a of the California Penal Code. PROCESS: After reviewing past Kern County Grand Jury Final Reports and Responses regarding the City of Delano members of the Committee interviewed several key City officers. The preparation for the interviews included reviews of City Council agendas, minutes of Council Meetings, the most recent City Budget, and various media publications relating to the City of Delano. BACKGROUND: Delano was established in 1870 as a Southern Pacific railhead, developed as a farming town, and incorporated in 1915. Delano is an agricultural market center for Northern Kern and Southern Tulare County farming interests. With easy access to markets Delano benefits from the City’s location in the center of a two- county agribusiness area. Recent population data places the City’s size at 45,056 which includes 10,800 prison inmates. Community events include Philippine Weekend in July, 16th of September Celebration, Mexican Independence Day in September, and the Annual Harvest Holidays in October. FINDINGS: Interviews of City Staff members and reviews of various documents lead to the following findings: • Water: Approximately 10 to 12 wells are affected by arsenic, however, the City is drilling new wells. • Sewer: The sewer systems are adequate at this time. The waste water plant is being expanded. • Roads: A pending roads project is two thirds complete. • The City school system is a good system. • A new transit station was opened eight months ago. • A Bakersfield College campus was opened in the City in September 2005. • New housing is mainly in the development stage. • A proposed recreation field has been put on hold as the Federal Aviation Agency ( FAA) indicated the location of the field was too close to the airport runway. COMMENTS: • The Committee found there is strength in loyalty of the staff and the way a diverse group of people have managed to work together with excellent results. • The City applied for a grant to build a gymnasium, however, the City did not receive the grant. There are plans to reapply for the grant. • Some of the weaknesses are the City is financially strapped, there are major problems with the City streets, the commercial growth is not keeping up with the population growth, and almost 50% of the residents are living below poverty level. RECOMMENDATION: The City of Delano should post a copy of this report where it may be available for public review. Note: Present and past Kern County Grand Jury Final Reports and Responses may be accessed at the County Library and on the Kern County Grand Jury web- site: www. co. kern. ca. us/ grandjury NO RESPONSE REQUIRED CITY OF MARICOPA PURPOSE OF INQUIRY: The Cities & Joint Powers Committee of the 2005- 2006 Kern County Grand Jury ( Committee) visited the City of Maricopa ( City) on September 11, 2005, and again on March 27, 2006, for the purpose of conducting an investigation of the City pursuant to the provisions of Section 925a of the California Penal Code. PROCESS: After reviewing past Kern County Grand Jury Final Reports and Responses regarding the City of Maricopa, members of the Committee interviewed the Mayor and the City Administrator. The preparation for the interviews included reviews of City Council agendas, minutes of Council Meetings, and various media publications relating to the City of Maricopa. BACKGROUND: Maricopa is known as “ Gateway to the Sea” located on a direct route to beach cities. Incorporated on July 25, 1911, the “ Mother City” of the prolific Midway- Sunset Oil Fields is also the gateway to the Cerro Noreste/ Mount Pinos recreation area. Maricopa is the name applied by a Pima Indian Tribe to a neighboring tribe of Uymas inhabiting the Gila River Valley in southern Arizona. How the name reached California is unknown but the name was given to the oil- booming community when a station on the Sunset Western Railroad was established in 1903. The real growth of Maricopa began with the Lakeview gusher in 1910. The famed gusher helped make Kern County “ First in Oil” in the state and nation. The current population is 1,147. FINDINGS: • Some of the strengths of the City are the independence of the citizens of the City and the pride of the citizens in self- government. • The City has developed a web page with information regarding history and location of the City. • Problems faced by the City are a lack of adequate funding for the City to attain the City’s goals. Additionally the difference of opinion within the community sometimes causes a slow- down in the progress of projects. • The City anticipates an addition of $ 15,000 per year to the General Fund with an easement agreement. • The City has resisted an annexation to the City of Taft. • The City has a proposed development within the year with a developer from Buellton, California. • There is little commercial use in the City as the businesses must find that Maricopa will meet the needs of the businesses. Old structures must be brought into code compliance regarding earthquakes and various infrastructure features. • The Committee was informed of a new successful granite working business in the City. The granite is imported from Greece and decorative objects are manufactured from the material. • Maricopa is working with the Kern Council of Governments ( Kern COG) regarding updating of the sewer system. A feasibility study was conducted and four alternative solutions were identified. The City Council chose alternative # 2 which will replace the existing sewer system including the trunk line extending from the City to the treatment ponds and build four new sewer ponds. The cost will be $ 4,015,848 which will be paid for by raising the monthly fee for sewer service from $ 16.00 to $ 35.00 per residence. Since a referendum wasn’t needed the City Council voted to accept alternative # 2. A special meeting was called for Monday, March 27, 2006, apparently to announce the City Council’s decision. Unfortunately an oil company’s refusal to relinquish land or to grant easements puts the entire plan on hold. Whether the City will use the power of eminent domain to obtain the land needed for the project is unknown. • The City has received a park grant of $ 220,000 to upgrade the park and the Oil Museum. • The City has no disaster plan but will utilize the County Plan. • The General Plan is “ way overdue and can’t be completed.” • The City Attorney provides training regarding the Brown Act every two years or whenever new Council members are elected. COMMENTS: • The City Administrator taking part in the first visitation to the City by the Committee died within two months or so after the visitation. The Committee postponed the follow- up visitation until the City had the opportunity to employ a new City Administrator. In fact, at the time of the follow- up visitation the City Administrator had been on the job for only three weeks. • The Committee was provided a tour of the Congregational Church which was the first church constructed on the west side of Kern County. Much of the original construction is still in the building. The glass for the stained glass windows was imported from Italy and is still in place. The Mayor also rang the church bell for the Committee. • Maricopa has been land- locked by oil companies and the companies are not interested in selling property. • Maricopa has developed and adopted a current budget. The City is finishing up the 2004- 2005 budget closing the books. Some confusion exists regarding the audit of the books as requested by a previous Grand Jury. The City Administrator advised the Committee that the “ audit” performed by the accounting agency indicated that the City was following accounting rules. Additionally the City was audited for gas tax monies. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. The City of Maricopa should make every effort to bring the City’s sewer replacement project to a successful completion and should investigate all procedures available to do so including the power of eminent domain. 2. The citizens of the City of Maricopa should make every effort to work cooperatively such that necessary projects may be achieved. The City of Maricopa should post a copy of this report where it will be available for public review. Note: Present and past Kern County Grand Jury Final Reports and Responses may be accessed at the County Library and on the Kern County Grand Jury website: www. co. kern. ca. us/ grandjury RESPONSE REQUIRED: WITHIN 60 DAYS TO PRESIDING JUDGE KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 cc: FOREPERSON KERN COUNTY GRAND JURY 1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE, 6th FLOOR BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 CITY OF McFARLAND PURPOSE OF INQUIRY: The Cities and Joint Powers Committee of the 2005- 2006 Kern County Grand Jury visited the City of McFarland on September 8, 2005, for the purpose of conducting an investigation of the City pursuant to the provisions of Section 925a of the California Penal Code. PROCESS: The Committee reviewed past Kern County Grand Jury Final Reports and Responses prior to visiting McFarland. While there, the Committee interviewed the Mayor and the City Administrator. The City Attorney was also present. Among other things the strengths, weaknesses, and general plan of the City were discussed. BACKGROUND: The City of McFarland was incorporated July 18, 1957. It was named for J. B. McFarland who, with W. F. Laird, established the townsite in 1908. Known as the “ Heartbeat of Agriculture”, the City produces cotton, grapes, and almonds among other things. The population is 12,179. FINDINGS: • The Committee was told the City’s strong point is the leadership from the City Council. • The City is financially unable to implement many new projects at this time because the majority of the citizens have relatively low paying occupations which, in turn, means there is less tax money to be spent. The City has a 2011 general plan which should have been revised years ago and is in the process of being revised by the City Council. • The City Council is planning to form an umbrella plan for all City services to promote better cooperation between elected officials and the public. • Through the generosity and community commitment of Paramount Farms the City recently obtained title to a twelve acre land area on the east side of Highway 99 to be developed for a multi- use community oriented campus. • The dairy which has long existed along Highway 99 south of the City is being relocated away from the City. The land will then be available for development by the City. • The City Council is in the process of negotiating with developers concerning new housing. Developers must pay all expenses, plus provide parks. There will be no subsidies. The problem of providing services ( water, sewer, etc.) is still ongoing. • The sewer capacity is large enough for 250 more new homes and is being converted from an evaporating pond to a secondary waste system. There is an ample supply of water to meet current needs. The City is in the process of drilling new wells for future needs. At this time the water meets all EPA and State standards. • Because of budget restrictions the City Council would rather outsource jobs than hire new employees. The City Council, however, wants to hire a lobbyist who will work for the City in Sacramento to help obtain more grants. COMMENTS: • The Committee is concerned about the schedule for updating the sewer system, since the existing sewer system is only large enough for 250 new homes and approximately 1,300 new homes are in the planning stage. • The Committee questions why the City Council wants to hire a lobbyist rather than a grant writer when the City is outsourcing jobs rather than hiring any new employees due to a budget shortfall. • The Committee hopes that when the dairy relocates, the City Council will be able to attract new business that will create more and better jobs for the residents and will increase the tax revenue, thereby making the City more solvent. • The Committee would like to see the promised improvements implemented as soon as possible after the land from Paramount Farms becomes available. • The Committee believes the City Council is doing an excellent job of bringing McFarland into the mainstream and compliments the City. RECOMMENDATIONS: • The City should complete the conversion of the sewer system as quickly as possible so the system will be up to code and will also be large enough to accommodate the housing developments in the near future. • The City Council should consider the merits of hiring a grant writer versus hiring a lobbyist. • The City Council should do everything possible to attract new business and should try to make the existing business district more attractive to consumers. The City of McFarland should post a copy of this report where it will be available for public review. Note: Present and past Kern County Grand Jury Final Reports and Responses may be accessed at the County Library and on the Kern County Grand Jury web- site: www. co. kern. ca. us/ grandjury RESPONSE REQUIRED: WITHIN 90 DAYS TO PRESIDING JUDGE KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CA. 93301 cc: KERN COUNTY GRAND JURY SIXTH FLOOR, 1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 CITY OF RIDGECREST PURPOSE OF INQUIRY: The Cities and Joint Powers Committee of the 2005- 2006 Kern County Grand Jury visited the City of Ridgecrest ( City) on January 30, 2006, pursuant to the provisions of Section 925a of the California Penal Code. PROCESS: Prior to the visitation, the members of the Committee reviewed earlier Grand Jury Final Reports and Responses regarding the City as well as articles and other publications concerning the City. The members of the Committee then traveled to the City and conducted interviews of members of the management team of the City, including the City Manager, the Deputy City Manager and the Chief of Police. BACKGROUND: Ridgecrest is a high desert community surrounded by four mountain ranges that include the Sierra Nevada’s. Ridgecrest is mixture of old west and gold mining history combined with the contemporary high technology of the Navy's top rated research and development facility. Ridgecrest is known for its clear skies, good schools and low crime rate. The current population is 27,000. The area supports many recreational venues, hiking, camping, back packing, rock hounding and fishing. The historical petroglyphs, the Naval Museum of Armament and Technology and the Maturango Museum are other areas of interest. FINDINGS: The interviews of the Members of the management Team for the City led to the following findings. • The strengths of Ridgecrest were listed as low crime rate, low unemployment rate and good schools. The City is located next to the China Lake Naval Air Warfare Station, so the defense industry provides the majority of employment. The unemployment rate is less than 5% and is the lowest in the county. The city expects major changes from the decisions of the federal government Base Reduction and Closure ( BRAC) program. With the closure of some bases throughout the nation, the City expects to gain 2,600 new employees. Twenty-five percent of these would be military employees. Currently there are approximately 5,000 employees at the base, of those only 1,000 are military personnel. The remaining are government employees or private contactors. The City is preparing for a 2.3% city growth. • Most challenges faced by the City arise from the fact that the major business is the military base. The city needs diversity in businesses. The City is working with Kern COG in developing a business park. There are some scientists on the base who would like to have their products produced within the area, not exported to other states or countries for production. The increase in population will create problems for the police force, housing and schools. Currently there are two schools located on the base and after 9/ 11 this created problems for the students. The schools are old and need to be replaced. • The City is looking to expand tourism. The major tourism attractions are the desert wildflowers and petroglyphs. Two major hotel chains have purchased land for development. Several physicians are opening clinics. The energy industry is another option. There is a geothermal well on the base that will produce 360 megawatts of power. The City is also investigating private land wind energy fields and solar energy. The college has produced a solar energy field that provides all their electrical requirements and also allows excess energy produced to be sold on the electrical grid. Investigation continues into producing electrical energy “ peaking” plants in the area. These will allow the electrical grid to redirect electricity into areas that are requiring more allocations. • The City has one full time and two part- time grant writers. The city has numerous grants including an Employment Resources Training Center hiring grant of $ 68,000 that is utilized to employ youth, ages 14 to young adult. There is a transit operating grant of $ 28,000. The Community Development Block Grant of $ 200,000 is utilized for the infrastructure. A Department of Motor Vehicles grant allowed the City to purchase three fuel efficient automobiles. The police department received an $ 8,000 grant for the purchase of protective vests for the officers. Community Oriented Police Services ( COPS) receives $ 100,000 per year for community services. Highway and transportation grants are managed through Kern COG. A $ 13,000,000 grant was received for the redevelopment of Ridgecrest Boulevard. Currently $ 1,000,000 is being utilized for environmental impact studies and conceptual design. The City has also applied for a grant to develop three natural gas refueling stations. • There was a housing slump about 10 years ago, however within the last 12 months 250 new homes have been built, 200 permits have been issued, and 23 tract maps are in the planning department. The City has had to hire extra help to work on the tract maps. There has been some speculation purchasing however houses are hard to rent. There is a new apartment complex proposed but there have been objections by the nearby property owners. There are 1700 acres in the city to be developed. • Numerous businesses have opened within the last year, small businesses, medical clinics, restaurants, and drug stores. A Wal- Mart Superstore is beginning an environmental impact study. A company that built racing cars has not been able to sustain the business and is leaving the area. • The Teen Court has not re- opened because matching funds were not budgeted by the county. Private funding is not available. • Highways 14 and 395 continue to require maintenance and improvement. There was a Tri- County team established between Kern, Inyo and Mono Counties with one and half million dollars committed for improvement on these two highways. • The City does not anticipate a sales tax increase at this time. The City will hold off until after this year’s election due to the county “ Safe Roads” initiative. If this initiative passes the city will receive approximately $ 42 million over the next 20 years. • Development fees are being proposed for police, fire, roads and waste water treatment. The County of Kern has two fire stations in the Ridgecrest area and a third has been proposed. • The Police Department does not have any type of computer or mobile data units in the police vehicles. All calls are radio dispatched from the control center in the department’s office. Checks for warrants and wants are checked by the dispatcher and radioed to the officer in the field. The City has saved $ 280,000 in booking fees, housing and transportation in an exchange with the Kern County Sheriff’s Department utilizing the old police department building COMMENTS: The Committee made the following observations during the visit. • Although the population of Ridgecrest is only about 27,000 there was a great deal of activity in the City. • The City is located in the arid, high desert area of eastern California and so was found to be quite dry. It was noted that where landscaping was being carried out around new construction the use of water for irrigation was carefully restricted. • The city hall building is quite impressive both in size and in design. • The members of the City Management Team were quite knowledgeable about the characteristics of the City and its citizenry as well as about the short- and long-term needs of both. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. The City should continue to seek new and various businesses not entirely related to the military base. The new areas suggested by the City administration are valid areas to pursue and every effort should be made to attract these businesses. 2. The City is to be complemented on having a full time grant writer. Every effort should be made to continue to seek new grants. 3. The City should be careful to utilize smart growth with new housing development. The infrastructure should not be scattered over the 1,700 acres to be developed. The developments should be located close to each other so there is less stress on the infrastructure. 4. The City should insure that the development fees proposed meet the needs required to support the police, fire, roads and waste water treatment. 5. The City should investigate the ins |
| PDI.Date | 2006 |
| PDI.Date.Issued | 2006 |
| PDI.Title | Final Report. 2005-2006. |
| OCLC number | 144565677 |
Tags
Comments
Post a Comment for Kern County Grand Jury final report
Your rating was saved.
you wish to report:
Your comment:
Your Name:
|
|
...