2007-2008 GRAND JURY
The 2007-2008 Calaveras County Grand Jury approved this Final Report.
S/:_______________________________
Frank Chavez, Foreperson
Date:_____________________________
I accept this Grand Jury Report for the year 2007-2008 for filing, and certify that it complies with Title V of the California Penal Code.
S/:_______________________________
The Honorable John E. Martin
Presiding Judge of the Superior Court
Date:_____________________________
Any persons interested in receiving a copy of this 2007-2008 Grand Jury Final Report may do so by contacting the Calaveras County Administrative Office. A copy of the Final Report is available for viewing at the main Calaveras County Library in San Andreas, and at all County branch libraries.
The Final Report will be available to the public on July 1, 2008 via the local newspaper with the largest distribution in Calaveras County, and it will be published on the Grand Jury website:
http://www.co.calaveras.ca .us/departments/grand_jury.asp
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2007-2008 GRAND JURY FINAL REPORTS 1
FACTS ABOUT THE GRAND JURY SYSTEM 1
INVESTIGATION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY 4
CALAVERAS COUNTY AUDIT contract 8
E-COLI CONTAMINATION OF THE MIDDLE FORK 9
CALAVERAS COUNTY AUDIT REPORT 13
CALAVERAS COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER FACILITY 17
Vallecito Conservation Camp 21
Responses to prior Grand Jury Reports 26
NEW HOGAN ANNEXATION REPORT 2006-2007 RESPONSES 33
murphys sanitary district report 2006-2007 responses 43
MURPHYS SANITARY DISTRICT SPILL REPORT 2006-2007 RESPONSE 51
ANIMAL CONTROL REPORT 2006-2007 RESPONSE 57
Calaveras County Building Department LAND USE TRUST FUND REPORT 2006-2007 RESPONSE 59
Calaveras County General Plan update REPORT 2006-2007 RESPONSES 63
Calaveras County Development Planning Process REPORT 2006-2007 RESPONSES 67
CALAVERAS COUNTY JAIL REPORT 2006-2007 RESPONSES 72
CALAVERAS COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER FACILITY REPORT 2006-2007 RESPONSE 80
CALAVERAS COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICTS 2006-2007 RESPONSES 85
CALAVERAS COUNTY LIBRARY SYSTEM REPORT 2006-2007 RESPONSES 90
A Grand Jury is a judicial body composed of a set number of citizens. Ancient Greece exhibited the earliest concepts of the Grand Jury System. Another reference can be found during the Norman conquest of England in 1066. There is evidence that the courts of that time summoned a body of sworn neighbors to present crimes, which had come to their knowledge. In 1066, the Assize of Clarendon appears to be the beginning of the true Grand Jury system. At that time, juries were established in two types: Civil and Criminal. Toward the end of the United States Colonial Period, the Grand Jury became an important adjunct of government: Proposing new laws, protesting abuses in government, and influencing authority in their power to determine who should and should not face trial. Originally, the Constitution of the United States made no provisions for a Grand Jury. The Fifth Amendment, ratified in 1791, added this protection.
The California Constitution, Article 1, Section 23, states: “One or more Grand Juries shall be drawn and summoned once a year in each County.” In California, every county has a civil Grand Jury. Criminal Grand Juries are seated as necessary.
A civil Grand Jury’s function is to inquire into and review the conduct of county government and special districts. The Grand Jury system in California is unusual in that Federal and County Grand Juries in most states are concerned solely with criminal indictments and have no civil responsibilities.
Grand Jurors are citizens of all ages and different walks of life. Each brings their unique personality and abilities. Grand Jurors are selected from the Department of Motor Vehicles and Voter Registration files. In some counties, citizens may request to be on the Grand Jury. Jurors spend many hours researching; reading, and attending meetings to monitor county government, special districts, and oversee appointed and elected officials.
A final report is created from the many hours of fact-finding investigations conducted by the Grand Jury. This report discloses inefficiency, unfairness, wrong doings, and violations of public law and regulations in local governments. The Grand Jury makes recommendations for change, requests responses, and follows up on responses to ensure more efficient and lawful operation of government.
The Calaveras County Grand Jury is a judicial body sanctioned by the Superior Court to act as an extension of the Court and the conscience of the community. The Grand Jury is a civil, investigative body created for the protection of society and enforcement of its laws. The conduct of the Grand Jury is delineated in California Penal Code, Section 888 through Section 945.
Grand Jurors are officers of the Superior Court, but function as an independent body. One provision of the Grand Jury is its power, through the Superior Court, to aid in the prosecution of an agency or individual they have determined to be guilty of an offense against the people.
The major function of the Calaveras County Grand Jury is to examine County and City government and special districts to ensure their duties are being lawfully carried out. The Grand Jury reviews and evaluates procedures, methods, and systems utilized by these agencies to determine if more efficient and economical programs may be used for the betterment of the County’s citizens. It is authorized to inquire into charges of willful misconduct or negligence by public officials or the employees of public agencies. The Grand Jury is mandated to investigate the conditions of jails and detention centers.
The Grand Jury is authorized to inspect and audit the books, records and financial expenditures of all agencies and departments under its jurisdiction, including special districts and non-profit agencies, to ensure funds are properly accounted for and legally spent. In Calaveras County the Grand Jury must recommend an independent Certified Public Accountant to audit the financial condition of the County.
The Grand Jury receives many letters from citizens alleging government inefficiencies, mistreatment by officials, and voicing suspicions of misconduct. Anyone may ask that the Jury conduct an investigation on agencies or departments within the Grand Jury’s jurisdiction. All such requests and investigations are kept confidential.
The Grand Jury investigates the operations of governmental agencies, charges of wrongdoing within public agencies, and the performance of unlawful acts by public officials. The Grand Jury cannot investigate disputes between private parties, nor any matters in litigation.
Neither official request nor public outcry can force the Grand Jury to undertake an inquiry it deems unnecessary or frivolous.
The Final Report includes the findings and recommendations of the Grand Jury and is released to the Superior Court Judge by July 1 of each year. It is made available to the new Grand Jury, the media, the public, and government officials. It will also be available on the Grand Jury website:
http://www.co.calaveras.ca.us/departments/grand_jury.asp
Those who wish to contact the Grand Jury may do so by writing to:
Calaveras County Grand Jury
P.O. Box 1414
San Andreas CA 95249
Complaint forms may be requested by calling (209) 754-5860. The forms are available for download on the Grand Jury website and completed forms may be mailed or faxed to the Grand Jury room at (209) 754-9047.
MEMBERS OF THE 2007-2008 CALAVERAS COUNTY GRAND JURY
Frank Chavez, Foreperson
David Berkowitz, Foreperson Pro Tem
Helen Abbey Barry Griffin
Susan Atkinson Dave Hemphill
Michele Boyle Brenda Moeller
Joan Duncan Doug Montgomery
Joe Fanucchi Russell Ogren
June Foster Jim Rott
Mary Greer Ken Rubio
As the result of multiple complaints from various sources, the Grand Jury investigated the Community Development Agency (CDA).
The following people were interviewed:
All current members and one former member of the Calaveras County Board of Supervisors (BOS).
Current, interim and past County Administrative Officers.
Numerous Department Heads including the Director of the CDA.
Current employees of various County Departments.
The Grand Jury reviewed numerous documents including:
Consultants reports (CityGate Associates Inc., JAS Pacific Inc., Palmer Kazanejian Wohl Perkins LLP, and Maximus – User Fee Study).
The CDA budgets and financial records.
Job descriptions, organization charts, Calaveras County Personnel Ordinance and the Memorandum of Understanding between the County of Calaveras and the Service Employees’ International Union.
The Grand Jury also reviewed the County’s hiring practices including the process of background checks, as well as attended BOS and community town hall meetings.
Background Check - The BOS, when hiring the CDA Director (Director), failed to follow standard hiring procedures by neglecting to insist that the candidate’s qualifications and past work experience be verified and thoroughly checked.
Reporting Relationship - The BOS failed to clearly define the reporting relationship of the position and allowed the Director to circumvent the established line of supervision. The Director reported directly to the BOS with disregard for the published County organization chart.
Accountability - After establishing the Director’s direct reporting relationship to the Board, the BOS failed to hold the Director accountable and neglected to prepare any performance evaluations.
Job Qualifications - The Director, when hired by the County, lacked the technical skills and sufficient related experience to successfully perform the job. The BOS based their hiring decision on the applicant’s self-reported strong management experience. However, the Grand Jury, in the course of the investigation, could not substantiate many of the claims made on the Director’s resume and application.
The BOS hire Department Heads only after background checks and thorough verification of prior work experience are completed by Human Resources Department.
The BOS publicly restore the reporting relationship of the Director to the County Administrative Officer (CAO).
The BOS and the Director adhere to the reporting relationship as defined in the County organization chart..
The CAO develop a plan to prepare annual performance evaluations on all Department Heads.
The Director enroll in an accredited educational institution and obtains a Certified Planner Certificate.
Board of Supervisors
County Administrative Officer
Director, Human Resources
Director, Community Development Agency
Mismanagement of County Funds – Numerous outside consultants have been hired for work that could be done by CDA employees. The position of Chief Building Official is still filled by a Vali Cooper consultant and a large portion of the plan checking service is still performed by outside contractors. Due to the Director’s decisions, the CDA has spent nearly $2 million (almost half of its 2007/2008 budget) on consulting fees.
Budget Deficit - The County is currently faced with a CDA projected deficit of nearly $900,000 for fiscal year 2007-2008, the largest Planning and Building Department deficit in many years. This deficit is not entirely due to the national decline of the housing market.
Internal Audit - When the CDA’s second quarter actual budget deficit was discovered; the Director initiated an internal audit. The Director reassigned the qualified Account Technician to other duties and instructed a newly hired Permit Technician to conduct the audit and to perform the regular duties of the Account Technician.
Disregard for County Accounting Practices – The Director fails to follow the County’s accounting practices and procedures and has shown little interest in coordinating these practices with the County Auditor/Controller. This has resulted in costly accounting errors and confusion in recording various services such as Environmental Impact Report expenses and revenues within the Trust Account.
Lack of Consistency in Collecting Fees and Fines - The Director has exempted certain cases subject to code compliance fees and fines without justification, thus potentially violating Calaveras County Code, Title 8, Article IX Violations Fines and Procedures.
Hiring Incentives - The Director is the only Department Head in the County who has relied on costly hiring incentives when recruiting new Planners.
CDA Hiring Practices - The Director disregarded County hiring practices, bypassed Human Resources, and developed the CDA’s own recruiting, screening and interviewing procedures for potential hires.
Discontinue the use of outside consultants performing the jobs of salaried CDA employees.
Combine the budgets of the Planning and Building departments to reflect the existence of the CDA.
Audit the CDA’s accounts for 2007-2008 to mitigate the further occurrence of accounting errors. The audit to be performed by an independent outside accounting firm.
The Director and the County’s Auditor-Controller personally meet and review the existing accounting systems and conform to established County practices.
The Director to consistently support the enforcement of Calaveras County Codes by Code Compliance.
Justify or eliminate the need for hiring incentives for Planners.
Use Human Resources to handle all preliminary phases of recruiting, screening and interviewing of CDA applicants pursuant to current County hiring procedures.
Board of Supervisors
County Administrative Officer
County Auditor/Controller
Director, Human Resources
Director, Community Development Agency
Management Style – The Director’s management style contributes to a chaotic workplace. The Director at times exhibits confrontational behavior towards County employees and Department Heads, and at times magnifies the severity of issues, presenting the BOS with multiple emergencies.
Work Environment – CDA employees have filed numerous harassment/hostile work environment complaints. Some of the earlier complaints prompted a thorough investigation, which resulted in a directive from the BOS to have all CDA management and employees participate in a team building exercise. The team building exercise was not completed (as of this writing) and failed because the Director walked out with the executive staff in mid-session and refused to continue.
Trust –The Director frequently scrutinizes the work of employees by secretly checking files in the absence of employees. This perceived lack of trust comes at the expense of the performance of the Director’s managerial responsibilities.
Communication – The Director’s accessibility to CDA employees is inadequate, partly due to the remote location of Director’s office from the Building and Planning Departments. In addition, the Director’s mode of communication is usually verbal and often unofficial, which leads to confusion, misinterpretations and misunderstandings.
Compliance with Administrative Requirements – For the past two years the Director has not prepared or mandated the preparation of annual performance evaluations of the CDA staff.
General Plan – The complete overhaul of the General Plan, as opposed to using a step-by-step process, was influenced by the Director’s sense of urgency. However, the Director’s lack of technical planning expertise has prevented consideration of alternate ways of moving the project forward.
The BOS and the CAO evaluate the effectiveness of the CDA.
Resume and complete the team building exercise.
The Director entrust all CDA employees to perform their assigned duties with the support of their supervisors.
Communicate policy changes and directives in writing. Schedule periodic staff meetings to facilitate open communication and build trust.
The Director to be more accessible to staff and practice an open door policy.
Update Policies and Procedures manuals for both the Planning and Building Departments.
Prepare annual performance evaluations for all CDA employees.
The BOS reassess the Mintier General Plan contract to find ways to minimize consultant’s expenditures, downsize Mintier’s role in the project and manage more of it in-house.
Board of Supervisors
County Administrative Officer
Director, Community Development Agency
It came to the attention of the Grand Jury that the contract with the accounting firm of Moss, Levy & Hartzheim LLP that was ordered by the Board of Supervisors in their June 19, 2007 meeting was not completed.
In Calaveras County the Grand Jury must recommend an independent Certified Public Accountant to audit the financial condition of the County. This was done by the 2006-2007 Grand Jury and the recommendation given to the Board of Supervisors at their June 19, 2007 meeting. The Board agreed with the recommendation, voted to accept the proposal by the accounting firm of Moss, Levy & Hartzheim LLP and ordered that a contract be awarded to that firm.
The Grand Jury interviewed the County Auditor/Controller and the Principal Administrative Analyst.
The contract with Moss, Levy & Hartzheim LLP was written but never signed by an authorized Calaveras County representative and therefore never submitted to Moss, Levy & Hartzheim LLP for their signature. As a result, no accounting firm was placed under contract to audit the accounts for Calaveras County for the years 2008, 2009 and 2010. This was not discovered until April 2008.
The Calaveras County Grand Jury recommends the Board of Supervisors ensure that a system is in place to guarantee that their orders are carried out in full. If such a system is already in place, the Board of Supervisors must determine why it failed and hold the responsible people accountable.
Calaveras County Board of Supervisors
County Administrative Officer
REASON FOR INVESTIGATION Sources monitoring the Middle Fork Mokelumne River (River), located at the Tom Taylor Bridge and Highway 26 (Bridge) in West Point, continue to find above normal levels of e-coli contaminants.
PROCEDURES The Grand Jury toured both sides of the River area from Schaad’s Ranch to the Bridge in the West Point and Wilseyville areas; and also toured the West Point Waste Water Treatment Plant and Wilseyville Solid Waste Treatment Plant.
Interviews were conducted with:
Calaveras County Supervisor, District 2
Calaveras County Director of Department of Environmental Health (DEH)
Director, District 2 Calaveras County Water District (CCWD)
Independent Aquatic Resource Specialist.
In addition, two reports by the Upper Mokelumne River Watershed Authority were reviewed: Upper Mokelumne River Watershed Assessment and Planning Project, Septic System Management Program, December 2007; and the Upper Mokelumne River Watershed Assessment and Planning Project, December 2007.
RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION FINDING 1 Regular monitoring of the water quality at the Bridge in West Point, by various members of the Upper Mokelumne Watershed Authority, consistently reveals above normal levels of e-coli bacterial contaminants. These levels exceed those detected at current monitoring sites further upstream.
RECOMMENDATION The DEH conduct quarterly testing of the River to obtain the latest water contamination readings and monitor for potential public health hazards.
RESPONSE REQUESTED Director, Department of Environmental Health
County Administrative Officer
FINDING 2 Septic tanks and leach lines, on numerous parcels in the vicinity of the Barney Way and Charles Street area, are located at or near water level along the River just upstream from the Bridge in West Point. The Bridge site also receives drainage from nearby culverts and rainwater runoff from Highway 26.
RECOMMENDATION If tests confirm above normal e-coli contamination, more source identification techniques and monitoring sites will be needed. The DEH to communicate at least quarterly with other groups involved in monitoring water quality of the River.
RESPONSE REQUESTED Director, Department of Environmental Health
FINDING 3 Many of the approximately 60 developed parcels, in the vicinity of the Barney Way and Charles Street areas that surround the River, have gone from part-time seasonal use to full-time occupancy in recent years. In addition, there are currently no mandated septic tank cleaning and inspection requirements for Calaveras County parcel owners.
RECOMMENDATION The BOS direct the DEH to develop an educational outreach program to work with volunteer service groups out in local communities as a first step in educating parcel owners and residents about water quality and good septic maintenance practices. The BOS and Department of Environmental Health establish requirements for future periodic septic tank maintenance and inspection.
RESPONSE REQUESTED Board of Supervisors Director, Department of Environmental Health
County Administrative Officer
FINDING 4 The Grand Jury recognizes there are no quick or inexpensive fixes to completely remedy the septic tank and leach line problems that appear to at least partially contribute to the e-coli contamination along the identified section of the River. The financial impact on local parcel owners, without help from grants or other creative financing options, would be very costly. In addition, the West Point Waste Water Treatment Plant and Wilseyville Solid Waste Treatment Plants are located close-by.
RECOMMENDATION To improve the water quality in this area, the Grand Jury recommends the BOS direct the DEH to collaborate with East Bay Municipal Utility District (East Bay MUD) Up-Country Water Quality officials, the California State Regulatory Water Quality Control Board in Sacramento, Calaveras County Government, CCWD and other appropriate agencies, to seek funding for short and long-term solutions for water quality improvements. Funding to provide: community education, standardized testing methods, regular water monitoring and clean-up, including possible engineered septic systems and/or possible connections to a sewage delivery system that links to the nearby West Point Waste Water Treatment Plant and the Wilseyville Solid Waste Treatment Plant.
RESPONSE REQUESTED Board of Supervisors Director, Department of Environmental Health Director, District 2 Calaveras County Water District
County Administrative Officer
FINDING 5 The Bridge area has become an informal recreational site where people congregate for swimming, fishing and other water related activities. In addition, East Bay MUD also treats and stores these waters downstream for use by its Bay Area customers.
RECOMMENDATION The BOS direct the DEH to install portable toilets and refuse containers in the area of the Bridge, as well as place additional signage that identifies County Rivers and contributory streams as part of the Upper Mokelumne Watershed Area. Department of Environmental Health to post signs at recreational water sites where above normal levels of e-coli exists.
RESPONSE REQUESTED Board of Supervisors Director, Department of Environmental Health
County Administrative Officer
Section 925 of the California Penal Code states “The Grand Jury shall investigate and report on the operations, accounts, and records of the officers, departments, or functions of the county….”
The accounting firm of Bartig, Basler, & Ray (BB&R) was under contract to examine the financial statements of Calaveras County (County) and provide an opinion on the accuracy and reliability of these financial statements for the year ended June 30, 2007. As a normal function of this audit BB&R submitted the County of Calaveras Management Report for the Year Ended June 30, 2007 (Management Report) to all county departments. The departments reviewed with findings and recommendations have 60 days to respond prior to the final publication of the Management Report. The Grand Jury reviewed the Management Report along with the County’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2007. We interviewed the Auditor-Controller and staff, Human Resources staff, the Assistant CAO, and the Chief Probation Officer to verify findings and recommendations.
Audit Findings and Recommendations
Auditor-Controller
Timeliness of the Annual Financial Report
BB&R noted a significant delay in preparing the County’s annual financial statements and note disclosures. The report noted that this is due to an understaffed County accounting department. The staff responsible for the County’s financial reporting also has other accounting responsibilities that often take precedence over their financial reporting duties. BB&R recommends hiring additional accounting staff so that those responsible for financial reporting will have more available time.
Management Response
The Auditor-Controller concurs with the recommendation. A formal strategic plan for reorganization of the department was presented to the County Board of Supervisors on April 10, 2007. The plan detailed the excessive workload growth in their department over the last ten years without the benefit of additional staffing. Special District claims rose 317% while the countywide rate increased 145%.
The 2006-2007 Grand Jury recommended, “…the Auditor-Controller recruit and retain additional qualified staff to more efficiently manage the workload.” The 2007-2008 Grand Jury realizes the staffing shortage continues to exist, and again, recommends hiring additional staff.
Board of Supervisors
Auditor-Controller
Human Resources
File Maintenance
BB&R cited incomplete personnel files and inconsistent documentation dealing with cost of living increases and personnel action forms with longevity increases. The effect of which is the cause for errors and inefficiencies in payroll processing. The report recommended an improved effort to maintain complete files for each employee in accordance with County policy.
Management Response
The Human Resources department does not agree with BB&R’s findings. Processes for cost of living increases have evolved over the years with changing business practices. Therefore, when reviewing County personnel files it may be necessary to locate several different processes that were utilized for cost of living raises. Longevity increases are recorded on the Personnel Action Forms as a matter of County policy. Also, during this review period, the auditors did not review or look at a single personnel file. So, it is unclear to Human Resources what and where they obtained the specific information to formulate their report findings.
BB&R, the Auditor-Controller, and Human Resources should review this finding and reach an agreement on the content of the personnel files.
BB&R
Auditor-Controller
Director, Human Resources
Probation
Segregation of Duties over Accounts Receivable and Cash Receipts
BB&R noted that two individuals in this department have access to adjust and manage accounts receivable, receive payments and prepare invoices. The lack of strong internal controls over preparation of receipts and accounts receivable increases the risk of misappropriation without timely detection by management. The report recommends the functions of preparing invoices, collecting payments and maintaining the accounts receivable ledger be separated.
Management Response
Management has changed this process to be in line with the recommendation. The implementation of JustWare, a case management software system, has also helped with the separation of duties. A move to new facilities in June will create physical separation of the employees who manage the cash receipts and set up the accounts receivable.
The Grand Jury has verified management’s response. No additional response is required.
Single Audit
Single Audit Compliance Requirements Generally
BB&R noted that many local governments are not aware of the new requirement of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-133 Compliance Supplement regarding suspension and debarment of a non-federal entity when entered into a federally funded transaction, which equals or exceeds $25,000. Prior to this change the transaction could equal or exceed $100,000. The Report noted the County does not have a procedure in place to verify that large vendors are not suspended or debarred. BB&R recommended the County implement procedures, which require federally funded transactions of $25,000 or more, be checked to determine if the vendor has been suspended or debarred. The federal government can disqualify any transaction and reject the claim for federal funds when the underlying transaction was with a suspended or debarred individual or entity.
Management Response
Management concurred with and implemented BB&R’s request to update County Purchasing Policy and Procedures (CPP&P) to include the requirement that any contract with a sub recipient or an amount equaling or exceeding $25,000 will be checked by the department seeking the contract by accessing the Excluded Parties List System at www.epls.gov. Current CPP&P require the County Administrator’s (CAO) approval of all contracts in excess of $10,000. The CAO will verify that this requirement is met before signing any contract equal to or in excess of $25,000.
A packet including the changes was to be submitted to the Board of Supervisors on May 22, 2008. When approved, the CPP&P will be revised showing the new OMB A-133 requirement.
The Grand Jury recommends that the CAO inform the Grand Jury upon approval of the revision by the Board of Supervisors and submit a copy of the CPP&P to the Grand Jury when it has been revised.
County Administrative Officer
The 2007-2008 Grand Jury continues to assess the condition of the facility, animal health and welfare, safety, and overall operation of the animal shelter
The Calaveras County sheriff has the responsibility and accountability for the management and daily operation of the county Animal Control Department. The Board of Supervisors has the task of ensuring the fiscal resources are available.
A veterinarian consultant is contracted to ensure the animals confined within the shelter are properly sheltered and provided with medical care. The veterinarian also evaluates the health of the animals and recommends the steps necessary for the proper care of the animals.
Members of the Grand Jury conducted an inspection and tour of the animal services facility. Members of the staff were interviewed.
The current animal shelter is too small and outdated for the housing of animals for Calaveras County.
In 2006 a special audit recommended a facility upgrade, which remains unresolved. A proposed plan submitted by Nacht & Lewis Architects to the county administrator includes acquisition of space and construction of a new animal shelter. A timeline has not been set for implementation, and funding still remains unresolved by the Board of Supervisors.
The Grand Jury recommends the sheriff develop, and the Board of Supervisors approve, a plan for a new animal shelter with a specific timeline. The Board of Supervisors needs to allocate the necessary funding.
Calaveras County Board of Supervisors
Calaveras County Sheriff
The 2007-2008 Grand Jury determined the investigation of Murphys Sanitary District (MSD) should be continued from the prior year upon the recommendation of the 2006-2007 Grand Jury. Serious issues affecting the district had yet to be completely resolved.
The Grand Jury interviewed the district management, plant operator and the President of the Board of Directors of MSD. Relevant documents were requested and reviewed. A site visit was made to the wastewater treatment plant in Murphys.
A least one "Will Serve" letter was issued to allow a development of approximately 40 homes to be connected to the MSD sanitary sewer system. Since the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and the Notice of Violation (NoV) received from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB) indicates that the system is already at capacity, the Grand Jury (GJ) questions the decision to allow more sewer connections. The GJ understands that MSD and Hay Station Ranch have received new or revised Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) from the CRWQCB, but MSD still lacks a signed agreement with Hay Station Ranch that reflects the new or updated WDR's in which case MSD is still operating under the old agreement. This agreement does not allow MSD to meet the Pond 4 freeboard requirement.
No more connections should be allowed until MSD has a signed agreement with Hay Station Ranch that reflects what is allowed in the WDR's.
Murphy's Sanitary District Board of Directors
Murphy's Sanitary District Manager
The wastewater treatment plant was upgraded in 2002-2003 at a cost to the district of about $400,000.00. The GJ has not been able to find any documentation that specified to the district engineer what was the required outcome expected for the upgrade. A report prepared in March 2007 by the independent engineering firm of Brown and Caldwell said that the upgrade was "apparently intended" to allow the MSD to produce Title 22 tertiary effluent. The plant, in its’ present state, is only capable of continuously producing Title 22 disinfected secondary effluent. It is difficult to determine what the district actually intended to build, without producing a written document, specifying to the engineering firm that designed the upgrade, exactly what MSD desired.
At almost every regular board meeting, the Board of Directors goes into closed session to discuss pending or possible litigation. The GJ understands that the litigation would be against the firm that designed the upgrade. As of the time this report was written, no litigation has been filed.
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board take responsibility for their wastewater plant upgrade. A decision needs to be made now, whether to fix the plant or find another solution to produce tertiary effluent wastewater. This decision has been debated by the Board for a few years and needs immediate resolution.
Murphys Sanitary District Board of Directors
The Grand Jury finds that little or no progress has been made on obtaining additional sources of discharge. Dependency upon a single source of discharge is a very risky proposition. Even if the District finds an alternate source of discharge, it could take over a year before discharge can begin. This problem has been known and studied for a number of years without being resolved.
The District should immediately find an alternate source for discharge of an appreciable amount of effluent.
Murphy's Sanitary District Board of Directors
The district received a Notice of Violation (NoV) from the CRWQCB in January 2007 identifying violations from the 2005/2006 inspection report. Although the District has filed responses to the NoV as required by the CRWQCB, little has been done, by MSD, to address the issues that caused the violations in the first place. The two major projects that will address the problems are:
Expansion of Pond 4
Increase in allowable discharge amount.
The district has indicated that they are waiting to begin the expansion of Pond 4 until it can be emptied. According to MSD, this depends upon the weather and the amount of effluent they can discharge. Increasing the amount of discharge depends upon the agreement with Hay Station Ranch, previously addressed in Finding 1.
No more connections should be allowed until MSD has a signed agreement with Hay Station Ranch that reflects what is allowed in the WDR's, and Pond 4 has been expanded to meet the requirements for a 100-year storm event.
Murphy's Sanitary District Board of Directors
In accordance with Penal Code Section 919(b), the Grand Jury shall inquire into the condition and management of public prisons within the county.
The Vallecito Conservation Camp (VCC) opened in Angels Camp in 1958 under the direction of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations Conservation Camp Program (CDCR). Through this and 42 other like facilities the CDCR provides California with an able-bodied, well-trained, and well equipped workforce for fire suppression and other State emergencies. CDCR inmates risk their lives to fight wildfires while taking advantage of positive rehabilitation programs. This program plays an integral role in California’s statewide wildfire response.
The CDCR manages VCC jointly with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). These crews perform a vital service that benefits Californians as well as state, federal, county and local government agencies. The crews work many hours per year fighting wild fires and responding to floods, earthquakes, and assisting in search and rescue missions.
When not responding to emergencies, additional hours are logged working on conservation projects on public lands and other community service projects. Fire crews clean up campgrounds, beaches, and parks, and provide labor for weed abatement as well as other projects that help reduce the risk of wildfires and disasters.
VCC and CDCR fire camp staff also benefit communities when they are not fighting wildfires, by participating in presentations to schools and juvenile group homes to encourage young people to avoid drugs and alcohol.
There are 42 Adult and two Divisions of Juvenile Justice Conservation Camps statewide. The program is estimated to save the state of California more than $80 million annually that otherwise would be paid to accomplish the same tasks.
Because the VCC is jointly operated by CAL FIRE and CDCR, we focused on the condition of the camp and its security measures. The grand jury met with CDCR prison officials from Sierra Conservation Center, CAL FIRE staff, the VCC staff and inmates. A physical inspection of the Camp was conducted, which included inmate quarters, workshop, kitchen, mess hall, and the recreation areas. Lunch was prepared and served by inmates.
The Grand Jury found the overall condition of VCC to be well maintained. The VCC houses only low risk inmates. Security measures are appropriate for this level of confinement.
The VCC is fully funded by the State.
None
In accordance with Penal Code Section 919 (b), the 2007-2008 Grand Jury shall inquire into the condition and management of public prisons within the county.
The scope of the investigation focused primarily on the jail, condition of confinement, daily operation, staffing, and the safety and security of staff and inmates.
The Grand Jury conducted a physical inspection of the Calaveras County jail, located in the Government Center adjacent to the Calaveras County Superior Court in San Andreas. The Grand Jury observed the performance of duties by staff, the inmate’s cells as well as the physical condition of the facility.
The Calaveras County Undersheriff, the jail commander, support staff, and custodial staff were interviewed. The Board of Corrections 2004/06 Biennial Inspection Report, the Local Detention Facility Health Inspection Report, the Office of the State Fire Marshal Inspection Report, the Globus Electric, Inc. Report, as well as the inmate grievances and complaints and the responses to them were reviewed. The 2006/2007 Calaveras County Grand Jury final report was also reviewed.
The jail itself continues to be inadequate and obsolete due to the increase in crime and the age of the building. The jail was constructed in the early 1960’s to incarcerate an inmate population of 47. The crime rate of Calaveras County continues to grow at a rapid pace, with no expansion feasible within the existing jail structure. A court order mandates the capacity of the jail not to exceed 65 inmates. As a result, the sheriff frequently must initiate, and the inmates knowingly take advantage of, the early release program in order to make room for new prisoners. This becomes a public safety issue as some inmates bypass drug or other treatment programs because they will probably be released from jail early under the current system.
This adult jail facility continues to be the only jail within the county serving the Sheriff’s Department, the City of Angels Police Department, as well as the local arrests initiated by the California Highway Patrol, Department of Fish and Game, and other State and Federal agencies as needed.
The Grand Jury found the conditions of confinement under Federal, State and local laws, for the most part, are being met. However, since inmate recreation is provided via the enclosed recreation yard, writing materials, television, and library books, monitoring these activities has resulted in the utilization of additional deputy support from the field to meet the compliance regulations. This provision of additional deputy support to maintain inmate control does negatively impact the police response in the community by having less law enforcement officers available.
The outer perimeter of the jail continues to constitute a security and safety issue. There are no secure areas outside the jail where the inmates are moved between vehicles, the Court House or the jail itself.
Security and safety issues still exist due to the physical layout of the jail. Blind spots hamper officers from visible observations of inmate and staff movement in certain locations within the jail. Other locations would not provide an entrance or exit route in an emergency situation should a fire erupt or during an inmate related disturbance. Most doors are only 24 inches wide, which do not meet current California building codes.
The jail has not been able to comply with the American Disabilities Act due to cost and restructuring of the building. One option mentioned was to turn the two (men and women) rest rooms in the front of the building into one for use by both men and women.
Additional manpower is required to monitor inmates arrested for substance abuse offenses; this restricts staff from monitoring the remainder of the inmates.
Supplies and storage items lined the hallways making it difficult to pass without obstruction.
On September 1, 2007 a rainstorm hit San Andreas causing a power outage. The jail is normally equipped with a back up generator to handle this type of emergency. On this occasion the lights flickered and the generator failed causing damages to and loss of major electronics and equipment. These damages included disabling the 911 emergency call system, which is housed within the jail building.
Inspection by a Sacramento electrical corporation revealed that with the existing connections, the electrical system has the potential for over-heating and complete failure. The backup generator is antiquated and is not equipped with protective devices to prevent it from shutting down when there are power irregularities.
Damages are estimated at over $45, 000.00 to date.
The Grand Jury recommends Calaveras County build a new jail. The Sheriff must continue to submit Federal and State grant requests to assist in this effort. The Board of Supervisors must present a complete funding plan to be released to the public by December 1, 2007.
Calaveras County Board of Supervisors
Calaveras County Sheriff
The 2007/2008 Grand Jury agrees, with past Grand Jury findings, that the only viable solution is to construct a new jail. A proposal in the form of an architectural program and conceptual design for an adult detention facility and sheriff’s administration building has been submitted to the Calaveras County Board of Supervisors. This proposal provides for the construction of a 240-bed adult detention facility, a new sheriff’s administration building, and the associated site development.
The Sheriff has submitted requests for grants at the Federal and State level to offset the major cost of constructing a new jail.
Each year, the Grand Jury is charged with monitoring and reporting on responses received from agencies and public officials as a result of the previous year’s recommendations and requests for response.
All respondents are provided specific criteria to follow when responding to the Grand Jury. Penal Code Section 933(c) provides requirements for response to the Grand Jury Final Report. The governing body of any public agency must respond within 90 days. The response must be addressed to the presiding Judge of the Superior Court. All elected officers or heads of agencies that are required to respond must to so within 60 days to the presiding Judge of the Superior Court with and information copy provided to the Board of Supervisors. These responses are subsequently forwarded to the current year’s Grand Jury for review and follow-up.
The following is a detailed account of the follow-up completed by this year’s Grand Jury as directed result of previous Grand Jury’s requests for response.
A final report containing current investigations will be issued by this Grand Jury at the end of its term, June 30, 2007.
An investigation of the Foothill Fire Protection District (FFPD) was initiated by the 2005-2006 Grand Jury from citizen complaints and carried over by the 2006-2007 Grand Jury. The carryover investigation was expanded to include all phases of district operations, with an emphasis on administrative functions and completion of the new fire station in Burson (Station #1).
FFPD board meetings were attended. The FFPD Board Chairman and interim Chief were interviewed. County Council, Calaveras County Auditor/Controller, Planning and Building Department were consulted. Documents and plans were reviewed and site visits made.
The new fire station at Burson has yet to be completed. The planning and procurement process has raised the following questions:
The district’s original cost and scheduling plan is outdated and needs to be revised to reflect current conditions and costs. This has resulted in a disorganized approach to building the new station.
The fragmented process of letting bids for construction raises questions about bidding and final cost estimates. The bidding process should comply with the Public Contract Code. Because of pervasive ambiguities throughout the bidding process, many of the district’s contractual rights may have been waived or diminished. (Civil Code §1654)
The Grand Jury recommends FFPD write a complete, updated cost and scheduling plan, which would allow the district board, staff, general contractor, sub-contractors, building department, and the public to be fully informed when discussing each remaining phase of building Station #1.
The District understands and will consider the recommendations. In response, the following information is provided for the Grand Jury's consideration.
Station No. 1 at Burson is in the final stages of completion. A temporary occupancy permit has been granted by Calaveras County. Completion of the parking lot and landscaping are expected to occur within the next few weeks. Equipment and personnel now respond from that location. Issues raised earlier in the year have been addressed.
The District consulted with Calaveras County Counsel on clarification of bidding procedures as they apply to independent special districts.
The Grand Jury determines this response is adequate.
While planning, bidding, and building Station #1 in Burson, the district failed to follow the Public Contract Code (PCC) regarding proper procedure for soliciting and posting of construction contract bids (PCC § 20813). In addition, provisions requiring analysis of the project impact on the environment as required in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) were not followed (Public Resources Code § 21000). Noncollusion Certificates were not submitted nor executed as required under § 7106 of the PCC. Public construction contracts generally include indemnification requirements (PCC § 20103.6) and the securing of performance and payment bonds (Civil Code § 2819). FFPD did not include indemnification requirements in any of the contracts executed and did not secure any performance or payment bonds.
Recommendation
The Grand Jury recommends that FFPD comply with the Public Contract Code while finishing the construction of Station #1 and with any future construction projects.
Response FROM FFPD
The District understands and will consider the recommendations. In response, the following information is provided for the Grand Jury's consideration.
The District endeavors to adhere to relevant codes and laws in all its undertakings, and has consulted with Calaveras County Counsel within the last six months for clarification of the bidding process and relevant procedures as they apply to independent special districts.
The Grand Jury determines this response is adequate.
The Grand Jury found the following administrative deficiencies:
An incomplete policies and procedures manual.
No comprehensive training plan.
No existing comprehensive long-range plan.
No Fire Chief
The Grand Jury recommends the district complete and implement the following:
An updated policy and procedures manual.
A comprehensive fire fighter training plan. This training plan should establish goals for the number of personnel recommended at various training levels and skills plus how to achieve these goals by December 2007.
A long-term plan, which should include short and long term elements. This is critical to establishing funding levels, equipment needs, staff requirements, and apparatus replacement to meet infrastructure requirements of FFPD by December 2007. In addition, the District’s long-term plan should take into account, and coordinate with, the Calaveras County General Plan update.
Hire a Fire Chief.
The District understands and will consider the recommendations. In response, the following information is provided for the Grand Jury's consideration.
Policies and procedures manuals are continually being updated.
The District's training plan has been implemented, and new training programs have been set in place.
The board of directors has been working on a long-range planning document for some time. Completion of Station Non 1 in Burson has been a priority project in those plans. As the area continues to grow the District's plan will be expanded to include consideration of changes in growth patterns and public safety service needs.
A permanent fire chief has been in place for several months.
The Grand Jury determines this response is adequate.
Finding 4
Station 2 is not only inadequate to house equipment and administration, but does not appear to meet county building code standards. In a site visit it was noted that a major portion of a cinder block wall was removed for a vehicle pass-through with no header and post bracing. The Grand Jury could find no record of a permit being issued to have this wall removed. This may constitute a safety hazard to the people working in the building and the public attending meetings. Further investigation revealed the initial permits for expansion of the building have not received final approval.
The Grand Jury recommends Station #2 be inspected by a licensed engineer. A signoff by the County Building Department must be obtained.
The District understands and will consider the recommendations. In response, the following information is provided for the Grand Jury's consideration.
The District does not own the building or land where Station No. 2 is located. The District understands there may be some issues with the building owned by the Valley Springs Utility District, which the Districts leases from. .
The Calaveras Building Dept. has been contacted and changes are in progress.
The Grand Jury determines this response is adequate.
The Community Development Agency's (CDA) Building Department conducted an inspection of the building on July 31,2007. The following were present at the inspection: Acting Deputy Director-Building Jeff White; Interim Chief Building Official Michael Rodriguez; FFPD Board Members Gary West and Wayne Fry; and Fire Chief Michael Silago. During the inspection, the Building Department verified that a portion of the wall had been modified to allow for vehicle pass-through, although this work apparently was done a number of years ago. The FFPD has agreed to obtain a building permit for this modification, as well as for several other minor corrections needed that were identified by agency staff during the inspection. CDA's onsite senior plans examiner/ engineer will be assigned to follow up with District personnel to ensure the timely issuance of the permit.
The Grand Jury determines this response is adequate.
Finding 5
FFPD is shorthanded of volunteer fire fighters. Currently there is an insufficient number of drivers with a Class B drivers license required to operate four of the larger fire apparatus.
Recommendation
The Grand Jury recommends the district develop a recruitment and retention program with specific skills and certifications.
Response FROM FFPD Board of Directors
The District understands and will consider the recommendations. In response, the following information is provided for the Grand Jury's consideration.
The District currently has a full complement of qualified volunteers, almost half of which are current or past employees of other fire agencies and are qualified Class B equipment drivers. The District now has certified licensed B Class drivers/instructors on staff. The District has also established a waiting list for volunteers who wish to join the fire department. This is a major change from the district status of two years ago when it was managed by previous personnel. The District's recruitment program is fully implemented.
The Grand Jury determines this response is adequate.
Finding 6
Management and building deficiencies within the district have been exacerbated by lack of funding. Without a full time fire chief, there has been a legacy of last minute planning and personnel problems. A shoestring approach to the completion of the much-needed new Station #1 has contributed to the district’s existing problems.
How well the district will serve its current and future residents will depend on the implementation of long range fiscal planning now. Although planned development and assessed valuation increases within the district can answer some of the district financial shortcomings, there may not be sufficient increases in funding for the district to catch up with projected growth and infrastructure requirements.
Recommendation
The Grand Jury recommends Foothill Fire Protection District immediately draft a financial strategic plan to meet its current and future needs, possibly by means of tax provisions afforded to special fire protection districts. An innovative approach to resolving the continuing funding issues needs to be studied, adopted, and presented to district voters.
Response FROM FFPD Board of Directors
The District understands and will consider the recommendations. In response, the following information is provided for the Grand Jury's consideration.
Prior issues regarding personnel management and building deficiencies were the result of inadequate training and assumption of responsibility by District staff during that period. Major changes in staffing over the past two years have resulted in the development of a highly trained, professional staff assuming the responsibilities of day-to-day operations. A strong cadre of trained team players now represents the District in all its public activities, including fire protection and emergency response incidents.
The District works diligently with current and proposed development projects to assure that public safety needs are addressed, and that the District and its constituents are positively impacted by requiring developments to pay their fair share in exchange for bringing new service needs into the District.
The District continues to research and develop funding sources as an alternative to requesting an increase in taxes from the public. It will continue do so far in advance of examining any proposal for an increased fire tax. The district holds a good reserve within its budget, and manages its budget very conservatively.
Should an increase in the fire tax eventually be deemed necessary by the public and the District, such a proposal will involve full participation by the public served within the District, and will be thoroughly thought out and presented for consideration.
The Grand Jury determines this response is adequate.
A development, Valley Springs Estates, was proposed for annexation to the New Hogan Lake County Fire Protection Area. This raised the question of which fire protection district would provide fire protection. The County Planning Department referred the issue to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) for a determination.
The 2006-2007 Grand Jury interviewed the LAFCO Executive Officer, Foothill (FFPD) and Jenny Lind (JLFPD) fire protection district administrative officers, and conducted a site tour. The LAFCO Municipal Service Review for fire protection districts was reviewed. The “Fire and Emergency Response Services in the New Hogan Lake Area” report, ordered by LAFCO, was reviewed. A review of County Planning and Building department records for the area was reviewed. County tax records were reviewed and the office of Auditor-Controller was interviewed.
results of investigation
finding 1
LAFCO designated the New Hogan area to be within the FFPD sphere of influence in 2000 when the County Fire Department was divided into the existing special fire protection districts. Annexation of the New Hogan area was requested by FFPD in 2006 and a waiver of LAFCO fees for this process was requested when development of a small portion of the area began. LAFCO fees were originally waived for all of the newly formed districts at the time of formation in 2000. However, in 2006, LAFCO refused to waive the $2000 annexation fee for FFPD due to the delay in completing the process as originally planned.
The fire protection portions of county property taxes from the New Hogan area have been going to FFPD. Fire protection for New Hogan area development is being provided and not in question. Annexation of the area, however, has not been completed.
Finding 3
There is no financial incentive for annexation of New Hogan or other comparable areas by any special districts, until there is a buildup of a significant portion of the area. Development would then increase a special district’s portion of the assessed valuation. It is too late for needed infrastructure planning once there is a significant buildup of an area. Although annexation, then, becomes a financial reward, it does not assure that planning for critical infrastructure will occur.
The 2006-2007 Calaveras County Grand Jury recommends the Calaveras County LAFCO reconsider its procedure for annexation of the New Hogan area and other comparable areas. Either FFPD or JLFPD or both could logistically serve portions of the New Hogan area. Since FFPD has the equipment and is logistically better situated for protection at the New Hogan Dam area, it would best serve that portion of the area. However, the western portion accessed via Milton Road does not appear to logistically fit with FFPD. FFPD would literally have to drive past the JLFPD station on Milton Road to access any development or medical emergency in the area. JLFPD has within its sphere of influence the Rock Creek area, accessed via Milton Road. The County Planning Department already has a development request for this area.
The county and future residents of the un-annexed areas would be better served if LAFCO required immediate incorporation of all un-annexed areas into a fire protection district. If this does not happen, as a significant increase in density of a portion of an un-annexed area occurs, LAFCO should demand immediate annexation by the most appropriate fire protection district.
Either remedy would force fire protection districts into the planning process and better assure infrastructure needs be assessed before development can detrimentally impact an area due to a lack of critical planning review. Further, the annexation of an area could then be funded by the development rather than by a district and its current taxpayers.
There are additional un-annexed sphere of influence areas within the county.
Since the county has relinquished its long-term fire protection infrastructure planning to the various districts, it is incumbent on these special districts to plan for growth in their areas and to annex their areas when appropriate. County and special district planning must be coordinated to assure infrastructure requirements are planned for and implemented with growth.
RESPONSE FROM Planning Department
New Hogan Annexation: Although the Community Development Agency (CDA) does not have jurisdiction over fire and other special districts, it agrees long-term planning relative to infrastructure needs for the provision of these services is essential. This topic will be discussed during the general plan update process; in the interim, fire and other districts are solicited for comments relative to each land development project, and are invited to participate in applicable Technical Advisory Committee meetings. Additionally, whenever a LAFCO issue is identified during the review process, the Planning Department refers the applicant to the LAFCO for information, and if appropriate, processing of an annexation request.