Calaveras County 2001-2002 - California Grand Jury Reports

June 26, 2002 — Calaveras Countygrandjury May22,2002 TheHonorableJohnE.Martin Calaveras CountySuperiorCourt

53 pages 8 findings 8 recommendations

Findings & Recommendations 8 findings

F1: TheAirport Manageris urgedtoaggressivelymarket herplans foranewaccess roadand additional hangarspace.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: TheAuditor/Controller’s Officeis urgedtoreport totheGrandJurytheirprogress withthe implementationofGASB34. RESPONSES REQUIRED: Auditor/Controller’s Office 9 C. TEETERPLAN REASONFOR INVESTIGATION: TheCopperopolis FireProtectionDistrict has refusedtoaccept therecommendationofboththe GrandJuryandAuditor/Controller’s Officethat CFPDadopt theTeeterPlan. BACKGROUND: UndertheTeeterPlan,theCountyAudit Department advances eachlocal special district thetotal amount ofpropertytax revenues it is entitledtoreceive. Theparticipatinglocal governmental entities will thenhaveaconsistent,predictablecashflowandareabletobudget accuratelysince revenues arenot restrictedtoactual collections. Thecountygovernment keeps anylate payments alongwiththeirpenaltyamounts. SCOPE: Underthis methodoftax apportionment (TeeterPlan),thecountycurrentlyapportions taxes on anaccrual basis threetimes a year: 55%inDecemberand40%inApril withthebalancedue June30. PROCEDURE: Extensiveinterviews wereconducted withtheCalaveras CountyAuditor/Controller’s Office alongwithreviewofmaterial containedinthe Auditor/ControllerDepartment’s special district meetings ofMay8,2001,thetaxingjurisdictionmeetingofJune28,2001,andtheCFPDspecial boardmeetingofMarch 21,2001. Duringthese meetings,the advantages oftheTeeterPlan werepresentedindetail. Members oftheCFPDBoardofDirectors were present at all meetings. FINDINGS: Thedistinct advantages oftheTeeterPlanwerepresentedindetail several times totheCFPD. All othercountyfiredistricts haveacceptedtheTeeterPlanas a reasonable waytomanagetheir monies. Copperopolis is theonlydistrict,fireorotherwise,choosingtodo business differently.

F2: Safetyissues as theyimpact vehiculartrafficintheAirport OperatingAreas shouldbe addressedbyCalaveras County,includingpossiblecountyordinances and funding.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: Onceagain,theGrandJurybelieves theCopperopolis FireProtectionDistrict shouldadopt the TeeterPlanfortax apportionment. RESPONSES REQUIRED: Copperopolis FireProtectionDistrict 10 EDUCATION AND LIBRARY SUBJECT: REVIEWOFSALARIES ANDEXPENSES OFCALAVERAS COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENTS,SCHOOL DISTRICT FUNDING,ANDTHE ROLE OFTHE CALAVERAS COUNTYOFFICE OFEDUCATION REASONFOR REVIEW: Pursuant toCaliforniaStateAttorneyGeneral (AG)OpinionNo.95-113, datedSeptember13, 1995,agrandjurymayinvestigate andreportuponthemannerinwhich a school district performs its duties andfunctions. This opinionwas predicatedupon a1965 CaliforniaAG opinionwhichconcluded that aschool district is a“special purposeassessingandtaxingdistrict” andtherefore falls withintheterms ofCaliforniaPenal Codesection933.5, therebygivinggrand juries oversight andinvestigativeauthorityovertheperformanceofschool district activities. Each year,theCalaveras CountyGrandJuryexamines countyandcitygovernment andspecial districts toensuretheirduties arebeinglawfullycarriedout. The GrandJuryreviews and evaluates procedures,methods,andsystems utilizedbytheseagencies todetermineifmore efficient and/oreconomical programs maybeusedforthebetterment ofthecountyandits citizens. TheGrandJuryis authorizedtoinspect andaudit thebooks,records,andfinancial expenditures ofall agencies anddepartments under its jurisdiction,includingspecial districts and non-profit agencies,toensurethat funds areproperlyaccountedforandlegallyspent. This reviewwas not promptedbyanycitizenorgovernmental complaint. At thetimeofthis review,the2001-2002GrandJuryhadnot receivedanycomplaints regardingschool districts or school district personnel. BACKGROUND: Calaveras Countyhas fourschool districts (approximatestudent populations inparentheses): Calaveras UnifiedSchool District (4,000),VallecitoUnionSchool District (1,030),Bret Harte UnionHighSchool District (960),andMarkTwainUnionElementarySchool District (758). In theremainderofthis report,thesedistricts will bereferredto as Calaveras Unified,Vallecito, Bret Harte, andMarkTwain. Calaveras Unifiedis thelargest district,consistingofsix elementaryschools,onemiddleschool, onehighschool andseveral alternativeeducationprograms. TheVallecito district has two elementaryschools andonemiddleschool,Bret Harteoperates asinglehighschool plus alternativeeducationprograms,andMark Twain has oneelementaryschool andone elementary/middleschool. SCOPE: InSeptember2001,aninterviewrequest was mailedtoeachofthefourschool district superintendents askingforaninterviewdateduringthemonths ofOctober orNovember. Attachedtoeachrequest was alist ofquestions. Thequestions relatedtosalary,benefits, expensecategories,authorization/approval ofexpenses,controls overuse offunds by superintendents,access tofunds,reimbursement, records ofexpenditures, anduseofunexpended monies. PROCEDURE: Eachinterviewwas held at aschool sitewithinthedistrict. Theinterviews were conductedbya minimum offourgrandjurors. Eachinterviewlastedbetweenoneandtwo hours. FINDINGS: Thereis noformulaorrulethat determines howmuchaboardoftrustees canpaya superintendent. Thepayvaries basedonfactors theytakeintoaccount such as education, experience,andpast accomplishments. Generallyspeaking, thebiggertheschool district the higherthesalary. Separatehighschool districts tendtopaytheirsuperintendents alittlemore becausethereis morevaluetotheproperty,withlabs andshops andmorespecializedequipment andfacilities. Unifiedschool districts (K-12)maypayalittlemorebecause thesuperintendent is responsibleforthe whole operation. Thereis somewhat ofa freemarket economyinoperation. Salaries ofsuperintendents inourarea areinthe average range. Basesalaries forthefour superintendents rangefrom $100,000per yearfor Calaveras Unifiedto$83,000forVallecito. TheMarkTwainsuperintendent receives $85,000 andBret Harte$91,000. Automobile/Mileage: All ofthesuperintendents usetheirpersonal vehicle fordistrict business. TheVallecitosuperintendent receives $4,000per yearforexpenses,mostlyusedformileage and maintenanceofhis vehicle. TheMarkTwainsuperintendentis allotted$.29permileand$200 permonth. TheBret Hartesuperintendent gets $5,100per year($425/mo.). Hedrives 15,000to 18,000miles per yearon district business. TheCalaveras Unifiedsuperintendent does not receiveanallotment for mileageorpersonal vehicleuse,but hehas unlimitedaccess togasoline at theschool district’s gas pump. Whenonbusiness out ofthearea,hemust payfor gasoline himself. Duetothelarge geographic areacovered byCalaveras Unified,andthenumberof schools,hedrives approximately40,000miles per yearonschool district business. Medical: All ofthesuperintendents are coveredbythesamemedical-dental-visionpolicies as theircertificated(teaching) andclassified (non-teaching)staff. It is a Blue Cross,DeltaDental, andVisionServicePlan packageadministeredbyCentral ValleyTrust,amedical management firm specializingintheteachingprofession. Employees haveplanoptions differinginout-of- pocket expensedependingonthe extent ofcoverageprovidedandthe amount paidbythe district. It is not a100% employerpaidprogram. Annuity: TheCalaveras Unifiedsuperintendent receives anannual $7,000 tax-sheltered annuity. Theothersuperintendents donot receive annuities. Conference/Travel: School district superintendents attendbetweenoneandfourout-of-area professional conferences per year. Thedistricts payforthecost ofthe conference,lodging, and mayormaynot paya “perdiem”formeals. The Calaveras Unifiedsuperintendent goes to3-4 conferences per year and pays forhis ownmeals. TheBret Hartesuperintendent has a$5,000 per yearconference/travel budget. Monies that are not spent arereturnedto thedistrict’s general fund. TheMark TwainandVallecitosuperintendents arereimbursedforthecost oftheir conference/travel expenses. Cell Phone/Laptop Computer: The Vallecitosuperintendent has adistrict providedlaptopand acell phone,whicharealsousedbyotherdistrict employees. TheMarkTwainandCalaveras Unifiedsuperintendents haveadistrict cell phone,but not alaptop. TheBret Harte superintendent has both. All superintendents have desktopcomputers intheiroffices connected toschool district networks. ExpenseAccounts: Noneofthesuperintendents havean expenseaccount,perse,from which theycan drawfunds to payfor goods orservices, which theydeem necessaryforthe performanceoftheirduties. Theyareable,however,todraw from specific funds,categories,or allotments,whichare earmarkedforspecificuseandapproval throughasystem ofchecks and balances. NoteonSchoolDistrictFunding: Schooldistrictsreceivefundingfromthreesources: federal, state,andlocal. Ineachofthesecategories,somemonieshaverestrictedusesandsomeare unrestricted. Localmoniesconsistlargelyoflocaltaxes,bondfunds,anddeveloper(growth) fees. Statemoniesarethosefundsproposedbythegovernorandpassedbythestatelegislature, mostlymadeupofgeneralrevenuelimitsfunds(seeCCOESection,below). Thosemoniesare knownasaveragedailyattendance(ADA)andaremoniesgiventoeachschooldistrictinthe statebasedonaformulainvolvingthenumberofstudentsinattendance. Federalfundingis usually,butnotalways,tiedtospecialeducationprogramsandtheeducationofothercategories of“atrisk”students. Between80%and85%ofaschooldistrict’sbudgetisspentonsalariesand benefitsforstaff. Ofthatpercentage,approximatelyone-eighthgoestosalaryandbenefitsfor administrators. Approval/Control of Useof Funds: In all cases, asuperintendent’s useof funds,eitherfor himselforforhis district,involves amulti-stepprocess. As mentionedearlier,fundingfor any item orserviceis predeterminedbyits allocationtoaspecific categoryorbudget. Initial or final approval for useof funds is thejurisdictionof eachschool district’s Boardof Trustees. Some items orservices arepre-approvedbyvirtueoftheirbeinginan allotment ofmonies availableto thesuperintendent touse at his discretion. At othertimes,thesuperintendent maywant to present it totheBoardin aninformal mannertomakesuretherewill beno futureproblem with its approval intheformal process. At eachboard meeting,school boardtrustees review a computerprintout,which lists all district expenses forthereportingperiod. In eachofourfourschool districts,thefollowingprocess or “chainofcommand”intheissuance ofapaywarrant foran expenditure,oraminorvariationofit,is therule: first,arequest for reimbursement form,withreceipts attached,or apurchaseorder,is submittedforapproval toa supervisororadministrator; next,it goes totheschool district’s business managerordirectorof 13 business services; andlastly,it goes totheBoardofTrustees forfinal approval. In addition,each school district’s records areaudited annuallybyanindependent auditor. Theaudit report is sent totheCalaveras CountyOfficeofEducation(CCOE)for examinationandthenontotheState Controller’s Office. Also,aninterim report of eachschool district’s financial conditionis sent byeachdistrict totheCountyOfficeof Education twiceper year forreview. Access to Funds: Thesuperintendents wereaskedhowtheyaccess theirfunds,bycredit card, pettycash,orreimbursement. Noneofthesuperintendents reportedtheyusedpettycash. Mark Twainhas a checkingaccount witha$1,000limit,whichis availableforunusual expenditures andemergencies. This account requires twosignatures. Calaveras Unifieddoes not havea district credit card. Bret Hartehas adistrict credit cardwitha$2,000limit,basicallyusedbythe superintendent fortravel expenses. Otherstaffmayuseit withapproval. TheVallecito superintendent carries a district credit card witha $5,000limit. Heuses itmainlytopurchase gasoline, forwhichheis allocatedeighty-five gallons permonthor$2,000 per year. This credit cardmaybeusedbyotherstaff,as approvedbythesuperintendent. Theexpenseis chargedto theappropriatebudget account. MarkTwainhas a credit cardwitha$1,000 limit,whichis used infrequently. Reimbursement ofexpenses is availabletoall superintendents. TheMarkTwain superintendent states that herarelymakes useofthereimbursement process. TheVallecito superintendent neverdoes,nordoes Calaveras Unified. TheBret Hartesuperintendent submits claims forreimbursement 6-8times per year. TheRoleof theCalaveras CountySuperintendentof Schools: InFebruary2002,the Calaveras CountySuperintendent ofSchools was interviewedregardingtheroletheCalaveras CountyOfficeofEducation(CCOE)plays inthe structureofpublic educationinCalaveras County. Thefollowinginformationwas provided. Generallyspeaking,school district funding,andfundingforCCOE,is basedonthenumberof students served. It is calledaveragedailyattendance,orADA. Thosemonies generatedare calledrevenuelimit funding. Historically,priortothepassageof Proposition13in1978,the bulkoffundingschool districts were entitledtowas raisedthroughlocal propertytaxes. Inthe 1970’s several events occurredthat shiftedcontrol awayfrom local tax revenues forschools and redirectedthem tothestate. Traditionally, adisparityhadexistedbetween the wealthofschool districts basedonproperty taxes. Awealthydistrict withahighpropertytax basewould get moremoney, whereas rural schools inareas withlittlebusiness orindustryto support atax basewouldbestruggling. In a 1970’s court case,that disparitywas ruledunconstitutional. Thecourt orderedthestatetofinda waytoequalizethoserevenuelimits overtime. This was accomplishedoveraperiodoftwenty years,eveningout theamount ofthecost of livingallowance(COLA)that theschool districts receivedfrom thestate. Wealthierdistricts graduallyreceivedless COLA andpoorerdistricts more. Asecondwaythat thestatebecameinvolvedinschool district fundingwas adirect result of Proposition13limitingavailablefunds byloweringpropertytaxes. At this point thestate essentiallysaidit would providefundingfrom general revenues collectedthroughvarious types oftaxes. About two-thirds offundingnowcomes from thestateandone-thirdfrom local 14 propertytaxes. PriortoProposition13,theoppositewas thecase. [Actually,however, all monies arefrom statefunds,sinceevenpropertytaxes donot remaininthecountyinwhichthey are generated,but gotoSacramentoandarereallocatedbacktoschool districts.] Overthe years this has hadtheeffect of someloss oflocal control overschool district funding. The governor andthelegislaturepull thepursestrings. Whenthestatetalks,school districts must listen. Anadditional sourceof financial assistancetoschool districts is knownas equalizationaid. This is extrastateaid,providedinsome years,toalow-revenuedistrict toincreaseits baserevenue limit towardthestatewideaverage. However,despitepast attempts toclosethe gapbetween school district revenues, somedisparitycontinues toexist betweentheaffluent andpoorer districts. Twogeneral categories exist inthedescriptionofschool district funding, restrictedand unrestricted. Unrestrictedfunds consist ofthe general revenuelimits previouslydescribedand maybeused,as thename implies,withlittlerestriction. Restrictedfunds, whetherfederal or stateinorigin,areearmarkedfor aspecificpurpose. These categorical funds include,but arenot limitedto,special educationprograms,Giftedand TalentedEducation(GATE),School Improvement Program (SIP), “Title”programs for economicallydisadvantaged andat-risk students,transportation,buildingfunds, grants,etc. Theformulaforcalculatingaveragedailyattendance(ADA)changed afew years ago. It usedto bewhena childcameto school,theschool district couldcount him forattendance, andthestate wouldgivethedistrict themoneyforthe childbeingtherethat day. Thedistrict was alsopaidif thestudent hadanexcusedabsence,suchas beingill orhavingadoctor’s appointment. Now, thestatepays onlywhen thestudent is actuallythere. This is known,inschool district circles,as the“butt intheseat”rule. Theamount aschool district receives per childper yearis basedon theirrevenuelimit,andthereareslight differences betweenlimits. Assuminga childwerein attendancefor afull 180dayschool year,thedistrict wouldreceive,dependingonits revenue limit fundinglevel,approximatelybetween$4,500 and$7,000per year forthat child. Thereis apopularmisconceptionthat thesuperintendents ofthecountyoffices ofeducationhave direct authorityand control overtheschool districts intheircounties. Inthe 1850’s,it was put intotheCaliforniaConstitutionthat therewouldbeacountysuperintendent ofschools who would “superintend”the schools in his county, and it would bean elected position. About 20 years agothevoters ineachcountywere giventhe choiceofkeepingit inanelectedpositionor changingit toanappointedpositionbytheboard ofsupervisors. Most counties,about five- sixths,votedtokeepit elected,as didCalaveras County. In actuality,theauthorityofthe county superintendent ofschools is limited. Byconstitutional direction,theauthorityoverschool districts bytheCCOEsuperintendent of schools is primarilyfinancial. Eachschool district must prepare a yearlybudget andsendit to theCCOEforreview. Thebudget is put through aset ofcriteriatodetermineifthedistrict will beabletomeet its financial obligations forthat yearandthesucceedingtwo years,andtheyhave enoughmoneyinreserve incaseof emergencies. This procedurewas aresult ofthebankruptcy oftheRichmondSchool District about ten years ago. Thelegislaturethen passedalaw, AB 1200,orderingeachcountysuperintendent ofschools tooverseeand approvethebudgets of 15 school districts inhis countybecauseit was too complicated,andthereweretoomanydistricts forSacramentotomonitor. TheCCOEprepares the payroll forall oftheschool districts. TheCCOEalsoaudits the district’s books andpurchaseorders tomakesure charges arebeingmade correctlyand financial mistakes arenot beingmade. Voluntarily,theCCOEhandles thecredentialingofteachers for thedistricts,helps teachers applyforthe right credentials,assists intherenewal ofcredentials, makes sureteachers take theproper classes,and guarantees theyhavethepropercredential for thetypeofclass beingtaught. Onthecurriculum side,theCCOEassists school districts instaffdevelopment,teachertraining, coordinationofinservices,summertraining, andoperationofamediacenterwhereteachers can obtaincurriculamaterials foruseintheirclassrooms. TheCCOEalsooffers educational programs forstudents whoare expelledorat riskoffailure, andforthosewho wishanalternativetoattendanceat atraditional school district facility. These programs fall underthecategories ofindependent studyandhomeschooling. TheCCOE prepares grants andconducts workshops,which assist theschool districts andtheirstaff. In addition,theCCOEoperates beforeand afterschool childcareprograms fordistricts inthe Highway4corridor. TheCCOESuperintendent ofSchools sees his roleas anadvocate forthestudents inthecounty andforthepublic,not that theschool district superintendents aren’t there forthat reason also,he points out. Whenhereceives acomplaint oraninquiryfrom thepublic,he always tells them he will checkintothesituationandget backtothem. Helets them knowtheboundaries ofhis authority. Heconsiders himselfafacilitatorratherthanacoordinator; hecannot order aschool district todosomethingbut hopes tobeabletofacilitateasolutiontotheproblem. Theschool district superintendents areappointedbytheirboards,andhebelieves that this is arelationship uponwhichheshouldnot tread. Ontheotherhand,ifaproblem has countywidesignificance,he attempts tobeproactive andentreats thedistricts toworktogethersothesituationwill not becomeanissue. SUMMARY: This year,theGrandJuryundertookareviewofthesalaries andexpenses ofourschool district superintendents. Calaveras Countyhas fourpublicschool districts: Calaveras UnifiedSchool District,Bret HarteUnionHighSchool District, MarkTwainUnionElementarySchool District, andVallecitoUnionSchool District. Eachdistrict is administeredbyaboardoftrustees consistingoffive elected members andasuperintendent appointedbytheboard. Inaddition,the Calaveras CountyOffice ofEducation(CCOE)provides support services forthedistricts,mainly inthefinancial/accountingareas. It alsoassists inteacherservices andoperates independent study,homestudy,andchilddaycareprograms. TheCCOEhas anelectedsuperintendent and anelectedboardoftrustees. Thesalaryandexpenses oftheCCOESuperintendent ofSchools was not reviewed. Interviews were conducted,individually,witheachschool district superintendent. The superintendents received aquestionnaireinadvance. Thedata collected can besummarizedas follows: salaries rangefrom $83,000to$100,000per year; all superintendents usetheirown vehicles whenondistrict business andare compensatedinvarious ways; all superintendents receivethesamemedical benefits as doteachingandnon-teachingstaff; all superintendents attendconferences out of theareaandarereimbursed,invaryingdegrees,fortheirexpenses; somesuperintendents havecell phones and/orlaptopcomputers availabletothem,somedonot; noneofthesuperintendents haveaspecificexpenseaccount from whichtheycandrawmonies fordiscretionaryuse. Various expenses are chargedtodifferent accounts andatight chainof commandexists tooverseetheuseofthosemonies. Superintendents access theirfunds in various ways throughreimbursement,purchaseorder,andlimitedcredit carduse. Inall cases, theboardoftrustees is theultimateauthorityinapprovingtheuseoffunds bytheir superintendents. CONCLUSION: It became clearduringtheinterviews ofourfourschool district superintendents that theywork long,hardhours intheperformanceoftheirduties. Coordinatingtheneeds ofthestudents, teachers,support staff, administrators andparents is noeasytask. Theircompensationis equitable. Theopportunityfor financial malfeasanceis minimal,as all funds arepre-approved, post-approved, andexaminedat several steps alongtheway,at bothlocal andstatelevels. It is clearthat therearenumerous safeguards inplace toprotect against themisuseofpublicfunds. The2001-2002CalaverasCountyGrandJurywishestothankthefollowingsuperintendentsfortheir courtesyandassistanceinthepreparationofthisreport: Mr.JohnC.Brophy,CalaverasCountyOfficeof Education;Mr.JamesL.Frost,CalaverasUnifiedSchoolDistrict;Mr.ChrisVonKleist,MarkTwain UnionElementarySchoolDistrict;Mr.MichaelChimente,VallecitoUnionSchoolDistrict;Mr.Joseph W.Wilimek,BretHarteUnionHighSchoolDistrict. GOVERNMENT AND ADMINISTRATION A. CALAVERAS COUNTYAIRPORT / MAURY RASMUSSENFIELD REASONFOR REVIEW: Thereviewwas conductedpursuant toCalifornia Penal Codesection925, whichstates inpart: “…investigations maybe conductedonsomeselectivebasis each year.” Records ofpast Calaveras CountyGrand Juries showthat theairport has not recentlybeensubject toareview. The2001-2002GrandJuryreceivednoformal complaints about theCalaveras Countyairport. Theinvestigationwas consideredtobea routinereviewofaCalaveras Countyfacility. BACKGROUND: TheCalaveras Countyairport is locatedapproximately5miles southeast of thecommunityof SanAndreas onHighway49. Its address is Route3,3600Carol KennedyDrive,SanAndreas, California. Theairport openedinDecember1981. Agrandopeningceremonywas heldinJuly 1982. SCOPE: TheGrandJurytouredtheairport undertheable guidanceofthemanager. Ms.Kathy Zancanellahas beeninthepositionofairport managersince1989. All informationgathered and reportedherewas either providedbyher orobtainedfrom official publications. PROCEDURE: Several interviews withthemanagerwereconductedandall questioningwas conductedbyat least twomembers ofthe GrandJurypursuant toCaliforniaPenal Codesection916. Some informationwas obtained onAirport Day2002,whichwas organizedas an openhouseevent and,accordingtotheairport manager,hadthelargest numberofvisitors ever. FINDINGS: Theairport is equippedtohandleninetypercent ofgeneral aviationactivities. DC-3s haveused thelandingstripandseveral privatebusiness jets arelandingperiodically. TheCalifornia Department of Forestryuses theairport tostagetheirfirefightingtankers,observationplanes and helicopters,as well as airbornecommandand control platforms intheevent ofmajorfire emergencies. The airport has anannual budget of approximately$282,560. Thecounty’s General Fundhas never beenaskedtoprovideoperational funds or funds forexpansionor improvement ofairport orindustrial facilities. It appears that the airport is completelyself- supporting. There areseveral non-airport relatedbusinesses locatedinthedevelopedareaofthe airport. Thosebusinesses areoperatingtheirfacilities onalandleasebasis. TheCalaveras County 18 OfficeofEmergencyServices andtheCountySheriff’s department sharea hangartohousetheir lakepatrol boats andotherequipment. Hangarspaceis rentedonamonthlybasis. Rents range from $132to$175. Largerhangarspaceis leased at $0.18to$0.19persquarefoot. Storage spaces command arental rangebetween$79 and $84. Tie-downspaces areavailable at $27and parkingcosts $11. Officespace consists ofalobby, pilot room andseveral privateoffices. Rents forofficespacerangebetween$.60and$.83persquarefoot. Leases andrents are collectedonamonthlybasis. Thecurrent waitinglist forhangarspaceconsists of48parties and changes constantly. Timeframefor availabilityvaries. In additiontorents,incomeis generatedbyfuel sales,charges for current services (utilities)from business tenants,andaircraft tax. Majoritems ofexpenditures areinsurance,maintenanceof buildings and grounds,runwayandaprons,professional andspecial services (manager’s contract andadministrative/accountinghelp),andspecial department expenseused as areserve for unusual expenses. Thereis asigned agreement withajobdescription forthepositionofAirport Manager. Duties aresummarizedbelow. • Overseeall airport operations • Overseethemaintenance ofairport property • Market availableairport business space • File grant applications foreconomicdevelopment • File grant applications forairport improvements throughtheFederal Aviation Administration(FAA),theDivisionofAeronautics,andtheCalifornia Aidto Airports Programs. • Providemonthlyfinancial andactivityreports • Assist Countyinpreparationofabudget Whiletheairport is self-supporting,thecountyhas occasionallyextendedloans,whichthe airport is thenobligatedtopayback. Grants andloans havebeenusedtodevelopadditional hangarspace eitherfor aircraft storageorcommercial use. At present,grant fundinginthe amount of$505,000has beenrequestedfrom the FAAforairport improvements. Suchgrants require a10percent match; specificallya5.5percent sharematchfrom the airport anda4.5 percent sharematchfrom theStateDivisionofAeronautics. Futureprojects includeadditional watersources,a newsewersystem,anda newaccess road alongportions ofthe NE airport boundarytoallow development offurtherhangarspace. Such a roadwouldalsotakepassengercarandtrucktrafficofftherun-andtaxiwayinfront ofthe existinghangars. Toamplifytheseriousness ofthis situation,thefollowinginformationand guidancewas recentlyprovidedbytheSafetyOfficeroftheCaliforniaStateDepartment of Transportation,DivisionofAeronautics. His concernpertains totheunnecessaryvehicle operations withintheAirport OperatingAreas (AOA)oftheCalaveras Countyairport. He specificallymentions the FAA’s efforts toeducate airport managers about this dangerous practice. Furthermore,it is aviolationofthecountygrant assurances tothe FAAand could jeopardizefuture federal fundingfortheairport. TheCountyhas alsoreceivedgrant funds from theDivisionofAeronautics andis obligatedtomaintaindominionandcontrol oftheairport 19 property. Ifit appears that this problem cannot be corrected,it will adverselyaffect statefunding andpossiblytheairport permit. TheAOAis definedas theairside area,ortheairport sideofthe buildings at theairport. Vehicleoperations withintheAOAaretoberestrictedtoabsolute necessaryactivities withinthespecific areaofthe AOAsuchas aprons and taxiways. Typical justificationincludes loadingofaircraft passengers andfreight ortoaccess theowner’s hangar. Vehicles shouldthenbe parkedindesignatedareas. Owners or FixedBase Operatorpersonnel mayfuel aircraft,tugaircraft formaintenance,oraccess hangars. Theseactivities areacceptable providedtheydonot use orminimizetheuseoftaxiways. Emergencyvehicles mayoperateon therunwaytoaccomplishthenecessarytasks relatingtoanemergency. TheAviationSafety Officerurges airport management toaddress these problems intheairport procedures manual,to implement aneducation program fortenants andlocal pilots,andtoinstallthenecessaryfencing, gates andsignage. Hesuggests havinganenforcement program includingairport regulations adoptedbycountyordinance,fines, andenforcement byalocal law enforcement officer. TheGrandJurycametotheconclusionthat theplannednewaccess roadwouldbeextremely helpful todirect vehiculartrafficawayfrom theAOA,thus assuringsafetyandfinancial support ofthecountyairport bystateandfederal agencies. Forfurtherinformation,pleaseseetheattachedairport locationandlayout drawing,as well as a pageoftheAirport MasterRecord, andan excerpt from anairport directory. Information providedbytheseaddendacover exact location,coordinates,magneticvariation,telephone numbers,hours ofoperation,elevation,patternaltitudes,runways,lights,fees,approaches, communicationfrequencies,weathercontacts,charts,andlocal information as torental cars, restaurants andlodging. CONCLUSION: TheCalaveras CountyAirport/MauryRasmussen Fieldappears tobe efficientlyrun. It is the opinion oftheGrand JurytheCountyis served byadedicated manager, who is also apilot. The manageris an independent contractor and not an employeeoftheCounty. Money, as in most countyprojects,is neededtoexpandtheairport facility. Improved water andsewagesystems are urgentlyneeded. Safetyconcerns shouldbe greatlyreducedifanaccess roadis built. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. TheAirport Manageris urgedtoaggressivelymarket herplans foranewaccess roadand additional hangarspace. 2. Safetyissues as theyimpact vehiculartrafficintheAirport OperatingAreas shouldbe addressedbyCalaveras County,includingpossiblecountyordinances and funding. 3. Calaveras CountyAdministrationshouldactivelypursueairport water and sewageissues. 4. Availabilityof grant sharemonies,as well as support indealingwithstate andfederal agencies,shouldbeprovidedbyCountyagencies. RESPONSES REQUESTED: 1. Calaveras CountyBoard ofSupervisors 2. Calaveras CountyAirport Management 21 U.S.DEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATION AIRPORTMASTERRECORD PRINTDATE033-02-2000 FEDERALAVIATIONADMINISTRATION FORMAPPROVEDOMB2120-0015 >1ASSOCCITY:SANANDREAS 4STATE: CA LOCID:0O3 FAASITENR: 02141.11A >2AIRPORTNAME: CALAVERASCO-MAURYRASMUSSENFIELD 5COUNTY: CALAVERAS,CA 3CBDTOAIRPORT(NM): 04SE 6REGION/ADO: AWP/SFO 7SECTAEROCHT: SANFRANCISCO GENERAL SERVICES BASEDAIRCRAFT 10OWNERSHIP: PUBLIC >70FUEL: 100LL80 90SINGLEENG: 67 >11OWNER: COUNTYOFCALAVERAS 90MULTIENG: 3 >12ADDRESS: GOVERNMENTCENTER >71AIRFRAMERPRS: MAJOR 92JET: SANANDREAS,CA95249 >72PWRPLANTRPRS: MAJOR TOTAL 70 >13PHONENR: 209-754-6303 >73BOTTLEOXYGEN: >14MANAGER: KATHYZANCANELLA >74BULKOXYGEN: 93HELICOPTERS: >15ADDRESS: POBOX695 75TSNTSTORAGE: TIE 94GLIDERS: SANANDREAS,CA95249-0815 76OTHERSERVICES: 95MILITARY: >16PHONENR: 209-754-4208 INSTRRNTL 96ULTRA-LIGHT: >17ATTENDANCESCHEDULE: MONTHS DAYS HOURS FACILITIES OPERATIONS NOV-APR ALL 0800-1700 >80ARPTBCN: CG 100AIRCARRIER: MAY-OCT ALL 0700-1800 >81ARPTLGTSKED: * DUSK-DAWN 101COMMUTER: >82UNICOM: 122.800 102AIRTAXI: 18AIRPORTUSE: PUBLIC >83WINDINDICATOR: YES-L 103GALOCAL: 12,500 19ARPTLAT: 38-08-46.019ONESTIMATED 84SEGMENTEDCIRCLE: YES 104GAITNRNT: 12,500 20ARPTLONG: 120-38-53.4240W 85CONTROLTWR: NO 105MILITARY: 21ARPTELEV: 1,325SURVEYED 86FSS:RANCHOMURIETA TOTAL 25,000 22ACREAGE: 93 87FSSONARPT: NO >23RIGHTTRAFFIC: 31 88FSSPHONENR: 916-354-0161 OPERATIONSFOR12 >24NON-COMMLANDING: NO 89TOLLFREENR: 1-WX-BRIEF MONTHSENDING 22Nov1999 25NPIAS/FEDAGREEMENTS:NGY 26FAR139INDEX: RUNWAYDATA >30RUNWAYIDENT: 13/31 H1 H2 >31LENGTH: 3,603 65 65 >32WIDTH: 60 65 65 >33SURFTYPE-COND: ASPH-G ASPH-G ASPH-G >34SURFTREATMENT: NONE NONE NONE 35GROSSWT:SW 13 26(INTHSDS)DW 37 DTW 38 DDTW LIGHTING/APCHAIDS >40EDGEINTENSITY: MED >42RWYMARKTYPE-COND BSC-G/BSC-G -/- -/- >43VGSI /V4R / / 44THRCROSSINGHGT /31 / / 45VISUALGLIDEANGLE /3.00 / / >46CNTRLN-TDZ -/- -/- -/- >47RVR-RVV -/- -/- -/- >48REIL / / / >49APCHLIGHTS / / / OBSTRUCTIONDATA 50FAR77CATEGORY A(V) /A(V) / / >51DISPLACEDTHR / / / >52CTLGOBSTN TREE/ / / >53OBSTNMARKED/LGTD / / / >54HGTABOVERWYEND 25/ / / >55DISTFROMRWYEND 660/ / / >56CNTRLNOFFSET 75L / / / 57OBSTNCLNCSLOPE 18:1/ 50:1 58CLOSE-INOBSTN / / / DECLAREDDISTANCES >60TAKEOFFRUNAVBL(TORA) / / / >61TAKEOFFDISTAVBL(TODA) / / / >62ACLTSTOPDISTAVBL(ASDA) / / / >63LNDGDISTAVBL(LDA) / / / (>)ARPTMGRPLEASEADVISEFSSINITEM86WHENCHANGESOCCURTOITEMSPRECEDEDBY> >110REMARKS: A017 FORATTENDANTAFTHRSCALL209-772-1738. A081 MIRLRY13/31OPERSDUSK-0000;AFT0000ACTVTMIRL-CTAF;ACTVTVASIRY31-CTAF. A110 - 1 EFFECTIVERYGRADIENTRY130.6%UP. A110*G THISAIRPORTHASBEENSURVEYEDBYTHENATIONALOCEANSERVICE.FORINFORMATIONON GEODETICCONTROL,CONTACTTHENATIONALGEODETICSURVEY,301-443-8168. 111INSPECTOR: ( S) 112LASTINSP: 22Nov1999 113LASTINFOREQ: FAAForm5010-1(3/96)SUPERSEDESPREVIOUSEDITION 22 23 Information provided by: Airplane Owner’s and Pilot’s Association (AOPA) Airport Directory 2001-2002 SANANDREAS –Calaveras County/MauryRasmussen Field (∅Ο3) Location: 4mi.SEofcity Coordinates: N38-08.76; W120-38.89 Magvar: 15E Navaids: LIN114.8 059 17.4 Telephone: 209-736-2501 Fax: 209/736-2402 Hours: 8 am to 6 pm summer; 8 am to 5 pm winter Elevation: 1325 Pattern altitudes: 2303 MSLall aircraft Runways: 13-313,603X60,asphalt; right tfcry31,treery13,lights PCL Lights: SS toSR,122.8(5clicks in5sec,medintensity); beaconPCLaft midnight Fees: hangar,tiedown Approaches: GPS RNAV FSS: RanchoMurieta122.2,122.3 Comfreq: APP OaklandCenter/126.85; UNICOM/CTAF122.8 Weathercontacts: AWOS 118.525,209/736-2523 Charts: SanFrancisco; L2 Noiseabatement: Runway31headingto1800 MSL; avoidovrflt ofsubdivision½mi. Rental cars: 49erSubaru-Isuzu736/2514; 736-4949 Restaurants: Appletree 6 mi 736-9566; manyBed & Breakfast Lodging: Angel’s Inn6 mi 736-4242; Black Bart Inn &Restaurant 5mi 209/754-3802; Bonnie’s InnMotel 5mi 754-3212; GoldCountryInn6mi Camping: Onfield Local attractions: International FrogJumpingJubilee/3rd wkendinMay; MercerCavern18 mi; MoaningCave15mi; Norcal SPB Notes: Intensiveflight training Davids Aviation,Inc.: 209/736-2526,209/736-4554; Fax: 209/736-2527; Location: CTR; Fees: Overnight; Hours: 8am to5pm winter; 8am to 6pm summer&spring; Frequency: 122/8; Fuel: Texaco80,100LL Marc’s FlyingService: 209/736-2325; Hours: Mon-Sat 8am-6pm; Computerized weathersvc: Y; Frequency: 122.8 Norcal Aviation: 209/736-4554; Fax: 209/736-2527; Location: CTR; Fees: overnight; Hours: 24onreq; Computerizedweathersvc: Y; Frequency: 122.8; Fuel: Texaco80,100LL; Selfservice: 8am to 5pm Helipads: H165X65,asphalt; H265X65,asphalt 24 B. CALAVERAS COUNTYANIMAL CONTROL FACILITY REASONFOR REVIEW: Thereviewwas conductedpursuant toCalifornia Penal Codesection925, whichstates inpart: “…investigations maybe conductedonsomeselectivebasis each year.” Records ofpast Calaveras CountyGrand Juries showthat theCountyAnimal Control facilityhas beenthe subject ofmanypriorGrandJuryinvestigations. Not onlytheCountyAnimal Control facility, but alsotheDomesticAnimal Control DivisionoftheCounty’s Agriculture andEnvironmental Management Agencyhavereceivedformal complaints from thecountycitizenry. BACKGROUND: TheCalaveras CountyAnimal Control facility(shelter)has beenalongrecognizedproblem with past GrandJuries since1986. Final reports ofpast GrandJuries havemanytimes reflectedthe needfor changeinthis outdatedfacility. GrandJuryrecommendations haveincludedmany requests forminor changes: cage configuration, lighting,isolationofincominganimals until checkedfor communicablediseases,urine andfeces eliminationfrom existingcages,fillingof cracks in concretefloortoprevent infectious diseasebacteriatoescapedisinfection,drop-off cages fordogs andcats toprovideproperisolationofindividual animals,protectiontoshelter animals from summerheat andwintercold, etc. Majorchanges haveincludedrequests foranew shelter. Last year’s GrandJuryreceivedletters andreports bytheCalaveras CountyHealthServices Agency,theEnvironmental HealthDepartment LandUseAgency,andthe Angels Camp VeterinaryHospital. Someofthesereports document muchneededimprovements at theshelter. SCOPEANDPROCEDURE: TheGrandJuryvisitedtheshelterand was escortedbytheAnimal Control Director andhis on- sitesupervisor. Discussions regardingtheshelter andits futurewereheld withmembers ofthe BoardofSupervisors and theAnimal Control Directorandhis staff. Informationandguidance onhowtoset upandrun aproperdomesticanimal control facilitywereobtainedbytheGrand Juryfrom members oftheWest Coast Regional OfficeoftheHumaneSocietyoftheUnited States andtheCalaveras CountyHumaneSociety. Copies ofall brochures, booklets andpapers collectedfrom thoseagencies wereturnedoverto theShelterDirectorand all members ofthe BoardofSupervisors. Thesepackets alsoincludedinformationonhowtosecure grants from StateandFederal agencies. All interviews wereconductedbynoless than twomembers ofthe GrandJurypursuant toCaliforniaPenal Codesection916. FINDINGS: ThetouroftheGrandJurythroughtheshelterwas conductedinAugust 2001. Some recommendations made bylast year’s GrandJurywereimplemented. Lightinghadbeen improved. Additional drop-offcages forcats had beenadded. Someofthe cracks inthedog 25 cage areahadbeensealed. However,theGrandJuryfoundthat theseal was considered inadequate andhadtobe replaced. Anew freezer has beeninstalledtostoreeuthanizedanimals. Deceasedand euthanized animals arenowtakentothecountylandfill at least twicea week. Whileall oftheseactions areappreciated,they,nevertheless,donot address themajor shortcomings ofthe existingshelter. SincetheGrandJurytour,Calaveras CountyHumaneSocietyVolunteers havepaintedsomeof therooms inthe“get acquainted”area,havepurchasednew cat cages onwheels,andhadnew flooringinstalledinsomeoftheareas includingtheadministrativearearestroom. All these improvements werepaid forbytheHumaneSociety. It is obvious that theHumaneSociety’s concernis that theseanimals arelivingin aclean area conduciveto adoptionandredemptionof shelter-housed animals. Followingarestatistics providedbyCalaveras CountyAnimal Control from January1,2001to September30,2001. Numberoflicenses issued: 5,724 Ananimal is heldbefore euthanasiaan averageof 6-7days. Dogs impounded: 369 Dogs turnedintoshelter: 341 Dogs releasedtoowner: 296 Total dogs handled: 1,006 Dogs redeemedbyowner: 194 Redemptionrate: 19.3% Dogs adopted: 146 Adoptionratefordogs: 18% Dogs euthanized: 652 Euthanasiarate: 64.9% Cats impounded: N/A Cats turnedintoshelter: 879 Total cats handled: 879 Cats redeemedbyowner: 9 Redemptionrate: 1.1% Cats adopted: 88 Adoptionrate: 10.2% Cats euthanized: 782 Euthanasiarate: 89% Total otheranimals: 36 Adoptionfees: Cats are$5.00adoption and$15.00forspay/neutering. Dogs are$15.00 adoptionand$25.00forspay/neutering. Total payments toveterinarians fortreatments,onsitevisits at theshelterandsupplies: $3,556.49. Payments to veterinarians forspay/neutering: $4,907.50. Total forthese expenses: $8,463.99. 112citations wereissued,including“fix-it tickets”fornon-licensing. TheAnimal Control facilityhas atotal of5 employees. All arefull time. Nopart-timeor volunteers. Nogrant monies havebeenreceivedbytheshelter. In October2001,several members oftheGrandJurytouredtheTuolumne CountyAnimal Control Facility, andintheiropinion,it is animpressiveoperation. TheTuolumneshelteris a joint venturewiththeHumaneSociety. That facilitywas built bytheHumaneSociety. The animal shelterleases part ofthebuildingfortheir use,andtheHumaneSocietyoccupies the othersideofthebuilding. As amuchneededfundraiser,theTuolumneCountyshelterhelda contest forschool children. Thetopicwas drawings ofanimals,andthewinningpicturewas usedtodecorate coffeemugs, whichwerethenmade availabletothepublicfora donation. All oftheseactivities showa concertedeffort torunan efficient shelter. TheCalaveras CountyBoardofSupervisors has allocated $100,000 toward astudyof anew facility. Countyadministrators havetoldtheGrandJurythat anew facilitycouldbebuilt inthe present location. Noise abatement andsafetywere issues that couldbehandled,soweweretold. TheGrandJurywas furthertoldthat ataskforce orcommitteewas beingformedunderthe guidanceoftheShelterDirectortoexploreall possibilities toplananewshelterforCalaveras County. InOctober2001,amemberofthis year’s GrandJurywas selectedandacceptedtobe part ofthis committee. However,shehas not yet beeninvitedtoattendanymeetings. The HumaneSocietyhas an activevolunteerprogram. TheCalaveras Countyanimal shelter’s acceptanceofthosevolunteers is appreciated and encouraged. CONCLUSION: TheGrandJuryis concernedtheaboveinformationandstatistics areindicativeoftheBoardof Supervisors lowprioritizationofanimal shelterissues. Recommendations foranewshelterby priorGrandJuries havenot beenimplemented. As statedinlast year’s final report,oneofthe majorproblems appears tobethat theDirectorof Animal Control is overtasked. Heis incharge oftoomanyothermanagement functions inhis positionas Agricultureand Environmental AgencyCommissionerto beeffectivein negotiations foranewshelter. Competent as hemay be,hedoes not haveenoughtimetoconduct,plan andattendall meetings necessaryin connectionwithanewshelterproject,sincebyhis ownadmission,heonlydevotes about 10to 15percent ofhis timetoshelteraffairs. Onlya full-timeposition,newlycreatedandstaffed with acompetent individual whosesolejobit will betooversee andberesponsiblefortheplanning, fundacquisition,constructionandsubsequent runningofa newshelter,is theanswerforthis continuingproblem. Last year’s GrandJuryreferredtotheshelteras a“disgrace”totheCounty. Verylittleprogress has beenmade. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Aggressivelyresearchandapplyforfacilityimprovement and/or grants and funding options foranewfacility 27 2. Hireafull timeanimal control director 3. Expandthevolunteerprogram 4. Arrangefor anannual healthinspectionofthepresent facilitybytheEnvironmental HealthDepartment RESPONSES REQUESTED: 1. BoardofSupervisors 2. Animal Control Director 28 C. CALAVERAS COUNTYEMERGENCY NOTIFICATION TheCalaveras CountyDarbyFireinSeptember2001occurredduringthe events ofSeptember 11. It became alarminglyclearthat Calaveras Countynot onlylacked anadequate,uniform system toadviseresidents ofcurrent fireinformation,but alsolackeda countywide alert system foremergencies in general. REASONFOR INVESTIGATION: Thedissatisfaction,apprehension,andheightened anxietyofArnoldarea residents was dueto thelackofreliable,up-to-dateinformationregardingrisks/scopeoftheDarbyFire. BACKGROUND: DuringtheDarbyFiremanyresidents were either evacuated,onevacuation alert,orworried about theirstatus whileflames from thefirewere visiblefrom theirresidences. Themeans of disseminatinginformationwas poorat best. Concurrently,thenational crisis producedincreased concern. Information,howeverinsufficient,for residents affectedbythefirecame from the CaliforniaDepartment of Forestry(CDF),theUS Forest Service,theCalaveras Sheriff’s Department,andothersources: • Manyresidents mistakenlyreliedonthenews coverageofthefirefrom TV stations that wereoftenunawareofcurrent developments and werenot areaspecific. • Thefiredepartments providedtelephonenumbers but oftenwithout-dated, non-specific information. • Theradiostations inSonoraandJacksonwerenot receivedbyall residents. TheSonora stationperiodicallyaired informationprovidedbyCDF,but was not always available, particularlyonweekends. • Thepublicaccess TVstationinformationwas at least adayold,andnot availableduring thepoweroutage. • Powerfailure/interruptionleft manyarearesidents reliant onneighbors or friends as the onlysourceofinformation. • Powerfailureinsurroundingareas leadtomorespeculationabout theproximityofthe fire. SCOPE: WhiletheDarbyFirebrought this lackofnotificationprocedures totheforefront,other emergencies inthecountysuch as waterquality, roadclosures, etc.would apply. FINDINGS: At acommunitymeetingwithDistrict 3supervisor,representatives from firedepartments,CDF, andtheSheriff’s department,communityturnout was significant,andthe majorcomplaint was lackofeasilyaccessibleinformation. WhileCDFpostednotices at several locations along Highway4,andalsoprovidedupdates toradiostations,it was not appropriatetoexpect residents 29 toleavetheirhomes at riskanddrivearoundlookingforpostednotices. Theforest service stationedanemployee at alocal market,andusingcharts anddiagrams,he attemptedtodispense informationtoshoppers. This methodofholdingcontinuous small,publicgatherings was ineffective. Inquiries werelimitedtospecificinformationforeachattendee,andwas not disseminatedtothegeneral public. TheactingCountyAdministrativeOfficer(CAO), alsotheheadoftheOfficeofEmergency Services (OES), was invitedtoattendtheNovember6,2001meetingofthe full GrandJury. His presentationwas followedbyadiscussionontheneedfor asystem ofemergencynotificationto replacewhat is currentlyused(describedabove). Subsequently,theGrand Jurychosetostudy thesituationandmakesuggestions. The District 3supervisorandtheCAO suggestedtheuseof a“banner” at thebottom oftheTVscreenduringregularprogrammingtoinform thepublic duringemergencies. This would behelpful, but onlyin circumstances wherepowersupplies werenot disrupted. Anewspaper articlementionedthat theBoardofSupervisors had recommendedtheCAOfollowupwithaneedassessment andrecommendations. OnApril 23,2002,theGrandJuryreceivedareport from theOES,whichaddressedissues in terms ofshort-term andlong-term avenues topursue. Short-term actions coverpublic notificationduringmajor fireevents andcouldbe implementedbythis comingfireseason. Theseactions involveOES andCDFcoordinatingtheir efforts toseekmoreefficient means of approvingquickerpress releases. Further,CDFis developinganewprotocol sothat duringfires theywill bemoreresponsivetoourlocal publicinformationneeds. Long-term actions arevery complex andinvolvemanylocal andstateagencies,includingPublicAccess Television (Channel 5),AT&Tcableservice,PublicAccess AdvisoryCommittee,StateOfficeof EmergencyServices,EmergencyAlert System,andtheFCC. Thedirectionoftheseactions appears touse television,specificallyChannel 5, as themechanism through whichthepublicwill benotifiedandupdatedduringemergencies. Inthis OES report,anearlier suggestionbyGrand Jurors,touseatelephone system,was felt tobeof nobenefit tothepublicat this time. The report states,“CDFalreadyprovides mannedemergencyphonelines duringmajor fireevents.” SUMMARY: Thereis aneedforemergencynotificationtocountyresidents duringemergencies. This notificationmust beavailableduringpoweroutages. This wouldrequiretelephones that donot relyon electricpower. Thefact that some residents donot receiveChannel 5must beconsidered intheplan. Finally,thesystem must beareaspecific.

F3: Calaveras CountyAdministrationshouldactivelypursueairport water and sewageissues.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: It is recommendedthe countyinstall onits PBXanautomateddigital recordingdevicethat could playarecording. ManyPBXs havethe capabilitybuilt inthroughvoicemail. Ifthis capability does not exist onthecountyoffices’PBX,arecordingdevicesuchas an Interalia unit couldbe addedwithmultipleports where callers couldsimultaneouslylistentothesamerecorded message. Thedesirednumberofcallers whocouldaccess therecordingwithout gettingabusy signal woulddictatethe numberofports andphonelines that wouldberequired. Ifdesired,it couldbere-recorded/updatedremotelythrough a phonelineintothePBX. Thetelephone 30 numberforthe emergencyrecording,whereanyconcerned citizencancall toget updated informationintheevent ofafireoranyother emergency,couldbedisseminatedtoproperty owners and residents throughout theCounty,listedineachphonedirectory,ontheCounty Internet site,etc. RESPONSES REQUIRED: 1. BoardofSupervisors 2. OfficeofEmergencyServices 31 HUMAN SERVICES CHILDPROTECTIVE SERVICES (CPS) REASONFOR REVIEW: Thereviewwas conductedpursuant toCalifornia Penal Codesection925, whichstates inpart, “…investigations maybe conductedonsomeselectivebasis each year.” Thefocus ofthe review was directedtoonecomponent ofHumanServices offeredtoresidents ofCalaveras County, namely,CPS. This program is requiredbystatemandates toprovideveryspecificservices. The reviewattemptedto examineCPS todeterminethelevel ofcomplianceto thestatemandates. SCOPE: Thereviewwas limitedtothefivemajorservices toCalaveras Countychildreninneedof protection. PROCEDURE: Calaveras CountyWorks andHumanServices administers CPS. Therefore,ascheduledon-site agencyreviewwas conductedat theMountainRanchRoadfacilityinSan Andreas. Pursuant to CaliforniaPenal Codesection916,whichrequires noless thantwomembers oftheGrandJury toconduct aninterview/investigation,threejurors met withtheCPS program manager,and a social worksupervisor. Theadministratorandthestaffsupervisorwerewell preparedforthe interview. Theyseemed eagerto respondtothejurors’inquiries,andprovidedconcise answers andgeneral information as requested. FINDINGS: ChildrenentertheCPS system throughavarietyofpathways. Referrals comefrom thefamily itself,neighbors, relatives,andthecourt system. Anothersourceofreferral comes from “mandatedreporters”. Thesereporters arerequiredbylawto report anysuspected child abuse/neglect cases. Thesearepeoplewho areprofessionallyinvolvedwiththechild,i.e., teachers,therapists,doctors,etc. Ifthemandated reporters fail tomakea report,theyface a misdemeanorcharge. Thereferents arenot liableiftheirreport is madeingoodfaith. Thefollowingfivestate mandatedprograms provideservices tothe childreninneedofvarying degrees ofprotection. Theinformationprovided indicatedall fivemandatedservices arebeing providedinCalaveras County. 1. EmergencyResponse(ER)is animmediateresponsewherethefamily/childis seen withintwohours. Thereviewrevealedthat of atotal 793reported cases in 2001,115 cases weredeemedER cases,andwereseenwithinthe2-hourlimit. Policebecome involvedintheevent that apurported crimehas beencommitted. 32 2. FamilyMaintenance(FM)is providedifit is determinedachildcanbesafelyleft in thecareofthefamilyunit,andservices are focusedonkeepingthefamilytogether. 3. FamilyReunification(FR)is providedwheresupervisionservices are requiredas a childis returnedfrom out-of-homeplacement. Thejuvenilecourt mayrequirecertain actions bytheparents,forexamplesubstanceabusecounseling,parentingclasses,or drugtesting,inordertoalleviaterisks tothechildas here-enters thefamilyunit. Court orders oftendeterminethefrequencyofsocial worksupervisionandvisitation. 4. PermanencyPlanning(PP)includes adoptionservices. Thefocus is toplaceachild inapermanent home as soonas possibleinsituations where reunificationis deemed impossible. This earlypermanent placement plan serves toavoidmultipleorlong term fosterhomeplacement andtomeet thechild’s right tohave apermanent home. 5. IndependencePlanning(IP)is aservicetoaidchildrenwholeavefostercaredueto reachingthe ageof18,or theemancipationofminors. Thejurors conductingthis reviewwereprovidedthefollowingstatistics for 2001: 1. CPS total reports: 793 2. Reports investigated: 558 3. Theremainingreports wereevaluatedout,or “settledat intake.” 4. Total investigations: 115within2hours,withremaining443in10days. 5. Out-of-homeplacements: 152 6. Familymaintenanceservices provided: 89 CPS has 10½approvedpositions. Staffingis aserious concern. It was reportedthat two positions arevacant at anygiventime. Staffingis downone-thirdduetovacations,long-term illnesses,orfailedrecruitment efforts. This places thestaffinadifficult situationinterms of meetingthestatemandates. Clearly,thesestaffingconditions createunduestress,riskingearly “burn-out”inthestressful jobofprotectingabused andneglectedchildren. CONCLUSION: Theinsufficient salarylevels inCalaveras Countyaddtothis staffingcrisis. Theeducational requirements,i.e., BAdegree,orpreferablyaMasters DegreeinSocial Work(MSW)arenot competitivelycompensated. Currentlythereis noChildren’s Shelteroremergencycarefacility inCalaveras County,but somehomes arespeciallylicensedtoprovidethis level ofcare. An examplewouldbeanewborntestedpositivefordrugs who cannot safelyreturnhomewiththe parents. It was estimated 80%ofalleged childabuse/neglect cases involve childrenlivingina homewheredrugs and alcohol are abused. Despitetheirmanyadvantages, duetostaffing shortages,satelliteoffices arenot currentlyconsideredaviableoption. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Increasesalaries andothercompensations,i.e.,alternateworkscheduleoptions. 33 2. Explorethefeasibilityof acountyoperatedChildren’s Shelter,includingemergencycare. 3. Closelymonitorsocial workercaseloadstandards. RESPONSES REQUIRED: 1. BoardofSupervisors 2. CPS Program Manager . LAW AND JUSTICE A. CALAVERAS COUNTYJAIL TheCalaveras CountyJail is locatedwithintheCalaveras CountySheriff’s Department complex at 891MountainRanch Road,SanAndreas,Californiaandoperates under thesupervisionofthe Sheriff. TheJail Commanderis aswornofficerof theSheriff’s Department withtherankof captain. REASONFOR INVESTIGATION: Penal Codesection919states that theGrandJuryshall inquireannuallyintotheconditionand management ofpublicprisons withinthecounty. BACKGROUND: TheGrandJuryvisitedtheCountyJail inNovember2001. Thevisit was focusedon general conditions,staffing,inmateprocedures,and whetheranyprogress hadbeen madewiththenew countyjail andsheriff’s officeproject. PROCEDURE: As part ofits investigation,theGrandJuryconductedinterviews withthesheriff,thejail commanderandtherankingsergeant. TheGrand Juryreviewedinformationbasedoninterviews anddocumentationreceived. Interviews wereconductedbynoless thantwomembers ofthe GrandJurypursuant toPenal Codesection916. FINDINGS: 1. ThePhysical Plant Thepolicies andprocedures governingtheCalaveras CountyJail met orexceededtheMinimum Standards for Local DetentionFacilities as outlinedinTitles 15and24oftheCaliforniaCodeof Regulations. Theneed foranewjail has beenrecognizedforovertwentyyears. The Needs Assessment and Project Fundingcommittees andsheriff’s office personnel arepursuingall avenues forlocation offacility,architectural design,andproject funding. OnApril 4,2002,the countysheriff’s department was amongsevencounties presentingproposals totheCaliforniaBoardof Corrections ExecutiveSteeringCommitteeforthe 2001/2002ConstructionGrants Program. SheriffDownum invited twojurors from theGrandJurytoattendthehearing. Supporters includedrepresentatives from thesheriff’s department,executivedirector oftheCounty ChamberofCommerce, chiefprobationofficer, members oftheCalaveras CountyBoardof Supervisors,Angels Camppolicechief,Superior Court judge,buildingdirector,county administrativeoffice and CHP lieutenant commander. TheCalaveras Countypresentationwas 35 well organized,usedvisual aids,answeredinquiries from thecommittee,suppliedstatistical data, anddemonstrated acompleteunderstandingofthecurrent andfutureneeds ofanewdetention facility. Thepresentationnot onlystressedtheneedtoreplacethepresent antiquatedfacility,but alsofocusedonthe riskandsafetyissues ofdetainees andjail staff. Calaveras Countyrequested$8,000,544ingrant funds. This grant request was subsequently denied. Thepresent Calaveras CountyJail was built in1963andwas last remodeledin1999whenfour highsecuritycells wereadded. Thephysical layout ofthefacilityis antiquatedandlacks proper visual observationofcells,walkways andhighsecurityareas. Thestaffoffices areinadequatein size,andthehallways arenarrow. Thefacility,however, was foundtobe verycleanandwell maintained. TheBoardofCorrections mandatedcapacityis 56maleand9femaleinmates. Inmates classifiedas intoxicatedandthosewithcivil complaints arenot includedinthecapacityratio. Inmates areinthefacilityupto6hours forintoxicationandtoa yearorlongerformoreserious offenses. Most inmates arethereforpre-trial confinement. Somesentences requireinmates to betransportedtotheStatePrisonReceivingCenterinTracyforfurtherprocessing. 2. JailStaffing Thejail operates threeshifts. Twoshifts consist offourcorrectional officers permorningand eveningshifts. Twocorrectional officers staffthe midnight shift. Additional officers areadded forspecificevents. 3. Medical Services Medical,psychiatric and dental services areprovidedbytheCalifornia ForensicMedical Group (CFMG). A registerednurseconducts afour-hourperday“sickcall”MondaythroughFriday. Aphysicianis oncall 24 hours aday,sevendays a weekandis present at thefacilitytwodays perweek. CFMG alsoprovides pharmaceuticals byprescription,x-rayservices,anddisposal of biohazardous medical wastegeneratedbythejail. CFMGis responsiblefor thedevelopment of writtenpolicies andprocedures usedbythejail that conform toapplicable stateandfederal guidelines. Summaries ofhealthcare,pharmaceutical services,andmedical chart reviews are provided,reviewed,and discussedat quarterlyCFMGmeetings withthesheriff,mental health, social services, environmental,andpublichealthmedical officer. 4. DietaryStandards Foodis preparedinthejail kitchen,whichwas immaculate. Facilities,sanitation,food preparationandstorageexceededthestandards mandatedbythestate. The on-sitedietary supervisorprovides meals at acost tothecountyofabout $2.00permeal. 36 5. InmateRules andRegulations Thereis nocommissaryinthefacility. Prisoners ordermerchandiseinwriting,andavendor brings theitems,which arecheckedpriortoreleasetotheinmate. Prisoner funds are safeguardedand canonlybespent throughthevendorsystem. There arewrittenpolicies andprocedures that allowreasonableaccess toa telephonebeyond thoserequiredbylaw. Policies andprocedures alsoprovidethat thereis nolimitationonthe volumeofmail. However,whentherearevalid securityreasons themail maybereadand/or searchedinthepresence oftheinmate. Indigent inmates are allowedtwopostage-freeletters eachweektofamilyand friends,andunlimitedpostage-free correspondencewithhis/her attorneyandthe courts. Thejail libraryincludes legal referencematerials. Thelibrarycontains current informationoncommunityandresourceservices,plus religious,educational,and recreational readingmaterial. CONCLUSION: ThegrowthofCalaveras Countyandthelackoffundingforces thepersonnel toworkina facilitythat is over-crowded. This situationpresents potential dangertoemployees andinmates. Thecountyjail is not ratedtoprovideforjuvenile offenders.

F4: Availabilityof grant sharemonies,as well as support indealingwithstate andfederal agencies,shouldbeprovidedbyCountyagencies. RESPONSES REQUESTED:

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: TheGrandJurystronglyencourages thecounty’s supervisors,sheriff,probationdepartment,the Needs Assessment andProject Fundingcommittees,andthepublictoexhaust everyavenueto expediteconstructionofthejail andsheriff’s officeproject. TheGrandJuryalsorecommends thejail andsheriff’s officeproject providefacilities forjuvenileoffenders. RESPONSES REQUESTED: 1. BoardofSupervisors 2. CountySheriff 3. Needs Assessment andProject Fundingcommittees 4. ProbationDepartment 37 B. CALAVERAS COUNTYSHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT Thecountyjail shares thefacilitywiththesheriff’s department. Sub-stations arelocatedin Arnold,Copperopolis,MountainRanch,ValleySprings,andWest Point. Theyarestaffedby deputies andvolunteers. There are four geographical areas inthecounty, eachconsistingof250 squaremiles,withfivecountysub-stations. REASONFOR REVIEW: This reviewwas conductedpursuant toPenal Codesection925,whichstates theGrandJury shall investigate andreport ontheoperations,accounts,andrecords oftheofficers,departments, orfunctions ofthecounty. 1. Personnel Thesheriff’s officepersonnel numbers 95,including56swornofficers. Thecost tothecountyto recruit,hire andtraina deputyis approximately$25,000. Becauseofthecost oftraining,the department attempts toemploydeputies withacommitment tothecommunity. 2. Volunteers Thesheriff’s officerelies heavilyonvolunteers. Eachvolunteerdonates timeinfour-hour blocks. Volunteers payfortheirownuniforms. Training consists ofdriver’s assessment, office training,and radioprocedure. Therewereover7,000hours ofvolunteertimein2001. In addition,muchoftheneededmaintenanceofthevolunteerpatrol vehicles is donatedbylocal businesses. CONCLUSION; ThegrowthofCalaveras Countyandthelackoffundinghavecausedthejail andthesheriff’s officetobulge at theseams,despitetheutilizationoffivesub-stations. Personnel are requiredto workinafacilitythat is sub-standard. TheGrandJuryfoundthevolunteersheriff’s program is avital asset tothe sheriff’s office and Calaveras County. Individuals andbusinesses whovolunteertheirtimeandmoneyaretobe commendedfortheirdedicationandcommitment tothecommunity. CITIZEN COMPLAINTS TheGrandJuryis part of ourgovernment,an adjunct ofthejudicial system,anddepends onthe publictreasuryforits resources. It largelydepends ontheintelligence,senseofpublicservice, andgood will ofits members. It alsoreceives and acts uponcitizencomplaints. It has jurisdictioninselectingthedirectionofits investigations. Neitherofficial request norpublic outcryshould forcethejurytoundertake aninquiry, whichit deems unnecessaryorundesirable. Eventhough amattermaybeinlitigation,theGrandJurymaystill pursueissues relevant toits interests andscopeofauthority. Individual countydepartments canworkonsolvingproblems. However, whenthat fails,the GrandJuryprovides the next level ofresolution. General questions toadepartment about a mutuallyreceived complaint maybehelpful inmotivatingthem tobemorethorough. Complainants arenomoreentitledtoinformationabout GrandJuryinvestigations thananyone else. Discretionis taken whendealingwiththose complainants whoarecontactedfor additional informationorwhocontact theGrandJuryforstatus reports. TheGrandJuryis obligatedonly toprovidetheresults ofits inquiries inthefinal report,andnot tospecificindividuals. Someofthecomplaints received anddispatchedbythe2001-2002GrandJuryare as follows: ITEM: CALAVERAS COUNTYWATERDISTRICT This complaint indicatedtheCalaveras CountyWaterDistrict (CCWD)hadcharged acustomer forsomethingthe customerdidnot want orneed. In addition,thecustomer questionedthe legalityof collectionof CCWDfees bytheCountyTax Collectorviacountypropertytax bills. BACKGROUND: TheCCWDcustomerwas chargedtheminimum monthlybaserateforwaterandsewer. Customerstatedhewas onwell water andsepticsewer andthat hedidnot want orrequirethe services ofCCWD. SCOPEANDPROCEDURE: Interviews were conductedbyat least twomembers oftheGrandJury. Thenewlyelected President oftheBoardof Directors ofCCWDwas interviewedat a general meetingoftheGrand Jury. TheGrandJuryinvestigatedpursuant toPenal Codesection916. Interviews were conductedat theCalaveras CountyAuditor/Controller’s office,at theoffices ofCCWD,andat theGrandJurymeetingfacility. ObtainedandreviewedweretheCaliforniaWaterCodes, CCWDResolutionno.99-56,section31701(e)andtheCalaveras CountyBoardofSupervisors MinuteOrders andResolutions. FINDINGS: CCWDResolutionNo.99-56datedOctober13,1999,changedthemonthly“stand byfee”from $10.00toa“minimum baserate”. AfterResolutionNo.99-56,customers havetheoptiontopay theminimum baserates ortodisconnect entirelyfrom CCWD. Ifa customerchooses to disconnect andthen reconnect inthefuture,thecustomerwouldbecharged thefull amount ofa newhookupfee. This changeofpolicyis legal underthecurrent CaliforniaWaterCodethat governs CCWD’s actions. OnJuly12,1993,theCalaveras CountyBoardof Supervisors approvedResolutionNo.93-261. This resolutionauthorizedtheAuditor/Controllertoplacedelinquent andunpaidfees dueto CCWDonCountytax bills pursuant toCaliforniaWaterCodes sections 31701(e)and31701.5. OnAugust 30,1993, aBoardofSupervisors MinuteOrder was passedunanimouslyauthorizing theChairmantosignan agreement withCCWDauthorizingreimbursement totheCountyfor costs ofcollectionofCCWDdelinquent charges onCountytax bills. Anagreement for reimbursement costs ofcollectionofdelinquent charges forResolutionNo.93- 261was signedonAugust 30,1993. Thefollowingexcerpts are from this agreement between theBoardofDirectors of CCWDandtheCalaveras CountyBoardofSupervisors: TheCountyagreedto collect delinquent charges forCCWD. CCWDagrees toreimburse theCounty$250or2%ofthedelinquent charges, whicheveris greater,for each yearin whichtheCountycollects thedelinquent charges. CCWDagreedtopaytheCountya one-time-onlyinitial set-upcharge forthe Fiscal Year1993-94. Section31701(e)indicates theBoardofDirectors forCCWDeach yearprovides in writingtotheCalaveras CountyBoardofSupervisors andAuditoralist of delinquencies foreachfiscal yeartobe includedontheCountytax rolls. ACTION: Complainant was notifiedbyletteroutliningtheinformationdescribedabove. CONCLUSION: CCWDhas recentlyaddressed,inpublichearings, manyoftheissues that havetarnishedthe imageoftheCCWDwithits customers andthecitizenryofCalaveras Countyas a whole. The current BoardofDirectors acknowledges thepast mismanagement ofvast amounts ofmonies heldinassets oroperational fundaccounts. Suchmismanagement has resultedindrasticrate increases inrecent months. Thecurrent Boardof Directors has reevaluated CCWD’s operating procedures andhas made manychanges inits operational philosophy. The GrandJuryhopes that theeffectiveness ofthesepositivechanges will improvethesomewhat tarnishedimageof CCWDwiththegeneral publicandwill becomeevident inreduced rates andfees forservices rendered. One recurringissueofcomplaints against CCWDis theunfortunatename choice, whichincludes theword “county”. Manycomplainants assumeerroneouslythat thewater 40 district is aCalaveras Countyentity,andas aresult direct theirangerand frustrationagainst the CountyAdministration. Somethought might be giventoaffect achangein this matter.

F5: IndependencePlanning(IP)is aservicetoaidchildrenwholeavefostercaredueto reachingthe ageof18,or theemancipationofminors. Thejurors conductingthis reviewwereprovidedthefollowingstatistics for 2001:

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: Calaveras CountyWater District shouldsearch for andadopt anewnamewithout aconnotative linktotheCalaveras CountyAdministration. RESPONSES REQUESTED: Calaveras WaterDistrict BoardofDirectors ITEM: LEGAL ADVERTISING/PUBLICNOTICES Countyadministrativestaffsolicitedandthe BoardofSupervisors subsequentlyacceptedthebid oftheEckblom PublishingCompanytopublishlegal advertisingandpublicnotices ina newspaperof general circulationlegallyqualified andadjudicated fortheprintingand distributionofsuchmatterpursuant toGovernment Codesection6023. BACKGROUND: TheBoardofSupervisors,byresolution,accepted theEckblom PublishingCompanybidto providetherequiredserviceinDecember2000 for theperiodJanuary1,2001throughDecember 31,2002. Theawarded contract includedan agreement toprovidenewsstands withtheDaily News ineverycommunitywhereothernewsstands areavailable,tothesatisfactionofthe County. Citizens complainedabout theunavailabilityoftheDailyNews in several county locations. FINDINGS: Investigationbythe GrandJuryrevealedthat several areas ofthecountywerenot providedwith newsstands. Insomecommunities wheretheDailyNews was available,extensivesearches were necessaryinorder tofindlocations wheretheweeklynewspaper couldbefound. AfterGrand Juryinvestigations,attempts weremadebythe DailyNews tobroadendistribution,but the newspaperis still extremelydifficult tofindinsomeareas. Calaveras Countylegal advertisingis ofimportancetoall residents ofthecountybecauseit includes agendas forall scheduledpublicmeetings ofcountygovernment entities,including meetings oftheBoardof Supervisors,all legal notices,plus all meetingminutes,ordinances, delinquent tax lists anddisplayads whichcouldincludesuchimportant items as jobs that are availablewithincountygovernment. Theselegal advertisements shouldbeeasytofindandreadilyaccessibletoall residents ofthe county. It shouldnot be necessarytovisit locationafterlocationwithinacommunityinan attempt tofindtheDailyNews. Insome communities whereit is distributed,it is not present in 41 anewsstand,but onlyinanunmarkedstackat an obscurelocationwithinthestores andother businesses. CONCLUSIONS: Theprocess ofdeliveryofthecounty’s legal advertisingis veryunsatisfactoryandneeds tobe corrected. Thepublisher oftheDailyNews was withinhis rights tosubmit abidfortheright to publishthecountylegal notices. TheBoardofSupervisors provedit was shortsightedby awardingthe contract basedsolelyonlowest cost. Countywideavailability,as opposedtolowest cost,shouldbeconsideredbythe BoardofSupervisors inchoosingavehicleforthe county’s legal advertisingwhentheitem comes upfor renewal.

F6: Familymaintenanceservices provided: 89 CPS has 10½approvedpositions. Staffingis aserious concern. It was reportedthat two positions arevacant at anygiventime. Staffingis downone-thirdduetovacations,long-term illnesses,orfailedrecruitment efforts. This places thestaffinadifficult situationinterms of meetingthestatemandates. Clearly,thesestaffingconditions createunduestress,riskingearly “burn-out”inthestressful jobofprotectingabused andneglectedchildren. CONCLUSION: Theinsufficient salarylevels inCalaveras Countyaddtothis staffingcrisis. Theeducational requirements,i.e., BAdegree,orpreferablyaMasters DegreeinSocial Work(MSW)arenot competitivelycompensated. Currentlythereis noChildren’s Shelteroremergencycarefacility inCalaveras County,but somehomes arespeciallylicensedtoprovidethis level ofcare. An examplewouldbeanewborntestedpositivefordrugs who cannot safelyreturnhomewiththe parents. It was estimated 80%ofalleged childabuse/neglect cases involve childrenlivingina homewheredrugs and alcohol are abused. Despitetheirmanyadvantages, duetostaffing shortages,satelliteoffices arenot currentlyconsideredaviableoption.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: 1. That apublicationwitha larger circulationandbetterdistributionbeconsideredfor contract award. 2. TheBoardofSupervisors shouldreviewtheprocess bywhichtheyawardcontracts. RESPONSEREQUIRED: BoardofSupervisors ITEM: BUILDINGDEPARTMENT POLICY GOVERNING PRIVATE PROJECTS BACKGROUND: Acomplaint allegedthat buildingdepartment inspectors not onlydrewupplans forprivate parties,but alsolaterreviewedand approvedtheir ownplans. It furtherallegedthesame inspectors forgedthenames ofotheremployees purportedtohaveperformedthereviews. PROCEDURE: Inviewoftheobvious criminal actions ofalleged forgery,the GrandJurydecidedtoinvolvethe District Attorney. Investigators of thedistrict attorney’s staffconductedtheinquiries. FINDINGS: Originally,countypolicyhadbeenthat no employeeoftheCountycouldconduct anybusiness requiringcountyapproval,issuanceofpermits,etc. TheCountydeterminedthat was an unworkablepolicy. As a result,theCountyrewroteits policytoallowcountyemployees towork onorownaprivateproject orbusiness,as longas guidelines arefollowedtoavoidaconflict of interest. Whilethis policyis applicabletoall countyemployees,the BuildingDepartment has its own interpretationofthe countyguidelines as theypertaintoits employees and staff. It is mandatory that inspectors drawingupplans foranoutsidepartycannot dosowithout theapproval ofthe headofthe BuildingDepartment. Subsequently,buildinginspectors donot approvetheirown plans. Inspectors donot perform plan checks. Customers must pickuptheirownpermits and inspectors arenot allowedtoinspect projects theyhavedrawn.

F11: It became alarminglyclearthat Calaveras Countynot onlylacked anadequate,uniform system toadviseresidents ofcurrent fireinformation,but alsolackeda countywide alert system foremergencies in general. REASONFOR INVESTIGATION: Thedissatisfaction,apprehension,andheightened anxietyofArnoldarea residents was dueto thelackofreliable,up-to-dateinformationregardingrisks/scopeoftheDarbyFire. BACKGROUND: DuringtheDarbyFiremanyresidents were either evacuated,onevacuation alert,orworried about theirstatus whileflames from thefirewere visiblefrom theirresidences. Themeans of disseminatinginformationwas poorat best. Concurrently,thenational crisis producedincreased concern. Information,howeverinsufficient,for residents affectedbythefirecame from the CaliforniaDepartment of Forestry(CDF),theUS Forest Service,theCalaveras Sheriff’s Department,andothersources: • Manyresidents mistakenlyreliedonthenews coverageofthefirefrom TV stations that wereoftenunawareofcurrent developments and werenot areaspecific. • Thefiredepartments providedtelephonenumbers but oftenwithout-dated, non-specific information. • Theradiostations inSonoraandJacksonwerenot receivedbyall residents. TheSonora stationperiodicallyaired informationprovidedbyCDF,but was not always available, particularlyonweekends. • Thepublicaccess TVstationinformationwas at least adayold,andnot availableduring thepoweroutage. • Powerfailure/interruptionleft manyarearesidents reliant onneighbors or friends as the onlysourceofinformation. • Powerfailureinsurroundingareas leadtomorespeculationabout theproximityofthe fire. SCOPE: WhiletheDarbyFirebrought this lackofnotificationprocedures totheforefront,other emergencies inthecountysuch as waterquality, roadclosures, etc.would apply. FINDINGS: At acommunitymeetingwithDistrict 3supervisor,representatives from firedepartments,CDF, andtheSheriff’s department,communityturnout was significant,andthe majorcomplaint was lackofeasilyaccessibleinformation. WhileCDFpostednotices at several locations along Highway4,andalsoprovidedupdates toradiostations,it was not appropriatetoexpect residents 29 toleavetheirhomes at riskanddrivearoundlookingforpostednotices. Theforest service stationedanemployee at alocal market,andusingcharts anddiagrams,he attemptedtodispense informationtoshoppers. This methodofholdingcontinuous small,publicgatherings was ineffective. Inquiries werelimitedtospecificinformationforeachattendee,andwas not disseminatedtothegeneral public. TheactingCountyAdministrativeOfficer(CAO), alsotheheadoftheOfficeofEmergency Services (OES), was invitedtoattendtheNovember6,2001meetingofthe full GrandJury. His presentationwas followedbyadiscussionontheneedfor asystem ofemergencynotificationto replacewhat is currentlyused(describedabove). Subsequently,theGrand Jurychosetostudy thesituationandmakesuggestions. The District 3supervisorandtheCAO suggestedtheuseof a“banner” at thebottom oftheTVscreenduringregularprogrammingtoinform thepublic duringemergencies. This would behelpful, but onlyin circumstances wherepowersupplies werenot disrupted. Anewspaper articlementionedthat theBoardofSupervisors had recommendedtheCAOfollowupwithaneedassessment andrecommendations. OnApril 23,2002,theGrandJuryreceivedareport from theOES,whichaddressedissues in terms ofshort-term andlong-term avenues topursue. Short-term actions coverpublic notificationduringmajor fireevents andcouldbe implementedbythis comingfireseason. Theseactions involveOES andCDFcoordinatingtheir efforts toseekmoreefficient means of approvingquickerpress releases. Further,CDFis developinganewprotocol sothat duringfires theywill bemoreresponsivetoourlocal publicinformationneeds. Long-term actions arevery complex andinvolvemanylocal andstateagencies,includingPublicAccess Television (Channel 5),AT&Tcableservice,PublicAccess AdvisoryCommittee,StateOfficeof EmergencyServices,EmergencyAlert System,andtheFCC. Thedirectionoftheseactions appears touse television,specificallyChannel 5, as themechanism through whichthepublicwill benotifiedandupdatedduringemergencies. Inthis OES report,anearlier suggestionbyGrand Jurors,touseatelephone system,was felt tobeof nobenefit tothepublicat this time. The report states,“CDFalreadyprovides mannedemergencyphonelines duringmajor fireevents.” SUMMARY: Thereis aneedforemergencynotificationtocountyresidents duringemergencies. This notificationmust beavailableduringpoweroutages. This wouldrequiretelephones that donot relyon electricpower. Thefact that some residents donot receiveChannel 5must beconsidered intheplan. Finally,thesystem must beareaspecific.

F1982: SCOPE: The Grand Jury toured the airport under the able guidance of the manager. Ms. Kathy Zancanella has been in the position of airport manager since 1989. All information gathered and reported here was either provided by her or obtained from official publications. PROCEDURE: Several interviews with the manager were conducted and all questioning was conducted by at least two members of the Grand Jury pursuant to California Penal Code section 916. Some information was obtained on Airport Day 2002, which was organized as an open house event and, according to the airport manager, had the largest number of visitors ever. FINDINGS: The airport is equipped to handle ninety percent of general aviation activities. DC-3s have used the landing strip and several private business jets are landing periodically. The California Department of Forestry uses the airport to stage their firefighting tankers, observation planes and helicopters, as well as airborne command and control platforms in the event of major fire emergencies. The airport has an annual budget of approximately $282,560. The county’s General Fund has never been asked to provide operational funds or funds for expansion or improvement of airport or industrial facilities. It appears that the airport is completely selfsupporting. There are several non-airport related businesses located in the developed area of the airport. Those businesses are operating their facilities on a land lease basis. The Calaveras County

Page 1

Additional Recommendations 2

Not linked to specific findings.

R7: TheheadoftheBuildingDepartment shouldcloselymonitorworkperformedbyhis staffona privatebasis andprevent anycomminglingofactivities inconnectionwiththepermit process as requiredbytheCounty. RESPONSEREQUESTED: BuildingDepartment ITEM: BARKINGDOGS,NOISE ABATEMENT,ANDANIMAL CONTROL BACKGROUND: Acomplaint allegedthat anillegal dogkennel and “puppymill”werebeingoperatedinCircle XXarea. It furtherallegedthat animal control failed to prevent continued operationofthose kennels. Barkingdogs continuedtobeanuisance. FINDINGS: TheGrandJuryinvestigatedtheoriginal complaint,whichwas followedbyanotherletter delineatingfurther allegations ofimproprieties bythedogowners. Whenwecontacteddomestic animal control,wewereinformedthat Animal Control was awareofthestatedproblem andwas lookingintoit. Furtherinvestigationshowedthat complaints andpetitions byneighbors had beeninitiatedandcirculatedforabout 18months. Theinteractionbetween complainant and Animal Control resultedinahearingbythe Board ofSupervisors toruleon thedogowner’s request for akennel permit. Thepermit was not grantedbecausethedogowners arestill out of compliancewithcountyordinances. Citations havebeenissued, andAnimal Control continues tomonitortheactivities inconnectionwithnoiseabatement andallegedanimal abuse. Animal Control is handlingthedetails as theyapplytothis complaint.

R8: Animal Control shouldmonitorthis situationforcodecomplianceandnoiseabatement. RESPONSEREQUIRED: Animal Control 43 ITEM: BROWNACT BACKGROUND: Acomplaint was receivedabout apossibleviolationoftheBrownAct bya memberofaveterans district boardinadenial ofunemployment benefits bytheEconomicDevelopment Department (EDD), aCaliforniastate agency. PROCEDURE: TheBrownAct, andits applicabilitytoveterans memorial district boards,was reviewed. FINDINGS: Veterans memorial district boards aresubject totheBrownAct. WhiletheBrownAct applies to publicmeetings ofdistrict boards,it does not applytotheacts ofasingleindividual actinginthe capacityofhis position. Furthermore,theEDDis astateagency,andthus outsidethe jurisdictionoftheCalaveras CountyGrandJury. ITEM: ADULT PROTECTIVE SERVICES BACKGROUND: The2000-2001GrandJuryactedon acomplaint about abuseandneglect of anelderlymanbya workeroftheAdult ProtectiveServices Unit oftheCalaveras CountySocial Services Agency. That GrandJuryconductedaninvestigationandfoundnowillful misconduct,malfeasanceor neglect. Anadditional letterreceivedbythe2001-2002GrandJuryrequiredafollowup. PROCEDURE: Inquiries weremade withthecourt clerk todeterminestatus ofcases cited. FINDINGS: Thematteris nowthesubject oflegal action. No furtheractionwas taken bytheGrandJury. ITEM: JUVENILE PROBATIONCASE PLAN BACKGROUND: Acomplaint was receivedbythemotherofa youthinvolvedwiththejuvenilecriminal justice system regardingthe caseplanwrittenforherson. FINDINGS: Areadingofthecomplaint revealedthat thecase planhadbeensubject toCourt proceedings and hadreceivedajudicial review,placingit beyondthescopeoftheGrandJury. ITEM: POSSIBLE ELDERABUSE ANDMISMANAGEMENT AT ASENIOR HOUSINGPROJECT BACKGROUND: Intheinitial complaint,specificcharges werenot explicitlystated. The GrandJuryrequested furtherdetailedinformation. Theletterreceivedas aresult oftheGrandJury’s inquirywas still non-specific. PROCEDURES ANDFINDINGS: Researchintotheownershipandlicensingofthefacilityrevealedtheprogram is operatedbya privatecorporationunder Federal HousingandUrbanDevelopment (HUD) regulations,andthus outsidetheGrandJury’s jurisdiction. Adult ProtectiveServices was contactedtodeterminethe procedurefor reportingelderabuse. ACTION: Complainant was informedabout thejurisdictionoftheGrandJuryandwas urgedtocontact Adult ProtectiveServices withspecificabuse complaints. ITEM: CENTRAL CALAVERAS FIRE AND RESCUE PROTECTIONDISTRICT This complaint was twofold. Thefirst part pertainedtoresponsetimeand propertydamageas a result ofinefficient uses oftax monies whenpurchasingequipment,andthesecondpart pertainedtothemisuseoffunds toadvertisethepositionoffirechief andthelongperiodoftime before anew chiefwas hired. Part A: BACKGROUND: TheCentral District is central tothecountyandincludes MountainRanch, Glencoe,Railroad Flat andSheepRanch. This areaof responsibilityis generallyrural innaturewithsome mountainous areas especiallybetween MountainRanchandSheepRanch. SCOPEANDPROCEDURE: Thescopeoftheinquiries was restrictedtothesubject ofthecomplaint andall investigations were conductedpursuant toPenal Codesection 925. Interviews were conductedbyat least two members oftheGrandJury. FINDINGS: TheCentral District purchasedsurplus 4WDmilitaryvehicles. Thesevehicles met theNFPA 2001EditionSection1906standardfor wild-landfireapparatus. Thevehicles are4-wheel drive foroptimum effectiveness inthecountyterrain. Thepricewas withinthedistrict’s budget. The district was abletopurchaseusedvehicles anddo theretrofittingthemselves. TheCentral District alsousedthespareparts ofusedvehicles toassembleamuch-neededtanker. Thecost of anewtankeris farbeyondthebudget. Responsetimeis determinedbydiscovery,notificationandroadconditions. Becauseofthe windingroads inthearea,theCentral District responds as fast as theroads will safelyallow. Responsetimehas not beenaffectedduetolackof orinadequate equipment. Therewas extensivefiredamageto astructureoverthepast yearbecauseofits metal roof. As aresult of havingametal roof,thefireliterallycookedthestructure andcontents beforediscovery. After discoveryandnotification,theresponsewas prompt. Allegations as toinadequateresponsetime andunnecessarypropertydamagecouldnot besubstantiated. Part B: BACKGROUND: Complainant allegedtaxpayerfunds werebeingmisusedtoadvertisefor anewfirechiefandthat it was takingtoolongtohireanew chief. SCOPEANDPROCEDURE: Interviews were conductedbytwomembers oftheGrandJuryat theCentral District’s station withtheretiringFireChief. FINDINGS: Thebudget forhiringanewchiefis determinedbytheCentral District’s BoardofDirectors. TheCentral District was given a$300budget ofwhichtheyhadan estimated$100remainingat thetimeoftheinterview (July17,2001). TheCentral District advertised at nochargeon Internet websites andthroughinterdepartmental notices. Theypaidfornewspaper andtrade magazineadvertisements. Efforts tofindachiefproduced14applicants. Beforethis interview, theyhadhireda chief,however,that personresignedaftersix months forpersonal reasons. TheBoardofDirectors alsodetermines thequalificationstipulations. Aqualifiedapplicant was hiredas FireChieffortheCentral Calaveras Fire andRescueProtectionDistrict onNovember 46 16,2001. Allegations ofmisuseoftax funds duringthehiringprocess of a newfire chief andthe longperiodpriortothehiringof anew chiefappeartobeunfounded. ITEM: IMPROPRIETIES INTHE FORMERDISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE Complainant madetwoseparateallegations ofimproprieties,towit,thepurported misappropriationandmishandlingof funds; andtheunauthorizedfixedasset purchases as well as unauthorizedcapital improvement projects inthe district attorney’s office. Both allegations occurredpriortoMay2001. BACKGROUND(First allegation): Complainant statedthat theDistrict Attorneyoperates illegal bankaccounts,continues to maintainsuchbankaccounts out ofbalance and un-reconciled,madeunauthorizedfixedasset purchases andunauthorizedcapitol improvements intheDistrict Attorney’s office. FINDINGS: TheGrandJuryinvestigationshowednomisconduct,malfeasanceornegligenceonthepart of theformerDistrict Attorneyorhis staff. BACKGROUND(Secondallegation): Complainant states that theselectionprocess fortheinterim District AttorneybytheBoardof Supervisors was not afairweighingofqualifications ofall applicants but ratheraforegone conclusion. FINDINGS: TheGrandJuryinvestigatedtheselectionprocess usedbytheBoardofSupervisors toselect an interim district attorney. Theprocedurewas public,well announcedinadvance, andseveral applicants wereinterviewed. Final judgment as tothebest-qualifiedindividual rests solelywith theBoardofSupervisors. ITEM: JAIL ANDARREST POLICIES OFTHE CALAVERAS COUNTY SHERIFF TheCalaveras Countysheriffandhis deputies workunderstrict rules of conduct whenthey arrest anindividual and whenapersonis booked intotheCountyJail. BACKGROUND: Complainant arguedthat hewas treatedwithunnecessaryharshness while hewas arrested at his homeandtransportedtotheCountyJail. Thealleged roughtreatment is purportedtohave aggravatedanoldinjuryofsubject. Afterhewas bookedintojail,complainant alleges that medications hemust take routinelywerenot given tohim. His wifehadbrought these medications to thejail afterhewas booked. FINDINGS: Deputies onpatrol andjail guards must operatestrictlybytherules andregulations providedby theSheriff’s office fortheirconduct. Thereis verylittlepersonal discretionthat canbe applied bytheofficers. Handlingof arrestedpersons and dispensationofmedications tojail inmates is strictlyregulated. Duringits investigation, theGrandJuryfoundnomisconduct,malfeasanceor negligenceonthepart of theCalaveras CountySheriffDepartment’s employees. ITEM: LEGALITYOFADVERTISINGBILLBOARDS ALONGHIGHWAY12 BACKGROUND: TheValleySprings ChamberofCommerceapparentlyhas beenthesoundingboard formany complaints about allegedlyillegal billboardsigns alongHighway12. Thesecomplaints were generatedbycitizens and leaders ofvarious local organizations. TheValleySprings Chamberof Commercepresentedtheseconcerns totheGrand Juryina formal complaint. PROCEDURE: Sitereview,meetings withcountyofficials,discussions withtheCaliforniaDepartment of Transportation(CalTrans)andViacom OutdoorAdvertising,theownerofthebillboards,arethe basis forthefollowing. FINDINGS: TheGrandJurylookedintothecomplaints oftheChamberofCommerce, whichdescribedthe signs as eyesores andpossiblesafetyhazards. WhileCalaveras CountyPlanningDepartment officials havedetermined thesigns tobeclassified as “legallyexistingnonconforming”,they ostensiblysit onaCalTrans right ofwayeasement. Originallythelandbelongedtothe Union PacificRailroadCompanywhoseRailroadRealtyServices Corporationquitclaimedcertain signboard easements toNorried FamilyProperties, L.P.,aValleySprings partnership. CONCLUSION: CalTrans investigatedthe signs’locations anddeterminedtheyarelocatedillegallyonstate right ofway. Viacom,thebillboards’present owner,was giventheright toappeal theCalTrans 48 decision. At thetimeofthis writing,Viacom chosetoappeal, andahearinghas beenscheduled forMay28,2002. ITEM: SKATEBOARDFACILITYAT TURNERPARK BACKGROUND: Aneighborwithpropertydirectlyadjacent tothe NorthendofTurnerPark inSanAndreas complainedabout activities inconnectionwithaskateboard facilitylocated next tohis property. Thecomplaint included noisepollution,seeminglyunendingoperatinghours without regardto postedrules,andnoevidenceof anycountyapprovedplans,constructionbids orpermits. PROCEDURE: Minutes ofmeetings oftheSanAndreas ProgressiveClub,Calaveras CountyPlanning Commissionrecords,informationobtainedfrom theDistrict 1supervisor, andinput bythe sheriff,were reviewedandprovidedmaterial forthefollowingsummary. FINDINGS: Thepropertyon whichTurnerParkis locatedwas deededforthat purposetothecommunityof SanAndreas. Calaveras Countyacceptedtheland withtheprovisothat theSanAndreas ProgressiveClub,anon-profit organization,wouldtakeontheresponsibilityformaintenance, operational costs andupkeepofthepark. InSeptember1994,theCountyPlanningCommission heldapublichearing. Duringthehearing,which was publicizedproperly, nocomplaints were voiced. FollowingthePlanningCommission’s hearing, azoningchangewas proposedand approvedbythe Boardof Supervisors onNovember1,1994. This change allows theparkto containrecreational facilities. Onthebasis ofthoseactions,nopublichearingwas requiredfor theadditionoftheskateboardfacility. Forconstructionoftheskateboardfacility,nopublicbids were requiredbecausethefacilitywas paidforwithProgressiveClubfunds. Minutes oftheProgressiveClub,aprivateorganizationnot withinthejurisdictionoftheGrand Jury,showthecomplainant has attendedseveral meetings duringwhichthe additionofthe skateboardfacilitywas discussed. TheCalaveras CountySheriffroutinelypatrols theparkareaandenforces all applicableloitering andnoiseabatement regulations. CONCLUSION: Weareoftheopinionthe complainant was informedofall aspects oftheconstructionprocess. Whilewemaysympathizewiththecomplainant’s situationandagreethat moreconsideration shouldhavebeen giventoadjacent propertyowners,we,nevertheless, can findnoviolations of countyordinances inthis matter. ITEM: CODE COMPLIANCE ANDENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT BACKGROUND: TheGrandJuryreceived acomplaint concerningactions takenbytheDirectorofthe Environmental HealthDepartment,whichoperates undertheCalaveras CountyAgricultureand Environmental Management Agency. Thecomplaint involvedtherepairor replacement ofa singleresidencesepticsystem. PROCEDURE: TheGrandJuryinvestigatedthis complaint byinterviewingtheDirectorof Environmental Health,consultingwiththeOnSiteSewageDivisionoftheCountyBuildingDepartment,and inspectingpermit status as well as criminal complaint documents oftheSuperiorCourt. FINDINGS: Numerous inspections bytheCountyBuildingDepartment,OnSiteSewageDivision,resultedin aflowofcorrespondence betweenMarch2000 andthetimeofthis investigation. Whilethe Countyheldthat all work must beaccomplishedunderpermit,complainant arguedthat heis not inapositiontoobtainthenecessaryloantofinancesuchaproject. Deadlines wereset andcourt actionensued. CONCLUSION: TheGrandJurydidnot pass judgment onthemerits ofspecificitems inconnectionwithaseptic system built tocode,but ratherlooked at theprocedureusedbycountyofficials toservethe citizens ofthecounty. Wefoundnoviolations ofcountypolicies oranymalfeasance, nonfeasanceor evendiscourtesyonthepart of countyemployees. ITEM: CALAVERAS COUNTYSHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT POLICY CONCERNINGIMPOUNDED PROPERTY Acomplaint allegedtheft ofpersonal propertyfrom acitizenduringthesearchandsubsequent seizureofatruck. As of thedateofthe complaint,thepropertyhadnot beenreturnedtothe citizen. BACKGROUND: It was allegedthat asheriff’s deputytookpersonal propertyfrom acitizenduringavehicle search. Impoundeditems were adriver’s license andatape from thevehicle’s taperecorder. Thevehicle alsowas heldas evidence. Thedeputyhad abackupofficerwhoarrivedonthe sceneinaseparatevehicle,andthecomplainant alsohadawitness. FINDINGS: Thedeputies onthesceneappliedall properrules andregulations duringthearrest ofthe complainant. Whileit istruethesubject’s vehicle, his driver’s license, and atapefrom his tape recorderwereseizedduringthe arrest,it is alsodocumentedthevehicleand thedriver’s license havesincebeenreturned tothesubject.Thetapeis beingheldas evidenceforfurther adjudicationofthesubject’s court case. Nomisconduct orotherunlawful actions onthepart of thedeputies was discoveredduringtheinvestigation. Nofurther actionwill betakenbythe GrandJury. ITEM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT VARIANCE DECISION This complaint allegedthat permits issuedbythe BuildingDepartment and variances grantedby thePlanningDepartment allowedtheconstruction,inaresidential area,of acommercial garage buildingat 456Mariposa Street,SanAndreas. BACKGROUND: Thecontroversyoverthis buildinghas beenpresentedtotheGrandJuryin several complaints andinvolves several different grandjuries duringprior years. FINDINGS: Anindustrial typemetal buildingwas erected in1996withproperpermitsonaprivateproperty locatedinasingle-familyresidential zone. Duringthefollowing years,complaints about the structureandits location were receivedand eventuallyreachedthelevel of ahearingbythe BoardofSupervisors. ThePlanningDepartment hadgranted avariance forthis buildingto remainas built. It appears that duringOctober2001,thePlanningDepartment reviewedthe variances anddecidedto revokeit. TheownerofthepropertyappealedtotheBoardof Supervisors,andinNovember2001,therevocationofthegrantingofthevariancewas revoked andthevariance reinstated. CONCLUSION: Whiletheexistingsituationmayberegrettable as seenfrom thepropertyowner’s perspective,as well as thecitizens ofthe immediateneighborhood,it is not theroleoftheGrandJuryto arbitrateorpass judgment. It is,however,therole oftheGrandJurytocheckontheprocedures, whichgovernthe actiontakenbythevarious countyagencies. Ourinvestigationshowedno evidenceofmalfeasance ornonfeasanceon thepart ofcountyemployees. Charges ofwillful misconduct appeartobe unjustified. TheGrandJurywill takenofurtheraction. 51