Home
Tulare 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
Tulare County Grand Jury final report
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
|
|
Tulare County Grand Jury
Final Report
2005 - 2006
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Letter from the Foreman .................................................................................................................. 2
Letter from Judge Vortmann and Judge Kalashian ........................................................................ 3
History of the Grand Jury and Its Duties .......................................................................................... 4
Reports:
Responses to the 2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report ............................................................. 6
Administration Committee
City of Porterville Wastewater Treatment/ Farming Operation .................................................. 9
Consolidation of the Tulare County Elected Offi cials ................................................................. 13
Retirement and the Golden Handshake ..................................................................................... 15
City of Visalia Contract with Scenic Airlines ............................................................................... 17
Audit and Special Districts Committee
Community Service Districts in Tulare County ........................................................................... 21
Flood Potential on the St. Johns River/ Levee Districts I and II ( Map) ..................................... 38
Public Board Meetings/ Policies and Procedures ...................................................................... 43
Education Committee
Burton School District .................................................................................................................. 49
Use of Lottery Money in Tulare County School Districts with High Schools ............................. 52
Health and Welfare Committee
Kings- Tulare Agency on Aging/ Meals on Wheels and Senior Centers ..................................... 61
Justice Committee
Harassment/ Discrimination Settlements ................................................................................. 67
Inmate Welfare Trust Fund .......................................................................................................... 69
Juvenile Hall ............................................................................................................................... . 71
Juvenile Welfare Trust Fund ........................................................................................................ 73
Porterville Police Department/ Vicious Animal Policies ............................................................ 77
Probation Department/ Adult Electronic Monitoring ................................................................. 79
Sheriff Department/ Jail Sanitation ........................................................................................... 82
Land Use
Tulare County Code Compliance/ Trash and Abandoned Vehicles ........................................... 87
Riverland RV Resort .................................................................................................................... 94
Citizen Complaint Form and Procedures ......................................................................................... 97
Grand Jury Nomination Form ........................................................................................................... 99
Grand Jury Members ............................................................................................................... Back Page
Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 • 1
2 • Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006
Honorable Judge Paul A. Vortmann
Presiding Judge of the Superior Court
State of California
County of Tulare
Honorable Judge Joseph A. Kalashian
Assistant Presiding Judge of the Superior Court
State of California
County of Tulare
Dear Judge Vortmann and Judge Kalashian,
Pursuant to California Penal Code Section 933, the 2005- 2006 Tulare County Grand Jury
proudly presents this Final Report of the Grand Jury to the Court and to the citizens of Tulare
County. This Final Report contains reportage of investigations conducted by the Grand Jury
into the operation of public agencies within this County.
The Jury was impaneled by the Court in early July 2005 with the charge to serve the general
public as " watchdogs" of county government agencies. Nineteen citizen- jurors, from diverse
backgrounds and experiences, formed an efficient, cooperative unit. They worked tirelessly
to respond to citizen's complaints, and to investigate numerous County departments with
interviews of " relevant" witnesses, visitations to applicable meetings, and review of pertinent
documents.
It is important for the public to recognize that the Grand Jury does not have power or
authority to mandate compliance by public agencies to its findings or recommendations. The
purpose of the findings and recommendations is to make the public aware of issues before
these agencies and to require the agencies to examine their policies and procedures so as
to best protect the interests of the public. Under the laws of the State of California, the
Grand Jury may refer issues to appropriate local or state law enforcement or regulatory
agencies for appropriate follow- up action.
On behalf of the Grand Jury, I want to express our special gratitude to you, Judge Kalashian
for your judicial and judicious guidance. This sincere expression of appreciation also
extends to County Counsel Kathleen Bales- Lange, and to our clerk Louise Whittle, for their
generous assistance.
To the jurors who served on the 2005- 2006 Tulare County Grand Jury, I say, " job well done!"
My profuse thanks to them for their conscientious service to this challenging, educational
and noble cause. It has been a privilege and my pleasure to serve as foreman of this
dedicated group of citizens.
Respectfully,
Margie Ewen, Foreman
2005- 2006 Tulare County Grand Jury
Tulare County Grand Jury
5963 South Mooney Boulevard
Visalia, California 93277
( 559) 733- 6465 • Fax ( 559) 733- 6078
Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 • 3
4 • Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006
HISTORY OF THE GRAND JURY
One of the earliest concepts of a Grand Jury may date back to Ancient Greece. The
Grand Jury can also be traced back to the time of the Norman Conquest of England in
1066. There is evidence that the Courts of that time summoned a body of sworn
neighbors to present crimes which had come to their knowledge.
King Henry II of England impaneled the first sixteen- man Grand Jury in 1164 to
remove criminal indictments from the hands of the church.
By the year 1290, we find that the accusing jury was given the authority to inquire
into the maintenance of bridges and highways, the defects of jails, and whether the
sheriff had kept in jail anyone who should have been brought before the Justices.
In 1635 the Massachusetts Bay Colony, in Colonial America, had the first Grand Jury
that considered the cases of murder, robbery and wife beating.
By the end of the Colonial period the Grand Jury had become an indispensable
adjunct of government. They proposed new laws, protested against abuses in
government and wielded tremendous authority in their power to determine who
should and should not face trial.
Originally the Constitution of the United States made no provision for a Grand Jury.
The Fifth Amendment, ratified in 1791, added this protection: …” no person shall be
held to answer to a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or
indictment of a Grand Jury, except for cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in
the militia when in actual service in time of war or public danger.”
Adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 made it illegal to “ deprive any
person of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” As interpreted by some
States, this amendment meant that prosecution of crimes no longer mandated a
Grand Jury indictment.
HISTORY OF THE GRAND JURY IN CALIFORNIA
The first California Penal Code contained statutes providing for a Grand Jury. Article
I, Section 23 of the California Constitution states: “ One or more Grand Juries shall be
drawn and summoned once a year in each County.”
Early Grand Juries investigated local prisons, conducted audits of County books and
pursued matters of community concern. The role of the Grand Jury in California is
unique in that by statutes passed in 1880, the duties include investigation of County
Government.
California and Nevada are the only states in the country which mandate year- long
Grand Juries.
The Grand Jury system in California is unusual in that Federal and County Grand
Juries in most states are concerned solely with the criminal indictments and have no
civil responsibilities.
California is one of only seven States that provide for the investigation of County
Government by a Grand Jury, beyond alleged misconduct of public officials.
Grand Jurors generally serve for one year and are usually impaneled in the first week
of the fiscal or calendar year to coincide with the County’s budget year, Up to ten
Grand Jurors may be held over for a second term.
Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 • 5
RESPONSES TO 2004 - 2005 GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
A County Civil Grand Jury is an investigative body that issues a Final Report at the end of its
term. The Jury conducts investigations or inquiries into the activities of city and county
government agencies and special districts. They also investigate citizen complaints made to
the Jury concerning suspected governmental irregularities. California Penal Code Section
933 ( c) requires that each of the affected agencies must submit a written response to the
report within specific time periods.
There were a total of 13 individual reports in the 2004 - 2005 Final Report. These reports
were submitted to 78 different entities for their responses. Fifteen days prior to the required
response date a reminder notice was sent to these agencies. Eighty- seven percent of the
responses were received, meeting the basic requirements for responding to the findings and
recommendations.
The following is a list of the agencies that did not respond within the sixty day time period
specified in the above listed Penal Code Section along with the percentages of responders
and non- responders
Memorial
Districts
Tulare County School
Districts
Community Services
Districts
65% responded
The 35% that did not
respond are:
95% responded
The 5% that did not
respond are:
50% responded
The 50% that did not
respond are:
Lindsay- Strathmore Alpaugh Unified Allensworth
Porterville Liberty Elementary
Sequoia Monson- Sultana Joint Union
Elementary
South Tulare County T. C. O. V. E.
Terra Bella
Full responses are available on the Grand Jury Website at ( grndjury@ tulare. ca. us). The
public is encouraged to visit the website and read each of the responses in their entirety.
The 2005 - 2006 Grand Jury wishes to thank those who responded to last year’s Final
Report and recognizes their contribution to the community and to the Grand Jury process.
The time and effort taken to review the 2004 - 2005 Grand Jury Final Report and to prepare
and submit responses are greatly appreciated.
6 • Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006
ADMINISTRATION
COUNTY OF TULARE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES
THE CITY OF PORTERVILLE’S WASTEWATER TREATMENT/
FARMING OPERATION
BACKGROUND
The current Wastewater Treatment Facility ( WWTF) Reclamation Disposal and Farming
Program was developed in response to requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control
Board ( RWQCB) to limit the amount of treated effluent ( sewage waste) that the City of
Porterville ( City) can discharge. The Waste Discharge Requirements and the Cease and
Desist Order from the RWQCB limited the City to 5.3 million gallons disposed or 5694 acre
feet per year of treated effluent and applied many other restrictions on how the City can
dispose of its effluent. The City is required to spread bio- solids and reclaimed wastewater
effluent for further land treatment and beneficial irrigation use. The purpose is to increase
efficiency of wastewater disposal through irrigation, mitigate environmental impact through
crop uptake of nitrogen, limit groundwater impact, and provide for future disposal needs. In
particular, the program has been tasked with insuring that the Tulare County Landfill ( Teapot
Dome) is not compromised by City discharge operations. Projects funded with a loan from
the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank were developed and
approved by the RWQCB.
Property acquisition and development of arable land has been ongoing with about 520
acres purchased over recent years. The current inventory of leveled irrigated land is around
465 acres. The goal is to develop approximately 700 acres of irrigated land in order to meet
the RWQCB requirements and keep up with the growth of Porterville. Failure to meet the
requirements could result in a building moratorium from the RWQCB on future sewer
hookups. It is important to maintain a good working relationship between the two parties.
REASON FOR INVESTIGATION
In response to a citizen complaint the 2005- 2006 Tulare County Grand Jury investigated the
City of Porterville’s Farming Operation.
PROCEDURES FOLLOWED
1. Relevant witnesses were interviewed.
2. Relevant records were reviewed.
FINDINGS
1. The City implemented a five year “ transitional“ Farm Management Agreement ( FMA)
that allowed the City to continue disposing of treated effluent. The FMA started on
December 2, 2002 and ends November 30, 2007. There is a “ cancellation at three
years“ clause in the FMA with the Farm Manager. Either party for any reason may
Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 • 9
cancel the FMA with a ninety days prior written notice. The FMA may also be extended
by mutual agreement between the parties, past the five year deadline. The City
contracted out this agreement to manage the operations to an independent contractor.
This individual is not an employee of the City. The contractor’s duties are the
management of all farming operations, including the purchase and/ or rental of all
necessary equipment, supplies and services subject to the conditions of the
agreement. Such management includes daily farming decisions and the care and
maintenance of the property. Earnings for the contractors duties are as follows:
a. An annual base fee of $ 41,431.72 for the first year ( Dec. 1, 2002 through June
30, 2003) and $ 71,434 for each year thereafter.
b. Commission of 5% on the gross income on all revenue and income generated
from the farming operation upon verification of weight tickets and broker reports.
The amount of commission paid each year shall not exceed $ 25,000. Records
indicate commissions paid as of January 24, 2005 have totaled $ 19,277.42.
c. “ Manager shall prepare an annual budget based on a fiscal year ( FY) beginning
July 1 through June 30. Manager shall submit the budget to the City March 1 of
each year. The budget will be adopted as part of the City’s annual budget. The
manager shall prepare an annual report and statement for each FY that
summarizes the expenses incurred during that year and compares the
expenditures with the budget previously submitted for that year.”
2. An internal examination of the financial performance of the program has been
completed by the WWTF with the help of an independent agricultural consultant.
3. The alfalfa- crop cultural practices were reviewed by the Tulare County branch of the
University of California Cooperative Extension ( UCCE). They found that crop enterprise
expenditures and budgets have been compared to UCCE estimates and found to be
equivalent. Components of the “ farming program” such as harvest costs, have been
found comparable to local and available custom farming rates.
4. A Certified Public Accountant reviewed City records of the farm financial material.
5. The financial results over the two fiscal years examined show a loss in farming
operations. Overhead and maintenance costs, including non- crop and percolation
pond related expenses contributed to additional losses as follows:
FY2003- 2004 FY2004- 2005
Farming operation loss $ 100,500 $ 20,000
Additional losses $ 225,300 $ 16,400
Total losses $ 325,800 $ 36,400
6. The original estimates for the farming cost presented to the City Council in December
2002 projected a loss in the farming operation as follows:
10 • Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006
FY2003- 2004 FY2004- 2005
Losses in farming operation $ 29,485 $ 62,972
Analysis reflects actual losses at $ 100,562 $ 20,678
7. Original 2002 estimates for non- crop expenses: weed abatement, land preparation,
ripping or gypsum application ( which is specific to improving waste water penetration),
cost of lease for irrigated land, percolation pond management and laboratory testing
were conservative and farming operations contained most of the expenses. The
November 2005 analysis reallocated non- crop expenses that had been included in the
farming expenses. Following is a summary of expense vs. estimate:
FY2003- 2004 FY2004- 2005
Non- crop expense estimate $ 21,080 $ 21,309
Non- crop actual expense $ 188,258 $ 195,110
Percolation pond estimate $ 16,500 $ 16,500
Percolation pond actual expense $ 36,982 $ 20,655
8. Non- crop expenses have since been separated from operational activities. Capital
improvement projects, such as percolation pond development and water delivery
systems, have also been segregated. The programs initial intent was for the farming
budget to absorb the costs of non- crop and percolation pond expenses but this has not
occurred because of unpredictable agri- business conditions.
9. Expectations for the program may conclude that there will be years of excellent
conditions where financial performance of the “ farming program“ will breakeven and
perhaps, be profitable. The rigid constraints of the program will not necessarily allow
the flexibility that a pure agricultural operation can achieve.
10. Crop enterprises are chosen according to criteria that will allow the City to achieve
program goals, i. e. wastewater absorption, non- human consumption products, control
of high salts created by effluent irrigation and marketing opportunities. For the
program, the measurement of performance is whether overall objectives are achieved
at a cost that is comparable or better than other methods.
11. An accurate evaluation of crop enterprise performance from the farm can only be
accomplished through accurate cost allocations across fiscal years. Farming operations
financial records are kept on a cash basis for the fiscal year July 1 through June 30.
This has two- impacts on the evaluation of farm program performance. First, all
expenses for long term capital improvement projects i. e. percolation pond development
and maintenance, are expensed at the time of cash outlay, rather than amortized over
the life of the activities value. Second, many correlated farming expenses and revenues
fall on either side of July 1 through June 30 fiscal year, which creates accounting
concerns.
12. The City can direct which crops are grown such as alfalfa, oat hay, Sudan grass and
other non- human consumables. Alfalfa quality is based on the following guidelines for
11
crops irrigated with treated effluent: supreme, premium, good, fair and utility. For grass
hay the guidelines are premium, good, fair, and utility. Ninety- five percent of all the
crops grown were graded fair. Revenue for FY2003- 2004 were as follows:
Revenue for alfalfa $ 27,553
Revenue for Oat Hay $ 64,215
Revenue for Sudan grass $ 15,174
13. High application rates of treated effluent potentially reduce crop yield as a result of
high salt levels in the soil. Effluent is split 50% to percolation and 50% to irrigation
through the years.
14. All revenue derived, directly or indirectly, from the property with regard to the farming
and spreading operations shall belong to the City of Porterville.
15. The farming program is separated into three distinct categories operated under one
umbrella budget.
a. Farming operations include individual crop enterprises utilizing wastewater for
irrigation and crops that utilize significant portions of the wastewater nitrogen.
b. Non- crop operations are activities that bring the program into compliance but are
not fundamentally necessary to the farming operations ( see finding number seven).
c. Capital improvement projects which include the percolation pond development and
maintenance, and the construction and maintenance of the water delivery systems
( see finding number eight).
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The City of Porterville modify and/ or adjust the current Farm Management Agreement.
a. To segregate total operations into “ farming vs. non farming” categories and their
respective costs.
b. Prepare and distribute Request for Proposals for a new contract to manage the
farming operations after modifications/ adjustments have been made to the present
agreement.
c. Prepare and distribute Request for Proposals to lease the land under an alternative
farm agreement which would remove the City’s managerial controls.
2. Eliminate the current agreement and hire a city employee to manage the farming
operations.
3. Convert the farming operations financials to an accrual basis of accounting.
RESPONSE
City of Porterville
12 • Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006
CONSOLIDATION OF TULARE COUNTY ELECTED OFFICIALS
REASON FOR INVESTIGATION
The 2005- 2006 Tulare County Grand Jury was interested in what laws permit the
consolidation of Tulare County departments in which the department head was an elected
official. Prior to 2005, the following offices had been consolidated in Tulare County:
1. Sheriff and Coroner
2. District Attorney and Public Administrator
3. Treasurer/ Tax Collector
4. Assessor, County Clerk and County Recorder
5. Agricultural Commissioner and County Sealer ( Weights & Measures)
In 2005, Tulare County consolidated the positions of Auditor/ Controller, Treasurer/ Tax
Collector.
PROCEDURES FOLLOWED
1. Relevant witnesses were interviewed.
2. Relevant information was reviewed.
FINDINGS
1. The law governing County Officials is found at Government Code section 24000 et. seq.
and the law regarding consolidation of offices is found at Government Code 24300 et.
seq.
2. Specifically in regard to the offices of Auditor/ Controller, Treasurer/ Tax Collector:
Government Code section 24300.5 ( see below) permits consolidation of these offices
by the board of supervisors.
24300.5. In addition to the duties of the county offices which may be consolidated
under the provisions of Section 24300, the board of supervisors may, by ordinance,
consolidate the offices of an auditor/ controller, treasurer/ tax collector, and director
of finance.
3. An informal opinion by the Legislative Counsel that despite the plain meaning of the
statue, consolidation was not permitted.
4. Tulare County Board of Supervisors sought and obtained special legislation in 2005
that clearly permits such consolidation.
Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 • 13
5. Assembly Bill 1318, Statues of 2005, Chapter 407, amended Government Code
section 24304.2 ( see below) to permit Tulare and Sonoma Counties to consolidate the
offices of Auditor/ Controller with that of Treasurer/ Tax Collector.
Section 24304.2. Notwithstanding Section 24300, in Sonoma County and Tulare
County, the board of supervisors, by ordinance, may consolidate the duties of the
offices of Auditor/ Controller and Treasurer/ Tax Collector into the elected office of
Auditor/ Controller/ Treasure/- Tax Collector.
CONCLUSION
The Consolidation of the offices of Auditor/ Controller and Treasurer/ Tax Collector was done
in a manner prescribed by law.
14 • Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006
RETIREMENT AND THE GOLDEN HANDSHAKE
REASON FOR INVESTIGATION
Based on recent newspaper articles referring to retirement incentives ( The Golden
Handshake) given to appointed or elected Tulare County employees, the 2005/ 2006 Tulare
County Grand Jury decided to review the county's procedures.
PROCEDURES FOLLOWED
1. Printed information was obtained from a relevant source pertaining to government codes
and regulations for retirement.
2. Relevant witnesses were interviewed.
FINDINGS
1. Tulare County is one of twenty ( 20) California Counties which are governed by the County
Employees' Retirement Law of 1937. The 1937 Act is set forth beginning at section
31450 of the Government Code. In Tulare County this law is implemented through the
Tulare County Employees' Retirement Association ( TCERA).
2. Both appointed and elected employees are members of TCERA. The retirement is based
upon a combination of age, years of service in the county and salary. Salary is factored
into the age and years of service formula; it is either the highest consecutive twelve ( 12)
months or thirty six ( 36) months, depending on which retirement tier the employee is in.
The tier is determined by when they began their service to the county. ( See attached
tables.)
3. Government Code section 31641.04 sets forth the conditions under which the Board of
Supervisors ( BOS) may offer additional service credit. Section 31641.04 ( a) states
service credit, if it is to be offered, must be offered to designated members within a
particular job classification, county department or other county organizational unit. Any
BOS resolution would identify the group to which the service credit was offered. Because
the offer is position specific, those who are not within the job classification identified in
the resolution have no right to the service credit.
4. The BOS may determine that because of impending curtailment of service, change in the
manner of performing service, savings of money or economic benefit, if it is in the best
interest of the county, an employee shall be eligible to receive additional service credit.
5. Retirement incentives can be requested by individual employees, the Human Resources
Development Department or department heads in regards to classification of employees
in their department, by the BOS during budget considerations, or by a union during
bargaining.
6. The amount of service credit is determined by the BOS, but it can be no more than two
( 2) years regardless of credited service and cannot exceed the number of years between
the date of retirement and the date required to be retired because of age.
7. Upon the retirement of a department head the BOS may wish to collapse two ( 2)
departments into one ( 1), or leave the position vacant and staff it at a lower salaried
Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 • 15
position in an effort to save money.
8. Tulare County appears to be in compliance with State and Government codes in regard
to retirement incentives for appointed and elected employees.
RESPONSE
No response necessary
16 • Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006
CITY OF VISALIA CONTRACT WITH SCENIC AIRLINES
HISTORY
1. The Airline Deregulation Act, passed in 1978, gave airlines almost total freedom to
determine which markets to serve domestically and what fares to charge for that
service. The Essential Air Service ( EAS) program was put into place to guarantee that
small communities that were served by certificated air carriers before deregulation
maintain a minimum level of scheduled air service.
2. By Order 93- 6- 13, the United States of America Department of Transportation ( DOT),
defined EAS for Visalia as requiring two round trips a day to either Los Angeles, San
Francisco or San Jose. Service was to be provided with no more than one intermediate
stop, and the aircraft were to have two pilots, two engines and at least 15 seats with air
access to the cabin. With the consent of the community, any of these conditions may be
waived.
3. Sky West Airlines Inc., a United Airlines code- share operator, began serving Visalia in
1997. On December 15, 2004, Sky West Airlines filed a 90- day notice to terminate all of
its subsidy- free service effective March 15, 2005.
4. DOT order 2004- 12- 23, was served to Sky West on January 7, 2005 and prohibited Sky
West from suspending service at Visalia, California and requesting proposals from
carriers interested in providing replacement EAS.
5. On January 5, 2005, the DOT issued an order requesting proposals from airlines
interested in providing air service at the Visalia Municipal Airport. The order was served
on approximately thirty ( 30) different air carriers.
REASON FOR INVESTIGATION
Past articles in local newspapers referenced the process in selecting an airline to provide air
service to the Visalia Municipal Airport. The 2005- 2006 Tulare County Grand Jury decided it
would review the procedure in selecting an airline.
PROCEDURES FOLLOWED
1. Relevant witnesses were interviewed.
2. Relevant information was reviewed.
FINDINGS
1. Two airlines submitted proposals and these were Scenic Airlines and Great Lakes
Airlines.
Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 • 17
2. The DOT proposed an annual subsidy of $ 200 per passenger, not to exceed $ 450,000
for the first year, $ 450,000 for the second year and $ 300,000 for the third year of the
contract. Scenic Airlines was awarded a 3 year contract for service commencing
September 1, 2005. The contract guarantees Scenic Airlines revenue of $ 871.15 per
flight. Any shortfall is paid to Scenic Airlines from the DOT subsidy.
3. In addition to the DOT subsidy, the City of Visalia is providing a subsidy of $ 250,000 in
grant funding from the Small Community Air Service Development Program for the first
year of operation.
4. Scenic Airlines operates a pressurized 19- passenger Beechcraft 1900 aircraft with
service from Visalia to the North Las Vegas Airport providing ten ( 10) flights per week.
Upon arrival in Las Vegas, free shuttle transportation is provided to either Las Vegas
Hotels or Mc Carran Airport, the major airport in Las Vegas, for transfer to other flights.
5. For the period September- November 2005, 2,136 passengers enplaned on 249 flights
for an average of 8.58 passengers per flight, compared to the prior operator United
Express/ Sky West for the same period in which only 402 passengers flew on 308
flights.
6. United Express/ Sky West was operating with subsidy- free service.
7. Air service from Visalia to North Las Vegas Airport is currently $ 99.00. Fares quoted
from Fresno to Las Vegas Mc Carran airport are available at a cost of $ 49.00 per
person.
8. No information is currently available on the number of passengers flying on Scenic
Airlines who are using the Scenic Airline flight as a transfer to another destination.
9. On February 21, 2006, a recommendation was made to the Visalia City Council to
authorize the expenditure of $ 5,000 for the City of Visalia to participate with the grant
application for the California Regional Air Service Plan being developed by the California
Airports Coalition. The intention of this program is to identify and provide subsidies for
air carriers willing to provide intrastate air service in California.
CONCLUSION
1. The City of Visalia in its contract with Scenic Airlines is not meeting the needs of the
community to provide Essential Air Service to either Los Angeles, San Jose or San
Francisco. By the City of Visalia’s decision to initiate service to an outlying airport in Las
Vegas, it has created a gambling junket instead of commuter air service.
2. The City of Visalia by becoming part of the California Regional Air Service is recognizing
that the needs of the intrastate air traveler are not being met by the current contract
with Scenic Airlines.
18 • Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006
AUDIT AND SPECIAL
DISTRICTS
St. John’s River at Demaree May 2006
COMMUNITY SERVICE DISTRICTS IN TULARE COUNTY
INTRODUCTION
Community Service Districts ( CSD) are a form of Special Districts in California, which are
generally unconnected to local governments, and deliver public services in specific areas. 1
They enjoy many of the same powers of cities and counties with the exception of emergency
services. They can enter into contracts, sue and be sued, employ workers, acquire real
property through purchase or eminent domain. They can issue debt, impose taxes, levy
assessments and charge fees for their services. They can also authorize a district seal and
alter it at will.
In 1887 farmers in the San Joaquin Valley became so aggravated by the inconsistencies of
water supplies and the varying prices, they were motivated to organize an Irrigation District
under the Wright Act of 1887. The Wright Act permitted the residents in a given area to form
a public body for the purpose of water delivery and to finance the operations through bond
sales. This Irrigation District was the Turlock Irrigation District and made it possible for the
farmers of the San Joaquin Valley to intensify and diversify their agricultural activities. Soon
the development of water districts shifted away from rural to urban areas, and in the early
1900’ s special districts increased dramatically in both number and scope. The Municipal
Utility District Act of 1921 allowed special districts to diversify and address multiple needs
ranging from water, power, transportation and telephone service, as well as “ all things
necessary and convenient”.
After World War II special districts took on a whole new meaning. They became involved
with hospitals, fire protection, and many other demanded public services. Unlike multi-faceted
civic bureaucracies, special districts were flexible and provided the desired services
quickly and with efficiency.
CSDs are allowed by California State Law to provide up to 16 different functions. 2 Districts
are either single- function entities, in which they provide only one service to the public or
multi- functional where they provide two or more services. They are also enterprise or non-enterprise
entities. Enterprise districts charge customer fees for services such as water or
sewage. Non- enterprise districts provide services that do not lend themselves to fees, such
as fire protection, or streetlights, and they benefit the community as a whole and not as an
individual. CSDs can be independent or dependent. Independent districts have their own
boards of directors elected by the districts’ voters and can include appointed board
members, who serve for fixed terms. In the case of dependent districts, other existing
legislative bodies such as a county board of supervisors govern them.
Funding for CSDs comes from many different sources; a few examples are: fees, property
taxes, grants and loans, general obligation bonds, and revenue bonds. 3 CSDs are primarily
accountable to the voters who elected the Board of Directors and the customers who use
their services. Even though these are not functions of the state, the state provides oversight
Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 • 21
to CSDs operations, and the districts must submit annual financial reports to the State
Controller.
Each district must follow the California Government Codes in all of their activities including
the Brown Act 4 ( open meeting requirements for Public Boards), bonded debt, record
keeping, and elections. Ethics training 5 is a new law on the books that requires all CSD
personnel ( elected, appointed, or hired) to attend ethics training. Proposition 13 ( passed in
1978) states that any changes in taxes/ fees must be passed by 2/ 3 of those that live and
vote within a particular area/ town/ city/ district. In 1996 Proposition 218 was passed to
adjust the amount and way fees can be charged for water and other services. This was
done to adjust for some of the loopholes in Proposition 13. Hiring a District Manager is
another relatively new law for Special Districts and CSDs. 6
The Local Agency Formation Commission ( LAFCO) is “ responsible for coordinating logical and
timely changes in local governmental boundaries, conducting special studies that review
ways to reorganize, simplify and streamline governmental structure and preparing a Sphere
Of Influence for each city and special district within each county.” 7 LAFCO’s “ efforts are
directed to seeing that services are provided efficiently and economically while agricultural
and open- space land are protected.” 8 Cities, Counties, and Special Districts, including
CSDs, each pay one- third of LAFCO’s costs. The special districts’ one- third share of the cost
is divided among all the special districts in the county and is proportionate to each district’s
revenue.
There are 15 CSDs in Tulare County that provide an assorted type of public services to each
of their communities. In alphabetical order these districts are:
Allensworth
Alpine Village/ Sequoia Crest
Ducor
East Orosi
Goshen
London
Patterson Tract
Ponderosa
Poplar
Richgrove
Sultana
Teviston
Three Rivers
Tipton
Tract 92
REASON FOR INVESTIGATION
The 2005- 2006 Tulare County Grand Jury received some citizen complaints, which led to
discussion regarding CSDs in Tulare County. Realizing that this Jury would not be able to
investigate all 15 CSDs, it chose to review the following districts: Allensworth, London,
Poplar, Richgrove, Teviston, and Tipton.
PROCEDURES FOLLOWED
The Grand Jury:
1. Interviewed relevant witnesses.
2. Examined relevant documents.
22 • Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006
3. Attended board meetings of all CSDs addressed in this report.
1 Government Code § 16271
2 Government Code § 61100 - 61107
3 California Special Districts Association ( CSDA) “ What’s so special about Special Districts?”
4 Government Code § 54950
5 AB1234, article 2.4
6 Government Code § 61053
7 CSDA – Frequently Asked Questions, www. csda. net/ faqs. htm
8 Ibid.
Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 • 23
ALLENSWORTH COMMUNITY SERVICE DISTRICT
BACKGROUND
Allensworth is a small, unincorporated community in the southwest portion of Tulare County.
The Allensworth Community Service District ( ACSD) provides water for the residents of the
district.
The 2004- 2005 Tulare County Grand Jury investigated the ACSD based on citizens’
complaints. It found that, contrary to complaints, rates charged were reasonable in such a
small district. However, that Grand Jury found that the ACSD board members needed to
appoint members to vacancies in a timely manner, and that they needed to accept the help
offered them from various outside agencies.
FINDINGS
1. In November 2005, an election was held, and the ACSD had its requisite five members
for the first time in at least four years.
2. At the organizational meeting in December 2005, new leadership for the board was
elected.
3. The 2005- 2006 Tulare County Grand Jury attended the February 2006 meeting of the
ACSD board. Public attendance has quintupled since last year. The agenda was clear.
The meeting was well run.
4. The ACSD has appointed a two- man oversight committee, which does much of the
legwork for the board. The committee is following through with seeking help for the
district, reviewing warrants with the president, and reviewing bids on new projects. The
oversight committee brought a representative from Southern California Edison to the
February 2006 meeting to explain how an electrical problem, existing since installation
of the new well, was to be fixed in March or April 2006.
5. The ACSD has also followed through on the other Grand Jury recommendation and
appointed a new member to replace one who did not attend a meeting for six months.
They also appointed a new Office Manager/ District Secretary.
6. The ACSD and community volunteers will build enclosures to protect its two wells and
lock boxes for the controls and valves. Vandals had tampered with them and caused
$ 5,000 worth of damage.
24 • Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006
7. The new board reported that it had missed the deadline for applying for a new grant. A
representative from Assemblywoman Nicole Parra’s office was present and offered to
help with applications, especially with seeking money from the State of California.
8. The ACSD reversed a 2002 self- imposed moratorium on construction and new water
connections.
9. Annexation of adjacent land is being sought for development of new housing.
10. The ACSD also oversees the streetlights and plans to install more.
11. The ACSD will revisit the possibility of adding sewer service to Allensworth.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The Allensworth Community Service District should work with its legislative
representatives for assistance in applying for grant monies offered by local, State and
Federal agencies.
2. The Allensworth Community Service District should investigate the possibility of
banding with other districts in hiring a part- time grant writer for help in preparing grant
documents.
3. The Allensworth Community Service District should contact the Tulare County Resource
Management Agency about posting the times and locations of its meetings and
activities on the Tulare County Resource Management website.
RESPONSES
Allensworth Community Service District
Tulare County Resource Management Agency
Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 • 25
LONDON COMMUNITY SERVICE DISTRICT
BACKGROUND
The London Community Service District ( LCSD) was formed in March 1952 to provide water,
sewer and public recreation for the residents of London. It services an area that is about one
square mile in size with an estimated population of 2,100 residents.
FINDINGS
1. Water and sewer services are provided for a flat rate ( no meters) of $ 18 and $ 21 per
month respectively. Since many of the residents are farm labor workers who move with
the seasons, LCSD requires no deposits and has a policy of holding the property owners
responsible for delinquent charges.
2. Invoices and vouchers are posted monthly and then checked for accuracy by a board
member and reported at the next board meeting.
3. The LCSD may provide recreational services to the community if suitable land can be
found. They are looking at 2.19 acres that might be available through the use of
eminent domain. A local group of residents called Citizens for Better London is
assisting in this effort.
4. LCSD currently has approximately 440 hook- ups, which includes a mobile home park
with 46 spaces, three churches, two grocery stores and one school.
5. Water to the LCSD is supplied by two wells ( three in the summer). The district reports
an ample supply of clean and safe drinking water meeting all federal and state
requirements. No chlorination or other treatment is required.
6. The LCSD is currently exploring ways to obtain grants to assist in the upgrading of water
lines, some of which are almost 50 years old. This is of concern to the board, since a
rate increase to approximately $ 28 per month will almost certainly be necessary. An
increase of this size will virtually be impossible to implement.
7. The LCSD has proposed the new position of District Manager be combined with that of
District Secretary. They are also preparing to take the ethics and sensitivity training
required of all board members as of January 1, 2006. In addition, any new board
members will be given the proper Brown Act training.
8. LCSD currently has two vacancies on their board. They are actively seeking
applications for these positions. If they are unable to fill them, the board will declare
them vacant and have the positions placed on the November 2006 election ballot.
26 • Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. London Community Service District confer with its State legislative representative for
assistance with applying for any grant monies that might be available.
2. London Community Service District consider hiring a grant writer in conjunction with
one or more Community Service Districts.
3. Compare user and connection fees with other service providers in Tulare County and
consider possible adjustments.
4. Work with the Tulare County Resource Management Agency to have London Community
Service District information posted on its website, such as agenda, time, location and
any other items deemed necessary.
RESPONSES
London Community Service District
Tulare County Resource Management Agency
Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 • 27
POPLAR COMMUNITY SERVICE DISTRICT
BACKGROUND
The Poplar Community Service District ( PCSD) was formed in December 1959. Poplar is a
small unincorporated agricultural community located in the southern part of Tulare County
between Tipton and Porterville at Highway 190 ( Avenue 144) and Road 192.
After review of mandatory audit reports the 2005- 2006 Tulare County Grand Jury chose
Poplar to be one of the Community Service Districts to be reviewed.
FINDINGS
1. The functions of the PCSD are to provide for the pumping and piping of domestic water
for residential use and to the community park. There are approximately 519
residences being served. The PCSD also operates a wastewater treatment system.
Adjacent to the PCSD office is a small park that is used by the community and
maintained by the district.
2. The PCSD Board has a full compliment of five members. The immediate concerns
being addressed by the Board are:
a. a ground water monitoring system
b. pond pH reduction in the effluent
c. reclamation land development
d. removal and transportation of sludge from sewage evaporation ponds.
3. Water meters have been installed at each of the residential parcels, but are not yet in
service. In some instances, more than one structure is located on a parcel with hook-ups
to the one meter. A residential flat rate of $ 25 per month is charged for water
service to each of the parcels. A monthly fee of $ 25 per parcel is charged for sewer
service. Commercial buildings pay $ 35 per month for water and $ 33 for sewer service.
4. By the year 2007, all residential structures will be required to have water meters
installed.
5. The district currently has the capacity to service approximately 1,000 residences with
its existing sewer system. The Board is planning for the anticipated growth and has
developed a long- range plan for this increase in residences. To finance the costs for
future growth, the PCSD has applied for grant monies from State and Federal sources.
Re- zoning of agricultural land will be needed to accommodate the growth. At present, a
building moratorium is in force.
6. The PCSD Board posts Public Notice for meetings and public meeting procedures as
required by the Brown Act for public entities.
28 • Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006
CONCLUSION
The PCSD Board is business- like in its management of the community’s water and sewer
treatment needs. The Board is anticipating future growth and is taking the necessary steps
to accommodate the community expansion.
Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 • 29
RICHGROVE COMMUNITY SERVICE DISTRICT
BACKGROUND
Richgrove is located in the southeast area of Tulare County on the Porterville- Famoso
Highway near the Kern County line. The population of this modest sized unincorporated
community is normally 2,990; however, during the months of June through August the
population increases close to 3,200. The Richgrove Community Service District ( RCSD) was
formed March 1977 and has a five member Board of Directors ( Board).
In response to citizen complaint letters and an review of mandatory audit reports, the 2005-
2006 Tulare County Grand Jury chose Richgrove as one of the Community Service Districts
( CSD) to be reviewed.
FINDINGS
1. The RCSD provides water and sewage to the residents of Richgrove within the districts
boundaries. There are 520 authorized hook- ups of which 19 are commercial. There are
also some unauthorized hook- ups. The user fees are $ 25 per month for water and $ 18
per month for sewer. The connection/ hook- up costs are $ 600 for water and $ 1,350
for sewage.
2. There are three wells in the RCSD. Two are working without any additional required
water treatment, and the third has been shut down due to sulfur problems.
3. In 2005 the RCSD received approximately a $ 120,000 grant from the State
Department of Water Resources’ Office of Water Use Efficiency to install water meters
at all residential structures. They have completed roughly 21% of the required number
of meters needed plus any work that was necessary to connect to the residences. The
RCSD is unable to complete the project because it did not request the necessary
amount of grant money. At this time the district is working with the State Department
of Water Resources to resolve the situation.
4. The RCSD accepted an offer in March 2006 from OCAYS ( OCS) Technology, a wireless
broadband service located in Porterville. OCS will build a new community center in
Richgrove. It will also provide 28 new computers and free Internet service to the RCSD,
the school and the fire department for two years. Other members of the community will
be able to purchase the broadband service for a fee. The District’s obligation is to
provide the land for the building with available utility hookups and a place for the OCS
tower. This agreement also requires that the Community Center be open to the public
before, during, and after normal weekday work hours and at least one whole day on
weekends. The facility will need onsite supervision for the required 60 to 70 hours per
week, which will be provided by the RCSD. OCS’s tower will be placed atop the
community water tower. When the project is completed, if there are enough
30 • Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006
subscribers, there will be broadband services available in Richgrove. If not, the new
community center will still be there along with the 28 computers.
5. In March 2006 the Tulare County Board of Supervisors approved a General Plan
Amendment to amend the Richgrove Community Plan and expand the Urban
Development Boundary ( UDB). It will include a parcel of land located east of Road 210
and south of Avenue 8. This is outside and adjacent to the Richgrove UDB and
adjacent to the existing residential units on Road 210. This parcel is to be saved for
single and/ or multi family residential homes. The RCSD is at capacity for water and
sewage at this time, so the developer will have to pay for the expansion of services.
6. The RCSD is a partner in a joint powers agreement with the Tulare County
Redevelopment Agency and the Richgrove School District to complete a storm drainage
project that includes curbs, gutters and sidewalks. A grant from the United States
Department of Agriculture made this possible.
7. The District employs one full- time person, a District Secretary, and one part- time
maintenance person. The Board contracts with an individual who has a class III waste
water license to operate the sewage treatment facility.
8. The RCSD provides health insurance to all Board members and the District Secretary.
9. The five- member Board of Directors appear to be focused on the betterment of the
community.
10. All agendas are posted at the District office, the post office and the two grocery stores
in town. They are clear and precise.
11. The RCSD meets once a month regularly, and their attorney is in attendance at some of
the meetings. All bills, notices and announcements are presented by the district
secretary for review and approval.
12. The district secretary has attended training for the Brown Act and is scheduling training
for the new board members.
13. The Board members are aware of the new laws regarding ethics training and the hiring
of a District Manager and are making plans for both.
14. The RCSD is aware of their need for help and have made a connection with a staff
person at the Self Help organization who has attended some of their meetings. The
District is also looking to the Special District Institute ( SDI) for help. SDI is located in
the State of Washington and provides technical assistance, resources, training, and an
information clearinghouse for local governments and special districts.
Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 • 31
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Research agencies where the Richgrove Community Service District may acquire a
grant/ loan to repair and treat the third well.
2. Investigate local agencies, such as Self Help, Tulare County Resource Management
Agency and California Rural Water Service, etc. for necessary training.
3. Compare user fees and connection costs with other Tulare County Districts and adjust
accordingly.
4. Discuss with the Tulare County Resource Management Agency regarding information
concerning the Richgrove Community Service District’s affairs, such as agendas,
meeting dates and times, budgets, rates, ordinance, project status, etc. posted on its
web site.
RESPONSE
Richgrove Community Service District
Tulare County Resource Management Agency
32 • Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006
TEVISTON COMMUNITY SERVICE DISTRICT
BACKGROUND
The Teviston Community Service District ( TCSD) is located in the southwest part of Tulare
County along State Route 99 between Earlimart and Pixley. It was established in November
1956. Teviston is a small unincorporated community currently consisting of approximately
365 residents. The projected growth by year 2025 will be between 450 to 550 total
residents. It is principally surrounded by agricultural production on the north, west and
south sides. The east side of Teviston consists of scattered rural residential areas, along
with some agricultural areas, and vacant land. The TCSD is responsible for providing
domestic water service to the residents within the Districts Boundaries. Presently there are
105 total connections consisting of 99 residential, four churches, one school, and one
connection to the community center.
In response to citizen complaint letters and a review of the mandatory audit report, the
2005- 2006 Tulare County Grand Jury chose Teviston to be one of the Community Service
Districts ( CSD) to be reviewed.
FINDINGS
1. There are two existing deep wells that provide enough potable water, without any
additional treatment to the current connections. The wells will adequately supply water
for a population of an estimated 460 residents.
2. In 1998 the TCSD completed the following improvements to the water system:
a. Constructed new water lines.
b. Replaced deteriorated water lines.
c. Installed meters for all existing connections.
d. Installed fire hydrants throughout the system.
e. Improved the north well site.
3. Currently the CSD is reviewing the construction of a 14- unit subdivision.
4. In order to stop hydrant water use by construction and others without compensation
the TCSD purchased a hydrant meter that will generate revenue.
5. The TCSD has very limited funds. Their chief sources of income for emergencies,
repairs, and improvements, come primarily through connection and user fees. This is
not sufficient to cover any major repair or improvement.
6. At the January 2006 meeting, a new Chairman, Vice Chairman and Secretary were
elected.
7. Currently there are four Board members serving on this five- member board. These four
members have published, posted and sent notices of the one vacancy, requesting
residents of the TCSD to apply for the vacant position.
Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 • 33
8. The District has two paid part- time employees, a District Secretary and a maintenance
person.
9. The new Board members appear to be focused on the improvement of the community.
10. All agendas are posted for meetings and are clear and concise. Meetings are held
monthly and are well run.
11. Bills, notices and announcements are presented to the entire Board at the monthly
meetings, for review and approval. Bills are paid on time.
12. The new Board members are attending training workshops and seminars put on by
various sponsors so they can learn how to conduct a meeting, how to run a CSD
effectively and how to find help with finances.
13. The maintenance person has attended some classes and is planning to attend
additional classes to upgrade his level of knowledge and become a licensed certified
Technician I and II. This will decrease the cost of repairs to the TCSD since the District
will not have to contract with outside venders to do the repairs.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Continue with educational and training programs for Board members and staff.
2. Investigate opportunities for outside funds such as grants, loans and partial grant/ loan
programs for emergencies, improvements and potential growth.
3. Compare monthly user fees and new connection fees to other service providers
throughout Tulare County and adjust accordingly.
4. Work on completing a water master plan that will address the future growth needs of
the Teviston Community Service District. In the development of the master plan, make
certain that infrastructure is available where development is most likely to occur. This
will help in avoiding unnecessary costs associated with the construction of emergency
system improvements.
5. Check with the Tulare County Resource Management Agency to have information
concerning the Teviston Community Service District affairs such as agendas, meeting
dates and times, budgets, rates, ordinances, project status, etc. posted on its website.
RESPONSES
Teviston Community Service District
Tulare County Resource Management Agency
34 • Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006
TIPTON COMMUNITY SERVICE DISTRICT
BACKGROUND
Tipton is a small town on State Route 99 between Tulare and Pixley. It is an unincorporated
town with a population of nearly 2,000 people. It is surrounded on all sides by agriculture,
dairies, a cheese plant and a citrus packing plant. The Tipton Community Service District’s
( Tipton CSD’s) Sphere of Influence ( SOI) includes approximately 400 to 500 acres of
farmland. The cheese factory is within the SOI. During the last two years there have been
75 to 125 new homes built. By the year 2025 the population of Tipton is expected to more
than double. The current water supply and sewage plant are capable of handling the
projected growth.
Tipton has been in existence since before the turn of the 20th- century, even before the city of
Tulare was established. Before the mid 1960’ s Tipton had a water department and a
sewage department. These departments ran into some financial difficulty, and the two
combined into one to resolve the problem, resulting in the establishment of the Tipton CSD.
Currently the District provides water and sewage to the residents within its boundaries.
There are 565 hook- ups, 30 of which are commercial. The Tipton CSD has three active
wells, two of which service the residential and commercial area while the third services the
wastewater treatment plant. All three wells supply potable water without additional
treatment.
The annual mandatory audit report prompted the 2005- 2006 Tulare County Grand Jury to
choose Tipton as one of the CSDs to be reviewed.
FINDINGS
1. Besides the three working wells, there is one well that has been abandoned, and the
Tipton CSD has put out a $ 300,000 bid to drill a new one. The District plans on
completion by the end of 2006.
2. In 1990 the Tipton CSD began a project to replace all of the main water lines. These
lines were moved from the alleys to the center of the streets. There are currently only
sewage lines in the alleys. All of the main water lines are now eight- inches in diameter.
The District has completed its first phase of this project and has begun the second and
final stage. The Tipton CSD is presently getting ready to connect all homes to these
new water lines. Funding for this project was obtained through a United States
Department of Agriculture Grant/ Loan arrangement. The District received an
$ 800,000 grant along with a $ 1,000,000 loan at a 1.9% interest rate. The pay back
for this loan is over 50 years. In the past the Tipton CSD saved a certain amount of
money each month for this kind of arrangement. The monthly amount formerly placed
into savings is now used for debt service.
Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 • 35
3. The Tipton CSD’s sources of income are from user fees, hook- up connections, and
rental fees from three companies that lease space for their wireless equipment atop
the community water tower.
4. The Tipton CSD has two full- time employees, a District Secretary and a Maintenance
person. The Maintenance person has a technician I and II certification, a class II water
distribution license and a wastewater class IV license. He operates the wastewater
treatment plant, tests the water supply and does repairs to the system as needed. If a
pump fails, the District contracts with a pump company for repairs. If the electrical
parts of equipment need repair, an electrical company is contracted to do the work.
5. The District provides employee health insurance for the two employees, as well as a
pension plan.
6. There are five active Board members with very diversified backgrounds. At least two of
them are accountants. At every meeting they are joined by the district secretary, the
maintenance person and a lawyer. When necessary an engineer, and a grant writer
attend.
7. The meetings are held in a timely and orderly fashion. The agendas are clear and to the
point. Meetings are conducted in a very business like manner. The Board follows the
Brown Act about which they are well versed. Each Board member will be attending the
state required ethics training.
8. The Board is keeping close track of all expenses. They also are paying close attention to
the daily operations of the wells, the treatment plant, the employees, and the costs
incurred.
9. There had not been a rate increase since 1980, but expenses forced an increase that
appeared in March 2006 billing. The rates were raised $ 1 for water and $ 4 for
sewage. Over the next six years the rates can be raised by $ 11 for water and $ 11 for
sewage if deemed necessary.
CONCLUSION
Tipton is an example of a well- run progressive thinking Community Service District.
36 • Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006
CONCLUSIONS TO THE COMMUNITY SERVICE DISTRICTS REPORT
1. Recent California laws, as referenced in the endnotes to the introduction, have
resulted in better governance of Community Service Districts.
2. Responsible citizens in several Community Service Districts came forward and
ran for office in the November 2005 elections. New leaders were elected and
have accepted the responsibility of leadership in districts where it had been
lacking.
3. Several districts have shown ingenuity in various areas such as:
a. obtaining additional revenue for the district
b. providing incentives to keep valuable employees
c. attracting and keeping board members.
Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 • 37
FLOOD POTENTIAL ON THE ST. JOHNS RIVER
LEVEE DISTRICTS I AND II
INTRODUCTION
The watercourses traversing Tulare County originate in the Sierra Nevada Mountains and
flow west and southwest. The two primary rivers are the Kaweah and Tule.
The three forks of the Kaweah River along with other tributaries flow into Lake Kaweah.
Water released from Lake Kaweah continues as the Kaweah River. It is joined by Dry Creek
about one mile below Terminus Dam then almost two miles beyond that, near McKay’s
point, there is a control structure that diverts the water into either the Lower Kaweah or the
St. Johns River. The Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District ( KDWCD) operates this
control structure. When ranchers and other owners of water rights need water, or when the
Army Corps of Engineers ( COE) orders a flood release the control structure is adjusted to
direct the water into the appropriate river or rivers.
Terminus Dam was originally completed in 1962. During 2003 and 2004 the spillway was
raised 21 feet, by the installation of fusegates. en In July 2004 there was a ceremony at the
Dam to celebrate completion of this project Water was stored behind the fusegates for the
first time in 2005. The capacity of Lake Kaweah was increased and the possibility of floods
below the dam was reduced, but not eliminated. The Federal Government, the State of
California, the Tulare County Flood Control District ( TCFCD) along with the City of Visalia,
KDWCD, Kings County, and the Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District sponsored the lake
enlargement project through various agreements.
Success Dam, completed at approximately the same time as Terminus Dam, provides some
control of the Tule River. Success Dam will be undergoing retrofit and increased spillway
height within the next few years. The Federal Government, The State of California, the
TCFCD, the Lower Tule River Irrigation District, and the City of Porterville sponsor this project
through various agreements. This project is being done to meet the State of California’s
earthquake standards.
The Tulare County Board of Supervisors ( BOS) sits as the TCFCD Board of Directors.
In the late 1800s primitive levees were built along the St. Johns River using earth, rock and
sand. These levees were embankments that ran alongside the river to prevent high water
from flooding the bordering land. Levee District I was formed on July 22, 1890 to maintain
the south bank of the St. Johns River between Road 172 and Shirk Road/ Road 92. The
levees were rebuilt with the same kind of materials in the 1930s. In 1945 Levee District II
was formed to maintain the north bank of the St. Johns River between Road 172 and
Demaree/ Road 108. The districts run through the northern part of Visalia.
Channels are different from levees in that they are the deepest part of water- ways. The
KDWCD has historically maintained the natural channels under its jurisdiction from west of
38 • Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006
McKay's Point to north of Corcoran and east of Hanford. Since private property lines run
across the levees and down through the middle of the channel, this maintenance does not
take place in all areas of the channel.
Traditionally rain floods occur between November and June, and snow- melt floods between
April and June. Within the last ten years severe floods have occurred in Tulare County. The
last major levee failure was in the winter of 1998- 1999, when Highway 99 was shut down at
Earlimart due to the levee failure on the White River. Deer Creek and Sand Creek also have
levees.
REASON FOR INVESTIGATION
Shortly prior to Hurricane Katrina and the flooding disaster in New Orleans, the 2005- 2006
Tulare County Grand Jury decided to investigate Tulare County’s two levee districts. The
condition and maintenance of the levees had not been reviewed in the last ten years.
PROCEDURES FOLLOWED
The Grand Jury:
1. Interviewed relevant witnesses.
2. Examined relevant maps and documents.
3. Toured Terminus Dam.
4. Visited several sites on the St. Johns levees.
FINDINGS
1. Levee District I, on the south side of the St. Johns River, has been officially inactive
since March 2005 [ See map] when the last remaining Levee District Board Member sent
in his letter of resignation. On November 21, 2005, the BOS notified the Auditors office
to stop the mailings for audit reports.
2. Levee District II, on the north side of the St. Johns River, has been inactive for over 18
years. [ See map]
3. Some county officials were unaware that the Levee Districts were inactive until the
Grand Jury began this investigation.
4. Levee Districts I and II are taxing agencies. After passage of Proposition 13 the
incoming taxes were significantly reduced. At that time, Levee District I sold some land
and used the interest from that sale to finance the District’s operation and
maintenance.
5. In 2002, the Resource Management Agency ( RMA) asked the over 1000 property
owners in District II for input regarding levee inspection, maintenance and repairs. The
owners were uninterested and/ or assumed that KDWCD or RMA did the work. The
owners did not want a new tax for this purpose.
Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 • 39
6. Property owners were given the opportunity to serve as a director on the three- member
Levee District II Board of Directors, but expressed a negligible amount of interest.
7. The State of California Legislature formed the Tulare County Flood Control District
( TCFCD) in 1972. On June 13, 1972, the BOS, acting as TCFCD, appointed a seven
member commission to advise the TCFCD.
8. TCFCD officially has no employees and is overseen part time by the Transportation
Division of the RMA.
9. TCFCD is funded by Tulare County property taxes. It receives approximately $ 350,000
per year. This amount fluctuates with the revenue stream of Tulare County’s property tax
base and interest earnings.
10. The last time the BOS transferred general fund monies over to TCFCD for channel
clearing was the winter of 1997- 1998 in the amount of $ 350,000.
11. The main focus of TCFCD is a channel maintenance spraying program. TCFCD pays for
the chemicals and labor, and the Tulare County Agriculture Commission implements the
program. This is for channel maintenance only and has no impact on the levees.
12. Tulare County has no property rights to any levees except Sand Creek, which flows
through some county land.
13. In March 2005, renewal of the liability insurance policy held by District I was denied due
to the age and condition of the levee.
14. There are no active programs for levee maintenance or channel inspections within
Tulare County. Most citizen complaints to RMA are for construction encroachment on
the levees and fallen trees in the channel.
15. The Tulare Irrigation District comprises approximately 20% of the KDWCD area and
maintains its channels, but no levees. Many irrigation districts do not maintain their
channels.
16. Vegetation and trash clog many of the county’s tributaries.
17. The California Department of Fish and Game requires a 1602 Stream Bed Alteration
Agreement Permit for spraying vegetation inside the natural channels. No large clearing
equipment is allowed in the channel. Workers can use only hand tools and then clear
no more than half way up the bank of the water- way.
18. The Federal Emergency Management Agency ( FEMA) has stated that the land west and
south of Terminus Dam is still within a flood plain, even with the increase in height of
the dam spillway.
19. The Army Corps of Engineers ( COE) claims jurisdiction, through the Federal Clean Water
Act, over all county lakes and water- ways.
40 • Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006
20. The COE will not certify the levees within the two levee districts because they do not
meet the COE certification standards. Some of the standards are:
a. Type of materials used in construction.
b. Compaction.
c. Height of levee.
d. Continuous formation of levees.
e. Non- rolling banks on the channel side of water- ways.
f. An active maintenance program in place.
21. FEMA also recognizes that the levees are not up to standards.
22. The Santa Fe Railroad abandoned its right of way and filled up the trestle on the south
side of the St. Johns River. In a high- water situation this could push water toward
Visalia.
23. RMA estimated that the cost to reconstruct the levees on the St Johns River, within the
Certification Standards of the COE, would be close to $ 17,000,000.
24. The City of Visalia planted over 100 oak trees within the St. Johns channel. These trees
have since been removed.
25. In 2004, the City of Visalia entered into a co- operative technical partners agreement
with FEMA to have the flood plain from Kaweah Lake west to Highway 99 re- mapped.
This includes LiDAR ( Light, Detection And Ranging) topographical and aerial mapping.
The proposed completion of this project is summer 2006.
26. RMA indicated that Ventura County is a good example of a well- managed flood control
model. It consists of both flood control and watershed protection elements including
ground water recharge. The county is split into numerous “ benefit assessment districts”
which help fund the planning, construction and maintenance of projects.
27. The Federal Government and the State of California may provide funding for joint use
projects in flood control.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The Board of Supervisors acting as the Tulare County Flood Control District should
thoroughly examine the flood potential for the entire county.
2. The Board of Supervisors should adequately fund the Tulare County Flood Control
District for regular inspection and maintenance for all tributaries and levees in Tulare
County.
3. The Resource Management Agency should consider the possibility of obtaining State
and Federal grants for matching fund proposals dealing with water issues.
Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 • 41
4. Tulare County needs to take a more regional approach and enter into partnerships/ JPAs
with the irrigation districts, the Army Corps of Engineers, the City of Visalia and the
Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District, in joint- use projects incorporating both flood
control and groundwater recharge.
5. The Board of Supervisors should look into the possibility of a new flood plan along the
lines of the Ventura County plan.
6. The Resource Management Agency’s Code Enforcement Department needs to enforce
county ordinances regarding weed abatement along the levees. This should be done
through fire abatement regulations, which allows clearing on private property.
7. The owners of the properties along the levees should be held responsible for clearing
their portions of the levee or be cited for non- compliance.
8. Intra- agency communication needs to be improved so that all agencies involved in any
one situation will be informed and able to take action thereon in a timelier manner.
RESPONSES REQUIRED
1. Tulare County Board of Supervisors, acting as the Tulare County Flood Control District
Board
2. Resource Management Agency
3. City of Visalia
4. Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District
en There are six fusegates on Terminus Dam spillway. They were placed there to raise the spillway and, most
importantly, to protect the dam by tipping when necessary. Each fusegate weighs approximately 450 tons.
Each is designed to tip at a designated lake level. When the lake fills to a certain point water wells connected
to the six fusegates will start to fill. When the fusegate wells get to a predetermined level they will sequentially
tip, letting more water through the spillway. This will continue until the lake level stops increasing or all the
fusegates have tipped.
42 • Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006
PUBLIC BOARD MEETINGS
POLICY AND PROCEDURES
BACKGROUND
If a private citizen were interested in learning all the facets of government in Tulare County,
he or she could attend over two hundred public meetings each month. There are over 150
Boards of Directors/ Trustees/ Councilmen/ Supervisors ( Boards) of various districts and
entities in Tulare County.
These meetings are governed by the Ralph M. Brown Act on Public Meetings and must
adhere to strict rules, including rules on public comment. But, just as the boards must
adhere to the law, so do the citizens who attend them.
The legal obligations of boards are:
1. Every agenda for a regular meeting must provide a specified time for public comment.
The Board may limit the time for public comments and may also limit the time allotted
to each speaker.
2. The public may speak to any item on the agenda during discussion of that item.
3. The Board must allow criticism of its members or employees only if comments pertain
to that person’s job.
4. The Board may request that the public use its formal complaint process. If comment is
lengthy, the Board may put the item on a future agenda, but is not obligated to do so.
The legal obligations of the public are:
1. Respect the time limit placed on an individual’s comments. Do not exceed the limit.
2. Speakers cannot speak on items that are not within the Board’s jurisdiction. E. g.,
speakers may not bring up utility bills at a School Board meeting.
3. Speakers who are not citizens of the district may make comments.
4. Speakers must have comments that are relevant to the business and jurisdiction of the
entity.
5. Speakers should not be repetitive in their comments and ideas or of those of prior
speakers.
6. Speakers may not make scurrilous or derogatory comments about any director’s or
employee’s personal life.
Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 • 43
7. No speaker can disrupt a meeting so that it cannot conduct business. Such a person
may be removed from the meeting. If there is more than one disruptor, the meeting
area may be cleared.
REASONS FOR INVESTIGATION
The 2005- 2006 Tulare County Grand Jury received citizen complaints regarding Board
meetings where disruptive behavior was taking place. Jury members attended some of
these meetings and observed conduct that was not appropriate. The Jury came to the
conclusion that Board members and citizens alike would appreciate information regarding
the rules and regulations that a Board must follow.
PROCEDURES FOLLOWED
The 2005- 2006 Tulare County Grand Jury:
1. Attended over 90 public meetings throughout Tulare County.
2. Interviewed relevant witnesses.
3. Examined relevant documents, including rules of procedures, agendas and minutes of
meetings.
FINDINGS
1. A small number of Boards have difficulties handling their meetings such as:
a. Control of public participation during the progress of their meetings.
b. Limited knowledge of rules and procedures for conducting a meeting.
c. Limited use of advisory persons available to them.
d. Limited awareness of legal measures they can take to control any given situation.
2. Some Boards do not have rules of conduct/ procedures or By- Laws in place.
3. Some Boards do not follow the rules of conduct they have in place.
4. All Boards provided time for public comment. Most of them allowed 3 minutes per
person and a total of 20 minutes. Some allowed longer times, and those Boards
appeared to have less control.
5. All Boards appeared to be aware of the Ralph M. Brown Act and followed the provisions
for meeting requirements, notices and agendas.
6. A majority of the meetings attended by Grand Jury members were conducted in a
business- like manner.
7. Some Boards asked the public to go outdoors when they were in closed session.
44 • Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006
RECOMMENDATIONS
Board Members can and/ or should:
1. Take refresher courses in the Brown Act and have a copy close at hand.
2. If there are no Rules of Conduct/ Procedure or By- Laws, develop some or follow Roberts
Rules of Order. If there are Rules in place, follow them.
3. If there are disruptions, note them in the meeting minutes.
4. Be respectful of all audience members.
5. Request each speaker to give his/ her name and address for the record before
speaking. Then, if it is necessary, the rules of procedure can be sent to him/ her.
6. Document any disruptions and times that any Board member has addressed this issue
( either verbally or written) with any person who has been disruptive during a meeting.
7. Seek counsel from your lawyer.
8. If necessary call Law Enforcement.
9. Speak to the District Attorney regarding legal measures that may be taken.
10. When in closed session – withdraw to a separate room if possible.
Citizens can and/ or should:
1. Behave in a business- like manner.
2. Be respectful of the Rules and other people.
3. Ask questions if you need information on any agenda topic.
4. Give name and address before speaking.
5. Stay on topic.
6. Do not be repetitive.
7. Remember which Board meeting you are attending and speak only to the jurisdiction of
that Board.
Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 • 45
46 • Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006
EDUCATION
Statue in front of the Department of Education Building
BURTON SCHOOL DISTRICT
BACKGROUND
A summary of the Brown Act Requirements at a Glance ( revised 2004) by Gary S. de
Malignon, Tulare County Chief Deputy County Counsel, follows:
1. Purpose - Government officials are representatives of the people in our democracy and
operate on behalf of and in trust for the people. People have the right to be informed of
and participate in government decisions.
2. Basic Rule - All meetings of government bodies must be open and public. Boards must
deliberate and act on the public's business openly. Exceptions to this rule are few and
narrowly construed.
3. Coverage - All governing bodies of local government agencies, such as school districts,
are subject to the Brown Act. Also, advisory and decision- making bodies and committees
of all types are subject to Brown Act requirements if created by a decision of the
governing body. A committee composed solely of less than a quorum of members of the
governing board is not subject to the Act, unless it is a standing committee.
4. What is a Meeting? - A meeting is when a majority of board members are present at the
same time and place and " hear, discuss or deliberate" government business. A meeting
may occur even if no action is taken. Such meetings have to occur openly at public
meetings that meet the formal requirements of the Brown Act.
5. What is not a Meeting? - A majority of members may attend social or ceremonial
occasions, conferences, and community forums, and meetings of other government
bodies, as long as they do not discuss government business.
6. Illegal Meetings - A majority of members can not use a telephone, fax machine, e- mail,
an intermediary or other means to develop an agreement regarding a decision. Serial
meetings to develop a decision, each of which involves less than a majority of members
but which overall involve contact with a majority of members, are strictly prohibited.
7. Meeting Requirements - Meetings must be noticed and accessible to the public. With
limited exceptions, meetings must take place within the boundaries of the government
agency. Except for certain emergencies, only business that is on the agenda may be
transacted.
8. Notice - Agendas for regular meetings must be posted 72 hours before the meeting in
an accessible location, and mailed to persons who request notice. Special meetings
may be called by the board president or a majority of members by posting an agenda
and delivering it to board members at least 24 hours before the meeting.
9. Agendas - Agendas must contain a brief description of every item to be discussed,
including closed session items. The description must be clear enough to be understood
by an uninformed member of the public. Agendas for regular meetings must include a
time for public comment.
10. Public Comment - The public has the right to address the board on agenda items, either
before or during the board's consideration of the item, and to comment on matters not
on the agenda if within the board's jurisdiction. Board and staff members may make
statements or respond to questions posed on non- agenda items, but must avoid board
interaction or deliberation. The board may adopt reasonable regulations limiting the
amount of time for comment on issues and for each speaker.
Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 • 49
11. Rules of Order - The chair has the power to maintain order at meetings and to manage
the board's business under established rules of procedure adopted by the board.
Robert's Rules of Order may be used as guidance on parliamentary procedure.
12. Writings - Materials distributed to the board either before or during a meeting, except
privileged items, are public records and must be made available to the public for
inspection and copying without delay.
13. Closed Sessions - Closed sessions are narrowly authorized for personnel, student,
collective bargaining, litigation, real estate bargaining, and a few other specific matters.
However, special procedural requirements have to be met by the board before and after
holding a closed session. Certain formal actions taken in closed session have to be
reported out, and related documents must be disclosed upon request. Otherwise, all
information discussed in closed session is confidential and may not be disclosed by an
individual board or staff member.
14. Complaints or Charges - Prior to holding a closed session on a specific complaint or
charge brought against an employee, the employee must be given written notice,
delivered personally or by mail 24 hours in advance of the complaint being heard in
open session.
15. Civil and Criminal Remedies – Violations of the Brown Act may be enjoined by civil
action, and board actions that are not in compliance with the Act may be declared void,
if not cured. A government agency may become liable for significant costs and attorneys
fees in such an action. A violation of the Act may be a misdemeanor if a member
attends a meeting with “ wrongful intent to deprive the public of information”.
REASON FOR INVESTIGATION
A citizen complaint was filed with the 2005- 2006 Tulare County Grand Jury. The complaint
alleges a violation of the Brown Act by the Burton School District Board of Directors.
PROCEDURES FOLLOWED
The 2005- 2006 Tulare County Grand Jury:
1. Interviewed relevant witnesses from the Burton School District.
2. Examined relevant laws and documents.
FINDINGS
1. The Burton School District is adjacent to the Porterville School District and consists of
five elementary schools, including Summit Charter Academy ( SCA) which also has
seventh and eighth grades. Beginning with the fall, 2006 semester, Summit Charter
Academy will have a ninth grade. The next year there will be a ninth and tenth grade,
and it will continue adding a class until it has all four years of high school. The first high
school graduating class will be in June, 2010.
2. The original charter for SCA stipulated that the Director of that school need not be
credentialed and could be called the Chief Administrative Officer. At some point, the
Board decided to change this and require that the Director be credentialed. On all
50 • Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006
agendas up to and including December 5, 2005, the Burton School District Board
agendas ( either open or closed session) made no reference to the fact that a discussion
of job qualifications for the Director were to be discussed. “ Reclassification of a job
must be public” [ Open and Public III, California League of Cities, 2000, p. 15]. The
Director was given no advance warning that his job was in jeopardy.
3. The Burton School Board agenda for the special meeting of December 12, 2005 is the
first time the job description for the Director of SCA is mentioned. On the same agenda
were the dismissal of the Director and a new replacement for that job. Although there
was objection to these items during public comment by eight members of the public,
each of these items was passed by the Board without any discussion.
4. Burton School District does not announce the results of actions taken in closed session
when they return to open session. Government Code Section 54957.1 requires certain
actions be publicly reported, including “ action taken to appoint, employ, dismiss, accept
the resignation of, or otherwise affect the employment status of a public employee,
identifying the title of the position.”
5. From the evidence of the agendas and minutes, it could reasonably appear to an
observer of the proceedings or a member of the public that either the Burton School
District does not deliberate any decision and rubber- stamps its Superintendent’s
agenda listings, or these action items were discussed privately by individual members
outside of board meetings.
6. Burton School District did not furnish materials on open session items when requested
by several members of the public in violation of the Ralph M. Brown Act.
RECOMMENDATION
All Burton School District board members and the District Superintendent should have
additional training on, and follow, the Ralph M. Brown Act.
RESPONSES
Tulare County Superintendent of Schools
Burton School District Superintendent
Burton School District board President
Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 • 51
USE OF LOTTERY FUNDS IN TULARE COUNTY
SCHOOL DISTRICTS WITH HIGH SCHOOLS
INTRODUCTION
In 1984 California voters passed Proposition 37, establishing a lottery throughout the state.
The purpose of the lottery was to supplement revenue for all public schools, from
Kindergarten through the University of California. Thirty- four percent of all money spent on
the lottery is sent out quarterly to the schools with the proportion to each based on the
Average Daily Attendance ( ADA) of each entity. One- half of the money must go to lottery
winners, and no more than 16% may be used for lottery administration.
The ADA used to calculate the amount allotted is based on the prior year's numbers.
Excluded from the ADA are adult classes that are not state- mandated and summer school
ADA. The ADA for the school districts studied here is as reported to us by the districts, but is
not necessarily the ADA permitted for receipt of lottery money.
Government Code Sections 8880- 8880.5 set out rules for the use of these funds.
Specifically excluded were construction of facilities, land acquisition, laboratory research,
and any other non- instructional purpose. Also specifically mentioned was that the California
Legislature was prohibited from cutting into the existing schools budget. The lottery was to
be supplementary, not an integral part of the schools budget.
In 1985 the Legislature reduced the amount of general fund money allocated to the school
system by 33%.
On January 10, 1986, a letter was sent to all county and district superintendents clarifying
the meaning of " instructional". The interpretation is left to local officials, but the word
" educational" is included. The emphasis is on the students.
In 1988 the California voters passed another Initiative, Proposition 98, which forced the
legislature to guarantee a stable source of income to the schools. This situation led to
many other agencies getting a reduced share of tax revenue.
There are two types of lottery funds. Proposition 20 ( Prop 20), passed in 1999, is restricted
and requires that these funds must be spent on books and materials. Some funds may be
carried over to a subsequent year for major purchases.
Each year the Local Educational Agencies ( LEAs) must report to the State Board of
Education how lottery money has been spent.
Since the amount of money produced by the lottery fluctuates with the amount of gambling
activity, school districts were urged to use the funds on one- time purchases and not for
continuing expenses. The third year of the lottery ( 1988- 1989) was the largest distribution
of lottery funds in the entire history of the lottery - $ 180 per ADA. In the year 1991- 1992,
only $ 78 per ADA was distributed. For the last fiscal year ( 2004- 2005) just less than $ 120
per ADA was distributed.
52 • Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006
Because of this fluctuation, school districts were not forbidden to use the money for
salaries, but were discouraged from doing so. Over half of the lottery money in the State of
California is spent on salaries, often to supplement particular fields, such as music,
counselors and other areas which have been reduced in the regular budget process.
Tulare County has three different types of school districts. Seven districts are unified and
have elementary, middle and high schools. Two are union high school districts and have one
comprehensive high school plus a continuation high school. Tulare Joint Union High School
District has two comprehensive high schools and several continuation high schools.
REASON FOR INVESTIGATION
The 2005- 2006 Tulare County Grand Jury became interested in the various ways the school
districts with high schools in Tulare County utilize their lottery money.
PROCEDURES FOLLOWED
The 2005- 2006 Tulare County Grand Jury:
1. Interviewed relevant witnesses from the ten Tulare County school districts with a high
school ( Alpaugh Unified, Cutler- Orosi Unified, Dinuba Unified, Exeter Union High
School, Farmersville Unified, Lindsay Unified, Porterville Unified, Tulare Joint Union
High School, Visalia Unified and Woodlake Union High School).
2. Examined relevant laws and documents.
3. Examined both random and targeted invoices, vouchers and authorizations for various
payments from lottery funds for each school district.
FINDINGS
Lottery funds comprise only 1.2 to 1.7 per cent of a school district’s entire budget. The
amount varies because some LEAs receive more Federal funds than others.
Below is a table showing lottery funds received by Tulare County School districts and their
expenditure on instructional materials and salaries during fiscal year 2004- 2005:
School
District
ADA Unrestricted Prop 20
Restricted
Instructional
Materials
% Salaries
& Benefits
Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 • 53
School
District
ADA Unrestricted Prop 20
Restricted
Instructional
Materials
% Salaries
& Benefits
Alpaugh 293 $ 35,354.02 $ 6,747.86 $ 14,035.50 0%
Cutler/ Orosi 3,784 $ 516,840.89 $ 98,877.89 $ 51,301.89 97%
Dinuba 5,300 $ 751,273.82 $ 143,702.91 $ 203,049.35 2%
Exeter 1,166 $ 147,814.80 $ 28,282.80 $ 13,593.23 44%
Farmersville 2,310 $ 300,514.59 $ 57,631.40 $ 110,339.40 0.04%
Lindsay 3,681 $ 473,880.73 $ 90,651.32 $ 83,606.50 0%
Porterville 13,264 $ 1,785,575.85 341,901.36 $ 279,262.28 77%
Tulare 4,200 $ 758,119.40 $ 144,692.26 $ 111,050.55 84%
Visalia 25,223 $ 2,931,323.43 $ 682,531.62 $ 1,507,389.21 4%
Woodlake 750 $ 104,088.25 $ 19,961.03 $ 15,220.80 72%
1. The Alpaugh Unified School District ( AUSD) is a small ( ADA 293, K- 12) school district in
southwestern Tulare County.
a. AUSD spent $ 14,035.50 for books and other instructional supplies. The rest of its
expenditures were student oriented.
b. No lottery funds were spent on salaries of any kind.
c. There were often no authorization signatures on AUSD payment vouchers.
2. Cutler- Orosi Unified School District ( COUSD) is a medium- sized ( ADA 3,784) school
district located in north- central Tulare County.
a. The COUSD spent $ 51,301.89 for books and supplies.
b. The COUSD negotiated away almost all of its lottery FUNDS ($ 503,451.89) to the
teachers.
3. Dinuba Unified School District ( DUSD) is the northern most school distrtct in Tulare
County.
a. DUSD had 5,300 ADA and spent a total of $ 203,049.35 on books and other
instructional supplies.
b. DUSD spends only 2% of its lottery funds on salaries and benefits.
c. DUSD has used lottery funds to expand and maintain its music program.
54 • Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006
f. The district incurs many late fees and penalties from national retail chain
purchases.
g. Requisition slips often had no dates or sites.
4. The Exeter Union High School District ( Exeter) had an ADA of 1,166 and spent
$ 13,593.23 on books and instructional supplies.
a. Exeter spent 44% of its lottery funds on classified salaries and benefits.
b. The two high schools, Exeter and Kaweah Continuation, spent $ 168 of lottery
funds each month on “ sniffer” dogs to patrol the entire school area for drugs and
suspected substances. These dogs have had several suspicious hits for illegal
substances.
c. Exeter does not use a requisition/ authorization system for its payables.
5. Farmersville Unified School District ( FUSD) ADA was 2,310.
a. FUSD spent only .04% of lottery funds on one part- day salary and benefits.
b. FUSD spent $ 110,339.40 on books and instructional supplies.
c. FUSD used some lottery fund money for an emergency repair.
6. Lindsay Unified School District ( LUSD) ADA was 3,681.
a. LUSD spent $ 83,606.59 in books and instructional supplies, but not very much of
that amount was actually textbooks. LUSD spent over $ 20,000 at Office Depot,
$ 33,136 on printing and copying, $ 94,852 for insurance ( including a $ 4,100
brokerage fee), and $ 24,000 for telephone and cell charges. These last two
expenses definitely are non- instructional.
b. LUSD spent no lottery funds for salaries or benefits.
7. Porterville Unified School District ( PUSD) is located in south Tulare County and had an
ADA of 13,264.
a. During 2004 - 2005 PUSD spent $ 279,262.28 on books and instructional
supplies.
d. DUSD did not spend lottery funds on students in several instances. The Dinuba
Rotary Club was paid $ 1,471 for the superintendent's dues, and a small Culligan
water system is maintained at Dinuba High School with lottery funds.
e. The district maintains three different highly used credit card systems: I. M. P. A. C. ( a
Visa card from BancOne), BankAmericard, and the Dinuba Unified Commercial
Account.
Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 • 55
b. PUSD spent 77% of its lottery funds ($ 1,371,714) on both classified and
certificated salaries and benefits.
c. PUSD gave each high school $ 3,000 for their own discretionary uses.
8. Tulare Joint Union High School District had an ADA of 4,200 and spent $ 111,050.55
on books and instructional supplies
a. The district spent 84% of its lottery funds ($ 609,240.67) on certificated salaries
and benefits.
b. Tulare has a large adult school program and serves a total of seven high schools.
9. Visalia Unified School District ( VUSD) had an ADA of 25,223 and spent $ 1,507,389.21
on books and instructional supplies.
a. VUSD spent $ 67,373.17 on capital outlay for furnishing two new schools.
b. VUSD uses 4% of its lottery for certificated and classified salaries and benefits.
c. There are several problematic procedures at VUSD:
i) In comparison with all other school districts investigated, VUSD appeared to have
an inordinate amount of credit card charges in its lottery accounts.
ii) VUSD often had incomplete data such as the lack of authorization and site for
county payment vouchers.
iii) VUSD used an open purchase order system with either a $ 200 or $ 500 limit
without authorization. Purchases on such open purchase orders often exceeded
those limits, and authorization provided for these overages was often post- dated.
iv) Many purchases were for school office furnishings and supplies.
v) Supplies for maintaining lawn mowers were charged to the lottery.
vi) Divisadero Middle School paid $ 290 to be a member of the Visalia Chamber of
Commerce.
vii) Cell telephones for EI Diamante High School were charged to the lottery. One
teacher exceeded other teachers' use by more than 100%.
10. Woodlake Union High School ( WUHS) had an ADA of 750 and spent $ 15,220.80 on
books and instructional supplies and devotes 72% of its lottery budget on both
certificated and classified salaries and benefits.
RECOMMENDATIONS
56 • Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Each school district should carefully examine its lottery fund expenditures to ensure
that the expenses are for instructional purposes.
2. Dinuba and Lindsay should change non- instructional expenses to the general fund
budget.
3. School districts with high lottery salary/ benefit percentages should be diligent in
allocating such expenditures into enrichment areas, not core teaching.
4. Alpaugh, Dinuba, Exeter and Visalia should tighten their fiscal procedures so that the
paper trail is clear and compete.
5. Lindsay, Dinuba and Visalia should examine their credit card procedures. The honor
system currently in place is an invitation to fraudulent use.
6. Tulare County School Districts might consider consolidating orders for major
equipment and/ or piggybacking with outside districts both for better prices and for
avoiding expensive late fees and penalties.
RESPONSES
The President of the Board of Trustees and the Superintendent of the following:
Alpaugh Unified School District
Cutler- Orosi Unified School District
Dinuba Unified School District
Exeter Joint High School District
Farmersville Unified School District
Lindsay Unified School District
Porterville Unified School District
Tulare Joint Union School District
Visalia Unified School District
Woodlake High School District
Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 • 57
58 • Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006
HEALTH AND WELFARE
Visalia Senior Citizens Center
KINGS- TULARE COUNTY AREA AGENCY ON AGING
MEALS ON WHEELS PROGRAM
SENIOR CENTERS
REASON FOR INVESTIGATION
Based on interest in programs offered to senior citizens the 2005- 2006 Tulare County
Grand Jury investigated the operations of the Senior Centers in Tulare County and the Meals
on Wheels program.
PROCEDURES FOLLOWED
The Grand Jury:
1. Interviewed relevant witnesses.
2. Visited Senior Centers in Tulare County where meals are served.
3. Made unannounced visits to the kitchens where meals are prepared.
FINDINGS
1. The Senior Nutrition Program is funded by the Kings- Tulare County Area Agency on
Aging, a grant from the State of California, and donations from Senior Centers.
2. The average food cost per meal is $ 1.40. Funding from Federal and State Government
is insufficient to cover the cost of the programs. Donations are treated as program
income and used to pay for the various expenses of running the program including
food, site management, transportation costs and site rentals of some of the centers.
3. The County Nutrition Program has its own kitchen north of Visalia where approximately
300 hot and nutritionally balanced meals are prepared every day. The floors and
counters of the kitchen are clean. All food handlers wear gloves and hairnets. The
storage areas are clean and organized.
4. Meals prepared at this kitchen are delivered to 12 Senior Centers within the county.
The Senior Centers are located in Cutler- Orosi, Dinuba, Earlimart, Exeter, Farmersville,
Goshen, Ivanhoe, Lindsay, Porterville, Springville, Three Rivers and Woodlake.
5. Meals are served at the Centers between 11: 30 am and 12: 00 noon. Reservations
must be made the day before.
Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 • 61
6. Centers have signs posted for a donation of $ 2 per meal for seniors older than 60
years. Persons under the age of 60 must pay $ 3.80.
7. In addition to the meals, the program provides seniors the opportunity to meet and visit
with others.
8. Senior Centers provide other planned activities including crafts, games, education,
health education, music, volunteer opportunities and low- cost tours. These Centers
provide a forum for presenting information and educating seniors on their rights for
services available to them.
9. Monthly health screenings and follow- up care by a Public Health Nurse are available
and records are maintained on each patient.
10. Besides daily meals served at the Senior Centers, special holiday meals are also served
including Thanksgiving dinners, Christmas parties, Cinco de Mayo, seniors’ birthdays,
and other special local events.
11. Seniors age 60 and over, with severe health problems or disabilities who are unable to
come to the Senior Centers, are eligible to have five frozen meals delivered weekly to
their homes. Fresh fruit, cereal, juice, and milk are included in the boxes with the
frozen meals. There is no fee for home delivery; however a $ 2 donation per meal is
requested.
12. A Community Service Specialist or nutrition program staff member screens all home-delivered
meal recipients for additional needs as they enter the program.
13. The Tulare Senior Center has its own kitchen in Tulare, which is clean and organized.
The staff serves breakfast and lunch Monday- Friday. Each senior is requested to make
a $ 2 donation per meal. Guests are allowed to accompany any senior three times a
month. The cost for the guest meal is $ 3.50. The Center delivers approximately 80 hot
meals to senior citizens’ homes each day. Besides meals, the Center offers dancing
classes, arts and crafts, exercise and health classes. It also offers trips that may
involve a charge.
14. The Visalia Senior Center’s financial support comes from city tax dollars ( general fund),
fees and donations of food and money. Staff prepares and serves approximately 60 to
90 lunches at the Center to seniors every day at 12: 00 noon. Take out meals are also
available, an option that is well used. The Center has its own kitchen where all meals
are prepared. This kitchen is well organized and clean. All workers wear hairnets and
gloves while preparing the food. The price for lunch is $ 3.25. Every Tuesday from
10: 00 a. m. to 2: 00 p. m. the Center receives Alzheimer patients and stroke victims. The
charge for taking care of the patient is $ 5.00, which includes lunch. This is very helpful
for caregivers. For a fee, the Center offers classes for arts and crafts, exercises, bingo
and square dancing. In the future the Center may add computer classes for the
seniors.
62 • Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006
CONCLUSIONS
1. The Kings- Tulare County Area Agency on Aging and Senior Centers are providing our
seniors with healthy meals and planned activities.
2. Socialization is very important in maintaining a high quality of life, and seniors enjoy
coming to the Centers to socialize with others.
3. Staff at all the centers are friendly and show genuine concern for the seniors
For additional information about services to our seniors contact the Kings- Tulare County
Area Agency on Aging, Health and Human Services, and/ or the City of Visalia Senior Center
at:
Kings- Tulare County Area Agency on Aging
3330 W. Mineral King, Suite A
Visalia CA 93291
( 559) 730- 2553
Health and Human Services
5957 S. Mooney Blvd.
Visalia CA 93277- 9394
( 559) 737- 4682
City of Visalia Senior Center
310 N. Locust
Visalia CA 93291
( 559) 713- 4381
Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 • 63
64 • Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006
JUSTICE
Lady Justice
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
DISCRIMINATION/ HARASSMENT SETTLEMENTS
BACKGROUND
Due to newspaper notoriety surrounding the more recent cash settlements by Tulare County
to employees for alleged discrimination/ harassment, the 2005- 2006 Tulare County Grand
Jury decided to investigate the process used by the county to determine how and when to
settle these claims.
PROCEDURES FOLLOWED
1. Information was obtained from relevant sources.
2. Relevant witnesses were interviewed.
FINDINGS
1. The county is self- insured up to the amount of $ 250,000.
2. The Public Pool of Insurers insures above $ 250,000 to a maximum of $ 10,000,000.
3. AIG Insurance covers above $ 10,000,000 to a maximum of $ 25,000,000.
4. The decision to settle a case, or go to court, is made by the Tulare County Board of
Supervisors with advice from County Counsel and the other insurers.
5. The settlements made by the county from 1999 to 2005 totaled $ 1,254,190 and
involved 12 individual cases ranging from $ 650 to $ 440,000. ( see graph)
County Cash Settlements
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
Jul-
99
Aug-
99
Oct-
99
Jan-
00
Mar-
00
M
ay-
01
Jan-
02
Feb-
02
M
ay-
03
Mar-
03
Nov-
03
Oct-
05
Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 • 67
CONCLUSIONS
Without getting into the validity of the individual settlements, the process is well defined with
many checks and balances. It appears to the 2005- 2006 Tulare County Grand Jury that the
county has followed this process in a prudent manner.
In an attempt to reduce the need for these settlements, the county has begun an aggressive
training program for each supervisory employee. Additionally, they have improved the
introductory training program for all new employees.
68 • Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006
SHERIFF DEPARTMENT
Inmate Welfare Trust Fund
REASON FOR INVESTIGATION
Last year’s ( 2004- 2005) Tulare County Grand Jury suggested that this jury again look at the
Inmate Welfare Trust Fund. Specific suggestions were made to look at the salary cost and
the Fund balance. The 2005- 2006 jury, after some inquiry, decided that more information
was needed and began an investigation.
PROCEDURES FOLLOWED
1. Printed information was obtained from the Tulare County Sheriff’s Office ( TCSO) relevant
to the income and expenses of this fund.
2. Relevant witnesses were interviewed.
FINDINGS
1. Expenses: These were examined in detail with special emphasis on the salaries and
overtime paid. Although the total salaries paid seemed to be high, the cost of the
individual duty requirements of the paid staff was not. All expenses appeared to be in
compliance with Penal Code 4025i.
2. Balance on deposit: Although the balance is still quite high, there doesn’t appear to be
any violation.
3. Telephone charges: The recommendation by the prior jury was that the TCSO work with
the telephone company to reduce the amount the person receiving the collect call is
charged. This jury finds that the Sheriff believes the charges are justified by what the
telephone company is charging other counties.
4. Canteen Contract: It was also recommended by last year’s jury that the TCSO request
competitive bids for this service. The prior response from the TCSO would indicate that
the contract is simply renewed annually, and they have no plans to change.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Once again, it is recommended, the TCSO should negotiate with the telephone company
to reduce the cost of the collect calls to family members of the inmates.
2. Once again, it is recommended that the TCSO engage in a formal bid process for the
canteen service to Tulare County Detention Facilities.
3. There is a critical need to upgrade the plumbing to repair water leaks in the Main Jail
and at the Bob Wiley Detention Facilities. The Grand Jury recommends that some of the
balance on deposit of the trust fund be used to correct these problems.
4. Using trust funds, the ice machine and the coffee maker at the Bob Wiley Detention
Facility should be replaced.
Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 • 69
RESPONSES
Tulare County Sheriff
i PC 4025. ( a) The sheriff of each county may establish, maintain and operate a store in
connection with the county jail and for this purpose may purchase confectionery, tobacco and
tobacco users'
supplies, postage and writing materials, and toilet articles and supplies and sell these goods,
articles, and supplies for cash to inmates in the jail.
( b) The sale prices of the articles offered for sale at the store shall be fixed by the
sheriff. Any profit shall be deposited in an inmate welfare fund to be kept in the treasury of
the county. e) The money and property deposited in the inmate welfare fund shall be expended by
the sheriff primarily for the benefit, education, and welfare of the inmates confined within the
jail.
…
( e) Any funds that are not needed for the welfare of the inmates may be expended for the
maintenance of county jail facilities. Maintenance of county jail facilities may include, but is
not limited to, the salary and benefits of personnel used in the programs to benefit the inmates,
including, but not limited to, education, drug and alcohol treatment, welfare, library,
accounting, and other programs deemed appropriate by the sheriff. Inmate welfare funds shall not
be used to pay required county expenses of confining inmates in a local detention system, such as
meals, clothing, housing, or medical services or expenses, except that inmate welfare funds may
be used to augment those required county expenses as determined by the sheriff to be in the best
interests of inmates. An itemized report of these expenditures shall be submitted annually to
the board of supervisors.
70 • Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006
PROBATION DEPARTMENT
Juvenile Hall and Youth Facility
BACKGROUND
The Tulare County Grand Jury is not mandated to tour the Tulare County Juvenile Detention
Facilities each year; however, they often do. During the 2005 tour, the jury was impressed
with the work accomplished by this unit and decided to publish a report on what they
observed. There are times the jury needs to point to areas of county government that seem
to be working as they should. The operation of the Juvenile Detention Facilities seems to be
one of those areas. The staff from the Probation Department were very helpful and
appeared to be genuinely concerned about juveniles.
PROCEDURES FOLLOWED
1. The Grand Jury toured the Juvenile Hall, which included the kitchen, cells, infirmary,
common areas, and class rooms.
2. The Grand Jury toured the Youth Facility, which included the living area ( dormitories),
common areas, library, and the class rooms.
FINDINGS
1. Juvenile Hall:
a. Kitchen- The area where food is prepared for the juveniles was clean and all the
appliances appeared to be properly maintained. This facility prepares two hot meals
and one cold meal daily. The food for the Youth Facility is also prepared in this
kitchen. The food preparation and cleanup of the kitchen in Juvenile Hall is handled
by fulltime county employees. In contrast, the Bob Wiley Detention Facility ( BWDF)
kitchen, which prepares one hot meal and two cold meals daily, is not as clean. The
inmates are used to prepare the food and clean the area in the BWDF. There is a
noticeable difference between the BWDF and the Juvenile Hall kitchens ( see “ Jail
Sanitation” Report).
b. Living Area- The cells where the juveniles are housed appear to be clean and
sanitary. They are expected to clean their own units and are monitored to ensure
they do.
c. Common Area- This is the area where multiple juveniles can interact during the day.
The removal of this privilege may be used to discipline bad behavior. There is also
an open area for large muscle exercise ( basketball, etc).
d. Education- All juveniles are required to attend classes for four hours each day. If
they refuse to attend, they are confined to their cells with home work assignments.
Classes are conducted by certificated teachers from the Tulare County Office of
Education ( TCOE) and use the same material taught in county high schools.
e. Infirmary- This area was staffed and maintained by personnel from Health and
Human Services Agency ( HHSA). Surrounding the area are numerous cells that can
be used to place juveniles while they are waiting to see medical staff. This unit is
also used by the Youth Facility to treat any illness or injury.
Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 • 71
2. Youth Facility
a. Living Area- The dormitory- like rooms, where the juveniles sleep, were clean and
well maintained. The jury was there on wash day. The beds were all stripped and
the mattresses folded neatly in half on the beds. The floors were clean with all
personal items stored neatly in a clear plastic box under each bed.
b. Education- All juveniles are required to attend classes daily. Educational programs
are operated at this facility, and administered by TCOE. Studies toward a General
Education Diploma ( GED) are also available to the juvenile.
c. Common Areas- These areas were well maintained and allow space for the juveniles
to interact with each other.
d. “ Boot Camp” Now called Youth Facility- There are two different programs in this
facility: 1) is the long version and can last up to 365 days, with more military style
training. 2) is a shorter version of about 180 days. The length of time spent in either
is dependent on the performance of the juvenile.
CONCLUSIONS
Both the Juvenile Hall and the Youth Facility are very well- maintained and the safety and
needs of the juveniles are in the forefront.
We believe the one thing that makes the difference between the Juvenile Detention
Facilities and BWDF is the employee versus inmate status of the cleanup and preparation
crew.
72 • Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006
PROBATION DEPARTMENT
Juvenile Welfare Trust Fund
BACKGROUND
The operation of the Juvenile Hall and Youth Facility in Tulare County is under the direction
of the Tulare County Probation Department. All staff in those facilities are employees of the
department except for the teachers and administrators in the educational programs, who
are employees of the Tulare County Department of Education.
When juveniles make a telephone call from the Tulare County Juvenile Hall or Youth Facility,
it must be a collect call. A percentage of the money collected by the telephone company is
returned to the county and placed on deposit in the Juvenile Welfare Trust Fund.
REASON FOR INVESTIGATION
The 2005- 2006 Tulare County Grand Jury had occasion to discuss the operation of the
Juvenile Welfare Trust Fund with staff. It was determined that there are major differences
between the Sheriff and the Probation Departments usage of what they both refer to as
Welfare Trust funds ( see Sheriff Inmate Welfare Trust Fund).
PROCEDURES FOLLOWED
1. Printed information was obtained from the Tulare County Probation Department ( TCPD)
relevant to the income and expenses of this fund.
2. Information was secured from the Internet reflecting the California Code of Regulations
Title 15 Section 4723 used to govern the expenditures from this fund.
3. Relevant witnesses were interviewed.
FINDINGS
1. Expenses: The only funds expended in fiscal year 2005 were for juvenile related needs.
No funds were used for salaries or maintenance to facilities. All expenses appeared to
be in compliance with Title 15 Section 4723a. ( See attached graph.)
2. Balance on deposit: Although there was a $ 152,674.50 balance at the end of the 2005
fiscal year, there doesn’t appear to be any violation of the code, and there are plans for
major use in the coming year.
3. Telephone charges: The Probation Department uses the same negotiated contract with
the telephone company that the Sheriff uses. The telephone company returns 41% of
the monies received for collect calls to the Probation Department to be added to the
trust fund. The only revenue for this fund comes from the return on these telephone
calls.
Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 • 73
4. Fund Purpose: This fund is intended by the county to be used to improve conditions for
the juveniles while in custody.
CONCLUSION
The Grand Jury believes that this fund is used within the intent of Title 15 Section 4723. All
future expenditures should be made in the same spirit.
74 • Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006
Probation Juvenile Welfare Trust Fund
DOLLAR
2005 PURCHASES AMOUNT
Tooth Brushes 48
New Flags 68
Out of State Taxes 109
Christmas Tree & Candy 126
Pencils & Sharpeners 182
Pressure Washers 183
Drink Mix 193
Writing Paper 234
Replacement Shaver Foils 281
Televisions 482
Video Licenses 650
Secure Care Mattress 670
Video Rentals 714
Sports Equipment 730
New Laundry Bags 916
Visiting Folding Tables 1053
Art Supplies & Envelopes 1264
Popcorn 1524
GED Testing 2500
11,927
a Title 15 s 4723. Benefit Fund.
Each superintendent of an institution or camp shall maintain a benefit fund account which shall be expended only for the general welfare, education, or entertainment of the wards in the institution
or camp at the discretion of the superintendent. Each superintendent shall maintain appropriate accounting records in accordance with departmental procedures. Money for this fund may come from:
( a) Donations by individuals or organizations.
( b) Profits or income from vending machines, canteens, or hobby craft stores operated by or for the institution or camp.
( c) Institutional fund- raising activities.
( d) Other sources as approved by the superintendent.
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
Tooth Brushes
New Flags
Out of State Taxes
Christmas Tree & Candy
Pencils & Sharpeners
Pressure Washers
Drink Mix
Writing Paper
Replacement Shaver Foils
Televisions
Video Licenses
Secure Care Mattress
Video Rentals
Sports Equipment
New Laundry Bags
Visiting Folding Tables
Art Supplies & Envelopes
Popcorn
GED Testing
Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 • 75
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
ToothBrushes
New Flags
Out of State Taxes
ChristmasTree & Candy
Pencils & Sharpeners
Pressure Washers
DrinkMix
Writing Paper
Replacement Shaver Foils
Televisions
VideoLicenses
Secure Care Mattress
VideoRentals
Sports Equipment
New Laundry Bags
Visiting Folding Tables
Art Supplies & Envelopes
Popcorn
GED Testing
Series1
76 • Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006
PORTERVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT
VICIOUS ANIMAL POLICIES
REASON FOR INVESTIGATION
The 2005- 2006 Tulare County Grand Jury received a citizen complaint about a specific
incident that occurred in Porterville on Sunday, February 5, 2006 involving an attack by
vicious dogs.
PROCEDURES FOLLOWED
The Tulare County Grand Jury:
1. Interviewed relevant witnesses.
2. Reviewed relevant documents and reports.
FINDINGS
1. On Sunday, February 5, 2006, a report was made to the Porterville Police Department
concerning two Pit Bull dogs running loose in a neighborhood.
2. There were six 911 calls recorded within a 46 minute period.
3. The two Pit Bulls had killed one little dog tethered to a tree in its owner’s front yard.
4. Two young girls had been chased earlier by the Pit Bulls and were frightened, but not
harmed.
5. By the time the Police Officer responded to the scene the owner had collected the
animals and left the scene. He had them tied in the back of his pick- up truck.
6. The Officer called the dispatch communication center and spoke to the Officer in Charge
( OIC). Since the owner had the dogs secured, it was not deemed necessary by the OIC
to contact Lindsay Animal Control ( LAC) who is contracted by the City of Porterville to
handle vicious animals. The owner was told to take the dogs home and to secure them
until Tuesday February 7, 2006, when LAC would contact him. The Officer did not
accompany the owner to his home to insure the dogs were secured. Regular office
hours of LAC are Tuesday through Saturday 8am to 5pm. There is, however, staff
available 24/ 7.
7. Neighbors told the Officer that these dogs have been out before, and they offered to
keep the dead dog until the owner returned home.
8. As of Tuesday, February 7, 2006, LAC had not yet been contacted. The Responding
Officer notified LAC on Wednesday, February 8, 2006 ( on his day off).
Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 • 77
9. LAC contacted the owner of the Pit Bull dogs. He was cited at that time, and both the
dogs were ultimately “ put down.”
10. The jury determined that there is no policy and procedure in the Porterville Police
Department’s daily operations manual that deals with vicious animals. The last update
to the manual was January, 2004. The OIC has discretion over the matter to call LAC or
not on any case any day of the week. The Responding Officer on the scene must call
the OIC for what action to take.
11. The City of Porterville contracts with LAC for services 8 hours each day, Tuesday through
Saturday. If Porterville Police needed to call on LAC’s days off, there would be an
additional cost.
12. Different City officials have conflicting understandings of the costs involved in animal
control.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The jury determined that the cost is often a factor in the Porterville Police not calling LAC
on Sunday or Monday.
2. The Responding Officer should have cited the owner of the dogs and insured they were
in a secure area until LAC responded. Porterville City has a leash law that should have
been imposed. The officer did not make sure that the dogs were secured. The
Responding Officer should have cited the owner for leaving the scene as well as
violation of the leash law.
3. The Porterville Police Department has no policy that an officer can refer to, but the jury
believes certain cautions would be common sense. The jury cannot help but consider
what would have happened if the dogs would have harmed the young girls.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Porterville Police Department should establish a policy concerning the use of Lindsay
Animal Control and see that it is enforced. The Tulare County Grand Jury believes this
policy should require all Responding Officers to call Lindsay Animal Control on cases
involving a vicious animal.
2. Porterville Police Officers should enforce the laws already on the books.
RESPONSES
City of Porterville, City Manager
Porterville Police Department, Chief of Police
Lindsay Animal Control
78 • Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006
PROBATION DEPARTMENT
ADULT ELECTRONIC MONITORING PROGRAM
BACKGROUND
AUTHORITY
Section 1203.016 of the Penal Code, in conjunction with Section 1208 of the Penal Code,
allows inmates participating in a home detention or work furlough program ( hereafter
referred to as Adult Electronic Monitoring Program ( AEMP)) to voluntarily participate in an
electronically monitored program. This allows them to reside in their own homes during the
period of incarceration in lieu of confinement in the county jail or the County Correctional
Center.
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The AEMP is a program that allows low to medium risk adult offenders to serve a court-ordered
sentence within his/ her own home while continuing employment, if available.
Medical treatment and participation in any court- ordered counseling program are at the
expense of the off
Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.
Description
| Rating | |
| Title | Tulare County Grand Jury final report |
| Subject | California. Grand Jury (Tulare County)--Periodicals.; Tulare County (Calif.)--Politics and government--Periodicals. |
| Description | Description based on: 2003/2004; title from opening screen of pdf.; Harvested from the web on 2/22/07 |
| Creator | California. Grand Jury (Tulare County) |
| Publisher | Tulare County Grand Jury] |
| Type | Text |
| Identifier | http://digitalarchive.oclc.org/request?id%3Doclcnum%3A144643480; http://www.co.tulare.ca.us/government/jury/default.asp |
| Language | eng |
| Title-Alternative | Grand Jury final reports |
| Format-Extent | 1 web site : digital, HTML, PDF files. |
| Relation-Requires | Mode of access: Internet.; System requirements: Adobe Acrobat Reader. |
| Transcript | Tulare County Grand Jury Final Report 2005 - 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS Letter from the Foreman .................................................................................................................. 2 Letter from Judge Vortmann and Judge Kalashian ........................................................................ 3 History of the Grand Jury and Its Duties .......................................................................................... 4 Reports: Responses to the 2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report ............................................................. 6 Administration Committee City of Porterville Wastewater Treatment/ Farming Operation .................................................. 9 Consolidation of the Tulare County Elected Offi cials ................................................................. 13 Retirement and the Golden Handshake ..................................................................................... 15 City of Visalia Contract with Scenic Airlines ............................................................................... 17 Audit and Special Districts Committee Community Service Districts in Tulare County ........................................................................... 21 Flood Potential on the St. Johns River/ Levee Districts I and II ( Map) ..................................... 38 Public Board Meetings/ Policies and Procedures ...................................................................... 43 Education Committee Burton School District .................................................................................................................. 49 Use of Lottery Money in Tulare County School Districts with High Schools ............................. 52 Health and Welfare Committee Kings- Tulare Agency on Aging/ Meals on Wheels and Senior Centers ..................................... 61 Justice Committee Harassment/ Discrimination Settlements ................................................................................. 67 Inmate Welfare Trust Fund .......................................................................................................... 69 Juvenile Hall ............................................................................................................................... . 71 Juvenile Welfare Trust Fund ........................................................................................................ 73 Porterville Police Department/ Vicious Animal Policies ............................................................ 77 Probation Department/ Adult Electronic Monitoring ................................................................. 79 Sheriff Department/ Jail Sanitation ........................................................................................... 82 Land Use Tulare County Code Compliance/ Trash and Abandoned Vehicles ........................................... 87 Riverland RV Resort .................................................................................................................... 94 Citizen Complaint Form and Procedures ......................................................................................... 97 Grand Jury Nomination Form ........................................................................................................... 99 Grand Jury Members ............................................................................................................... Back Page Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 • 1 2 • Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 Honorable Judge Paul A. Vortmann Presiding Judge of the Superior Court State of California County of Tulare Honorable Judge Joseph A. Kalashian Assistant Presiding Judge of the Superior Court State of California County of Tulare Dear Judge Vortmann and Judge Kalashian, Pursuant to California Penal Code Section 933, the 2005- 2006 Tulare County Grand Jury proudly presents this Final Report of the Grand Jury to the Court and to the citizens of Tulare County. This Final Report contains reportage of investigations conducted by the Grand Jury into the operation of public agencies within this County. The Jury was impaneled by the Court in early July 2005 with the charge to serve the general public as " watchdogs" of county government agencies. Nineteen citizen- jurors, from diverse backgrounds and experiences, formed an efficient, cooperative unit. They worked tirelessly to respond to citizen's complaints, and to investigate numerous County departments with interviews of " relevant" witnesses, visitations to applicable meetings, and review of pertinent documents. It is important for the public to recognize that the Grand Jury does not have power or authority to mandate compliance by public agencies to its findings or recommendations. The purpose of the findings and recommendations is to make the public aware of issues before these agencies and to require the agencies to examine their policies and procedures so as to best protect the interests of the public. Under the laws of the State of California, the Grand Jury may refer issues to appropriate local or state law enforcement or regulatory agencies for appropriate follow- up action. On behalf of the Grand Jury, I want to express our special gratitude to you, Judge Kalashian for your judicial and judicious guidance. This sincere expression of appreciation also extends to County Counsel Kathleen Bales- Lange, and to our clerk Louise Whittle, for their generous assistance. To the jurors who served on the 2005- 2006 Tulare County Grand Jury, I say, " job well done!" My profuse thanks to them for their conscientious service to this challenging, educational and noble cause. It has been a privilege and my pleasure to serve as foreman of this dedicated group of citizens. Respectfully, Margie Ewen, Foreman 2005- 2006 Tulare County Grand Jury Tulare County Grand Jury 5963 South Mooney Boulevard Visalia, California 93277 ( 559) 733- 6465 • Fax ( 559) 733- 6078 Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 • 3 4 • Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 HISTORY OF THE GRAND JURY One of the earliest concepts of a Grand Jury may date back to Ancient Greece. The Grand Jury can also be traced back to the time of the Norman Conquest of England in 1066. There is evidence that the Courts of that time summoned a body of sworn neighbors to present crimes which had come to their knowledge. King Henry II of England impaneled the first sixteen- man Grand Jury in 1164 to remove criminal indictments from the hands of the church. By the year 1290, we find that the accusing jury was given the authority to inquire into the maintenance of bridges and highways, the defects of jails, and whether the sheriff had kept in jail anyone who should have been brought before the Justices. In 1635 the Massachusetts Bay Colony, in Colonial America, had the first Grand Jury that considered the cases of murder, robbery and wife beating. By the end of the Colonial period the Grand Jury had become an indispensable adjunct of government. They proposed new laws, protested against abuses in government and wielded tremendous authority in their power to determine who should and should not face trial. Originally the Constitution of the United States made no provision for a Grand Jury. The Fifth Amendment, ratified in 1791, added this protection: …” no person shall be held to answer to a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except for cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia when in actual service in time of war or public danger.” Adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 made it illegal to “ deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” As interpreted by some States, this amendment meant that prosecution of crimes no longer mandated a Grand Jury indictment. HISTORY OF THE GRAND JURY IN CALIFORNIA The first California Penal Code contained statutes providing for a Grand Jury. Article I, Section 23 of the California Constitution states: “ One or more Grand Juries shall be drawn and summoned once a year in each County.” Early Grand Juries investigated local prisons, conducted audits of County books and pursued matters of community concern. The role of the Grand Jury in California is unique in that by statutes passed in 1880, the duties include investigation of County Government. California and Nevada are the only states in the country which mandate year- long Grand Juries. The Grand Jury system in California is unusual in that Federal and County Grand Juries in most states are concerned solely with the criminal indictments and have no civil responsibilities. California is one of only seven States that provide for the investigation of County Government by a Grand Jury, beyond alleged misconduct of public officials. Grand Jurors generally serve for one year and are usually impaneled in the first week of the fiscal or calendar year to coincide with the County’s budget year, Up to ten Grand Jurors may be held over for a second term. Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 • 5 RESPONSES TO 2004 - 2005 GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT A County Civil Grand Jury is an investigative body that issues a Final Report at the end of its term. The Jury conducts investigations or inquiries into the activities of city and county government agencies and special districts. They also investigate citizen complaints made to the Jury concerning suspected governmental irregularities. California Penal Code Section 933 ( c) requires that each of the affected agencies must submit a written response to the report within specific time periods. There were a total of 13 individual reports in the 2004 - 2005 Final Report. These reports were submitted to 78 different entities for their responses. Fifteen days prior to the required response date a reminder notice was sent to these agencies. Eighty- seven percent of the responses were received, meeting the basic requirements for responding to the findings and recommendations. The following is a list of the agencies that did not respond within the sixty day time period specified in the above listed Penal Code Section along with the percentages of responders and non- responders Memorial Districts Tulare County School Districts Community Services Districts 65% responded The 35% that did not respond are: 95% responded The 5% that did not respond are: 50% responded The 50% that did not respond are: Lindsay- Strathmore Alpaugh Unified Allensworth Porterville Liberty Elementary Sequoia Monson- Sultana Joint Union Elementary South Tulare County T. C. O. V. E. Terra Bella Full responses are available on the Grand Jury Website at ( grndjury@ tulare. ca. us). The public is encouraged to visit the website and read each of the responses in their entirety. The 2005 - 2006 Grand Jury wishes to thank those who responded to last year’s Final Report and recognizes their contribution to the community and to the Grand Jury process. The time and effort taken to review the 2004 - 2005 Grand Jury Final Report and to prepare and submit responses are greatly appreciated. 6 • Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 ADMINISTRATION COUNTY OF TULARE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES THE CITY OF PORTERVILLE’S WASTEWATER TREATMENT/ FARMING OPERATION BACKGROUND The current Wastewater Treatment Facility ( WWTF) Reclamation Disposal and Farming Program was developed in response to requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board ( RWQCB) to limit the amount of treated effluent ( sewage waste) that the City of Porterville ( City) can discharge. The Waste Discharge Requirements and the Cease and Desist Order from the RWQCB limited the City to 5.3 million gallons disposed or 5694 acre feet per year of treated effluent and applied many other restrictions on how the City can dispose of its effluent. The City is required to spread bio- solids and reclaimed wastewater effluent for further land treatment and beneficial irrigation use. The purpose is to increase efficiency of wastewater disposal through irrigation, mitigate environmental impact through crop uptake of nitrogen, limit groundwater impact, and provide for future disposal needs. In particular, the program has been tasked with insuring that the Tulare County Landfill ( Teapot Dome) is not compromised by City discharge operations. Projects funded with a loan from the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank were developed and approved by the RWQCB. Property acquisition and development of arable land has been ongoing with about 520 acres purchased over recent years. The current inventory of leveled irrigated land is around 465 acres. The goal is to develop approximately 700 acres of irrigated land in order to meet the RWQCB requirements and keep up with the growth of Porterville. Failure to meet the requirements could result in a building moratorium from the RWQCB on future sewer hookups. It is important to maintain a good working relationship between the two parties. REASON FOR INVESTIGATION In response to a citizen complaint the 2005- 2006 Tulare County Grand Jury investigated the City of Porterville’s Farming Operation. PROCEDURES FOLLOWED 1. Relevant witnesses were interviewed. 2. Relevant records were reviewed. FINDINGS 1. The City implemented a five year “ transitional“ Farm Management Agreement ( FMA) that allowed the City to continue disposing of treated effluent. The FMA started on December 2, 2002 and ends November 30, 2007. There is a “ cancellation at three years“ clause in the FMA with the Farm Manager. Either party for any reason may Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 • 9 cancel the FMA with a ninety days prior written notice. The FMA may also be extended by mutual agreement between the parties, past the five year deadline. The City contracted out this agreement to manage the operations to an independent contractor. This individual is not an employee of the City. The contractor’s duties are the management of all farming operations, including the purchase and/ or rental of all necessary equipment, supplies and services subject to the conditions of the agreement. Such management includes daily farming decisions and the care and maintenance of the property. Earnings for the contractors duties are as follows: a. An annual base fee of $ 41,431.72 for the first year ( Dec. 1, 2002 through June 30, 2003) and $ 71,434 for each year thereafter. b. Commission of 5% on the gross income on all revenue and income generated from the farming operation upon verification of weight tickets and broker reports. The amount of commission paid each year shall not exceed $ 25,000. Records indicate commissions paid as of January 24, 2005 have totaled $ 19,277.42. c. “ Manager shall prepare an annual budget based on a fiscal year ( FY) beginning July 1 through June 30. Manager shall submit the budget to the City March 1 of each year. The budget will be adopted as part of the City’s annual budget. The manager shall prepare an annual report and statement for each FY that summarizes the expenses incurred during that year and compares the expenditures with the budget previously submitted for that year.” 2. An internal examination of the financial performance of the program has been completed by the WWTF with the help of an independent agricultural consultant. 3. The alfalfa- crop cultural practices were reviewed by the Tulare County branch of the University of California Cooperative Extension ( UCCE). They found that crop enterprise expenditures and budgets have been compared to UCCE estimates and found to be equivalent. Components of the “ farming program” such as harvest costs, have been found comparable to local and available custom farming rates. 4. A Certified Public Accountant reviewed City records of the farm financial material. 5. The financial results over the two fiscal years examined show a loss in farming operations. Overhead and maintenance costs, including non- crop and percolation pond related expenses contributed to additional losses as follows: FY2003- 2004 FY2004- 2005 Farming operation loss $ 100,500 $ 20,000 Additional losses $ 225,300 $ 16,400 Total losses $ 325,800 $ 36,400 6. The original estimates for the farming cost presented to the City Council in December 2002 projected a loss in the farming operation as follows: 10 • Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 FY2003- 2004 FY2004- 2005 Losses in farming operation $ 29,485 $ 62,972 Analysis reflects actual losses at $ 100,562 $ 20,678 7. Original 2002 estimates for non- crop expenses: weed abatement, land preparation, ripping or gypsum application ( which is specific to improving waste water penetration), cost of lease for irrigated land, percolation pond management and laboratory testing were conservative and farming operations contained most of the expenses. The November 2005 analysis reallocated non- crop expenses that had been included in the farming expenses. Following is a summary of expense vs. estimate: FY2003- 2004 FY2004- 2005 Non- crop expense estimate $ 21,080 $ 21,309 Non- crop actual expense $ 188,258 $ 195,110 Percolation pond estimate $ 16,500 $ 16,500 Percolation pond actual expense $ 36,982 $ 20,655 8. Non- crop expenses have since been separated from operational activities. Capital improvement projects, such as percolation pond development and water delivery systems, have also been segregated. The programs initial intent was for the farming budget to absorb the costs of non- crop and percolation pond expenses but this has not occurred because of unpredictable agri- business conditions. 9. Expectations for the program may conclude that there will be years of excellent conditions where financial performance of the “ farming program“ will breakeven and perhaps, be profitable. The rigid constraints of the program will not necessarily allow the flexibility that a pure agricultural operation can achieve. 10. Crop enterprises are chosen according to criteria that will allow the City to achieve program goals, i. e. wastewater absorption, non- human consumption products, control of high salts created by effluent irrigation and marketing opportunities. For the program, the measurement of performance is whether overall objectives are achieved at a cost that is comparable or better than other methods. 11. An accurate evaluation of crop enterprise performance from the farm can only be accomplished through accurate cost allocations across fiscal years. Farming operations financial records are kept on a cash basis for the fiscal year July 1 through June 30. This has two- impacts on the evaluation of farm program performance. First, all expenses for long term capital improvement projects i. e. percolation pond development and maintenance, are expensed at the time of cash outlay, rather than amortized over the life of the activities value. Second, many correlated farming expenses and revenues fall on either side of July 1 through June 30 fiscal year, which creates accounting concerns. 12. The City can direct which crops are grown such as alfalfa, oat hay, Sudan grass and other non- human consumables. Alfalfa quality is based on the following guidelines for 11 crops irrigated with treated effluent: supreme, premium, good, fair and utility. For grass hay the guidelines are premium, good, fair, and utility. Ninety- five percent of all the crops grown were graded fair. Revenue for FY2003- 2004 were as follows: Revenue for alfalfa $ 27,553 Revenue for Oat Hay $ 64,215 Revenue for Sudan grass $ 15,174 13. High application rates of treated effluent potentially reduce crop yield as a result of high salt levels in the soil. Effluent is split 50% to percolation and 50% to irrigation through the years. 14. All revenue derived, directly or indirectly, from the property with regard to the farming and spreading operations shall belong to the City of Porterville. 15. The farming program is separated into three distinct categories operated under one umbrella budget. a. Farming operations include individual crop enterprises utilizing wastewater for irrigation and crops that utilize significant portions of the wastewater nitrogen. b. Non- crop operations are activities that bring the program into compliance but are not fundamentally necessary to the farming operations ( see finding number seven). c. Capital improvement projects which include the percolation pond development and maintenance, and the construction and maintenance of the water delivery systems ( see finding number eight). RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The City of Porterville modify and/ or adjust the current Farm Management Agreement. a. To segregate total operations into “ farming vs. non farming” categories and their respective costs. b. Prepare and distribute Request for Proposals for a new contract to manage the farming operations after modifications/ adjustments have been made to the present agreement. c. Prepare and distribute Request for Proposals to lease the land under an alternative farm agreement which would remove the City’s managerial controls. 2. Eliminate the current agreement and hire a city employee to manage the farming operations. 3. Convert the farming operations financials to an accrual basis of accounting. RESPONSE City of Porterville 12 • Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 CONSOLIDATION OF TULARE COUNTY ELECTED OFFICIALS REASON FOR INVESTIGATION The 2005- 2006 Tulare County Grand Jury was interested in what laws permit the consolidation of Tulare County departments in which the department head was an elected official. Prior to 2005, the following offices had been consolidated in Tulare County: 1. Sheriff and Coroner 2. District Attorney and Public Administrator 3. Treasurer/ Tax Collector 4. Assessor, County Clerk and County Recorder 5. Agricultural Commissioner and County Sealer ( Weights & Measures) In 2005, Tulare County consolidated the positions of Auditor/ Controller, Treasurer/ Tax Collector. PROCEDURES FOLLOWED 1. Relevant witnesses were interviewed. 2. Relevant information was reviewed. FINDINGS 1. The law governing County Officials is found at Government Code section 24000 et. seq. and the law regarding consolidation of offices is found at Government Code 24300 et. seq. 2. Specifically in regard to the offices of Auditor/ Controller, Treasurer/ Tax Collector: Government Code section 24300.5 ( see below) permits consolidation of these offices by the board of supervisors. 24300.5. In addition to the duties of the county offices which may be consolidated under the provisions of Section 24300, the board of supervisors may, by ordinance, consolidate the offices of an auditor/ controller, treasurer/ tax collector, and director of finance. 3. An informal opinion by the Legislative Counsel that despite the plain meaning of the statue, consolidation was not permitted. 4. Tulare County Board of Supervisors sought and obtained special legislation in 2005 that clearly permits such consolidation. Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 • 13 5. Assembly Bill 1318, Statues of 2005, Chapter 407, amended Government Code section 24304.2 ( see below) to permit Tulare and Sonoma Counties to consolidate the offices of Auditor/ Controller with that of Treasurer/ Tax Collector. Section 24304.2. Notwithstanding Section 24300, in Sonoma County and Tulare County, the board of supervisors, by ordinance, may consolidate the duties of the offices of Auditor/ Controller and Treasurer/ Tax Collector into the elected office of Auditor/ Controller/ Treasure/- Tax Collector. CONCLUSION The Consolidation of the offices of Auditor/ Controller and Treasurer/ Tax Collector was done in a manner prescribed by law. 14 • Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 RETIREMENT AND THE GOLDEN HANDSHAKE REASON FOR INVESTIGATION Based on recent newspaper articles referring to retirement incentives ( The Golden Handshake) given to appointed or elected Tulare County employees, the 2005/ 2006 Tulare County Grand Jury decided to review the county's procedures. PROCEDURES FOLLOWED 1. Printed information was obtained from a relevant source pertaining to government codes and regulations for retirement. 2. Relevant witnesses were interviewed. FINDINGS 1. Tulare County is one of twenty ( 20) California Counties which are governed by the County Employees' Retirement Law of 1937. The 1937 Act is set forth beginning at section 31450 of the Government Code. In Tulare County this law is implemented through the Tulare County Employees' Retirement Association ( TCERA). 2. Both appointed and elected employees are members of TCERA. The retirement is based upon a combination of age, years of service in the county and salary. Salary is factored into the age and years of service formula; it is either the highest consecutive twelve ( 12) months or thirty six ( 36) months, depending on which retirement tier the employee is in. The tier is determined by when they began their service to the county. ( See attached tables.) 3. Government Code section 31641.04 sets forth the conditions under which the Board of Supervisors ( BOS) may offer additional service credit. Section 31641.04 ( a) states service credit, if it is to be offered, must be offered to designated members within a particular job classification, county department or other county organizational unit. Any BOS resolution would identify the group to which the service credit was offered. Because the offer is position specific, those who are not within the job classification identified in the resolution have no right to the service credit. 4. The BOS may determine that because of impending curtailment of service, change in the manner of performing service, savings of money or economic benefit, if it is in the best interest of the county, an employee shall be eligible to receive additional service credit. 5. Retirement incentives can be requested by individual employees, the Human Resources Development Department or department heads in regards to classification of employees in their department, by the BOS during budget considerations, or by a union during bargaining. 6. The amount of service credit is determined by the BOS, but it can be no more than two ( 2) years regardless of credited service and cannot exceed the number of years between the date of retirement and the date required to be retired because of age. 7. Upon the retirement of a department head the BOS may wish to collapse two ( 2) departments into one ( 1), or leave the position vacant and staff it at a lower salaried Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 • 15 position in an effort to save money. 8. Tulare County appears to be in compliance with State and Government codes in regard to retirement incentives for appointed and elected employees. RESPONSE No response necessary 16 • Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 CITY OF VISALIA CONTRACT WITH SCENIC AIRLINES HISTORY 1. The Airline Deregulation Act, passed in 1978, gave airlines almost total freedom to determine which markets to serve domestically and what fares to charge for that service. The Essential Air Service ( EAS) program was put into place to guarantee that small communities that were served by certificated air carriers before deregulation maintain a minimum level of scheduled air service. 2. By Order 93- 6- 13, the United States of America Department of Transportation ( DOT), defined EAS for Visalia as requiring two round trips a day to either Los Angeles, San Francisco or San Jose. Service was to be provided with no more than one intermediate stop, and the aircraft were to have two pilots, two engines and at least 15 seats with air access to the cabin. With the consent of the community, any of these conditions may be waived. 3. Sky West Airlines Inc., a United Airlines code- share operator, began serving Visalia in 1997. On December 15, 2004, Sky West Airlines filed a 90- day notice to terminate all of its subsidy- free service effective March 15, 2005. 4. DOT order 2004- 12- 23, was served to Sky West on January 7, 2005 and prohibited Sky West from suspending service at Visalia, California and requesting proposals from carriers interested in providing replacement EAS. 5. On January 5, 2005, the DOT issued an order requesting proposals from airlines interested in providing air service at the Visalia Municipal Airport. The order was served on approximately thirty ( 30) different air carriers. REASON FOR INVESTIGATION Past articles in local newspapers referenced the process in selecting an airline to provide air service to the Visalia Municipal Airport. The 2005- 2006 Tulare County Grand Jury decided it would review the procedure in selecting an airline. PROCEDURES FOLLOWED 1. Relevant witnesses were interviewed. 2. Relevant information was reviewed. FINDINGS 1. Two airlines submitted proposals and these were Scenic Airlines and Great Lakes Airlines. Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 • 17 2. The DOT proposed an annual subsidy of $ 200 per passenger, not to exceed $ 450,000 for the first year, $ 450,000 for the second year and $ 300,000 for the third year of the contract. Scenic Airlines was awarded a 3 year contract for service commencing September 1, 2005. The contract guarantees Scenic Airlines revenue of $ 871.15 per flight. Any shortfall is paid to Scenic Airlines from the DOT subsidy. 3. In addition to the DOT subsidy, the City of Visalia is providing a subsidy of $ 250,000 in grant funding from the Small Community Air Service Development Program for the first year of operation. 4. Scenic Airlines operates a pressurized 19- passenger Beechcraft 1900 aircraft with service from Visalia to the North Las Vegas Airport providing ten ( 10) flights per week. Upon arrival in Las Vegas, free shuttle transportation is provided to either Las Vegas Hotels or Mc Carran Airport, the major airport in Las Vegas, for transfer to other flights. 5. For the period September- November 2005, 2,136 passengers enplaned on 249 flights for an average of 8.58 passengers per flight, compared to the prior operator United Express/ Sky West for the same period in which only 402 passengers flew on 308 flights. 6. United Express/ Sky West was operating with subsidy- free service. 7. Air service from Visalia to North Las Vegas Airport is currently $ 99.00. Fares quoted from Fresno to Las Vegas Mc Carran airport are available at a cost of $ 49.00 per person. 8. No information is currently available on the number of passengers flying on Scenic Airlines who are using the Scenic Airline flight as a transfer to another destination. 9. On February 21, 2006, a recommendation was made to the Visalia City Council to authorize the expenditure of $ 5,000 for the City of Visalia to participate with the grant application for the California Regional Air Service Plan being developed by the California Airports Coalition. The intention of this program is to identify and provide subsidies for air carriers willing to provide intrastate air service in California. CONCLUSION 1. The City of Visalia in its contract with Scenic Airlines is not meeting the needs of the community to provide Essential Air Service to either Los Angeles, San Jose or San Francisco. By the City of Visalia’s decision to initiate service to an outlying airport in Las Vegas, it has created a gambling junket instead of commuter air service. 2. The City of Visalia by becoming part of the California Regional Air Service is recognizing that the needs of the intrastate air traveler are not being met by the current contract with Scenic Airlines. 18 • Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 AUDIT AND SPECIAL DISTRICTS St. John’s River at Demaree May 2006 COMMUNITY SERVICE DISTRICTS IN TULARE COUNTY INTRODUCTION Community Service Districts ( CSD) are a form of Special Districts in California, which are generally unconnected to local governments, and deliver public services in specific areas. 1 They enjoy many of the same powers of cities and counties with the exception of emergency services. They can enter into contracts, sue and be sued, employ workers, acquire real property through purchase or eminent domain. They can issue debt, impose taxes, levy assessments and charge fees for their services. They can also authorize a district seal and alter it at will. In 1887 farmers in the San Joaquin Valley became so aggravated by the inconsistencies of water supplies and the varying prices, they were motivated to organize an Irrigation District under the Wright Act of 1887. The Wright Act permitted the residents in a given area to form a public body for the purpose of water delivery and to finance the operations through bond sales. This Irrigation District was the Turlock Irrigation District and made it possible for the farmers of the San Joaquin Valley to intensify and diversify their agricultural activities. Soon the development of water districts shifted away from rural to urban areas, and in the early 1900’ s special districts increased dramatically in both number and scope. The Municipal Utility District Act of 1921 allowed special districts to diversify and address multiple needs ranging from water, power, transportation and telephone service, as well as “ all things necessary and convenient”. After World War II special districts took on a whole new meaning. They became involved with hospitals, fire protection, and many other demanded public services. Unlike multi-faceted civic bureaucracies, special districts were flexible and provided the desired services quickly and with efficiency. CSDs are allowed by California State Law to provide up to 16 different functions. 2 Districts are either single- function entities, in which they provide only one service to the public or multi- functional where they provide two or more services. They are also enterprise or non-enterprise entities. Enterprise districts charge customer fees for services such as water or sewage. Non- enterprise districts provide services that do not lend themselves to fees, such as fire protection, or streetlights, and they benefit the community as a whole and not as an individual. CSDs can be independent or dependent. Independent districts have their own boards of directors elected by the districts’ voters and can include appointed board members, who serve for fixed terms. In the case of dependent districts, other existing legislative bodies such as a county board of supervisors govern them. Funding for CSDs comes from many different sources; a few examples are: fees, property taxes, grants and loans, general obligation bonds, and revenue bonds. 3 CSDs are primarily accountable to the voters who elected the Board of Directors and the customers who use their services. Even though these are not functions of the state, the state provides oversight Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 • 21 to CSDs operations, and the districts must submit annual financial reports to the State Controller. Each district must follow the California Government Codes in all of their activities including the Brown Act 4 ( open meeting requirements for Public Boards), bonded debt, record keeping, and elections. Ethics training 5 is a new law on the books that requires all CSD personnel ( elected, appointed, or hired) to attend ethics training. Proposition 13 ( passed in 1978) states that any changes in taxes/ fees must be passed by 2/ 3 of those that live and vote within a particular area/ town/ city/ district. In 1996 Proposition 218 was passed to adjust the amount and way fees can be charged for water and other services. This was done to adjust for some of the loopholes in Proposition 13. Hiring a District Manager is another relatively new law for Special Districts and CSDs. 6 The Local Agency Formation Commission ( LAFCO) is “ responsible for coordinating logical and timely changes in local governmental boundaries, conducting special studies that review ways to reorganize, simplify and streamline governmental structure and preparing a Sphere Of Influence for each city and special district within each county.” 7 LAFCO’s “ efforts are directed to seeing that services are provided efficiently and economically while agricultural and open- space land are protected.” 8 Cities, Counties, and Special Districts, including CSDs, each pay one- third of LAFCO’s costs. The special districts’ one- third share of the cost is divided among all the special districts in the county and is proportionate to each district’s revenue. There are 15 CSDs in Tulare County that provide an assorted type of public services to each of their communities. In alphabetical order these districts are: Allensworth Alpine Village/ Sequoia Crest Ducor East Orosi Goshen London Patterson Tract Ponderosa Poplar Richgrove Sultana Teviston Three Rivers Tipton Tract 92 REASON FOR INVESTIGATION The 2005- 2006 Tulare County Grand Jury received some citizen complaints, which led to discussion regarding CSDs in Tulare County. Realizing that this Jury would not be able to investigate all 15 CSDs, it chose to review the following districts: Allensworth, London, Poplar, Richgrove, Teviston, and Tipton. PROCEDURES FOLLOWED The Grand Jury: 1. Interviewed relevant witnesses. 2. Examined relevant documents. 22 • Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 3. Attended board meetings of all CSDs addressed in this report. 1 Government Code § 16271 2 Government Code § 61100 - 61107 3 California Special Districts Association ( CSDA) “ What’s so special about Special Districts?” 4 Government Code § 54950 5 AB1234, article 2.4 6 Government Code § 61053 7 CSDA – Frequently Asked Questions, www. csda. net/ faqs. htm 8 Ibid. Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 • 23 ALLENSWORTH COMMUNITY SERVICE DISTRICT BACKGROUND Allensworth is a small, unincorporated community in the southwest portion of Tulare County. The Allensworth Community Service District ( ACSD) provides water for the residents of the district. The 2004- 2005 Tulare County Grand Jury investigated the ACSD based on citizens’ complaints. It found that, contrary to complaints, rates charged were reasonable in such a small district. However, that Grand Jury found that the ACSD board members needed to appoint members to vacancies in a timely manner, and that they needed to accept the help offered them from various outside agencies. FINDINGS 1. In November 2005, an election was held, and the ACSD had its requisite five members for the first time in at least four years. 2. At the organizational meeting in December 2005, new leadership for the board was elected. 3. The 2005- 2006 Tulare County Grand Jury attended the February 2006 meeting of the ACSD board. Public attendance has quintupled since last year. The agenda was clear. The meeting was well run. 4. The ACSD has appointed a two- man oversight committee, which does much of the legwork for the board. The committee is following through with seeking help for the district, reviewing warrants with the president, and reviewing bids on new projects. The oversight committee brought a representative from Southern California Edison to the February 2006 meeting to explain how an electrical problem, existing since installation of the new well, was to be fixed in March or April 2006. 5. The ACSD has also followed through on the other Grand Jury recommendation and appointed a new member to replace one who did not attend a meeting for six months. They also appointed a new Office Manager/ District Secretary. 6. The ACSD and community volunteers will build enclosures to protect its two wells and lock boxes for the controls and valves. Vandals had tampered with them and caused $ 5,000 worth of damage. 24 • Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 7. The new board reported that it had missed the deadline for applying for a new grant. A representative from Assemblywoman Nicole Parra’s office was present and offered to help with applications, especially with seeking money from the State of California. 8. The ACSD reversed a 2002 self- imposed moratorium on construction and new water connections. 9. Annexation of adjacent land is being sought for development of new housing. 10. The ACSD also oversees the streetlights and plans to install more. 11. The ACSD will revisit the possibility of adding sewer service to Allensworth. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The Allensworth Community Service District should work with its legislative representatives for assistance in applying for grant monies offered by local, State and Federal agencies. 2. The Allensworth Community Service District should investigate the possibility of banding with other districts in hiring a part- time grant writer for help in preparing grant documents. 3. The Allensworth Community Service District should contact the Tulare County Resource Management Agency about posting the times and locations of its meetings and activities on the Tulare County Resource Management website. RESPONSES Allensworth Community Service District Tulare County Resource Management Agency Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 • 25 LONDON COMMUNITY SERVICE DISTRICT BACKGROUND The London Community Service District ( LCSD) was formed in March 1952 to provide water, sewer and public recreation for the residents of London. It services an area that is about one square mile in size with an estimated population of 2,100 residents. FINDINGS 1. Water and sewer services are provided for a flat rate ( no meters) of $ 18 and $ 21 per month respectively. Since many of the residents are farm labor workers who move with the seasons, LCSD requires no deposits and has a policy of holding the property owners responsible for delinquent charges. 2. Invoices and vouchers are posted monthly and then checked for accuracy by a board member and reported at the next board meeting. 3. The LCSD may provide recreational services to the community if suitable land can be found. They are looking at 2.19 acres that might be available through the use of eminent domain. A local group of residents called Citizens for Better London is assisting in this effort. 4. LCSD currently has approximately 440 hook- ups, which includes a mobile home park with 46 spaces, three churches, two grocery stores and one school. 5. Water to the LCSD is supplied by two wells ( three in the summer). The district reports an ample supply of clean and safe drinking water meeting all federal and state requirements. No chlorination or other treatment is required. 6. The LCSD is currently exploring ways to obtain grants to assist in the upgrading of water lines, some of which are almost 50 years old. This is of concern to the board, since a rate increase to approximately $ 28 per month will almost certainly be necessary. An increase of this size will virtually be impossible to implement. 7. The LCSD has proposed the new position of District Manager be combined with that of District Secretary. They are also preparing to take the ethics and sensitivity training required of all board members as of January 1, 2006. In addition, any new board members will be given the proper Brown Act training. 8. LCSD currently has two vacancies on their board. They are actively seeking applications for these positions. If they are unable to fill them, the board will declare them vacant and have the positions placed on the November 2006 election ballot. 26 • Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 RECOMMENDATIONS 1. London Community Service District confer with its State legislative representative for assistance with applying for any grant monies that might be available. 2. London Community Service District consider hiring a grant writer in conjunction with one or more Community Service Districts. 3. Compare user and connection fees with other service providers in Tulare County and consider possible adjustments. 4. Work with the Tulare County Resource Management Agency to have London Community Service District information posted on its website, such as agenda, time, location and any other items deemed necessary. RESPONSES London Community Service District Tulare County Resource Management Agency Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 • 27 POPLAR COMMUNITY SERVICE DISTRICT BACKGROUND The Poplar Community Service District ( PCSD) was formed in December 1959. Poplar is a small unincorporated agricultural community located in the southern part of Tulare County between Tipton and Porterville at Highway 190 ( Avenue 144) and Road 192. After review of mandatory audit reports the 2005- 2006 Tulare County Grand Jury chose Poplar to be one of the Community Service Districts to be reviewed. FINDINGS 1. The functions of the PCSD are to provide for the pumping and piping of domestic water for residential use and to the community park. There are approximately 519 residences being served. The PCSD also operates a wastewater treatment system. Adjacent to the PCSD office is a small park that is used by the community and maintained by the district. 2. The PCSD Board has a full compliment of five members. The immediate concerns being addressed by the Board are: a. a ground water monitoring system b. pond pH reduction in the effluent c. reclamation land development d. removal and transportation of sludge from sewage evaporation ponds. 3. Water meters have been installed at each of the residential parcels, but are not yet in service. In some instances, more than one structure is located on a parcel with hook-ups to the one meter. A residential flat rate of $ 25 per month is charged for water service to each of the parcels. A monthly fee of $ 25 per parcel is charged for sewer service. Commercial buildings pay $ 35 per month for water and $ 33 for sewer service. 4. By the year 2007, all residential structures will be required to have water meters installed. 5. The district currently has the capacity to service approximately 1,000 residences with its existing sewer system. The Board is planning for the anticipated growth and has developed a long- range plan for this increase in residences. To finance the costs for future growth, the PCSD has applied for grant monies from State and Federal sources. Re- zoning of agricultural land will be needed to accommodate the growth. At present, a building moratorium is in force. 6. The PCSD Board posts Public Notice for meetings and public meeting procedures as required by the Brown Act for public entities. 28 • Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 CONCLUSION The PCSD Board is business- like in its management of the community’s water and sewer treatment needs. The Board is anticipating future growth and is taking the necessary steps to accommodate the community expansion. Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 • 29 RICHGROVE COMMUNITY SERVICE DISTRICT BACKGROUND Richgrove is located in the southeast area of Tulare County on the Porterville- Famoso Highway near the Kern County line. The population of this modest sized unincorporated community is normally 2,990; however, during the months of June through August the population increases close to 3,200. The Richgrove Community Service District ( RCSD) was formed March 1977 and has a five member Board of Directors ( Board). In response to citizen complaint letters and an review of mandatory audit reports, the 2005- 2006 Tulare County Grand Jury chose Richgrove as one of the Community Service Districts ( CSD) to be reviewed. FINDINGS 1. The RCSD provides water and sewage to the residents of Richgrove within the districts boundaries. There are 520 authorized hook- ups of which 19 are commercial. There are also some unauthorized hook- ups. The user fees are $ 25 per month for water and $ 18 per month for sewer. The connection/ hook- up costs are $ 600 for water and $ 1,350 for sewage. 2. There are three wells in the RCSD. Two are working without any additional required water treatment, and the third has been shut down due to sulfur problems. 3. In 2005 the RCSD received approximately a $ 120,000 grant from the State Department of Water Resources’ Office of Water Use Efficiency to install water meters at all residential structures. They have completed roughly 21% of the required number of meters needed plus any work that was necessary to connect to the residences. The RCSD is unable to complete the project because it did not request the necessary amount of grant money. At this time the district is working with the State Department of Water Resources to resolve the situation. 4. The RCSD accepted an offer in March 2006 from OCAYS ( OCS) Technology, a wireless broadband service located in Porterville. OCS will build a new community center in Richgrove. It will also provide 28 new computers and free Internet service to the RCSD, the school and the fire department for two years. Other members of the community will be able to purchase the broadband service for a fee. The District’s obligation is to provide the land for the building with available utility hookups and a place for the OCS tower. This agreement also requires that the Community Center be open to the public before, during, and after normal weekday work hours and at least one whole day on weekends. The facility will need onsite supervision for the required 60 to 70 hours per week, which will be provided by the RCSD. OCS’s tower will be placed atop the community water tower. When the project is completed, if there are enough 30 • Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 subscribers, there will be broadband services available in Richgrove. If not, the new community center will still be there along with the 28 computers. 5. In March 2006 the Tulare County Board of Supervisors approved a General Plan Amendment to amend the Richgrove Community Plan and expand the Urban Development Boundary ( UDB). It will include a parcel of land located east of Road 210 and south of Avenue 8. This is outside and adjacent to the Richgrove UDB and adjacent to the existing residential units on Road 210. This parcel is to be saved for single and/ or multi family residential homes. The RCSD is at capacity for water and sewage at this time, so the developer will have to pay for the expansion of services. 6. The RCSD is a partner in a joint powers agreement with the Tulare County Redevelopment Agency and the Richgrove School District to complete a storm drainage project that includes curbs, gutters and sidewalks. A grant from the United States Department of Agriculture made this possible. 7. The District employs one full- time person, a District Secretary, and one part- time maintenance person. The Board contracts with an individual who has a class III waste water license to operate the sewage treatment facility. 8. The RCSD provides health insurance to all Board members and the District Secretary. 9. The five- member Board of Directors appear to be focused on the betterment of the community. 10. All agendas are posted at the District office, the post office and the two grocery stores in town. They are clear and precise. 11. The RCSD meets once a month regularly, and their attorney is in attendance at some of the meetings. All bills, notices and announcements are presented by the district secretary for review and approval. 12. The district secretary has attended training for the Brown Act and is scheduling training for the new board members. 13. The Board members are aware of the new laws regarding ethics training and the hiring of a District Manager and are making plans for both. 14. The RCSD is aware of their need for help and have made a connection with a staff person at the Self Help organization who has attended some of their meetings. The District is also looking to the Special District Institute ( SDI) for help. SDI is located in the State of Washington and provides technical assistance, resources, training, and an information clearinghouse for local governments and special districts. Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 • 31 RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Research agencies where the Richgrove Community Service District may acquire a grant/ loan to repair and treat the third well. 2. Investigate local agencies, such as Self Help, Tulare County Resource Management Agency and California Rural Water Service, etc. for necessary training. 3. Compare user fees and connection costs with other Tulare County Districts and adjust accordingly. 4. Discuss with the Tulare County Resource Management Agency regarding information concerning the Richgrove Community Service District’s affairs, such as agendas, meeting dates and times, budgets, rates, ordinance, project status, etc. posted on its web site. RESPONSE Richgrove Community Service District Tulare County Resource Management Agency 32 • Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 TEVISTON COMMUNITY SERVICE DISTRICT BACKGROUND The Teviston Community Service District ( TCSD) is located in the southwest part of Tulare County along State Route 99 between Earlimart and Pixley. It was established in November 1956. Teviston is a small unincorporated community currently consisting of approximately 365 residents. The projected growth by year 2025 will be between 450 to 550 total residents. It is principally surrounded by agricultural production on the north, west and south sides. The east side of Teviston consists of scattered rural residential areas, along with some agricultural areas, and vacant land. The TCSD is responsible for providing domestic water service to the residents within the Districts Boundaries. Presently there are 105 total connections consisting of 99 residential, four churches, one school, and one connection to the community center. In response to citizen complaint letters and a review of the mandatory audit report, the 2005- 2006 Tulare County Grand Jury chose Teviston to be one of the Community Service Districts ( CSD) to be reviewed. FINDINGS 1. There are two existing deep wells that provide enough potable water, without any additional treatment to the current connections. The wells will adequately supply water for a population of an estimated 460 residents. 2. In 1998 the TCSD completed the following improvements to the water system: a. Constructed new water lines. b. Replaced deteriorated water lines. c. Installed meters for all existing connections. d. Installed fire hydrants throughout the system. e. Improved the north well site. 3. Currently the CSD is reviewing the construction of a 14- unit subdivision. 4. In order to stop hydrant water use by construction and others without compensation the TCSD purchased a hydrant meter that will generate revenue. 5. The TCSD has very limited funds. Their chief sources of income for emergencies, repairs, and improvements, come primarily through connection and user fees. This is not sufficient to cover any major repair or improvement. 6. At the January 2006 meeting, a new Chairman, Vice Chairman and Secretary were elected. 7. Currently there are four Board members serving on this five- member board. These four members have published, posted and sent notices of the one vacancy, requesting residents of the TCSD to apply for the vacant position. Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 • 33 8. The District has two paid part- time employees, a District Secretary and a maintenance person. 9. The new Board members appear to be focused on the improvement of the community. 10. All agendas are posted for meetings and are clear and concise. Meetings are held monthly and are well run. 11. Bills, notices and announcements are presented to the entire Board at the monthly meetings, for review and approval. Bills are paid on time. 12. The new Board members are attending training workshops and seminars put on by various sponsors so they can learn how to conduct a meeting, how to run a CSD effectively and how to find help with finances. 13. The maintenance person has attended some classes and is planning to attend additional classes to upgrade his level of knowledge and become a licensed certified Technician I and II. This will decrease the cost of repairs to the TCSD since the District will not have to contract with outside venders to do the repairs. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Continue with educational and training programs for Board members and staff. 2. Investigate opportunities for outside funds such as grants, loans and partial grant/ loan programs for emergencies, improvements and potential growth. 3. Compare monthly user fees and new connection fees to other service providers throughout Tulare County and adjust accordingly. 4. Work on completing a water master plan that will address the future growth needs of the Teviston Community Service District. In the development of the master plan, make certain that infrastructure is available where development is most likely to occur. This will help in avoiding unnecessary costs associated with the construction of emergency system improvements. 5. Check with the Tulare County Resource Management Agency to have information concerning the Teviston Community Service District affairs such as agendas, meeting dates and times, budgets, rates, ordinances, project status, etc. posted on its website. RESPONSES Teviston Community Service District Tulare County Resource Management Agency 34 • Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 TIPTON COMMUNITY SERVICE DISTRICT BACKGROUND Tipton is a small town on State Route 99 between Tulare and Pixley. It is an unincorporated town with a population of nearly 2,000 people. It is surrounded on all sides by agriculture, dairies, a cheese plant and a citrus packing plant. The Tipton Community Service District’s ( Tipton CSD’s) Sphere of Influence ( SOI) includes approximately 400 to 500 acres of farmland. The cheese factory is within the SOI. During the last two years there have been 75 to 125 new homes built. By the year 2025 the population of Tipton is expected to more than double. The current water supply and sewage plant are capable of handling the projected growth. Tipton has been in existence since before the turn of the 20th- century, even before the city of Tulare was established. Before the mid 1960’ s Tipton had a water department and a sewage department. These departments ran into some financial difficulty, and the two combined into one to resolve the problem, resulting in the establishment of the Tipton CSD. Currently the District provides water and sewage to the residents within its boundaries. There are 565 hook- ups, 30 of which are commercial. The Tipton CSD has three active wells, two of which service the residential and commercial area while the third services the wastewater treatment plant. All three wells supply potable water without additional treatment. The annual mandatory audit report prompted the 2005- 2006 Tulare County Grand Jury to choose Tipton as one of the CSDs to be reviewed. FINDINGS 1. Besides the three working wells, there is one well that has been abandoned, and the Tipton CSD has put out a $ 300,000 bid to drill a new one. The District plans on completion by the end of 2006. 2. In 1990 the Tipton CSD began a project to replace all of the main water lines. These lines were moved from the alleys to the center of the streets. There are currently only sewage lines in the alleys. All of the main water lines are now eight- inches in diameter. The District has completed its first phase of this project and has begun the second and final stage. The Tipton CSD is presently getting ready to connect all homes to these new water lines. Funding for this project was obtained through a United States Department of Agriculture Grant/ Loan arrangement. The District received an $ 800,000 grant along with a $ 1,000,000 loan at a 1.9% interest rate. The pay back for this loan is over 50 years. In the past the Tipton CSD saved a certain amount of money each month for this kind of arrangement. The monthly amount formerly placed into savings is now used for debt service. Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 • 35 3. The Tipton CSD’s sources of income are from user fees, hook- up connections, and rental fees from three companies that lease space for their wireless equipment atop the community water tower. 4. The Tipton CSD has two full- time employees, a District Secretary and a Maintenance person. The Maintenance person has a technician I and II certification, a class II water distribution license and a wastewater class IV license. He operates the wastewater treatment plant, tests the water supply and does repairs to the system as needed. If a pump fails, the District contracts with a pump company for repairs. If the electrical parts of equipment need repair, an electrical company is contracted to do the work. 5. The District provides employee health insurance for the two employees, as well as a pension plan. 6. There are five active Board members with very diversified backgrounds. At least two of them are accountants. At every meeting they are joined by the district secretary, the maintenance person and a lawyer. When necessary an engineer, and a grant writer attend. 7. The meetings are held in a timely and orderly fashion. The agendas are clear and to the point. Meetings are conducted in a very business like manner. The Board follows the Brown Act about which they are well versed. Each Board member will be attending the state required ethics training. 8. The Board is keeping close track of all expenses. They also are paying close attention to the daily operations of the wells, the treatment plant, the employees, and the costs incurred. 9. There had not been a rate increase since 1980, but expenses forced an increase that appeared in March 2006 billing. The rates were raised $ 1 for water and $ 4 for sewage. Over the next six years the rates can be raised by $ 11 for water and $ 11 for sewage if deemed necessary. CONCLUSION Tipton is an example of a well- run progressive thinking Community Service District. 36 • Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 CONCLUSIONS TO THE COMMUNITY SERVICE DISTRICTS REPORT 1. Recent California laws, as referenced in the endnotes to the introduction, have resulted in better governance of Community Service Districts. 2. Responsible citizens in several Community Service Districts came forward and ran for office in the November 2005 elections. New leaders were elected and have accepted the responsibility of leadership in districts where it had been lacking. 3. Several districts have shown ingenuity in various areas such as: a. obtaining additional revenue for the district b. providing incentives to keep valuable employees c. attracting and keeping board members. Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 • 37 FLOOD POTENTIAL ON THE ST. JOHNS RIVER LEVEE DISTRICTS I AND II INTRODUCTION The watercourses traversing Tulare County originate in the Sierra Nevada Mountains and flow west and southwest. The two primary rivers are the Kaweah and Tule. The three forks of the Kaweah River along with other tributaries flow into Lake Kaweah. Water released from Lake Kaweah continues as the Kaweah River. It is joined by Dry Creek about one mile below Terminus Dam then almost two miles beyond that, near McKay’s point, there is a control structure that diverts the water into either the Lower Kaweah or the St. Johns River. The Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District ( KDWCD) operates this control structure. When ranchers and other owners of water rights need water, or when the Army Corps of Engineers ( COE) orders a flood release the control structure is adjusted to direct the water into the appropriate river or rivers. Terminus Dam was originally completed in 1962. During 2003 and 2004 the spillway was raised 21 feet, by the installation of fusegates. en In July 2004 there was a ceremony at the Dam to celebrate completion of this project Water was stored behind the fusegates for the first time in 2005. The capacity of Lake Kaweah was increased and the possibility of floods below the dam was reduced, but not eliminated. The Federal Government, the State of California, the Tulare County Flood Control District ( TCFCD) along with the City of Visalia, KDWCD, Kings County, and the Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District sponsored the lake enlargement project through various agreements. Success Dam, completed at approximately the same time as Terminus Dam, provides some control of the Tule River. Success Dam will be undergoing retrofit and increased spillway height within the next few years. The Federal Government, The State of California, the TCFCD, the Lower Tule River Irrigation District, and the City of Porterville sponsor this project through various agreements. This project is being done to meet the State of California’s earthquake standards. The Tulare County Board of Supervisors ( BOS) sits as the TCFCD Board of Directors. In the late 1800s primitive levees were built along the St. Johns River using earth, rock and sand. These levees were embankments that ran alongside the river to prevent high water from flooding the bordering land. Levee District I was formed on July 22, 1890 to maintain the south bank of the St. Johns River between Road 172 and Shirk Road/ Road 92. The levees were rebuilt with the same kind of materials in the 1930s. In 1945 Levee District II was formed to maintain the north bank of the St. Johns River between Road 172 and Demaree/ Road 108. The districts run through the northern part of Visalia. Channels are different from levees in that they are the deepest part of water- ways. The KDWCD has historically maintained the natural channels under its jurisdiction from west of 38 • Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 McKay's Point to north of Corcoran and east of Hanford. Since private property lines run across the levees and down through the middle of the channel, this maintenance does not take place in all areas of the channel. Traditionally rain floods occur between November and June, and snow- melt floods between April and June. Within the last ten years severe floods have occurred in Tulare County. The last major levee failure was in the winter of 1998- 1999, when Highway 99 was shut down at Earlimart due to the levee failure on the White River. Deer Creek and Sand Creek also have levees. REASON FOR INVESTIGATION Shortly prior to Hurricane Katrina and the flooding disaster in New Orleans, the 2005- 2006 Tulare County Grand Jury decided to investigate Tulare County’s two levee districts. The condition and maintenance of the levees had not been reviewed in the last ten years. PROCEDURES FOLLOWED The Grand Jury: 1. Interviewed relevant witnesses. 2. Examined relevant maps and documents. 3. Toured Terminus Dam. 4. Visited several sites on the St. Johns levees. FINDINGS 1. Levee District I, on the south side of the St. Johns River, has been officially inactive since March 2005 [ See map] when the last remaining Levee District Board Member sent in his letter of resignation. On November 21, 2005, the BOS notified the Auditors office to stop the mailings for audit reports. 2. Levee District II, on the north side of the St. Johns River, has been inactive for over 18 years. [ See map] 3. Some county officials were unaware that the Levee Districts were inactive until the Grand Jury began this investigation. 4. Levee Districts I and II are taxing agencies. After passage of Proposition 13 the incoming taxes were significantly reduced. At that time, Levee District I sold some land and used the interest from that sale to finance the District’s operation and maintenance. 5. In 2002, the Resource Management Agency ( RMA) asked the over 1000 property owners in District II for input regarding levee inspection, maintenance and repairs. The owners were uninterested and/ or assumed that KDWCD or RMA did the work. The owners did not want a new tax for this purpose. Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 • 39 6. Property owners were given the opportunity to serve as a director on the three- member Levee District II Board of Directors, but expressed a negligible amount of interest. 7. The State of California Legislature formed the Tulare County Flood Control District ( TCFCD) in 1972. On June 13, 1972, the BOS, acting as TCFCD, appointed a seven member commission to advise the TCFCD. 8. TCFCD officially has no employees and is overseen part time by the Transportation Division of the RMA. 9. TCFCD is funded by Tulare County property taxes. It receives approximately $ 350,000 per year. This amount fluctuates with the revenue stream of Tulare County’s property tax base and interest earnings. 10. The last time the BOS transferred general fund monies over to TCFCD for channel clearing was the winter of 1997- 1998 in the amount of $ 350,000. 11. The main focus of TCFCD is a channel maintenance spraying program. TCFCD pays for the chemicals and labor, and the Tulare County Agriculture Commission implements the program. This is for channel maintenance only and has no impact on the levees. 12. Tulare County has no property rights to any levees except Sand Creek, which flows through some county land. 13. In March 2005, renewal of the liability insurance policy held by District I was denied due to the age and condition of the levee. 14. There are no active programs for levee maintenance or channel inspections within Tulare County. Most citizen complaints to RMA are for construction encroachment on the levees and fallen trees in the channel. 15. The Tulare Irrigation District comprises approximately 20% of the KDWCD area and maintains its channels, but no levees. Many irrigation districts do not maintain their channels. 16. Vegetation and trash clog many of the county’s tributaries. 17. The California Department of Fish and Game requires a 1602 Stream Bed Alteration Agreement Permit for spraying vegetation inside the natural channels. No large clearing equipment is allowed in the channel. Workers can use only hand tools and then clear no more than half way up the bank of the water- way. 18. The Federal Emergency Management Agency ( FEMA) has stated that the land west and south of Terminus Dam is still within a flood plain, even with the increase in height of the dam spillway. 19. The Army Corps of Engineers ( COE) claims jurisdiction, through the Federal Clean Water Act, over all county lakes and water- ways. 40 • Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 20. The COE will not certify the levees within the two levee districts because they do not meet the COE certification standards. Some of the standards are: a. Type of materials used in construction. b. Compaction. c. Height of levee. d. Continuous formation of levees. e. Non- rolling banks on the channel side of water- ways. f. An active maintenance program in place. 21. FEMA also recognizes that the levees are not up to standards. 22. The Santa Fe Railroad abandoned its right of way and filled up the trestle on the south side of the St. Johns River. In a high- water situation this could push water toward Visalia. 23. RMA estimated that the cost to reconstruct the levees on the St Johns River, within the Certification Standards of the COE, would be close to $ 17,000,000. 24. The City of Visalia planted over 100 oak trees within the St. Johns channel. These trees have since been removed. 25. In 2004, the City of Visalia entered into a co- operative technical partners agreement with FEMA to have the flood plain from Kaweah Lake west to Highway 99 re- mapped. This includes LiDAR ( Light, Detection And Ranging) topographical and aerial mapping. The proposed completion of this project is summer 2006. 26. RMA indicated that Ventura County is a good example of a well- managed flood control model. It consists of both flood control and watershed protection elements including ground water recharge. The county is split into numerous “ benefit assessment districts” which help fund the planning, construction and maintenance of projects. 27. The Federal Government and the State of California may provide funding for joint use projects in flood control. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The Board of Supervisors acting as the Tulare County Flood Control District should thoroughly examine the flood potential for the entire county. 2. The Board of Supervisors should adequately fund the Tulare County Flood Control District for regular inspection and maintenance for all tributaries and levees in Tulare County. 3. The Resource Management Agency should consider the possibility of obtaining State and Federal grants for matching fund proposals dealing with water issues. Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 • 41 4. Tulare County needs to take a more regional approach and enter into partnerships/ JPAs with the irrigation districts, the Army Corps of Engineers, the City of Visalia and the Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District, in joint- use projects incorporating both flood control and groundwater recharge. 5. The Board of Supervisors should look into the possibility of a new flood plan along the lines of the Ventura County plan. 6. The Resource Management Agency’s Code Enforcement Department needs to enforce county ordinances regarding weed abatement along the levees. This should be done through fire abatement regulations, which allows clearing on private property. 7. The owners of the properties along the levees should be held responsible for clearing their portions of the levee or be cited for non- compliance. 8. Intra- agency communication needs to be improved so that all agencies involved in any one situation will be informed and able to take action thereon in a timelier manner. RESPONSES REQUIRED 1. Tulare County Board of Supervisors, acting as the Tulare County Flood Control District Board 2. Resource Management Agency 3. City of Visalia 4. Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District en There are six fusegates on Terminus Dam spillway. They were placed there to raise the spillway and, most importantly, to protect the dam by tipping when necessary. Each fusegate weighs approximately 450 tons. Each is designed to tip at a designated lake level. When the lake fills to a certain point water wells connected to the six fusegates will start to fill. When the fusegate wells get to a predetermined level they will sequentially tip, letting more water through the spillway. This will continue until the lake level stops increasing or all the fusegates have tipped. 42 • Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 PUBLIC BOARD MEETINGS POLICY AND PROCEDURES BACKGROUND If a private citizen were interested in learning all the facets of government in Tulare County, he or she could attend over two hundred public meetings each month. There are over 150 Boards of Directors/ Trustees/ Councilmen/ Supervisors ( Boards) of various districts and entities in Tulare County. These meetings are governed by the Ralph M. Brown Act on Public Meetings and must adhere to strict rules, including rules on public comment. But, just as the boards must adhere to the law, so do the citizens who attend them. The legal obligations of boards are: 1. Every agenda for a regular meeting must provide a specified time for public comment. The Board may limit the time for public comments and may also limit the time allotted to each speaker. 2. The public may speak to any item on the agenda during discussion of that item. 3. The Board must allow criticism of its members or employees only if comments pertain to that person’s job. 4. The Board may request that the public use its formal complaint process. If comment is lengthy, the Board may put the item on a future agenda, but is not obligated to do so. The legal obligations of the public are: 1. Respect the time limit placed on an individual’s comments. Do not exceed the limit. 2. Speakers cannot speak on items that are not within the Board’s jurisdiction. E. g., speakers may not bring up utility bills at a School Board meeting. 3. Speakers who are not citizens of the district may make comments. 4. Speakers must have comments that are relevant to the business and jurisdiction of the entity. 5. Speakers should not be repetitive in their comments and ideas or of those of prior speakers. 6. Speakers may not make scurrilous or derogatory comments about any director’s or employee’s personal life. Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 • 43 7. No speaker can disrupt a meeting so that it cannot conduct business. Such a person may be removed from the meeting. If there is more than one disruptor, the meeting area may be cleared. REASONS FOR INVESTIGATION The 2005- 2006 Tulare County Grand Jury received citizen complaints regarding Board meetings where disruptive behavior was taking place. Jury members attended some of these meetings and observed conduct that was not appropriate. The Jury came to the conclusion that Board members and citizens alike would appreciate information regarding the rules and regulations that a Board must follow. PROCEDURES FOLLOWED The 2005- 2006 Tulare County Grand Jury: 1. Attended over 90 public meetings throughout Tulare County. 2. Interviewed relevant witnesses. 3. Examined relevant documents, including rules of procedures, agendas and minutes of meetings. FINDINGS 1. A small number of Boards have difficulties handling their meetings such as: a. Control of public participation during the progress of their meetings. b. Limited knowledge of rules and procedures for conducting a meeting. c. Limited use of advisory persons available to them. d. Limited awareness of legal measures they can take to control any given situation. 2. Some Boards do not have rules of conduct/ procedures or By- Laws in place. 3. Some Boards do not follow the rules of conduct they have in place. 4. All Boards provided time for public comment. Most of them allowed 3 minutes per person and a total of 20 minutes. Some allowed longer times, and those Boards appeared to have less control. 5. All Boards appeared to be aware of the Ralph M. Brown Act and followed the provisions for meeting requirements, notices and agendas. 6. A majority of the meetings attended by Grand Jury members were conducted in a business- like manner. 7. Some Boards asked the public to go outdoors when they were in closed session. 44 • Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 RECOMMENDATIONS Board Members can and/ or should: 1. Take refresher courses in the Brown Act and have a copy close at hand. 2. If there are no Rules of Conduct/ Procedure or By- Laws, develop some or follow Roberts Rules of Order. If there are Rules in place, follow them. 3. If there are disruptions, note them in the meeting minutes. 4. Be respectful of all audience members. 5. Request each speaker to give his/ her name and address for the record before speaking. Then, if it is necessary, the rules of procedure can be sent to him/ her. 6. Document any disruptions and times that any Board member has addressed this issue ( either verbally or written) with any person who has been disruptive during a meeting. 7. Seek counsel from your lawyer. 8. If necessary call Law Enforcement. 9. Speak to the District Attorney regarding legal measures that may be taken. 10. When in closed session – withdraw to a separate room if possible. Citizens can and/ or should: 1. Behave in a business- like manner. 2. Be respectful of the Rules and other people. 3. Ask questions if you need information on any agenda topic. 4. Give name and address before speaking. 5. Stay on topic. 6. Do not be repetitive. 7. Remember which Board meeting you are attending and speak only to the jurisdiction of that Board. Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 • 45 46 • Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 EDUCATION Statue in front of the Department of Education Building BURTON SCHOOL DISTRICT BACKGROUND A summary of the Brown Act Requirements at a Glance ( revised 2004) by Gary S. de Malignon, Tulare County Chief Deputy County Counsel, follows: 1. Purpose - Government officials are representatives of the people in our democracy and operate on behalf of and in trust for the people. People have the right to be informed of and participate in government decisions. 2. Basic Rule - All meetings of government bodies must be open and public. Boards must deliberate and act on the public's business openly. Exceptions to this rule are few and narrowly construed. 3. Coverage - All governing bodies of local government agencies, such as school districts, are subject to the Brown Act. Also, advisory and decision- making bodies and committees of all types are subject to Brown Act requirements if created by a decision of the governing body. A committee composed solely of less than a quorum of members of the governing board is not subject to the Act, unless it is a standing committee. 4. What is a Meeting? - A meeting is when a majority of board members are present at the same time and place and " hear, discuss or deliberate" government business. A meeting may occur even if no action is taken. Such meetings have to occur openly at public meetings that meet the formal requirements of the Brown Act. 5. What is not a Meeting? - A majority of members may attend social or ceremonial occasions, conferences, and community forums, and meetings of other government bodies, as long as they do not discuss government business. 6. Illegal Meetings - A majority of members can not use a telephone, fax machine, e- mail, an intermediary or other means to develop an agreement regarding a decision. Serial meetings to develop a decision, each of which involves less than a majority of members but which overall involve contact with a majority of members, are strictly prohibited. 7. Meeting Requirements - Meetings must be noticed and accessible to the public. With limited exceptions, meetings must take place within the boundaries of the government agency. Except for certain emergencies, only business that is on the agenda may be transacted. 8. Notice - Agendas for regular meetings must be posted 72 hours before the meeting in an accessible location, and mailed to persons who request notice. Special meetings may be called by the board president or a majority of members by posting an agenda and delivering it to board members at least 24 hours before the meeting. 9. Agendas - Agendas must contain a brief description of every item to be discussed, including closed session items. The description must be clear enough to be understood by an uninformed member of the public. Agendas for regular meetings must include a time for public comment. 10. Public Comment - The public has the right to address the board on agenda items, either before or during the board's consideration of the item, and to comment on matters not on the agenda if within the board's jurisdiction. Board and staff members may make statements or respond to questions posed on non- agenda items, but must avoid board interaction or deliberation. The board may adopt reasonable regulations limiting the amount of time for comment on issues and for each speaker. Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 • 49 11. Rules of Order - The chair has the power to maintain order at meetings and to manage the board's business under established rules of procedure adopted by the board. Robert's Rules of Order may be used as guidance on parliamentary procedure. 12. Writings - Materials distributed to the board either before or during a meeting, except privileged items, are public records and must be made available to the public for inspection and copying without delay. 13. Closed Sessions - Closed sessions are narrowly authorized for personnel, student, collective bargaining, litigation, real estate bargaining, and a few other specific matters. However, special procedural requirements have to be met by the board before and after holding a closed session. Certain formal actions taken in closed session have to be reported out, and related documents must be disclosed upon request. Otherwise, all information discussed in closed session is confidential and may not be disclosed by an individual board or staff member. 14. Complaints or Charges - Prior to holding a closed session on a specific complaint or charge brought against an employee, the employee must be given written notice, delivered personally or by mail 24 hours in advance of the complaint being heard in open session. 15. Civil and Criminal Remedies – Violations of the Brown Act may be enjoined by civil action, and board actions that are not in compliance with the Act may be declared void, if not cured. A government agency may become liable for significant costs and attorneys fees in such an action. A violation of the Act may be a misdemeanor if a member attends a meeting with “ wrongful intent to deprive the public of information”. REASON FOR INVESTIGATION A citizen complaint was filed with the 2005- 2006 Tulare County Grand Jury. The complaint alleges a violation of the Brown Act by the Burton School District Board of Directors. PROCEDURES FOLLOWED The 2005- 2006 Tulare County Grand Jury: 1. Interviewed relevant witnesses from the Burton School District. 2. Examined relevant laws and documents. FINDINGS 1. The Burton School District is adjacent to the Porterville School District and consists of five elementary schools, including Summit Charter Academy ( SCA) which also has seventh and eighth grades. Beginning with the fall, 2006 semester, Summit Charter Academy will have a ninth grade. The next year there will be a ninth and tenth grade, and it will continue adding a class until it has all four years of high school. The first high school graduating class will be in June, 2010. 2. The original charter for SCA stipulated that the Director of that school need not be credentialed and could be called the Chief Administrative Officer. At some point, the Board decided to change this and require that the Director be credentialed. On all 50 • Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 agendas up to and including December 5, 2005, the Burton School District Board agendas ( either open or closed session) made no reference to the fact that a discussion of job qualifications for the Director were to be discussed. “ Reclassification of a job must be public” [ Open and Public III, California League of Cities, 2000, p. 15]. The Director was given no advance warning that his job was in jeopardy. 3. The Burton School Board agenda for the special meeting of December 12, 2005 is the first time the job description for the Director of SCA is mentioned. On the same agenda were the dismissal of the Director and a new replacement for that job. Although there was objection to these items during public comment by eight members of the public, each of these items was passed by the Board without any discussion. 4. Burton School District does not announce the results of actions taken in closed session when they return to open session. Government Code Section 54957.1 requires certain actions be publicly reported, including “ action taken to appoint, employ, dismiss, accept the resignation of, or otherwise affect the employment status of a public employee, identifying the title of the position.” 5. From the evidence of the agendas and minutes, it could reasonably appear to an observer of the proceedings or a member of the public that either the Burton School District does not deliberate any decision and rubber- stamps its Superintendent’s agenda listings, or these action items were discussed privately by individual members outside of board meetings. 6. Burton School District did not furnish materials on open session items when requested by several members of the public in violation of the Ralph M. Brown Act. RECOMMENDATION All Burton School District board members and the District Superintendent should have additional training on, and follow, the Ralph M. Brown Act. RESPONSES Tulare County Superintendent of Schools Burton School District Superintendent Burton School District board President Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 • 51 USE OF LOTTERY FUNDS IN TULARE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICTS WITH HIGH SCHOOLS INTRODUCTION In 1984 California voters passed Proposition 37, establishing a lottery throughout the state. The purpose of the lottery was to supplement revenue for all public schools, from Kindergarten through the University of California. Thirty- four percent of all money spent on the lottery is sent out quarterly to the schools with the proportion to each based on the Average Daily Attendance ( ADA) of each entity. One- half of the money must go to lottery winners, and no more than 16% may be used for lottery administration. The ADA used to calculate the amount allotted is based on the prior year's numbers. Excluded from the ADA are adult classes that are not state- mandated and summer school ADA. The ADA for the school districts studied here is as reported to us by the districts, but is not necessarily the ADA permitted for receipt of lottery money. Government Code Sections 8880- 8880.5 set out rules for the use of these funds. Specifically excluded were construction of facilities, land acquisition, laboratory research, and any other non- instructional purpose. Also specifically mentioned was that the California Legislature was prohibited from cutting into the existing schools budget. The lottery was to be supplementary, not an integral part of the schools budget. In 1985 the Legislature reduced the amount of general fund money allocated to the school system by 33%. On January 10, 1986, a letter was sent to all county and district superintendents clarifying the meaning of " instructional". The interpretation is left to local officials, but the word " educational" is included. The emphasis is on the students. In 1988 the California voters passed another Initiative, Proposition 98, which forced the legislature to guarantee a stable source of income to the schools. This situation led to many other agencies getting a reduced share of tax revenue. There are two types of lottery funds. Proposition 20 ( Prop 20), passed in 1999, is restricted and requires that these funds must be spent on books and materials. Some funds may be carried over to a subsequent year for major purchases. Each year the Local Educational Agencies ( LEAs) must report to the State Board of Education how lottery money has been spent. Since the amount of money produced by the lottery fluctuates with the amount of gambling activity, school districts were urged to use the funds on one- time purchases and not for continuing expenses. The third year of the lottery ( 1988- 1989) was the largest distribution of lottery funds in the entire history of the lottery - $ 180 per ADA. In the year 1991- 1992, only $ 78 per ADA was distributed. For the last fiscal year ( 2004- 2005) just less than $ 120 per ADA was distributed. 52 • Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 Because of this fluctuation, school districts were not forbidden to use the money for salaries, but were discouraged from doing so. Over half of the lottery money in the State of California is spent on salaries, often to supplement particular fields, such as music, counselors and other areas which have been reduced in the regular budget process. Tulare County has three different types of school districts. Seven districts are unified and have elementary, middle and high schools. Two are union high school districts and have one comprehensive high school plus a continuation high school. Tulare Joint Union High School District has two comprehensive high schools and several continuation high schools. REASON FOR INVESTIGATION The 2005- 2006 Tulare County Grand Jury became interested in the various ways the school districts with high schools in Tulare County utilize their lottery money. PROCEDURES FOLLOWED The 2005- 2006 Tulare County Grand Jury: 1. Interviewed relevant witnesses from the ten Tulare County school districts with a high school ( Alpaugh Unified, Cutler- Orosi Unified, Dinuba Unified, Exeter Union High School, Farmersville Unified, Lindsay Unified, Porterville Unified, Tulare Joint Union High School, Visalia Unified and Woodlake Union High School). 2. Examined relevant laws and documents. 3. Examined both random and targeted invoices, vouchers and authorizations for various payments from lottery funds for each school district. FINDINGS Lottery funds comprise only 1.2 to 1.7 per cent of a school district’s entire budget. The amount varies because some LEAs receive more Federal funds than others. Below is a table showing lottery funds received by Tulare County School districts and their expenditure on instructional materials and salaries during fiscal year 2004- 2005: School District ADA Unrestricted Prop 20 Restricted Instructional Materials % Salaries & Benefits Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 • 53 School District ADA Unrestricted Prop 20 Restricted Instructional Materials % Salaries & Benefits Alpaugh 293 $ 35,354.02 $ 6,747.86 $ 14,035.50 0% Cutler/ Orosi 3,784 $ 516,840.89 $ 98,877.89 $ 51,301.89 97% Dinuba 5,300 $ 751,273.82 $ 143,702.91 $ 203,049.35 2% Exeter 1,166 $ 147,814.80 $ 28,282.80 $ 13,593.23 44% Farmersville 2,310 $ 300,514.59 $ 57,631.40 $ 110,339.40 0.04% Lindsay 3,681 $ 473,880.73 $ 90,651.32 $ 83,606.50 0% Porterville 13,264 $ 1,785,575.85 341,901.36 $ 279,262.28 77% Tulare 4,200 $ 758,119.40 $ 144,692.26 $ 111,050.55 84% Visalia 25,223 $ 2,931,323.43 $ 682,531.62 $ 1,507,389.21 4% Woodlake 750 $ 104,088.25 $ 19,961.03 $ 15,220.80 72% 1. The Alpaugh Unified School District ( AUSD) is a small ( ADA 293, K- 12) school district in southwestern Tulare County. a. AUSD spent $ 14,035.50 for books and other instructional supplies. The rest of its expenditures were student oriented. b. No lottery funds were spent on salaries of any kind. c. There were often no authorization signatures on AUSD payment vouchers. 2. Cutler- Orosi Unified School District ( COUSD) is a medium- sized ( ADA 3,784) school district located in north- central Tulare County. a. The COUSD spent $ 51,301.89 for books and supplies. b. The COUSD negotiated away almost all of its lottery FUNDS ($ 503,451.89) to the teachers. 3. Dinuba Unified School District ( DUSD) is the northern most school distrtct in Tulare County. a. DUSD had 5,300 ADA and spent a total of $ 203,049.35 on books and other instructional supplies. b. DUSD spends only 2% of its lottery funds on salaries and benefits. c. DUSD has used lottery funds to expand and maintain its music program. 54 • Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 f. The district incurs many late fees and penalties from national retail chain purchases. g. Requisition slips often had no dates or sites. 4. The Exeter Union High School District ( Exeter) had an ADA of 1,166 and spent $ 13,593.23 on books and instructional supplies. a. Exeter spent 44% of its lottery funds on classified salaries and benefits. b. The two high schools, Exeter and Kaweah Continuation, spent $ 168 of lottery funds each month on “ sniffer” dogs to patrol the entire school area for drugs and suspected substances. These dogs have had several suspicious hits for illegal substances. c. Exeter does not use a requisition/ authorization system for its payables. 5. Farmersville Unified School District ( FUSD) ADA was 2,310. a. FUSD spent only .04% of lottery funds on one part- day salary and benefits. b. FUSD spent $ 110,339.40 on books and instructional supplies. c. FUSD used some lottery fund money for an emergency repair. 6. Lindsay Unified School District ( LUSD) ADA was 3,681. a. LUSD spent $ 83,606.59 in books and instructional supplies, but not very much of that amount was actually textbooks. LUSD spent over $ 20,000 at Office Depot, $ 33,136 on printing and copying, $ 94,852 for insurance ( including a $ 4,100 brokerage fee), and $ 24,000 for telephone and cell charges. These last two expenses definitely are non- instructional. b. LUSD spent no lottery funds for salaries or benefits. 7. Porterville Unified School District ( PUSD) is located in south Tulare County and had an ADA of 13,264. a. During 2004 - 2005 PUSD spent $ 279,262.28 on books and instructional supplies. d. DUSD did not spend lottery funds on students in several instances. The Dinuba Rotary Club was paid $ 1,471 for the superintendent's dues, and a small Culligan water system is maintained at Dinuba High School with lottery funds. e. The district maintains three different highly used credit card systems: I. M. P. A. C. ( a Visa card from BancOne), BankAmericard, and the Dinuba Unified Commercial Account. Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 • 55 b. PUSD spent 77% of its lottery funds ($ 1,371,714) on both classified and certificated salaries and benefits. c. PUSD gave each high school $ 3,000 for their own discretionary uses. 8. Tulare Joint Union High School District had an ADA of 4,200 and spent $ 111,050.55 on books and instructional supplies a. The district spent 84% of its lottery funds ($ 609,240.67) on certificated salaries and benefits. b. Tulare has a large adult school program and serves a total of seven high schools. 9. Visalia Unified School District ( VUSD) had an ADA of 25,223 and spent $ 1,507,389.21 on books and instructional supplies. a. VUSD spent $ 67,373.17 on capital outlay for furnishing two new schools. b. VUSD uses 4% of its lottery for certificated and classified salaries and benefits. c. There are several problematic procedures at VUSD: i) In comparison with all other school districts investigated, VUSD appeared to have an inordinate amount of credit card charges in its lottery accounts. ii) VUSD often had incomplete data such as the lack of authorization and site for county payment vouchers. iii) VUSD used an open purchase order system with either a $ 200 or $ 500 limit without authorization. Purchases on such open purchase orders often exceeded those limits, and authorization provided for these overages was often post- dated. iv) Many purchases were for school office furnishings and supplies. v) Supplies for maintaining lawn mowers were charged to the lottery. vi) Divisadero Middle School paid $ 290 to be a member of the Visalia Chamber of Commerce. vii) Cell telephones for EI Diamante High School were charged to the lottery. One teacher exceeded other teachers' use by more than 100%. 10. Woodlake Union High School ( WUHS) had an ADA of 750 and spent $ 15,220.80 on books and instructional supplies and devotes 72% of its lottery budget on both certificated and classified salaries and benefits. RECOMMENDATIONS 56 • Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Each school district should carefully examine its lottery fund expenditures to ensure that the expenses are for instructional purposes. 2. Dinuba and Lindsay should change non- instructional expenses to the general fund budget. 3. School districts with high lottery salary/ benefit percentages should be diligent in allocating such expenditures into enrichment areas, not core teaching. 4. Alpaugh, Dinuba, Exeter and Visalia should tighten their fiscal procedures so that the paper trail is clear and compete. 5. Lindsay, Dinuba and Visalia should examine their credit card procedures. The honor system currently in place is an invitation to fraudulent use. 6. Tulare County School Districts might consider consolidating orders for major equipment and/ or piggybacking with outside districts both for better prices and for avoiding expensive late fees and penalties. RESPONSES The President of the Board of Trustees and the Superintendent of the following: Alpaugh Unified School District Cutler- Orosi Unified School District Dinuba Unified School District Exeter Joint High School District Farmersville Unified School District Lindsay Unified School District Porterville Unified School District Tulare Joint Union School District Visalia Unified School District Woodlake High School District Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 • 57 58 • Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 HEALTH AND WELFARE Visalia Senior Citizens Center KINGS- TULARE COUNTY AREA AGENCY ON AGING MEALS ON WHEELS PROGRAM SENIOR CENTERS REASON FOR INVESTIGATION Based on interest in programs offered to senior citizens the 2005- 2006 Tulare County Grand Jury investigated the operations of the Senior Centers in Tulare County and the Meals on Wheels program. PROCEDURES FOLLOWED The Grand Jury: 1. Interviewed relevant witnesses. 2. Visited Senior Centers in Tulare County where meals are served. 3. Made unannounced visits to the kitchens where meals are prepared. FINDINGS 1. The Senior Nutrition Program is funded by the Kings- Tulare County Area Agency on Aging, a grant from the State of California, and donations from Senior Centers. 2. The average food cost per meal is $ 1.40. Funding from Federal and State Government is insufficient to cover the cost of the programs. Donations are treated as program income and used to pay for the various expenses of running the program including food, site management, transportation costs and site rentals of some of the centers. 3. The County Nutrition Program has its own kitchen north of Visalia where approximately 300 hot and nutritionally balanced meals are prepared every day. The floors and counters of the kitchen are clean. All food handlers wear gloves and hairnets. The storage areas are clean and organized. 4. Meals prepared at this kitchen are delivered to 12 Senior Centers within the county. The Senior Centers are located in Cutler- Orosi, Dinuba, Earlimart, Exeter, Farmersville, Goshen, Ivanhoe, Lindsay, Porterville, Springville, Three Rivers and Woodlake. 5. Meals are served at the Centers between 11: 30 am and 12: 00 noon. Reservations must be made the day before. Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 • 61 6. Centers have signs posted for a donation of $ 2 per meal for seniors older than 60 years. Persons under the age of 60 must pay $ 3.80. 7. In addition to the meals, the program provides seniors the opportunity to meet and visit with others. 8. Senior Centers provide other planned activities including crafts, games, education, health education, music, volunteer opportunities and low- cost tours. These Centers provide a forum for presenting information and educating seniors on their rights for services available to them. 9. Monthly health screenings and follow- up care by a Public Health Nurse are available and records are maintained on each patient. 10. Besides daily meals served at the Senior Centers, special holiday meals are also served including Thanksgiving dinners, Christmas parties, Cinco de Mayo, seniors’ birthdays, and other special local events. 11. Seniors age 60 and over, with severe health problems or disabilities who are unable to come to the Senior Centers, are eligible to have five frozen meals delivered weekly to their homes. Fresh fruit, cereal, juice, and milk are included in the boxes with the frozen meals. There is no fee for home delivery; however a $ 2 donation per meal is requested. 12. A Community Service Specialist or nutrition program staff member screens all home-delivered meal recipients for additional needs as they enter the program. 13. The Tulare Senior Center has its own kitchen in Tulare, which is clean and organized. The staff serves breakfast and lunch Monday- Friday. Each senior is requested to make a $ 2 donation per meal. Guests are allowed to accompany any senior three times a month. The cost for the guest meal is $ 3.50. The Center delivers approximately 80 hot meals to senior citizens’ homes each day. Besides meals, the Center offers dancing classes, arts and crafts, exercise and health classes. It also offers trips that may involve a charge. 14. The Visalia Senior Center’s financial support comes from city tax dollars ( general fund), fees and donations of food and money. Staff prepares and serves approximately 60 to 90 lunches at the Center to seniors every day at 12: 00 noon. Take out meals are also available, an option that is well used. The Center has its own kitchen where all meals are prepared. This kitchen is well organized and clean. All workers wear hairnets and gloves while preparing the food. The price for lunch is $ 3.25. Every Tuesday from 10: 00 a. m. to 2: 00 p. m. the Center receives Alzheimer patients and stroke victims. The charge for taking care of the patient is $ 5.00, which includes lunch. This is very helpful for caregivers. For a fee, the Center offers classes for arts and crafts, exercises, bingo and square dancing. In the future the Center may add computer classes for the seniors. 62 • Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 CONCLUSIONS 1. The Kings- Tulare County Area Agency on Aging and Senior Centers are providing our seniors with healthy meals and planned activities. 2. Socialization is very important in maintaining a high quality of life, and seniors enjoy coming to the Centers to socialize with others. 3. Staff at all the centers are friendly and show genuine concern for the seniors For additional information about services to our seniors contact the Kings- Tulare County Area Agency on Aging, Health and Human Services, and/ or the City of Visalia Senior Center at: Kings- Tulare County Area Agency on Aging 3330 W. Mineral King, Suite A Visalia CA 93291 ( 559) 730- 2553 Health and Human Services 5957 S. Mooney Blvd. Visalia CA 93277- 9394 ( 559) 737- 4682 City of Visalia Senior Center 310 N. Locust Visalia CA 93291 ( 559) 713- 4381 Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 • 63 64 • Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 JUSTICE Lady Justice BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DISCRIMINATION/ HARASSMENT SETTLEMENTS BACKGROUND Due to newspaper notoriety surrounding the more recent cash settlements by Tulare County to employees for alleged discrimination/ harassment, the 2005- 2006 Tulare County Grand Jury decided to investigate the process used by the county to determine how and when to settle these claims. PROCEDURES FOLLOWED 1. Information was obtained from relevant sources. 2. Relevant witnesses were interviewed. FINDINGS 1. The county is self- insured up to the amount of $ 250,000. 2. The Public Pool of Insurers insures above $ 250,000 to a maximum of $ 10,000,000. 3. AIG Insurance covers above $ 10,000,000 to a maximum of $ 25,000,000. 4. The decision to settle a case, or go to court, is made by the Tulare County Board of Supervisors with advice from County Counsel and the other insurers. 5. The settlements made by the county from 1999 to 2005 totaled $ 1,254,190 and involved 12 individual cases ranging from $ 650 to $ 440,000. ( see graph) County Cash Settlements 0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 Jul- 99 Aug- 99 Oct- 99 Jan- 00 Mar- 00 M ay- 01 Jan- 02 Feb- 02 M ay- 03 Mar- 03 Nov- 03 Oct- 05 Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 • 67 CONCLUSIONS Without getting into the validity of the individual settlements, the process is well defined with many checks and balances. It appears to the 2005- 2006 Tulare County Grand Jury that the county has followed this process in a prudent manner. In an attempt to reduce the need for these settlements, the county has begun an aggressive training program for each supervisory employee. Additionally, they have improved the introductory training program for all new employees. 68 • Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 SHERIFF DEPARTMENT Inmate Welfare Trust Fund REASON FOR INVESTIGATION Last year’s ( 2004- 2005) Tulare County Grand Jury suggested that this jury again look at the Inmate Welfare Trust Fund. Specific suggestions were made to look at the salary cost and the Fund balance. The 2005- 2006 jury, after some inquiry, decided that more information was needed and began an investigation. PROCEDURES FOLLOWED 1. Printed information was obtained from the Tulare County Sheriff’s Office ( TCSO) relevant to the income and expenses of this fund. 2. Relevant witnesses were interviewed. FINDINGS 1. Expenses: These were examined in detail with special emphasis on the salaries and overtime paid. Although the total salaries paid seemed to be high, the cost of the individual duty requirements of the paid staff was not. All expenses appeared to be in compliance with Penal Code 4025i. 2. Balance on deposit: Although the balance is still quite high, there doesn’t appear to be any violation. 3. Telephone charges: The recommendation by the prior jury was that the TCSO work with the telephone company to reduce the amount the person receiving the collect call is charged. This jury finds that the Sheriff believes the charges are justified by what the telephone company is charging other counties. 4. Canteen Contract: It was also recommended by last year’s jury that the TCSO request competitive bids for this service. The prior response from the TCSO would indicate that the contract is simply renewed annually, and they have no plans to change. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Once again, it is recommended, the TCSO should negotiate with the telephone company to reduce the cost of the collect calls to family members of the inmates. 2. Once again, it is recommended that the TCSO engage in a formal bid process for the canteen service to Tulare County Detention Facilities. 3. There is a critical need to upgrade the plumbing to repair water leaks in the Main Jail and at the Bob Wiley Detention Facilities. The Grand Jury recommends that some of the balance on deposit of the trust fund be used to correct these problems. 4. Using trust funds, the ice machine and the coffee maker at the Bob Wiley Detention Facility should be replaced. Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 • 69 RESPONSES Tulare County Sheriff i PC 4025. ( a) The sheriff of each county may establish, maintain and operate a store in connection with the county jail and for this purpose may purchase confectionery, tobacco and tobacco users' supplies, postage and writing materials, and toilet articles and supplies and sell these goods, articles, and supplies for cash to inmates in the jail. ( b) The sale prices of the articles offered for sale at the store shall be fixed by the sheriff. Any profit shall be deposited in an inmate welfare fund to be kept in the treasury of the county. e) The money and property deposited in the inmate welfare fund shall be expended by the sheriff primarily for the benefit, education, and welfare of the inmates confined within the jail. … ( e) Any funds that are not needed for the welfare of the inmates may be expended for the maintenance of county jail facilities. Maintenance of county jail facilities may include, but is not limited to, the salary and benefits of personnel used in the programs to benefit the inmates, including, but not limited to, education, drug and alcohol treatment, welfare, library, accounting, and other programs deemed appropriate by the sheriff. Inmate welfare funds shall not be used to pay required county expenses of confining inmates in a local detention system, such as meals, clothing, housing, or medical services or expenses, except that inmate welfare funds may be used to augment those required county expenses as determined by the sheriff to be in the best interests of inmates. An itemized report of these expenditures shall be submitted annually to the board of supervisors. 70 • Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 PROBATION DEPARTMENT Juvenile Hall and Youth Facility BACKGROUND The Tulare County Grand Jury is not mandated to tour the Tulare County Juvenile Detention Facilities each year; however, they often do. During the 2005 tour, the jury was impressed with the work accomplished by this unit and decided to publish a report on what they observed. There are times the jury needs to point to areas of county government that seem to be working as they should. The operation of the Juvenile Detention Facilities seems to be one of those areas. The staff from the Probation Department were very helpful and appeared to be genuinely concerned about juveniles. PROCEDURES FOLLOWED 1. The Grand Jury toured the Juvenile Hall, which included the kitchen, cells, infirmary, common areas, and class rooms. 2. The Grand Jury toured the Youth Facility, which included the living area ( dormitories), common areas, library, and the class rooms. FINDINGS 1. Juvenile Hall: a. Kitchen- The area where food is prepared for the juveniles was clean and all the appliances appeared to be properly maintained. This facility prepares two hot meals and one cold meal daily. The food for the Youth Facility is also prepared in this kitchen. The food preparation and cleanup of the kitchen in Juvenile Hall is handled by fulltime county employees. In contrast, the Bob Wiley Detention Facility ( BWDF) kitchen, which prepares one hot meal and two cold meals daily, is not as clean. The inmates are used to prepare the food and clean the area in the BWDF. There is a noticeable difference between the BWDF and the Juvenile Hall kitchens ( see “ Jail Sanitation” Report). b. Living Area- The cells where the juveniles are housed appear to be clean and sanitary. They are expected to clean their own units and are monitored to ensure they do. c. Common Area- This is the area where multiple juveniles can interact during the day. The removal of this privilege may be used to discipline bad behavior. There is also an open area for large muscle exercise ( basketball, etc). d. Education- All juveniles are required to attend classes for four hours each day. If they refuse to attend, they are confined to their cells with home work assignments. Classes are conducted by certificated teachers from the Tulare County Office of Education ( TCOE) and use the same material taught in county high schools. e. Infirmary- This area was staffed and maintained by personnel from Health and Human Services Agency ( HHSA). Surrounding the area are numerous cells that can be used to place juveniles while they are waiting to see medical staff. This unit is also used by the Youth Facility to treat any illness or injury. Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 • 71 2. Youth Facility a. Living Area- The dormitory- like rooms, where the juveniles sleep, were clean and well maintained. The jury was there on wash day. The beds were all stripped and the mattresses folded neatly in half on the beds. The floors were clean with all personal items stored neatly in a clear plastic box under each bed. b. Education- All juveniles are required to attend classes daily. Educational programs are operated at this facility, and administered by TCOE. Studies toward a General Education Diploma ( GED) are also available to the juvenile. c. Common Areas- These areas were well maintained and allow space for the juveniles to interact with each other. d. “ Boot Camp” Now called Youth Facility- There are two different programs in this facility: 1) is the long version and can last up to 365 days, with more military style training. 2) is a shorter version of about 180 days. The length of time spent in either is dependent on the performance of the juvenile. CONCLUSIONS Both the Juvenile Hall and the Youth Facility are very well- maintained and the safety and needs of the juveniles are in the forefront. We believe the one thing that makes the difference between the Juvenile Detention Facilities and BWDF is the employee versus inmate status of the cleanup and preparation crew. 72 • Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 PROBATION DEPARTMENT Juvenile Welfare Trust Fund BACKGROUND The operation of the Juvenile Hall and Youth Facility in Tulare County is under the direction of the Tulare County Probation Department. All staff in those facilities are employees of the department except for the teachers and administrators in the educational programs, who are employees of the Tulare County Department of Education. When juveniles make a telephone call from the Tulare County Juvenile Hall or Youth Facility, it must be a collect call. A percentage of the money collected by the telephone company is returned to the county and placed on deposit in the Juvenile Welfare Trust Fund. REASON FOR INVESTIGATION The 2005- 2006 Tulare County Grand Jury had occasion to discuss the operation of the Juvenile Welfare Trust Fund with staff. It was determined that there are major differences between the Sheriff and the Probation Departments usage of what they both refer to as Welfare Trust funds ( see Sheriff Inmate Welfare Trust Fund). PROCEDURES FOLLOWED 1. Printed information was obtained from the Tulare County Probation Department ( TCPD) relevant to the income and expenses of this fund. 2. Information was secured from the Internet reflecting the California Code of Regulations Title 15 Section 4723 used to govern the expenditures from this fund. 3. Relevant witnesses were interviewed. FINDINGS 1. Expenses: The only funds expended in fiscal year 2005 were for juvenile related needs. No funds were used for salaries or maintenance to facilities. All expenses appeared to be in compliance with Title 15 Section 4723a. ( See attached graph.) 2. Balance on deposit: Although there was a $ 152,674.50 balance at the end of the 2005 fiscal year, there doesn’t appear to be any violation of the code, and there are plans for major use in the coming year. 3. Telephone charges: The Probation Department uses the same negotiated contract with the telephone company that the Sheriff uses. The telephone company returns 41% of the monies received for collect calls to the Probation Department to be added to the trust fund. The only revenue for this fund comes from the return on these telephone calls. Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 • 73 4. Fund Purpose: This fund is intended by the county to be used to improve conditions for the juveniles while in custody. CONCLUSION The Grand Jury believes that this fund is used within the intent of Title 15 Section 4723. All future expenditures should be made in the same spirit. 74 • Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 Probation Juvenile Welfare Trust Fund DOLLAR 2005 PURCHASES AMOUNT Tooth Brushes 48 New Flags 68 Out of State Taxes 109 Christmas Tree & Candy 126 Pencils & Sharpeners 182 Pressure Washers 183 Drink Mix 193 Writing Paper 234 Replacement Shaver Foils 281 Televisions 482 Video Licenses 650 Secure Care Mattress 670 Video Rentals 714 Sports Equipment 730 New Laundry Bags 916 Visiting Folding Tables 1053 Art Supplies & Envelopes 1264 Popcorn 1524 GED Testing 2500 11,927 a Title 15 s 4723. Benefit Fund. Each superintendent of an institution or camp shall maintain a benefit fund account which shall be expended only for the general welfare, education, or entertainment of the wards in the institution or camp at the discretion of the superintendent. Each superintendent shall maintain appropriate accounting records in accordance with departmental procedures. Money for this fund may come from: ( a) Donations by individuals or organizations. ( b) Profits or income from vending machines, canteens, or hobby craft stores operated by or for the institution or camp. ( c) Institutional fund- raising activities. ( d) Other sources as approved by the superintendent. 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Tooth Brushes New Flags Out of State Taxes Christmas Tree & Candy Pencils & Sharpeners Pressure Washers Drink Mix Writing Paper Replacement Shaver Foils Televisions Video Licenses Secure Care Mattress Video Rentals Sports Equipment New Laundry Bags Visiting Folding Tables Art Supplies & Envelopes Popcorn GED Testing Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 • 75 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 ToothBrushes New Flags Out of State Taxes ChristmasTree & Candy Pencils & Sharpeners Pressure Washers DrinkMix Writing Paper Replacement Shaver Foils Televisions VideoLicenses Secure Care Mattress VideoRentals Sports Equipment New Laundry Bags Visiting Folding Tables Art Supplies & Envelopes Popcorn GED Testing Series1 76 • Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 PORTERVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT VICIOUS ANIMAL POLICIES REASON FOR INVESTIGATION The 2005- 2006 Tulare County Grand Jury received a citizen complaint about a specific incident that occurred in Porterville on Sunday, February 5, 2006 involving an attack by vicious dogs. PROCEDURES FOLLOWED The Tulare County Grand Jury: 1. Interviewed relevant witnesses. 2. Reviewed relevant documents and reports. FINDINGS 1. On Sunday, February 5, 2006, a report was made to the Porterville Police Department concerning two Pit Bull dogs running loose in a neighborhood. 2. There were six 911 calls recorded within a 46 minute period. 3. The two Pit Bulls had killed one little dog tethered to a tree in its owner’s front yard. 4. Two young girls had been chased earlier by the Pit Bulls and were frightened, but not harmed. 5. By the time the Police Officer responded to the scene the owner had collected the animals and left the scene. He had them tied in the back of his pick- up truck. 6. The Officer called the dispatch communication center and spoke to the Officer in Charge ( OIC). Since the owner had the dogs secured, it was not deemed necessary by the OIC to contact Lindsay Animal Control ( LAC) who is contracted by the City of Porterville to handle vicious animals. The owner was told to take the dogs home and to secure them until Tuesday February 7, 2006, when LAC would contact him. The Officer did not accompany the owner to his home to insure the dogs were secured. Regular office hours of LAC are Tuesday through Saturday 8am to 5pm. There is, however, staff available 24/ 7. 7. Neighbors told the Officer that these dogs have been out before, and they offered to keep the dead dog until the owner returned home. 8. As of Tuesday, February 7, 2006, LAC had not yet been contacted. The Responding Officer notified LAC on Wednesday, February 8, 2006 ( on his day off). Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 • 77 9. LAC contacted the owner of the Pit Bull dogs. He was cited at that time, and both the dogs were ultimately “ put down.” 10. The jury determined that there is no policy and procedure in the Porterville Police Department’s daily operations manual that deals with vicious animals. The last update to the manual was January, 2004. The OIC has discretion over the matter to call LAC or not on any case any day of the week. The Responding Officer on the scene must call the OIC for what action to take. 11. The City of Porterville contracts with LAC for services 8 hours each day, Tuesday through Saturday. If Porterville Police needed to call on LAC’s days off, there would be an additional cost. 12. Different City officials have conflicting understandings of the costs involved in animal control. CONCLUSIONS 1. The jury determined that the cost is often a factor in the Porterville Police not calling LAC on Sunday or Monday. 2. The Responding Officer should have cited the owner of the dogs and insured they were in a secure area until LAC responded. Porterville City has a leash law that should have been imposed. The officer did not make sure that the dogs were secured. The Responding Officer should have cited the owner for leaving the scene as well as violation of the leash law. 3. The Porterville Police Department has no policy that an officer can refer to, but the jury believes certain cautions would be common sense. The jury cannot help but consider what would have happened if the dogs would have harmed the young girls. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Porterville Police Department should establish a policy concerning the use of Lindsay Animal Control and see that it is enforced. The Tulare County Grand Jury believes this policy should require all Responding Officers to call Lindsay Animal Control on cases involving a vicious animal. 2. Porterville Police Officers should enforce the laws already on the books. RESPONSES City of Porterville, City Manager Porterville Police Department, Chief of Police Lindsay Animal Control 78 • Grand Jury Report 2005 / 2006 PROBATION DEPARTMENT ADULT ELECTRONIC MONITORING PROGRAM BACKGROUND AUTHORITY Section 1203.016 of the Penal Code, in conjunction with Section 1208 of the Penal Code, allows inmates participating in a home detention or work furlough program ( hereafter referred to as Adult Electronic Monitoring Program ( AEMP)) to voluntarily participate in an electronically monitored program. This allows them to reside in their own homes during the period of incarceration in lieu of confinement in the county jail or the County Correctional Center. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION The AEMP is a program that allows low to medium risk adult offenders to serve a court-ordered sentence within his/ her own home while continuing employment, if available. Medical treatment and participation in any court- ordered counseling program are at the expense of the off |
| PDI.Date | 2006 |
| PDI.Date.Issued | 2006 |
| PDI.Title | Final Report. 2005-2006 |
| OCLC number | 144643480 |
Tags
Comments
Post a Comment for Tulare County Grand Jury final report
Your rating was saved.
you wish to report:
Your comment:
Your Name:
|
|
...