The Stanislaus County civil
grand jury says Patterson city officials disregarded government regulations
when they purchased a 100-year-old building that is incapable of operating as a
City Hall annex without costly, extensive upgrades and repairs.
Patterson paid about $650,000
for the building at 21/25 S. Del Puerto Ave. near City Hall. The city will need
to spend an additional $2.4 million to bring the building up to structural and
government code compliance, according to the grand jury’s annual report
released this week.
The grand jury questioned
Patterson Mayor Luis Molina about the building’s purchase on Nov. 13. The
mayor, who was accompanied by legal counsel, told the grand jury that although
the council thought it was a good purchase, he had concluded that the city
“bought a lemon,” according to the report.
City Manager Ken Irwin had been
on the job for about three months when he was questioned by the grand jury in
November. Irwin told the grand jury he had no personal knowledge of the
building’s purchase.
In a second grand jury
interview in April 30, Irwin had contacted the previous city manager, who
negotiated the purchase; the seller; and the title company that executed the
escrow. Irwin said no formal purchase agreement ever existed, and that there
was no awareness of any public action or council vote authorizing the
building’s purchase.
On Tuesday, Molina referred
comment to Irwin, who was not available. Molina said he had not seen the grand
jury report but that the description of the building as “a lemon” was accurate.
He said the building purchase was part of a larger plan to revitalize downtown.
The city’s finance director,
Minnie Moreno, told the grand jury that finance officials did not attend, nor
were they required to attend, City Council meetings, closed session meetings or
property purchase negotiation meetings.
The grand jury says the
purchase of the building was completed before having many, if not all, of the
required inspections, feasibility reports, structural engineering reports and
government code compliance. Its report indicates that Patterson city officials
did not exercise due diligence in acquiring the property.
In August 2011, officials said
there was a need for an annex that could provide additional space for the
chamber of commerce, historical society and public meeting rooms. The expansion
was intended to help promote cultural and economic interests.
While reviewing the complaint,
the grand jury says it discovered violations of the Brown Act related to the
building’s purchase. California’s open-meeting law, known as the Brown Act for
its author, Assemblyman Ralph M. Brown, requires city councils, school boards and
other local governing bodies to provide information to the public in a timely
manner.
The City Council reported the
price of the building, but it did not report the vote or abstention of each
council member as required by the Brown Act, according to the grand jury. Also,
meeting minutes for the council meeting of May 1, 2012, that contained
information related to the building’s purchase were left off a consent calendar
for a July 17, 2012, council meeting.
Those meeting minutes weren’t
approved and adopted by the City Council until Sept. 4, 2012. That same day,
the council also approved and adopted minutes from meetings May 15, June 5, and
June 12, 2012. The grand jury said lack of timely approval of minutes defeats
the purpose of transparency in government.
This wasn’t the first time the
grand jury has found that the Patterson City Council violated this portion of
the Brown Act. The 2013-14 grand jury report indicated the City Council failed
to publicly release information from its meetings in a timely manner.
In April 2012, the city’s
building official performed a courtesy inspection of the Del Puerto Avenue
property. The official recommended that the building be reviewed by an
architect or a certified inspector before its purchase to determine the extent
of improvements needed to meet Americans with Disabilities Act requirements.
The grand jury says the
recommended inspection was not conducted before the close of escrow on Aug. 14,
2012.
Initially, the seller agreed to
make the repairs needed and later be reimbursed by the city. The seller told
city officials the repairs would cost about $110,000. But the building was
purchased before the repairs were made, and the seller was released of this
obligation based on advice of the deputy city attorney.
The attorney also advised city
officials that the repair project be publicly bid. This would directly affect
the repair budget, and the bidding process would lengthen the project’s
schedule.
The grand jury, a watchdog
panel, is appointed by the presiding judge of the Superior Court to serve a
one-year term. Its recommendations are not legally binding, but officials have
90 days to respond in writing to the findings.
Other civil grand jury reports
The Stanislaus County civil
grand jury also released reports on these topics this week:
Oakdale Airport: The grand jury
received a complaint regarding the management of the Oakdale Airport, citing
poor maintenance, favoritism toward the major tenant, restriction in allowing
new tenants, safety, security and not utilizing Federal Aviation Administration
funds to maintain the airport. The complaint included safety and security
issues such as lighting, obsolete entrance gates, no security cameras and
inadequate perimeter fencing. The grand jury found no major maintenance problems,
except for the 4-foot entrance fence that is too low and should be heightened.
The grand jury also did not find any discrepancies in financial records, and
there was no indication of favoritism among tenants. An FAA investigation of
the concerns noted in the citizen’s complaint is still pending.
Stanislaus County jail
facilities: The grand jury found the downtown jail is obsolete and should be
closed once Public Safety Center Unit 2 and the new Stanislaus Superior
Courthouse become fully operational. Jail officials should convert all existing
safety cell video cameras to record onto media storage in an effort to mitigate
claims of negligence or abuse at these high-risk locations. The county’s Day
Reporting Center for probationers is an important facility that provides a
centralized location for the variety of services needed or required by those on
probation.
Regional 911 Center: The grand
jury found that staff members said their dispatch software is outdated. The
employees are highly trained and dedicated to providing public service. Two
independent consultant studies have provided reports about the 911 Center
recently, and a new director was named in February.
East Side Mosquito Abatement
District: The grand jury found that while some allegations against the district
were unsubstantiated, there are widespread human resources and management
problems within the district. The grand jury believes the problems are
significant and pervasive enough to require wholesale examination by outside
experts to recommend corrective actions. The district is overseen by a board of
directors appointed by the Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors. It has 18
employees, nine are seasonal, who cover more than 540 square miles in the
northern portion of the county with an annual budget of about $2 million. The
district’s current human resources system is outdated and does not appear to be
adequate. Board members are appointed to a three-year term, with a two-term
limit. The current tenure of the board is an average of 20 years. The grand
jury found that there may be significant advantages in consolidating the East
Side Mosquito Abatement District and the Turlock Mosquito Abatement District.
Local effects of state prison
realignment and Proposition 47: The state’s prison realignment plan of 2011
meant lower-level offenders who otherwise would have gone to prison started
serving their sentences in county jail. California voters approved Proposition
47 as a way to cut prison spending by reducing low-level, nonviolent property
crimes and personal drug possession from felonies to misdemeanors. The grand
jury recommends that the Community Corrections Partnership should develop
strategies to increase public awareness of its mission and to encourage more
public participation at its meetings. The sheriff and probation departments
should continue to be active to ensure the county receives its fair share of
prison realignment funding. The grand jury also recommends local governments
should restore budgets and expand police services, particularly community-oriented
and problem-oriented policing.
Juvenile Hall court school: In
2013, the school’s standardized test results showed that only 6 percent were
proficient in English and 15 percent were proficient in math. Previous years
produced similar data. The grand jury recommended that the probation officials
should work with other county agencies and community-based organizations to
develop an educational program that includes mentoring to provide a more
individualized approach.
Stanislaus County public
transit systems: The four transit authorities have differing policies,
contracts, operating procedures and ridership needs. The grand jury found these
differences have a negative impact, which is affecting ridership. Transit
authorities have previously discussed consolidation strategies, and some
authorities have completed reports with an emphasis toward partial or total
consolidation of public transit needs. The grand jury also found that all four
transit authorities are deficient in technological services. The grand jury
recommended that the county Board of Supervisors should direct the Stanislaus
Council of Governments to hire an independent professional consultant to
conduct an all-inclusive consolidation of transit services study. The transit
systems should implement technological upgrades that include automated fare
boxes, Wi-Fi, GPS tracking and phone app schedules.
June 23, 2015
The
Modesto Bee
By
Rosalio Ahumada
No comments:
Post a Comment