1998 - 1999 COUNTY OF KERN GRAND JURY
FINAL REPORT COUNTY OF KERN OFFICIAL SEAL
The seal of the County of Kern depicts many of the major elements making up this garden spot in the southern San Joaquin Valley.
The important early and long-time oil and gas industry is represented by the oil derrick. In contrast, the space shuttle represents the county’s involvement in present day air transportation and the military complex.
Sun rays remind us of our plentiful sunshine so important to our agricultural and recreational activities. An outline of the county is the backdrop for a multiplicity of county agricultural, industrial, and business endeavors.
The California bear stands behind scales representing equal justice to our citizens. Mountains form the background. Cattle graze beside the Kern River. The pick and shovel attest to the county’s mining industry. The railroad tracks refer to important rail activities. Our agricultural importance is represented by the grapes, citrus fruits, and bale of cotton shown on the seal.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Our deep appreciation goes to those close by who guided, encouraged, and helped us through this one year of Grand Jury service – Kay Beavers, our Court Liaison; Bernard C. Barmann, County Counsel; and Clarence Westra, Presiding Judge of the Kern County Superior Court.
And there are so many others – they know who they are – who patiently answered all our questions, showed us around their facilities, and assisted us in many ways as we endeavored to fulfill our duties as jury members.
The 1998-1999 Grand Jury TABLE OF CONTENTS
County of Kern official seal…………………. ………………………………………..
Seal description and acknowledgements……………………………………………
Table of contents……………………………………………………………………….
Foreman’s letter…………………………………………………………………………
Grand Jury members……………………………………………………………………
Grand Jury photograph………………………………………………………………….
Administration / Audit Committee……… ……………………………………………..
Mission statement………………………………………………………………....
General Services – Reprographics………………………………………………
County Administrative office – Administrative Analysts………………………..
General Services – Purchasing………………………………………………...…
Information Technology Services………………………………………………....
General Services – Construction Services Disvision………………………..…
Health / Education / Social Services……………………………………………………
Mission statement…………………………………………………………………..
Hart Memorial Park / Buena Vista Recreation Area…………………………….
Farm and Home Advisors Office…………………………………………………..
Kern Family Health Care………………………………………………………...…
Kern County Mental Health…………………………………………………………
Bakersfield Association of Retarded Citizens…………………………………….
Jamison Children’s Center……………………………………………………….....
Department of Human Services……………………………………………………. Law / Justice Committee………………………………………………………….
Mission statement…………………………………………………………….
Kern County Sheriff– Lamont Substation……………………………….....
Lerdo Minimum Detention Facility…………………………………………..
Lerdo Maximum / Medium Detention Facility……………………………....
McFarland Community Correctional Facility………………………………..
Kern County Sheriff – Mojave Substation………………………………..…
Camp Erwin Owen………………………………………………………….....
Taft Correctional Instituition……………………………………………….....
Kern County Sheriff – Buttonwillow Substation……………………………
Kern County Sheriff – Coroner / Public Administrator………………..…..
Cities / Service Districts………………………………………………………...…..
Mission statement……………………………………………………………..
City of Maricopa……………………………………………………………..…
City of Arvin……………………………………………………………………..
City of Tehachapi……………………………………………………………….
Golden Hills Community Service District……………………………………
City of Bakersfield………………………………………………………………
City of Ridgecrest……………………………………………………………....
Airports Department……………………………………………………………
Engineering and Survey Service…………………………………………....
Edit Committee………………………………………………………………………
Mission statement…………………………………………………………..…
Activities……………………………………………………………………….. Recruiting Committee……………………………………………………………..
Mission statement……………………………………………………………
Activities…………………………………………………………………...….
Continuity Committee………………………………………………………………
Mission statement/activities………………………………………………….
Responses to final reports…………………………………………………..
Continuity report…………………………………………………………...…..
Ad Hoc Committee………………………………………………………………..…
Mission statement……………………………………………………………...
Central District Development Agency……………………………………….
Citizen complaints and indictments……………………………………………….. June 30, 1999
Honorable Clarence Westra Jr. Presiding Judge of the Superior Court 1415 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, California 93301
Dear Judge Westra,
The Final Report of the 1998-99 Kern County Grand Jury is respectfully submitted to you for filing with the County Clerk in accordance with Section 933(a) of the California Penal Code. It contains the findings and recommendations resulting from the Grand Jury investigations carried out under Sections 919, 925, 933.1 and 933.5 of the California Penal Code. Each individual report received the concurrence of the Grand Jurors as required by Section 916 of the California Penal Code.
This Grand Jury consists of 19 individuals of various backgrounds and abilities. They range in age from 44 to 81 years. For many, the preparation of a report was their first foray into the world of computers. They developed into a cohesive unit during the course of the year and undertook the task of monitoring public agencies and investigating citizen’s complaints in a positive manner. The individual expertise and perspective which each brought to the jury has helped make the Final Report both objective and positive.
The support and encouragement that you have so generously given throughout the year is appreciated by all members of the Jury, especially myself. In addition, we wish to thank the Court Staff for the many instances where they aided us in administrative matters, which seemed to come up almost daily. Singling out Mr. Terry McNally, Mrs. Kay Beavers, and Mrs. Joanne Schrock in no way detracts from our appreciation of the efforts of the entire staff. The guidance and advice of County Counsel, Mr. Bernard Barmann, and Mr. Stephen Schuett has been invaluable during our tenure as Grand Jurors. They were never too busy to explain the nuances of the law to those of us not initiated in its finer points.
We wish to express our thanks to Mr. Ed Jagels and his staff, who were always available when we called for assistance. A special thanks to Mr. Steve Tauzer and our prayers for a complete and speedy recovery from his health problems. Lt. Tam Hodgson, of the Bureau of Investigation for the Office of the District Attorney, has been especially helpful and is to be commended.
One of the tasks undertaken by the Jury each year is the recruiting of new members for the following year. The assistance of the Kern County Fire Department in allowing us to share their space at the Kern County Fair to set up an informational booth is greatly appreciated.
This year’s Jury has made a commitment to computerize our operation in order to make the preparation of the Final Report both uniform and timely. The Auditor/Controller’s office has kindly donated several of their surplus computers to the Grand Jury, greatly enhancing our capabilities. The majority of the members started the year with little or no knowledge of how to use a computer. Thanks to the patience and guidance of Miss Karri Fogle, in a sometimes-hectic training program, most are now among the “computer literate”.
The various agencies and departments with which we have dealt during the past year have reinforced the perception expressed by past Grand Juries that Kern County has some of the most capable and dedicated employees to be found anywhere.
On a more personal note, I wish to express my feelings about serving on the 1998-99 Grand Jury. I deem it an honor and a privilege to have served with 18 talented and selfless individuals who have taken on a momentous task and completed it.
Sincerely,
Robert Schilly, Foreman Kern County Grand Jury 1998-99 GRAND JURY MEMBERS PANEL
Elmer M. Anderson George Howell Robert A. Schilly Shafter Bakersfield Bakersfield Frank K. Johnson Charles C. Bennett Bakersfield Thomas D. Stockton Bakersfield Glenville Norman E. Johnson Anna Cleveland Bakersfield Walter E. Swanson Bakersfield Bakersfield Harold W. Nelson MaryHelen Cordova Ridgecrest Judith E. Valenzuela Bakersfield Bakersfield Frank G. Pitts Robert Gallaher Bakersfield Robert T. B. Walker Bakersfield Bakersfield Lloyd R. Rudberg Harry J. Helsley Caliente Ferrelene Zachary Shafter Bakersfield Charles P. Schumann Bakersfield
OFFICERS
Foreman Robert A. Schilly
Foreman Pro Tem Norman E. Johnson
Secretary Ferrelene Zachary
Assistant Secretary Lloyd R. Rudberg
Sergeant At Arms George Howell
Parliamentarian Frank G. Pitts
Advisors Clarence Westra Jr.-Presiding Judge Superior Court Bernard C. Barmann-County Counsel Kay Beavers-Superior Court Liaison
ADMINISTRATION & AUDIT COMMITTEE
Norman E. Johnson, Chair Robert Gallaher Anna Cleveland Harry J. Helsley Frank K. Johnson
MISSION STATEMENT
The Administration & Audit Committee is responsible for reviewing and overseeing departments and agencies in their management and performance of operations and execution of fiscal responsibilities. This committee also addresses citizen complaints pertaining to the same areas.
The committee was pleased to discover this year that the County Administration operations and policies for the most part were both well designed and well executed. The county employees the committee worked with were knowledgeable about their respective positions and very interested in any improvements the members could suggest. Their warm and open welcome made it easy to discuss the various county functions, goals, and purposes as the committee reviewed their operations. Committee member views of local government activities and management improved through exposure to the county management and employees.
The following pages reflect many hours of interviews, reading, discussion, researching, and writing to compile as accurate a view as is possible of the county functions that the committee addressed. The reports cannot capture all of the peripheral sources and effort that people made to help the committee to understand and appreciate the “whole picture” of local government and where each department contributes to the success of the county. While other county operations could have also been high-lighted in these reports, time did not permit the kind of in-depth review and analysis that seems necessary in order to present a balanced view of their contributions.
This committee extends its thanks to our fellow grand jurors as well as to the many county employees who helped us this year. GENERAL SERVICES - REPROGRAPHICS
PURPOSE OF INQUIRY:
To review the cost effectiveness of in-house duplicating, copying, and printing.
LOCATION:
Reprographics is a unit of the General Services Division of the County Administrative Offices and is located at 1501 L Street.
BACKGROUND:
A management audit by Allred & Associates, Inc. in 1994 recommended that the county phase out the duplicating (later called Reprographics) function “because commercial printers can provide equal or better service at a reduced cost.” Since the operation is still continuing to date, the committiee was interested in looking into the reasons for it.
METHOD OF REVIEW:
The committee toured the facilities; interviewed the Supervisor of Reprographics; selected printing job samples, which were priced at several local printers; and compared the costs of having those items printed in-house versus being printed by commercial printers.
FINDINGS:
Reprographics provides duplication and “desktop publishing” services for county departments. This includes composing/set-up, reproduction, and finishing functions that are necessary to complete the processing of duplicating requests. The department is also responsible for stocking and providing items that are in large demand by county departments, such as paper products and copy machine supplies. Base paper stock is also printed and stored for repetitive printing requests to save time and costs in producing them.
This department has a wide array of copy and printing equipment to produce documents from plain black printing to multi-colored, from single sheet to folded, and bindings from unbound, glued, stapled, or multi-ring. There is a computer graphics artist on staff to produce or assist department heads with preparing appropriate copy for the printing operations. At present, the majority of its printing orders arrive via hard copy by mail, with others arriving via telephone or by e-mail. On hand software is state of the art in order to meet design and composition requests. Most multi-colored jobs are produced on copy equipment, but it does have the ability to print two color jobs in one-run. Recently a new inserter was purchased that can do more in about one-third the time than the old machine and is able to gather and stuff flat books, ready for mailing. The management audit by Allred & Associates, Inc. recommended that the county phase out the duplicating (later called Reprographics) function “because commercial printers can provide equal or better service at a reduced cost.” The recommendation led to efforts by a Reengineering Team to determine how products of this operation could be produced in a cost-effective manner. At the same time the store and warehousing operation was greatly reduced, moving to just-in-time stock delivery. It apparently was determined that certain time-sensitive products needed to continue to be produced by the county and that increased cost-effectiveness could be achieved by modernizing the reprographics function. The department became a stand-alone internal service fund for budgeting purposes. Its cost effectiveness is now dependent upon increased product volume to cover the capital investment in modernizing the operation.
Since all county departments have the option of using private printers and most have their own copy machines, this department is aware of the need to promote it’s ability to produce quality items promptly at a reasonable cost. It is doing all it can think of to advertise its ability and win other departments as customers. It is also aware of the need for controlled growth in order to maintain quality and service standards while increasing the number of printing orders. It sees its present market niche in the medium to small orders, recognizing that major orders could tie up equipment and manpower sufficiently to disrupt service and quality.
Currently its major customers are the Kern Medical Center, Mental Health Department and Public Health Services Department. Outlying county operations also use Reprographics extensively for their printing needs. The outlying areas receive items once a month via scheduled deliveries, but are encouraged to pick up their items when in Bakersfield, or they are more commonly sent with Human Resources vehicles, which make periodical visits to those areas.
COMMENTS:
Staff expertise and modern equipment enable this department to produce impressive products for the county operations. However, when the committee took twenty samples (requiring varying degrees of expertise) that it produced to commercial printers in the area, we found that Reprographics prices were approximately 20% higher, on average. However, in some cases the “best price” was by printing in-house. In addition, many departments have computer equipment and copiers that permit some products to be produced within the department.
While we recognize the need for this in-house function in order to produce certain products that cannot be safely printed by outside sources, many departments could enjoy considerable dollar savings by utilizing other printing alternatives. However, it is too easy for departments to utilize the in-house source without taking the time to make valid price comparisons at outside commercial printers that are available to them. One solution could be to establish Reprographics as THE printing source for departments for all their printing needs. It should then utilize the private vendors for printing, at less cost, whenever possible and add an up-charge to the order as a handling fee. While this may make it impossible for Reprographics to reach a break-even cost level, and will require continued county subsidization, the over-all county costs will be greatly reduced.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
That the Reprographics Department take the following actions:
Research and utilize area commercial printers for printing that they can do cheaper than can be done using the in-house facility.
Produce only cost effective products or items that are time-sensitive or for other reasons must be produced in-house.
Focus promotions on the ability of this department to assure that printed products for all departments will always be produced in the most cost effective manner.
RESPONSE REQUIRED WITHIN 90 DAYS TO:
PRESIDING JUDGE KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301
Board of Supervisors' Response to Findings
The Board of Supervisors notes that the findings regarding the operations of the unit are substantially correct.
Board of Supervisors' Response to Recommendations
One of the key components of the decision to continue the reprographics function as an in-house service was the introduction of competition in the manner in which printing services are delivered to County departments. Reprographics staff will commonly refer customers to private vendors for items which cannot be produced competitively. County departments also seek bids from outside vendors. The Grand Jury's report suggests that a potential cost savings can be incurred if other vendors are used. This determination was made based on a small sample of products whereby private vendors were asked to provide a bid. Unknown is whether these vendors were aware of the reasons for the request, such as for comparison only, or if all costs (i.e. setup) were included in the bid request. Nonetheless, the Board of Supervisors concurs that it is desirable to frequently compare prices and costs.
Reprographics is available to assist and advise County departments on printing needs. Requiring departments to use Reprographics would remove the decision from departments as to how to most cost effectively meet their operational needs and would remove the competitive element that has been effective in maintaining lower costs. COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYSTS
PURPOSE OF INQUIRY:
To identify the role of Administrative Analysts in budget preparation and their effectiveness.
LOCATION:
This position reports to the Budget Director, who in turn reports to the Assistant County Administrative Officer. The offices are located on the fifth floor of the County Administration building at 1115 Truxtun Avenue.
BACKGROUND:
While observing the annual budget hearings before the Board of Supervisors, Grand Jury members realized that the Administrative Analysts played a unique role in the County operations as they were called on to be the constraining force to expanding department budgets. The Grand Jury is interested in supporting their efforts and in seeking ways to assist them.
METHOD OF REVIEW:
Initially the Grand Jury invited an Assistant County Administrative Officer to speak to it, followed by a series of individual interviews with the Budget Director and each Administrative Analyst to review budget questions pertaining to their assigned departments. The Jury also reviewed every “Request For Budget Transfer” forms that departments filled out at the end of the 1997-1998 fiscal year as well as any sent monthly during the following fiscal year to track budget events throughout the year.
FINDINGS:
The County Administrative Office (CAO) provides staff services to the Board of Supervisors. Part of the responsibilities include reviewing all departmental budget requests and submitting recommendations to the Board; coordinating budget development and providing general oversight of budget execution; performing continuous research, investigation, analysis of administrative practices to recommend improvements; providing departments with consultation and coordination on budgetary matters; and performing analyses and preparing reports in response to referrals from the Board. The Budget Director and a staff of Administrative Analysts assist in the performance of these duties.
The Administrative Analyst deals with powerful elected officials and appointed department heads who act as the engine to drive services, and their accompanying costs, forward in response to their constituencies. The analyst acts as the brakes to the system to maintain a balance between competing groups for available dollars and limiting costs within budget guidelines. The tension between these objectives requires professional conduct, questioning minds, and critical thinking in order to accomplish solid working relationships and responsive government in the county. The Jury found that the current staff accomplishes these goals and are deserving of the jury support and compliments.
The CAO understands the need for critical analysis of budget requests, and attempts to keep critical and fresh analysis available. Proposed budgets are required to justify every new expenditure or deletion and stay within the annual budget guidelines that are usually issued in March. Preliminary dialog will often begin between the analysts and department staff, but the final recommended budget will be decided between analyst and department head, unless disagreements lead to the CAO being involved as well.
Generally there is no public involvement in the early stages of budget development, although some County Supervisors have held town meetings or district workshops to gather data and identify priorities.
Since the county is self-insured, department insurance costs (liability, workers compensation, medical, etc.) are experience-rated, adjusted, and allocated accordingly. Analysts take into consideration county population growth, federal and state mandates, special departmental needs, and they try to identify any other factors that will impact a particular department.
All of the current administrative analysts have come to the position from staff in other county functions, and their pay level permits appropriate transfers. When selecting candidates emphasis is placed on superior verbal and writing skills and independent and critical thinking skills. Most of the responsibilities entail researching and analyzing data to respond to Board of Supervisors referrals. Each analyst utilizes the Automated Budget Preparation System.
COMMENTS:
The committee found that these individuals were well trained. They conduct themselves in a professional manner and make sincere efforts to curtail any unnecessary budget expansion.
Currently some analysts have been assigned to review the same group of departments for at least ten years. The goal is to have analysts rotate among departments every one to five years, with the longer time frame required for certain groups (like medical) that require more technical expertise. It is beneficial to leave an analyst in the same position for up to five years in some cases; however, a balance must be maintained between fresh “eyes” that see opportunities for improvements and experience to understand the department operations, needs, and goals. Undoubtedly communications are enhanced by years of working together; however, there is a danger at some point of becoming part of the “team” and losing the perspective of an “outsider” looking for improvements to the operations. While it takes significant effort on the part of both the departments and the administrative analysts to change assignments every several years, changes have been successfully accommodated when those changes occurred through promotions, terminations, or other personnel actions in the past. Perhaps the value of having fresh perspectives introduced into budget discussions will out-weigh the effort needed to implement it.
A second opportunity for “fresh” or “outsider” perspectives could be accomplished by forming analyst teams (in some ways similar to the reengineering teams that have been used so successfully in the county) to select a department budget for zero base analysis during the off-peak budget season. As the “team” dissects and re-builds a budget from a zero base, and when justifying each budget item, perhaps opportunities will present themselves for new ways to accomplish the department mission at reduced cost. In any case, it will afford opportunity for critical analysis by several experienced analysts.
Departmental budget changes made subsequent to final budget approval are introduced through a “Request for Budget Transfer Form.” These transfers provide a way to adjust approved budgets to meet the actual events that a department experiences which may vary from what was anticipated. Moving money between accounts within the budget doesn’t affect the overall budgetary limits that had been established.
Budgets also contain a category for “contingencies” that can be called on for emergency funds when unanticipated expenses occur. This category is also used for unanticipated revenues should they occur during the year. Significant use of this category can occur when Federal or State programs are shifted to the county during the budget year or new ones are initiated. Usually, new responsibilities are accompanied by the funds to meet them, thus requiring budget transfer requests to move the funds into the contingency account and back out to another budget category. Use of the “contingency fund” for these situations confuses the record of true contingencies and could be avoided by establishing a separate budget or creating a separate addendum to the existing budget for new programs when they are initiated during the budget year.
While some evidence points to a continuing mind set of “use it or lose it” toward budget dollars, this county has made good strides toward resisting it through the Budget Savings Incentive Program (BSI) and developing accountability through individual budget units. Yet, it is easy to fall into the thinking of annual budgets being departmental entitlements that must be spent by fiscal year end in order to qualify for equal future budget dollars. We would encourage both the department heads and the administrative analyst group to continue to search for ways to overcome the “use it or lose it” approach.
Occasionally, individual departments have opportunity to utilize surplus County equipment that would otherwise be sent to auction for disposal. Departments also have information available to them from the Purchasing Department regarding the “best value” prices for commodities when seeking them. Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem as though all departments take full advantage of these opportunities. If the analysts were made aware of this lack, they might be able to encourage greater participation by the departments for which they are responsible. RECOMMENDATIONS:
That the County Administrative Officer establish the following policies:
The County Administrative Office continue to rotate the Analysts responsibility among all of the county departments to provide critical and analytical budget evaluations with fresh perspectives.
Analysts form teams to select and dissect a department budget from a zero base position to identify cost savings during the off-peak months of budget activities.
Department Heads and Administrative Analysts look for ways to overcome tendencies toward thinking of budgets as a “use it or lose it” proposition.
Special budgets or addendum to existing budgets should be developed to accommodate new programs when they are introduced during a budget year and avoid use of the contingency fund for these situations.
Administrative Analysts seek information from the Purchasing Department regarding department utilization of surplus county equipment and “best value” buying habits and use this information during budget formulation and review.
RESPONSE REQUIRED WITHIN 90 DAYS TO:
PRESIDING JUDGE KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301
Board of Supervisors' Response to Findings
The Board of Supervisors notes that the findings are substantially correct.
Board of Supervisors' Response to Recommendations
The Board of Supervisors concurs with the Grand Jury's assessment that the need for expertise in topical areas must be balanced with the need to gain new perspectives on issues. The rotation of analysis in the budget area will continue on an as needed basis. The County Administrative Office works closely with County department heads in the development and execution of their budgets. Work will continue and ideas sought to alter individual mind- sets of the budgeting and expenditure process.
The County Administrative Office in coordination with the Auditor-Controller-County Clerk's Office devised a number of administrative and accounting changes to accurately track unanticipated revenues throughout the year and separate them from the annual amount budgeted for contingencies. This modification has already been implemented. The availability of surplus equipment that may be used to fulfill the needs of another County department will be reviewed during budget formulation and review. The concept of zero- based budgeting within a team environment is meritorious and the County Administrative Office will take this recommendation under consideration. Budgetary constraints and the requirement to hold an analyst position vacant during FY 1999-2000 will likely prevent implementation of this concept in the near future. COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
MEMORANDUM
Scott E Jones County Administrative Officer
TO- Robert A. Schilly, Foreman DATE: February 10, 1999 Kern County Grand Jury.
FROM: Scott E. Jones County Administrative Officer
SUBJECT: CAO IMPLEMENTATION OF GRAND JURY RECOMMENDATION RE: APPROPRIATIONS FOR CONTINTGENCEES
During a meeting between members of the Grand jury and staff of the County Administrative Office, Grand Jury members. noted difficulty in differentiating and tracking the County’s use of budgeted Appropriations for Contingencies for emergency and unplanned expenditures versus the mid-year appropriation and use of unanticipated revenue by County departments. Immediately after the meeting my staff set out to resolve the issues cited.
In working with staff from the Auditor-Controller-County Clerk's office, it was determined that making a few administrative and accounting changes used for the appropriation of mid-year unanticipated revenues would allow for a method of tracking unanticipated revenues throughout the year and separate them from the annual amount budgeted for contingencies. I issued a memo notifying all departments of the change to be implemented immediately. A copy of that memo is attached for your information. My staff -will continue to monitor Board of Supervisors' action and departmental budget transfers to ensure that the change is appropriately implemented and provides the correct results.
My staff were able to coordinate and implement this simplified tracking system with a minimum of effort and yet feel it will yield significant results in clearly segregating the County's use of contingency funds. Not only will this allow county-wide tracking of unanticipated revenues, it will aid in identifying revenue areas and new programs which might be handled more effectively in subsequent budget years.
This may be a first in Grand Jury.history, a County department that implements a solution even before the issuance of the Grand jury’s report! I know we were a little quick on the draw, but my staff is enthusiastic about working together and they seek to implement creative and cooperative solutions to problems whenever possible. GENERAL SERVICES - PURCHASING
PURPOSE OF INQUIRY:
To investigate buying procedures in the county.
LOCATION:
Purchasing is a unit of the General Services Division of the County Administrative Offices. It is located on the third floor of the County Administration building at 1115 Truxtun Avenue.
BACKGROUND:
The 1993-1994 Grand Jury contracted for a Management Audit by Allred & Associates, Inc. whose report included recommendations to change some county purchasing procedures. The committee wanted to observe current procedures to verify that procedures had changed since that report was issued.
METHOD OF REVIEW:
Jury members interviewed the Purchasing Manager; individual buyers based upon their assigned commodities; visited the Tri-State Auction yard a few days before sales of office equipment and vehicles; and made inquires of other department personnel to discover the feasibility of some of jury recommendations.
FINDINGS:
The Purchasing Department is responsible for the purchase and rental of supplies, services, and equipment for all of the county departments and special districts that are governed by the Board of Supervisors. It also provides purchasing services for other governmental agencies when so authorized by the Board. This department also arranges the sale of surplus county property. The Assistant County Administrative Officer for General Services serves as the county purchasing agent.
This department investigates costs and prices whenever other departments need to purchase an item, looking for the best value available. Many small items, such as office supplies, are included under one blanket contract agreement whenever possible, so that all individual departments can purchase them readily and at the best cost. Other items require research and evaluation at the time of purchase to determine the preferred vendor. Internet access has greatly increased opportunities to identify the best value vendors. Contracts are usually for one year, but could extend for as much as five years in a very few cases. The length of time for a contract to run is determined at the time of signing and usually provides inflation protections and penalties for late delivery of items. Costs for many items achieve fifty percent or more savings by purchasing through this department. Buyers retain documentation showing reasons and justification for their decisions for three years in this office plus two more years in off site files, should they be needed. All buyers belong to the California Association of Public Purchasing Agents and attend regular meetings and seminars to keep up with the latest methods for identifying the latest “best value” prices. When buyers sign off on a purchase decision, it is then given to a different buyer for review and confirmation that the decision was a proper one.
Vendors who wish to sell items to the county fill out a request form, listing their commodities, etc. in order to be considered when items are purchased. Each buyer in the department is responsible for blanket orders, price agreements, fixed assets, and budget prices for all assigned commodities. Buyers also operate under a “local vendor preference” philosophy, giving local vendors an opportunity to match the low bid whenever their original bid comes within five percent of the lowest bid.
County departments can purchase items up to $4,999.00 using a debit card that is issued to department heads. This procedure has greatly increased the efficiency of purchase activities, avoiding significant paperwork, and eliminating delays while waiting for approvals. Debit card purchases are reconciled to authorized budgets for each department. Additional cards can also be furnished within a department, but usually carry lower maximums for budget control purposes. Buyers encourage departments to purchase items from vendors covered by contract, but items can also be purchased on their card from other vendors as well. This system has significantly reduced county costs for purchasing and has reduced staff while retaining the necessary integrity and controls that are needed. There used to be seven buyers performing this function, with roughly the same number of staff people assisting them. Presently the department consists of five buyers with one secretary and one staff person.
Worn out, expendable, or surplus county properties are consigned to Tri-State Auction Services to be sold at auction. Monies collected are returned to the general fund after paying a four percent commission to the auction house. Any usable items are first advertised as available to all county departments via a local area network e-mail system before consignment to Tri-State.
The county has implemented a computer requisition and order system. Every department head was given training in procurement processes and contracting during September, 1998.
COMMENTS:
The Grand Jury found that many changes had been implemented since the 1993-1994 management audit, including use of purchase/debit cards, internet use, and with significantly fewer staff.
It seems that no minimum standards are set by the county for equipment purchases as is often the case in private industry (for example: all computer equipment purchased must be compatible with all other county computer equipment). The primary reason given is that county departments do not have the same mission, so the needs are different, whereas in most private companies all of the entities have the same or similar missions. Considerable latitude can be granted within a wide range of options, but the lack of any minimums indicate the need for direction to generate unified goals and future targets.
For example, during this Grand Jury year one department purchased a Macintosh computer for specific use in the department. While it may be superior to all other computers for its current use, it also will not be compatible without converting software and may not be usable for passing on to another department in the future when a replacement is needed. Department heads are not asked to see the broader current and future total county operation and could benefit from guidelines and directions.
Another example is that buyer research may indicate that vehicle purchase is more cost effective over several years than is leasing or lease-purchase agreements. However, departments may lease-purchase vehicles anyway, because budget restraints permit a greater number of new vehicles immediately under that arrangement. The greater cost may not become apparent until the lease agreement runs its course, and significantly more vehicles could have been purchased for the same dollars that were spent. Also, vehicle mileage limits that trigger replacement procedures could be adjusted in recognition of the relatively trouble free extended mileage that modern vehicles provide.
Future concerns that could also benefit from board direction might be digital versus analog cellular telephones, digital photographic equipment that some departments are already beginning to use, or other technological advances that are identified as future directions that the county wishes to follow. While premature constraints could cause unnecessary expenses in some cases, tardy or lack of direction can also cause departments to continue to purchase out-dated equipment that may have a short useful life or is of no use to other departments once the department completes its use of the unit. It appears that the Purchasing Department could be a repository of limits beyond which a department would need to justify purchases outside the latitude they are given within policy.
Another area of concern is that buyers sometime recognize that a department is paying too much for an item or is buying something less than the “best value.” When persuasion doesn’t modify the purchase decision, they have few alternatives other than to simply watch the mistake being made. Further, smaller cost items (like light bulbs) that are used in many departments might be purchased at a variety of prices without anyone’s being aware unless the Purchasing Department was asked to research the best price and establish a "best value” contract price for all. Or, if a contract price is established, a department could still purchase the item elsewhere, even if the cost is somewhat higher. It appears that the appropriate Administrative Analyst should be notified of specific instances of these and similar situations in order to address them with the department during budget formulation and review.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
That the County establish the following procedures: Buyers should notify the appropriate Administrative Analyst when funds are expended unnecessarily through department purchase decisions that exceed the established “best buy” price.
When county-wide minimum technological standards are established for future county direction and plans, the Purchasing Department should have the authority to decline a department’s purchase request for items outside those limits.
Vehicle mileage limits that trigger replacement procedures should be adjusted to reflect current automobile performance realities.
RESPONSE REQUIRED TO:
PRESIDING JUDGE KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301
Board of Supervisors' Response to Findings The Board of Supervisors notes that the findings are substantially correct. Board of Supervisors' Response to Recommendations When a situation Occurs that appears questionable the Purchasing Division will call the involved department to seek additional information. If the request appears to be inappropriate or not within the law, the Division will contact the requesting department and the department's assigned administrative analyst. The department is advised that unusual and/or unique requests require approval by the Board of Supervisors.
The Purchasing Division makes every effort to assist operating departments in making informed and prudent purchasing decisions. However, the ultimate decision and responsibility rests with the operating department head who must allocate limited financial resources appropriately and is subject to review and direction by the Board of Supervisors.
The County has adopted few technological equipment standards. The standards that have been adopted are related to common usage equipment. Each department has varying needs internal to their operations and are responsible for making decisions that assure the effective operation of their department. In the instance where standards have been adopted, the Purchasing Division checks if the request meets the "County's Established Minimum Requirement" and will advise the requesting department of any deviations.
Each department head is responsible for managing their resources wisely and assuring that the department's mission is accomplished. The decision to replace a vehicle is within the discretion of the department head, subject to budgetary approval by the Board of Supervisors, and is founded on the operational needs and vehicle performance records of the department. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SERVICES
PURPOSE OF INQUIRY:
To review the activities and mission of this department.
LOCATION:
This department reports to the County Administrative Officer. The offices are located on the bottom floor of the Municipal Court Building at 1215 Truxtun Avenue.
BACKGROUND:
Game software was used to assist jury trainees to become proficient in the use of the personal computer mouse. The jury became interested in what use was made of the game software after it was no longer needed for training.
METHOD OF REVIEW:
Committee members met with the Manager of Information Technology Services (ITS). During the committee’s visit to the department, the managers of Applications Programming, Data Services/Operations, and the Project Manager/Budgets explained the function of their areas of expertise.
FINDINGS:
ITS provides coordinated data processing and technology support services for county departments, special districts, and outside agencies, including:
1. Mainframe, mid-range, and mini computer systems analysis, design, programming, testing, and production; 2. Personal computer systems review, recommendations, installation, and staff training when asked by county departments; 3. Telephone systems planning, coordination, and administration.
The department is also responsible for the operation of the county’s mainframe computer system, administration of the Wide Area Network (WAN) system, maintaining the Kern Integrated Property System (KIPS), the Criminal Justice Information System (CJIS), the Payroll/Personnel System, the Financial Management Information System, and providing a Help Desk for county computer users. In addition to the on-going operations of computer use, current activities require preparing and testing all computer operations for Y2K compatibility and developing a disaster recovery program to ensure continuing operations following a major disaster.
Several major county departments have their own information systems operations and only use this department for consulting or assistance as needed. COMMENTS:
The committee found the management of this department technically knowledgeable and interested in improving departmental operations whenever possible.
It is surprising that county cellular telephone expansion and use does not involve this department. Without County Administration oversight, those departments utilizing cellular telephones are limited only by budgetary considerations and department head policies. Some departments appear to have significantly greater financing opportunities, generally with federal or state monies, than do other departments. Consequently, without any designated administration oversight, there is significant potential for wasting taxpayer dollars.
County departments have been notified of the “County Software Licensing and Use Policy” via Administration Bulletin No. 294 (Revised), dated July 17, 1997, which reiterates the importance of controlling computer software use to only programs that are properly licensed and authorized. Departments were also asked to establish a permanent file that documents that information and to audit their computers at least once a year to ensure compliance with all of the licensing requirements. However, there is no established mechanism where anyone outside the department verifies that these steps are accomplished annually. However, taxpayer dollars will be required to pay any penalties should violations be discovered in the future. County administrators could help protect against this vulnerability by requiring an annual report from department heads and periodically auditing their accuracy.
Grand jury letters, documentation, and reports could be most efficiently accomplished utilizing personal computers, although the majority of members were not proficient in their use. The Information Technology Services Department was asked to train the members in the rudiments of computer use. Game software was used to assist jury trainees to become proficient in the use of the computer mouse, with impressive results. The jury’s experience indicated that a novice could become relatively proficient in using the computer mouse within two months. However, it was also necessary to establish game use limits after the training time because it interfered with getting work done. This experience lead to an interest in what use was made of the game software, after it was no longer needed for training, in other county departments. It was discovered that some wise department heads have deleted all game software from their machines to avoid the need for supervising its use during the workday. Other departments continue to allow employee access to game software in the workplace. To avoid any suspicion of misuse, the county would be well-served if all departments deleted game software from personal computers except for those used in the training process.
Many county functions benefit significantly from internet access in the performance of their official duties. Because the internet also provides opportunities for misuse, the county has established a policy governing the use of and access to it. Any employees who are authorized use of the internet are to be instructed in the policy and to sign an acknowledgment form that is kept in their personnel files. In addition, a “Firewall Log” that outlines which web sites were accessed by a department is printed weekly and furnished to department heads for their review. No one outside the department is designated to monitor violations of the policy nor are department heads required to report any actions taken when violations are discovered. Lack of any administration over-sight could lead departments to conclude that the policy is not particularly serious.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
That the Information Technology Services Department be given the following responsibilities:
To review, track, and report monthly to the County Administrative Officer overall cellular telephone use, growth, and cost by department.
To receive annual departmental reports verifying compliance with the county software policy and to audit departmental personal computers physically on a periodic basis.
To write a county policy declaring game software inappropriate in the workplace, except for training facilities, assisting departments in deleting it from personal computers and monitoring compliance through physical audits.
To review monthly Firewall Logs for inappropriate web site contacts and verify departmental remedial actions.
RESPONSE REQUIRED WITHIN 90 DAYS TO:
PRESIDING JUDGE KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 GENERAL SERVICES CONSTRUCTION SERVICES DIVISION
PURPOSE OF INQUIRY:
To inquire about the procedures that lead to cost estimates for capital and major maintenance projects.
LOCATION:
Construction Services Division is a unit of General Services of the County Administrative Offices, located on the third floor of the County Administration building at 1115 Truxtun Avenue.
BACKGROUND:
During visits to various county facilities, negative comments were heard by committee members regarding excessively high estimated costs associated with new construction or major maintenance projects that the departments felt were needed. The assumption was that the high estimated costs prohibited projects from serious consideration during times of tight capital budgets.
METHOD OF REVIEW:
Committee members met with the Construction Services Division Manager to discuss procedures and methods of capital projects cost estimating. The committee also reviewed files of a couple projects that seemed out-of-line when compared to other projects on the current list. The department also furnished the committee with estimate and actual cost data for the most recent eighteen completed projects.
FINDINGS:
The responsibilities of the division are to provide design, inspection, and administrative support services for capital and major maintenance projects for the county. While smaller maintenance jobs are handled by the maintenance staff, projects costing more than $6,500 must have drawings, specifications, and plans from this division and be approved by the Board of Supervisors, pursuant to state law.
Two civil engineers, one mechanical engineer, two drafting technicians, three architects, two support staff, and four inspectors handle the present workload in this division. The staff used to total 21 people, but now they are handling the work load with just 14 total people. At present approximately 50% of the project design work is handled in-house with the rest contracted out to firms in the area. Construction engineers are hired as needed during building phases. This department also assists department heads with drawings and plans when needed to complete funding applications for federal or state grants, HUD funds, or other sources of revenue. Additional projects may also be added throughout the year, usually due to grant funding, HUD money, or other block grants becoming available from federal or state monies.
Funding from federal and state sources always comes with many strings attached. Construction Services tracks all aspects of projects to ensure that every requirement is fulfilled. Presently, about 20% of capital projects are being funded from outside of the county funds.
Departments submit individual projects on a Form 37, ranked by department priority, to the County Administration Office. All new or revised project requests are forwarded to Construction Services, requesting a “ball-park” cost estimate for each and returned to the CAO’s office. Construction Services can only be as accurate as the information given them via a Form 37. Since significantly off-the-mark dollar figures at this point might be a factor in a project not being funded in the near future, departments should carefully consider all aspects of the project being requested at the beginning of the process. When affordable projects are selected during budget talks for action, they are returned to the Construction Services office for detailed cost estimating. At this point Construction Services will visit the actual construction site and make an accurate assessment of the costs involved. The committee reviewed the most recent eighteen projects and found that, on average, both the first estimate and the second estimate at the time of bid fell well within a 10% plus or minus range of the eventual actual project costs. The Board of Supervisors gives final approval to all capital projects.
As a “General Law County,” legally mandated requirements such as newspaper advertising, insurance and bonding, and prevailing wages, etc. generally add 20-25% to the overall contract costs.
COMMENTS:
Department heads are annually asked to review existing capital and major maintenance project requests, add new ones as needed using Form 37, and send them to the County Administrative Office by December 1 for consideration for the following fiscal year. All new project requests are bundled together and sent to the Construction Services Division for preliminary cost estimates, with annual cost escalation added to existing projects on the list, under a tight deadline. The combination of a large volume of requests and short time frame leads to hasty estimates without significant research to verify that all of the information is complete and without on-site visits. If an initial cost estimate is considerably inaccurate, subsequent inflationary and other cost adjustments will further exacerbate the inaccuracies.
While it isn’t cost effective to spend significant time and expense on the initial estimate, it seems as though a rough review to establish “ball-park” cost believability is in order after the initial estimates are completed. Since Construction Services has exposure and experience with capital projects throughout all of the departments, they are in the best position to do a general project comparison. By grouping estimates by dollar amounts, any out-of-line estimates should stand out by falling among projects more or less sophisticated than the one being requested. Projects appearing out of line could be clarified through requests for more information. Asking the department to review its request will also emphasize the importance of including accurate and complete information with the initial Form 37.
Another opportunity for review of cost estimates occurs when the department visits near-by construction sites for other projects. Such field visits could be expanded to include surrounding project sites to verify that the current estimated costs for them appear to be accurate. Utilizing this opportunity might help overcome any feeling that the initial estimate is off-the-mark and re-assure department heads that their projects will receive fair consideration as capital project monies become available.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
That the Construction Services Division:
Group projects annually by dollar amount categories, after assigning initial cost estimates and applying annual escalation adjustments, and compare the results, utilizing education, experience, and expertise to verify that projects are grouped together as would be expected.
Seize field visit opportunities to verify that initial project cost estimates are reasonably accurate and request an up-dated Form 37 from department heads when they are not.
RESPONSE REQUIRED WITHIN 90 DAYS TO:
PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301
HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE
Thomas D. Stockton, Chair Harry J. Helsley George Howell Walter E. Swanson Charles P. Schumann
MISSION STATEMENT
The Kern County Grand Jury Committee on Health, Education, and Social Services has the responsibility to inquire into the operations of all agencies and facilities dealing with: · Education, such as administrative offices, classrooms, and training facilities · Health, both mental and physical, such as Mental Health, Health Department, hospitals, and health facilities · Social Services, such as Human Services or Welfare, Parks and Recreation, museums, libraries, Office on Aging, and Housing Authority etc.
Time constraints did not permit the committee to visit all departments under the mission responsibility, so the committee has chosen those which have not been visited recently by past Grand Juries, or those which are involved in areas of paramount interest to the public.
In order to accomplish the mission the committee has visited the following departments listed by the categories Health ,Education, and Social Services. A number of the facilities visited, such as prisons, Juvenile Hall, Camp Erwin Owen, and Jamison Children’s Center, have both educational classrooms and medical infirmaries. Many of the classrooms are operated under the direction of the Kern County Superintendent of Schools office. Final Reports have been issued on those departments denoted by an asterisk * following the name of the department visited.
HEALTH Kern Health Department Mental Health * Farm & Home Advisors Office * Mary K. Shell Center Jamison Children’s Center Kern Family Health Care * Kern Medical Center Emergency Department Union Villa Care Facility (provider to Mental Health) Green Gardens Residential facility (provider to Mental Health) Medical facilities at Juvenile Hall , Camp Erwin Owen, Lerdo Prison, Taft Prison, Wasco Prison, and Tehachapi Prison EDUCATION Regional Occupational Center Kern High School District Migrant Education Kern High School District Camp Erwin Owen classrooms Juvenile Hall classrooms Court Day School classrooms Classrooms, Libraries, and vocational training at Tehachapi Prison, Wasco Prison, Taft Prison, and Lerdo Prison
SOCIAL SERVICES Human Services * Jamison Children’s Center * Jess Diamond Child Assessment Center* Kern County Office on Aging Tehachapi Senior Center Communications Center 911 facility Bakersfield Police Department 911 facility Bakersfield Police Department Identification Bureau Family Support Division District Attorney’s Office Bakersfield Association of Retarded Citizens (BARC) * Hart Park * Buena Vista Lake & Park Complex * Kern Housing Authority HART MEMORIAL PARK AND BUENA VISTA AQUATIC RECREATION AREA
PURPOSE OF INQUIRY:
Annual visitation.
LOCATIONS:
Hart Memorial Park is located about twelve miles northeast of Bakersfield. It is reached by way of Alfred Harrell Highway.
Buena Vista Aquatic Recreation Area is twenty-three miles southwest of Bakersfield and twelve miles northeast of Taft.
County parks are under the supervision of Kern County Parks and Recreation Department at 1110 Golden State Avenue, Bakersfield, California, 93301.
METHOD OF REVIEW:
Discussions with the Director of the Department, the Assistant Director, and Area Park Supervisors. Visits to Hart Park and Buena Vista Aquatic Recreation Area. Review of previous jury reports.
FINDINGS:
The interest in establishing Hart Memorial Park began in 1921. In 1927 construction was started on the recreational facility known as Kern River Park. The park was officially opened that same year. The name was formally changed to Hart Memorial Park in 1947 in honor of an early-year supervisor, John Hart.
The park is open from 7:00 am to 10:00 pm. Daily admission is free. Alcoholic beverages may be consumed in the park only if a permit has been obtained. Children’s playgrounds, barbecue stations, tables, and benches are available. The area is covered by beautiful large trees and well-kept lawns.
Historically, Buena Vista Lake was the terminus for the Kern River. However, during years of heavy rainfall, water would flow out of the lake northward via a slough to Tulare Lake and eventually to the San Francisco bay. Later, Kern River water was used for irrigation. When Lake Isabella reservoir was created in 1953, the “old” lake ceased to exist.
In 1973 water first flowed into Lake Webb and Lake Evans, which together make up the Buena Vista Aquatic Recreational Area. Almost 1000 acres of lake surface are available for boating, jet skiing, fishing, and swimming. The main campground alone has 112 campsites, with other sites scattered throughout the area. A camp store and rental service for jet ski equipment and boat mooring exist. As many as five to six thousand persons use the park on an active weekend.
The County Parks and Recreation Department is responsible for the maintenance and operation of eight regional parks, forty neighborhood parks, and landscaped areas around eighty-seven county-owned and/or occupied buildings. Recreational facilities include seven lakes, campgrounds, group picnic areas, playgrounds, horse trails, and ballfields. Security and public safety services are provided by boat patrols on the lakes and by roving patrols in the regional park facilities. The department provides administrative support to the Kern County Wildlife Resources Commission and the Parks and Recreation Commission. The department is also responsible for janitorial services and operation of the county’s twenty-eight veterans, seniors, community, and recreation buildings.
COMMENTS:
With Hart Park being an open public park, caretakers are faced with both theft and graffiti problems. This is a constant for them. Providing sanitary supplies, other than toilet paper, is not practical. This park appears well maintained and is very attractive.
With the present high flow of water in the Kern River, the park lake constantly overflows, providing a continuous throughflow. When the river flow is down, water has to be pumped into the lake to preserve it. Plans are underway for the city to build a reservoir up-stream of the park and to pump water to a storage tank on the bluffs to the south. It would benefit the park if a continuous flow of water to the lake could be assured as a part of that project.
Buena Vista stands out as an extremely attractive recreation facility. All campsites are well cared for, and the variety of lake-use possibilities attracts visitors from as far away as Los Angeles. Admissions and service charges result in appreciable income gain for the parks. Good management practice in care of the grounds and control of use behavior is very apparent.
Need for replacement of older equipment and for purchase of additional equipment represents a major challenge to the department. Some 17,000 trees are scattered throughout the county park system and the public buildings where the department has landscaping maintenance responsibilities. Only one high-lift bucket truck and chipper are available for necessary tree trimming. There are severe limitations in minimizing hazards from broken limbs and falling branches.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the county give attention to providing additional tree-trimming equipment by purchasing or renting equipment, or by contracting the trimming service.
RESPONSE REQUIRED WITHIN 90 DAYS TO: PRESIDING JUDGE KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CA. 93301
Board of Supervisors' Response to Findings
The Board of Supervisors' notes that the findings are substantially correct and appreciates and concurs with the Grand Jury's complimentary remarks regarding the Parks Department's sound management of the operations at the Buena Vista Aquatic Recreation Area.
Board of Supervisors' Response to Recommendations
The Parks Department has been working diligently to create a tree maintenance program within the budgetary resources allocated to the Department. In this Fiscal Year, the Department has invested in an additional chipper and several chainsaws to assist in accomplishing essential tree maintenance work. Additionally, contracts were executed ($30,000) with two tree trimming companies to assist with the massive clean-up effort needed due to the recent storms. The Board of Supervisors recognizes the many needs of all County departments to accomplish their missions. However, limited budgetary resources does not allow the Board to fund all of the activities desired or needed. FARM AND HOME ADVISORS OFFICE
PURPOSE OF INQUIRY:
Annual Visitation.
LOCATION:
This organization is located at 1031 South Mt. Vernon Avenue, Bakersfield, California.
METHOD OF REVIEW:
Discussions with the County Director, Nutrition Program Manager, Program Coordinator, Farm Advisor, Science Advisor, and other staff personnel. Visit to the office and shop facilities. Review of previous jury reports.
FINDINGS:
Cooperative Extension is an off-campus arm of the University of California. Since 1914, Cooperative Extension has provided the citizens of California and Kern County information and educational programs in natural resources, family, and consumer sciences, community resources development, and 4-H youth development. The Kern County office is staffed with a group of farm, home, and youth advisors who are employees of the University of California.
In California, most county offices of Cooperative Extension are recognized by the name of Farm and Home Advisors Office. For many years it was known as the Agricultural Extension Service. In addition to its traditional mission of increasing agricultural efficiency and improving farm family living, it has been responsive to the changing needs of both rural and urban people of all economic levels, including the need to protect the environment. Programs are designed to adapt and deliver the results of research and new knowledge to people located throughout California and to bring problems and needs from individuals and communities back to the academic centers for exploration and research. Advisors conduct educational programs and seminars, design and implement research projects, and provide consultations within their respective areas of expertise.
Cooperative Extension professional services are provided without charge. There may be a nominal charge for publications printed and distributed by the University of California. Funding comes from the federal, state, and county governments (approximately twenty-one, sixty, and nineteen percent, respectively). The state and federal contributions pay the salaries and administrative support for the advisors. The county support provides office space and facilities, clerical staff, field assistance, and transportation. Cooperative Extension advisors are “close-at hand” representatives of University of California. Information and assistance in assigned areas of expertise are available by phone or office appointments.
The farm advisor’s expertise is broadly based and is responsive to the needs of agriculture, the homeowner, nurseries, ag-related businesses, and many allied industries.
The areas of expertise in the Extension office are as follows:
4-H Youth Development Natural resources Citrus and subtropical horticulture Nursery production Cotton Nutrition, family & consumer science Deciduous fruits Plant pathology Expanded Food and Nutrition Program Range and livestock Entomology and pest control Small fruits Environmental horticulture Vegetable crops Irrigation management Viticulture Agronomy
The office has a radio outreach through stations KERI, KLYD, KNZR, and KLOA. Periodic newsletters may be obtained by calling the office. Kern County provides $154,000 for the six county staff and facilities. The twelve authorized extension staff members are funded through the University.
COMMENTS:
It is obvious that this office provides a very essential service to the valley agricultural activities. Without this local office the extension of resources of the University of California to the people of Kern County would be severely limited.
The office operates on a tight budget, particularly in the area of transportation. As additional hires are funded, vehicle availability and mileage money are seriously impacted. Without adequate transportation, technical staff cannot provide service to persons needing their on-site counsel and guidance.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the county provides additional transportation, commensurate with the needs of this size staff.
RESPONSE REQUIRED WITHIN 90 DAYS TO:
PRESIDING JUDGE KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CA. 93301 Board of Supervisors' Response to Findings
The Board of Supervisors notes that the findings are substantially correct, excepting that $379,503 in County funding was provided to the Farm and Home Advisor for Fiscal Year 1998- 99, not $154,000. This funding provides for the Farm and Home Advisor's facility, seven County employees, a travel and transportation budget, certain services and supplies, and fixed asset equipment 7he Board of Supervisors joins the Grand Jury in complimenting the Farm and Home Advisor on the quality of service provided.
Board of Supervisors' Response to Recommendations
The Board of Supervisors' allocation of budgetary resources must be accomplished in an environment of an ever increasing demand for services and declining resources. Over the last three years, the Farm and Home Advisor's budget allocation has remained relatively constant. KERN FAMILY HEALTH CARE
PURPOSE OF INQUIRY:
Annual visitation
LOCATION:
The Kern Family Health Care main office is located at 1600 Norris Road, Bakersfield, CA.
FINDINGS:
Originally formed in August 1993, as a non-profit, public benefit corporation, Kern Health Systems (KHS) was organized in response to the expansion of the Medi-Cal Managed Care Program in 13 California counties. The corporation, initially managed by the County’s Kern Health Care Management Service Department, was converted into a County Health Authority effective January, 1995, based on an ordinance enacted by the Kern County Board of Supervisors on December 6,1994.
It was constituted for the purpose of contracting with the California Department of Health Services to provide managed health care services to Medi-Cal beneficiaries in Kern County. It received a license as a health plan from the Department of Corporations in the spring of 1996 and began providing health care services to Kern County Medi-Cal beneficiaries in July, 1996, through the HMO product, Kern Family Health Care. Since July of 1996, 102,000 Medi-Cal beneficiaries have received health care as members of the Kern Family Health Care Medi-Cal Managed Health Care program in Kern County.
Original funding for start-up costs was provided by a subordinated loan from the enterprise fund of Kern Medical Center. Accelerated payments have permitted the loan to be repaid on October 13, 1998.
In April of 1998, Kern Health Systems was awarded the Community Provider Plan Designation from the Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board (MRMIB) to provide uninsured children with the Kern Family Health Care Healthy Families health care product. The Healthy Families Program was developed by the State of California to provide affordable health care coverage for children ages one through 19 who do not qualify for Medi-Cal and cannot afford commercial insurance. An estimated 15,000 children in Kern County may qualify for Healthy Families.
MRMIB began soliciting applications and enrolling eligible individuals in June of 1998. Kern Health Systems began seeing members under the Kern Family Health Care Healthy Families on July 1, 1998.
Since 1993, Kern Health Systems has created jobs for 79 full-time employees. Dedicated staff efforts have resulted in lower administrative expenses and achieving targeted performance standards. Administrative costs are normally budgeted at 15%, and as of December 1997, were running at 8.43%. For 1998, annual budget is $50,000,000, with administrative costs running at 12%.
COMMENTS:
The following are points the Grand Jury believes would be of major assistance to Kern Health Systems:
1. Better communications would facilitate administrative functions and therefore the delivery of optimal health care services. Communication with members receiving Medi-Cal benefits would benefit if KHS could receive more information from the County Human Services Department. When KHS receives eligibility lists from the state, those lists do not include telephone numbers, and frequently, beneficiaries’ addresses are inaccurate. On the other hand, the Welfare Department collects more complete and updated information on beneficiaries. KHS would benefit immensely if it could access demographic data such as telephone numbers and addresses from Welfare's database. Sharing by direct communication or electronic exchange would result in more efficient and improved service.
2. KHS works closely with the local office of California Children's Services (CCS). This working relationship is crucial in the provision of care to members. Certain conditions are excluded from KHS responsibility. When members are admitted to hospitals with these conditions or treated in other settings, it is essential that KHS and CCS communicate in a timely manner and that decisions affecting coverage are made rapidly. Many physicians and some hospitals in Kern County are not on the CCS provider list. If a patient is admitted to one of these facilities it is important that a transfer be arranged to a CCS facility so that claims are paid appropriately and in a timely manner. CCS can deny payment for an admission to a non-CCS hospital. The facility then looks to KHS for payment when it has not received funding from the State for these services.
3. The employees staffing the local CCS office are hired by the County Health Department, but they report to the regional director of CCS. The organizational structure of CCS throughout the state created a situation where there are no universal standards for reviewing a medical condition and deciding if CCS will cover it. Some decisions have at times seemed arbitrary. There is no guarantee that even if all procedures are followed, an appropriate decision will be made.
4. Another area where sharing information and services would facilitate health care to KHS members is in tracking immunizations. One goal of the federal government, and consequently the state, is to have a certain percentage of the population fully immunized by the year 2000. Most immunizations are administered in the first two or three years of life. Recent welfare reform legislation put a requirement on recipients who have children to provide documentation of up-to-date immunization in order to continue to receive assistance checks. KHS is judged by the state on the percentage of complete immunizations given. 5. Achieving adequate immunization in the Medi-Care population presents significant challenges. Beneficiaries may not remain in the program long enough to bring shots up to date. Also, they often receive care from multiple providers who seldom share records. One benefit of Medi-Cal managed care will be better tracking of preventive services delivered to this population. The county, in an effort that is ahead of much of the rest of the state, has begun implementation of a computerized tracking system for immunizations. KHS has worked with the county to both add data to their system and extract data from it that bears on members. While this would seem to be a logical and simple process it has not been. As a result, greater effort must be made by all participants to effect the necessary results.
6. As a result of the efforts of the Grand Jury a meeting was arranged between Human Services (Welfare Department) and Kern Health Systems in early December of l998 to resolve the problems outlined in paragraphs 1., 4., and 5. above. A series of solutions to these problems has been worked out through the efforts of Kathy Irvine, Director of Human Services, and Carol Sorrell, Director of Kern Health Systems. Human Services Director, Kathy Irvine, is to be commended for forming teams within her department necessary to overcome the shortcomings of the state’s informational system in order to accommodate the needs of Kern Health Systems.
7. Since these comments for improvement are essentially beyond control of Kern Health Care, copies of this report will be presented to those agencies that can effect beneficial changes.
SUGGESTED ACTIONS FOR CCS:
1. That California Children’s Services (CCS) advise all non-CCS hospitals that patients admitted to such a hospital must be transferred promptly to a CCS facility for claims to be paid appropriately, so that KHS will not be improperly charged with the cost.
2. That appropriate universal standards be established by CCS for reviewing medical conditions to determine if it will be covered by CCS.
NO RESPONSE REQUIRED KERN COUNTY MENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
PURPOSE OF INQUIRY:
To review the responsibilities and activities of this department and identify the reasons for the rapidly accelerating growth that has occurred during recent years.
LOCATION:
The administration offices are located at 3300 Truxtun Avenue, Suite 290, in the Commonwealth building.
BACKGROUND:
Program realignment of the State of California’s social service departments initiated significant growth in responsibilities and expenditures for this department that have increased more than thirty percent (30%) each of the last two fiscal years. The Grand Jury became interested in what was being done with these public funds and what was causing the rapidly accelerating growth.
METHOD OF REVIEW:
Since the department is composed of several significant operations, with administrators for each of them, the committee decided to assign a couple of members to each separate operation to review and report on their activities. With this approach, different committee members visited with the administrators of Outreach & Crisis, Children’s System of Care, Adult System of Care, Rehabilitation Services, Quality Improvement, Financial Services, Behavior Health System of Care, Kern Linkage, and the Special Projects Manager.
FINDINGS:
The department vision statement says “We provide the most effective, highest quality combination of treatment and support to persons with emotional disturbance, addiction, and mental illness.” Each section of the department focuses on this general goal in performing its particular function. Jury members found the administrators and staff highly professional, experienced, and significant contributors to this effort.
The Outreach and Crisis section maintains a twenty-four hour, seven-days-a-week crisis outpatient unit for emergency stabilization and to provide an alternative to more restrictive levels of care. The unit is available to all County Mental Health Systems, their contracted providers, public safety and protection organizations, as well as the general public. Services can include emergency psychiatric evaluations, medication monitoring, nursing services, crisis intervention/counseling and emergency treatment planning and service linkage to other department sections. Consumers are not held in this unit for more than 24 hours, during which time evaluations determine the next phase of treatment and consumers are passed on to the appropriate department section. This office processes 25 to 90 crisis cases per month, plus 300 to 400 walk- ins, and around 1500 phone calls. Due to the nature of their role in the department, some occasions require an emergency type vehicle with radio communication and safety restraint devices for transporting an individual in a crisis situation and transporting them to the unit. At the present time, law enforcement people are called on to transport the person in crisis to the mental health crisis facility. Perhaps a retired vehicle from the Sheriff’s Department could be utilized for this purpose.
The Children’s System of Care section provides a full range of mental health services, including assessment, evaluation, therapy, rehabilitation, plan development, case management, medication support, crisis intervention, and substance abuse treatment as it relates to a mental illness. This unit is divided into geographic areas to better serve the community and has developed a collaborative association with schools and all other agencies involved with children to build a sound foundation for an integrated system of care for at-risk children. Through integrated case planning, assessment and linkage, intensive mental health services such as family substance abuse interventions, the goal aims toward an improvement in child/family functioning and academic performance; decrease in out-of-home placements; and provides intensive counseling and support services to families. This section focuses on prevention activities and family involvement to avoid future mental health problems for these consumers.
The Judicial Services section handles mental health consumers who have often become entangled with other agencies such as law enforcement and social care systems. Expense and overlapping treatment is limited through a collaborative association with these and other agencies. The substance abuse response team serves pregnant women and court related referrals who have an alcohol or drug addiction and who request treatment. The drug court and penal code 1000 program is for first time drug offenders where consumers are required to attend a prescribed program that includes assessment, group counseling, education and routine reporting to the Probation Department. Forensic services provides a full range of services to individuals with a mental disorder who have been convicted of a crime, charged with a criminal offense, and ordered by the court to receive psychological examination; those who have been referred for evaluation to determine if they need to be placed in conservatorship; and others who have been determined incompetent for the purpose of standing trial on misdemeanor charges. This group also provides mental health and psychiatric services for jail inmates and provide a link to society when inmates are ready for release.
The Adult System of Care and Rehabilitation Services section mission is to provide comprehensive rehabilitative services to mentally ill adults residing in Kern County. Department rehabilitation and external contract teams, consisting of licensed professionals in the mental health field, provide assessment, psychiatric evaluation, medication evaluation and monitoring, group and individual therapy, case management services and linkages to community resources. The long term care team provides services to mentally ill consumers who are placed in residential and locked facilities throughout Kern County or state hospitals and for consumers who generally remain in their residential placements for greater than one year at a time. The “homes team” is designed to provide intensive case management for mentally ill consumers who are in transition from assisted living arrangements to independent living, as well as housing assistance for consumers who have recently been homeless. Services include care coordination, intensive case management, housing assistance, medication monitoring, linkage with community resources, and extended service hours. Finally, through Board and Care service providers, who are licensed by the state, supplemental funding for individualized services are provided. Services include teaching independent living skills, special groups and programs, and socialization skills enhancement. These services are aimed at enabling consumers to obtain skills to allow them to move to a less restrictive level of care, or to prevent them from requiring a higher level of care.
The Quality Improvement section handles all requests for proposals and contracts, verifies credentials of providers, is a statistical and information resource for the other sections of the department, and acts as a liaison with the state to provide technical assistance. This section performs audits at 40 separate sites of the system of care to ensure understanding and compliance with quality standards and regulations and makes recommendations for further training when needed. The goal is to tailor treatment to individual situations in order to “provide the right treatment at the right time in the right amount”. Because communication and response is best when the consumer and the counselor speak the same language, training in cultural differences is given to all care providers.
The Business Manager for Financial Services tracks and maintains the accounting, budget, and financial records for the entire Mental Health Department. The county only contributes about $750 thousand out of an approximate $60 million budget, while the federal government contributes about 60% and the state about 40% of the remainder. It is this section’s goal to establish and maintain a reserve operating fund of 5% to 8% of the total operating budget over a multi-year span of time to provide funds when budget reductions may occur in the future.
The Behavior and Managed Care/Substance Abuse Systems of Care section focuses on issues surrounding addictions and the abuse of drugs and alcohol, manages a state-wide framework for providing mental health services to Medi-Cal patients, and integrates the mental health and substance abuse services. The substance abuse system of care has been in operation for approximately twenty-five years. Treatment is provided through a network of community-based providers. Since mentally ill people appear to be more susceptible to drug use, many current clientele are repeat patients. Research strongly indicates that treatment works and those receiving it show significant improvement. This section also monitors patient rights and family advocacy.
The Kern Linkage section was started in 1986, with a current annual budget of one and a half million dollars. This group locates mentally ill individuals who are living on the streets, in shelters, or in other inadequate facilities. Upon admission, clients are initially given a thorough needs assessment that includes psychosocial, psychiatric, and physical evaluations. Case managers serve as advocates and service brokers to perform linking services between consumers and community resources to stabilize the individual’s situation and obtain financial resources, provide shelter, psychiatric care, teach daily living skills, manage psychotropic medications, and provide professional consultation as necessary.
The Special Projects Manager provides information technology services for the department. A Macintosh computer was purchased in order to utilize a special software package called “Go Live Cyber” in order to develop a sophisticated web site to advertise the department’s ability to address community mental health problems.
COMMENTS:
Kern County Mental Health Department consumers must have dysfunctional life activities to qualify for treatment by this department. For many years the state under- funded certain aspects of mental health activities, primarily those affecting children in our community. Additionally, in the 1980’s, a change in philosophy for dealing with the mentally ill led to the rapid emptying of state mental hospitals. It resulted in many of the mentally ill becoming homeless, substance abusers, and sometimes led to criminal activity. In the 1990’s, the state turned over to the counties the primary responsibility for the mentally ill which had been previously handled by the state through state mental hospitals. These two circumstances have required significant increases in funding for county mental health activities.
Future capitation limits is of concern at present due to the under-funding of mental health activities in recent years. Statistical evidence suggests that two and one-half to six percent of any given population group will require some mental health treatment. Recent and current budgets are still in a catch-up mode to achieve a sufficient level of funding to cope with the anticipated future responsibilities of the department.
It appears that it is an unnecessary effort and expense to develop a sophisticated web site, since the primary consumers utilizing department services are the homeless, indigent, welfare recipients, prisoners, seniors, Medi-Cal patients, SSI recipients, etc. who seldom have access to the internet. In addition, other assets were available in the county that could have produced an acceptable website for the department.
The citizens of this county greatly benefit from the over-all effort of this group of professionals who devote much time and effort to assist those among us who need the most help. Without their attention this community would suffer a significant deterioration in livability environment, including an increase in homeless individuals, as well as increasing the suffering of individuals who share the community.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
That the Mental Health Department:
Arrange to transfer a used sheriff’s department car, with protective devices intact, to the department’s Outreach and Crisis Section to safely transport individuals to care facilities when needed. Avoid time, expense, and effort on activities that do not directly focus on the department mission, such as a sophisticated web site.
RESPONSE REQUIRED WITHIN 90 DAYS TO:
PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 BAKERSFIELD ASSOCIATION OF RETARDED CITIZENS
PURPOSE OF INQUIRY:
To review the activities at the facility and determine how the needs of the clients are being met, though the Grand Jury has no oversight authority for this non-profit corporataion (Penal Code section 933.6)
LOCATION :
The Bakersfield Association of Retarded Citizens (BARC) is located at 2240 South Union Avenue, Bakersfield,California.
METHOD OF REVIEW:
A tour of the facility conducted by Nathan E. Acuna, Coordinator of Community Affairs and Development for BARC.
FINDINGS:
BARC was founded in 1949 and incorporated in 1951; more than 400 people are served daily in the programs and with support to families. The old method of warehousing clients in institutions was neither a benefit to the retarded citizen nor a beneficial use of tax dollars.
At present, 55% of the revenues is generated by the efforts of the clients, 40% is supplied by the Department of Developmentally Disabled of the State and the balance comes from grants and United Way funding. BARC is located on a 20 acre site on South Union Ave. containing administrative offices, a recycling center (for paper, glass, plastic, and metal), a horticulture garden, auto shop, woodshops class rooms, and training labs. Services include adult day care, day training activities, rehabilitation work training, supported employment, transition support to independent and community living, and protection and advocacy based on need.
Their programs consist of Infant Development & Prevention (therapy for children deemed likely to have disability problems); Adult Development Center (motor skills for adults with handicap conditions); Activity Center; Computer Lab (reading , basic math, money concept, and typing in self-paced computer learning); Packing & Assembly (sorting nuts and bolts and repackaging products such as bottled goods for display purposes); Wood Products; Service Training (janitorial, landscape management, food service, and auto wash training) at the BARC Facility; Personal & Social Adjustment Program; BARC Thrift Store; BARC Recycling; Client Services (guidance, counseling and advocacy on behalf of clients, with support to their families; case management with quarterly and yearly evaluations); BARC Transportation (vans and buses to transport clients to and from their daily programs); Recreation & Enrichment Activity (supervised group activity in bowling, dances, and excursions; vacation getaway to Camp KEEP, and/or escorted tours to Hawaii). COMMENTS:
The vans and buses which are not being used to transport BARC clients during evening hours could be used to transport CALWORKS clients of Human Services to and from evening jobs when public transportation is not available.
The BARC Program is one of the best kept secrets in Bakersfield, providing training and employment for people who might otherwise be either homeless or on the welfare roles. The staff is professional; they obviously care for their clients and should be commended for their efforts.
A tour is well worth taking if the opportunity presents itself, just to see the great job they do and the care for their clients all of the employes demonstrate.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
That BARC look into an arrangement with Human Services to transport CALWORKS clients in their vans and buses during evening hours and provide an additional source of revenue for BARC.
NO RESPONSE REQUIRED JAMISON CHILDREN’S CENTER
PURPOSE OF INQUIRY:
To observe buildings and grounds of the center and the activities engaged in by the staff and the children present.
LOCATION:
The facilities are located at 1010 Shalimar Drive, Bakersfield, California
BACKGROUND:
In 1981, the A. Miriam Jamison Children’s Center was established as one of our county’s solution to the growing number of reported child abuse cases. The Jamison Children’s Center is a 24-hour, short-term emergency protective shelter that can provide care for children up to 18 years of age. The facilities include the Jess Diamond Assessment Center for observation and assessment of victims of suspected child abuse.
METHOD OF REVIEW:
The committee visited the facility and was conducted on a tour by the director. The tour included the living quarters, playrooms, cafeteria, classrooms (operated under the auspices of the Kern County Superintendent of Schools), the Jess Diamond Assessment Center, and the facilities for forensic observation and evaluation of abused children.
FINDINGS:
The purpose of the Jamison Children’s Center is to provide a safe, secure, haven for children who have been neglected or have seen their parents’ abuse of drugs or alcohol destroy their family life. Many have been abused physically, sexually, or emotionally. The center provides a temporary home for children, from three days to eighteen years of age. It is a 24-hour protective facility with a maximum capacity of 54 children. In prior years, if children were abandoned or their parents were incarcerated, the only solution was to lock them up in juvenile hall, which was not a desirable situation for the children or for law enforcement personnel who had to deal with them. The Jess Diamond Assessment Center contains a forensic lab with an interview room that is child-friendly, providing a relaxed atmosphere for a highly trained investigator to interview abused children. The lab is equipped with television monitors, taping devices, and one-way glass windows, where representatives of the District Attorney’s office and law enforcement agencies may observe the interview process to assure that the rights of all parties are protected. The committee found the living quarters, cafeteria, playrooms, and the classroom in good condition although there is always a shortage of bed space and repairs are on going. The cafeteria provides wholesome meals at a minimal cost as they continually seek donations of food and materials through their network of contacts in the community. The cafeteria also provides meals at cost for one of the nearby senior centers. At the time of this visit there were approximately 65 children present, and the center processes around 100 children per month.
The Jamison Center operates in concert with the Jamison Children’s Foundation which provides funding for monthly enrichment outings and has donated computers for classrooms, enhanced play areas, and scholarships to foster- children. This is an outstanding combination of public-private energies cooperating for the benefit of the children.
In addition to the other programs the center provides a training ground for Bakersfield College students volunteering their time in exchange for class credits toward a career in child care and child development. There is also a program for volunteer grandparents to interact with foster children and take them on outings.
COMMENTS:
The committee felt that this entire facility was operated with the highest standards by an obviously competent professional staff working in somewhat crowded conditions. In these days of increasing numbers of child abuse situations the center has a definite need to expand their facilities. There is a substantial land area south of the present facility with room for two class rooms which would allow the classroom areas in the main building to be converted to living quarters and play areas.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
That the Board of Supervisors provide the necessary funding for temporary classrooms to be constructed on the site south of Jamison Center.
RESPONSE REQUIRED WITHIN 90 DAYS TO:
PRESIDING JUDGE KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 KERN DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES
PURPOSE OF INQUIRY:
To visit the main office and review all the functions of the department with emphasis onimplementation of the welfare-to-work or CALWORKS Programs.
METHOD OF REVIEW:
The committee visited the main office at 100 California Avenue, Bakersfield, and met with the director and different department heads for an overview of operations. It conducted meetings with the director and staff, met with representatives of Kern Family Health and attended CALWORKS conferences with talks by Assemblyman Roy Ashburn (author of Welfare to Work Legislation).
FINDINGS:
Human Services occupies 10 offices including a main office at 100 California Ave. and locations at KMC, Jamison Children’s Center, and offices in Shafter, Delano, Taft, Mojave, Lamont, Lake Isabella and Ridgecrest. They employ 1200 people and have an operating budget of $228,000,000 of which the county provides approximately 5%. The balance of their monies comes from the state and federal governments and some client contributions.
Human Services administers: CALWORKS (Formerly AFDC) includes; Family Group, Unemployed, and Foster Care.It also administers Employment Services, Adoption Assistance, General Assistance, Medi-Cal and Food Stamp Programs. It also administers Emergency Response Program providing for the needs of abused children through a phone room system receiving reports of child abuse from mandated reporting agencies; a Court Intake Unit for referrals from Law Enforcement; a Family Maintenance Program; a Family Reunification Program; and a Permanent Placement Program consisting of long term foster care, adoptions, and legal guardianship. Other programs include In Home Supportive Services to enable blind, disabled and aged to live at home; Public Guardianship for those unable to manage their own affairs; and Adult Protective Services which investigates abuse of the elderly.
The CALWORKS Program came into being in January of 1998 and Kern County has enrolled 16,598 participants, thus achieving the welfare reform goals established by the reform legislation. 7,674 participants have found employment reducing the welfare budget by $19,000,000 in grant savings. Of the 7,674 participants about 5,617 cases had their grants reduced due to employment earnings. The number of cases in the department has decreased by 2,596; of which 2,568 cases were closed due to employment. Providing child care for CALWORKS participants is an ongoing activity and to that end the Child Care Provider Project has trained 54 individuals with 36 of those becoming fully licensed day care providers. One of the major problems in implementing the CALWORKS program is transportation for participants who are becoming employed in jobs that require their participation during hours that public transportation is not available. Human Services is continuing to work on this problem in collaboration with Employers Training Resource and the Kern Works partnership.
Human Services investigates welfare fraud and has prevented payments of $589,922 in 1998, referred 50 cases to the district attorney and disqualified 911 food stamp recipients. They are anticipating the implementation of an ATM type credit card program to replace food stamps, thus eliminating further opportunities for “Welfare Fraud” by allowing only the purchase of nutritional foods. Legislation requires that the ATM system be activated in 1999.
COMMENTS:
It appears from the committee’s investigation that the Kern Human Services Department is doing an outstanding job of implementing welfare reform in a timely fashion. In fact, according to comments made by Assemblyman Roy Ashburn in the conferences attended by members of the Grand Jury, Kern County is leading the rest of the state in welfare reform efforts and is well on its way to becoming the model for other counties.
In addition to the ongoing efforts in furthering welfare reform, Human Services is to be commended for its effective handling of a data-sharing problem with Kern Family Health Care. Kern Family Health Care is a provider of services to Medi-Cal recipients whose entitlement depends on their ability to access data provided by Human Services. Human Services Director, Kathy Irvine, organized a team effort to meet the information needs of Kern Family Health, resulting in improved cooperation between both agencies.
When the committee visited Bakersfield Association of Retarded Citizens (BARC), it was discovered that BARC had a large number of buses and vans being used during daytime hours to transport their clients. The committee suggested that perhaps an arrangement could be made with Human Services to provide transportation to CALWORKS participants who had jobs requiring their presence during hours when public transportation was not available.
Committee members attending the annual Kern Works Conference were advised that there are many forces throughout the state that would like to see the CALWORKS work requirements relaxed which would jeopardize the Welfare Reform Program and make the participants more dependent on welfare.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
That Human Services Department:
Continue its efforts to improve welfare reform in Kern County. Inquire into the possibility of an arrangement with BARC to utilize its buses and vans to transport CALWORKS participants during hours that public transportation is not available.
That the Board of Supervisors maintain vigilance over any efforts to relax the work requirements as established in the CALWORKS program and make sure that our legislators do not undermine the current system.
NO RESPONSE REQUIRED:
LAW AND JUSTICE COMMITTEE
Frank K. Johnson, Chair Norman E. Johnson Anna Cleveland Charles C. Bennett Harold W. Nelson
MISSION STATEMENT
The California Penal Code is the Basic State Foundation for the investigation procedures charged to the Law and Justice Committee within the Grand Jury. Penal Code 919 (b) states that the “Grand Jury shall inquire into the condition and management of the Public Prisons within the County.” The Law and Justice committee visited these facilities to fulfill our obligations under the statute.
During the 1998-1999 Grand Jury session, the Law and Justice Committee toured and visited most of the law enforcement and detention facilities in Kern County. The committee also received and responded (by inquiry and investigation) to 22 individual citizens’ complaints.
We sincerely thank all of the employees of the city, county, state, and federal facilities who graciously welcomed us and gave their utmost energy and expertise, so that our job could be more pleasant, exciting, and complete.
The Law and Justice Committee toured the following law enforcement agencies during the fiscal year 1998-1999.
1. Sheriff’s Headquarters (Norris Road) 9. Sheriff’s Substation-McFarland
2. Sheriff’s Communication Center 10. Sheriff’s Substation-Mojave *
3. Sheriff’s Coroner’s Facility * 11. Sheriff’s Substation-Ridgecrest
4. Sheriff’s Substation-Buttonwillow * 12. Sheriff’s Substation-Rosamond
5. Sheriff’s Substation-Delano 13. Sheriff’s Substation-Taft
6. Sheriff’s Substation-Frazier Park 14. Sheriff’s Substation-Tehachapi
7. Sheriff’s Substation-Lake Isabella 15. Sheriff’s Substation-Wasco
8. Sheriff’s Substation-Lamont * 16. Arvin Police Department 17. Bakersfield Police Department 22. Taft Police Department
18. California City Police Department 23. Kern County Probation Dept.
19. Delano Police Department 24. Kern County Adult Probation Dept.
20. Ridgecrest Police Department 25. Kern County Central Jail
21. Shafter Police Department 26. District Attorney’s Crime Lab.
The following prison and detention facilities were also visited during the Fiscal year.
1. Camp Erwin Owen * 7. Mesa Verde (CCF)
2. Delano (CCF) 8. North Kern State Prison (NKSP)
3. Juvenile Hall 9. Taft (CCF)
4. Lerdo Max/Med. Detention Facility * 10. Taft Federal Prison (TCI) *
5. Lerdo Minimum Detention Facility * 11. Tehachapi State Prison (CCI)
6. Mc Farland (CCF) * 12. Wasco State Prison (WSP/RC)
13. Shafter (CCF)
* Asterisk denotes final report on following pages.
(CCF) Community Correctional Facility
(TCI) Taft Correctional Institution
(CCI) California Correctional Institution
(RC) Reception Center KERN COUNTY SHERIFF’S LAMONT SUBSTATION
PURPOSE OF INQUIRY:
Annual visitation to observe the facility and review current procedures.
LOCATION:
The Lamont Substation is located at 12022 Main Street, south of Panama Road.
METHOD OF REVIEW:
The committee toured the facility and interviewed the sergeant in charge.
FINDINGS:
The location of this substation facility is home to a number of other government offices and court rooms, with the station being located in the back southwest corner of the building complex. This entire structure is approximately 10 years old and still very attractive.
The interior of the substation looks new – very well kept and designed to effectively accommodate staff procedures.
The reception area at the front of the building, with a large glass wall entrance, is adequate, spacewise, with two clerks. Offices are provided for managerial staff along with a kitchen style lounge area with refrigerator, stove, etc. The rest of the building consists of a large staff room with 14 partitioned desks, two large (men & women) rest rooms with showers and adjoining locker rooms, an armory room with two safes to store rifles, ammunition and confiscated narcotics; two interview rooms; a property storage room, and a small patio area for smoking and relaxation.
The exterior west wall of the squad room is mostly glass looking out on a public driveway that circles the complex. This condition along with the glass at the front entrance constitutes a security problem for the deputies within.
There are complaints about too many people with keys coming in and out of the building at all hours, day and night, without proper surveillance, which causes confusion in keeping adequate records.
The staff consists of 1 commander (stationed here at Lamont), 1 sergeant, 2 senior deputies and 12 patrol deputies. The staff is reinforced with 10 reserves and 10 citizen’s service unit (CSU) volunteers. There are 2 additional deputies assigned to court bailiff duty.
The substation has 23 vehicles (lacking adequate parking facilities); 3 are assigned as pool vehicles for CSU use. Thirteen cars are considered drive-home vehicles. The deputies are bound by the 15-mile limit for drive-home vehicles. Minor maintenance, such as oil change, etc. is covered by local contract. Major vehicle maintenance is taken to Kern County Fire Department maintenance facility on Olive Drive in Bakersfield.
The facility has two holding cells along with a booking and finger printing area. Prisoners are generally held for not more than a few hours. The prisoners are transported to Lerdo Facility for pre-trial and returned for court procedures, usually by reserves or CSU volunteers. Adjacent to the reception office, is a dispatch area with tele-communications equipment for officers’ deployment along with surveillance cameras to monitor the interior and exterior of the facility.
The South Area Substation Division jurisdiction covers an estimated 850 square miles including Lamont, Taft, and Frazier Park areas.
The most prevalent crime in this area is agricultural theft, such as equipment of all types, pipe, produce, etc. The area also has many assault calls from local entertainment establishments. Like most Kern County substations, it is plagued with gang problems and drug abuse by juveniles and adults alike.
The substation has a pass-through door to the court area, where two additional holding cells for prisoners awaiting court appearances are located. These prisoners are transported from Lerdo pre-trial back to court by this station.
This station has two information systems available at all times; the “California Law Enforcement Tele-Communications System (CLETS)”, and the “Criminal Justice Information System (CJIS).”
COMMENTS:
This substation is a very well kept, organized and commanded unit; the facility is well equipped to accommodate staff procedures; and this substation is an outstanding tribute to the City of Lamont and surrounding areas.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
That the following be done:
Enlarge the existing (drive-thru) parking area to the west, with chain-link fencing and covered areas for vehicle temperature control and security, which is now non-existent.
Provide a computerized keypad entry system on all existing entrance doors to the substation, except for the public entrance.
Provide decorative concrete block protective walls in front of the reception entrance and along the west side of the squad room for security purposes.
Increase the 15-mile limit to 25 miles for the drive-home vehicles. RESPONSE REQUIRED WITHIN 90 DAYS TO:
PRESIDING JUDGE KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301
Response to the Grand Jury Final Report
LAMONT SUBSTATION
Recommendation: Enlarge the existing (drive-through) parking area to the west, with chain- link-fencing and covered areas for vehicle temperature control and security, which is now non- existent. Response: Construction of additional secure parking, for the Lamont Substation has been submitted as a capital project and is awaiting funding.
Recommendation: Provide a computerized keypad entry system on all existing entrance doors to the substation, except for the public entrance. Response: A keypad lock entry system is currently being considered for the Lamont Substation.
Recommendation: Provide decorative concrete block protective walls in front of the reception entrance and along the west side of the squad room for security purposes. Response: The decorative concrete block protective walls are not critical and therefore remain low on the priority list.
Recommendation: Increase the 15-mile limit to 25 miles for drive-home vehicles. Response: The home retention mileage limitation has been increased to 25 miles. This has aided in the parking situation. LERDO MINIMUM DETENTION FACILITY
PURPOSE OF INQUIRY:
To review the prison conditions and operations.
LOCATION:
This minimum-security facility is one of three quite different prisons on the same physical campus at 17635 Industrial Farm Road just north of the Lerdo Highway and east of Highway 99. The other two prisons on this campus are a maximum and a pre- trial detention facility.
BACKGROUND:
Penal Code 919(b) states that the “Grand Jury shall inquire into the condition and management of the public prisons within the county.” Grand Jury members visited this facility to fulfill the obligation under this statute.
METHOD OF REVIEW:
Eight members of the Grand Jury toured this prison on October 6, 1998, and noticed that visitors would have complete freedom for person to person contact, given the visiting area arrangements. On November 23, 1998, three members of the Law & Justice Committee returned to the facility to explore specific recommendations to minimize illegal drug introduction into the inmate population.
FINDINGS:
Individuals who are detained while awaiting trial are housed in this facility as well as those who are sentenced to spend up to one year in the County jail. The inmates are primarily Kern County residents. Living quarters consist of dorms or barracks surrounding an open yard with soccer, basketball, and other exercise facilities available. Each housing unit has a patio and fenced grass area for outside relaxation. Meal services are contracted for with the Wackenhut Corporation. The facility houses approximately nine hundred males and one hundred females.
On any given day, ten to fifteen percent of the inmates are already sentenced to serve time in the county jail. The rest of the inmates are in a pre-trial situation, requiring transportation to court for hearings and trial. Inmates can earn time off of their sentence by attending school classes, although they must serve at least one-third of their sentence before being eligible for early release from jail. Low-risk, sentenced prisoners provide a source of inmate labor for work crews to help public works, parks, and other county departments. Work release programs are also available for individuals convicted of misdemeanors who may elect to work unpaid for the city or county and spend their nights at home rather than at the jail. If they fail to show up for work assignments, they are picked up and placed in custody to complete their sentence.
COMMENTS:
Since the vast majority of the residents are not yet sentenced by the courts, those inmates must be considered innocent of the charges against them and cannot be required to do manual labor like field or community work. Consequently, the surrounding fields are sitting idle at this time, as is the dairy and butchering operations that used to be part of the “farm.” The horse training operation that was being performed in conjunction with the Bureau of Land Management is also being phased out for many of the same reasons, namely that excessive staff efforts are required in these endeavors to benefit a very small number of inmates. Future education focus will be on drug training, parenting classes, life skills training, and GED classes that will help the majority of inmates as they return to their home communities.
Friends and family visiting facilities consist of an outside, tree shaded area with picnic benches to sit on. It obviously permits person to person contact. As one would expect, illegal drug use is difficult to control, and significant staff time is required to search returning inmates following visiting privileges. Since all visitors pass through one small gate to enter the visiting area, it could be possible to post drug-sniffing dogs at that location to intercept any contraband prior to contact with inmates. Scheduling them on a random, periodical basis would minimize the cost while retaining their deterrent value.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
That the Sheriff’s Department does the following:
Schedule drug-sniffing canine assistance on a random, periodical basis during visiting hours as a deterrent to introducing illegal substances into the facility.
RESPONSE REQUIRED WITHIN 90 DAYS TO:
PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301
Response to the Grand Jury Final Report
The Grand Jury recommended the Kern County Sheriff s Department schedule drug-sniffing canine assistance on a random, periodical basis during visiting hours as a deterrent to introducing illegal substances into the facility. The following, is our response: We acknowledge the value that a drug-sniffing dog might have on controlling the influx of drugs that might be occurring as a result of contact visits at the Lerdo Minimum Facility. It is our intent to actively consider the feasibility of adopting the Jury's recommendation during the next fiscal year. LERDO MAXIMUM / MEDIUM DETENTION FACILITY
PURPOSE OF INQUIRY:
To review the prison conditions and operations.
LOCATION:
The Maximum/Medium Security Facility is one of three quite different prisons on the same physical campus at 17635 Industrial Farm Road, just north of Lerdo Highway and east of Highway 99. The other two prisons on this campus are a minimum and a pre- trial detention facility.
METHOD OF REVIEW:
Eight members of the Grand Jury toured this prison on October 6, 1998, and noticed the lack of sufficient exercise space to handle the population mix and inmate needs. On November 23, 1998, three members of the Law & Justice Committee returned to the facility to explore specific recommendations to alleviate inmate exercise scheduling problems.
BACKGROUND:
Penal Code 919(b) states that the “Grand Jury shall inquire into the conditions and management of the public prisons within the county.” Grand Jury members visited this facility to fulfill jury obligations under this statute.
FINDINGS:
The Maximum/Medium Security Facility is operated as a detention facility for both pre- sentenced and sentenced adult federal inmates requiring secure incarceration. The Sheriff leases jail bed space to Federal Government Agencies such as the Immigration and Naturalization Service, Bureau of Prisons, and the United States Marshal’s Office. This mix of prisoners poses significant challenges for the staff in that several inmates must be housed in single cells and require individual attention for feeding, exercising, and maintaining activities. While average costs are higher to house this population, the per diem paid by the Federal Agencies involved makes the effort profitable and annually contributes significant dollars to the Sheriff’s budget.
COMMENTS:
This facility houses only federal prisoners. The building is constructed as an old fashioned prison, with many individual cells as well as several rows of group (designed for six to eight people) cells. There are also several dormitory type facilities for housing inmates that can be accommodated in this fashion, such as groups of people the Immigration and Naturalization Service might hold in detention while waiting for deportation arrangements. There is only one small exercise yard attached to this facility to accommodate all of the prisoners housed here. This limitation is further exacerbated by the need to place many prisoners in single cell accommodations for their own safety or for the safety of others and to schedule individual exercise time for them. Groups that are housed together also exercise together. The daily yard schedule begins at 6:00 a.m. and runs until 12:00 midnight, with unscheduled blocks of time for meals or other necessary prison routines. This schedule permits inmates a total of three hours each of exercise outside their cell each week in blocks of one and one-half hours at a time.
There is an empty lot next door to the present exercise yard that could easily double the exercise accommodations. A request to build this yard has been on the County’s “Capital and Major Maintenance Project Request List” since 1996 but has not been able to reach the priority level that would permit the construction to go forward. Questions were also raised about the estimated construction cost that is shown on the list as it seems higher than one would anticipate for a simple concrete exercise yard similar to the existing one.
While Jury members were outside the building to observe the potential exercise yard site, an unfenced space was also pointed out that is behind the single and group cell block area that could be fenced to confine prisoners near the building during emergency evacuations. Exit doors from the building are in place, but the lack of fencing will release inmates into the surrounding prison area should the exits ever have to be used. This project is also on the “Capital and Major Maintenance Project Request List,” and the cost also seems very high for what is requested. Perhaps a more realistic cost estimate would permit both of these projects to move up on the priority list.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
That the Sheriff’s Department do the following:
Give high priority to constructing a second exercise yard next to the existing yard to provide additional exercise time and ease scheduling difficulties.
Re-estimate costs and give priority to fencing the space outside the cell block where prisoners would exit during emergency evacuations.
RESPONSE REQUIRED WITHIN 90 DAYS TO:
PRESIDING JUDGE KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 Response to the Grand Jury Final Report
LERDO MAXIMUM/MEDIUM DETENTION FACILITY
Recommendation:. Give high priority to -constructing a second exercise yard next to the existing yard to provide additional exercise time and ease scheduling difficulties.
Response: Although we would welcome the construction of a second exercise yard at the Lerdo Maximum/Medium facility, we are also cognizant of the county's need to balance competing budget priorities.
Recommendation: Re-estimate costs and give priority to fencing the space outside the cell block where prisoners would exit during emergency evacuations. Response: We are in the process of constructing the additional fencing which will provide more secure emergency evacuations from the Maximum/Medium facility. McFARLAND COMMUNITY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
PURPOSE OF INQUIRY:
The purpose of this visit to the McFarland Community Correctional Facility (CCF) was to observe the facility and review current procedures.
LOCATION:
The location of the McFarland (CCF) is 1120 Taylor Road slightly south of town and immediately West of Highway 99.
BACKGROUND:
Penal Code 919(b) states that the “Grand Jury shall inquire into the conditions and management of the public prisons within the County.” Committee members visited this facility to fulfill jury obligations under this statute.
METHOD OF REVIEW:
The committee toured two of the three prisons at this CCF – which were called the Golden State and the McFarland #1 - and interviewed the Administrator of each facility.
FINDINGS:
The McFarland Community Correctional Facility (CCF) is a restricted, medium security facility designed to house parole violators for the California Department of Corrections. It is owned and operated by Wackenhut Corrections Corporation, and is the first private Correctional Facility in California to be built from the ground up for the purpose of housing inmates. Wackenhut Corrections is a worldwide corporation with facilities in the U.S., Puerto Rico, and Australia.
There are three housing units in this McFarland Complex; the Golden State, the Central Valley, and the McFarland #1. The Golden State and the Central Valley units are identical in size and appearance at 114,450 square feet each, built approximately one year ago. The McFarland #1 at 37,000 square feet was built in 1989. Over 80% of the inmates committed to these facilities are convicted of drug use or drug related crimes.
The cost to house an inmate in the Golden State or Central Valley is approximately $15,000 per year, where at the smaller unit McFarland #1, it is approximately $11,000 per year. The two larger units house approximately 500 inmates each, whereas the smaller unit, McFarland #1, houses 224 inmates.
The facilities are kept clean and immaculate at all times by the inmates. Strict accountability and self-reliance are expected of all inmates. The average stay at these facilities is six months with a maximum of 18 months allowed. The Golden State and the Central Valley facilities enable modern correctional techniques, such as direct supervision. The building perimeter and control centers utilize state-of-the-art electronic surveillance and detection techniques. Security enhancement measures include a central control room that contains closed circuit TV monitors allowing staff to survey interior as well as perimeter areas. Housing units are designed so those inmates can move freely under the directions of unarmed officers who monitor their activities and movements between areas.
The Golden State and the Central Valley Facilities were constructed at a cost of approximately $11.5 million each, or $21,000 per bed including land & all development costs. It has a well-equipped health care unit and rooms for classroom instruction, counseling, and visitation. Educational areas include a computer laboratory, a library and indoor and outdoor recreational areas. A fully equipped kitchen provides three hot meals each day for all inmates and staff. The facility is well furnished and dayrooms and dormitory sleeping areas are clean and comfortable.
COMMENTS:
The McFarland Community Correctional Facility (including all three units – Golden State, Central Valley, and McFarland #1) is a very well maintained, organized and commanded facility. It is doing an excellent job with community relations and support of the surrounding communities.
The Facility is well equipped to accommodate staff procedures.
The Correctional Facility is a tribute to the City of McFarland.
NO RESPONSE REQUIRED KERN COUNTY SHERIFF / MOJAVE SUBSTATION
PURPOSE OF INQUIRY:
Annual visitation to observe the facility and review current procedures.
LOCATION:
The substation is located at 1771 Highway 58, just to the east of town, on the north side of the highway.
METHOD OF REVIEW:
The committee toured the facility and interviewed the sergeant in charge.
FINDINGS:
The building which houses the Sheriff’s substation, a 15 bed jail, and the municipal court facility, is 22 years old and still an attractive building, at an excellent location.
Interior facilities are extremely crowded and inadequate for present activities handled by both men and women deputies. This office has only one bathroom. Desks and files are crowded into spaces that make for an inefficient work environment. Since the attached jail and municipal court are efficient and would be expensive to duplicate in a new location, consideration should be given to expanding the substation. There is space available on the East Side of the present offices, and if built in a two-story configuration, could nicely locate the District Commander’s office and a meeting/conference room and perhaps detectives on the upper floor.
The staff consists of one District Commander; one Sergeant; two Senior and nine Patrol deputies; two Deputies serving as court bailiffs; and two Detention Officers, as well as five local volunteers to assist staff efforts. Their jurisdiction extends east to Boron, north to Jawbone canyon, south to Backus Road, and west to Cache Creek.
This facility has sufficient parking for sheriff and volunteer vehicles, although the entire parking lot is not fenced. Minor maintenance of vehicles, like oil changes and minor repairs are contracted for locally. Major maintenance problems are performed at the Kern County Fire Department maintenance facility. Volunteers usually are available to transport vehicles to Bakersfield for repairs. The number of deputies who take vehicles home is limited by the current fifteen mile limit that is imposed. Surrounding communities could benefit by the increased presence of sheriff vehicles if the limit were extended to take into account the distances between populations in these areas, and response times to incidences could be significantly reduced.
The jail portion of the facility includes three multi-cells with four bunk beds in each, two single cells, plus one padded room for out-of-control prisoners. All cells have TV outside the bars for inmate use and are TV and sound monitored from the command post. Most inmates arrive in the morning for court appearances and return to their assigned prison at the end of the day. This facility is considered a class 1 jail and can hold inmates up to 96 hours. It is the only jail in the district, so it receives detainees from the Rosamond and Tehachapi Substations. Meals are heated by microwave for inmates when kept overnight.
There is a small area off of the building lobby containing a computer open to the public that provides access to a program to identify local sex offenders. They are in the process of receiving a new live scan fingerprinting unit to replace the ink pad type presently in use. They intend to separate booking activities, like finger printing, from the public activities.
COMMENTS:
The committee members found the individuals who were contacted to be helpful, and they conducted themselves in a professional manner. This substation is a very well kept, organized and commanded unit, in spite of cramped conditions.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
That the following be done:
Build a two-story addition on the East Side of the present offices to accommodate gender differences and efficiently utilize available space.
Completely fence the existing parking lot to provide security for Sheriff vehicles.
Extend the mileage cap for home retention of patrol vehicles in order to give surrounding communities the benefit of sheriff vehicle presence and to reduce deputy response times.
RESPONSE REQUIRED WITHIN 90 DAYS TO:
PRESIDING JUDGE KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CA. 93301
Response to the Grand Jury Final Report MOJAVE SUBSTATION
Recommendation: Build a two-story addition on the east side of the present offices to accommodate gender differences and efficiently utilize available space. Response: A capital project request for the expansion of the Mojave Substation has been submitted for the past several years. We are awaiting funding priority. Recommendation: Completely fence the existing, parking, lot to provide security for Sheriff vehicles. Response: Security parking at the Mojave Substation is important, but remains low in funding priority.
Recommendation: Extend the mileage cap for this facility to give surrounding communities the benefit of sheriff vehicle presence and to reduce deputy response times. Response: The home retention mileage has been increased from 15 miles to 25 miles. CAMP ERWIN OWEN
PURPOSE OF INQUIRY:
Annual visitation to observe the facility and review current procedures.
LOCATION:
Camp Owen is located one mile north of Kernville at 14401 Sierra Highway on 56 acres of mountainous terrain overlooking the Kern River.
METHOD OF REVIEW:
Discussions were held regarding the camp’s purpose, history, operation, finances, local and governmental support, etc. with both Assistant Institution Directors, Teaching Principal, and staff. The Grand Jury members toured the camp facilities.
FINDINGS:
The camp was named after Superior Court Judge Erwin Owen. It serves under the direction of the County Probation Department. Its two purposes are to remove the male juvenile offenders from the public and to attempt to rehabilitate the offenders. The latter purpose is especially difficult when the ward was never a successful member of the family, school, or community.
All boys committed to the camp are Juvenile Court Wards, and they vary in age from 13 to 18. All are delinquent youth with anti-social behavior in home, school, and society in general. Monthly average population is just under 125 wards. Wards are held in the program 4 to 9 months, with average stay of 6 months. Eighty-two percent of the wards complete the program. There is 10-20% recidivism.
Volunteers 18 years of age and older provide important help in the camp. Current volunteers average a total of 750 hours monthly, working in both day and evening programs.
The camp program is designed to give each ward the opportunity for a successful experience in group living in a stable environment. The program contains six components as follows:
Work Experience:
Work of maintaining the camp and doing camp projects is meaningful. The wards work and attend school in the camp on a half-time basis per each activity.
School:
The high school is operated by the Kern County Superintendent of Schools, and is staffed by seven teachers, six instructional aides, a teaching principal, and a school secretary. Curriculum is geared to the individual. After an average stay of 5 months, students are given an examination, and attain an average growth of 1.4 years in reading and 4.6 years in mathematics.
Counseling:
Each counselor has four to seven wards on both an individual and group basis. The wards may advance to less restrictive levels based on conduct and acceptance of responsibility.
Recreation:
Recreational opportunities include outdoor sports, games, and hobbies. Emphasis is placed on teamwork, sportsmanship, and conditioning.
Medical Services:
Complete medical care and dental care are available in the area. A registered nurse is on staff.
Community Service:
Wards participate in a variety of community projects and are appreciated by the local townspeople for their help.
COMMENTS:
The Board of Supervisors and Society should recognize the importance of dealing with young people at a time when they are still susceptible to corrective training, resulting in improved lives and reduced penal costs. More camps like this one should be provided.
Staff is now set at a one to fifteen staff-ward ratio. However, too many time demands reduce the effectiveness of this relationship. Additional support staff would increase the effectiveness of the staff-ward ratio.
Staff members are to be commended for their ability to use rather old and aged plant facilities to conduct an essential program. The mess hall was built in the 1940’s to accommodate 65 wards. Since it is possible to serve a maximum of only 95 wards at one time, meals must be served in shifts. This creates an additional burden on staff and food service personnel.
The camp has an ambitious agricultural program, which includes the raising of sufficient cattle and hogs to supply all the camp’s needs. However, due to a lack of refrigeration and freezer storage capacity, the staff can only slaughter and process animals in numbers which fill the immediate or short-term needs of the facility. Additional refrigeration and freezer capacity would allow for furnishing butchered animals to other county agencies, such as the Lerdo Detention Facility. Currently there are only outdoor visiting areas. During inclement winter conditions or in the extremely hot summer days the outdoor environment is not conducive to visiting.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
That the following be done:
Provide a new mess hall large enough to accommodate existing population, with the design capability to expand at a later date if necessary.
Provide additional refrigeration and freezer capacity.
Provide an indoor visiting center.
RESPONSE REQUIRED WITHIN 90 DAYS TO:
PRESIDING JUDGE KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 TAFT CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION (TCI)
PURPOSE OF INQUIRY:
The purpose of this visit to the Taft Federal Prison was to observe the facility and review current procedures.
LOCATION:
The site for the TCI Facility is a 250 acre tract east of the City of Taft at 1500 Cadet Road.
BACKGROUND:
Although Penal Code 919 (b) provides that the Grand Jury shall inspect public prisons within the County, that section does not apply to federal prisons. The Warden at the Taft Federal Prison, nonetheless, welcomed the Jury’s visit.
METHOD OF REVIEW:
The committee interviewed the Warden and toured the facility with the Active Executive Assistant.
FINDINGS:
The prison was built by the Federal Bureau of Prisons in 1995 and stood vacant for approximately two years. The Bureau issued a request for proposals on November 26, 1996, soliciting proposals for the comprehensive management and operation of a U.S. Government – owned / contractor operated correctional facility in this Taft, California, area. On July 21, 1997, Wackenhut Corrections was notified that it was selected to operate this Federal facility.
This site includes a 1,536 bed, low security Federal Corrections Institution (FCI) with a separate adjacent 512 bed minimum security Federal Prison Camp (FPC). Both facilities are intended to house only male prisoners. Wackenhut provides all necessary personnel, equipment, materials, and services necessary for the management and operation of the facility.
Wackenhut Corrections provides a safe and secure environment for staff and inmates. They perform security inspections and maintain a readiness level to respond to institution emergencies with adequate staffing levels at 384 employees. They provide full medical, dental, pharmaceutical, radiology, and mental health services to the inmate population along with a wide array of inmate programs which include religious, literacy, English as a second language, and mental health screening. They manage community support resources, and maintain information systems. They provide full food and laundry services, maintain inmate funds accounts, commissary store, and telephone systems. The FCI provides inmate beds in cubicles in open dorms, while the FPC has beds in similar cubicles and dorms. Each inmate cubicle is equipped with a bunk bed, desk, chair, and storage locker.
The institution has four functional components: (1) Administrative and Correctional/ Security Functions; (2) Personal Services – laundry, clothing issue, barber shop, mail and commissary; (3) Support and Programs – food service, health services, receiving/discharge, psychology, education/vocational services, UNICOR (prison industry), religious, recreational activities, and visiting; (4) Inmate housing - the indoor recreation functions include arts and crafts, music, and exercise rooms. The outside recreation areas include spaces for basketball, jogging, handball, and football.
The main facility on the site is the FCI and represents three-quarters of the total program area, or approximately 398,000 square feet. The FCI is enclosed by a double security fence and a perimeter patrol road.
Inmate housing for the low security facility is provided in three two-story buildings. Each building has two wings, and the wings comprise a unit, which is managed by a unit manager, case managers, and counselors who are located in the core area between the wings. Each wing has an officer’s station overlooking 64 inmate cubicles. Adjacent to the officer’s station are multi-purpose spaces, TV rooms, toilets, showers, and laundry rooms.
The minimum security FPC comprises approximately 80,000 square feet or about 15% of the total facility area. The camp program contains the same inmate services and program functions as the FCI but is scaled down to accommodate the smaller inmate population. The two-story housing unit has two wings of open dorms with low partitions forming 64 cubicles per wing per floor. Counselors’ offices, TV rooms, multi-purpose rooms, toilets, showers and laundry rooms are shared and grouped together in the central portion of the building. This camp does not have perimeter security fencing. It houses 485 inmates at the present time.
Fifty-three thousand square feet of shared facilities are located between the FCI and the camp. The shared facilities contain five functional areas; the central utility plant houses metering, generation, and distribution for the utilities; the landscape shop houses equipment and materials for maintenance of the grounds; the garage is used for repair of facility vehicles; the outside warehouse is used to receive and store all goods and materials which are then distributed to the various areas of the FCI and FPC. The UNICOR warehouse is used to store and ship products made in the FCI and FPC–UNICOR factories. Jury members were told that they make many valuable items for the Federal prisons, but this day it seemed that rolling chairs were a priority; hundreds were stored in the facility for shipment to various Federal points. The FCI– UNICOR facility employs 285 inmates.
The Wackenhut Corrections Corporation operates the Taft Correctional Institution for the Federal Bureau of Prisons, with a firm-fixed price service contract with the following duration: August 12, 1997, (initial 3 year term) with seven additional one year options (Total 10 years). First occupancy of the facility was December, 1997. Eight Federal correctional officers monitor daily operations.
COMMENTS:
The inmate population of this prison appeared to be better educated than often is the case in state prisons in this county. Perhaps it also contributed to a philosophical difference in the way the prison administration approached their polices and duties in managing the day-to-day operations. Inmates are expected to be responsible for themselves without close supervision by guards. Prisoners have assigned times to eat, attend classes, turn in laundry, clean their housing space, and perform various other activities, and are expected to accomplish them as scheduled without further direction from the prison staff. If inmates fail to meet expectations, they are disciplined individually, rather than everyone in the barracks also being affected by the failure of one individual as is often the case in the state system.
The Taft Correctional Institution is a very well maintained, organized, and commanded facility by the Wackenhut Corrections Corporation employees. The facility is well equipped to accommodate staff procedures. The Correctional Institution is a tribute to the City of Taft.
COMMENDATION:
The Wackenhut Corrections Corporation should be commended for their work and be encouraged to continue.
RESPONSE NOT REQUIRED KERN COUNTY SHERIFF/BUTTONWILLOW SUBSTATION
PURPOSE OF INQUIRY:
Annual visitation to observe the facility and review current activities
LOCATION:
The Buttonwillow Substation is located at 181 First Street, on the corner of Marasol and First Street.
METHOD OF REVIEW:
The committee toured the facility and interviewed the sergeant in charge.
FINDINGS:
This building was constructed in 1947 with architecture typical of the 1940’s, concrete block and red spanish tile roof. There is an adequate, paved, fenced parking lot at the rear of the building.
The interior is designed so that all offices open onto a hallway that runs the length of the “T” shaped building. Supervisor Peterson’s field office is also connected to the hallway, along with a public rest room, deputy sheriff’s locker and change room with rest room, the sergeant’s office, and an office for two senior deputies with a rest room in between. The rest of the building, which originally was a court room, houses the reception area with two clerks, a squad room with 13 desks for deputies, and a metal locker used to store evidence. There is no central air conditioning system to provide comfort during the summer and winter seasons.
The present staff consists of 1 commander (stationed at Wasco), 1 sergeant, 2 senior deputies, and 10 patrol deputies reinforced with 1 reserve officer and 2 Citizen Service Unit (CSU) volunteers. They also have two deputies assigned to court duty at the Shafter court.
They have 18 vehicles; 9 are classified as drive-home vehicles by complying with the 15- mile limit for deputy home retention. Minor maintenance, such as oil change, etc. is covered by local contract. Major vehicle maintenance is taken to Kern County fire department maintenance facility on Olive Drive in Bakersfield.
The substation’s jurisdiction covers an estimated 1500 square miles, which includes all area around the city of Wasco, Shafter, Lost Hills, and north to the Kings and Tulare county line.
The most notable crimes are rural - agricultural theft of equipment, pipe, sprinklers, produce, etc. They have a good, active relationship with the Border Patrol and the community at large. Although there are no major drug problems, some gang problems do exist.
COMMENTS:
This substation is well commanded and doing a good job.
Their building is quite old and not designed for efficient staff use.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
That the following be done:
Provide a larger, more modern facility to increase staff efficiency.
RESPONSE REQUIRED WITHIN 90 DAYS TO:
PRESIDING JUDGE KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CA. 93301
Response to the Grand Jury Final Report
BUTTONWILLOW SUBSTATION
Recommendation: Provide a larger, more modem facility to increase staff efficiency. Response: Construction of a new Buttonwillow Substation and county government complex is a high priority to the Sheriff’s Department. A capital project request has been submitted and is awaiting funding. In the interim, modifications have been made to make the existing office more efficient and comfortable for employees and the public. KERN COUNTY SHERIFF OFFICES OF CORONER / PUBLIC ADMINISTRATOR
PURPOSE OF INQUIRY:
The purpose of this visit to the Sheriff’s Offices of Coroner/Public Administrator Division, was to observe the facility and review current procedures.
LOCATION:
The facility is located at 1832 Flower Street immediately behind the main Kern Medical Center buildings.
BACKGROUND:
The Office of the Coroner was first established in 1866 and combined with the Public Administrator in 1922. The Board of Supervisors in January 1995 consolidated the Offices of Coroner/Public Administrator with the Kern County Sheriff’s Department. In California the majority of all counties are organized in this way.
The Public Administrator administers estates if no executor or administrator is appointed or available. Estate property is safeguarded by the Public Administrator until an executor or administrator is appointed by the court.
METHOD OF REVIEW:
The committee interviewed the Coroner Division Chief and toured the facility.
FINDINGS:
The present coroner’s staff consists of 1 division chief, 7 investigators, 6 reserve investigators, 1 senior secretary, 1 medical secretary, 1 autopsy assistant, 1 deputy public administrator, 2 property control officers, and 1 receptionist (15 full time paid employees, 6 reserves).
The coroner’s jurisdiction includes all of Kern County, which includes 11 cities, all military installations, prisons, jails, and detention facilities.
It is important to recognize the devotion to service provided by the six reserve coroner investigators who make it possible to respond in a timely fashion in the vast county of 8,172 square miles and 640 thousand residents.
The coroner has a mandated duty to inquire into and determine the circumstances, manner, and cause of death in jurisdictional cases as enumerated in the California Government and Health and Safety Codes. In 1998 the coroner inquired into 2,017 deaths. Of the 2,017 deaths responded to by the coroner’s office in 1998, the following statistics are available:
RACE
White 1534 Cases reported Sat, Sun, and holidays – 424 Hispanic 309 5:00 pm to 12:00 am --- 280 Black 125 12:00 am to 8:00 am -----233 Filipino 23 East Indian 3 Total calls outside normal business hours – 937 American Indian 2 Oriental 16 Total calls during normal business hours-1080 Undetermined 5 Total calls received ------2017 2017
Following investigation, jurisdiction was released on 1295 reportable cases allowing the private physician to sign the death certificate. All of these cases were the result of natural causes. The coroner accepted jurisdiction on 722 reportable deaths including 290 from natural causes. Coroner investigators responded to the scene in 491 deaths.
In the category of accidental deaths, traffic fatalities accounted for 45.51%, followed by drug overdoses of 24.58%, and 11.30% due to falls. Of the fourteen drownings, eight were in the Kern River.
Eastern Kern County’s total caseload was 158 or 7.83% of all coroner cases. There were 111 cases in the Lake Isabella area, or 5.5% of the total.
Although the committee did not experience any offensive odors while touring the facility, it was told that in the hot summer months a serious odor problem exists in certain areas.
The coroner’s former laboratory area, at the east end of the building, is now abandoned and scheduled to be revamped into an out-patient pharmacy for Kern Medical Center, which necessitates this facility to send all of their specialized laboratory work to a facility in Tulare; this is a time consuming process that could be detrimental to the coroner’s efficiency.
It was a shock for the committee to find that this important facility did not have an emergency electrical stand–by power source to rely on in case of a local power outage. The addition of a backup generator should be a number one consideration in future budget priorities.
COMMENTS:
It is the responsibility of the coroner to determine the manner of death of all deceased persons. In the State of California the local county coroner or his designated authority is the only one who can certify on a death certificate whether the death was accidental, suicidal, homicidal, or undetermined in nature. He will also ascertain, if possible, the place of injury, describe how the injury occurred (events which resulted in the injury) as well as the location (geographical) where the injury occurred. In Kern County this certification is aided by the continued cooperation of all other law enforcement and investigative agencies within the county.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
That the following be done:
Revamp (or re-new) the existing air conditioning and exhaust systems to fully eliminate all offensive odors.
Provide additional storage area to replace that which is being lost.
Provide a stationary emergency generator power source for the coroner’s facility.
RESPONSE REQUIRED WITHIN 90 DAYS TO:
PRESIDING JUDGE KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CA. 93301
CITIES AND SERVICES COMMITTEE
Lloyd R. Rudberg, Chair Frank G. Pitts Harold W. Nelson MaryHelen Cordova
MISSION STATEMENT
The Kern County Grand Jury Committee on Cities and Services has the responsibility to oversee joint powers agencies, incorporated cities, and various services within the county according to Penal Code 925A
The Cities and Services Committee reviews and evaluates procedures, methods, and systems used by the cities, joint powers, and services within the county to determine whether they comply with the stated objectives and to determine if their operation can be improved.
The committee may inquire into any aspect of county or city government, including special districts and joint power agencies, to ascertain that the best interests of Kern County are being served.
It is the desire of this committee to assist the cities, joint powers, and services within Kern County to the best of its ability, within the scope of its power.
This committee has visited all eleven of the incorporated cities within Kern County and several of the services. The committee wishes to thank all those individuals that it has interviewed and their staff members who have assisted in the compilation of data that has helped make the job easier.
The following is a list of those cities / services:
ARVIN BAKERSFIELD CALIFORNIA CITY DELANO MARICOPA McFARLAND RIDGECREST SHAFTER TAFT TEHACHAPI WASCO
KERN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS. KERN COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT. GOLDEN HILLS COMMUNITY SERVICE DISTRICT. CITY OF MARICOPA
PURPOSE OF INQUIRY:
Contracting for services by Council Members
LOCATION:
Maricopa is located approximately 30 miles southwest of Bakersfield on SR33.
BACKGROUND:
The Grand Jury was alerted to a possible problem regarding members of the Maricopa City Council contracting for services.
METHOD OF REVIEW:
Members of the grand jury interviewed members of the Maricopa City Council, the City Administrator, and various city residents. They also toured the city to view the locations in question and attended the city council meeting.
FINDINGS:
In the fall of 1997 approval was granted by the City Council at a regular meeting to contract for the purchase of materials necessary to repair easements along city streets. Due to the unusual inclement weather during the fall and winter of 1997-98 the start of the work was delayed till the summer of 1998. The approval was for $2,500 and the city maintenance workers were to provide the labor for the project. Because of the delay and other work requirements, the city maintenance workers were not used, and additional temporary workers were hired. Additionally, because of storm damage during the winter, the scope of the repairs needed was increased considerably. The final cost of the repairs was over $5,000.
The Public Contracting Code details specifically the method to be followed when contracting for public projects, such as the repair of city streets. This code was not followed when individual members of the City Council did not initiate a “stop work” when the cost exceeded the $2,500 approved by the City Council. Nor is there any evidence that an attempt was made to call an emergency meeting to approve the higher cost if the repair was deemed to be an “emergency situation.”
There is also no indication that the contractors had met the conditions set forth in the Public Contracting Code and other codes regarding licenses, prevailing wages, liability, bonding, and worker’s compensation insurance, etc. It appears that they did not even have contracts for the work completed.
There was an allegation of impropriety regarding a city vehicle being damaged by one of the contractor’s vehicles. When all the facts were reviewed, it was determined that there was a misunderstanding of the sequence of events and that there was no improper action on the part of either the contractor or the city official.
A second incident of apparent improper contracting for services took place on July 25, 1998, in conjunction with “Clean-up Day.” The limit for non-emergency purchases by city departments without City Council approval is $500, and that amount must be pre- approved by the City Administrator. The scope of the work to be completed during the “Clean-up Day” would require the use of backhoes and their operators, which would incur a cost exceeding that amount. Approval was obtained from the City Administrator, but only after the equipment had been ordered and there was no mention that the cost would be over the $500 limit.
COMMENTS:
In neither of these incidents was there any indication of intended wrongdoing. We recognize and applaud the City Council for their efforts to improve the city, but the rules were written to protect both the council and its constituents. Also, in both cases, the contracts were approved at subsequent City Council meetings.
In an effort to preclude such problems in the future, the City Administrator presented a proposed amendment to the Purchasing Policy on August 20,1998. At their September 24, 1998, meeting, the City Council spent little time reviewing it and sent it back as being excessively complicated and expensive.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
That the City Council review the requirements of the Public Contracting Code and adhere to the provisions when contracting for goods or services. If there is a question regarding propriety, then the advice of either the City Administrator or the City Attorney should be sought.
That the City Administrator’s amended Purchasing Policy be carefully reviewed and reconsidered by the City Council. It may seem to be complicated and expensive, but it was written to help keep the Council out of trouble.
NO RESPONSE REQUIRED CITY OF ARVIN
PURPOSE OF INQUIRY:
Annual visit by the Grand Jury pursuant to Penal Code Section 925A, on October 19, 1998, and again on December 8, 1998.
LOCATION:
Arvin is located approximately 21 miles southeast of Bakersfield on SR223.
METHOD OF REVIEW:
Members of the Grand Jury interviewed the city manager and the city’s financial officer. They attended a city council meeting, and they also toured the city to determine the state of Arvin’s infrastructure.
FINDINGS:
The City of Arvin has been coping with a variety of poor financial decisions that were made in the 1980’s and early 1990’s. The results of these decisions have been the cause of three major lawsuits that are Arvin’s current problem from a financial standpoint.
In the past, the Arvin City Council assumed the role as members of organizations promoting the development of Sycamore Canyon golf course. The city council appointed a chairman for developing and organizing this effort. The chairman appointed a committee. The mayor was an ex-officio member, with no vote, although he could attend meetings. The committee hired an attorney who was a bond specialist to develop the contract for funding the golf course. The City of Arvin signed the contract under the guidance of this attorney. The city later discovered that the contract held them responsible for all costs connected with the golf course development.
The Farm Labor Village was initiated in 1992. The city council accepted the responsibility upon the recommendation of their city attorney. The city appointed a housing authority, which then assumed responsibility for development and costs. The initial lawsuit, brought by the trustee, against the city was dismissed; however the suit has been re-filed against the Housing Authority.
The Jewett Square Development was a piece of private property that the City of Arvin wanted developed. The developer lacked sufficient funds to develop the necessary infra structure (roads, water, etc.). The city approved $1.5 million in bonds. The money was turned over to the developer to complete his efforts. The developer then declared bankruptcy. The city started foreclosure. The city found a new developer, but that venture also failed. The city completed foreclosure, but the developer has title to the property. The city has lost money, as did the bond-holders. The City of Arvin currently has no liability on this property. As hindsight, and possible advice for the future, the city council should have set up a method of separating itself from these ventures, thus keeping the city itself from being liable to law suits.
The city should always have a person, or persons, specifically responsible for proposed expenditures and cost analysis. This would have kept past expenditures by the city council at a more realistic figure when they purchased the property for the golf course and the Farm Labor Village, rather than at a cost that exceeded the appraised value by a factor of 5 or 6 times.
The City of Arvin has attempted to settle the judgement resulting from the golf course litigation on three separate occasions, but the plaintiff refused these offers. The city is continuing to work on this problem.
The Jewett Square Development still has had no one bid on the property to clear the tax lien. The city believes that this is still a viable asset, and if they can clear up some problems it will be of value in the future.
The Farm Labor Village appears to be a “white elephant“ for Arvin. Once again it shows poor judgement on the part of the city to get involved in a venture that would never show a profit.
The sewer problem within Arvin has been resolved. The city has contracted with U.S. Filter Inc. to expand the sewer system. The cost of $70 million is payable over a 35 year period. Sewer assessments, new hook-ups, etc. will cover the cost.
The construction of new homes in Arvin has been slower than expected. This is due in part because of the school tax of $4.24 per square foot on new construction. The state passed Proposition 1A on November 4, 1998, which appropriated nine billion dollars for schools. The Kern County Superintendent of Schools’ office is currently working on the effect the new rules will have on the fees that will be applied to new construction. Hopefully the result will be a reduction in the fee. If not, the city may have to look at reducing some of the fees it currently adds to new construction if it hopes to increase new housing starts.
Arvin’s population is officially listed at 11,249, but the city believes that the actual population is closer to 16,000 to 18,000 due to illegal aliens that are migrant farm workers.
COMMENTS:
The Grand Jury compliments the City of Arvin on the fine job it is doing in dealing with its various financial problems. It is our opinion that it is on the right course, and it will eventually solve its problems.
When the Federal Government conducts the census for the year 2000 it would be of great value to the City of Arvin, and other cities within Kern County, if they use the direct head count method rather than using estimates. RECOMMENDATIONS:
That the City of Arvin:
Pursues good business practices and uses trustworthy legal counsel prior to embarking on any major new business ventures.
Continues to pursue new businesses that will bring jobs to the community.
Works with the Arvin school board to reduce the cost per Sq./Ft. for new construction. This would benefit the city by generating new taxes and still supply money to the school district.
NO RESPONSE REQUIRED. CITY OF TEHACHAPI
PURPOSE OF INQUIRY:
Annual visit by the Grand Jury pursuant to Penal Code Section 925A
LOCATION:
Tehachapi is located approximately 35 miles east of Bakersfield on SR 58.
METHOD OF REVIEW:
Members of the Grand Jury interviewed the city manager and city attorney, reviewed past auditing management recommendation letters and other documents, and also toured the city to determine the state of Tehachapi’s infrastructure.
FINDINGS:
Tehachapi has a population of eight thousand people; however, there are approximately thirty thousand people who live in the general area. Tehachapi has no current plans for annexation. The last annexation brought the state prison into the city. This move gave the city a substantial tax boost while incurring minor costs. The City of Tehachapi contracts with the County of Kern for both police and fire protection.
A new city manager was hired in November 1998. He has been a resident of the area for most of his life. He has instituted a new personnel manual that was contracted out to a vendor who specializes in this type of work. The new manual covers the rights of the city’s employees. The manual is currently being reviewed by the 22 full time and 8 part- time employees for comments and suggestions. The city has adopted a “Mission Statement” and “Code of Conduct” that will make the city a true service organization to its residents, and will also stress teamwork and integrity among the employees.
Financially, Tehachapi expended approximately $100,000 over its $6.6 million budget. The city has a reserve fund that covered this overrun. The increased tax base from the prison annexation should keep the city financially solvent with the ability to increase its reserve fund in the future. Tehachapi currently has three “Enterprise Funds”- sewer, water, and airport. Of these three funds, the airport fund is the only one which is not covering its own operating costs. It requires approximately $60,000 per year in additional funding. The city is in the process of making improvements that will reduce costs and also improve operations by installing an automated fueling system that will allow refueling of aircraft at the airport on a 24-hour basis.
Tehachapi courts non-polluting industries to enhance its economic growth. A Kern County economic committee refers potential businesses that meet the city’s requirement. Tehachapi is in the early stages of developing its own redevelopment agency. The city is currently growing at a rate of 3 to 4 percent per year. The city is not interested in acquiring another prison or a mental hospital. The prison, recently annexed by the city houses six thousand inmates, has a staff of one thousand six hundred, with a payroll of approximately $60 million per year. This annexation has increased the city’s revenue by $300,000 per year.
There is currently no Department of Motor Vehicles office in Tehachapi, requiring the 30,000 persons living in the area to travel to either Bakersfield or Lancaster.
Tehachapi has hired Pavement Management Company to prepare a five-year plan that will assess the condition of the thirty-three miles of roads contained within the city. This contractor's plan will supply the city with software, training, and an inspection of roads, as well as a time-phased plan for various repairs/maintenance. The city is expected to use the software and training received to continue this plan into the future. The city will perform the road repairs/maintenance. This appears to be money well spent at a cost of $19,000.
A new plan for required “capital improvements” will be presented to the city council on a yearly basis. The council will prioritize the required improvements. This will help the city budget costs, and also allow residents some insight into these plans and associated costs. The city is currently reviewing all contracted services in an effort to reduce costs. This has already resulted in some minor cost savings, an example being the reduction of costs by re-bidding the street sweeping contract.
The “Capital Hills Development” located on the north side of SR 58 is in foreclosure. The City of Tehachapi is the trustee and as such is responsible for initiating the foreclosure. This foreclosure results in some negative cash flow to the city. The City still views this development as a future asset and believes that the market condition at that time was the main cause for failure.
Tehachapi has only one high school, and it serves all the local area. This has caused overcrowding. The school bond for $24 million was passed in March 1999. With this bond passage, the state will match these funds. This will now allow the city to implement its school expansion plans, which will include additional grammar schools as well as a new high school.
A major concern of Tehachapi, as it is with all California cities, is that the state is reducing motor vehicle license fees by 25%. These fees are distributed to cities based on population. The state has promised that the reduction in fees will be offset by other monies, and the cities will receive the same dollars as if there were no reduction. If the state does as promised, no problem will exist. If not, most cities within the state will face a budget deficit.
COMMENTS:
The jury became aware of concerns expressed by area residents regarding the parking of trucks on the streets of the “Capital Hills Development”. A city ordinance prohibits vehicles over 10 tons from driving on or parking on streets not designated as “truck routes”. The “truck routes” are posted to advise drivers of large vehicles that they may use the posted streets. The city had signs prepared to post at the entrance to several streets in the “Capital Hills Development” advising that the streets were not truck routes to assist drivers not familiar with the area, even though the signs were not required. The owner of a business in the development objected to the posting of such signs and threatened legal action. The signs were not posted as a result.
The city uses the public accounting firm of Brown, Armstrong, Randall, & Reyes for annual outside audits of their accounting records and procedures. When reviewing past management letters from this firm, the jury recognized that certain recommendations appeared regularly but no follow-up action had been initiated. It appears that the new city manager could benefit from reviewing recent annual auditing documents in order to consider accounting recommendations and changes that could benefit the city.
The City of Tehachapi and the surrounding area would be well served if the State would locate a Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) office within the city.
The Grand Jury compliments the City of Tehachapi. It is the opinion of the Grand Jury that the current and newly implemented plans for the City of Tehachapi are sound and will benefit residents during the future years.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
That the City of Tehachapi:
Consider posting signs at the entrance to streets which are not designated as “truck routes” which indicate that vehicles weighing over 10 tons or 20,000 pounds are prohibited.
Review and adopt appropriate auditor recommendations from recent annual management letters to improve accounting documentation and records.
Continue with the current efforts to improve the service to its residents.
NO RESPONSE REQUIRED. GOLDEN HILLS COMMUNITY SERVICE DISTRICT (G.H.C.S.D.)
PURPOSE OF INQUIRY:
To evaluate the operation of the district.
LOCATION:
Golden Hills is located approximately 5 miles southwest of Tehachapi.
BACKGROUND:
The Grand Jury received inquiries from several residents of The Golden Hills Community regarding inappropriate activity by members of the Golden Hills Community Services District (GHCSD) Board of Directors.
METHOD OF REVIEW:
Members of the Cities and Services Committee attended meetings of the Golden Hills Community Service District and observed the conduct of the board. Interviews were conducted with members of the Board, residents of the Golden Hills community, persons doing business with the district, and district employees. The financial records and the most current audit were reviewed and discussed with an accountant.
FINDINGS:
The Grand Jury found that there is a great deal of dissent within the Board of Directors of the Golden Hills Community Services District. There is a clear line of division, with some of the members lined up on one side, and the other members lined up on the other. This division tends to make every meeting of the board a confrontation, and makes meaningful dialogue between the factions difficult at best. For at least the last year or so, many articles and letters to the editor have appeared in the local paper dealing with the operation of GHCSD. Unfortunately these articles and letters are long on acrimonious opinion and short on facts.
The financial records disclosed that GHCSD is being operated in a sound fiscal manner and shows no signs of any financial difficulties.
One observation made by the committee during the course of the investigation, is the tendency of some GHCSD board members and employees to volunteer opinions or perceptions disguised as facts without giving enough time or research to properly consider the effects that may result, especially in relation to matters of the budget and costs. It is imperative that all board members and employees are working from the same available information and that it is complete and accurate enough to reach a logical conclusion. This does not necessarily mean that they must be in agreement, but they must approach all things as a positive representative for the benefit of the customers of GHCSD.
Disagreements are understandable, but they must be settled in a reasonable manner. The situation which now exists is anything but reasonable. Board Members should conduct the business of the district at the scheduled meetings within the framework of the meeting agenda and rules of conduct. The meeting is the proper forum for discussion and even disagreement, which is not productively carried on in the media. Board members should not write letters to the newspaper to further their particular cause or to create dissention among the very residents who elected them to efficiently run the day to day operations of GHCSD.
Each and every board member should take time to determine if he or she is helping to solve a problem or is exacerbating the existing problems. Is a personal agenda, behavior, or a conflict of interest blocking the ability to serve as an effective board member? The possibility of adopting a “Code of Ethics” or “Code of Conduct” should be considered, with specific reference to: 1) Conflicts of interest, 2) Responsibility, loyalty, and fiduciary duty to GHCSD, 3) A breach of confidentiality, 4) Other standards of conduct that are appropriate. . COMMENTS:
It has become apparent to the Grand Jury that one of the chief stumbling blocks to constructive cooperation between the members of the board of GHCSD is the diametrically opposed methods, which the two factions employ in their dealings with each other. While the majority of the board appears to be making a conscientious effort to assimilate the information made available to them by the district staff in order to participate in a knowledgeable manner at board meetings, a minority does not.
It is apparent that all the members of the board are not aware of the procedures for conducting board meetings. An example of this would be the refusal of one board member to accept the minutes of the prior meeting, even though the minutes accurately reflect what had transpired, ostensibly in the mistaken belief that in so doing the member is registering a protest of the business transacted at the meeting. In addition, to facilitate the conduct of meetings, it may be necessary to tighten up the time allowed for public discussion at the board meetings. Section 54954.3(b) of the “Brown Act” allows for the regulation of the time allocated for public testimony for each individual speaker.
The board and its staff are cautioned concerning the use of proprietary or confidential information for personal gain by anyone. The Grand Jury also advises that only authorized personnel communicate with and deal with vendors doing business with the district in order to avoid conflict.
The Grand Jury was made aware that individuals, not board members at the time, had visited vendors doing business with the district and represented themselves as being from the GHCSD without the knowledge of the board of directors. Such conduct is contrary to the interests of the district and is at the very least disruptive and counterproductive.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
That the Board of Directors of Golden Hills Community Services District consider the following recommendations: 1. Adopt a code of conduct and ethics for board members that will apply at all times to them, whether in a meeting or not, as concerns district business and information. 2. Adopt tighter controls over the monthly meetings with emphasis on “Robert’s Rules of Order” to facilitate a more orderly and productive meeting. 3. Impress upon the board members that district business is conducted at the meetings, and that after a course of action is adopted by the board members they should work together to implement, rather than hinder, the decision of the majority of the board.
RESPONSE REQUIRED FROM THE BOARD WITHIN 90 DAYS TO:
PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
PURPOSE OF INQUIRY:
To review annexation practices and procedures.
INTRODUCTION:
The Grand Jury received a number of complaints regarding the annexation methods and practices currently being used by the City of Bakersfield.
METHOD OF REVIEW:
The Grand Jury made visits to:
Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), a state mandated agency that assists counties within California with annexations, as well as a multitude of other land usage, and with the formation of local government agencies.
The City of Bakersfield, which included the City Manager and staff and the City Attorney.
Interviews and telephone conversations with residents of some of the areas being annexed.
The Kern County Board of Supervisors meetings where annexation was discussed and the decision was made to form a committee that would look into the annexation process and make recommendations that may improve methods and hopefully improve community relations.
The Citizens’ Advisory Committee on Annexation to determine what they consider to be problems and to learn their approach to improving upon the existing status.
FINDINGS:
The Grand Jury has reviewed the “Cortese-Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985” which governs the annexation process. The Grand Jury could not identify any illegal actions taken by the city during the annexation process.
In recent months the City of Bakersfield has initiated several annexations. Some were for areas of vacant land that was annexed without controversy. Others were for residential areas that were contiguous to the existing city limits of Bakersfield. The residential areas are the current cause of contention between the residents of these areas and the city. The Grand Jury has found that the City of Bakersfield has recently made a conscientious effort to improve its method of disseminating information relative to annexation.
COMMENTS:
The method of annexation employed by the City of Bakersfield appears to the lay- people of the Grand Jury, to be within the legal definition of the law. However, the Grand Jury is of the opinion that the method of disseminating annexation information, including notification, could be improved upon. Even though the statute requires only publication in the “Legal Notices” section of a newspaper, a press release by the city would result in a more easily and widely read format.
The city-sponsored “informational meetings” appeared to be a case of “preaching to the choir” in that there seemed to be minimum attendance by persons who were clearly against annexation.
The city-prepared newsletter (Borderline) sent to the residents to present the advantages of annexation, from the city’s point of view, could be made to look more like an official document rather than an advertising brochure. The newsletter could easily be discarded, unread by the very persons who need most to be informed. In addition, the newsletter should include the information that a particular area is being considered for annexataion to the city, and clearly specify the proposed boundaries of the area(s) being considered.
The Citizens’ Advisory Committee on Annexations appointed by the Board of Supervisors could be a helpful tool for all cities within Kern County. At a recent meeting, a member of the board informed the group of the existence of software, which could sort voluminous data into specific areas of interest, such as the voters’ registration list or the property owners’ list. The software is named “Dolphin”. This would make the notification of all persons within a specific area more easily accomplished. With the board in its present makeup, lacking representation from the City of Bakersfield, workable solutions do not appear to be forthcoming. It is too easy to demand changes to procedures that cannot easily be accommodated. However, what is required is a close working relationship and full cooperation by all parties.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Grand Jury makes the following recommendations:
1. The City of Bakersfield appoint a representative to attend the “Citizens’ Advisory Committee on Annexations” meetings.
2. The “Citizens’ Advisory Committee on Annexations” listen to the City of Bakersfield’s representative, and avoid an adversarial relationship. 3. The LAFCO representative and the County Counsel, who attend all Advisory Committee meetings, give guidance to committee members at the meeting when they start off on a “tangent” with ideas that can never come to fruition.
4. All parties look into the possibility of purchasing software such as “Dolphin” to assist in the dissemination of pertinent information to those people affected by the annexation proposal.
RESPONSE REQUIRED WITHIN 90 DAYS TO:
PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 CITY OF RIDGECREST
PURPOSE OF INQUIRY:
Annual visitation pursuant to Penal Code 925a.
LOCATION:
Ridgecrest is located approximately 109 miles east/northeast of Bakersfield on SR 178.
METHOD OF REVIEW:
The Grand Jury interviewed the interim city manager, who was also the chief of police. Effective April 23, 1999, he resigned both positions. A new city manager has been appointed, as has an interim chief of police.
FINDINGS:
The City of Ridgecrest is definitely feeling the results of the cutbacks at the China Lake Naval Ordinance Testing Center. The city has lost about 25% of its population to date due to these cutbacks. The possibility exists that the base could come back to life due to the current U.S. involvement overseas. The city loss of population has recently slowed as new smaller scale businesses have started to move into Ridgecrest.
One area that looks very promising for the future is that independent film companies and the makers of television commercials are utilizing the Ridgecrest area. One company has already built a sound stage and is in production. A second company is currently negotiating with the city to build another sound stage. The Ridgecrest area is an ideal location for filmmakers due to its clear weather and a good variety of locations for filming.
The city is still operating in the “black” due to a $2,000,000 fund that was accrued during better times. This fund is being used up at a rate of approximately $200,000 per year, based on a frugal yearly budget. The need to improve the city infrastructure could drain the coffers at a higher rate than is currently being experienced.
The “Gold Canyon” low cost housing development has $8,000,000 outstanding in bonds. The area is in need of refurbishment; a new management company has taken control and this is expected to significantly improve the area.
Ridgecrest operates a “Teen Court” run by the County Probation Department. A juvenile can elect to go before a jury of his/her peers for sentencing depending on the severity of the crime. The prerequisite is that the person must admit guilt. The sentence is usually a period of time doing community service. The other good thing about accepting a sentence from “Teen Court” is that the juvenile will not have a police record if he/she completes the sentence that has been given. There is not a holding facility for juveniles in Ridgecrest, nor is there a juvenile court. This requires that police officers and parents make the two-hour drive to Bakersfield.
COMMENTS:
Ridgecrest needs a juvenile justice facility. It is estimated that 80% of local juvenile offenders would benefit from such a facility. The parents of most juvenile offenders are initially co-operative; however, after several trips to Bakersfield and the loss of pay for the time off the co-operation dwindles rapidly.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Grand Jury recommends:
That Kern County financially supports “Teen Court” and also funds counseling for offenders. This could allow “Teen Court” to expand its coverage to handling juvenile first time drug offenders.
That a juvenile court and holding facility be established in Ridgecrest or a nearby area for the benefit of the community.
RESPONSE REQUIRED WITHIN 90 DAYS TO:
PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 AIRPORTS DEPARTMENT
PURPOSE OF INQUIRY:
Annual Report
LOCATION:
The Airports Department is located at Meadows Field, 1401 Skyway Drive, Suite 200, Bakersfield, CA 93308. While headquartered at Meadows Field, in Bakersfield, it oversees the administration, maintenance, and operation of the county’s seven airports located at Bakersfield, Buttonwillow, Kern Valley, Lost Hills, Poso, Taft, and Wasco.
BACKGROUND:
Meadows Field was named for and dedicated to Cecil C. Meadows on August 6, 1957. Except for his service in World War II, he was the director from April, 1935, to August, 1957. He was a pioneer airman with much vision and expert flying ability.
The first airport was developed in 1925 near highway 99, about one mile west of the present site of Meadows Field. In 1927, County Supervisors moved the airport to the present location. It occupies approximately 400 acres.
While the outlying airports are mostly used by planes involved with farming activities, Meadows Field serves over 650,000 people located between Frazier Park to the south, Porterville to the north, Tehachapi and Lake Isabella to the east and at least to the Kern County line to the west. Enplanements are increasing more than 10% per year and, in the past, several airlines have scheduled flights from Bakersfield. Meadows Field is the only Kern County airport to produce revenues that exceed the cost of operations.
Current activities have required a greatly expanded parking lot this year and progress is being made on selecting a new site to build a new airport terminal adjacent to the present runway.
METHOD OF REVIEW:
Members of the Cities and Services Committee met with the Airport Director and Staff and also visited some of the smaller county airports.
FINDINGS:
While the department had a debt of approximately $3,500,000 four years ago through borrowed funds in the form of a line of credit from the County General Fund, the debt has been reduced to under $2,000,000 today. Management efficiencies and improved procedures have enabled the airport operations to repay its loan faster than was anticipated. It is expected that this fiscal year will also show a profit of over $600,000, after spending $170,000 to increase the parking at the present terminal. The budget for designing the new terminal is $1,567,000. Grants given the last two years total approximately $997,000. It is expected that the remainder of $570,000 will be covered by a grant next year.
An option to purchase land north of Seventh Standard Road for the new terminal has been approved by the county Board of Supervisors, although other possible contiguous sites will continue to be looked at. About 2/3 of the funding for the $15,000,000 terminal project is expected to come from the Federal Aviation Administration. The remaining funding must be provided by the county.
Upon completion of the new terminal, there is a good chance that a major business presently housed in the area, and utilizing the airfield in its business, will lease the old terminal since it needs more office space than it presently has. Other businesses are also expected to greatly benefit as terminal improvements are completed, as well as new businesses becoming attracted to Bakersfield.
Centerline lights at Meadows Field have greatly increased visibility during fog or other weather problems and contributed to improved business at this airport. This year’s budget also included funds to complete taxiway overlay at Meadows Field, construction of runway turnarounds at the Poso Airport, continuing the hazardous waste remediation at the Wasco Airport, improved airfield signage at Meadows Field, and other improvements to equipment and hangars.
Another significant source of revenue for airports is privately leased hangers. Additional hangers on the west side of Meadows Field are being constructed and leased to bring added revenue and desirable clients. These are of various sizes and provide long term airport revenue.
Three of the outlying airports at Delano, Wasco and Buttonwillow were visited by committee members. Of the three, Delano had the most activity for general aviation, while Wasco and Buttonwillow are mainly used by small agricultural planes. These smaller airports provide services to various individuals and activities beneficial to the communities in which they are located.
COMMENTS:
It appears that the airport department is being operated in an efficient manner by an enthusiastic director and staff who have increased revenue and airline activity to the benefit of the population they serve. Their effort to attract new and improved airline feeder connections and flight schedules also enhance the possibilities for retaining and attracting commercial enterprises to locate in the county. Good airport operations will compliment the other attractions this area offers employers, such as low housing costs, a trained and available work force, and generally good year-around weather. RECOMMENDATIONS:
Continue the effort to attract improved airline feeder connections and promote the new terminal facility.
RESPONSE NOT REQUIRED: ENGINEERING AND SURVEY SERVICES
PURPOSE OF INQUIRY:
To review plans for Caliente Creek early flood warning system.
INTRODUCTION:
The Grand Jury was alerted that an early warning system for flooding was being funded for the Caliente Creek area.
METHOD OF REVIEW:
The Grand Jury made a visit to the Kern County Engineering and Survey Services located at 2700 “M” street, Bakersfield, CA.
FINDINGS:
The Department of Engineers was very helpful in supplying information about what is happening at the Caliente Creek area. The expenditure of $170,000 for an early warning system has been approved by the Board of Supervisors.
In the event of a very heavy rainfall the chance for serious flooding in this area is almost a certainty. It was pointed out that Caliente Creek and Tehachapi Creek and their various tributaries form an alluvial fan. This alluvial fan forms the plain on which Arvin and Lamont are situated.
To alert the cities and their residents, an early warning system is to be installed to allow residents time to take emergency measures or possibly, in severe situations, evacuate.
The warning system will consist of 21 rain-gauge stations and 5 flow-meter stations, making a total of 26 stations. Each station has its own solar panel for power and requires no outside power source. These stations transmit to an orbiting satellite, which reflects the signal to a station in the state of Virginia, which transmits information back to local agencies. The system is designed to give eight hours warning prior to flooding.
Engineering and Survey Services are in the process of obtaining permission from property owners to have these units installed. The equipment is on order and will be installed by department employees in time for next year’s rainy season.
COMMENTS:
The Grand Jury believes that this is money well spent, and should save many times the cost of the installation. RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Grand Jury recommends:
That the Engineering and Survey Services continue with this type of effort; it shows that worthwhile tasks do not have to carry a large price tag. This task, though low cost, gives the citizens of Kern County the most for their dollar.
NO RESP0NSE REQUIRED EDIT COMMITTEE
Charles P. Schumann, Chair Mary Helen Cordova Frank K. Johnson Norman E. Johnson Lloyd R. Rudberg Robert A. Schilly Thomas D. Stockton Judith E. Valenzuela
MISSION STATEMENT
The primary responsibility of the Edit Committee is to edit, to arrange for approvals and printing, and to publish and distribute the Final Reports which have been prepared by members of the Grand Jury.
The Edit Committee is composed of the various committee chairs. It establishes the criteria for reports so their appearance will be uniform. It reviews all reports for conformance with current editing standards which include grammar, spelling, punctuation, and logic, etc.
It establishes procedures for handling reports from origination through release to all subject agencies and the public, including reviews by the County Counsel and the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court.
The published reports reflect the enthusiastic and dedicated efforts of the nineteen members of the 1998-99 Kern County Grand Jury who have labored diligently to be objective, honest, and complete. ACTIVITIES
Each member of the Grand Jury is placed on one or more of the committees responsible for oversight of governmental agencies in Kern County. The end result of each committee’s efforts is the production of a group of reports to the subject agencies in the county and to the public. Reports will comment on the committee’s impression of the agency or organization and how it operates, and may include recommendations for the agency. Three to five members, including the committee chair, make up a committee. All reports must be completed for publishing by June of the jury year.
Typically, each new Grand Jury starts from scratch in getting organized and preparing the necessary operating procedures. In most instances, this can be very frustrating and time-consuming for new members. This year, the Edit Committee made an effort to be helpful to future grand juries by preparing a Final Report Manual for its own use and in such a way that future grand juries will need to spend only minimum time to understand report preparation and handling.
Where appropriate, final reports were written to record the jury’s actions and impressions. Typically, specific directions or instructions did not exist for guiding the jury in handling reports once they were written. As a result, appreciable time and effort were spent to understand requirements and then to organize the procedures necessary to carry them out.
Each committee decided which reports it would write. The draft report was then reviewed by the Edit Committee, composed of the different committee chairs. Attention was given to logic, spelling, grammar, and punctuation, etc. Following this, the nineteen members of the jury made a final assessment of the report for their approval.
Each report was then reviewed by the County Counsel as to form for release and for confirmation that no apparent legal complications existed. When the Presiding Judge of the Kern County Superior Court had completed his review of the report, it was ready for release to the agency and the public at a time set by the jury.
Just prior to public release, each report was sent either to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors or to a City Clerk who would in turn transmit a copy of the report to the appropriate department head of the agency to which the report related. In a few cases, reports were sent directly to agencies or organizations which operate apart from the Board of Supervisors or a city.
Reports were issued to agencies as they were approved during the year rather than in June. This was to permit agencies to respond to recommendations before the June publishing, so that responses could be included with the reports where possible.
Since most of the jury members were not computer-literate, each was given twenty hours of computer training for report writing. Jury members benefitted most by individual practice using purchased computer instruction books and individually prepared notes. An in-house manual for writing simple reports on the computer has since been prepared and will be available for future juries. All reports and forms have been put on floppy disks, making for easy corrections or changes and easy access for reference.
The jury had access to some forty years of Kern County Grand Jury Final Reports. This year the reports were organized in sequence in file drawers to make access and reference to them easier and faster. Responses to previous jury recommendations were also located with each year's report book. Space is allocated for future books to be included in these same file drawers.
Prior to printing, a final review of the book mock-up was made by the Presiding Judge. Because of confidentiality, the publication was handled by the county Reprographics Department. All copy was hard copy, already proofed by jury committees, and requiring minimum changes by the printer. A computer disk was furnished to the Bakersfield Californian for its use to print 94,000 inserts to go into that paper’s circulation throughout Kern County on the Sunday following the June 30 swearing-in of the 1999– 2000 Grand Jury.
Jury members worked to a strict schedule to meet deadlines for various jury functions and commitments.
Committee photographs were taken in the Centennial Garden and the Plaza in recognition of their completion during the centennial year of the City of Bakersfield and the jury year of this Grand Jury.
Front cover photo – courtesy of The Bakersfield Californian
Grand Jury Photo- courtesy of “Memories by Jody-Custom Photography”
RECRUITING COMMITTEE
MaryHelen Cordova, Chair Anna Cleveland Frank G. Pitts Ferrelene Zachary
MISSION STATEMENT
What does the Grand Jury do? The California Penal Code charges California Grand Juries everywhere to investigate all aspects of the county, city, and special district governments. These findings are published in the year-end final report. In addition, it has the power to conduct criminal hearings and to return indictments. The Grand Jury may respond to all signed citizen complaints. The Grand Jury operates with secrecy rules designed to protect the rights of the accused and the security of witnesses and to assure compliance with the rules of evidence and the statutes of the State of California. All communications to the Grand Jury are confidential. Within these tight restrictions and under the guidance of officers of the court, any citizens selected as Grand Jurors should be able to judge whether or not there is probable cause to believe a person should be indicted based on the evidence presented.
In its other job as a “watchdog” the purpose is to identify irregularities procedure or inefficiency in local government and help resolve conflicts in the community.
The law prescribes who may be a Grand Juror. The typical pattern is for Superior Court Judges to review applications and create a “pool” of qualified persons; jurors are then drawn at random from this pool. Judges welcome citizens who volunteer their services as grand jurors provided the citizens meet the legal requirements for jury service
Now, what was that question again? What does the Grand Jury do? Obviously, a little of everything. They work long hours for little monetary compensation and learn more about the County of Kern in one year than most people learn in a lifetime. Their reward is found in the hope and belief that recommendations will result in improving county government. ACTIVITIES
The Recruiting Committee is charged with encouraging qualified citizens to volunteer to serve on the Kern County Grand Jury for a term of twelve months beginning July 1, of each year.
Since there appears to be a limited understanding of the Grand Jury’s functions, special efforts were made to inform citizens in the county about the Grand Jury.
Jury members visited various community organizations and all eleven city councils. The Bakersfield Fire Department allowed the committee to share its booth at the fair for twelve days. Flyers and booklets were given out, and names and addresses of interested persons were collected so that jury application forms could be mailed to them. California City ran an ad in its local newspaper to help recruit volunteers,
This year, as in prior years, the Board of Supervisors proclaimed March 2-6, 1999, as Grand Jury Awareness Week.
CONTINUITY COMMITTEE
Judith E. Valenzuela, Chair Elmer M. Anderson Charles C. Bennett Robert T. B. Walker
MISSION STATEMENT
The Continuity Committee’s purpose is to attend meetings of the county Board of Supervisors, and to bring back to the Grand Jury information dealing with Board actions and activities.
The committee is also responsible for monitoring responses from those agencies to which the Grand Jury has directed recommendations in final reports. Reports with recommendations request agencies or organizations to respond to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court within 90 days of the date of the report mailing The committee follows up on late responses to insure receipt by the Grand Jury.
ACTIVITIES
One or two Grand Jury members attend each of the Kern County Board of Supervisors’ meetings, which are normally held on Tuesdays at 9 a.m. and 2 p.m. in the County Administrative Center at 1115 Truxtun Avenue. All meetings are televised live on channel 16 (Warner & Cox) and are repeated Mondays and Wednesdays at 7 p.m. and Saturdays at 2 p.m.
The committee encourages the public to attend these meetings, both to understand what the supervisors are doing and to provide input to the board. The committee noted the opportunity for citizens to address the board and was impressed by the quality of citizen input. RESPONSES TO 1998 – 1999 FINAL REPORTS
Section 933(b) of the California Penal Code reads, in part, as follows:
“No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body.”
This Grand Jury, believing there was no reason to delay issuing each Final Report once it had been properly approved, issued all reports in a timely fashion. A benefit of this was that some number of responses from affected agencies could therefore be included in the June publication of all reports. It also reduced the work load involved in preparing for printing in June.
62 recommendations were made by the 1998 – 1999 Grand Jury. The reports and their recommendations were sent to the office of the Clerk of the Board for agencies controlled by the Board of Supervisors. Where cities in the county were involved the reports were sent to the appropriate city clerk. Reports were then sent on to the affected agencies by the clerks.
23 responses were received in time to be included in the final printing. TRACKING REPORT
Date Date Date Committee Report Response Response Report Published Required Received Lerdo Minimum Detention Facility Law/Justice 2/16/99 5/16/99 3/1/99 Lerdo Maximum-Minimum Detention Law/Justice 4/12/99 7/12/99 4/27/99 Camp Erwin Owen Law/Justice 4/12/99 7/12/99 McFarland CCF Law/Justice 3/29/99 6/29/99 Kern Co. Sheriff-Buttonwillow Sub. Law/Justice 4/12/99 7/12/99 4/27/99 Kern Co. Sheriff-Lamont Sub. Law/Justice 4/12/99 7/12/99 4/27/99 Kern Co. Sheriff-Mojave Sub. Law/Justice 4/12/99 7/12/99 4/27/99 Taft Correctional Institution Law/Justice 3/29/99 ------Kern Co. Sheriff-Coroner/Pub. Admin. Law/Justice 5/25/99 8/25/99 County Administrative Office-Analysts Administration/Audit 2/16/99 5/16/99 3/26/99 General Services –Purchasing Administration/Audit 2/16/99 5/16/99 3/26/99 General Services –Reprographics Administration/Audit 2/16/99 5/16/99 3/26/99 Information Technology Services Administration/Audit 4/13/99 7/13/99 General Services –Construction Administration/Audit 4/12/99 7/12/99 City of Maricopa Cities/Services 1/4/99 ------City of Arvin Cities/Services 4/7/99 ------City of Tehachapi Cities/Services 5/18/99 ------Golden Hills Comm. Services District Cities/Services 4/13/99 7/13/99 City of Bakersfield Cities/Services 5/25/99 8/25/99 Kern Co. Airports Department Cities/Services 5/18/99 ------City of Ridgecrest Cities/Services 5/18/99 8/18/99 Engineering and Survey Services Cities/Services 5/18/99 ------Hart Park – Buena Vista Health/Education/Soc. Serv 2/16/99 5/16/99 3/26/99 Farm and Home Advisor Health/Education/Soc. Serv 2/16/99 5/16/99 3/26/99 Kern Family Health Care Health/Education/Soc. Serv 4/7/99 ------BARC Health/Education/Soc. Serv 5/18/99 ------Kern Mental Health Health/Education/Soc. Serv 5/18/99 8/18/99 Jamison Children’s Center Health/Education/Soc. Serv 5/18/99 8/18/99 Kern Human Services Health/Education/Soc. Serv 5/18/99 ------CDDA Ad Hoc 5/25/99 ------
AD HOC COMMITTEES
The Grand Jury Foreman appointed different members of the jury to serve on temporary committees formed for the purpose of dealing with specific problems and assignments. These included responding to citizen complaints and to a variety of problems that arose during the year. Six committees were formed, each composed of two to four members. CENTRAL DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT AGENCY CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
PURPOSE OF INQUIRY:
1. To revisit the 1989 - 1990 Grand Jury Final Report. 2. To consider if redevelopment is benefiting the city, to evaluate program management, and to look at fiscal policies.
METHOD OF REVIEW:
Review Health and Safety Code and 1993 Revisions. Review agency minutes, Administrative Reports, Component Unit Financial Reports for years 1993-1999. Review Implementation Plan for the Downtown Bakersfield Redevelopment Project dated November, 1994; Grand Jury Reports for 1988-1989 and 1989-1990; and miscellaneous other documents. Tour redevelopment areas. Discuss with representatives of Bakersfield City Council; Chamber of Commerce, Downtown Business Association; Kern County Taxpayers Association; the Economic Development Director; the Finance Director; the Principal Planner; and area business people.
BACKGROUND:
Public announcement in October, 1998, of two more redevelopment programs motivated this Grand Jury to revisit the recommendations in the 1989-1990 Grand Jury Final Report and to look at the current redevelopment status. The earlier jury commissioned a CPA firm to make an in-depth study of the management structure and operations of the Central Development District Agency (CDDA) of the City of Bakersfield. Ten recommendations were directed toward the City Council and two toward the Board of Supervisors. Matters of finances and management were of primary concern at that time.
The Bakersfield City Council created and activated a redevelopment agency in 1967. It initially identified a 16 block portion of the downtown area as needing redevelopment assistance. Amendments in 1974 added 33 blocks, in 1976 it added 9 blocks, and in 1979 it added 17 blocks, for a total of 75 blocks covering 225 acres. All activities undertaken in each area must cease 40 years after the amendment date of each added area.
Redevelopment is administered by an agency composed of seven board members, all nominated by the mayor and confirmed by the city council for four year terms. Management of the agency activities is through the City Manager/Executive Director, and more directly by the Economic Development Director. Originally, the city council acted as the administrative agency to oversee redevelopment but, recognizing that this was not the best way to function, in 1968 it appointed a seven member citizen board. Then in 1983 the council took over the redevelopment board and declared itself as the redevelopment agency. In 1986 the council reinstated the citizen board.
FINDINGS:
Purpose of redevelopment, as specified by the State of California Health & Safety Code (Code), is multiple: to eliminate blight; to expand the supply of low and moderate income housing; to expand employment opportunities for the jobless, underemployed, and low income persons; and to provide an environment for the social, economic, and psychological growth and well-being of its citizens.
Redevelopment agencies may accept financial assistance from any private or public source. Such sources include lease revenue bonds, certificates of participation, mortgage revenue bonds, federal funds, assessment districts, and developer funding. An agency may issue its own bonds secured by its anticipated tax increment revenues from the project area.
Assembly Bill 1290, also known as the Community Redevelopment Reform Act of 1993, effective January 1, 1994, enacted numerous revisions to the California Community Redevelopment Law.
Significant changes in the bill required that an implementation plan must be adopted each five years; the plan must include specific goals and objectives, together with proposed expenditures; and it must contain an annual housing plan. The agency must conduct public hearings at least once within each five-year term of the plan, with appropriate publications and posting.
The agency is also required to prepare by June 30 of each year a "Component Unit Financial Report" for the previous fiscal year.
AB 1290 set time limits on the agency as follows:
Blocks Starting Year End Activities Pay All Debts
16 1972 2012 2022 33 1974 2014 2024 9 1976 2016 2026 17 1979 2019 2029
When a redevelopment area is established, assessed valuations in the area are “frozen.” All tax increment above the base then becomes available for use of the agency. Tax base for the downtown project area is $31,402,756. Incremental tax collections have grown from $1,028,811 in 1987-1988 to an estimated $1,328,125 in 1998-1999. Assessed valuation is allowed by state law to be increased annually by 2%, and it may also increase as a result of new taxable assets added over the years. However, in past years it has decreased and may again when the economy is not healthy. Conversion of a privately-owned facility to one owned by a public agency will decrease property taxes collected, also. The Health and Safety Code requires that 20% of the received tax increment must be used to provide housing for low and moderate-income persons. This presents a problem since developers see an element of uncertainty with respect to building housing in the downtown. Also, the absence of food stores in the downtown area presents a handicap to low income residents..
Following are some of the highlights of the Central District Development Agency program during the past few years.
1998-1999. The CDDA approved an agreement with Consumer Science Corporation (SONIC), a California Corporation, to help off-set certain development costs for a project, located at 1401 23rd Street. The agreement provided financial assistance, not to exceed $22,500, to the developer to construct a commercial building that will be operated by SONIC as a fast food service.
The CDDA approved an agreement with Pavilion Development Two, a real estate development partnership, to help off-set certain development costs for a project located at 1701 23rd Street. The agreement provided financial assistance, not to exceed $13,000, to the developer to construct a commercial building that will be leased and operated by the Rite Aid drug store corporation.
1997-1998. Bakersfield Centennial Garden, a new 9,200 seat arena, adjacent to the Bakersfield Convention Center, opened in October, 1998. CDDA funds are being used to support a portion of the debt service on the Convention Center Expansion-Arena Project. To get a better interest rate on the repayment of older debt, the city and the agency agreed to refinancing the old debt at a better interest rate. In 1997 the CDDA issued $40 million in certificates of participation. This was to refinance $11 million in outstanding redevelopment debt and provide $4 million for capitalized interest and issuance costs. The remaining $25 million was dedicated to the arena construction project. The annual principal and interest (lease payments) on the certificates will be paid out of the city General Fund, a portion of which is a $1.2 million annual reimbursement from the agency to the city for taking on the agency's previous annual debt service payment on previously existing tax allocation bonds and certificates of participation.
The Chester Avenue Streetscape Improvement Project was completed in May, 1998. The project serves as a centerpiece for a revitalized and growing downtown. The streetscape includes civil work (medians, drainage, traffic signal modifications, back-fill, brickwork, crosswalks, etc.), irrigation system, and electrical (street lights and electrical for irrigation system). Other amenities include landscaping, flag poles, benches, trash receptacles, kiosk, directories, and banners. Total construction cost for the project was $2.5 million. Project financing included the award of two competitive grants, including $623,000 from the lntermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (a federal grant) and $250,000 from the Environmental Enhancement Mitigation Program (a state grant) for a total of $873,000 coming from outside grant sources. Other funding sources included $890,000 from Community Development Block Grant funds, $448,000 from CDDA tax increment, and the remainder from the city's general fund. The agency contributed $256,198, and is contributing another $360,000 in FY 98-99 from the CDDA housing fund for use in the First Time Homebuyer's Program, making a total of $616,198 committed to the program. The First time Homebuyer's Program provides qualified applicants with up to $3,500 of assistance to pay for down payment and closing costs associated with purchase of their first home. With the contribution by the CDDA, the program has produced 60 loans and averaged over $4 million of local funds from mortgage institutions.
COMMENTS:
The 1998-1990 Grand Jury Final Report was concerned about redevelopment plans, financing, and management. The city's response addressed those concerns. Subsequent changes in the Code in 1993 dealt with some of those concerns in a regulatory manner, also.
Cities favor redevelopment programs for a variety of reasons. A primary reason is to revitalize blighted areas through the addition of new businesses. Physical changes to existing structures can improve and enhance over-all appearance. Perhaps the most attractive, from the city council's standpoint, is the ability of the redevelopment agency to borrow funds for capital projects and for the agency to receive and use a greater share of the tax increment available from the area.
The Grand Jury believes that the redevelopment program for the downtown area is definitely beneficial to the community. There appears to be general approval of, and support for, the activities that have taken place there. Housekeeping is good and, although most buildings are not new, they are generally well maintained. New businesses coming into the downtown are adding to its good appearance and its prosperity. Overall, the area presents a pleasing and attractive appearance. Out-of- towners have remarked about the good appearance and care of streets and buildings.
One consideration for new housing is for developers to build multiple-use buildings comprised of stores on the first floor, offices on the second, and apartments on the third. This has not come about yet, but the agency continues to try to develop possibilities for that. To comply with code requirements to use the 20% set-aside funds, the agency has transferred funds to government first-time homebuyers programs handled by non-related existing agencies. The code calls for set-aside monies to be used in the particular area in which they were generated, but the code does allow funds to leave an area under certain conditions.
Efforts to eliminate blight, to provide low income housing, and to spruce up the downtown area appear to comply with code requirements.
No program of any kind works well if there is not good management present and active. It is the impression of the Grand Jury that the program has good management. Input and suggestions may come from a variety of sources, including the city council, the agency, and from representatives of the downtown area, but the prime responsibility is carried by the Bakersfield City Manager, the Economic Development Director, and the Finance Director. Discussions with these people convinced the jury of their competence and suitability to manage. They have demonstrated a willingness to be innovative and to step out for the benefit of the community; the good results of their efforts are apparent.
Matters of finance for the program are less clear cut, and are probably less well understood than the program itself. One reason cities favor redevelopment is that the total available tax increment may be used in the program. Without this arrangement, tax increment from the CDDA area would be distributed to a variety of beneficiaries, with the city receiving only about 14% rather than the full 100% as at this time. As a result of AB 1290, the proposed areas will receive only about 60% of their tax increment for the first 10 years; future adjustments will be made for the later years.
No consideration has been given in this report as to the impact the redevelopment program has on other taxing agencies.
A city council itself may fund new projects through certificates of participation (COP) in which the city leases a facility and then owns it after a set number of years; or a city council may borrow through revenue bonds, using income from the subject project to pay off the bonds. On the other hand, a redevelopment agency may do the same thing with greater freedoms. This has been done in several cases, notably a parking structure, renovation of the convention center, and most lately, the construction of the Centennial Garden.
Many cities are anxious to host large conventions, but suitable facilities must first exist to attract that business. Most convention centers operate at a loss. In 1998 the center lost $770,000. Reasoning that professionals in the field of entertainment and convention-handling are better suited to manage such facilities, the city contracted with Ogden Entertainment to manage the complex. With the construction of the arena and the new management, loss in 1999 is projected to be $475,000. Incentives may further reduce future losses, but a continued annual loss of some magnitude is probably likely. On the positive side, because of the convention and major attractions that now may be scheduled with the new facilities, visitor and business taxes will provide additional income to the city.
With the tax increment now dedicated primarily to paying off the $40 million in COP, considerably fewer funds will be available to encourage further downtown development without additional borrowing. This does not appear to be a problem for continued redevelopment, however.
Financial reports on the redevelopment program are not simple to review and understand; simplification and wider distribution of information would be of help to interested people.
The Grand Jury believes the financial aspects of the current program are being handled appropriately.
On June 24, 1998, the Bakersfield City Council directed the Bakersfield Planning Commission to select project area boundaries to establish two new redevelopment projects. The northern one is called Old Town Kern-Pioneer Redevelopment Project, and the southern one is called Southeast Bakersfield Redevelopment Project. Town meetings were held last fall to explain the projects to interested persons. Since then, elections have been held for area persons to elect a Project Area Committee (PAC) for each area. Input from the PAC will help in the program plans
In conclusion, the Grand Jury is impressed with the success of the downtown redevelopment program and believes it is progressing well and for the benefit of the community as a whole.
NO RESPONSE REQUIRED. CITIZEN COMPLAINTS
A major function of the Grand Jury is to respond to citizen complaints. The complaints are from citizens or government agencies within Kern County and its incorporated cities.
The 1998-1999 Grand Jury has received 48 citizen’s complaints. These complaints involved various county offices and various school districts, special districts, police departments, city councils, state prisons, and other entities. These complaints were dealt with by a Grand Jury committee that was already established or by an AD HOC committee created especially for a particular complaint.
When a citizen’s complaint is received by the Grand Jury it is directed to the appropriate committee chair. The committee chair prepares a letter to the complainant acknowledging receipt of complaint.
The complaint is reviewed by the assigned committee for possible further action. Alternatively, the complaint is returned to the foreman with a recommendation that the complaint be investigated or that no further action be taken. Final resolution of all complaints is reviewed by the entire Grand Jury.
Of the complaints received 12 were determined to require no further action. Many of the complaints submitted requested action and intervention by the Grand Jury that was beyond its jurisdiction and authority. The following is a list of citizen’s complaints received by the 1998-1999 Grand Jury:
98-1 Alleged violation of the Brown Act. 98-2 Alleged errors in the maintenance of the voter registration list. 98-3 Alleged limitation of prisoner’s rights. 98-4 Alleged improper accounting procedures at a local college. 98-5 Alleged improprieties relating to retirement benefits. 98-6 Alleged inaccuracy of drug testing laboratory. 98-7 Alleged Brown Act violation and conflict of interest. 98-8 Alleged prison abuse. 98-9 Alleged prison abuse. 98-10 Alleged prison abuse. 98-11 Alleged improper conduct by a city’s council members. 98-12 Alleged mishandling of an incident by a county agency. 98-13 Alleged mishandling of an incident by a county agency. 98-14 Alleged improper dumping of sewer sludge. 98-15 Alleged mismanagement of a special service district. 98-16 Alleged mismanagement of a public utility. 98-17 Alleged prison abuse. 98-18 Alleged violations by a city council. 98-19 Alleged misconduct by a police special task force. 98-20 Alleged inaction by a police department. 98-21 Allegations of forgery. 98-22 Alleged prison abuse. 98-23 Alleged prison abuse. 98-24 Alleged misconduct by an officer of a special service district. 98-25 Alleged misconduct by a police department. 98-26 Alleged mishandling of a case by a police department. 98-27 Alleged misconduct by a police department. 98-28 Alleged improper annexation methods. 98-29 Alleged misconduct by a police department. 98-30 Alleged misconduct by a police department. 98-31 Alleged school board conflict of interest. 98-32 Alleged lack of action by a police department. 98-33 Alleged mishandling of a case by a police department. 98-34 Alleged misconduct by a court bailiff. 98-35 Alleged misconduct by a police officer. 98-36 Alleged inaction by a county agency. 98-37 Alleged misconduct by a water association. 98-38 Alleged prison abuse. 98-39 Alleged verbal misconduct by a city counsel member. 98-40 Alleged misconduct by a police officer. 98-41 Alleged illegal issuance of parking tickets. 98-42 Alleged time keeping misconduct at a county office. 98-43 Alleged misconduct by a city in soliciting a company to relocate. 98-44 Alleged violation of the “Brown Act.” 98-45 Alleged misdemeanor violations by a city council member. 98-46 Alleged improper issuance of parking citations. 98-47 Alleged misconduct by a law enforcement agency. 98-48 Alleged improper application of prison policy.
INDICTMENTS
The criminal function of the Grand Jury is to bring justified indictments in selected felony cases. Hearings are held with full and formal presentation of the prosecutor’s evidence, and at least twelve of the nineteen members of the Grand Jury must vote to indict the accused. The process is an alternative to preliminary examinations usually held in the municipal courts before a judge sitting as a magistrate.The 1998–1999 Grand Jury considered criminal indictments involving the sales of illegal drugs and the manufacturing of methamphetamine.
The Grand Jury was impressed with the professional police work that is directed toward the drug problem. Police officers throughout the county consistently demonstrated a willingness to take risks to provide incontrovertible evidence for use by the prosecutors.