HomeMy WebLinkAboutCVMVC District Grand Jury Report CITY OF PALM DESERT
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
STAFF REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO COACHELLA VALLEY MOSQUITO AND VECTOR
CONTROL DISTRICT GRAND JURY REPORT.
SUBMITTED BY: John M. Wohlmuth, City Manager
DATE: May 7, 2009
CONTENTS: 1. Grand Jury Report
2. Draft Letter to the Grand Jury
RECOMMENDATION
By Minute Motion:
1. APPROVE the attached draft response to the Grand Jury's Report regarding the
Coachella Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District, or give other direction as
deemed appropriate.
BACKGROUND
The City of Palm Desert is an appointing member of the Coachella Valley Mosquito and
Vector Control District (the "DistricY'), which provides vector control and disease prevention
programs throughout the area. Mr. Douglas Walker currently acts as the City's Trustee on
the District's Board of Trustees.
On April 14, 2009, the Riverside County Grand Jury issued a report on the activities of the
District (please see attached). The Grand Jury is critical of the District's performance in
several areas including finance and personnel, among others. These issues have been
public for some time and Trustee Walker, in tandem with the Board, worked at addressing
many of the issues since his reappointment in June 2008. The District is required to
submit a complete and thorough response to the Superior Court's Presiding Judge by July
13, 2009.
Additionally, the Grand Jury's final recommendation states in part: "(A)ppointing
authorities (Riverside County and the nine cities) should develop criteria for trustee
qualification and apply more intense vetting of potential trustees prior to
appointment, thereby improving the quality of appointments to the Disfrict Board of
Trustees." It appears that the appointing cities and the County are required to respond to
this recommendation by the July 13t" deadline.
Grand Jury Report-Coachella Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District
May 7, 2009
Page 2 of 2
In response to the recommendation, the City has the following options:
(1) Respond that the recommendation has been implemented, with a summary
regarding the implemented action;
(2) Respond that the recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be
implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation;
(3) Respond that the recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation
and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the
matter to be prepared for discussion by the Council (this timeframe shall not
exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report); or
(4) Respond that the recommendations will not be implemented because it is not
warranted or reasonable, with an explanation thereof.
Staff recommends that the City Council select response number one (1) as the City of
Palm Desert currently requires an extensive public vetting process in appointing individuals
to various City Committee and Commissions. If the City Council concurs with staff's
recommendation, correspondence will be sent from the Mayor to the Grand Jury and its
presiding Judge indicating the City's position
Prepared By: Reviewed By:
, c �
v '
Ste hen . Aryan David E '
Assistant to the ' Manager City Attorney
CITY COUNCILA�'ION
Approved By: APPROVED DENiED
RECEIVED OTHER
MEETI G DAT "
AYES: '`
NOES:
Joh . Wohlmuth A13SENT: �
AIiSTAIN:
City anager VF,RIF[ED BY: 1^
Original on File with City rk's Office
* Approved the draft response to the Grand Jury's
Report regarding the Coachella Valley Mosquito and
Vector Control District. 4-1 (Ferguson NO)
G:\CityMgr\Stephen Aryan�Agenda Reports\Grand Jury Report-CVMVCD.doc
J�� o F R'��•P
*
s
�
o * rE ,� ,k o
u - ^ m
* �
�AY 9• '893 RIVERSIDE COUNTY GRAND JURY
(951)955-8990 OFFICE•(951)955-8989 FAX
April 14, 2009
Palm Desert City Council Members
Attn: John Wohimuth, City Manager
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Subject: 2008-09 Grand Jury Report: Coachella Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District
Dear Mr. Wohlmuth:
Please note that Penal Code Section 933 et seq., specifies that you respond within ninety
days. Further, it specifies that this report be kept confidentiat for a minimum of two
working days prior to public release. The contents of this report will be made pubtic after the
close of business April 16, 2009.
Sincerely,
�. /(.,z--��-�-- � ����e.�,.�,o
Nikki L. Harris, Foreperson
2008-09 Riverside County Grand Jury
NLH:gs
Attach.
P.O.BOX 829•RIVERSIDE,CALIFORNIA 92502
Requirements in Responding to Grand Jury Recommendations
Pursuant to Section 933.5 of the California Penal Code
To further clarify the requirements for the organizational responses to recommendations made by
the grand jury, the following are the applicable sections of the California Penal Code:
§933.05. Response to Grand Jury Recommendations-Content Requirements; Personal
Appearance by Responding Party; Grand Jury Report to Affected Agency.
(a) For purposes of subdivision (c) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the
responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following:
(1) The respondent agrees with the finding.
(2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which
case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed
and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore.
(b) For purposes of subdivision(c) of Section 933, as to each grand jury
recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following
actions:
(1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding
the implemented action.
(2) The recommendation has not been implemented, but will be implemented
in the future, with a timeframe for implementation.
(3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the
scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the
matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or
department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body
of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six
months from the date of publication of the grand jury report.
(4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted
or is not reasonable, with an explanation thereof.
1 t
(c) However, if a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary
or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected
officer, both the department head and the board of supervisors shall respond if
requested by the grand jury, but the response of the boaxd of supervisors shall
address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some
decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department
head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or
her agency or department.
(d) A grand jury may request a subject person or entity to come before the grand jury
for the purpose of reading and discussing the findings of the grand jury report that
relates to that person or entity in order to verify the accuracy of the findings prior
to their release.
(e) During an investigation, the grand jury shall meet with the subject of that
investigation regarding the investigation, unless the court, either on its own
determination or upon request of the foreperson of the grand jury, determines that
such a meeting would be detrimental.
(� A grand jury shall provide to the affected agency a copy of the portion of the
grand jury report relating to that person or entity two working days prior to its
public release and after the approval of the presiding judge. No officer, agency,
department, or governing body of a public agency shall disclose any contents of
the report prior to the public release of the final report. Leg.H. 1996 CH. 1170,
1997 ch. 443.
2
, (
. . . . f . -, d .._
2008-2009 GRAND JURY REPORT
Coacheila Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District
Background
The Coachella Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District (District) was
established in 1928 by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors as a special
district, primarily to control eye gnats. Over the years, the District assumed more
responsibilities, including the addition of mosquito control in 1951. By 1995 the
District had become a full-fledged vector control agency. (Vectors are defined as
insects or rodents that transmit disease.) The mission statement for the District
is to enhance the quality of life for the Coachella Valley by providing effective and
environmentally sound vector control and disease prevention programs through
research, development, and public awareness.
The District is one of five agencies providing vector control services throughout
Riverside County. (Others include the City of Riverside, City of Blythe, Northwest
Mosquito and Vector Control District, and Riverside County.) It is governed by
an eleven-member appointed Board of Trustees, including two representatives
appointed by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors and one each appointed
by the cities of Palm Springs, Desert Hot Springs, Palm Desert, Indio, Coachella,
Rancho Mirage, Cathedral City, Indian Wells, and La Quinta.
With a budget in the 2008-2009 fiscal year of approximately $10 million and an
employee force of sixty, the District provides a number of control and surveillance
activities for the residents of the Coachella Valley. Most of the District income is
generated by property taxes. These services include: red imported fire ant
control, eye gnat and fly suppression, mosquito and rodent abatement.
Findings
1. For several years the District followed an annual budget preparation
practice of minimizing expected revenue and maximizing expected
expenses, thus providing a distorted picture of each year's anticipated
results.
2. Excessive reserves were accumulated over several years. These
reserves were beyond what most special districts would require to cover
unanticipated expenditures. The District tried unsuccessfully to increase
its assessment in 2007.
�
3. In spite of repeated recommendations from outside auditors, the District
has failed to complete a financial policies and procedures manual.
4. The 1997 personnel policies and procedures manual is incomplete and
outdated. It does not reflect current labor laws, regulations, and District
personnel administration.
5. Investigation and sworn testimony from trustees and employees revealed
that the prior general manager and legal counsel together had managed
the organization in a heavy-handed and dictatorial manner, thus
contributing to the dysfunctionality of the District. The District has been
without a permanent general manager since May 2008, and the search for
a replacement has taken at least ten months. Investigation revealed that
this delay has caused much uncertainty and turmoil among the
employees.
6. An October 2007 study by the Riverside Local Agency Formation
Commission (LAFCO) recommended that the District assume vector
control responsibility for the eastern portion of Riverside County, from the
Coachella Valley to the California —Arizona state line, including the city of
Blythe.
7. Control products used in mosquito and vector suppression activities are a
large share of the DistricYs operating budget. These products are
budgeted at $2,141,000 in the 2008-2009 budget, and include
expenditures for Choice, a product under investigation by the
Environmental Protection Agency. Both trustees and management have
questioned the use of Choice.
8. (a) In all of the interviews conducted, lack of communication was a
constant theme. This lack of effective communication among trustees,
appointing bodies and the Riverside County nine cities, management,
employees, and the community was evident. This reflects a recurring
problem contributing to the dysfunctionality of the District.
(b) Sworn testimony revealed that on a regular basis, aside from an
annual outside audit, the District failed to consider viewpoints from similar
organizations, valley opinion leaders, and the community, thus resulting in
insularity of management.
(c) Sworn testimony revealed that former management discouraged
any outside consultation. As a result, the District has not utilized the
services of outside consultants on organizational structure, trustee policies
and procedures, updated personnel policies, appropriate financial
documentation and reporting, and management practices.
z
'. � i
Recommendations
Riverside County Board of Supervisors
Board of Trustees, Coachella Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District
Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission
City of Palm Springs — City Council
City of Desert Hot Springs — City Council
City of Palm Desert— City Council
Cathedral City— City Council
City of Rancho Mirage — City Council
City of Indian Wells — City Council
City of La Quinta — City Council
City of Indio — City Council
City of Coachella — City Council
1. The District should budget anticipated revenue and expenses more
realistically, within a five per cent margin, to present a more useful picture
of the financial health of the organization.
2. Reserves, both restricted and unrestricted, should be reduced.
3. A financial policies and procedures manual should be completed,
providing guidance on accounting practices, purchasing, credit card
usage, travel, expense accounts, banking, and other financial matters.
4. District personnel policies and procedures should be documented and
updated, at the earliest possible time. These revisions should be
communicated regularly to employees and updated periodically.
5. The search for a permanent general manager should be expedited.
6. A LAFCO recommendation regarding expansion of the District should be
deferred until remedial action by the District on these recommendations is
considered and completed.
7. Use of the suppression chemical called Choice should be discontinued
once the present supply is exhausted.
3
° . �
8. The District should consider retention of outside consultation on
organizational development, including but not limited to: trustee
recruitment and training; trustee policies and procedures; management
structure, systems and procedures; and most importantly, communication
among trustees, senior management, employees, and communities in the
valley. Further, appointing authorities (Riverside County and the nine
cities) should develop criteria for trustee qualification and apply more
intense vetting of potential trustees prior to appointment, thereby
improving the quality of appointments to the District Board of Trustees.
Report Issued: 04/14/09
Report Public: 04/16/09
Response Due: 07/13/09
4
May 7, 2009
Hon. Tom Cahraman, Presiding Judge
Riverside County Superior Court
4050 Main Street
Riverside, California 92501
Riverside County Grand Jury
Post Office Box 829
Riverside, California 92502
Dear Judge Cahraman and Grand Jury Members:
Re: Response to Grand Jury Report concerning the Coachella Valley Mosquito and
Vector Control District
On April 14, 2009, the Grand Jury forwarded a copy of its report regarding the
Coachella Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District (the "District") to the City of Palm
Desert.
Please be advised that the City of Palm Desert has no direct control over the
activities of the District. However, in June 2008, the City reappointed Mr. Douglas Walker
as its representative on the District Board of Trustees, a position he has held since
January 2007. Mr. Walker is an exceptional Trustee whose distinguished background
demonstrates his qualifications for this appointment. Trustee Walker has a Master of
Science Degree in Entomology, holds an Entomology teaching credential, and has thirty-
four years experience as a college professor. More importantty, Trustee Walker does an
outstanding job in keeping the City of Palm Desert fully apprised of the District's activities.
The City has absolute confidence that Trustee Walker will assist the District in
addressing all the findings and recommendations set forth in the Grand Jury Report in the
appropriate and legally required manner. Recent Board actions, including but not limited
to the selection of a new General Manager will surely address many of the issues raised
in the Report. Such action also ensures the District fulfills its mission of effective and
environmentally sound vector control and disease prevention programs through research,
development, and public awareness.
Hon. Tom Cahraman, Presiding Judge
Riverside County Grand Jury
Ma y 7, 2009
Page 2 of 2
The City noted that Recommendation #8 stated in part: "(A)ppointing authorities
(Riverside County and the nine cities) should develop criteria for trustee
qualification and app/y more intense vetting of potential trustees prior to
appointment, thereby improving the quality of appointments to the District Board
of Trustees."
The City agrees with these finding and this recommendation has been
implemented as the City already follows an extensive vetting process. When appointing
an individual as a District Trustee, the City requires the submittal of a
Committee/Commission Application. This application requires pertinent information
enabling the City to make the best qualified appointment, including educational
background, job experience, references, and a personal statement of qualifications. The
applicant is then required to obtain formal City Council action approving the appointment
at a public meeting. This public selection process enables the City to ensure quality
representation on the District Board.
If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact City Manager
John Wohlmuth at (760) 346-0611. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the
Grand Jury's recommendation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Robert A. Spiegel, Mayor
City of Palm Desert
cc: Coachella Valley Mosquito & Vector Control District (CVMVCD) Board of Trustees
Brenda B. Lathrop, Ph.D., CVMVCD General Manager
Douglas Walker, CVMVCD Trustee
Palm Desert City Council
John M. Wohlmuth, City Manager
David Erwin, City Attorney