CITIES & JOINT POWERS COMMITTEE

AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITIES The Cities & Joint Powers Committee is responsible for reviewing and overseeing the incorporated cities and joint powers agencies within Kern County pursuant to California Penal Code Section 925a. The Committee can examine the books or records and investigate and make recommendations on the operations and records of cities, and other departments and joint power agencies. There are eleven incorporated cities within the County of Kern. The Committee also responds to letters of concern or complaints from citizens regarding incorporated cities joint power agencies. A joint powers agency is an agency described in Section 6506 of the Government Code.

SUMMARY OF COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES 1. Twelve complaints were received. Eight were investigated and two reports were written. 2. Eleven incorporated cities were visited and eleven reports were written. 3. One outside audit was performed. 4. Twelve agencies were visited and/or reviewed and six reports were written. 5. The Committee throughout the year interviewed ninety-two individuals.

SUMMARY OF THE COMMITTEE’S MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The City of Maricopa should seek aid in resolving their wastewater problems from various

other agencies within the county. 2. Conduct an outside audit of the City of Maricopa. 3. The City of Taft pursue annexation of surrounding areas. 4. All incorporated cities in the County should work with non-profit agencies such as Habitat

for Humanity in helping to meet their low-income housing needs. 5. The Brown Act Closed Session legalities should be explained to the public. 6. The need for the County to support the Wind Energy Industry as a means for the County to

meet alternate energy state mandates. 7. Make the public aware of the role LAFCO plays in the annexation process within the

County. 8. Advising all cities to work with Community Action Partnership of Kern (a primarily federal

government funded program) which provides many needed services to the County. 9. Support of the positive government changes in procedures and policies in the City of

McFarland. 10. The need for the Wasco City Council to work with civic volunteers in a respectful and

orderly manner. 11. The City of Arvin’s elected and appointed officials put aside their personal agendas and

work toward better serving the community. 12. The Housing Authority of the County of Kern cannot meet the need for more low income

housing due to limited federal funding.

2003-2004 KERN COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT – CITY OF ARVIN

The Cities and Joint Powers Committee of the 2003-2004 Kern County Grand Jury visited the City of Arvin pursuant to Penal Code Section 925.a.

“A grand jury may at any time examine the books and records of any nonprofit corporation established by or operated on behalf of a public entity the books and records of which it is authorized by law to examine, and in addition to any other investigatory powers granted by this chapter, may investigate and report upon the method or system of performing the duties of such nonprofit corporation.”

CITY OF ARVIN

PURPOSE OF INQUIRY: The Cities and Joint Powers Committee of the 2003-2004 Kern County Grand Jury visited the City of Arvin, on August 14, 2003, pursuant to Penal Code Section 925.a. PROCESS: Members of the Committee and the Grand Jury Foreman met with the City Manager, Finance Director, and Chief of Police. None of the aforementioned managers have held their positions for over nine months. A review of budget expenditures included capital improvements, staffing, and maintenance projects. The City’s current and future plans were discussed with reference to what could be done to fulfill the community needs. The Committee also researched past Grand Jury Final Reports pertaining to Arvin, responses, City agendas, and various media publications. BACKGROUND: The City of Arvin was incorporated in 1960 as a General Law City. Its 2000 census population is approximately 13,000 residents. The City’s actual population is unknown. There are many migrant field workers that do not show up in the census records. The City of Arvin encompasses three square miles. Agriculture and packing remain the foundation of the City’s economy. Many Arvin residents are field workers or are employed in a large carrot packing facility. Due to the seasonal nature of agriculture, Arvin’s unemployment rate is approximately 25%, one of the highest rates in Kern County. In recent years, Arvin has experienced a shift in political influence. With a 95% Hispanic population, the voters have elected leaders whom they believe will represent their interests. “The majority rules”, is the American principle upon which our nation was founded. Change typically does not happen without turmoil. The Arvin voters have elected the leadership they want to govern them. To achieve the status of voters, the majority of the citizens of Arvin have paid a tremendous price. For some families, it has taken generations to become citizens of the United States. They have earned the right to have a voice in local government. They fill the jobs in the fields that the agriculture industry requires. The majority of the generations of field workers are hardworking, family orientated and law-biding people. The need to create revenue for any rural city is a never-ending challenge. Some cities meet the challenge peacefully and some are “setting a new standard for roguishness” (Los Angeles Times, August 12, 2002, Ethnic Tensions, Corruption Charges Tangle Town Politics).

Each year, every city in the County is visited by the Grand Jury, but a written report is not required. The following report will cover the last two years, since the 2002-2003 Grand Jury did not issue a Final Report on the City of Arvin. FINDINGS: • Due to Arvin’s increasing need for affordable childcare, The Community Action

Partnership of Kern (The Partnership), through its Head Start program, along with the State Department of Education, has helped provide a 5,400 square foot childcare center. Construction of the facility will cost approximately $550,000 and it will accommodate 120 children ages three to five years. The center will be operated by the Unimax Foundation. Unimax, a Los Angeles based agency, has been operating in Arvin for the past three years. The Partnership presently operates three of the five existing childcare centers in Arvin.

• Arvin is one of six rural communities that has been chosen by a private research firm

to be part of a $500,000 federally funded four-year national study. Research in Arvin was expected to be completed by October 2003. An initial report will be available by March 2004. The survey focuses on the impacts of immigrants on six rural communities nation-wide and is funded by the United States Department of Agriculture. This study is at no expense to Arvin.

• In September 2002, the Arvin City Council approved a change in how the City’s

expenses are presented to the Council from Staff. The Council can now identify all checks’ payees. The old system has caused problems of accountability between Staff and Council, and has been highlighted by critics and the media for several years.

• On June 16, 2002, the Arvin City Council approved $12,000 for a trial publication of

a quarterly bilingual City newsletter. “By law, the City-funded 12-page paper could not include photos or even the names of elected officials, but would instead highlight community events”, stated Arvin’s Interim City Attorney. (The Bakersfield Californian, June 18, 2002, Arvin Council Looking at $5.6 Million Budget).

• Due to an $80,000 study by the Housing Authority of the County of Kern, the Federal

Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) flood maps for the Lamont, Arvin, and Weedpatch communities were changed. Flood insurance cost in the three communities will be reduced up to 75% in specific areas. In the past, Arvin had no history of flooding but was forced to pay the highest rates. That has been corrected and many residents will now pay hundreds of dollars less for flood insurance (The Bakersfield Californian, July 21, 2003, Insurance Rates to Drop for Arvin, Weedpatch).

• In August 2003, Arvin was still non-compliant with State laws regarding a balance of

garbage and recyclables, and facing fines of $10,000 a day beginning in January 2004. Arvin decided to return control of street sweeping and trash collection services to the City.

• A State grant of $850,000, funded through Proposition 46, known as the Housing

Shelter Trust Fund Act, has been awarded to the City of Arvin. This will allow Arvin to build more apartments for farm workers. The Housing Authority of the County of Kern Executive Director stated, “It feels good to accomplish our mission from planning, to the drawing board, to becoming a reality” (The Bakersfield Californian, August 06, 2003, Housing for Farm Labor to Get Boost from State).

• In December 2002, three new members of the City Council were sworn in. The three

vacancies were the results of one incumbent losing his re-election bid, one incumbent resigning prior to the election due to moving outside the city limits, and one incumbent being found guilty of submitting false claims regarding a pre-school under his direction. The first new City Council vote taken was 5-0. A unanimous vote has not happened often in several years.

• The City of Arvin has never had a regularly scheduled collection of hazardous

material. It has now received a State grant of $121,500 for household hazardous waste education and planning. This enables the City to have bilingual programs that will help educate residents in learning how to legally and safely dispose of household hazardous waste. Being able to produce brochures in English and Spanish will reach the whole community. This is the largest grant of its kind ever awarded in Kern County according to a Kern County waste management consultant.

• The City of Arvin has recently established an official city Web page. It will be one of

the few city Web-sites that will be presented in both English and Spanish. • In October 2003, the City of Arvin received a $200,000 State grant to improve its

parks. Part of the funds will be used to finance a new public skate park, which could cost $300,000 to complete. Some of the grant will be used to upgrade existing parks within the City.

• The City of Arvin has an outside audit each year. A firm is being sought for a new

two-year contract. • In 1991, the City of Arvin bought the Veterans’ Hall from the County. The building

is used for public and private events. Using the 2002 Community Development Grant funds ($225,000) for planned renovation did not materialize. The grant money was used for other programs.

• At a total cost of $300,000 ($100,000 of City funds), The East Los Angeles

Community Union (TELACU) economic report will be presented to the council by January 2004. A partial pre-report has already been published by the local media. TELACU helped the City obtain the grant.

• Since 1998, the City of Arvin’s water treatment plant has been out of compliance

with State law. The City could be fined $10,000 a day if the facility is not updated.

According to the City Manager, the facility needs 130 more acres to spread the waste to be in State compliance. The City is planning to purchase a 74-acre parcel, that has resulted in legal and political turmoil. It is unclear as to the title of the land, and conflicts over this issue have arisen among Council members. Past and present Council members are making accusations or defensive statements. Meanwhile, the City remains out of compliance and is facing fines due to a feuding council. Past Council feuds have been referred to by the local media as a “Circus—that every day brings a new colorful sideshow” (The Bakersfield Californian, March 14, 2002, Arvin Circus in Dire Need of Ringmaster).

• In October 2001, the City proposed to annex a 14-mile stretch of land south of Arvin.

The land is currently farmland and desert. Providing services, such as fire, police, and road maintenance, has put this plan on hold. Presently, the Tejon Industrial Complex, a huge source of revenue, would not be included in the annexation plans.

• A new City Manager took office on May 16, 2003 after serving six months as the

City’s Director of Municipal Operations. This person has had no past experience as a City Manager, but he believes “he can change the City of Arvin’s negative image.”

• A new Police Chief was sworn in November 2002. He is the fourth person to head

this department in 17 months. He has taken over a department that has been in a “dark cloud of political corruption and abuse of police power” (The Bakersfield Californian, July 19, 2003, Arvin’s New Police Chief Seeks to Change Perception after Scandal).

• In September 2002, the Arvin City Council approved a 15% pay increase for the

Arvin Police officers. With the increase, it is still one of the lowest paid police departments in the County.

• The Arvin Police Department received a Citizen’s Option for Public Safety (COPS)

grant for $100,000, which will help with overtime for the next three years. The grant money can only be used for personnel. This grant will also allow the Department to fill two needed vacant officer positions.

• Gang activity is not a major problem in Arvin. There has been, however, a rise in

auto-theft and car break-ins, with stereos being the most stolen item. • The Arvin Police Department has designed an in-house training program—“Citizens

on Patrol”. Citizens will work approximately twelve hours a month doing routine police work, such as report writing, traffic control, and watching for suspicious activity.

• The Arvin Police Department has applied for a State grant of $5,000 to help cover

overtime expenses that were incurred during the City’s “Seat-Belt Awareness” week planned for November 2003.

• The Arvin Police Department is in Phase B of a three-year program that involves the installation of a Mobile Data Computing System, which will be installed in four of the nine police patrol vehicles. This system allows the officers in the field to receive data rather than going through the police dispatcher. The program has cost $180,000 to date and completion of the program will depend on future City budget finances.

• In September 2003, the City of Arvin filed civil suits against a former City Manager,

a City Clerk, a City Finance Director, and an electrical contractor. • City officials have requested State investigators to examine the City’s financial

transactions for the past ten years. • In September 2003, City officials charged the Kern County District Attorney’s office

with being “biased” (The Bakersfield Californian, September 19, 2003, Arvin Council Charges Bias in D.A. Office’s Push to Recall Badges). This charge was based on a Deputy District Attorney requesting that the Arvin City officials stop using badges resembling those worn by police officers. The Deputy District Attorney was concerned that possible violations of badge laws may occur. Meanwhile, the City Council approved seven new badges.

• In August 2003, a restraining order was issued against the Mayor. In September

2003, it was dismissed. • In October 2002, a seven-year office worker was fired, even though the employee had

given notice of leaving in November. The fired worker was the last of the City staff employed prior to December 2000 when the new Mayor took office.

• In September 2002, an Arvin City Councilwoman faced arraignment for providing

false proof of insurance during a minor traffic accident. • In September 2002, a former City Clerk filed a $500,000 suit against the City of

Arvin for wrongful termination, breach of contract, defamation, and other complaints. • In February 2003, two people plead guilty in a voter-fraud case during the attempted

recall of the Mayor. • Every staff position and three Council positions have been replaced since December

2000. Some positions have been replaced more than once. Only the Mayor and a Councilwoman have remained through all the firings, resignations, and indictments.

• The City of Arvin has been under investigation by the Kern County District

Attorney’s office since 2001. • There was no written Final Report on the City of Arvin by the 2002-2003 Kern

County Grand Jury. The information the 2002-2003 Cities and Services Committee gathered was held over by the Presiding Superior Court Judge for the 2003-2004

Kern County Grand Jury as provided by Penal Code Section 924.4. It is the 2003-2004 Grand Jury’s decision as to what is to be done with the information received.

• In November 2003, the California Organization of Police and Sheriffs (COPS) filed a

lawsuit against the City of Arvin. The police union alleges the City violated its wage contract relating to the City by not paying the police officers Social Security withholdings. The police union’s executive director blames the lawsuit on City officials, “Unfortunately because of the lack of leadership in Arvin, the citizens are the ones who will have to pay” (November 12, 2003 The Bakersfield Californian, “Arvin Council, Union At Odds Over Officer Pay).

The City of Arvin used the City of California City’s police officers’ benefits as a reason for their position. When the City of Arvin later learned that their interpretation of California City’s police officers’ benefits were incorrect, the Arvin City Manager stated “The clarification doesn’t change the city of Arvin’s position in the spat” (November 22, 2003 The Bakersfield Californian “Dispute Heats Up Between Arvin, Police Officers Over Wage Issue”). • On November 22, 2003, the City of Arvin considered an ordinance change that will

result in the Council members and the Mayor receiving the maximum wages allowed by State regulations for cities with a population of under 35,000 people. If approved by the Council, the Council members will receive $300 per month and the Mayor would receive $900 per month. This would be in addition to the $150 monthly stipend the Council members are already paid.

COMMENTS: The foundation for a good local government is a “full and competent staff” lead by a “qualified, experienced City Manager” who cares about the “quality of life” in the community being served. Only two Council members and none of the City Staff have served since December 2000. It is the Committee’s opinion that this is not a foundation upon which to build.

With the political turmoil in Arvin being reported by the local media, it is extremely difficult to persuade qualified personnel to work in Arvin. Job security has been non-existent in the recent past, and there has been little evidence that a positive environment will soon be created. Any qualified, experienced personnel would question whether to work in such an unstable, volatile environment.

It was disclosed at the Committee meeting with City Staff that the local police officers do not drive their patrol cars to their residences. In other cities in the County, officers driving patrol cars to their residences, allows for a quicker response to an emergency situation. It also creates a more stable environment in many of the residential communities.

The Hispanic community in Arvin is now playing an important role at every level of local government. They have an economic impact other than providing a labor force for the agriculture industry. Hispanics are utilizing education to better their lives. Arvin High School students continually excel in competition in various programs throughout the County and the State. At the elementary school level, the community has qualified educators, some of whom have taught two generations of Arvin families.

The youth and the adults of Arvin deserve a stable, representative local government. They also deserve leaders of their community who merit their respect, not a “circus”. (The Bakersfield Californian, March 14, 2002, Arvin Circus in Dire Need of Ringmaster). Arvin’s unstable city government has attracted the attention of outside government agencies. These agencies are the Kern County District Attorney’s (DA’s) office and various State agencies. The DA’s office responds to citizen’s complaints and the appearance of wrong-doing when alerted by other County or State agencies. For the past two years the Kern County District Attorney’s office has been investigating numerous questionable practices in the City of Arvin. There have been only a few cases in which there was enough evidence to produce criminal convictions. The DA’s office will only take a case to court when they determine there is enough evidence to assure a conviction under the normal process of the judicial system. For all the DA’s offices expended time and effort, they have found themselves ridiculed for “not doing anything” and “for doing something because they are biased”. At the time of this report, the DA’s office investigation of the City of Arvin government continues. Previous Kern County Grand Juries have been involved in the investigation of the City government of Arvin. Hundreds of hours have been spent interviewing witnesses and reviewing evidence. Everything presented in the Final Report has been approved by the members of the 2003-2004 Grand Jury, the County Counsel, and the Presiding Superior Court Judge.

Unfortunately for the citizens of Arvin and Kern County, eighteen pages of unapproved information written by a committee of 2002-2003 Kern County Grand Jury was illegally disclosed to a local media source and then published. All Grand Jury information is confidential, unless it is an approved Final Report. Violations of this confidentiality occurred and are being addressed by the DA’s office. The 2003-2004 Kern County Grand Jury regrets the unlawful release of this information and any ill feelings it may have created. The Grand Jury system, in one form or another, has survived since Athenian times and will survive this unfortunate breach of the Grand Jury oath of confidentiality. The 2003-2004 Kern County Grand Jury will continue to serve the citizens of Kern County to the best of their ability. Regarding the police benefit conflict, the Committee finds the handling of the latest lawsuit by the City of Arvin completely unprofessional.

A pending ordinance, if approved, will cost the residents of Arvin the maximum allowed by State law for Council members and the Mayor’s salary benefits. The residents of Arvin should question if the cost to the City is justified. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. The City of Arvin should continue to pursue grants that will benefit the community.

Because of an appearance of conflict, if outside agencies are instrumental in obtaining grants for the City, they should be excluded from any monetary gains as a result of the grants.

2. The City of Arvin should allow police officers that live in the City to participate in a

patrol vehicle “Take Home” program. This will create a constant presence of police protection throughout the City. It will decrease immediate response time when officers are alerted. This “Take Home” program has shown a reduced maintenance cost, and an extension of vehicle life.

3. The City of Arvin’s Police Department should work closely with all County and

State law enforcement agencies to help disclose any wrong-doing by any group or individual within the City’s jurisdiction.

4. The City of Arvin should fill staff positions with permanent, qualified personnel who

will contribute to the betterment of the community. 5. The City of Arvin should continue to provide public awareness information in both

English and Spanish so that all citizens are well informed. 6. The City of Arvin should budget for the renovation of the Veterans’ Hall as soon as

possible. The public uses the Hall and its neglected condition is a reflection on the City of Arvin and its residents.

7. The City of Arvin should purchase the necessary land needed for the water treatment

plant as soon as possible to eliminate any State fines for non-compliance. 8. The City Council and City Staff should work closely with all County agencies along

with private ventures that can benefit the City of Arvin in both technical and legal matters.

9. The elected City Council should eliminate their personal agendas and give their best

efforts for the interests of the community. They are sworn public servants and have a responsibility of public trust.

10. The Grand Jury urges the Arvin Mayor, City Council, and City Staff to participate in

Training Seminars presented by independent consultants, regarding organizational process and protocol i.e., leadership and management skills, Brown Act, maintenance

of positive and effective decision making, creating a cooperative and collaborative environment, and community relations. By participating in leadership retreats of this nature, the Grand Jury feels that their improved leadership would better govern the citizens of Arvin. This type of training would eliminate the “circus” and “roguishness” environment in the City of Arvin. (The Bakersfield Californian, March 14, 2002, Arvin Circus in Dire Need of Ringmaster; Los Angeles Times, August 12, 2002, Ethnic Tensions, Corruption Charges Tangle Town Politics).

11. The 2003-2004 Kern County Grand Jury recommends that the City of Arvin post a

copy of this report and response, if required, where it will be available for public reviewing. Note: Present and past Kern County Grand Jury Final Reports and Responses can be accessed at the County Library and/or the Kern County Grand Jury web-site: www.co.kern.ca.us/grandjury

RESPONSE REQUIRED: WITHIN 90 DAYS TO PRESIDING JUDGE KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301

www.arvin.org

CITY COUNCIL

MAYOR Juan M. Olivares.

MAYOR PRO TEM Carmen H. Acevedo

COUNCIL MEMBERS

Alicia Ojeda , Tim Tarver

Jose Flores Jr.

STAFF

CITY MANAGER Enrique Medina Ochoa

CHIEF OF POLICE/ INTERIM CITY CLERK

Ed Landay

FINANCE DIRECTOR David F. Powell

Phone (661) 854-3134 Fax (661) 854-0817

200 Campus Drive, Arvin, CA 93203

May 3, 2004 Honorable Steven Gildner Presiding Judge Kern County Superior Court 1415 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Re: Response to Final Report of the 2003-2004 Kern County Grand Jury Honorable Judge Gildner, Please find attached the response to the Final Report of the Grand Jury that includes years of 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 which was sent to the City. It is written in compliance with the laws provided in correspondence from the Grand Jury and referencing Section 933(b)(c)(d) of the California Penal Code which states that "In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations." It is hoped that the truthfulness and frankness of the responses are taken in a positive manner. These comments are meant to be constructive. Some declarations in the report prompted frank responses that reveal truths that are not readily evident. The intent of this response is to be factual while at the same time reacting to conclusions that were more opinion than facts upon which findings, comments or recommendations were based. Investigations are currently pending involving the City of Arvin's current administration and it would be unfortunate and unacceptable if the Grand Jury, District Attorney's Office and other supporting staff react in a retaliatory manner to the frankness of the honest comments found in this response. Again, the City of Arvin offers its support in favor of developing a collaborative relationship with all parties involved in the enforcement of our laws so as to insure a government that works to improve the well being of its citizenry. In pursuit of honest and accountable government we must work together.

CITY OF ARVIN Response to Final Report of the 2003-2004 Kern County Grand Jury PURPOSE OF INQUIRY: The Cities and Joint Powers Committee of the 2003-2004 Kern County Grand Jury visited the City of Arvin, on August 14, 2003. The City was not informed until the receipt of this report that it was pursuant to Penal Code Section 925.a. In fact, the meeting was characterized as an informal visit to "meet and greet" the new Manager, Chief of Police, Finance Director, and other City officials. It would be more productive if the parameters of the visit and the ground rules were explained to City officials prior to such visits. After all, we are all working toward the same goal, which is improved government for the residents of our communities and municipalities. PROCESS: Members of the Committee and the Grand Jury Foreman met with the City Manager, Finance Director, and Chief of Police. The visit of the Grand Jury Foreman was an unexpected visit. A member of the Grand Jury asked if there were objections to recording the session. City Officials agreed with the expectation that a copy would be made available to the City, especially after the City provided the blank audio tapes for recording. A review of the audio tape would be most helpful in responding to Grand Jury concerns and to share with all Council Members and other City Officials. Please consider setting guidelines regarding the use of audio recordings and the availability of the same to all parties at the meeting. The City hereby requests a copy of the audio recording of that meeting. Corroborative information provided herein to the Presiding Judge is memorialized in that tape recording. BACKGROUND: The Grand Jury Members were very interested in the demographic population of the City of Arvin. The focus was on the number of, “illegal" undocumented aliens. Since information was not readily available, a Grand Jury Member suggested a formula approach analyzing the sewage output per residential unit compared to averages of similar entities in Kern County. The difference, he said, would determine the number of "aliens" in Arvin. City Officials could not agree to such approach but committed to working closer with Census representatives to obtain more accurate population counts. The City of Arvin is experiencing transitional pain due to change in political representation and the consequences of this change are new priorities established by the new government leadership. The challenge is always to improve the quality of life for all residents of our City. This report covers the last two years since the 2002-2003 Grand Jury as a whole did not issue a Final Report on the City of Arvin. Some issues are old and already addressed.

FINDINGS:

• Agree with the finding that there is an increased need for affordable childcare. The new Childcare Center is now in place and is being operated by the Unimax Foundation. City Council Members have recently voted to allow the use of a greater amount of land at Smothermon Park in order to increase the eligibility of children receiving care at that center. City officials continue to work with Unimax to provide additional services, including the possibility of constructing new facilities.

• Agree with the finding that Arvin is part of a research project that focuses on the

impact of immigrants on rural communities. Although the study was to be completed by March 2004. The results of the study have not yet been shared with City Officials.

• Agree with the finding that the new process for approval of expenses is an

improvement compared to past practices since the old system caused problems of accountability. Previously, the prior administration practice was to sign checks in violation of the law. The Government Code specifies that only the Mayor, Vice Mayor, Treasurer and Clerk can sign checks. Under the prior administration other individuals including elected officials, administrators, managers, and the Police Chief and his secretary were signing checks for the City of Arvin. That practice has been corrected by the current administration.

• Agree with the finding that the Council approved the expenditure for a trial

publication of a quarterly bilingual City newsletter. • Agree with the finding that due to a study by the Housing Authority of Kern

County, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood maps for the area covering Arvin were changed. The former map benefited the prior administration. First, it provided an opportunity for a local landholder to obtain millions of dollars worth of federal loans contingent on flood area designations. Arvin was designated in the flood area even though it has not flooded in decades. Also, it benefited the prior administration because of their relation with a local insurance agent who charged exorbitant rates to the residents. This scheme has now been corrected by the current administration.

• Agree with the finding that Arvin is still non-compliant with State mandated

recycling requirements. This is the result of using a contractor hired by the previous administration. The current administration has acted aggressively to come into compliance. Arvin will take control of refuse collection within three years, and maybe sooner, per a contract agreement with the franchise hauler. Arvin has returned control of the street sweeping to the City.

• Disagree with the finding that the City of Arvin received a grant of $850,000, known as State Proposition 46 grant from the Housing Shelter Trust Fund Act that will allow Arvin to build more apartments for farm workers. This award was given to the Kern County Housing Authority not the City of Arvin, and there is no benefit to the City. Grand Jury staff included this item in error.

• Agree and disagree partially with the following findings. Agree that in December

of 2002 three new City Council Members were sworn in. Agree that one vacancy was a result of one incumbent loosing his re-election bid. Disagree that one incumbent lost his seat due to moving outside the City limits; this individual, a holdover from the previous administration, still lives in the City of Arvin, and resigned after being cited for D.U.I., and after information was exposed regarding his past felony convictions and time served in San Quentin Prison. Agree that one incumbent was found guilty of submitting false claims. Agree that the first City Council vote taken was a unanimous 5-0 vote. Disagree that it had not happened often in several years, since it had happened frequently.

• Agree with the finding that the City of Arvin has never had a regularly scheduled

collection of hazardous material program. Under the previous administration, these services had not been requested of Kern County. The County had received grants for these programs and services, but they never fulfilled their responsibility in Arvin. The current administration has aggressively pursued a solution to this problem. It wrote proposals to obtain funds and has received a State grant of $121,500 to provide education programs, to develop materials and brochures, to plan programs, to coordinate collection events, and other activities. All these to be in English and Spanish so as to serve all the residents of Arvin.

• Agree with the finding that the City of Arvin has recently established an official

Web page and it will be presented in English and Spanish. • Agree with the finding that the City of Arvin has received a grant to improve and

upgrade its parks. Disagree that the amount received is $200,000. It is $220,000. Disagree that the total cost for the skate park could cost $300,000 to complete.

• Agree with the finding that the City of Arvin has an outside audit done each year

and that it has a new two year contract with an accounting firm for the same. • Agree with the finding that the City of Arvin bought the Veteran's Hall from the

County and that it is used for public and private events. Agree that the $225,000 in 2002 Community Development Block Grant did not materialize and that it was used for other programs.

• Agree with the finding that the East Los Angeles Community Union helped obtain

a grant for the City for an economic report at a total cost of $300,000 of which the City put in $100,000.

• Disagree with the finding that the City of Arvin water treatment plant has been out of compliance with state law regarding land requirements and that it could be fined $10,000 a day if the facility is not updated. Disagree that according to the City Manager the facility needs 130 more acres to spread the waste to be in compliance. The current City Manager has researched the issue and has found that the City currently does not need land as long as the plant does not process above 1.4-1.5 million gallons per day. The current average is under 1-1.2 million gallons per day. In fact, the City may not need any land until 3-5 years at the current rate of growth according the State officials and U.S. Filter, the treatment plant managers. Agree that the City was planning to purchase 74 acres and it resulted in a political turmoil. Disagree that it became a legal turmoil. Disagree that it is unclear as to the title of the land. The title to the land is clear. The only thing that was not clear was information that was not disclosed by the seller and his agent that the parcel is under the Williamson Act. Agree that conflicts over the issue have arisen among Council Members since the property was presented by a Council Member in closed session when the item was not on the agenda, encouraged by the previous City Attorney, on behalf of the seller at a price of $225,000 when an appraisal listed the value of the property at $143,000. The difference is more than $75,000 dollars. Disagree that the City remains out of compliance and is facing fines due to a feuding Council. Agree that local disagreements have been referred to by local media in a derogatory manner.

• Agree with the finding that in October 2001, the City proposed to annex a 14 mile

stretch of land south of Arvin which is currently farmland and desert. Agree that providing services has put the plans on hold. Presently, the Tejon Industrial Complex would not be included in the annexation plans.

• Agree with the finding that the new City Manager took office on May 16, 2003

after serving six months as the City's Director of Municipal Operations with no experience as a City Manager. Agree that he believes "he can change the City of Arvin's negative image." The new City Manager has experience as a municipal consultant in other cities. He has managed public and private programs. And, he has had oversight responsibility of state agency programs. One of the programs had a budget in excess of $500,000,000 dollars.

• Agree with the finding that the Police Chief was sworn in November 2002 and

that he is the fourth person to head the department in 17 months. Disagree that he has taken over a department that has been in a "dark cloud of political corruption and abuse of police power." Agree that there was abuse of the police power by the previous administrations. Under the prior administration, the department was involved in financial corruption and the police were being abusive in the enforcement of certain legal provisions, such as the discretionary confiscation of vehicles so as to favor a reserve officer who owned the towing company.

• Disagree that in September 2002 the Council approved a 15% pay increase for the Arvin Police Officers and that it is still one of the lowest paid police departments in the county.

The M. O. U. that was approved in 2002 provides for a 7 ½% increase effective July 1, 2002, a 7 ½ % increase effective January 1, 2003 and a 19.70 % increase effective July 1, 2003 so as to meet salary parity with California City's 2002-2004 budget for Peace Officers. The total increase for the officers from July 1, 2002 to July 1, 2003 is a 34.70% increase. This includes the Social Security contribution that is above the salary wages that are paid in California City. The increase would have been 25.60% if true parity would have been applied to the interpretation of the contract. The Arvin Police Department Officers are now paid comparable to California City and with the Social Security contribution they are paid comparable and above that which is paid the Kern County Sheriff's Department.

• Agree with the finding that the Police Department received a Citizen's Option for

Public Safety (COPS) grant for $100,000 to pay for overtime for the next 3 years and since it is limited to personnel use it will allow the Department to fill two needed vacancy officer positions.

• Agree with the finding that gang activity is not a problem in Arvin and that there

has been a rise in auto theft and car break ins. The individual primarily responsible for many of the crimes has been taken into custody.

• Agree with the finding that the Police Department has designed an in-house

training program, "Citizen's on Patrol". • Agree with the finding that the Police Department has applied for a State grant for

$5,000 to help cover overtime expenses incurred for "Seat-Belt Awareness" week. • Agree with the finding that the Police Department is in Phase B of a three year

program that involves the installation of a Mobile Computing System which will be installed in four of the nine police patrol vehicles.

• Agree with the finding that in September 2003 the City of Arvin current

administration filed civil suits against the former City Manager, City Clerk, City Finance Director and an electrical contractor. The general basis of the law suit against the previous administration management staff is the unauthorized expenditure of almost one half million dollars that were not approved by the City Council. The electrical contractor has been convicted and sentenced for the criminal activity, including billing for work never performed in the City of Arvin.

• Agree with the finding that City officials have requested State investigators to

examine the City's financial transactions for the past ten years.

• Agree with the finding that in September of 2003 City officials charged the Kern County District Attorney's Office with being "biased".

Disagree that it was based on a Deputy District Attorney requesting that the Arvin City officials stop using badges resembling those worn by police officers. It is worthy to note that no other Kern County officials were requested to turn in their badges. The three page letter from the District Attorney's Office instructing the Chief of Police of Arvin to have the Mayor and Council Members surrender their badges was prompted from the finding of the Mayor's badge in his car after it was found stolen by a grocery store in Bakersfield while he was in the bay area.

The "biased" accusation was based on the District Attorney's pattern of conduct and treatment of the current Latino majority administration compared to the prior Anglo-Saxon majority administrations. The majority of at least a dozen or so baseless charges against the current administration have proved fruitless. These investigations have focused on the Latinos.

• Agree with the finding that in August 2003 a restraining order was issued against

the Mayor and that in September it was dismissed. This matter was a family issue and outside of the purview of the Penal Code Section 925.a.

• Agree with the finding that in October 22 a seven-year office worker was fired

even though the employee had given notice of leaving in November and that she was the last of the City staff employed prior to the new Mayor taking office. The latter is of no consequence and the implication is reaching.

• Agree with the finding that in September 2002 an Arvin City Councilwoman

faced arraignment for providing false proof of insurance during a minor traffic accident. Again, this was not a City matter and not under the purview of Penal Code Section 925.a.

• Agree with the finding that in September 2002 a former City Clerk filed a

$500,000 suit against the City of Arvin. She has lost her suit and the City is now seeking payment for Attorney's fees.

• Agree with the finding that in February 2003 two people plead guilty in a voter

fraud case during the attempted recall of the Mayor. The individuals involved live across a street and in County property, have an Arvin address and have been treated as Arvin residents for all practical purposes. These individuals made honest mistakes. The votes cast by these individuals were not enough to recall the Mayor and he is still in office.

• Agree with the finding that every staff position and three Council positions have

been replaced since December of 2000 and that only the Mayor and a Council woman have remained. This is a testament to the need for reform regarding the

practices of the prior administration. This is also a testament to the desire for honest government by the people who hold public officials accountable in Arvin.

• Agree with the finding that the City of Arvin has been under investigation by the

Kern County District Attorney's Office since 2001. Such investigations started to intensify when Latinos were elected to the Mayor and Council positions. These are the basis for the charges of bias that occurred in September 2003.

• Agree with the finding that there was no Final Report by the 2002-2003 Kern

County Grand Jury and that the information gathered was held over by the Presiding Superior Court Judge for the 2003-2004 Grand Jury.

• Agree with the finding that in November 2003 the California Organization of

Police and Sheriffs (COPS) filed a lawsuit against the City of Arvin alleging the City violated its wage contract by withholding Social Security payments.

Agree that the City of Arvin used the City of California City's police officers' benefits as a reason for their position. Disagree that when the City of Arvin learned that their interpretation of California City's officers' benefits were incorrect, the Arvin City Manager stated what was printed in the newspaper. The comment was paraphrased according to the reporter. California City does not pay Social Security benefits for Officers. And, per the City of Arvin M. O. U. with the Police Officers, "parity" was the controlling factor in all decisions making. The City of Arvin is now paying Social Security benefits above what is paid to Officers in California City. This matter has been amicable settled.

• Agree with the finding that in November 2003 the City of Arvin considered an

ordinance change that will result in Council members and the Mayor receiving the maximum wages allowed by State regulations for cities with a population of under 35,000 people. It has been approved by the City Council. The Council members receive $300 per month and the Mayor receives a $900 additional amount per month. This is in addition to the $150 monthly stipend the Council members are already paid for an electronic allowance to cover such costs as cell phones, internet services, etc.

COMMENTS: "The foundation for a good local government is a "full and competent staff' lead by a "qualified, experience City Manager" who cares about the "quality of life" in the community being served." Currently, the City has that kind of staff and that kind of City Manager. The current management staff has more than 100 years of experience in management. We now have the most educated staff the City has ever had. The City Manager has over 25 years of management experience in the private and public sector and is a graduate of Stanford University. The new City Attorney has more than 30 years of experience. The new Legal Counsel is a local firm that has approximately 35 attorneys to help address a myriad of legal issues. The Police Chief at the time of the Grand Jury

visit had been a Police Chief in Coalinga. The current Police Chief worked at least 25 years for the Los Angeles Police Department and was the Police Chief in Dinuba for at least five years, and, he has a Master's Degree from the University of Southern California. The Finance Director has an accounting degree from the University of Southern California. The new Building Inspector and Code Enforcement Officer is a founding Board of Director of the state of California Association of Code Enforcement and he has 20 years plus experience in construction and related work. Our current planning consultants have more than 25 years of experience in Kern County. Other staff members also have impressive work experience in their field of work. It is our opinion that this is a foundation upon which to build a great team to lead this City into the future and to enhance the quality of life for all the residents of Arvin. Political turmoil in Arvin and media reporting has made it "extremely difficult to persuade qualified people to work in Arvin." However, our City Manager has been successful in recruiting highly qualified individuals to work in our City. Job security is not a concern to present staff and there is evidence that a positive environment is in the making. Police Officers who live in Arvin are allowed the benefit of taking their patrol cars to their residences. This is generally a negotiated contract term with the individual police officers and their union. "The Hispanic community in Arvin is now playing an important role at every level of local government." This is a change in the politic of the City since there is evidence that previously this demographic group was excluded from participation and targeted for control. Hispanics have an economic impact in this city, in our state and in our nation. This impact continues to grow and census projections indicate that this growth will continue. "Hispanics are utilizing education to better their lives." The current City Manager has been working with the institutions of higher education to come to Arvin. The City has been neglected by these institutions since the courses and the quantity of courses they have offered have been negligent. Arvin High School continues to improve under the leadership of a Hispanic Principal. At the elementary schools, the new Superintendent seems to be sensitive to the cultural diversity of the students and their families. The educational future of our City is optimistic. "The youth and adults of Arvin deserve a stable, representative local government." And, a structure of stability is currently being developed by the new leadership in Arvin. The young people in Arvin and the adults now have role models that mirror the demographic composition of the City. There is an attitude of service and not degradation. The media "circus" classification and the reference by the Grand Jury Foreman to the Mayor of Arvin as a "clown" and a "baboon" does not help the City gain the confidence and trust of individuals outside of Arvin who have no personal knowledge of the Mayor. And, it does not garner respect for the Grand Jury. "For the past two years the Kern County District Attorney's office has been investigating numerous questionable practices in the City of Arvin. There have been only a few cases

in which there was enough evidence to produce criminal convictions." This begs the question as to why so much taxpayer money is spent on fruitless investigations. Also, this is evidence that Arvin under the new Latino leadership has been targeted for investigation as part of an overall plan to create a chilling effect on any Latino interested in getting involved with politics or in the administration of the City of Arvin. And, even if not planned, this could be the result. "Arvin's unstable government has attracted the attention of outside government agencies." This attention has resulted from reports that the current administration is holding public officials accountable for their actions. And, it is exposing previous administrations for expending taxpayer money illegally. It is right to dismiss public officials when they are signing checks illegally. It is right to fire a Police Chief when he steals. It is right to ask a Council woman to resign when she is not a resident of Arvin. It is right to ask a Council man to resign when he has past felony convictions and has spent time in San Quentin Prison with no evidence of a Pardon from the Governor of our State. "For all the DA's offices expended time and effort, they have found themselves ridiculed ‘for not doing anything' and 'for doing something because they are biased'. Evidence has been presented to the DA's office regarding past corruption by City Officials and those matter have not been investigated. Millions of dollars were squandered and illegally spent and there is still no investigation. The consequences of sweetheart deals are still felt and the residents of Arvin are paying the price, and still there is no investigation. The City of Arvin is ready to help in those investigations and to work together with law enforcement to insure that the people are protected from illegal activity. It is time to work together rather than in an accusatory mode that leads to unproductive conflict between the City and the District Attorney's Office. This is imperative because they staff the Grand Jury and all these investigations have proven costly in terms of money and human resources to the City of Arvin. Thank you Grand Jury, staff and Presiding Judge for taking time to review the final report of the investigations of the City. The illegally disclosed Grand Jury Report was an embarrassment to the City, to the Grand Jury, to the District Attorney's Office as staff to the Grand Jury, and to the Judicial System in general. These leaks must not be allowed in the future and we recommend additional training and education for Grand Jury Members so that they understand the great implications of their actions and the responsibility of their job as Grand Jury Members. "Regarding the police benefit conflict, the Committee finds the handling of the latest lawsuit by the City of Arvin completely unprofessional." This comment is completely unproductive. After inquiry of staff, it is clear that the Grand Jury Committee and staff have not contacted our City administration to obtain the other side of the story. The City had negotiated with the Arvin Police Officers Association not with the COPS entity. COPS had not produced any evidence of legal representation of Arvin Officers to the City. The media, via a press release, was used by COPS to convey their representation and neither a copy of the press release or a letter of the demands was presented to the

City until after the media show. It was clearly a political ploy. It is even ironic that the Council man who was cited for D.U.I. in Arvin and is an ex convict and served time in San Quentin appeared in the front page of the newspapers along side Arvin Police Officers represented by COPS. Apparently, he was alerted to the media show. The City administration's conduct was not unprofessional. "A pending ordinance, if approved, will cost the residents of Arvin the maximum allowed by State law for Council Members and the Mayor's salary benefits. The residents of Arvin should question if the cost to the City is justified." Yes, the residents should question whether any expenditure is justified. They should also question if any of the millions of dollars that were illegally squandered by the previous administrations should be investigated by law enforcement authorities. As stated above by the Grand Jury comments, the elected officials will be receiving the "maximum allowed by law", it is an expenditure that is legal. RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. This recommendation had been implemented by the new City Manager prior to the publication of these Grand Jury report. Arvin has received grants from the California Integrated Waste Management Board for oil and hazardous waste disposal as well as for dealing with recyclables in Arvin. The amount received is more than a quarter of a million dollars. The City has received almost the same amount from the California Parks and Recreation Department for capital outlay. Currently, the City is being considered for a grant of almost one million dollars for a Youth Recreation Center. The City continues to receive funds from the Department of Transportation. These monies have been sought and obtained by the City Manager's Office without the use of outside agencies to derive monetary gain from these grants.

2. This recommendation had been implemented. Currently, only one officer lives in

Arvin and he takes his police vehicle home. The City agrees that the presence of police vehicle is a deterrent to possible crime.

3. This recommendation had been implemented. The previous Police Chief and our

current Chief work with local, state and federal agencies to disclose wrong-doing by any group or individual within the City's jurisdiction. A plan is underway to work with the Alcohol and Beverage Commission to determine whether there is any abuse of laws regarding the sale of alcohol to minors in Arvin. The Chief is also working with the schools for the funding of a school resource officer.

4. This recommendation has been implemented. The City is recruiting for qualified

personnel to fill permanent positions in Arvin.

5. This recommendation has been implemented. The City continues to provide public awareness information in both English and Spanish so that all residents are well informed.

6. This recommendation will not be implemented because it does not warrant or is not reasonable. The Veteran's Hall has been repainted and new weatherized doors have been ordered to help contain the heat and cooling. There are other minor improvements to be made.

7. This recommendation requires further analysis. The City has been dealing with

this land issue for some time. The current City Manager has researched this subject and has communicated with the Executive Officer of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board to determine the science used to define the need for land. Expert engineers have been contracted to help determine the land need. The response is that, currently, the City does not need land and may not need land for the next 3, 4, or 5 years dependent on the population and housing unit growth. However, it is clear that land will be needed in the future. The City is currently looking at less costly alternatives that include the leasing of land and exchanging the use of the facility for land use for the spreading of the effluent. It is expected that a recommendation will be made to the City Council within the next six months.

8. This recommendation had been implemented. The City Council and Staff are

working with County agencies along with private ventures that can benefit the City of Arvin in both technical and legal matters. The City is currently working with the County Parks and Recreation Department to coordinate the use of parks by the residents of Arvin. The City along with legal counsel had coordinated seminars and workshops with County Counsel regarding the Brown Act and Public Information Act but that was put on hold when the Grand Jury investigations intensified against City officials and County Counsel felt it might be a conflict.

9. This recommendation will not be implemented because it does not warrant or is

not reasonable. "The elected City Council should eliminate their personal agendas and give their best efforts to the interests of the community." This Council was elected because the personal agenda of each Councilmember coincided with that of the voters. People were tired of the lack of access to City Hall and lack of accountability that was going on in the City.

Members of the Latino population were complaining about the treatment they were receiving at City Hall and from the Police Department. The Council Members have put their best efforts in favor of the interest of all the community members not just a select few. The City will no longer tolerate preferential treatment, even, if it prompts comments from religious leaders who live in Arvin, like "There's always been a good-old-boy syndrome in this city," said Lonnie Ferguson, a 58-year-old minister of the Gospel Tabernacle. "Those in power for years are losing it. Us white folks don't like that." (August 12, 2002, pg. A 1, Los Angeles Times, The Nation; Ethnic Tensions, Corruption Charges Tangle Town Politics; Recall: Arvin's mayor casts Tuesday's election as Latino vs. white. Critics say he's corrupt.)

10. This recommendation had been implemented. City administration together with legal counsel have been working to program training seminars regarding organization process and protocol, including personnel matters, management, Brown Act, effective decision making, community relations, planning, code enforcement, and many other topics. Leadership retreats are also being scheduled to supplement those provided by the California League of Cities.

The Mayor and Vice Mayor have participated in the Green Valley Leadership Institute. This Institute's courses are taught by professors from the Harvard University J. F. Kennedy School of Governance & Public Policy. This type of training helps all participants become better leaders in their respective communities. The elimination of the "circus" and "roguishness" environment is a challenge. It seems to be part of politics in our state. California recently had movie stars and porn queens running for the office of Governor. Talk about a circus. The City of Arvin will commit to improve this type of political image. This administration commits to parallel the efforts of our great state.

11. This recommendation will be implemented. The City will post a copy of the 2003-

2004 Kern Count Grand Jury Report and this response so that it is available for public viewing.

THIS RESPONSE IS SUBMITTED TO THE PRESIDING JUDGE KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301

2003-2004 KERN COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT – CITY OF ARVIN 2

The Cities and Joint Powers Committee of the 2003-2004 Kern County Grand Jury visited the City of Arvin pursuant to Penal Code Section 919.c and 925.a.

CITY OF ARVIN REPORT 2

PURPOSE OF INQUIRY: The Cities and Joint Powers Committee of the 2003-2004 Kern County Grand Jury, pursuant to Penal Code Section 919(c) and 925(a), determined the necessity to issue a follow-up report to supplement the Final Report on the City of Arvin released on December 8, 2003. Ongoing complaints from residents and lack of response by the City’s leadership prompted this supplemental report. PROCESS: The Committee reviewed numerous citizen complaints, City Council agendas, and public documents. The Committee also reviewed many Federal, State, County, and City laws, codes, and ordinances pertaining to the lawful conduct of elected City officials and staff as well as citizens’ rights. The Committee conducted personal interviews regarding problems pertaining to the City of Arvin. BACKGROUND:

Various actions of the Arvin City Council and other City officials have raised the concern of the Grand Jury. This concern relates to possible willful acts of misconduct in office, including nonfeasance, misfeasance, and malfeasance that have occurred since the Grand Jury Report was issued on the City of Arvin in December, 2003. Nonfeasance is the failure to act where duty requires an act; or neglect or refusal, without sufficient cause or excuse, to do that which is the officer’s legal duty to do, whether willfully or through malice; or willful neglect of duty. Misfeasance is the improper doing of an act that a person might lawfully do; or the performance of a duty or act that one ought to, or has a right to do, but in a manner such as to infringe upon the rights of others. Malfeasance is the doing of an act that is positively unlawful or wrong; or the performance of a wrongful act that the person has no legal right to do. Willful misconduct can be an exercise of official power in a malicious, arbitrary, or oppressive manner; the unauthorized use of public property; failure to keep required records; the destruction or withholding of records; the failure to perform duties of office; or the neglect of duty due to intoxication, or due to any other reason over a period of time. The following is a list of Grand Jury concerns:

1. City funds were approved for an English/Spanish language newsletter. The City Council was advised by the City’s legal staff that if City funds were used, no names or photos of elected officials could appear in the newsletter. The newsletter was published listing all the elected officials along with some department heads.

2. Residents who have followed the Arvin City Codes and Ordinances have not only been denied or delayed in their attempts to have building permits signed off, but they have also been publicly ridiculed and privately threatened in their efforts to expect due process of law. Along with being subjected to unnecessary expenditures and time delays, some permits that have been signed off by City Building Inspectors were subsequently canceled using the reason that the City Inspector was unqualified so the permits were invalid.

3. In December of 2003, the 2003-2004 Kern County Grand Jury issued an early release

Final Report on the City of Arvin based primarily on the Cities and Joint Powers Committee’s visit to the City of Arvin on August 14, 2003. A response was required within 90 days of receipt of the report by an elected official and/or the staff. It took the City of Arvin 146 days to respond (56 days late). This was only after receiving a letter from County Counsel stating that failure to respond was grounds for contempt under the Code of Civil Procedure 1209.

4. Elected officials voted not to comply with a Grand Jury subpoena regarding original

records requested. 5. Elected officials have executed employment contracts in violation of the City of

Arvin’s Municipal Codes. In fact, council members have stated that they have “read” the code, but not followed it.

6. Residents of Arvin appearing at the Arvin Police Department with citations have

presented elected City official’s business cards to law enforcement officers. 7. Elected officials have stated publicly that a City Noise Ordinance would not be

enforced. 8. Some citizens of the City of Arvin have been publicly denounced as “Citizens from

Hell” (Arvin Tiller, April 21, 2004). 9. Confrontations between elected officials and residents have led to the filing of police

reports. 10. The Grand Jury is extremely concerned that unfair and discriminatory treatment of

Arvin residents is routinely practiced. The Grand Jury has received numerous accusations from residents that some elected City Officials and other City Officials have practiced blatant discrimination based on the color of skin, with whom you associate, organizations in which you belong, and for whom you voted.

COMMENTS: • In summary, it is the Grand Jury’s opinion that some of the City of Arvin’s City

Council and other City officials foster an environment in which they are not servicing the citizens of the community but are promoting their own personal agendas.

• The Grand Jury strongly suggests that the residents of Arvin, who may believe that

they are not being serviced in a just manner, or may themselves be the recipients of personal agendas, should consider pursuing their rights themselves or through legal representation.

• The following are suggested steps that are available to the public when trying to

obtain the attention, an investigation, or action on a matter of concern to them from the Arvin City Council and other City Officials:

1. Appear at a public meeting and raise the issue at the public comment portion of

the meeting and request the City Council refer the matter for a report, investigation, or action as provided by Government code Section 545954.2(a).

2. File a written request with the Clerk of the City Council and request placement of

the matter on the Council’s agenda for discussion and appropriate action. 3. Contact the Greater Bakersfield Legal Assistance office at 615 California Avenue,

Bakersfield, CA 93307, and seek the advice and help of their legal staff. Telephone 661-325-5943.

4. Retain and consult with a private attorney as to merits of the complaint or issue

and the appropriate steps necessary to obtain relief or response from the City Council.

5. When conduct or issue involves criminal activity, the public may contact the Kern

County District Attorney’s office directly. Telephone 661-868-2340. 6. Other avenues of relief may be available, such as contacting the Attorney General

or other State or federal agencies. 7. File a complaint with the Kern County Grand Jury and call their office at 661-

868-4797 or go to their web-site (www.co.kern.ca.us/grandjury) for a form or information about how to file a complaint with the Jury.

NO RESPONSE REQUIRED: cc: County of Kern County Counsel County of Kern District Attorney’s Office California State Attorney General Fair Political Practice Commission

2003-2004 KERN COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT – CITY OF BAKERSFIELD

The Cities and Joint Powers Committee of the 2003-2004 Kern County Grand Jury visited the City of Bakersfield pursuant to Penal Code Section 925.a.

“The grand jury may at any time examine the books and records of any incorporated city or joint powers agency located in the county. In addition to any other investigatory powers granted by this chapter, the grand jury may investigate and report upon the operations, accounts, and records of officers, departments, functions, and the method or system of performing the duties of any such city or joint powers agency and make such recommendations as it may deem proper and fit.”

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD PURPOSE OF INQUIRY: The Cities and Joint Powers Committee of the 2003-2004 Kern County Grand Jury, pursuant to California Penal Code 925.a, began the City of Bakersfield visits on December 4, 2003. PROCESS: Members of the Committee met with several members of the City staff. A review of budget expenditures included capital improvements, staffing, and maintenance projects. The City’s current and future plans were discussed regarding fulfillment of the Community’s needs considering the current State budget “crunch”. The Committee also toured portions of the City to determine the overall condition of the streets and the general cleanliness of the City. BACKGROUND: The City of Bakersfield advertises itself as “The City of Golden Opportunity”. The City was incorporated in 1898 and has grown to a population in excess of 260,000 people. Bakersfield was originally a rest stop for “road weary” travelers. Bakersfield soon grew to be a central point for the agricultural and industrial businesses of the Kern region. Bakersfield is also the county seat of Kern County. The discovery of oil in the area, along with improved agricultural technology, continues to ensure the rapid growth of this metropolitan City. FINDINGS: The uncertainty of State funding to the City has Bakersfield City staffers scrambling to maintain the City’s services to its residents. The City is currently suffering from a $918,000 monthly deficit in Vehicle License Fee (VLF) revenue. This, coupled with a multitude of other funding problems, has caused concern within the City’s staff. Many of the experienced “staffers” have chosen to retire rather than continue the perceived uphill battle forced upon the City by the State budget turmoil. The uncertainty has been described as “An ongoing Shell Game” as to when, how much, and how soon the City’s’ tax monies will be returned to the City coffers. With the retirement of experienced City “staffers”, the current City management appears to be diligently seeking to ensure that city services will continue. In one of the interviews, the Committee determined that in the past year, all 200 of the City’s “temporary” personnel have been terminated. Parks maintenance is suffering and children and family services have been curtailed and/or downsized. “Fiscal Management” is currently the biggest problem facing the City. The Police Department is understaffed by eleven officers and a hiring freeze is in effect. A

spokesperson from the Police Department stated: “We are currently down thirty-five sworn personnel positions including current vacancies, frozen positions left open by retirement, and budget cuts in July”. • The predominant crime in Bakersfield is automobile related (auto theft, auto burglary,

and theft from unlocked vehicles). Some new programs instituted by the City include the Citizens Forum, Life Interrupted, red light camera enforcement, overtime grants for DUI, speed, and seatbelt enforcement. The new Police Substation will open soon and investments have been made in a new records management/computer aided dispatch system.

• Bakersfield streets are currently in poor condition. It is estimated that a $55 million

“backlog” exists in repair and resurface needs. Current gasoline taxes supply one-third of needed funding for repairs. Current costs for a traffic signal are approximately $130,000 and a stop sign installed costs approximately $1,000. The proposed State Route 58 freeway extension is estimated to cost $175 million. Thousands of dollars have already been spent to determine the route of this much needed traffic improvement. Originally, State Route 58 was planned to extend through the shopping center where it now dead ends. However, some citizens objected and a new route was proposed (again some citizens objected). Another route is being contemplated. State Route 99 is the second busiest traffic highway in the entire State of California.

• In order to reduce deposits into the local landfill and to comply with State

requirements, the City of Bakersfield has begun a curbside recycling program. At this writing, the curbside recycling effort does not appear to be widely accepted by the citizens because only about 3,000 customers were currently signed up. The cost to participants of curbside recycling is approximately $80 per year. This cost will not be placed on property tax bills as are the current waste collection charges. In the recycling program, there is no discount for senior citizens.

• The Bakersfield “Ice Center” opened in early December of 2003 to crowds that far

exceeded the capacity of the center. Thus, it appears that the ice rink will be a financial and public service success.

• The McMurtry Aquatic Center is scheduled to open in May of 2004. The opening of

the new aquatic center has caused re-evaluation of the use of eight local community swimming pools. After careful study, it was determined that the McMurtry Pool complex would better serve the Community. The Community pools that will be closed were built almost fifty years ago and are in poor or in some cases dangerous condition. Some of the pools were not fully utilized by neighborhood communities. The cost per person to keep them open was prohibitive. One pool that will be closed hosted less than 1,700 swimmers for an entire season.

• Currently, the City has no representation on LAFCO (Local Agency Formation

Commission). This lack of representation interferes with City redevelopment efforts.

• There are a number of “County islands” within the City limits of Bakersfield. These

“islands” are a waste of tax payer dollars because County services must cross City limit lines to serve those “islands”, especially law enforcement services.

• Two separate unions serve the City and County Fire Department’s personnel. Thus,

separate negotiations occur when contracts expire. • The “old” PG&E power plant on Rosedale Highway has been the subject of much

discussion. Negotiations for the sale of the power plant continue. However, it appears at this time, that the power plant is antiquated and the cost to bring it up to current standards may be prohibitive for any buyer. It has yet to be determined what type of fuel would be used to operate the plant. This has raised questions about additional air pollution in the San Joaquin Valley and in the City of Bakersfield.

COMMENTS The City of Bakersfield is undergoing the same fiscal problems as other cities in the State. In the words of the Mayor, “I wish I had a crystal ball to look ahead to determine what the fiscal outlook will be for this great city– I suppose it will be determined by the gamesmanship in Sacramento.” The City Manager and Staff are working closely with the City Council to continue City services to the residents of Bakersfield. Unless the State fiscal crisis is resolved, it appears layoffs will occur not later than January of 2004. Bakersfield City streets are in poor condition. Compared to the other ten cities in Kern County, this Grand Jury Committee feels that Bakersfield streets are among the worst in Kern County. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. The issue of extending State Route 58 and creating another “cross town” freeway

should be re-visited and voted upon by the citizens of Bakersfield. This will eliminate expensive traffic studies which only appear to placate the few NIMBYs (Not in My Back Yard).

2. The City of Bakersfield continues to pursue other revenue sources to maintain City

services. If locally elected State representatives cannot secure proper funding for their constituents, then the Federal government representatives should be requested to help.

3. The Joint Powers Agreement between the City and the County with respect to Fire

Services should be updated in order to save the taxpayers’ money. Its last revision was written in 1997 (Refer to 2003-2004 Grand Jury report, Kern County Fire Department and Other Fire Services).

4. In order to save taxpayer dollars, the City of Bakersfield should investigate the

possibility of merging the County and City Fire Departments. 5. The continuing saga of the Rosedale power plant should be brought to conclusion. If

the proposed buyers of the facility cannot meet all existing regulations, then the plant should be abandoned, or removed.

6. The City Staff should be commended for their extraordinary efforts in the recent

annexing of a small “County island”. Every effort should be made to annex and eliminate all of these islands and incorporate them into the City at the earliest possible time, despite recent changes in the law that give LAFCO jurisdiction over annexation.

7. The City’s lack of representation on LAFCO should be addressed with the State

Legislators in order to promote City redevelopment. 8. The City Management should be commended for their ongoing efforts to cope with

the continuing fiscal crises and maintenance of City services. 9. The 2003-2004 Grand Jury recommends that the City of Bakersfield post a copy of

this report and response as required where it will be available for public review. Note: Present and past Kern County Grand Jury reports and responses can be accessed at the County Libraries and or the Kern County Grand Jury web-site: www.co.kern.ca.us/grandjury

RESPONSE REQUIRED: WITHIN 90 DAYS TO PRESIDING JUDGE KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301

April 8, 2004 The Honorable Stephen Gildner Presiding Judge of the Superior Court County of Kern 1415 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Subject: Kern County Grand Jury Final Report for 2003-2004 - Recommendations Dear Judge Gildner: On behalf of the City of Bakersfield, I am responding to the recommendations made by the Kern County Grand Jury in the 2003-2004 Final Report. I enjoyed meeting with the members of the Cities and Joint Powers Committee. Their interest in City operations and the issues that affect our community is admirable. The responses to the specific recommendations included in the Grand Jury Final Report are as follows: 1. "The issue of extending State Route 58 and creating another "cross town"

freeway should be re-visited and voted upon by the citizens of Bakersfield. This will eliminate expensive traffic studies which only appear to placate the few NIMBYs (Not in My Back Yard)." The City shares the view of the Grand Jury that a major thoroughfare is needed to carry traffic more efficiently through Bakersfield and to accommodate the growing transportation needs of our community. Public highways, such as a cross town freeway, are paid for by Federal and State funding sources. The requirements and regulations associated with such projects are controlled by Federal and State agencies. One of the requirements that they impose is a mandatory review of alternatives. This project is many years away from the beginning of those procedures. The State, rather than the City, controls the process.

2. "The City of Bakersfield continues to pursue other revenue sources to

maintain City services. If locally elected State representatives can not secure proper funding for their constituents, then the Federal government representatives should be requested to help."

The Honorable Stephen Gildner President Judge of the Superior Court April 8, 2004 Page 2

The City is appreciative of the Grand Jury's recognition that we do attempt to secure whatever funding sources are available for projects and operations, when possible. We will continue our communication with State and Federal representatives to request assistance whenever there is an appropriate opportunity.

3. "The Joint Powers Agreement between the City and the County with respect to Fire Services should be updated in order to save the taxpayers' money. Its last revision was written in 1997 (Refer to 2003-2004 Grand Jury report, Kern County Fire Department and Other Fire Services)."

The City is in agreement that there is mutual benefit for both agencies to periodically review the JPA and to make revisions when there is an efficient basis to do so.

4. "In order to save taxpayer dollars, the City of Bakersfield should investigate

the possibility of merging the County and City Fire Departments."

The possibility of merging the County and City Fire Departments has been studied in the past. There are a number of very complex obstacles in pursuing such a consolidation. The Joint Powers Agreement provides a basis for a cooperative system of service that eliminates duplication of services.

5. "The continuing saga of the Rosedale power plant should be brought to

conclusion. If the proposed buyers of the facility can not meet all existing regulations, then the plant should be abandoned, or removed."

The decision on the future use of the Kern Power Plant will be determined by the California Public Utilities Commission. The City has filed a protest with the CPUC requesting that the plant be dismantled and the site cleaned up, but we do not have any authority in the decision making process. We would prefer to see a more appropriate use of the site which would be compatible with the development that has taken place in the area. We are awaiting the final decision of the CPUC as to whether or not the proposed sale to North American Power Group will be denied.

6. "The City staff should be commended for their extraordinary efforts in the

recent annexing of a small "County Island". Every effort should be made to annex and eliminate all of these islands and incorporate them into the City at the earliest possible time, despite recent changes in the law that give LAFCO jurisdiction over annexation."

The Honorable Stephen Gildner President Judge of the Superior Court April 8, 2004 Page 3

The City is in full agreement with the Grand Jury that the County islands create an inefficient use of staffing and public resources. We hope that circumstances change in the future that will allow for the possibility of those areas becoming part of the City and benefiting from the services we can provide.

7. "The City's lack of representation on LAFCO should be addressed with the

State Legislators in order to promote City redevelopment."

Again, we agree that as the most rapidly developing city in Kern County, it is appropriate that Bakersfield should have representation on LAFCO. We have pursued assistance from our State representatives, but our efforts have not been successful, to date.

8. The City Management should be commended for their ongoing effort to cope

with the continuing fiscal crisis and maintenance of City services.

The City thanks the Grand Jury for recognizing the challenges we face with decreased revenues and growing costs. We will continue to use our resources as creatively and efficiently as possible to maintain reasonable service levels for our citizens.

9. The 2003-2004 Grand Jury recommends that the City of Bakersfield post a

copy of this report and response as required where it will be available for public review.

The 2003-2004 Grand Jury Report and this response are available to the public through the City Clerk's Office.

I appreciate this opportunity to respond to the recommendations of the Grand Jury. I hope the information that has been provided will sufficiently address their concerns. If there are further questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me.

2003-2004 KERN COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT – CITY OF CALIFORNIA CITY

The Cities and Joint Powers Committee of the 2003-2004 Kern County Grand Jury visited the City of California City pursuant to Penal Code Section 925.a.

“A grand jury may at any time examine the books and records of any nonprofit corporation established by or operated on behalf of a public entity the books and records of which it is authorized by law to examine, and in addition to any other investigatory powers granted by this chapter, may investigate and report upon the method or system of performing the duties of such nonprofit corporation.”

CITY OF CALIFORNIA CITY PURPOSE OF INQUIRY: The Cities and Joint Powers Committee of the 2003-2004 Kern County Grand Jury visited the City of California City, on September 08, 2003, pursuant to Penal Code Section 925.a. PROCESS: The Committee met with the City Manager and members of the City Staff and reviewed current and past City budgets, City Council agendas, RDA agendas, previous Grand Jury Final Reports and responses, and present and future City projects. The Committee also researched various media publications relating to California City. BACKGROUND: The City was founded in 1958 and incorporated as a General Law City with 204 square miles. This makes it the third largest city in land area in the State of California. The City has a population of over 11,000 people and is located 67 miles from the County Seat of Bakersfield. The City is still seeking recognition from its county metropolitan area. “Some County maps do not even show California City”, quoted a City Staff member. The only County facility in the City is a branch of the Library system, which the City must aid in funding, ($40,000 annually), to insure its existence. This cost does not occur in any other city in Kern County. The Community has expressed that they feel like a “lost relative”. The Committee felt after its investigation that the City Government has proven to be a progressive and efficient local government which has strong community support. FINDINGS: • The Committee concluded, after reviewing the financial records, that the City’s

finances are in order and accounting reports are presented in a professional manner. California City has a balanced budget and reserve funds available for unexpected expenses.

• The City Staff applies for numerous grants to help finance various City projects. Five

or six staff members write the grants, depending on the department actually applying for them. The Staff has a 75% success rate in grant approvals. This is a high success rate due to the expertise of the Staff.

• The California City Correctional Center is in its third year of a ten year contract with

the Federal Government. The facility primarily houses illegal immigrants that are

awaiting deportation. The prison provides 550 jobs, including 250 held by City residents, and has a monthly payroll of $1.9 million.

• The City’s long awaited first high school is progressing and should be built by 2004.

At present, students are bussed to Mojave or educated on the nearby military base. Eventually, the new high school will enroll between 400-500 students. The high school could stimulate population growth because more of the prison employees may decide to move to the City. Only half of the prison employees currently reside within the City limits. Providing services for the school would extend roads, water, sewer, and utilities to 550 undeveloped parcels, which in turn will stimulate new growth.

• Due to theft or destruction, the City replaces approximately 100 of the 2,000 street

signs each year. • Providing water and sewer service to a growing City is an ongoing challenge to

Council and Staff, i.e. the recent expansion of the wastewater treatment plant. At the present time, miles of older sewer lines are being replaced. The residents acknowledge that possible tax and meter rate increases must be addressed to continue upgrading the existing services and developing new systems. The Council and Staff make every effort to keep the public aware of all the alternatives, so they can make informed decisions regarding these matters.

• The California City Police Department is currently involved in recruiting for its

Volunteers in Public Service (VIPS) program. The VIPS program participation has recently dwindled in numbers. Volunteers, when available, help the department with the front desk, paperwork, and community events. They can also assist the Desert Incident Response Team with its patrols of weekend off-road vehicle traffic. The VIPS program is a valuable resource to the Department and the Community. The Department is attempting to create a cadet program that would be available to local high school students. As cadets, the students assist law enforcement officers in community service and in action during patrol ride-a-longs. It is the City’s hope that some of the cadets will pursue a law enforcement career and will choose California City as a place to work and reside. The Police Department has recently become an active member of the Community Oriented Policing & Problem Solving (COPPS) program. COPPS is a National program that promotes proactive problem solving and police-community partnerships, addresses the cause of crime, fear, and other community issues.

• During the Committee’s visit, the City Staff stated they were very close to attracting a major grocer to the City. Until this becomes a reality, most residents must travel to Mojave or Lancaster to buy groceries and other staples. A major grocery outlet within the City will stimulate growth and more revenue toward future annual City budgets.

• The California City Airport Manager has been granted millions in State and Federal dollars for Airport improvements. The Airport now has a 6,030 foot night lighted runway with terminal facilities, a restaurant and 20,000 square feet of privately owned industrial buildings. The Airport has recently benefited from a new Automated Weather Observation System (AWOS). It delivers current weather data by radio or telephone. The AWOS program was made possible through a grant from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The Airport Manager’s next project is gathering data on California City Airport weather transmitted to the National Weather Service. In the last three and a half years, the AWOS Federal grant was only one of eighteen grant applications written by the Manager and has provided over $2 million toward Airport improvements.

• California City has joined the global economy by becoming a part of a designated Foreign Trade Zone. A Foreign Trade Zone is a specially designated area, in or adjacent to a U.S. Customs Port of Entry. A Port of Entry is considered to be outside the “Customs Territory of the U.S.”. In a Foreign Trade Zone, businesses are allowed to import goods duty-free and have other financial advantages. The Foreign Trade Zone coupled with the California City Airport’s recent expansion projects should help the City attract new revenue sources.

• The $66 million Hyundai Motor Co. project in California City is scheduled for

completion in 2004. Two of its main features are a 6.4 mile oval track and a 30,000 square foot office and indoor testing facility. It is expected to create 100 jobs and bring in millions of dollars in local revenue. Having this facility located inside a restricted air space is one of the City’s main attractions. The Company will be testing new vehicles and innovations for marketing.

• The California City Fire Department is responsible for protecting approximately

14,000 people in Eastern Kern County. It is the only fire department in Kern County that provides paramedic service. Pending the ambulance arrival, Firefighters are authorized to provide Advanced Life Support services. There is no fee for these services. Firefighters also do Emergency Medical Treatment (EMT) level care that includes defibrillation and intubation with the Combi-tube.

• The City is faced with the possibility of being without a local medical helicopter

service program. The current service could end in November 2003. If California City loses their helicopter service, Mercy Air Service will move their service from Mojave to California City. The possibility of purchasing a City helicopter is being reviewed by the Fire Chief, City Council, Staff, local businesses, and concerned citizens. In the past one and a half years, there have been thirty one lives saved. This has been directly attributed to having a local helicopter available.

• California City residents must drive to Mojave, Tehachapi, Ridgecrest, or Bakersfield

to receive County Services. Other incorporated cities throughout the County, some

with smaller populations, have several County facilities. California City residents are eager to bring County services to their area. The Cities “wish list” includes, but is not limited to:

a. A County roads/streets maintenance yard b. Health and Human Services, e.g. women’s shelters, child protective services,

counseling services, and an office on Aging and Mature Adult Services c. Planning and Permit services d. Educational services e. Transit coordinators, bus barns, and a bus line with California City as a point

of origin f. District Attorney’s branch office g. Election services h. Local County service for property tax collection, deeds, recording services,

and property records access Some services, due to county budgeting problems, could be provided through a satellite office, rather than a full-time facility. COMMENTS: The Committee was informed during the visit that the current City Manager would be retiring soon. The Committee acknowledges that every good local government begins with the quality, expertise, organizational skills, and work ethics of the City Manager. The current City Manager is to be commended for a job well done. The Committee commends the City Council, City Staff, the local business community, and all the residents for helping make the City what it is today. The City is not a “lost relative”; it is a “golden child” of Kern County in the opinion of the Committee. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Copies of this report should be sent to every County Supervisor and County

Department that provides services to the City. Copies should also be sent to any other State or Federal agency department, including non-profit corporations in the County, that the City of California City feels might be able to bring more and better services to them.

2. California City should create an ongoing Committee made up of Council, Staff,

business leaders, and concerned residents with the agenda that will work toward bringing County Services to the Community.

3. California City should post a copy of this report and response, if required, where it

would be available for public reviewing. Note: Present and past Kern County Grand Jury Final Reports and Responses can be accessed at the County Library and on the Kern County Grand Jury web-site: www.co.kern.ca.us/grandjury

RESPONSE REQUIRED: WITHIN 90 DAYS TO PRESIDING JUDGE KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301

2003-2004 KERN COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT – CITY OF DELANO

The Cities and Joint Powers Committee of the 2003-2004 Kern County Grand Jury visited the City of Delano pursuant to Penal Code Section 925.a.

“The grand jury may at any time examine the books and records of any incorporated city or joint powers agency located in the county. In addition to any other investigatory powers granted by this chapter, the grand jury may investigate and report upon the operations, accounts, and records of officers, departments, functions, and the method or system of performing the duties of any such city or joint powers agency and make such recommendations as it may deem proper and fit.”

CITY OF DELANO

PURPOSE OF INQUIRY: The Cities and Joint Powers Committee of the 2003-2004 Kern County Grand Jury visited the City of Delano, on August 21, 2003, pursuant to the Penal Code Section 925.a. PROCESS: Members of the Cities and Joint Powers Committee toured the City of Delano and met with the City Manager and the Assistant City Manager. Staff was unavailable. On October 16, 2003, members of the Cities and Joint Powers Committee met with staff members of the City of Delano. The Committee reviewed current and past City budgets, City Council agendas, Redevelopment Department Agency agendas, previous Grand Jury Final Reports and responses, and present and future City projects. The Committee also researched various media publications relating to the City of Delano. BACKGROUND: Delano started out in 1870 as a Southern Pacific railhead surrounded by farms. In 1915 Delano was incorporated as a General Law City. The City of Delano is presently the second most populated city in Kern County and has maintained its agricultural heritage. It is presently being enhanced by industry. The City was originally ten square miles, but with recent and future planned annexations, the size of the City is growing. The City’s population, which is approximately 42,000, is growing approximately 3% per year. Included in the total population are approximately 4,600 inmates of the California Correctional Facility (CCF). One of the unique qualities of the City is the diversity of its population. The City is experiencing the typical growing pains of increased services and the need to increase revenue to better the quality of life for its residents. FINDINGS: • In June 2003, Delano hired a new City Manager. He has had previous experience as a

City Manager in El Centro since 1980. • The City of Delano’s staff has obtained 42 various grants amounting to

$11,491,463.16. City staff is continuing to apply for future grants that will add revenue to city budgets and planned projects.

• The City of Delano’s 2003-2004 budget is $65,437,040, which includes the

Redevelopment Agency. This budget shows a 4% decrease due to state budget cuts. The forced budget cuts have resulted in seven full time positions being eliminated or

reduced. All departments were forced to reduce their 2002-2003 adopted budget by 13%. The budget cuts also required elimination of funding for the Delano Chamber of Commerce ($18,000) and the Delano Historical Society ($24,000) for the operation of Heritage Park. Forced budget cuts have left some of the City department heads and managers overseeing more than one department.

• City officials are currently re-writing the annual budget for submission to the City

Council. • Currently, 1,400 new housing units are “on the drawing board”, which will further

increase the residential population. Better housing is needed to aid in attracting new business to Delano.

• In the year 2004, Delano will see the completion of the State maximum-security

prison. The facility will house 5,000 inmates. The $335 million project was delayed by environmental concerns but is near completion as of this report. The new prison staff will be a revenue source for the City. Residents, vendors, and customers (with possible city business) will be servicing the prison’s overall needs.

• Currently, Delano is revamping the “clean up” ordinance which was deleted due to

budgets cuts. Negotiations are underway for an independent contractor to undertake the entire code enforcement department. If the hiring of an independent contractor is successful, this method of code enforcement may be adopted by other cities that face a similar problem.

• The California Department of Corrections facility in Delano continues to have a

positive fund balance. This is due to the elimination of six full time correctional officers. Cutbacks by the State have caused operating problems. Repair and replacement of major security systems are being delayed by the State bureaucracy system. An example of such problems was the failure of the “lockdown” system, which caused the prison Captain to make immediate fixes, while waiting for clearances from the State to spend the money required.

• The city streets appear to be in average to good condition. The overall cleanliness is

excellent. Several “blighted” areas in the City exist, and some residential areas need attention.

• A $924,000 improvement grant from the Federal Government (Department of

Commerce’s Economic Administration), to be used for infrastructure projects, is on hold. A major commercial outlet is not going forth with its expansion project at the present.

• Kern County spent $450,000 of its share of mitigation funds from North Kern State

Prison to help pave roads near the new high school. Delano will be contributing the majority of the balance of the $541,000 project through its Central Valley Infrastructure Grant Program funds.

• On August 2003, Delano’s Cesar E. Chavez High School opened. The $50 million

school will have a capacity of 2,276 students. The new school will relieve the overcrowded Delano High School.

• Delano may not benefit from hundreds of thousands of dollars in yearly sales tax

revenue if Wal-Mart builds in Tulare County instead of Delano. At the time of this report, the location was still unsettled.

• A new skateboard park is expected to be open by the end of 2003. The 23,000

square-foot park has been in the planning stages for nearly two years. • The Community Redevelopment Agency’s (RDA) mission statement is “To

administer Community Redevelopment Agency activities and programs that will improve the economic viability of the community, stimulate new job creation, and eliminate slums and blight”. Two of the RDA’s projects are the Main Street Improvement Program and the Block “H” projects. Similar projects are necessary and worthwhile for the Community. The cost of the RDA to the City general fund and sewer fund is over $3 million. The RDA’s present revenues are not sufficient to repay the debt. RDA’s typically operate in debt, relying on long-term revenue.

RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. The City of Delano should budget funds for the Delano Chamber of Commerce and

the Delano Historical Society Heritage Park. These projects should become a priority when funds are available.

2. The City of Delano should pursue every option that would result in convincing Wal-

Mart to locate in Delano. Wal-Mart could potentially provide $500,000 a year in revenue benefiting the community by providing jobs for local residents.

3. The City of Delano should encourage public input, regarding any RDA expenditures

either short-term or long-term. Exclusive of possible future RDA grant funding, taxpayer money will eventually be used to repay all the debts incurred by the RDA.

4. The City of Delano should post a copy of this report and response, if required, where

it would be available for public reviewing. Note: Present and past Kern County Grand Jury Final Reports and Responses can be accessed at the County Library and on the Kern County Grand Jury web-site:

www.co.kern.ca.us/grandjury NO RESPONSE REQUIRED

CITY OF MARICOPA PURPOSE OF INQUIRY: The annual visitation of the Cities and Joint Powers Committee of the 2003-2004 Kern County Grand Jury pursuant to Penal Code Section 925.a. PROCESS: Members of the Committee and the Grand Jury visited the City of Maricopa Wednesday, August 06, 2003. The Committee toured the City to review its overall appearance including the condition of the streets and buildings. The Committee met with the City Administrator, Mayor, Mayor ProTem and a member of the City Council. A review of budget expenditures included capital improvements and maintenance projects. The City’s current needs and future plans were discussed with reference to what could be done to fulfill the future community needs. BACKGROUND: Maricopa is the smallest city in population in Kern County and is ranked 464th of the 478 cities in the State of California. The present population is approximately 1150 and is located 47 miles southwest of Bakersfield. The City was incorporated on July 25th, 1911. Maricopa is known as the “Mother City” of the prolific Midway Sunset Oilfields. The City began its sudden growth with the advent of the famed “Lakeview Gusher”. The population of the City swelled to approximately 20,000 residents. Since its “heyday” the City has shrunk to its present population. Maricopa derives its name from the Pima Indian tribe. Maricopa is a general law city with a council form of government. The City Council sets policy and procedures on all matters pertaining to the City’s well being. The City Council consists of five members who are elected at large for 4-year terms. After each election, the council members select the Mayor. FINDINGS: • Currently the City Council members have an average of 8 years (not continuous in

some cases) of Council experience. • The city books have a history of being “self audited” on an annual basis. • The State of California audits only when state taxes are involved. • This year’s budget was not completed as of August 6, 2003. The budget was

anticipated to be approximately $800,000.

• All City of Maricopa checks require two signatures. The City Treasurer maintains bank balances and signs all checks with any City Council member.

• Invoices must be approved by a majority of the City Council which includes the

payroll for the (5) city employees. • The existing city sewer system is in urgent need of a rebuild. Approximately 50% of

the residents must use septic tanks. The estimated cost of the rebuild is in excess of $4 million. The City has insufficient revenue to apply for grant funding. Grant monies for a rebuild of the sewer system requires some matching funds which the City is unable to provide. The sewer system continues to deteriorate.

• The City’s roads, with the aid of Kern COG funding, appear to be in overall good

condition. • The privately owned buildings on Main Street are deteriorating. There appears to be

no prospect of upgrades for these structures. Due to the lack of a sales market and present code compliance the building owners lack revenue for improvements.

• There are few businesses that contribute to the City’s general fund income. • The Maricopa Senior Center is not being utilized to its maximum and should be a

centerpiece in the community. This Center has the highest percentage of usage per population of any city in Kern County. It is estimated that approximately 20% of the residents in the City are retired oilfield related workers. Senior activities are a priority.

COMMENTS: The Committee’s comments and recommendations are based on research, visits and interviews with the following individuals and departments: • The Director of the Kern County Community And Economic Development

Department • U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management • City of Maricopa 2003-2004 proposed budget and Council agendas

• Executive Director and Administrative Division Chief, Kern Council of Governments • Previous Kern County Grand Jury Final Reports, responses and recommendations The City of Maricopa should have an outside independent audit of the past four years. The community needs assurance that the funds are being properly accounted. This outside audit is to eliminate any appearance of impropriety.

The Committee believes that the existing sewer system problems are preventing growth. There is a need for housing due to an increase of available jobs near Maricopa. Annexation possibilities and new housing will be critical because the city cannot provide the necessary services. Downtown rehabilitation is a necessity. There are many unsafe buildings and growth cannot occur under the present circumstances. Oil companies own approximately 70% of the land in and around the City and lease their land to conserve the land for possible future drilling. The city officials have expressed a strong belief that local government is better for the community than county government. It was noted that there are many unincorporated areas in the county that have larger populations. Many unincorporated areas provide more services for their communities than the City of Maricopa. It was noted the City has a lack of grant writers. The Committee did not see any plans to pursue grants by the current city officials. The city has a new museum and memorial park in which the residents take great pride. RECOMMENDATIONS: Kern County 2003-2004 Grand Jury is in the process of having an independent audit of the past 4-5 years of the City of Maricopa’s budgets. This audit will be provided at no cost to the City of Maricopa. It is recommended that the City of Maricopa contact Kern Council of Governments, County of Kern Community and Economic Development Department, and the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management to find a solution to the City’s sewer and wastewater treatment problems. These agencies mentioned have all assured the Grand Jury Committee that they will work with the City of Maricopa. The Committee recommends that a “downtown association” be created to seriously consider a plan of action to revitalize the downtown area. The Committee recommends the hiring of a part-time hourly or commissionable grant writer to obtain grants to benefit the community. RESPONSE REQUIRED: WITHIN 90 DAYS TO PRESIDING JUDGE KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301

Dear Sir: This is to respond to the recommendations by the 2003-04 Grand Jury pertaining to the City of Maricopa. Recommendation: Kern County 2003-04 Grand Jury is in the process of having an independent audit of the past 4-5 years of the City of Maricopa's budgets. This audit will be provided at no cost to the City of Maricopa. Response: This is an excellent recommendation and has our complete support. Recommendation: Contact Kern Council of Governments, County of Kern Community and Economic Development Department, and the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management to find a solution to the City's sewer and wastewater treatment problems. Response: We will follow this recommendation. Recommendation: Create a "downtown association" to seriously consider a plan of action to revitalize the downtown area. Response: We will follow this recommendation. Recommendation: Hire a part-time hourly or commissionable grant writer to obtain grants to benefit the community. Response: Writing the grant is not the problem, we have competent staff to do that. The problem is finding 100% grants to finance our infrastructure needs. To date the grants we

have found require substantial contribution from us that we cannot afford. However, we will continue to search for grants that we can afford that will benefit the community. Recommendation: Seek state or federal grants in order to establish a recreation district within the City. Assistance may be available through the West Side Parks and Recreation District. Response: We are looking into this and other ways to provide recreation services. Recommendation: Continue efforts to obtain funding for the repair or replacement of the City sewer system. Response: We certainly will follow this recommendation.

Peter C. Brown, CPA

Burton H. Armstrong, CPA, MSf

Andrew J. Paulden, CPA

Harvey J. McCown, CPA

Steven R Starbuck, CPA

Aileen K. Keeter, CPA

__________________

Chris M. Thornburgh, CPA

Lynn R. Krausse, CPA, MST

Bradley M. Hankins, CPA

Eric H. Xin, CPA

Melinda A. McDaniels, CPA

Thomas M. Young, CPA

Amanda E. Wilson, CPA

Sharon Jones, CPA, MST

Rosalva Flores, CPA

Debbie A. Rapp, CPA

Julie A. Auvil, CPA

Connie M. Perez, CPA

Patricia W. Welch, CPA

Matthew R. Gilligan, CPA

Shawn M. Canaday, CPA

INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANT'S REPORT

ON APPLYING AGREED UPON PROCEDURES

Kern County Grand Jury Bakersfield, California We have performed the procedures enumerated below, which were agreed to Kern County Grand Jury, solely to assist you to evaluate the City of Maricopa's (the City) internal control over financial reporting for the fiscal years 1999-2000, 2000-2001, 2001-2002, and 2002-present. This agreed-upon procedures engagement was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. The sufficiency of these procedures is solely the responsibility of those parties specified in the report. Consequently, we make no representation regarding the sufficiency of the procedures described below either for the purpose for which this report has been requested or for any other purpose. Our procedures and results are as follows: Procedure No. 1: Obtain an understanding of the City of Maricopa's accounting and financial reporting procedures to develop the most effective approach for evaluating the City's internal control over the financial reporting. Results: The City operates on a cash basis and utilizes Quicken software program to keep track of the accounting activities. The City did not prepare an annual financial statement for the years ended 1999-2000, 2000-2001, 2001-2002, and 2002-present. The only report that the City uses is the budget report, which is prepared every year based on prior year actual balances from the Quicken system as well as management's estimates for the upcoming fiscal year. The budget is closely monitored to prevent the City from overspending. The City has four funds: General Fund, Street Fund, Senior Fund, and Capital Improvement Fund. General Fund is the only one with material activities and balances. The City only has two full time employees. As a result, there is no sufficient segregation of duties in the accounting and finance area. However, there are certain controls in place to prevent fraud and misappropriation of assets. All cash disbursements must be approved by the City Administrator and the board. All checks issued must be signed by the treasurer. Although the treasurer is part-time, the treasurer is someone other than the person initiating transactions, preparing and printing the checks.

MEMBER of SEC Practice Section of the Americon Institute of Certified Public Accountants

Based on our understanding of the City's accounting and financial reporting procedures and availability of accounting information, we determined that the most effective approach to evaluate the City's internal control over the financial reporting is to perform testing on a sample basis of the City's cash disbursements (payroll and non-payroll), cash receipts, and bank reconciliation procedures. Procedure No. 2: Non-statistically selected sixty payroll disbursement items (approximately fifteen for each of the fiscal year ended 1999-2000, 2000-2001, 2001-2002, and 2002-present) from the detail check register for the General Fund generated by the Quicken program and performed the following procedures for each of these items:

• Reviewed personnel file to ensure that the payee is a city employee. • Compared hours worked to Attendance Reports and verified required approval, if applicable. • Re-computed net pay taking into account special allowances based on pay stub information. • Obtained justification for any unusual compensation. • Considered the reasonableness of the pay rate amounts.

Results: The City did not have the attendance records/time sheets for eight out of the sixty-one samples selected for testing. As a result, we were not able to perform the second test step on these eight items. Per inquiry of the City staff, the City does not have a written policy for retention of the attendance records/time sheets. Procedure No. 3: Non-statistically selected sixty non-payroll disbursement items (approximately fifteen for each of the fiscal year ended 1999-2000, 2000-2001, 2001-2002, and 2002-present) from the detail check register for the General Fund generated by the Quicken program and performed the following procedures for each of these items:

• Agreed amount recorded with invoice, purchase order, and/or claim, and vouched supporting documentation as to details, e.g., quantities, description, footing/extension, dates, etc.

• Confirmed payee and /or payee endorsement on check agreed with supporting documentation. • Confirmed correct recording as to account and period received. • Verified authorized signer signed the check.

Results: We noted no exceptions during our testing. Procedure No. 4: Non-statistically selected forty cash receipt items (approximately ten for each of the fiscal year ended 1999-2000, 2000-2001, 2001-2002, and 2002-present) from the detail check register for the General Fund generated by the Quicken program and performed the following procedures for each of these items:

• Reviewed for accuracy and indications of compliance with control procedures (adequately supported, clerical accuracy, supervisory approval, etc.)

• Traced cash receipt amount to Taft National Bank's monthly statements. Results: We noted no exceptions during our testing.

Procedure No. 5: Non-statistically selected two months' bank reconciliation for each of the fiscal year ended 1999-2000, 2000-2001, 2001-2002, and 2002-present and performed the following procedures for each of the bank reconciliation:

• Examined the clerical accuracy of the bank reconciliation. • Traced the balance per bank to the original bank statement. • Traced the balance per book to the check register. • Selected a sample of significant out standing items and traced to the subsequent bank

statements. Results: We noted no exceptions during our testing. We were not engaged to, and did not, conduct an audit, the objective of which would be the expression of an opinion, on the City of Maricopa's internal control and/or financial statements. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. Had we performed additional procedures, other matters might have come to our attention that would have been reported to you. This report is intended solely for the information and use of Kern County Grand Jury and management of the City of Maricopa and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than those specified parties. BROWN ARMSTRONG PAULDEN McCOWN STARBUCK & KEETER ACCOUNTANCY CORPORATION Bakersfield, California November 18. 2003 1:\...\42458\aupO3\aup report doc

2003-2004 KERN COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT – CITY OF MCFARLAND

The Cities and Joint Powers Committee of the 2003-2004 Kern County Grand Jury visited the City of McFarland pursuant to Penal Code Section 925.a.

“The grand jury may at any time examine the books and records of any incorporated city or joint powers agency located in the county. In addition to any other investigatory powers granted by this chapter, the grand jury may investigate and report upon the operations, accounts, and records of officers, departments, functions, and the method or system of performing the duties of any such city or joint powers agency and make such recommendations as it may deem proper and fit.”

CITY OF McFARLAND

PURPOSE OF INQUIRY: The Cities and Joint Powers Committee of the 2003-2004 Kern County Grand Jury visited the City of McFarland on, August 28, 2003, pursuant to Penal Code Section 925.a. PROCESS: Members of the Committee interviewed several key City officers. The Committee researched past Kern County Grand Jury Final Reports and responses pertaining to the City of McFarland. The Committee reviewed City Council agendas, minutes, and recent District Attorney’s investigation reports. Also researched were joint power agreements and various media publications relating to the City of McFarland. BACKGROUND: In March, of 2003, in a traditionally agricultural and economically depressed town, the voters expressed desire for change. Citizens wanted a change from “doing things contrary to conventional ways” (statement of former City Manager). Not doing things in a conventional way were perceived as the city leaders, “having a smirking attitude” and “no respect” (Bakersfield Californian, January 11, 2003, Official Sees City Back from Brink). • Changes began to happen when a local gas company technician was asked to run for a

City Council position by community residents. He won the election by a landslide and is the City of McFarland’s first new Mayor in the past twelve years.

• To support the new Mayor, the community also voted out two Council members who

were running for re-election. • The new Mayor’s first statement was, “We’re going to do our best to make

McFarland a better place to live”. • Since the present City Council has taken office they have inherited many existing and

some unexpected problems. • After three months, an interim City Manager resigned unexpectedly necessitating the

appointment of a new interim City Manager. • The 2002-2003 Kern County Grand Jury Final Report on the City of McFarland

revealed many long-time City policy failures regarding past City Staff and City Council operations.

• Before January 2004 due to State budget cuts, the City is facing the closure of the McFarland Community Correctional Facility. The Facility, though privately operated, is a source of revenue and employment.

• Due to numerous procedural violations, the City is facing monetary fines relating to

the City’s wastewater treatment facility. • The City is unable to locate financial records from the past two to three years. The

missing records may be related to missing or destroyed City computers. The lack of those records makes it extremely difficult to produce the City budgets for the past year along with projecting a realistic future operating budget for the City.

• The Cities and Joint Powers Committee believe that the findings, comments and

recommendations will help determine if the dedicated new Mayor and City Council are working toward making the City of McFarland “a better place to live.”

FINDINGS: • In August 2003, the City Council hired another Interim City Manager who came out

of retirement. He originally agreed to a six-month hourly contract. The new Interim City Manager appears qualified and experienced. Due to the immensity of reconstruction of City policies and procedures, he has agreed to another year of employment. Meanwhile, the City is advertising for a permanent City Manager.

• The present Interim City Manager, with the strong support of the Mayor and City

Council, has methodically addressed each problem as discovered. The City Manager and Staff have professionally proceeded to confront the problems and pursue the necessary corrective measures. This will enable the City to be in compliance with all laws and statutes to function legally in the best interests of the community. Progress to-date includes:

1. The City is in the process of hiring an engineering firm to do an analysis of the

City water system. 2. To preclude State fines, the City is in the process of hiring an engineering firm

to do an analysis of the sewer system. 3. The City is in the process of updating its procurement process policy, which

was last revised in 1958. 4. The City is facing a $10,000 per day fine for being out of compliance with the

State Compliance Order of Source Reduction and Recycling Element. McFarland is currently working with the local refuse company to become compliant and eliminate any possible fines.

5. The City is doing a needs assessment study, which will help identify the public’s priorities for City services. The study, when complete, will aid in the City’s future economic growth.

6. The City is continuing to work with an audit firm to identify and update

McFarland’s financial records along with creating a financial record keeping system.

7. The City is working with an audit firm to compile the financial records

necessary for an audit of 2002 and accomplish a current audit (a State requirement). Due to records missing from two to three years, this is a difficult task.

8. The City is creating financial procedures that include purchasing and petty

cash expenditures. 9. The City is creating a “destruction of records” policy. This policy will identify

what specific types of records can be disposed of and how to properly dispose of them.

10. The City is updating its “Fee Schedules”. The various schedules were last

updated in 1987. These fees are revenue sources and will be updated annually. 11. The City Hall is open five days a week to better serve the community. 12. The City will be submitting a 2001-2002 “Annual Report of Financial

Transaction of Cities”, to the California State Controllers Office. This action avoids a $5,000 fine.

13. The City is in the process of working with the League of California Cities,

McFarland hopes that the League of California Cities will be able to produce an in-depth written report regarding the City of McFarland’s condition as compared to other cities in the southern valley.

14. The City is currently researching and creating an updated policy regarding

sidewalk repairs for current and on-going repairs. 15. The City is creating a policy regarding the use of credit cards that will protect

the City and its employees. 16. The City is researching and creating a policy regarding the utilization and

authorization of City vehicles. 17. The City is creating a policy pertaining to “Cellular Phones” and their proper

use by authorized personnel.

18. The City is developing an employee “Vacation Pay-Out” policy that did not exist in the past but was, in actuality, common practice.

19. The General Plan was last updated in 1980 and was never finalized. A City

General Plan is vital for future controlled growth as required by State law. McFarland has hired a City Planning Consultant to update the City’s General Plan.

20. The City has installed a special phone line that can be utilized by the

community after City office hours, to report emergency situations. 21. The Interim City Administrator and the City Attorney are conducting a study

session on the Ralph M. Brown Act for city officials and the public. Knowledge of this procedure is necessary to avoid misconduct while in office.

22. Due to the recent merging of the City and the former Water Company, the City

has been challenged with various solutions as to possible relocations of City Departments. One recommendation is that the Public Works, Inspections, Code Enforcement, and Planning be housed together. The Administration, City Clerk, Finance Personnel, and Risk Management Departments would be located elsewhere. These are options to establishing a new costly City Hall.

23. The City has recently hired a Confidential Secretary, Finance Officer, Public

Works Director, and City Planner. 24. The City is implementing a “Chain of Command” policy, which will provide

clarification to employees regarding their authority and responsibility. 25. The City Mayor and Interim City Administrator have met with both the local

U.S. Congressman and their State Assemblywoman on separate occasions. These meetings were held to voice the City of McFarland’s concerns and how the legislators could be of assistance.

26. The City is working with Kern Council of Governments (Kern COG)

regarding the continued operational maintenance of a 35 year old Kern Avenue Pedestrian Overpass.

27. The City is working with the County of Kern Community and Economic

Development Department Director regarding the status of a Community Development Block Grant (C.D.B.G.) program and the Housing Rehabilitation program.

28. The City is researching, with outside consultants, the possibility of creating a

Redevelopment Agency (RDA). Nine of the County’s eleven cities have RDA’s. This type of agency allows for blighted areas to be redeveloped and improved. The cost is deferred and regained through future tax increments.

29. The City is working closely with the Wackenhut Corporation to keep the

McFarland California Correctional Facility (CCF) operating. 30. There is a need for more childcare centers in the City of McFarland. This is a

concern of the Mayor, Council, Staff and the community and will be addressed in the future.

31. Currently, the City of McFarland contracts with the Kern County Sheriff’s

Department and the Kern County Fire Department for local services.

COMMENTS: A sound city government built on a solid foundation will be established when the Cities and Joint Powers Committee’s recommendations are implemented. The 2003-2004 Kern County Grand Jury commends everyone working toward creating sound City Policies and Procedures in the City of McFarland. The City Mayor, City Council and City Staff are working diligently toward making McFarland “a better place to live.” RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. When an economically acceptable operating budget can be agreed upon, McFarland

should consider creating a joint police department with a neighboring city. 2. If McFarland creates a Redevelopment Agency (RDA), the City Council should

consider appointing two at-large members of the community to the RDA board. This would allow for more community advisory/decision making involvement.

3. When a permanent City Administrator is hired, the Committee recommends that the

present Interim City Administrator remain available at an hourly rate. This would insure a smooth transition of present and future governmental procedures that have been implemented by the Mayor, City Council, and Staff.

4. The Kern County Grand Jury urges the Mayor, City Council, and City Staff to

participate in training presented by independent consultants. The training should include organizational process and protocol i.e., leadership and management skills, Brown Act, maintenance of positive and effective decision making, finance, creating a cooperative and collaborative environment, and community relations. By participating in leadership training, it is the Committee’s opinion that the citizens of McFarland would be better served.

5. The 2003-2004 Kern County Grand Jury recommends that the City of McFarland post

a copy of this report and response, if required, where it will be available for public reviewing.

Note: Present and past Kern County Grand Jury Final Reports and Responses can be accessed at the County Library and/or the Kern County Grand Jury web-site: www.co.kern.ca.us/grandjury

RESPONSE REQUIRED: WITHIN 90 DAYS TO PRESIDING JUDGE KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301

2003-2004 KERN COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT – CITY OF MCFARLAND

The Cities and Joint Powers Committee of the 2003-2004 Kern County Grand Jury visited the City of McFarland pursuant to Penal Code

Sections925.a.

“The grand jury may at any time examine the books and records of any incorporated city or joint powers agency located in the county. In addition to any other investigator powers granted by this chapter, the grand jury may investigate and report upon the operations, accounts, and records of the duties of any such city or joint powers agency and make such recommendations as it may deem proper and fit.”

CITY OF MCFARLAND PURPOSE OF INQUIRY: The Cities and Joint Powers Committee of the 2003-2004 Kern County Grand Jury visited the City of McFarland on, August 28, 2003, pursuant to Penal Code Section 925.a. PROCESS: Members of the Committee interviewed several key City officers. The Committee researched past Kern County Grand Jury Final Reports and responses pertaining to the City of McFarland. The Committee reviewed City Council agendas, minutes, and recent District Attorney’s investigation reports. Also researched were joint power agreements and various media publications relating to the City of McFarland. BACKGROUND: In March, of 2003, in a traditionally agricultural and economically depressed town, the voters expressed desire for change. Citizens wanted a change from “doing things contrary to conventional ways” (statements of former City Manager). Not doing things in a conventional way were perceived as the city leaders, “having a smirking attitude” and “no respect” (Bakersfield Californian, January 11, 2003, Official Sees City Back from Brink).

• Changes began to happen when a local gas company technician was asked to run for a City Council position by community residents. He won the election by a landslide and is the City of McFarland’s first new Mayor in the past twelve years.

• To support the new Mayor, the community also voted out two Council members who were running for re-election.

• The new Mayor’s first statement was, “We’re going to do our best to make McFarland a better place to live.”

• Since the present City Council has taken office they have inherited many existing and some unexpectedly necessitating the appointment of a new interim City Manager.

• The 2002-2003 Kern County Grand Jury Final Report on the City of McFarland revealed many long-time City policy failures regarding past City Staff and City Council operations.

• Before January 2004 due to State Budget cuts, the City is facing the closure of the McFarland Community Correctional Facility. The Facility, though privately operated, is a source of revenue and employment.

• Due to numerous procedural violations, the City is facing monetary fines relating to the City’s wastewater treatment facility.

• The City is unable to locate financial records from the past two to three years. The missing records may be related to missing or destroyed City computers. The lack of those records makes it extremely difficult to produce the City budgets for the past year along with projecting a realistic future operating budge for the City.

• The Cities and Joint Powers Committee believe that the findings, comments and recommendations will help determine if the dedicated new Mayor and City Council are working toward making the City of McFarland “a better place to live.”

FINDINGS:

• In August 2003, the City Council hired another interim City Manager who came out of retirement. He originally agreed to a six-month hourly contract. The new Interim City Manager appears qualified and experienced. Due to the immensity of reconstruction of City policies and procedures, he has agreed to another year of employment. Meanwhile, the City is advertising for a permanent City Manager. - Attached is the original July, 2003 agreement with Mr.

Anthony B. Lopez, Interim City Administrator - Attached is the revised agreement of October, 2003 with

Mr. Anthony B. Lopez, Interim City Administrator

- Attached is a copy of the recruitment flyer pertaining to the position of a permanent City Administrator

• The present Interim City Manager, with the strong support of the

Mayor and City Council, has methodically addressed each problem as discovered. The City Manager and Staff have professionally proceeded to confront the problems and pursue the necessary corrective measures. This will enable the City to be in compliance with all laws and statutes to function legally in the best interests of the community. Progress to-date includes:

1. The City is in the process of hiring an engineering firm to do

an analysis of the City water system. REPLY: At the January 8, 2004 Councilmeeting, Dee Jasper engineering firm was selected to conduct the analysis of the City water system.

2. To preclude State fines, the City is in the process of hiring

an engineering firm to do an analysis of the sewer system. REPLY: At the January 8, 2004 Councilmeeting, Boyle Engineers were selected to conduct the analysis of the sewer system.

3. The City is in the process of updating its procurement process policy, which was last revised in 1958. REPLY: At the October 9, 2003 Councilmeeting, the new Procurement Process policy was approved and adopted by Council.

4. The City is facing a $10,000 per day fine for being out of compliance with the State Compliance Order of Source Reduction and Recycling Element. McFarland is currently working with the local refuse company to become compliant and eliminate any possible fines. REPLY: At the January 8, 2004 Councilmeeting, Council

approved in addition, adopted the time line schedule as setforth by the California Integrated Waste Management in order to establish the steps to be taken by the City of McFarland in being in compliance. Also Council designated Mr. Mario A. Gonsalves as the city’s Recycle Coordinator.

5. The City is doing needs assessment study, which will help

identify the public’s priorities for the City services. The study, when complete, will aid in the City’s future economic growth. REPLY: Because of the initial cost of printing and mailing out the needs assessment study, such study will be proposed to the Council in their 2004 – 2005 Fiscal Year Proposed Budget.

6. The City is continuing to work with an audit firm to identify

and update McFarland’s financial records along with creating a financial record keep system. REPLY: The audit firm of Steve Pressley, and the firm of In-Balance have implemented the city’s financial software and updated the city’s finance accounting system.

7. The City is working with an audit firm to compile the financial records necessary for an audit of 2002 and accomplish a current audit (a State requirement). Due to records missing from two to three years, this is a difficult task. REPLY: At the September 11, 2003 Councilmeeting, the Council approved and hired the firm of Albert and Associates in order to compile and audit the 2002 and 2003 city Audits.

8. The City is creating financial procedures that include purchasing and petty cash expenditures. REPLY: The city has implemented the attached forms for purchases and petty cash expenditures.

9. The City is creating a “destruction of records” policy. This

policy will identify what specific types of records can be disposed of and how to properly dispose of them. REPLY: The city’s “ destruction of records policy” will be presented to the Council at the May 13, 2004 Council meeting.

10. The City is updating its “Fee Schedules.” The various

schedules were last updated in 1987. These fees are revenue sources and will be updated annually. REPLY: The new planning fees were presented to the Council at their November 13, 2003 Council meeting.

11. The City Hall is open five days a week to better serve the

community. REPLY: In August of 2003 City Hall opened its doors from four days a week to five days a week thus being able to provide greater public service.

12. The City will be submitting a 2001-2002 “Annual Report of Financial Transaction of Cities”, to the California State Controllers Office. This action avoids a $5,000 fine. REPLY: This report was submitted to the California State Controller’s office on November 7, 2003, thus the City of McFarland avoided in being fined $5,000 by the state.

13. The City is in the process of working with the League of

California Cities, McFarland hopes that the League of California Cities will be able to produce an in-depth written report regarding the City of McFarland’s condition as compared to other cities in the southern valley. REPLY: The city is in contact with the League of California Cities. One of the main purposes in having a close contact with the League of California Cities was to address the city’s budget. As a byproduct of the ongoing State Budget information the city receives, the city was able to complete its 2003 – 2004 Budget. Attached is a copy of such city budget approved and adopted at the April 15, 2004 Council meeting.

14. The City is currently researching and creating an updated

policy regarding sidewalk repairs for current and on-going repairs. REPLY: Being that the city is seeking ways and means of implementing sidewalks throughout the whole city, the city will address sidewalks throughout the whole city and a sidewalk repair program at the July, 2004 Council meeting.

15. The City is creating a policy regarding the use of credit cards that will protect the City and its employees. REPLY: The main reason why the city was utilizing credit cards was for fuel for its city vehicles and the city did not have a “Purchase Order” system in its accounting software. The city has purchased the “Purchase Order” system and is in the process of implementing this accounting system. The city now utilizes “Voyager” credit card, which is used for vehicle, related purchases, i.e. fuel and repairs. As soon as the “Purchase Order” system is in place, city credit cards will be restricted only to the out of the norm activities, i.e. conferences out of the area.

16. The City is researching and creating a policy regarding the

utilization and authorization of City vehicles. REPLY: Attached is a copy of the city policy, which was revisited by the Council at their April 15, 2004 Council meeting.

17. The City is creating a policy pertaining to “Cellular Phones”

and their proper use by authorized personnel. REPLY: The “Cellular Phones” policy will be presented to the Council at their May 13, 2004 Council meeting

18. The City is developing an employee “Vacation Pay-Out”

policy that did not exist in the past but was, in actuality, common practice. REPLY: The “Vacation Pay-Out” policy will be presented to the Council at their May 13, 2004 Council meeting.

19. The General Plan was last updated in 1980 and was never finalized. A City General Plan is vital for future controlled growth as required by State law. McFarland has hired a City Planning Consultant to update the City’s General Plan. REPLY: The city hired Max Bacerra as the city’s planning consultant at the July 2003 Council meeting. Several Public meetings have taken place. The planning consultant has determined that the city’s General Plan will be done in June 2004.

20. The City has installed a special phone line that can be

utilized by the community after City office hours, to report emergencies. REPLY: The city installed the telephone number 661-792-5734 that goes directly to the McFarland Sheriff Substation. This telephone line was installed in October of 2003.

21. The Interim City Administrator and the City Attorney are

conducting a study session on the Ralph M. Brown Act for the city officials and the public. Knowledge of this procedure is necessary to avoid misconduct while in office. REPLY: Prior to the October 9, 2004 Council meeting, the city attorney Mr. Tom Schroeter conducted a seminar for the Council and the public on the Ralph M. Brown Act.

22. Due to the recent merging of the City and the former Water Company, the City has been challenge with various solutions as to possible relocations of City Departments. One recommendation is that the Public Works, Inspections, Code Enforcement, and Planning be housed together. The Administration, City Clerk, Finance Personnel, and Risk Management Departments would be located elsewhere. These are options to establishing a new costly City Hall. REPLY: In October of 2003 the merger of offices took place, the byproduct of such consolidation has been the reduction of overhead, and most important the public appreciates it more.

23. The City has recently hired a Confidential Secretary,

Finance Officer, Public Works Director, and City Planner. REPLY: The Confidential Secretary, Finance Officer, Public Works Director promotions took place at the September 2003 Council meeting. While the position of City Planner was administered by the Council hiring the planning consultant at the July 2004 Council meeting.

24. The City is implementing a “Chain of Command” policy,

which will provide clarification to employees regarding their authority and responsibility. REPLY: The City of McFarland Organizational Chart was presented to the Council at their January 2004 Council meeting.

25. The City Mayor and Interim City Administrator have met

with both the local U.S. Congressman and their State Assemblywoman on separate occasions. These meetings were held to voice the City of McFarland’s concerns and how the legislators could be of assistance. REPLY: This is an ongoing activity in order to bring to the attention the needs and concerns pertaining to the City of McFarland.

26. The City is working with Kern Council of Governments

(Kern COG) regarding the continued operational maintenance of a 35-year-old Kern Avenue Pedestrian Overpass. REPLY: The City of McFarland did submit for funds as to the Kern Avenue Pedestrian Overpass. The City of McFarland on its own has made improvements to the Kern Avenue Pedestrian Overpass.

27. The City is working with the County of Kern Community

and Economic Development Department Director regarding the status of a Community Development Block Grant (C.D.B.G.) program and the Housing Rehabilitation program. REPLY: The city has submitted for Community Development Block Grant funding five projects, which entail $926,617. The Kern County staff has approved the five projects to be funded. The next step is for such projects to be heard at a Public Hearing session during the Kern County Board of Supervisor’s meeting on May 4, 2004. The City of McFarland staff inconjunction with the County of Kern Community and Economic Development Department plan to have community meetings in the City of McFarland neighborhoods in order to implement Housing Rehabilitation programs.

28. The City is researching, with outside consultants, the

possibility of creating a Redevelopment Agency (RDA). Nine of the County’s eleven cities have RDA’s. This type of agency allows for blighted areas to be redeveloped and improved. The cost is deferred and regained through future tax increments. REPLY: The city did implement the McFarland Redevelopment Agency. Attached is the McFarland Redevelopment Agency April 15, 2004 agenda

29. The City is working closely with the Wackenhut Corporation to keep the McFarland California Correctional Facility (CCF) operating. REPLY: The city is working with G.E.O. group previously known as the Wackenhut Corporation, and Dr. Allan Komerek, Executive Director of the Delano Regional Medical Center in order to implement a Long Term Care facility at the Wackenhut Prison.

30. There is a need for more childcare centers in the City of

McFarland. This is a concern of the Mayor, Council, Staff, and the community and will be addressed in the future. REPLY: At the April 15, 2004 Council meeting the Council approved the Unimax Foundation proposal in order to implement a Child Development Center within the City of McFarland. Attached is a copy of the proposal.

31. Currently, the City of McFarland contracts with the Kern

County Sheriff’s Department and the Kern County Fire Department for local services. REPLY: The City of McFarland has an excellent contractual relationship with the Kern County Sheriff’s Department and the Kern County Fire Department for local services. Attached is a copy of the contract between the City of McFarland and the Kern County Sheriff’s Department.

COMMENTS: A sound city government built on a solid foundation will be established when the Cities and Joint Powers Committee’s recommendations are implemented. The 2003-2004 Kern County Grand Jury commends everyone working toward creating sound City Policies and Procedures in the City of McFarland. The City Mayor, City Council and Staff are working diligently toward making McFarland “a better place to live.”

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. When an economically acceptable operating budget can be agreed upon, McFarland should consider creating a joint police department with a neighboring city. REPLY: As evident by the attached April 15, 2004 Council approved the 2003 – 2004 budget, therefore at this time the city will research this recommendation. Contact will be made with the nearby cities that have its own Police Department, the City of Shafter, and the City of Delano. Having managed both types of cities: one with its own Police Department and other cities that contract for law enforcement services with the local Sheriff Departments. It has been noted that in the long run if a city has to implement start up cost i.e. designated police cars and other equipment, the cost is very expensive for a start up city. Experience has shown that when contracting with a Sheriff Department for law enforcement services cost are less, as for example, the contract will carry special contractual arrangements as to replacing a deputy that call’s in. A contract for service city will not have to pay overtime in order to replace the deputy that called in “ill.”

2. If McFarland creates a Redevelopment Agency (RDA), the City Council should consider appointing two at-large members of the community to the RDA board. This would allow for more community advisory/decision making involvement. REPLY: The norm for a RDA especially within a small jurisdiction is to have the present City Council to be the RDA board members. Because of the nature of the RDA, more Public Hearings take place when a RDA is active within the community, as a number of the activities require Public Hearings. These Public Hearings will allow the public greater notice (awareness) and meetings for greater public input especially as to the RDA activities.

3. When a permanent City Administrator is hired, the Committee recommends that the present Interim City Administrator remain available at an hourly rate. This would insure a smooth transition of present and future governmental procedures that have been implemented by the Mayor, City Council, and Staff. REPLY: Mayor Rafael Melendez and Council members discussed this item at the April 26, 2004 Special Council meeting. It was decided to acknowledge the Grand Jury recommendation.

4. The Kern County Grand Jury urges the Mayor, City Council, and City Staff to participate in training presented by independent consultants. The training should include organizational process and protocol i.e., leadership and management skills, a cooperative and collaborative environment, and community relations. By participating in leadership training, it is the Committee’s opinion that the citizens of McFarland would be better served. REPLY: Council is becoming more aware of the various organizational

training programs that are being presented by the League of California Cities, and other Professional Development agencies. The present Interim City Administrator encourages training and attendance of workshops for the staff. In addition, the present Interim City Administrator conducts ongoing informal training during the course of the day for staff in order to assist personnel in their everyday work activities.

5. The 2003-2004 Kern County Grand Jury recommends that the City of McFarland post a copy of this report and response, if required, where it will be available for public reviewing. REPLY: Once the Council approves the report and the response, the 2003-2004 Kern County Grand Jury report will be posted on the city’s web page, and a copy of this report will be made available to the public at the McFarland City Hall, and at the City of McFarland local library.

Note: Present and past Kern County Grand Jury Final Reports and Responses can be accessed at the County Library and/or the Kern County Grand Jury web-site: www.co.kern.ca.us/grandjury RESPONSE REQUIRED: WITHIN 90 DAYS TO PRESIDING JUDGE KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301

2003-2004 KERN COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT – CITY OF RIDGECREST

The Cities and Joint Powers Committee of the 2003-2004 Kern County Grand Jury visited the City of Ridgecrest pursuant to Penal Code Section 925.a.

“A grand jury may at any time examine the books and records of any nonprofit corporation established by or operated on behalf of a public entity the books and records of which it is authorized by law to examine, and in addition to any other investigatory powers granted by this chapter, may investigate and report upon the method or system of performing the duties of such nonprofit corporation.”

CITY OF RIDGECREST PURPOSE OF INQUIRY: The Cities and Joint Powers Committee of the 2003-2004 Kern County Grand Jury visited the City of Ridgecrest, on September 24, 2003, pursuant to Penal Code Section 925.a. PROCESS: Members of the Cities and Joint Powers Committee met with the City of Ridgecrest City Manager and members of the City Staff. The Committee reviewed current and past City budgets, City Council agendas, RDA agendas, previous Grand Jury Final Reports, responses, and present and future City projects. The Committee also researched various media publications relating to the City of Ridgecrest. BACKGROUND: The Ridgecrest community began as a vacation stop and a place for travelers to refuel before continuing on their journey. In the mid-1940’s the Federal government located the Naval Ordinance Test Station in the Ridgecrest area and the small town began its journey to its present day growth. Ridgecrest’s growth or recession was determined by Federal Government decisions, but eventually developed its own economy through the insight and determination of its civic leaders, residents, and business leaders. The City’s weather is consistently good and it is also economically affordable to most Californians. Ridgecrest is located 120 miles east of Bakersfield. It has a population of approximately 25,000 residents. Many residents are employed in jobs directly or indirectly related to the Naval Weapons Center, which is larger in area than the State of Rhode Island. Ridgecrest is the third most populated City in Kern County. The Ridgecrest community is proud to be an ideal vacation spot, place to work, retire, or become a part of a Hollywood movie cast as an extra. FINDINGS: • After reviewing the financial records, the Committee concluded that Ridgecrest’s

finances are in order and accounted for in a professional manner. • The Habitat for Humanity of Indian Wells Valley is very active in the City of

Ridgecrest. It is a non-profit corporation that builds new homes (or renovates existing homes) and sells them to qualified families at no interest and very little down payment. This is a benefit to the City of Ridgecrest in meeting State requirements by providing low and moderate-income housing. This is accomplished through the

Ridgecrest Redevelopment Agency, which is a political subdivision of the State and is legally separated from the city (or county) that creates it. State law allows every incorporated city and county to have a redevelopment agency (RDA).

• As of September 2003, the City Council had not decided to give $18,000 to the Teen

Court program, in “asset forfeiture funds” received from Kern County. This money was dedicated for the East Kern Youth Projects for its Truancy Reduction Program and Teen Court Project. The Mayor has publicly stated, “we have a serious drug problem in this community.” The Police Chief has publicly stated, “Ninety percent of all crimes are linked to drugs” and “we arrest about fifteen youths a month on drug or alcohol related crime.”

Teen Court is part of the juvenile justice system that offers an alternative to traditional probation sentencing. Eighty percent of the youth complete the ninety day program. The success rate is ninety four percent of the youth not becoming repeat offenders. Repeat offenders are an added cost to the judicial and law enforcement budgets in Kern County. If a lack of funding causes the Teen Court to cease operation in the Ridgecrest area, all juvenile cases will have to be transferred to the City of Bakersfield. This would create an undue burden physically, mentally, and financially to parents, youths and local law enforcement budgets and officers. All cases would be making mandated court appearances in Bakersfield rather than Ridgecrest.

• The Senior Nutrition Program in Ridgecrest provides meals to seniors. The program is now being operated by Kern County’s Aging and Adult Services. The City is the landlord and maintains their property.

• The Matrix Motor Company, one of the City’s newest revenue sources, is a research

and test facility for the race-car engine manufacturer. At the present time, the Ridgecrest plant has eight employees. In the near future the Company is expecting to spend millions of dollars in the Ridgecrest community.

• The City operated bus system continues to be a challenge for the City Council and

City Staff. Maintenance costs and lack of ridership may lead to reorganization from the Dial-a-Ride system to a fixed route system. Currently only three of the five buses are in service.

• A decision to shut down the public recycling center at the Naval Air Weapons

Station, China Lake (NAWS), has created a situation where the City of Ridgecrest must handle the recycling of waste that has previously been done at the NAWS base. The NAWS decision creates a ten percent loss impact on the local Desert Area Resources and Training (DART) contract income. DART is a non-profit agency dedicated to helping disabled adults. DART processes about 1 million pounds of waste from the NAWS public recycling center. The NAWS commander stated “the base was losing about $250,000 a year due to the program and it did not make sense

to waste taxpayers’ money.” The Ridgecrest City Planner stated that the City will be able to process any extra waste that will be created due to the NAWS recycling center closure.

• A new source of revenue is being researched by the City Council and City Staff, with

the possibility of the City providing wind energy for military bases. COMMENTS: The Committee received one citizen’s complaint relating to City property being sold to a non-profit agency for $1.00. The complaint was thoroughly investigated and the Committee, per legal advice, found no violation of State law. The City of Ridgecrest was cooperative during the investigation. The loss of the “Teen Court” in the Ridgecrest community would have a negative impact on the Community. Teen Courts in Kern County have a proven success record. The Court has helped troubled youth from becoming repeat offenders in their teen years. Saving one child from becoming a troubled adult is a major cost saving factor to every community. The expense of the arrest process, court proceedings, probation and/or jail sentencing to any city far exceeds the needed finances to continue the Teen Court program. On the other hand, questioning financial expenditures is good government in action. If more information is needed to arrive at a positive decision, the Committee refers the City Council and City Staff to the 2001-2002 Kern County Grand Jury report titled, “Teen Courts, A Program That Works”. It covers the issue in detail. The report can be found on the Kern County Grand Jury web-site: www.co.kern.ca.us/grandjury. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. If a loss of jobs is necessitated at Desert Area Resources and Training (DART) as a

result of recycling waste now being accomplished by the City, the City of Ridgecrest should utilize its resources to work with DART. This would create new employment for the displaced disabled personnel. Everyone has the right to be a productive member of society.

2. The Teen Court in the City of Ridgecrest should be included in its budget. The

benefit to the City of Ridgecrest and the Community far outweighs the present cost and future cost to the City. Any chance to save our youth from repeated drug and/or alcohol addiction and a possible life of crime should be implemented.

3. The City of Ridgecrest should post a copy of this report and response, if required,

where it would be available for public reviewing. Note: Present and past Kern County Grand Jury Final Reports and Responses can be accessed at the County Library and the Kern County Grand Jury web-site:

www.co.kern.ca.us/grandjury RESPONSE REQUIRED: WITHIN 90 DAYS TO PRESIDING JUDGE KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301

CITY OF RIDGECREST "Home of the China Lake Naval Air Warfare Center

Weapons Division/Naval Air Weapons Station" 100 West California Avenue, Ridgecrest, CA 93555-4054

FON: 760-371-3700 FAX: 760-371-1654 Wednesday, February 25, 2004 Presiding Judge Kern County Superior Court 1415 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 RE: 2003-2004 Kern County Grand Jury Final Report - City of Ridgecrest Presiding Judge: The Report has been found to be factual and correct in all aspects but one. Please allow me to correct the statement: "A new source of revenue is being researched by the City Council and City Staff, with the possibility of the City providing wind energy for military bases." It should read: "A new source of revenue is being researched by the City Council and City Staff, with the possibility of the City cooperating with the Navy Base to provide electrical power to California military bases utilizing geothermal power production in and near Ridgecrest." Please also allow me to provide updates for two reported issues:

• Since the report was prepared, the Ridgecrest City Council has approved the distribution of $18,000 to the East Kern Projects Teen Court.

• Desert Area Resources and Training (DART) has announced they've entered into their largest contract to date; 2-year, $1.4 million to maintain 2 Cal-Trans highway rest stops.

Please feel free to contact me if you should have any additional questions.

2003-2004 KERN COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT – CITY OF SHAFTER

The Cities and Joint Powers Committee of the 2003-2004 Kern County Grand Jury visited the City of Shafter pursuant to Penal Code Section 925.a.

“The grand jury may at any time examine the books and records of any incorporated city or joint powers agency located in the county. In addition to any other investigatory powers granted by this chapter, the grand jury may investigate and report upon the operations, accounts, and records of officers, departments, functions, and the method or system of performing the duties of any such city or joint powers agency and make such recommendations as it may deem proper and fit.”

CITY OF SHAFTER

PURPOSE OF INQUIRY: The Cities and Joint Powers Committee of the 2003-2004 Kern County Grand Jury visited the City of Shafter, on September 16, 2003, pursuant to Penal Code Section 925.a. PROCESS: Members of the Cities and Joint Powers Committee toured the City, met with members of City Staff, and reviewed Grand Jury Final Reports and Responses. The Committee reviewed City Council agendas, current and past city budgets, the City Master Plan, and researched various media publications relating to Shafter. BACKGROUND: The City of Shafter was incorporated in 1938 and is a Charter City with a City Council/City Manager form of municipal government. The City of Bakersfield is the only other city in Kern County that is a Charter City. The majority of the people in the State of California live in Charter Cities. The community wrote the City’s Charter and any changes to it must to go back to the people for their vote. Charter Cities have control of their own finances whereas, in General Law Cities, the State governs how the city finances are utilized. The City is approximately 18.6 square miles and includes many local businesses, farms, Minter Airfield and four parks. Shafter exhibits great pride in its appearance. The nearby freeway and railroad are the cornerstones of the transportation revenue that enhance the City finances. The City of Shafter is a community of approximately 13,200 people. It has experienced about a 2½% growth rate in recent years. The City’s most vital resource is people with strong community values. These same citizens are committed to finding a solution to the obstacle of producing enough revenue to provide the best quality of life in this rural area. Under strong leadership, the City of Shafter is a progressive community with an aggressive pursuit of new commercial and industrial development. The City of Shafter is a fine example of what a rural city can accomplish through cooperation at all levels of the Community and Government. FINDINGS: • As of October 22, 2002, the City of Shafter has completed 34 community projects.

Included in those projects are sewers, roads, tree planting, landscaping, tenant improvements, school upgrading, medical facility improvements, commercial, and resident improvements and annexations.

• City Projects, labeled as “Low Profile”/“High Importance”, are expected to be

completed by June 30, 2003. Included in these projects are an airport water facility, EDA Sewer phases 2 and 3, Intermodal Railroad Facility (phase 1), JD Rush Rail Spur, alley projects, street paving, annexations, curb and gutter replacement, and permanent sound walls where deemed necessary.

• Additional City Projects are expected to be completed by June 30, 2003. These

projects are identified as high profile, “Quality of Life”. Included in the projects are murals, adult school, activity center, new school location, bike paths, parking, and parks and recreation.

• Housing in the City of Shafter continues to be a major issue. Whereas, the low-

income housing needs are being provided for, there is a need for middle and upper-income housing. A large part of attracting big business to a rural community is to be able to provide the level of housing which relocated workers and management personnel would require.

• Currently the City of Shafter has its own police department. The City of Wasco,

(only 7 miles away), contracts with the Kern County Sheriff’s Department. The combined yearly budget of both cities for law enforcement is over $3 million. The idea of creating a joint police department for possible economic savings to both cities has been reviewed. At the present time, there are several factors being considered before a joint police department can become a reality. They are:

a. The initial start-up cost of purchasing police vehicles and station equipment b. Current and future reduced State funding c. The hiring of qualified personnel would become a permanent part of the

community d. Whether the total cost would actually be a cost saving for both cities

• A special project developed by the City Staff is designed to create revenue for the “Container Hub & Intermodal Facility”.

• For years products have been shipped from both the Los Angeles and Oakland ports

by container via trucks/railway to major distribution centers of Sears, Wal Mart, Target, and Ikea located in the south valley. The majority of time, trucks return to the ports empty. For years, San Joaquin valley exporters, such as Calcot, have shipped their products by trucks/railway from the southern valley to the Los Angeles and Oakland ports. The majority of the trucks also return to the valley empty.

• The City of Shafter has recently created a storage exchange yard that will eliminate

thousands of empty vans being shipped back and forth to the ports. This would reduce truck traffic and its subsequent pollution to Northern and Southern California. Shafter has provided 250 acres through an annexation process and installed the necessary services to the project, mostly with a $5 million Federal Grant. The total cost of the project is anticipated to be approximately $20 million. The majority of the remaining

cost is for required rail spurs and cargo van lifting equipment. The revenue for the city is expected to exceed $2.5 million a year. The positive impact to City, County, State and Federal governments and the population are:

a. Less traffic and maintenance over hundreds of miles of roads b. Less traffic accidents and fatalities throughout the state c. Less air-pollution from reduced traffic d. Less fuel consumption e. Lower cost to manufacturers, growers, and consumers

If the proposed second rail track through Tehachapi becomes a reality, more cargo vans could be shipped by rail, which is the most efficient shipping method. The remaining funding required could be acquired through future grants related to air-pollution and/or transportation from county, state or federal agencies. This project has become a reality because the Shafter City Council and Staff recognized this major need. A solution was possible because of the land being available, grant writing expertise, and highway and rail access.

• Through the use of computers, cell phones, and other technology, the City Staff is developing procedures to lessen spill response time to hazardous materials incidents in the area.

• Proposition 36 has created problems for law enforcement agencies in rural

communities. Convicted offenders are being released back into the community and criminal offenses and arrests have increased. Officers are spending more time re-arresting repeat offenders. This includes spending additional time in court and less time for crime prevention.

RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. The Cities of Shafter and Wasco should continue to work together to reduce costs of

services. 2. The City of Shafter and Wasco should continue to review the possibility of a joint

police department. 3. The City Council and City Staff of Shafter should encourage the development of new

housing, reflecting a broad range, for present and future industrial growth. 4. The City of Shafter should post a copy of this report and response, if required, where

it would be available for public reviewing. Note: Present and past Kern County Grand Jury Final Reports and Responses can be accessed at the County Library and on the Kern County Grand Jury web-site: www.co.kern.ca.us/grandjury

RESPONSE REQUIRED: WITHIN 90 DAYS TO PRESIDING JUDGE KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301

336 Pacific Avenue Shatter, California 93263 June 14, 2004 David L. Hashim, Foreman 2003-2004 Kern County Grand Jury 1415 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield CA 9330.1 Re: City of Shafter Final 2003-2004 Grand Jury Report Dear Mr. Hashim: I want to apologize for not responding to you regarding the City's Grand Jury report. We are very appreciative of your report and concur with its contents. Again, we are sorry for any inconvenience this may have caused you.

2003-2004 KERN COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT – CITY OF TAFT

The Cities and Joint Powers Committee of the 2003-2004 Kern County Grand Jury visited the City of Taft pursuant to Penal Code Section 925.a.

“The grand jury may at any time examine the books and records of any incorporated city or joint powers agency located in the county. In addition to any other investigatory powers granted by this chapter, the grand jury may investigate and report upon the operations, accounts, and records of officers, departments, functions, and the method or system of performing the duties of any such city or joint powers agency and make such recommendations as it may deem proper and fit.”

CITY OF TAFT

PURPOSE OF INQUIRY: The Cities and Joint Powers Committee of the 2003-2004 Kern County Grand Jury visited the City of Taft, on August 7, 2003, pursuant to Penal Code Section 925.a. PROCESS: The Cities and Joint Powers Committee toured the City, met with the members of the City Staff, and reviewed past Grand Jury Final Reports and responses. The Committee reviewed City Council agendas, current and past city budgets, the City Master Plan, and researched various media publications relating to the City of Taft. On a separate occasion, the Committee met with the Fourth District Supervisor regarding the Taft Area. BACKGROUND: Taft was incorporated in 1910 and was named after the 27th President of the United States, William Howard Taft. The City has a history rich in hospitality and oil and film production. Taft entertains many visitors traveling to the coast. The City of Taft “proper” has a population of 8,929. The Greater Taft population is approximately 18,000. FINDINGS: • The City of Taft has Joint Powers agreements with the following:

1. Central San Joaquin Valley Risk Management Authority 2. Ford City-Taft Heights Sanitation District (sewer lines) 3. Ford City-Taft Heights Sanitation District (treatment plant) 4. Kern County Council of Governments

• The City of Taft redevelopment agency is called the Taft Community Development

Agency. It was created in 1985 pursuant to Section 33000 et seq. of the California Health and Safety Code.

• The City initiated civil action against former consultants and recently received a court

judgement in favor of the City. • The City takes every opportunity to apply for grants that will benefit the community

and its citizens. Recent grants include: a. Community Development Block Grant Program Economic Development

Allocation for start-up or expansion of small businesses

b. Community Development Block Grant funds for rehabilitation of housing units owned by low income-eligible families or by owner-investors of rentals occupied by low income-eligible families

c. Kern COG Grant for a computerized pavement management system Pending grants include:

a. Office of Traffic Safety for “Jaws of Life” rescue tools b. FEMA to install a diesel exhaust removal system in the fire station (grant was

declined in Sept. 2003) c. USDA Rural Development Community Facilities grant for Thermal Imagers d. Transportation Enhancement Act monies to extend the “Rails to Trails”

project

• The City is developing plans and specifications for a passenger transit transfer station and a compressed natural gas station with Congestion Management Air Quality funding.

• Financially, the City is operating “in the black”. It is the City’s hope that with the

current lawsuit settlement and grant monies, they will be able to offset the State budget cuts as they occur.

• The Sunset Railroad project is now under the direction of KernCOG. The Greater

Taft Transportation Authority, which was established by the Taft Community Development Agency, is still in existence, but, only on paper.

• The City of Taft has upgraded its wastewater treatment plant. In one year, engineers

have installed an aeration headworks system and clarifier, repaired a cracked pond, and modified piping. This has increased the plant’s capacity to 1.5 million gallons per day. Engineers have also installed a new biomixer system that injects air under the surface. Engineering used approximately $800,000 of a projected $4 million dollar, four year project fund. The Planning Department used new “creative technology” to upgrade the system to its present state.

• The idea of annexing unincorporated areas surrounding the city (including South Taft,

Taft Heights, and Ford City), has once again surfaced in the Taft community. Resident concerns include the cost of services, revenue, taxes, and the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) requirements.

• In the near future, it is possible that a major oil company may be selling some land in

the Taft area. Local groups have shown an interest in purchasing land for future development.

• In the summer of 2003, due to a lack of insurance, the West Side Recreation and Park

District was closed. Parts of the district have been re-opened. This has created an

adverse impact on adults and youth in the community. As a Special District, the West Side Recreation and Park District is not under the direction of the City.

• Some local businesses are incurring problems complying with the City’s numerous

Codes and Ordinances. Businesses claim the Codes and Ordinances are lengthy and costly. The Planning Commission’s duty is to enforce the Codes and Ordinances and it is the City Council’s responsibility to keep those Codes and Ordinances updated. The Planning Commission can only make recommendations. The City Council is responsible for approving any recommendation before it becomes law.

• The citizens of the community have recently formed The Taft Economic

Development Corporation which is “a private, not-for-profit corporation”. Their goal is to work with the City as a private/public partnership to help strengthen the area’s economy with emphasis on business development.

• The City’s General Plan governs land use for the next 20 years and helps the City

prioritize land usage. • The Mercy Westside Hospital was officially closed on August 31, 2003 by the owners

(Catholic Healthcare West) due to funding issues. The community is pursuing options such as seeking an urgent care center that could handle 80% of the emergency room calls. A Taft medical clinic is extending its hours to help meet local needs. An air ambulance has been assigned to Taft with additional ground ambulance service by the county’s major ambulance provider.

• In recent years, the Council has experienced intra-council turmoil which includes

recalls and re-elections of council members and much publicized personal feuding. Such turmoil has hampered effective functioning of the City. Some past issues with former and current council members and mayors, including staff, are still at issue. The current City Council and Staff are working well together. They are keeping the "good of the community in mind” and overriding any personal conflicts.

• The City and Community, worked with the non-profit corporation, Habitat for

Humanity-Golden Empire Organization, and has completed its first project in Taft. This project has provided an affordable home for a local family.

• The City of Taft Police Department is considered to be one of the best Police

Departments in the State. • The Taft Community Correctional Facility has received California’s highest rating

possible for the past two years. Statewide, similar facilities often seek their advice and implement the Taft Community Correctional Facility programs.

COMMENTS: • The City Council and City Staff are commended for utilizing grants to help fund

projects for the benefit of the community. • The Planning Department is commended for creative solutions with the City’s

wastewater problems. • In reference to State budget cuts, the Committee feels the City is on the right track

with the thought, “Everybody is going to have to tighten his or her belts a little bit”.

RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. With the possibility of a major oil company selling some land in the Taft area, the

City should strongly support local groups that are interested in purchasing the land. In the past, land that became available has been purchased for residential development. There is a need for development of both residential and commercial land in this community.

2. The City should continue to support the recent Habitat for Humanity type projects,

along with corporate and community groups, to assist in providing affordable housing for low-income families.

3. The City Council and City Staff should work closely with the City Planning

Commission on a regular basis to keep the Taft Codes and Ordinances reasonable without sacrificing health and safety issues.

4. The City Council and City Staff should continue to work with the Taft Economic

Development Corporation, the Taft Chamber of Commerce, and the Kern Economic Development Corporation to help strengthen the area’s business development.

5. The City Council and City Staff should communicate and work cooperatively,

offering Staff expertise, to the West Side Recreation and Park District, since the District existence seriously affects the citizens of the community. It is the Committee’s hope major problems of WSR&PD management can be prevented in the future.

6. To be effective, the City Staff and the City Planning Commission should continue to

work on updating the General Plan on an annual basis. 7. The Greater Taft Transportation Authority should be dissolved because its reason for

being created no longer exists. 8. The City Council and City Staff should continue to keep working toward goals that

are in the best interest of the community and its residents. Past differences should be put aside. The City’s present and future needs must be a priority.

9. The City Council and City Staff should work with the West Side Hospital District and

the community to provide the best medical services possible. As civic leaders, it is their direct civic responsibility to become involved in this vital community need.

10. The City Council and City Staff should address the annexation issue and create an ad-

hoc committee comprised of council, staff, business, and residents to present an agenda that leads to annexation as soon as financially possible. An attitude of both City Council and City Staff of “when it will happen”, not “if it might happen”, should be the goal. Annexation will benefit the City and enable the City to expand.

11. The City of Taft post a copy of this report and response, if required, where it would

be available for public reviewing. Note: Present and past Kern County Grand Jury Final Reports and Responses can be accessed at the County Library and on the Kern County Grand Jury web-site: www.co.kern.ca.us/grandjury

RESPONSE REQUIRED: WITHIN 90 DAYS TO PRESIDING JUDGE SUPERIOR COURT 1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301

February 4, 2004 Presiding Judge Kern County Superior Court 1415 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Subject: Response to Grand Jury Report Attached as required by the Grand Jury Report issued by the Cities and Services Committee of the 2003-2004 Kern County Grand Jury is the City of Taft Response. If you require additional information, please don't hesitate to contact me at (661) 763-1222.

ADMINISTRATION 661/763-1222 • PUBLIC WORKS/PLANNING 661/763-3144 • F INANCE 661/763-1350 209 E. KERN STREET • TAFT. CALIFORNIA 93268

CITY OF TAFT RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY RECOMMENDATIONS

2003-2004 1. With the possibility of a major oil company selling some land in the Taft area, the city

should strongly support local groups that are interested in purchasing the land. In the past, land that became available has been purchased for residential development. There is a need for development of both residential and commercial land in this community.

City Response

In early September 2003, City representatives met with representatives of ChevronTexaco concerning the City's interest in ChevronTexaco properties in and around the City of Taft. Shortly after that meeting, Bob Hampton, Owner/President of Westside Waste Management sent a letter of interest concerning the same properties that were of interest to the City of Taft. In October 2003, the City Council sent a letter to ChevronTexaco supporting Mr. Hampton and his endeavor to purchase lands made available for sale by ChevronTexaco (letter attached). Subsequently, Mr. Hampton formed the Westside Economic Development Company, LLC to facilitate the purchase and development of said properties.

2. The City should continue to support the recent Habitat for Humanity type projects, along

with corporate and community groups, to assist in providing affordable housing for low- income families.

City Response

The City is very interested in working with the Habitat for Humanity, Golden Empire to provide housing for low-income families. May 2002, the City Council approved an agreement with Habitat for Humanity, Golden Empire to allocate $50,000 in Program Income funds from CDBG and HOME for Habitat to complete four projects. In addition, the City waived all Planning and Building fees associated with the construction of the first Habitat for Humanity home at 406 San Emidio Street. This project was completed in 2003. In addition, in order to lower the cost of in-fill housing, the Council revised its ordinance to eliminate the requirement for private garages in R-I zones.

3. The City Council and City Staff should work closely with the City Planning Commission

on a regular basis to keep the Taft Codes and Ordinances reasonable without sacrificing health and safety issues.

City Response

The Planning Commission, City Staff, and the City Council review provisions of the Taft Municipal Code as time permits. Revisions are initiated to address issues as they occur.

The City has made several recent changes to make the zoning code flexible. For example, street side-yard setbacks for housing production in the older neighborhoods have been reduced from 10 feet to 5 feet. Narrow lot developments are being encouraged for better utilization of in-fill lots and to increase affordable housing supply. The zoning code has been amended to delete the mandatory requirement for garages, since the cost of a garage could add $15,000 to $20,000 to the price of a house. This measure further augments the City's desire to promote affordable housing. The General Plan Land Use element being updated recommends the concept of mixed-use where compatible residential and commercial businesses could coexist. A minor accommodation provision will be recommended for administrative relief from the strict application of certain zoning standards. In general, the City is amending its codes responsive to local needs while remaining compliant with State and Federal regulations.

4. The City Council and City Staff should continue to work with the Taft Economic Development Corporation, the Taft Chamber of Commerce, and the Kern Economic Development Corporation to help strengthen the area's business development

City Response As stated in the Response to Item #1, the City Council supports the Westside Economic Development Company, LLC in its efforts to purchase properties in and around the Taft community currently owned by ChevronTexaco. The City of Taft Annual Operating Budget for 2003/2004, provides for funding support to the Taft District Chamber of Commerce. On September 25, 2003, the City of Taft hosted the Board Meeting of the Kern Economic Development Corporation. The Kern Economic Development Corporation periodically requests information on potential sites for interested business and industry clients. The City of Taft responds with information when a site meets the criteria outlined by KEDC.

5. The City Council and City Staff should communicate and work cooperatively, offering Staff expertise, to the West Side Recreation and Park District, since the District existence seriously affects the citizens of the community. It is the Committee's hope major problems of WSR&PD management can be prevented in the future. City Response Representatives from the City Council, City Staff, the West Side Recreation and Park District Board of Directors and West Side Recreation and Park District Staff met concerning funding constraints. In an effort to assist the District in meeting new insurance requirements on the Taft Skate Park, the City of Taft provided funding to obtain a retrofit plan. In order to reduce the need to purchase duplicate equipment, the City of Taft and the West Side Recreation and Park District borrow/loan equipment from one another as

needed. The City provided labor to the District on several concrete projects and in turn the District provided labor to the City to aerate grass adjacent to the Rails-to-Trails walk path. Cooperation between the two entities is mutual and ongoing.

Recently, the Taft City Council appointed two new members to the West Side Recreation and Park District Board of Directors.

6. To be effective, the City Staff and City Planning Commission should continue to work on

updating the General Plan on an annual basis.

City Response

Of the seven mandated General Plan elements, State law requires that the Housing element be updated every five years. It is recommended the other elements be amended every five to ten years. The City updated its Housing element, in-house, in 1998, incorporating the results of a housing condition survey prepared by the Planning Department. The City is currently updating the Housing element again, in consultation with the State Housing and Community Development Department, and hopes to complete that process within the next few months. The City is also nearing completion of the draft amendments to the Land Use and Circulation elements. The remaining elements are planned to be up-dated, in-house, one every year.

7. The Greater Taft Transportation Authority should be dissolved because its reason for

being created no longer exists.

City Response City Staff is obtaining information to properly accomplish this recommendation.

8. The City Council and City Staff should continue to keep working toward goals that are in

the best interest of the community and its residents. Past differences should be put aside. The city's present and future needs must be a priority.

City Response

This is an ongoing endeavor. The City hosted a Visioning Conference in October 2002 and a follow-up in the spring of 2003. Topics discussed included Communications, Economic Development, Infrastructure, and Quality of Life. As a result of the Visioning Conference, two new advisory committees were formed: The Taft Housing Advisory Committee and the Taft Business and Economic Development Advisory Committee. Both Committees are made of community representatives who were appointed by the City Council.

9. The City Council and City Staff should work with the West Side Hospital District and the community to provide the best medical services possible. As civic leaders, it is their direct civic responsibility to become involved in this vital community need.

City Response

The Mayor, on behalf of the City of Taft, initiated an informational letter to the community concerning the potential closure of the hospital by Catholic Healthcare West. The City of Taft also hosted a public informational meeting to allow citizens to ask the District Board questions concerning the hospital. During a public hearing conducted by the Kern County Health Department Emergency Medical Services Division, City representatives provided testimony against closure of the hospital emergency room The City Council and City Staff continue to work closely with the West Side Hospital District Board concerning medical services in the community.

10. The City Council and City Staff should address the annexation issue and create an ad hoc

committee comprised of council, staff, business, and residents to present an agenda that leads to annexation as soon as financially possible. An attitude of both City Council and City Staff of "when it will happen", not "if it might happen", should be the goal. Annexation will benefit the City and enable the City to expand.

City Response

Annexation is an issue that needs to be researched thoroughly. To that end, the City Council invited Mr. Bill Turpin, Executive Officer, Local Agency Formation Commission, to address the City Council concerning annexation at its meeting of February 3, 2004.

11. The City of Taft post a copy of this report and response, if required, where it would be

available for public reviewing.

City Response The City Report and Response will be provided to the public as required by law.

2003-2004 KERN COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT – CITY OF TEHACHAPI

The Cities and Joint Powers Committee of the 2003-2004 Kern County Grand Jury visited the City of Tehachapi pursuant to Penal Code Section 925.a.

�A grand jury may at any time examine the books and records of any nonprofit corporation established by or operated on behalf of a public entity the books and records of which it is authorized by law to examine, and in addition to any other investigatory powers granted by this chapter, may investigate and report upon the method or system of performing the duties of such nonprofit corporation.�

CITY OF TEHACHAPI

PURPOSE OF INQUIRY: The Cities and Joint Powers Committee of the 2003-2004 Kern County Grand Jury visited the City of Tehachapi, on September 11, 2003, pursuant to Penal Code Section 925.a. PROCESS: The Cities and Joint Powers Committee toured the city, met with members of City Staff, and reviewed previous Grand Jury Final Reports and responses. The Committee reviewed City Council agendas, current and past city budgets, the City Master Plan, and researched various media publications relating to the City of Tehachapi. BACKGROUND: The City of Tehachapi�s original community was founded in 1876 when the Southern Pacific Railroad successfully established a rail line over the mountain which eventually became the busiest single track mainline in the world, connecting Mojave and Bakersfield. Along the route is the world famous Tehachapi Loop, which is a unique engineering feat. Since the beginning, the downtown has been the historic center of Tehachapi which is composed of seven small communities and some ranches. At an elevation of 4,000 feet, the 6558 residents experience each of the four seasons while nestled in the mountains. No other city in Kern County can make that claim. Residents are also less than one hour by automobile from the larger Cities of Bakersfield and Lancaster. On the outskirts of the City are official welcoming signs that proudly state, �City of Tehachapi�Respecting Our Past�Planning Our Future�. The City of Tehachapi�s Mission Statement reads, �The employees and City Council of the City of Tehachapi are committed to providing the best possible service to the customer at the lowest possible cost, while maintaining the highest quality of life for our residents. The City team will strive to be the most customer-oriented City in Kern County and the State. We will also strive for a commitment to excellence in public service�. FINDINGS: • The Five-Year Budget is reviewed and updated each year. This allows staff to

recommend necessary annual adjustments while not losing sight of long-range goals. • The Downtown Tehachapi Master Plan was completed in April 2003. �Its purpose is

to establish a blueprint toward the revitalization of the downtown area and make it an inviting place for both visitors and locals. It is intended to guide growth and development and create a comprehensive and unified style to the downtown area�.

• In September 2003, the City dedicated its first fire station. In the past the Tehachapi

Fire Department had shared Station 12 with Kern County. The Fire Department was all volunteers. The department now has three full-time firefighters and twelve volunteers. Still there is a need for an equipment station on the vacant lot next to the fire station. Local companies are donating labor for its construction. The City has some grant applications pending which may or may not happen and are seeking low-interest loans to fulfill Fire Department needs.

• The Tehachapi Fire Department is currently advertising for volunteers to be trained as

members of Community Emergency Response Teams, known as CERT. CERT trains volunteers to assist local law enforcement officials and medical personnel, to respond to emergencies such as fires, earthquakes, storms, or terrorist attacks. Volunteers only respond when requested by local officials.

• The City has a need for enforceable guidelines for homeowners. These guidelines can

be in the form of municipal codes or Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CCRs). Some of the older neighborhoods could be �grandfathered� (exempt) under new codes. If new codes of any type were authorized it would necessitate a full-time code enforcer to regulate homeowners city-wide.

• A new marketing plan, �The Right Environment for the Right Company�, is designed

to attract upscale companies with high-paying jobs. The Plan, developed by the Community Development Director, is currently being mailed to CEO�s (Chief Executive Officers). The 17 page glossy brochure portrays Tehachapi�s rural lifestyle and quality education with statements such as �Focus your business. Improve your quality of life�.

• In July 2003, U.S. Representative Cal Dooley stated he hoped to secure $1.5 million

in federal funding for a study to add a second track over the Tehachapi Pass. It is currently a single track with multiple tunnels. Dooley�s reasoning is that it would reduce traffic pollution that is causing significant health and economic problems. The Kern Council of Governments (KernCOG) Executive Director agreed with Dooley stating �It has definite economic advantages as well as environmental advantages from an air quality perspective�. Valley Clean Air Now, a coalition of business leaders, has also endorsed the proposal. Fourteen miles of track would be needed to create a second complete rail line. In its present state, the Pass is considered a major bottleneck in moving freight around the State and the Nation.

• The Tehachapi City Council has approved a balanced budget for 2003-2004, which

includes projected budgets for the next five years. The City will still maintain a cash reserve of slightly more than $1 million. The Tehachapi Redevelopment Agency will operate �in the red�. The agency is typically in debt. The City is considering a new or refinanced bond issue ($2 million) to help remedy the situation.

• A citizen�s complaint, a possible safety issue, was filed with the Grand Jury regarding debris piled at the end of the runway at the Tehachapi Municipal Airport. The debris was removed by Airport Maintenance personnel within an hour after the City Manager became aware of the complaint.

• The City Council has considered forming its own police force. Meanwhile, the City

continues to contract with Kern County Sheriff�s Department. Tehachapi has contracted with the County for law enforcement for the past 15 years. In 2002, the City signed a new five-year contract with the County Sheriff. The annual cost to the City would be approximately $900,000. Three major factors will influence the City in its decision:

a. Cost savings b. Local control c. Community pride and identity

• Proposition 36 is contributing to a rise in repeat crimes, more report filing, and more

court appearances for law enforcement. Prop. 36 allows a first-time drug violator to receive drug rehabilitation rather than jail time. This results in an increase in the workload due to having to arrest the same people for the same offenses in a short period of time. Faced with minimum budgets and workforces, this is a major problem for rural communities such as Tehachapi.

• Tehachapi and Golden Hills have formed a committee to determine whether

annexation is desirable and feasible. Meetings have been held on issues that range from wells and water systems to animal control and trash pickup. The two communities� water systems are already linked. The annexation would almost double the size of Tehachapi, giving it more than 14,000 residents. Tehachapi would become the fifth largest city in Kern County. Ultimately, the people will decide if the annexation does occur.

• Currently, Tehachapi with 3,400 turbines, is the largest producer of wind energy in

the nation, producing approximately 2 billion Kilowatt Hours of power per year. More energy is produced in Tehachapi than can be transmitted to the grid which is operating at capacity. The grid operation agency allows the �excess� energy to dissipate rather than upgrading the system. There are recent concerns that wind turbines which are service derelict (dead), are not being removed and the sites restored to their natural state.

COMMENTS: • The City�s Staff is to be commended for its dedication for keeping the Five-Year

Budget updated. • The Downtown Tehachapi Master Plan will assist Tehachapi in preserving its historic

past. It is well documented and will provide guidelines for Tehachapi�s future image

and is proof that the Community believes in �Respecting Our Past―Planning our Future�.

• A new fire station, planned fire equipment facility, and Community Emergency

Response Teams program exemplify the community�s fulfillment of the City�s Mission Statement; ��the best possible service ― at the lowest possible cost, while maintaining the highest quality of life�.

• The City Staff is to be commended for its immediate response to a citizen�s complaint

regarding debris at the Tehachapi Municipal Airport. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. The Tehachapi community was created because of the railway. It is a community that

has freight trains constantly passing through. More trains will be passing through if a second track is built. It is the Committee�s belief that with the support of the residents, the second track would benefit the County, State and Nation by reducing air pollution and transportation costs.

2. The City Council should continue to investigate the possibility of creating its own law

enforcement agency. As in the case of the Fire Department, local control will assist the pursuit of new businesses and benefit the residents of the Tehachapi community.

3. The City Council and the community should seriously pursue the possibility of

annexation of the Golden Hills Community. There are many �pros and cons� which include budget concerns and providing services. All residents in the Tehachapi community deserve the �highest quality of life�, not just those who live within the City limits.

4. Wind energy is a vital factor to the Tehachapi community. The Committee feels that

an on-going Advisory Group composed of City Council, City Staff, business representatives and concerned citizens should be created to over-see every wind energy issue. The Advisory Group would have an impact on the Tehachapi community and the entire Southwestern area of the U.S. The Advisory Group findings would allow the City government to assure the City a �commitment to excellence in public service�.

5. Included in the recommended Advisory Group study, should be the possibility of

annexation of the wind energy land in the Tehachapi area. The added revenue from the annexed land should justify the added cost of services to the City.

6. The City of Tehachapi should post a copy of this report and response, if required,

where it will be available for public review. Note: Present and past Kern County Grand Jury Final Reports and responses can be accessed at the County Library and on the Kern County web-site: www.co.kern.ca.us/grandjury

RESPONSE REQUIRED: WITHIN 90 DAYS TO PRESIDING JUDGE KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301

December 8, 2003 David Hashim Kern County Grand Jury 1415 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Re: Response to 2003 Grand Jury Report Dear Mr. Hashim: First let me thank you for your assistance. Your time and commitment are commendable. In your 2003 report, you requested that the City of Tehachapi respond. The following is the reply on behalf of the City of Tehachapi City Council. I will be answering point by point as in your report.

1. The Tehachapi community was created because of the railway. It is a community that has freight trains constantly passing through. More trains will be passing through if a second track is built. It is the Committee's belief that with the support of the residents, the second track would benefit the County, State and Nation by reducing air pollution and transportation costs.

Yes, you are correct. We have a rich history in the railroad. We also agree that the second track would be a great benefit to all.

2. The City Council should continue to investigate the possibility of creating its own law

enforcement agency. As in the case of the Fire Department, local control will assist the pursuit of new businesses and benefit the residents of the Tehachapi community.

As you may be aware, the City Council has looked deeply into this option in the past.

I would agree with the Jury in that local control of our public safety is essential to community building, business retention, quality of life and image building. Based on your recommendation, the City of Tehachapi will investigate the possibility of forming our own Police Department in the near future.

Grand Jury Response Page 2 December 8, 2003 3. The City Council and the community should seriously pursue the possibility of

annexation of the Golden Hills Community. There are many "pros and cons" which include budget concerns and providing services. All residents in the Tehachapi community deserve the "highest quality of life", not just those who live within the City limits.

We have recently completed the analysis of the annexation of Golden Hills and determined it was not financially feasible. We would agree the annexation was the best step, but at this point the city residents would be subsidizing the Golden Hills area. As you know, with more development and/or changes in local finances the annexation could be financially feasible in the near future. We will continue to monitor the situation and act when the financial picture looks brighter. The Council has committed to continue to work with Golden Hills to cooperate in any way possible to directly increase the quality of life for all residents. The area of primary concern includes water quality, regional planning and sewage processing.

4. Wind energy is a vital factor to the Tehachapi community. The Committee feels that

an on-going Advisory Group would have an impact on the Tehachapi community and the entire Southwestern area of the U. S. The Advisory Group findings would allow the City government to assure the City a "commitment to excellence in public service".

The City will forward your recommendation to Kern Wind Energy Association, accompanied by a letter expressing our interest in participating in such a committee if one is formed.

5. Included in the recommended Advisory Group study, should be the possibility of

annexation of the wind energy land in the Tehachapi area. The added revenue from the annexed land should justify the added cost of services to the City.

The Grand Jury is correct in that the tax revenue from wind energy is immense however, the wind farms are a great distance from the City limits and therefore outside our approved sphere of influence. These factors would make it impossible to annex. In addition, strict opposition from LAFCO and the County would be likely.

6. The City of Tehachapi should post a copy of this report where it would be available

for public reviewing.

We are planning to have these responses approved by Council in a public session and post them at City Hall.

Again let me thank you for all your assistance and valuable time. We truly appreciate all of your hard work, advice and recommendations. I hope we have accommodated you adequately.

2003-2004 KERN COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT – CITY OF WASCO

The Cities and Joint Powers Committee of the 2003-2004 Kern County Grand Jury visited the City of Wasco pursuant to Penal Code Section 925.a.

“The grand jury may at any time examine the books and records of any incorporated city or joint powers agency located in the county. In addition to any other investigatory powers granted by this chapter, the grand jury may investigate and report upon the operations, accounts, and records of officers, departments, functions, and the method or system of performing the duties of any such city or joint powers agency and make such recommendations as it may deem proper and fit.”

CITY OF WASCO

PURPOSE OF INQUIRY: The Cities and Joint Powers Committee of the 2003-2004 Kern County Grand Jury pursuant to California Penal Code 925a visited the City of Wasco September 23, 2003. PROCESS: Members of the Cities and Joint Powers Committee met with the City of Wasco City Manager and members of the City Staff. The Committee reviewed current and past City budgets, City Council agendas, RDA agendas, City of Wasco Housing Authority ordinances, meeting agendas and minutes, and previous Grand Jury Final Reports and responses. They also discussed present and future City projects and interviewed past and present city political leaders and board members. BACKGROUND: In 1897, Marshall V. Hartranft purchased nine 640-acre sections from the Kern County Land Company for resale to settlers. Three hundred families relocated in what was originally called the Fourth Home Extension Colony. It was called Dewey and Deweyville until 1900. A settler named William Bohnam from Wasco County in Oregon helped it become what is now named Wasco. Beginning with farming alfalfa, the area soon introduced white potatoes and cotton. Today agriculture plays a vital role in the community. In the 1950’s, the community began growing roses and currently produces 65-75% of all roses grown in the United States. Over 50 million plants are constantly being grown and have allowed the City of Wasco to declare itself “The Rose Capital of the Nation.” Wasco’s present population is 21,656 and has a 4% yearly growth rate. In the November 2002 Wasco City Council election the incumbent Mayor failed to win a second term. The two seats on the Council were filled by an incumbent running for re-election and a former council member. The five-member council appoints a mayor from among its members each year. At the time of this report, the present Mayor has held office for one year. FINDINGS: • The City of Wasco’s Staff is finding it difficult to prepare long-term financing plans.

This is due to the State’s $35 billion budget cuts. The City has performed an outstanding accounting of present and projected city expenditures. In the past, Staff foresight has allowed for accumulated restricted reserved funds for projects that are necessary at the present to satisfy the City’s infrastructure requirements. The City will continue to “pursue an ambitious program of street reconstruction, street

overlays, transit improvements, and the construction of a multi-modal transportation transfer station”. Vacant properties are targeted for park-like improvements.

• The City Council and Staff are anticipating reaching a settlement with the Wasco

Valley Rose Golf Course bondholders to develop a comprehensive improvement plan. For fifteen years, the City has been burdened with the financial $8.8 million debt of the golf course. Eliminating this debt is a top priority to both City Council and Staff.

• The Committee’s review of the City of Wasco’s 2003-2004 Budget testifies that the prepared budget document is a valuable and accurate resource. It has been prepared by an experienced, qualified, energetic, and organized Staff.

• The City of Wasco is still considering the possibility of cancelling the City’s current contract with the Kern County Sheriff’s Department and creating a joint police force with a neighboring city. Uncertain State budget cuts and the initial start up cost have moved this item for future consideration. The City’s law enforcement budget is $1.9 million and is the largest expense to the City’s general fund.

• In August 2003, the Wasco community was awarded $300,000 from the Proposition 46 Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Act of 2002. Needed improvements at the current 199-dwelling farm-labor housing project will soon be implemented. This is not a direct City responsibility, but the residents of Wasco will benefit from this grant award.

• In October 2003, the City Council approved a “police tax” on all new home developments. The $105 cost will be levied against all “new homes” built in the City of Wasco. The fee will be reviewed each year. The tax is necessary to enable the City to maintain the current level of law enforcement services.

• In October 2003, Wasco approved a resolution that supports putting a statewide initiative on the November 2004 ballot. The initiative would require voter approval before the State could take away local tax revenues to correct the State’s financial problems. The General Assembly of Voting Delegates of the League of California Cities is sponsoring the initiative.

• The Kern County Board of Supervisors has voted to award the Wasco Parks and Recreation Department $409,300 from community development funds and state recreation grant funds for major renovations. In addition to new plumbing, decking, and mechanical systems; restrooms and showers at the much used Wasco pool will be refurbished.

• In September 2003, Wasco was one of fifteen of California’s 478 cities to be exempt from an interruption in Vehicle License Fee (VLF) funds from the State. Wasco was defined as a “hardship city” since more than 37% of its general funds are composed of VLF funding. Wasco’s VLF funds far exceed the minimum 37% of its general

fund required to apply as a “hardship city”. This will allow the City the option to lift its hiring freeze along with meeting other financial commitments.

• The Wasco State Prison, “provides short-term housing necessary to process, classify,

and evaluate new inmates physically and mentally to determine their security level program requirements and appropriate institutional placement”. The inmate population and the supporting staff are a revenue source to the City of Wasco.

• The Committee reviewed the Wasco Redevelopment Agency (RDA) 2003-2004

budget, past RDA budgets and audits, and RDA accomplishments and objectives. The Committee concludes that the Wasco RDA is working within governmental guidelines, rules, and regulations.

• The City Staff has done a commendable job in producing a workable City Budget

through its valued professional efforts. • Another example of the City Staff’s creativity is the successful application as a

“hardship city” which provided unexpected VLF fund revenues to Wasco. • On July 1, 2003 the Wasco City Council terminated the Wasco Housing Authority

(WHA) and appointed the City Council to the WHA Board. The Grand Jury finds that this action was done without due consideration to proper notice to allow the citizens of Wasco and the WHA Board input. After an intense investigation, the Grand Jury concludes that what the City Council did was legal in the strict accordance of the State Law. What appalls the Grand Jury is the blatant insensitivity of the City Council to the citizens of Wasco and how the WHA was replaced. All citizens, especially citizen volunteers, have a right to respect and dignity. This did not occur in the City of Wasco. Ultimately, it is the voters of Wasco who will decide the leadership they deserve.

COMMENTS:

#1 The City Council acted hastily in setting up the June 24th special meeting. The

WHA Executive Director should have been at the meeting. It was known that the Director would be out of town that day on previously scheduled WHA business.

#2 The June 24th meeting should have been cancelled when none of the WHA

Board or Staff were present. An official agenda, with the Council’s concerns, should have been presented to the WHA Board and Staff before the special meeting. When the Mayor was asked by another Council Member if the WHA Board or Staff had been sent a list of the Council’s concerns, the Mayor was quoted as saying, “No, no. I wanted to be secretive…” One of the eight concerns of Council was that the WHA Board was “being secretive.”

#3 At the July 1, 2003 regular Council meeting, the resolution to disband the WHA Board was recommended by the Mayor. It was passed and the Board was terminated immediately. Most of the former commissioners had served the City of Wasco as commissioners for many years. The WHA received a high rating from the State for the work they had accomplished the previous year. The termination of the Board was not handled with the respect that community volunteers should have received.

#4 The Committee has “serious concerns” about the City Council members

understanding of the “Brown Act”. One Council Member was quoted as saying in reference to the “Brown Act”, “I’m not into that”, (The Wasco Tribune, August 13, 2003).

#5 The Committee found that none of the eight reasons given for the “termination”

of the WHA Board appear to be valid. #6 It is the Committee’s concern that the City Council’s responsibilities for the

City of Wasco and Wasco Redevelopment Agency, Wasco Public Finance Authority, and the Wasco Housing Authority (along with the many other boards that members sit on as individuals representing the City of Wasco), may be an excessive workload. There appear to be many meetings that only lasted a few minutes along with no public comments.

RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. The City Manager and Staff are to be commended for being innovative in their

continued excellence in budget planning for the City of Wasco. 2. The City Council should remove themselves from the responsibilities of boards

that can be represented by other community members of the City of Wasco. 3. The City Council should examine situations of concern more closely. They

should conduct business in a more appropriate manner before making decisions that appear based on unsubstantiated information.

4. The City Council should treat community volunteers with respect. Volunteers in

Wasco provide valuable service within the Community. 5. With authority comes responsibility. The City Council should educate themselves

regarding their responsibilities. Elected politicians do not have to know anything to be elected. Once elected, Council Members have the obligation to the public to become informed in the area of their responsibilities in order to better serve their constituents.

6. The Committee recommends that the City Staff provide Council Members with a

copy of the past Grand Jury statement, “Public Trust” in the 2000-2001 Kern

County Grand Jury Final Report, page 29, on the Kern County Grand Jury web-site.

7. The Grand Jury urges the Wasco Mayor, City Council, and City Staff to

participate in training seminars presented by independent consultants. The seminars should include organizational process and protocol i.e.; leadership and management skills, Brown Act, maintenance of positive and effective decision making, and creating a cooperative and collaborative environment through positive community relations. By participating in leadership retreats of this nature, the Grand Jury feels that the improved leadership skills would better serve the citizens of Wasco.

8. The 2003-2004 Kern County Grand Jury recommends that the City of Wasco post

a copy of this report and response, if required, where it will be available for public reviewing. Note: Present and past Kern County Grand Jury Final Reports and Responses can be accessed at the County Library and/or the Kern County Grand Jury web-site: www.co.kern.ca.us/grandjury

RESPONSE REQUIRED: WITHIN 90 DAYS TO PRESIDING JUDGE KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301

May 5, 2004 The Honorable Stephen Gildner Kern County Superior Court 1415 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Dear Judge Gildner, I am pleased to respond to the 2003-2004 Grand Jury Report reviewing the operations of the City of Wasco. After receipt of this report, copies were distributed to the City Council for discussion and review. The City Council has delegated to me the responsibility to respond to the Grand Jury Report on their behalf. The Grand Jury has been most gracious in their praise and commendations regarding the City staff’s efforts to produce a workable and understandable city budget, prepare long-term financial plans in spite of the state’s $35 billion accumulated deficit, and we are pleased the Grand Jury acknowledged our efforts to accelerate receipt of Vehicle License Fee (VLF) revenues based on our designation as a Hardship City. The City’s significant reliance on Vehicle License Fees approaches 41% of our General Fund and required us to aggressively and tenaciously lobby members of the state legislator and the administration in an effort to have the first quarter of Fiscal Year 2003-04 VLF subvention returned to the city. As you know, the General Fund is the principle financing account for all public safety activities conducted by the city. Delay or postponement of receipt of VLF funds, therefore, directly threatened our ability to provide continuing adequate levels of law enforcement services to our residents. It was with great relief that Governor Schwarzenegger approved legislation funding the VLF backfill to Hardship Cities such as Wasco. It is with a sense of great accomplishment that I report significant progress in resolving our long standing bonded indebtedness issues relating to the Wasco Valley Rose Municipal Golf Course. I believe that all outstanding debts will be extinguished by an agreement reached with the attorneys for the trustees and approved by the Wasco City Council on April 6, 2004. A foreclosure action brought by the bondholders consistent with the aforementioned agreement is planned for early summer.

On behalf of the City Council and City Staff, I would like to thank the Grand Jury for their commendation regarding innovation and continued excellence in budget planning and fiscal management for the City of Wasco. I believe we have made great strides in improving our financial stability over the past several years. On another matter, I am aware that the Housing Authority restructuring was a very controversial matter and elicited many expressions of concern and animosity. I can advise you, however, that the City Council acted in what they thought was the best interest of the city. While the decision was accomplished on a split vote, I was aware that the City Council had a specific list of objectives which they hoped to implement in the firm belief that this reprioritization of objectives was in the best interest of the city and the people served by the Housing Authority. I can advise the Grand Jury that since receipt of the report, the City Council has met with the leadership of the Wasco Affordable Housing, Inc. and Tenant Directors of the Wasco Housing Authority, in an effort to explain the direction the Council wished to pursue in this effort of reprioritizing goals and objectives. The City Council is committed to work in a cooperative manner with the Housing Authority and Affordable Housing, Inc. to create a mutually agreeable division of labor on which agency would handle which types of projects. Based on this meeting, it was concluded that the Housing Authority would handle new construction and senior housing, and the City would emphasize grant-funded rehabilitation projects on an in-fill basis throughout the city. I am confident that additional meetings will be scheduled in an effort to coordinate the pursuit of these agreed to goals. I wish to also advise the Grand Jury, that the City Council has carefully considered the comments and recommendations of the jurors and has elected to replace themselves as Housing Authority Board members with five interested citizens. Interviews are currently underway in an effort to replace the Council Members on the Housing Authority Board of Directors with lay citizens. I am confident that this restructuring, new degree of cooperation between the Housing Authority, City Council, and Affordable Housing, Inc., will clearly demonstrate our commitment and respect for volunteers willing to come forward to serve their community and to put behind us any elements of acrimony associated with the previous restructuring.

COMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSHIP OF KERN

PURPOSE OF INQUIRY: The Cities and Joint Powers Committee of the 2003-2004 Kern County Grand Jury investigated and reported on the Community Action Partnership of Kern, (The Partnership), a private, non-profit corporation created in Kern County by the Federal Government. The purpose of the investigation was to discover what services The Partnership has available that the Cities of Kern County can utilize in their communities. PROCESS: The Cities and Joint Powers Committee of the 2003-2004 Kern County Grand Jury met with the Director of the Community Action Partnership of Kern on September 22, 2003. The Committee conducted an indepth interview regarding funding, existing programs available, and future programs that The Partnership corporation can provide the citizens of Kern County. BACKGROUND: The Partnership was created in 1965 (formerly known as the Kern County Economic Opportunity Commission), to combat poverty in Kern County. The Partnership has the status of being a Community Action Agency. This is the result of an explicit designation by the Federal Government. A volunteer Board of Directors is composed of a diverse group, which includes representatives from the low-income community, the private sector, and elected officials or their representatives. The Partnership provides various services in thirty-seven communities and cities within Kern County. Annually, over 130,000 Kern County residents, from infants to seniors, benefit from the programs. The Partnership has a $67 million annual budget of which 48% is Federal funding and only 2% local funding. The balance of the budget is funded by the following sources: 10% State, 28% direct payment, 5% other, 2% private and 5% in kind. With a staff of 550 employees, they are the County’s 17th largest private employer. None of The Partnership’s budget is held in reserve. FINDINGS: • Major programs include:

a. Child Education and Development Services providing comprehensive child education and development services for income eligible children 0-5 years and their families

b. Women, Infants, and Children program (WIC), providing temporary nutritional assistance and counseling

c. Food Bank providing emergency food assistance

d. Migrant Childcare Alternative Payment Program providing a safe, nurturing, and stimulating learning environment for children of migrant farm workers

e. Home Program acquires and rehabilitates homes for sale to qualified low-income first time buyers

f. Low-income Home Energy Assistance Program providing weatherization and energy assistance to eligible low-income residents

g. Home Energy Assistance Program (HEAP), providing utility payment assistance to eligible low-income residents

h. Family Health Center providing primary health care i. HIV/AIDS Education & Prevention Program providing AIDS education j. Helpline providing computerized information and referral services k. Kern Parent Child Center (KPCC), providing child abuse prevention services l. South Chester Partnership providing case management, family needs

assessments, and health and social services for homeless individuals and families

m. Friendship House Community Center providing educational and support services for children and adults living in southeast Bakersfield

• The Partnership reaches out to all low-income residents, addresses their multiple

needs, and develops partnerships with other community organizations. • The Partnership’s goal is to empower people to become economically self-

sufficient and productive members of society. • The Partnership can be utilized as an umbrella agency working with other

agencies. Acting together, they can achieve what they are unable to achieve individually.

• The Partnership utilizes the Cal Works program by putting people to work in a

job-training atmosphere. This saves labor costs that can be used for other budget items.

• The Partnership pursues in-house cost saving factors. The agency is able to do its

own printing and publishing. Creative in-house staff and innovative planning has made this possible.

• The Partnership pursues new programs that will benefit County residents. The

Partnership’s newest program is private, public, and non-profit affordable housing assistance.

COMMENTS: The Cities and Joint Powers Committee believes that The Partnership, with its Federal over-site, its balanced Board of Directors, and its experienced organizational staff, is a well-managed accountable agency.

The Partnership contributes a great service to the residents of Kern County. It has successful programs along with a desire to venture into new fields of opportunity. It is serving Kern County by “Helping People. Changing Lives.”. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. The Partnership should annually inform every City Council and City Staff, along with

the Kern County Board of Supervisors, regarding The Partnership’s programs. Annual meetings would accommodate the continuous personnel changes in Kern County, City Councils, and staff members.

2. A copy of this report should be sent to every City Council and City Staff in Kern

County including the Kern County Board of Supervisors. This will acknowledge the 2003-2004 Kern County Grand Jury’s position on The Partnership and the benefits they bring to the County in “changing lives.”.

3. The Community Action Partnership of Kern should post a copy of this report and

response, if required, where it would be available for public reviewing. Note: Present and past Kern County Grand Jury Final Reports and Responses can be

accessed at the County Library and on the Kern County Grand Jury web-site: www.co.kern.ca.us/grandjury RESPONSE REQUIRED: WITHIN 90 DAYS TO PRESIDING JUDGE KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301

April 8, 2004 Presiding Judge Kern County Superior Court 1415 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 RE: Grand Jury Final Report concerning Community Action Partnership of Kern On September 22, 2003, the Grand Jury met with the Executive Director of the Community Action Partnership of Kern (Partnership), Fred A Drew. Mr. Drew gave the Grand Jury an overview of the agency regarding funding, existing programs available and future programs that the Partnership can provide citizens of Kern County. The following recommendations were made and require a response:

1. The Partnership should annually inform every City Council and City Staff, along with the Kern County Board of Supervisors, regarding the Partnership's programs. Annual meetings would accommodate the continuous personnel changes in Kern County, City Councils, and staff members.

2. A copy of this report should be sent to every City Council and City Staff in Kern County including the Kern County Board of Supervisors. This will acknowledge the 2003-2004 Kern County Grand Juries' position on the Partnership and the benefits they bring to the County in "changing lives."

3. The Partnership should post a copy of this report and the response, if required, where it would be available for public reviewing. Note: Present and past Kern County Grand Jury Final Reports and Responses can be accessed at the County Library and the Kern County Grand Jury web-site: www.co.kern.ca.us/grandjury

Response The Partnership acknowledges and agrees with the need to annually inform every City Council and City Staff, along with the Kern County Board of Supervisors, regarding the Partnership programs. For the past three years, Mr. Drew has met personally with each County Supervisor and his/her staff to not only provide an overview of agency programs, services provided in each Supervisory district and the number of clients served, but has taken each willing participant on a personal tour of certain agency programs within the Bakersfield city limits. Beginning second quarter 2004, Mr. Drew or his designee will schedule meetings with the City Council and City Staff of the eleven incorporated cities throughout the County to present on agency programs, services provided in each city and the number of clients served. Mr. Drew or

Presiding Judge, Kern County Superior Court April 8, 2004 Page 2 his designee will provide each municipality a map representing the locations of the agencies programs and a copy of the agency annual report. This project will be completed by December 2004, so that the reviews can be repeated beginning spring 2005, and continued thereafter. Mr. Drew will present each City Council and City Staff in Kern County, including the Kern County Board of Supervisors, with a copy of the Grand Jury written report and the written response to the recommendations. The Partnership will post a copy of the Grand Jury report and the Response to the report at the county library on Truxtun Ave (Beale Library), as well as post them on the Kern County Grand Jury web-site. The Partnership feels that the recommendations made by the Kern County Grand Jury will only help to strengthen the work of the agency by informing all those in service throughout the county of the resources the Partnership brings to their communities. We appreciate your input and look forward to continued work together as we strive to "Help People and Change Lives."

2003-2004 KERN COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT

HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF KERN

The Cities and Joint Powers Committee of the 2003-2004 Kern County Grand Jury visited and reviewed the Housing Authority of the County of Kern pursuant to Penal Code Section 933.1

A grand jury may at any time examine the books and records of a redevelopment agency, a housing authority, created pursuant to Division 24 (commencing with Section 33000) of the Health and Safety Code, or a joint powers agency created pursuant to Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 6500) of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code, and, in addition to any other investigatory powers granted by this chapter, may investigate and report upon the method or system of performing the duties of such agency or authority.

HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF KERN

PURPOSE OF INQUIRY: The Cities and Joint Powers Committee of the 2003-2004 Kern County Grand Jury, pursuant to California Penal Code Section 933.1, visited and reviewed the Housing Authority of the County of Kern (HACK). PROCESS: The Committee met with HACK on January 26, 2004. Research information pertaining to HACK's structure, operating procedures, responsibilities, and budgets were reviewed. BACKGROUND: The Housing Act of 1937 allows local agencies to set up a Housing Authority. The Housing Authority of the County of Kern was established in 1939. The role of the Board of Commissioners is similar to the County Board of Supervisors. They set policy within the law, review and approve the budget and make major decisions. Meetings are open to the public. The County does not fund HACK. Funding is 85% or more through Housing and Urban Development (HUD). HACK is responsible to HUD regulation. It is not part of HUD. Once a year, HACK’s overall performance is evaluated by HUD. HACK's mission is to improve the quality of life for low-income residents in Kern County. They provide for safe, affordable housing and assist residents to become self-sufficient and achieve home ownership. HACK operates under the guidance of a seven-member Board of Commissioners. Commissioners are appointed by the Kern County Board of Supervisors and two of the seven Tenant Commissioners must reside in public housing. HACK has approximately 108 employees, with an administrative structure headed by an Executive Director. The Director reports to the Board of Commissioners. FINDINGS: • The local HACK received a 94% rating from HUD last year. This was up from 88%

the previous year. • The local 2003-2004 budget is approximately $25 million. • Grants provided over $6 million this year from various Federal, State, and local

programs.

• The local HACK presently has approximately 5,000 applicants on a waiting list for housing assistance. HACK has not accepted any new applicants for the past two years in the Section 8 Housing Program.

• California Penal Code Section 830.31(d) allows Housing Authorities to employ peace

officers. The local HACK has three full time police officers that do investigative fraud work. The investigators ensure HACK developments achieve lower crime rates than adjoining neighborhoods and work with local law enforcement agencies to protect residents and screen new clients.

• HACK pays the County a fraction of property tax values as a “payment in lieu of

taxes” (PILOT). • HACK relocated to a new Central Office in late 2002. This has allowed HACK to

consolidate staff operations. • HACK has recently completed reconstruction of 88 farm worker housing units at the

Arvin Farm Labor Center. HACK manages the Center. The site includes an 8,000 square foot Child Care Center. This is a seasonal facility that operates from April through September.

• HACK works closely with Golden Empire Affordable Housing. Each does similar

work through different funding sources. • HACK’s Section 8 Program is a public-private partnership of rental owners. Low-

income residents of Kern County are awarded vouchers enabling them to find housing in the private sector. HACK contracts with owners, (1,300), to subsidize the participants’ rents.

• HACK provides the public answers to “Frequently Asked Questions” through their

web-site: www.kernha.org/FAQ/faq.htm. • HACK’s Low-Income Public Housing is a federally-funded program owned and

operated by HACK. • HACK’s USDA Rural Development Program is subsidized by the U.S. Department

of Agriculture. It was developed to provide housing for persons who earn a minimum income of $3,835 from farm labor. HACK owns five developments of this type.

• HACK is under contract with the California Department of Housing and Community

Development. It operates 172 units for seasonal farm labor workers and is under the Office of Migrant Services Labor Centers. The Centers are open from April to October. Residents must be seasonal farm laborers whose permanent residence is at least fifty miles away from the Center.

• HACK’s Rental Housing Construction Program is subsidized by the State Department of Housing & Community Development. It is a 62-unit subdivision of single family residences.

COMMENTS:

The Committee commends the HACK organization for providing their expertise to the Community Action Partnership of Kern. HACK is to be commended for their Family Self-Sufficiency Program. It is designed to assist Section 8 and public housing tenants to become self-supporting and independent. HACK is to be commended for their HOPE I Home Ownership Program. It provides financing to buyers, of former HACK Low-Income Public Housing units. HACK is to be commended for their annual Scholarship Awards. It is a competitive scholarship program for students of any age who are residents of USDA and public housing developments. Awards are based on need, academic excellence, references, a personal narrative, and extra-curricular activities. HACK is to be commended for their continued work with agencies such as the Mexican American Opportunity Foundation (MAOF) and the Employers’ Training Resource, who provide workers to HACK for periods of up to 6 months at no cost. This program allows people to compete more successfully for jobs in the maintenance and clerical skilled areas of employment. RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. Due to insufficient funds, the Housing Authority of the County of Kern cannot

supply the County’s total need for low-income housing. Therefore, the 2003-2004 Kern County Grand Jury recommends HACK work actively with all the Cities of Kern County in creating more low-income housing by whatever means available.

2. The Housing Authority of the County of Kern should attempt to utilize all of the

County available Section 8 Vouchers. Presently, 3,000 are being used out of a total of 3,200 available vouchers. This would allow 200 more low-income units available to the citizens of Kern County.

3. The 2003-2004 Kern County Grand Jury recommends that the Housing Authority

should post a copy of this report where it would be available for public reviewing. Note: Present and past Kern County Grand Jury Final Reports and responses can be accessed at the County Library and on the Kern County Grand Jury web-site: www.co.kern.ca.us/grandjury

NO RESPONSE REQUIRED

2003-2004 KERN COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT – KERN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS

The Cities and Joint Powers Committee of the 2003-2004 Kern County Grand Jury met with Kern Council of Governments pursuant to Penal Code 925.a and 933.

KERN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS PURPOSE OF INQUIRY: Pursuant to California Penal Code 925.a and 933, the Cities and Joint Powers Committee of the 2003-2004 Kern County Grand Jury is submitting this report. This report is a follow up on the 1997-1998 Kern County Grand Jury recommendation regarding the Kern Council of Government (Kern COG), which stated: “It appears that the general public is not well informed as to the functions of Kern COG and as to the importance of its role in local government. The 1997-1998 Grand Jury recommended that Kern COG undertake a program of public relations and public information through local media to overcome this lack of public understanding.” PROCESS: Members of the Cities and Joint Powers Committee met with the Executive Director and the Administrative Division Chief of the Kern COG. Material reviewed by the Committee included: Kern COG Environmental Justice Draft Policies and Procedures (October 2003), Kern COG Resource Guide 1st Edition (November 1998), Kern COG Roles and Responsibilities Manual (Revised 1/92), Kern COG Annual Financial Plan (Fiscal Year 2003-2004), Kern COG Outreach Efforts Interoffice Memorandum, Kern COG Regional Awards 2003, Kern COG Quarterly (Summer 2003), 1997-1998 Kern County Grand Jury Final Report, and Grand Jury Committee meeting notes. BACKGROUND: In 1967, Kern County recognized a need for a regional planning agency. A joint powers agency, the Kern Regional Planning Advisory Commission (KERPAC), was created which included the eleven incorporated cities within the County. In 1970, a new joint powers agreement (JPA) was created, the Kern Council of Governments (Kern COG). Kern COG’s mission is to be an area wide planning agency that “addresses multi-jurisdictional issues in partnership with member agencies and various local, State, and Federal non-profit agencies.” Kern COG employs 18 full-time staff members with an operating budget of $2,858,423. Kern COG administers approximately $45 million as a “pass-through” agency for local, State and Federal funding programs within the County. During their visits to the eleven incorporated cities in Kern County, the Cities and Joint Powers Committee further ascertained that Kern COG is actively involved in all eleven cities, thus fulfilling their mission. The following findings, comments, and recommendations reflect the Committees views regarding new media programs Kern COG has implemented in response to the 1997-1998 Grand Jury recommendation.

FINDINGS: • Before the 1997-1998 Grand Jury Final Report, public opinion regarding Kern COG

was virtually non-existent. • Kern COG has since contracted with a public relations firm to develop an overall

public outreach plan. • Kern COG has committed spending $300,000 on an outreach program relating to an

air quality campaign. • Kern COG became one of the first metropolitan planning organizations in the nation

to broadcast its monthly meeting on television through a contract with the Kern Government Television (KGOV) station.

• Kern COG’s staff attends community fairs throughout Kern County as part of their

public outreach program. • Kern COG’s staff has held nineteen public workshops to solicit ideas and to promote

its long-range programs. Each workshop is evaluated and a written report is presented to the Kern COG Board.

• Kern COG is using newspaper display ads, public service announcements on radio,

and direct mail fliers and handouts to promote their organization functions. • Kern COG’s executive director visits many of the region’s cities to present Kern

COG programs and services available to cities within Kern County. • This year Kern COG will present its thirteenth annual Regional Awards of Merit

Program. This program “honors individuals and organizations dedicated to improving Kern County’s quality of life through innovative, cooperative, regional planning efforts”.

• Kern COG addresses the Spanish-language advertising need in Kern County through

its publications and fliers and its web-site that provides instant translation in several languages. Kern COG also provides a staff member fluent in Spanish for translation purposes.

• Kern COG has expanded its primary mailing list to approximately 1,000 individuals,

including community based and non-profit organizations. • Kern COG’s Public Involvement Evaluation Procedures are amended and updated

every three years, or less, as new circumstances arise.

COMMENTS: The Committee has reported only on Kern COG’s response to the 1997-1998 Kern County Grand Jury’s recommendation regarding improvement of public awareness of Kern COG programs. The Committee did not address all of Kern COG’s programs that are provided to the County of Kern in this Final Report. The 2003-2004 Kern County Grand Jury commends Kern COG for its response to the 1997-1998 Kern County Grand Jury recommendation. Kern COG has pursued the intent of the recommendation with the implementation of many new public awareness programs. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. It is the 2003-2004 Kern County Grand Jury’s recommendation that Kern County

continue to support Kern COG with the funding it needs to continue its vital work. 2. That Kern COG is encouraged to continue its pursuit of creative programs that

improve the quality of life for the residents of Kern County. 3. That Kern COG should post a copy of this report where it will be available for public

reviewing. Note: Present and past Kern County Grand Jury Final Reports and Responses can be accessed at the County Library and the Kern County Grand Jury web-site: www.co.kern.ca.us/grandjury

NO RESPONSE REQUIRED:

2003-2004 KERN COUNTY GRAND JURY Final Report - KERN COUNTY

LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION

Pursuant to California Penal Code Section 925 the Cities and Joint Powers Committee of the 2003-2004 Kern County Grand Jury visited and reviewed the Kern County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO).

The grand jury shall investigate and report on the operations, accounts, and records of the officers, departments, or functions of the county including those operations, accounts, and records of any special legislative district or other district in the county created pursuant to state law for which the officers of the county are serving in their ex officio capacity as officers of the districts. The investigations may be conducted on some selective basis each year, but the grand jury shall not duplicate any examination of financial statements which has been performed by or for the board of supervisors pursuant to Section 25250 of the Government Code; this provision shall not be construed to limit the power of the grand jury to investigate and report on the operations, accounts, and records of the officers, departments, or functions of the county. The grand jury may enter into a joint contract with the board of supervisors to employ the services of an expert as provided for in Section 926.

KERN COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION

PURPOSE OF INQUIRY: The Cities and Joint Powers Committee of the 2003-2004 Kern County Grand Jury, pursuant to California Penal Code Section 925, visited and reviewed the Kern County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). PROCESS: The Committee met with LAFCO on January 22, 2004. They reviewed research information pertaining to LAFCO’s structure, operating procedures, and responsibilities. BACKGROUND: “The Commission was established December 10, 1963 pursuant to provisions of Chapter 1808 enacted by the 1963 California Legislature and Section 56000 (prior code 54780, et seq.) of the Government Code; Pursuant to LAFCO Resolution 99-11, by the Kern County Board of Supervisors. The Commission’s duties are to review and approve or disapprove, with or without amendment, wholly, partially, or conditionally, proposals for the incorporation of cities, formation of special districts, annexation of territory to local agencies, exclusion of territory from a city, disincorporation of a city, consolidation of two or more cities, and the development of a new community. The Commission is made up of eleven members: two representing the County and appointed by the Board of Supervisors from their membership, plus a third Supervisor who shall be an alternate member of the Commission; two representing the cities in the county, each of whom shall be a city officer, appointed by the City Selection Committee, plus one alternate member. There shall be one representing the general public, plus one alternate public member, appointed by the other four members of the Commission; two representing the special districts of the county, and one alternate, each of who shall be a special district member, nominated and elected by the special districts.” (www.co.kern.ca.us/clerk/boards/lafco.asp) Since the Cities and Joint Powers Committee recommended the annexation process in their Final Reports to the City of Taft and the City of Tehachapi, the Committee felt a Final Report on LAFCO’s involvement in the annexation process needed to be brought to the attention of citizens of the County.

FINDINGS: • The County of Kern’s LAFCO staff consists of one executive officer and two part-

time support staff members. • In a 1996 resolution, Kern County Board of Supervisors declared a policy of

neutrality towards proposed annexation of unincorporated territory by cities. • The California Association of LAFCOs (CALAFCO) was founded in 1971. It

consists of members from 56 of the 58 counties in the State. CALAFCO provides technical resources to the local LAFCO that would otherwise not be available.

• The LAFCO commissions work with nearly 3,500 governmental agencies (400+

cities and 3,000 special districts). LAFCO strives to create balance and must consider the effects on existing agricultural land.

• LAFCO creates a “sphere of influence” for each city or special district. The sphere of

influence is a prepared paper map that indicates what portions of county land a city or special district is allowed to annex. This is land adjacent to city or special district boundaries. Spheres of influence are reviewed every five years.

• Through approval or denial, LAFCO regulates the boundary changes proposed by

other public agencies or individuals. Boundary changes can be jurisdictional, annexed, detached, consolidated, or dissolved.

• LAFCO has the authority to override a proposal that meets the basic requirements of

the application process. LAFCO has the added responsibility to consider the long-range affordability of a boundary change.

Considered factors focus on the current and future land use, the current and future need and capacity for service, and any relevant communities of interest. Involved citizens can address their concerns of a boundary change at two public hearings. Approval of a boundary change depends on an accepted development plan and the ability to demonstrate that city services are available or will be available. Police and fire protection are two of the major services that need to be addressed.

• LAFCO is funded 1/3 by the County of Kern, 1/3 by the Cities of Kern County and 1/3 by the Special Districts in Kern County.

COMMENTS: The 2003-2004 Kern County Grand Jury recommends to the citizens of Kern County that they refer to LAFCO’s web-site to find answers to many frequently asked questions

concerning the annexation process and the effects it will have on the citizens involved in a boundary change. Answers can be found to such common concerns as taxes, police and fire protection, sewer/septic tanks, building permits, sidewalks, and roads. LAFCO’s web-site is www.co.kern.ca.us/lafco. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. The Grand Jury recommends that the Kern County Board of Supervisors, the Cities,

and the Special Districts of Kern County make every effort to continue to fund LAFCO. This will provide necessary staff so that the annexation process can proceed in a timely manner, at the present time and in the future. Kern County is growing (2.5% per year), with eleven incorporated cities that will be expanding for many years to come.

2. It appears to the Grand Jury that the general public is not well informed as to the

functions of the Kern County Local Agency Formation Commission and its role in local government.

The 2003-2004 Grand Jury recommends that LAFCO undertake a program of public relations and information through local media to enhance public understanding.

3. The Kern County Local Agency Formation Commission should post a copy of this report where it would be available for public reviewing. Note: Present and past Kern County Grand Jury Final Reports and responses can be accessed at the County Library and on the Kern County Grand Jury web-site:

www.co.kern.ca.us/grandjury NO RESPONSE REQUIRED

Kern County Board of Supervisors Response to Grand Jury Final Report

LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION

Response to Recommendations The Board of Supervisors notes that the County, cities, and special districts are required by Government Code 5638l to fund LAFCO in an amount at least equal to the previous year, unless otherwise approved by the Commission. The County is responsible for one-third of LAFCO's funding. A copy of the relevant statute is attached. Attachment

56381. (a) The commission shall adopt annually, following noticed public hearings, a proposed budget by May 1 and final budget by June 15. At a minimum, the proposed and final budget shall be equal to the budget adopted for the previous fiscal year unless the commission finds that reduced staffing or program costs will nevertheless allow the commission to fulfill the purposes and programs of this chapter. The commission shall transmit its proposed and final budgets to the board of supervisors; to each city; to the clerk and chair of the city selection committee, if any, established in each county pursuant to Article 11 (commencing with Section 50270) of Chapter 1 of Part 1 of Division 1; to each independent special district; and to the clerk and chair of the independent special district selection committee, if any, established pursuant to Section 56332. (b) After public hearings, consideration of comments, and adoption of a final budget by the commission pursuant to subdivision (a), the auditor shall apportion the net operating expenses of a commission in the following manner: (1) (A) In counties in which there is city and independent special district representation on the commission, the county, cities, and independent special districts shall each provide a one-third share of the commission's operational costs. (B) The cities' share shall be apportioned in proportion to each city's total revenues, as reported in the most recent edition of the

2003-2004 KERN COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT

RALPH M. BROWN ACT – “CLOSED SESSION”

The Cities and Joint Powers Committee of the 2003-2004 Kern County Grand Jury visited the eleven incorporated cities in Kern County pursuant to Penal Code Section 925.a. The Ralph M. Brown Act is an effort to protect the community and preserve individual rights through public decision making. The Act has been a source of confusion to local politicians, legal advisors, and the public. “Closed session” meetings which exclude the public have a secretive atmosphere.

“The grand jury may at any time examine the books and records of any incorporated city or joint powers agency located in the county. In addition to any other investigatory powers granted by this chapter, the grand jury may investigate and report upon the operations, accounts, and records of officers, departments, functions, and the method or system of performing the duties of any such city or joint powers agency and make such recommendations as it may deem proper and fit.”

RALPH M. BROWN ACT “CLOSED SESSION”

PURPOSE OF INQUIRY: The Cities and Joint Powers Committee of the 2003-2004 Kern County Grand Jury visited the eleven incorporated cities in Kern County, pursuant to Section 925.a of the California Penal Code. PROCESS: The Committee met with City Managers/Administrators and various members of Staff. Numerous City Council meeting agendas/minutes and Redevelopment Agency meeting agendas/minutes were reviewed as part of the Committees yearly investigatory process. The Committee determined that an examination and clarification of “closed session” meeting procedures could benefit political leaders, city staffs, and the public of Kern County. BACKGROUND: In 1953, California Governor Earl Warren of Bakersfield signed the Ralph M. Brown Act. It stated in part, “All meetings of the legislative body of a local agency shall be open and public, and all persons shall be permitted to attend any meeting of the legislative body of a local agency, except as otherwise provided in this chapter (California Government Code Section 54953a).” In 1994, extensive revisions were made concerning legislative body sessions that can be closed to the public. The Ralph M. Brown Act is an effort to protect the community and preserve individual rights through local public decision making. The Act has been a source of confusion to local politicians, legal advisors, and the public. “Closed session” meetings which exclude the public, have a secretive atmosphere. The goal of this report is to help “open the door” by educating politicians and the public about what business can legally be conducted in closed session meetings. The following information is a general summary and is not all-inclusive. FINDINGS: • The Brown Act is included in the California Government Code Sections 54950-

54962. This is the foundation of information stated in this report.

• All legislative bodies of local agencies, boards, councils, committees, and

commissions are subject to Brown Act mandates. Local agencies include cities, counties, school districts, special districts, and municipal corporations. There is a separate law for state agencies.

• There are three mandated public notices that are required before a “closed session” is

legal. They are: a listing in the agenda; a pre-closed session announcement; and a post-closed session report of action taken.

• At the end of a closed session, the body must reconvene in open session and report on

any action taken. As per Section 54957.7, nothing in this Section shall require or authorize a disclosure of information prohibited by State or Federal Law.

• There must be a specific statutory authority to meet behind closed doors. • Permissible closed session business includes items pursuant to Sections 54954.5-

54957.8: a. Attorney-client privilege regarding existing litigation, anticipated litigation,

initiation of litigation, and liability claims, including any adjudicatory proceedings.

b. Real Property negotiation issues that involve the legislative body. c. Public labor issues, such as employee appointments, employment position titles,

employee performance evaluations, employee discipline/dismissal and release actions, labor organization negotiation matters, case review, planning and hearings that concern staff privileges.

d. Public security matters that involve the threat to public services or facilities.

• The Brown Act allows for, but does not require, that minutes of closed sessions be

taken. If minutes are taken, they are not public record. • Closed session discussions are confidential and may not be disclosed by anyone

without formal approval of the board. • Disclosure of closed session confidentiality is punishable as a misdemeanor. This

issue was confirmed by legislation January 1, 2003 (AB 1945). • Even before they are sworn into office, Brown Act provisions apply to newly elected

board members. • Penalties for violations the Brown Act, including closed sessions, are punishable by

up to a $500 fine and/or six months imprisonment for each board member.

• The District Attorney, or any interested person, may initiate a civil action for the

purpose of stopping or preventing violations or threatened violations of the Brown Act.

• The Brown Act allows a court to award costs and attorney’s fees to the plaintiff. An

example of the above is when the Los Angeles Times newspaper was ruled to be entitled to recover attorney fees from Los Angeles County in connection with litigation that resulted in a finding that county supervisors had violated the Brown Act (Metropolitan New-Enterprise-October 30, 2003-C.A. “Newspaper Entitled to Fees in Brown Act Suit Against Supervisors” by Kenneth Ofgang).

• The Brown Act also allows the court to award costs and attorney’s fees to the city if

the court finds that the action brought by the plaintiff was clearly frivolous and lacking merit.

• Criminal penalty sections apply only where an action is taken in violation of the

Brown Act and where the member intends to deprive the public of information which the member knows or has reason to believe the public is entitled to.

• Some actions taken in violation of the Brown Act can be invalidated. COMMENTS: • In 1953, the Brown Act was originally a 686-word one-page document. The Brown

Act has grown to 12,845 words through state lawmaker’s attempts to clarify and update the original document.

• A serial meeting is a series of communications either in person, or by phone, or other

media (e-mail etc.), each of which individually involves less than a quorum, but when taken as a whole, involve a majority of the board members. Concurrence as to actions to be taken are substantive matters that are or are likely to be on the board agenda.

• Serial meetings cannot be used for the purpose of developing a concurrence as to

action to be taken. • “E-mail” communications between board member and/or the public should be done

with extreme caution so there is not a serial meeting that includes a violation of the Brown Act.

• Section 54953.1 states, “The provisions of this chapter shall not be construed to

prohibit the members of the legislative body of a local agency from giving testimony in private before a grand jury, either as individuals or as a body”.

RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. This report should be issued to all the incorporated cities in Kern County. 2. City Managers/Administrators within the county should make a concerted effort to

familiarize all elected and appointed personnel with the latest updated versions of the Brown Act.

3. All legislative bodies and elected officials invite local news and media outlets to

attend any Brown Act informational presentations. 4. The 2003-2004 Kern County Grand Jury recommends that the Cities post a copy of

this report where it will be available for public reviewing. Note: Present and past Kern County Grand Jury Final Reports and Responses can be accessed at the County Library and/or the Kern county Grand Jury web-site: www.co.kern.ca.us/grandjury NO RESPONSE REQUIRED

2003-2004 KERN COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT

RIDGECREST REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND HABITAT FOR HUMANITY

The Cities and Joint Powers Committee of the 2003-2004 Kern County Grand Jury under the authority of California Penal Code 933.1 reviewed Redevelopment Agencies in the County.

“A grand jury may at any time examine the books and records of a redevelopment agency, a housing authority, created pursuant to Division 24 (commencing with Section 33000) of the Health and Safety Code, or a joint powers agency created pursuant to Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 6500) of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code, and, in addition to any other any other investigatory powers granted by this chapter, may investigate and report upon the method or system of performing the duties of such agency or authority”.

RIDGECREST REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND HABITAT FOR HUMANITY

PURPOSE OF INQUIRY: As overseers of local government, each Grand Jury receives numerous complaints from citizens. Though the Kern County Grand Jury is not required by law to act on complaints, it is within their authority to do so. The Cities and Joint Powers Committee of the 2003-2004 Kern County Grand Jury received and responded to a citizen’s complaint. The complaint questioned the legality of the Ridgecrest Redevelopment Agency’s (RDA) sale of property to the Habitat for Humanity-Indian Wells Valley Inc. (Habitat), a non-profit corporation. The property, purchased below market value, was for the purpose of providing low and moderate income housing in the City of Ridgecrest. Pursuant to the California Penal Code Section 933.1, the Kern County Grand Jury has the authority to investigate Redevelopment Agencies within the County. PROCESS: The following Committee report is based on a review of the Ridgecrest RDA agendas and their legal advisor’s correspondence. The Committee reviewed State codes, conducted interviews, reviewed related media articles, and RDA structuring. The Committee investigated Habitat for Humanity’s local and international structure, financial records, similar low-income housing organizations, and conferred with the Grand Jury’s legal advisor pertaining to related subject matter. BACKGROUND: Habitat for Humanity-Indian Wells Valley Inc. is one of more than 1,600 Habitat for Humanity International Inc. affiliates, operating in all fifty states. Habitat for Humanity describes itself as a “nonprofit ecumenical Christian housing ministry whose purpose is to sponsor affiliates and to construct modest but adequate housing”. Habitat affiliates have built over 125,000 homes around the world, providing 625,000 people with safe, decent, and affordable shelter. Concerned citizens come together as volunteers to form a Habitat affiliate in their community. Habitat for Humanity-Golden Empire is another of the Kern County Habitat affiliates. Both Kern County Habitat affiliates are California non-profit corporations and are tax-exempt under Section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Both local Habitat affiliates in Kern County have their own Boards of Directors providing oversight. Habitat homes are built using volunteer labor and donated funds and materials. Every city in Kern County has statutory obligations to provide housing for low

and moderate-income families per Government code Section 65580 and Health and Safety Code Sections 33334.2 and 33413. The citizen’s concern about the validity of property transfers from the Ridgecrest RDA to the Habitat affiliate revolves around Article XVI, Section 5 of the California State Constitution which states in part; “no grant or donation of personal property or real estate [shall] ever be made by the state, or any city, city and county, town or other municipal corporation for any religious creed, church or sectarian purpose whatever…”. FINDINGS: • For federal tax purposes, Habitat does not claim tax-exempt status as a church,

convention, or association of churches under Internal Revenue Code Section 170 (b)(1)(A)(I). Habitat for Humanity claims status as an organization that receives a substantial part of its support from a governmental unit or the general public. Such support under a governmental unit or the general public is covered under Internal Revenue Code Section 170 (b)(1)(A)(vi), Habitat Federal Tax Return 2001.

• Nothing in any of Habitat’s informational materials indicate that Habitat claims to be

a church, even though their self-description states, “a Christian ministry”. • Neither religion nor race are factors in the selection of families to buy homes, nor

does Habitat require volunteers to be of any particular faith. Religion is not part of Habitat’s program. There are no formal services or ceremonial functions.

• The transfers of properties to Habitat was/is for the sole purpose of providing housing

for needy low-income families and is unrelated to any religious exercise or worship. • Titles to the properties involved are not retained by Habitat but are transferred to the

participating families. • A case relating to Article XVI, Section 5 concluded, “To be valid, a statute must first

have a clearly secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; and third,the statute must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.” (Priest, 12 Cal. 3d at 600). Nothing can be more secular than the construction of housing.

COMMENTS: • Many families in Kern County have benefited from organizations such as Habitat for

Humanity. Habitat affiliates provide homes for low and moderate-income families, which is a requirement for all cities in Kern County. This is mandated by State law.

RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. The 2003-2004 Kern County Grand Jury recommends to all the Cities in Kern County

to continue to utilize organizations such as Habitat, that will aid the cities in meeting State mandated requirements regarding the provision of low and moderate-income housing.

2. This report should be issued to all the incorporated cities in Kern County. 3. City Managers and/or Administrators within the County should make a concerted

effort to familiarize their staff, and elected and appointed officials, with programs such as Habitat and its benefits to their community.

4. The 2003-2004 Kern County Grand Jury recommends that the Cities post a copy of

this report where it will be available for public reviewing. Note: Present and past Kern County Grand Jury Final Reports and Responses can be accessed at the County Library and/or the Kern County Grand Jury web-site: www.co.kern.ca.us/grandjury NO RESPONSE REQUIRED