Calaveras County Grand Jury
2006-2007
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
A facility upgrade recommended by a special audit in 2006, remains unresolved. The proposed plan submitted by Nacht & Lewis Architects to the County Administrator includes acquisition of space, construction of a new animal shelter, and repairs to the existing facility. A timeline to review the plan has not been developed. Repair and renovations to the existing facility have not been made because the Board of Supervisors has not allocated funding.
F2:
A recent visit to the animal shelter revealed a new modular building has been placed at the animal shelter site and the office is operational to provide the necessary services to the community. The building was found to have adequate space for the staff with a much larger foyer area where visitors can conduct business at the facility. The Grand Jury recognizes the positive effort and commitment of the Board of Supervisors and Sheriff for the much needed improvements.
F3:
Not all kennels have been replaced or repaired and no time frame has been designated to complete the projects. The heating element in the kennel floors is inoperable. Staff reported that three standing heaters have been ordered but as of the date of the Grand Jury tour, the heaters were not in place. The Plexiglas fixture to cover the front panel of the quarantine kennel had not been completed and continues to need repair.
F4:
Written procedure manuals have been developed to standardize procedures in the areas of: 1. Safety Training and Universal Precautions 2. Euthanasia policy 3. Staff dress code, grooming, and equipment 4. Feline shelter protocol 5. Pet of the Week procedure 43 A problem exists in maintaining the procedure manuals in a centralized location and in the proper format. These procedures should be reviewed as needed, revised on an annual basis and approved by the Sheriff. Three of the existing procedures are in proper format and contain signature approval of the Sheriff. The Pet of the Week procedure is in proper format but does not contain signature block for the Sheriff. The Feline Shelter protocol is not in proper format and does not have a signature block for the Sheriff approval. The procedure manuals were not located in a centralized location, available for all staff. Although the procedure manuals have been developed, there is no indication staff has been provided training or read these procedures to ensure they are familiar with the requirements of these procedure manuals.
F5:
A review of the visitor logbook revealed that not all volunteers are signing in as required.
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Safety Training and Universal Precautions
R2:
Centralized location in the Animal Control office
R3:
Staff dress code, grooming, and equipment
R4:
Feline shelter protocol
R5:
Pet of the Week procedure 43 A problem exists in maintaining the procedure manuals in a centralized location and in the proper format. These procedures should be reviewed as needed, revised on an annual basis and approved by the Sheriff. Three of the existing procedures are in proper format and contain signature approval of the Sheriff. The Pet of the Week procedure is in proper format but does not contain signature block for the Sheriff. The Feline Shelter protocol is not in proper format and does not have a signature block for the Sheriff approval. The procedure manuals were not located in a centralized location, available for all staff. Although the procedure manuals have been developed, there is no indication staff has been provided training or read these procedures to ensure they are familiar with the requirements of these procedure manuals. RECOMMENDATION The Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff develop a training program for staff assigned within Animal Control, including a method of written substantiation that this training is being provided on an annual basis and part of orientation for newly hired staff. Policies and procedures should be reviewed and revised annually as needed in a consistent format. All policies and procedures should contain the Sheriff signature for approval prior to implementation. The policies and procedures should be available as follows:
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
The 1990 & 2004 Board of Supervisors resolutions, 90-356 & 04-235, addressing Building Department revenue and appropriation by the establishment of a Land Use Department Trust Fund are not strictly in compliance with California Health and Safety Code §17951.
F2:
California Health and Safety Code §17951 (c) states “The amount of the fees prescribed pursuant to subdivisions (a) and (b) shall not exceed the amount reasonably required to administer or process these permits… and shall not be levied for general revenue purposes”. Fees collected, which exceed expenditures, can be carried over to the next fiscal year but are to be allocated only to the Building Department. The intent of the code is to prevent additional taxation when fees are collected and used for purposes other than to fund Building Department operations. Through the Supervisors resolution of 1990, 90-356, the Land Use Trust Fund could be used to “fund various expenditures associated with the operations of the Surveyor, Planning, Building and Environmental Health Departments”, as well as the Building Department, in violation of California Health and Safety Code §17951.
F3:
In 2004 the Board passed Resolution 04-235 which amended 90-356, effectively allowing funds which had been deposited only into the Land Use Trust Fund to go into the General Fund. The amendment was a violation of the California Health and Safety Code §17951. 31
F4:
In 2006 at the behest of the Director of Community Planning, the County Administrator’s Office began drafting a resolution intended to bring the funding process into compliance with California Health and Safety Code §17951. The resolution is expected to be presented to the Supervisors before the end of the 2006-2007 fiscal year. In addition, the Administrator’s office has the task of researching budgets since 1996 to determine funds which should be returned to the Building Department budget. This research is to include the establishment of all Building Department costs not charged in the budget. An accounting standard, A87 charges, allows for recovery of indirect costs not originally included in department budgets.
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
The 14 step application process being refined and proposed (Exhibit A) by the Community Development Agency (CDA) appears to have instituted key steps in an effort to resolve misconnects which may have developed during the process in the past. Those steps involve infrastructure and service aspects of a development.
F2:
The Pre-application meeting (step 2, Exhibit A) between the developer and county planning staff is intended to assist in the completion of the application, to expedite the process and issues, which might arise on the application itself. It does not imply acceptance, merely to resolve questions in the application process.
F3:
After a site visit by the Planning Department and the application is deemed complete for processing (step 4 and 5 Exhibit A), the recently added Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meeting (step 6 Exhibit A) is to be held. The purpose for adding the TAC meeting is to bring all “impacted/involved” agencies and special districts together with the developer in order to identify and discuss all aspects of the plan on the infrastructure. “Only County” agencies are required to be present.
F4:
The remaining steps 7 through 14 complete the process with public input included in Planning Commission and Board of Supervisor reviews, steps 13 and 14. SUMMARY In general, the process as being proposed by the Community Development Agency appears to streamline the application process with several refinements. If actual positive results come from the innovative step 6 TAC meeting, many past problems of infrastructure and service district misconnects could be resolved. The process requests “impacted/involved” agencies attend the meeting but further states only county agencies are required to attend TAC meetings. Infrastructure and service district input is critical to orderly development. Inadequate long term planning by service districts can be illuminated through this process.
Additional Recommendations
14
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Pre-Application- Could be a phone call just to verify their zoning or a drop in at the counter. Review if general plan/zoning change and/or use permits are required for the use. a. Non discretionary permit – entitled project under zoning b. Discretionary use permit – needs some sort of conditions to be met.
R2:
Pre-Application meeting – Planner meets with applicant to discuss the project; may include Planning Director or Community Development Director. Planner will assist the applicant with preliminary information needed to fill out application, then it is given to applicant to identify additional needs and complete remaining items prior to coming in with the completed application. Planner will help identify which items need to be submitted with the application and which can be submitted after application.
R3:
Application submitted – Stamped as received, but not considered complete until additional review is completed.
R4:
Planning site visit – Completed by the same planner from the pre- application meeting to make sure everything on the application and plans is reflected on site. Identify any environmental issues.
R5:
Application accepted as complete. County has thirty days to deem complete for processing, beginning the date application is submitted and fees are paid. (Government Code Section 65920)
R6:
Technical Advisory meeting – To bring impacted/involved agencies together to identify and discuss all issues. Potential participants include Planning, Building, Public Works, CDF, Environmental Health, Water District, Sewer District, Fire Districts, Fish & Game, and Army Corp. Only County agencies will be required to be there.
R7:
Applicant commissions additional studies. Based on results of staff and technical advisory meeting.
R8:
Initial agency circulation of project – Notification sent out to all agencies involved letting them know about project and giving them the opportunity to comment on proposed environmental review.
R9:
Initial comments received & additional studies approved.
R10:
Preparation of Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report.
R11:
Public circulation of environmental documents - Circulated to agencies and the public; publish a public notice.
R12:
Staff report prepared. Report includes project and environmental documents, and a recommendation of approval or denial.
R13:
Planning Commission – Reviews public records and takes public testimony. Basis of decision/recommendation has to be based upon substantial facts.
R14:
Board of Supervisors – Additional step required for general plan changes, zoning changes & ordinance changes. Final approval. 37
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The current General Plan, adopted in 1996, does not meet the statutory requirements of the state Government Code. California requires each county and city to adopt a general plan for its future development (Government Code §65300). In 2006, the BOS decided to initiate a General Plan update. The plan update is anticipated to take two to three years; during that time a quasi- moratorium is in place to curtail certain types of development.
F2:
At this time within the County there are two general viewpoints regarding the proposed General Plan: 1.) A community vision to guide decisions about development and land use. 2.) A State mandated, legally defensible document of land use restrictions. Both viewpoints are incorporated within the proposal submitted by contracted planning consultants, Mintier and Associates (Mintier).
F3:
Costs to the county for the update have been estimated to be $1,350,000, which includes the estimated consultant fee of $1,000,000. This estimate is most likely unrealistic since real costs for the update do not tabulate all of the direct and 33 indirect costs to all of the county agencies involved in the process. Cost estimates also do not include overruns generated by possible litigation.
F4:
After reviewing the work plan proposed by CDA and Mintier, the Grand Jury concludes that ample consideration for land use planning has been given to the Calaveras County general public. Input regarding the general vision for planning as well as specific input by special interest groups and individuals is part of the Public Input sections of the draft.
F5:
Special interest requests have already come to the BOS during the kickoff meeting with the public. Two basic approaches to the update process are planning either from the general to specific or from specific to the general. Working from the general to specific (community and special interest planning) is the approach represented by Option 2 work plan supported by the CDA. SUMMARY Community development as represented by the General Plan is a lengthy and contentious process. It is the opinion of the Grand Jury that the public would be better served with a General Plan starting from a general overall vision and moving to specific community planning. Delays created by planning starting with specific and local needs can cause significant delays and therefore increased costs to the citizens. Obtaining public input on a vision for the county general plan is planned during the public comment process. That overall vision statement is currently lacking in the current General Plan draft. Vision is a generalized statement regarding land use and future of the county. Specifics of the plan can grow out of a general vision.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The jail itself continues to be inadequate and obsolete due to the increase in crime. The jail was constructed in the early 1960’s to house an inmate population of 47. The crime rate of Calaveras County continues to grow at a rapid pace with no expansion feasible within the existing jail structure. A court order mandates the capacity of the jail not to exceed 65 inmates. As a result, some inmates are periodically released on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration public safety prior to the completion of their respective jail terms. It is further noted that this adult jail facility in San Andreas is the only jail within the county serving City of Angels Police Department, the Sheriff’s Department as well as the local arrests initiated by the California Highway Patrol, Department of Fish and Game, and other State and Federal agencies. 38
F2:
Security and safety issues exist due to the physical layout of the jail. Blind spots hamper officers from maintaining visible observations of inmate and staff movement in certain locations within the jail. Other locations would not provide an ingress or egress route in an emergency situation should a fire erupt or during an inmate related disturbance. Additional manpower required to monitor inmates arrested for substance abuse offenses restricts staff from monitoring the remainder of the inmates.
F3:
Regarding the overall daily operation of the jail, the Grand Jury found the condition of confinement under Federal, State and local laws is being met. The kitchen was observed to be clean and healthy dietary nutrition is being provided to the inmate population with a cost per meal of approximately $1.30. Medical services are being provided with medical personnel on site with quick response or transfers to a medical facility in an emergency situation. Inmate recreation is provided via the enclosed recreation yard, writing materials, television, and library books. Providing various activities has resulted in the utilization of additional deputy support from the field to meet compliance. This does impact police response in the community in order to maintain inmate control within the jail. The outer perimeter of the jail constitutes a security and safety issue. There is no secure area outside the jail when moving inmates to and from vehicles and the courthouse.
F4:
Jail staff expressed concern to the Grand Jury about airborne exposure to asbestos because inmates poke holes in the ceiling. Asbestos left undisturbed is 39 not considered a problem. However, when tampered with, asbestos becomes airborne and a potential health risk when tiny fibers are inhaled. A state certified asbestos consultant in March 7, 2005 report found “the jail contains a sprayed acoustical ceiling which is considered Friable-Hazardous Material that will require enclosure or abatement as soon as possible to prevent and alleviate exposure to asbestos airborne fibers to inmates tampering with it.” The Sheriff reports the ceiling was sealed and continues to be maintained. The county’s annual jail inspection report did not identify any asbestos related health risks.
F5:
Although staff is vigilant in the performance of their duties, two locations have a high volume of paper products, which may constitute a fire hazard: 1. The storage area in the kitchen, next to an exit door, has an accumulation of empty cardboard boxes. 2. Control Center has a large quantity of paper products stored in this secured area. In the event of a fire in this location, it could lessen deputies’ ability to control other areas within the jail. Only two air packs were on hand. Insufficient staffing continues to be a matter of concern, especially during the late evening and early morning shift with only two deputies on duty: 1. One in communications control 2. One to respond in case of an emergency situation, i.e. fire evacuation The evacuation maps on the control room window are very small. Although staff may be familiar with exit procedures during an emergency situation (i.e. fire) visitors might have difficulty reading the small exit map. High employee turnover has been attributed to conditions of the jail facility. 40
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The storage area in the kitchen, next to an exit door, has an accumulation of empty cardboard boxes.
R2:
Control Center has a large quantity of paper products stored in this secured area. In the event of a fire in this location, it could lessen deputies’ ability to control other areas within the jail. Only two air packs were on hand. Insufficient staffing continues to be a matter of concern, especially during the late evening and early morning shift with only two deputies on duty:
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
All computers in the branches and main headquarters have Internet DSL connectivity through the libraries’ computer system. Proposed wireless service is anticipated to allow the public to connect their personal computers to the Internet. A request for wireless connectivity is to go to the Board of Supervisors for approval for San Andreas, Murphys, and Mokelumne Hill libraries.
F2:
Libraries reported a need for increased hours of operation, which requires increased staffing. In lieu of finding millions of dollars for new libraries, Friends of Library and Library Commissioners are seeking grants of $200,000 to $300,000 to move seven employees from part-time to full-time to provide more hours of operation at San Andreas Library. An additional professional librarian position, additional clerical assistants, and trained volunteers are needed at Central Library. Additional funding for increased staffing is also requested at branch libraries to increase hours of operation. Data from the 2006 California Library Statistics publication showed that in 2005- 2006 Tuolumne County with a population of 58,504 allocated $679,813 for library staff salaries and benefits whereas Calaveras County with a population of 44,796 allocated only $407,190. In previous years, no increase has been provided for additional staffing. Status quo funding for library books and materials has been in effect for several years, the librarian reports. 50
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
County school districts are now developing and implementing action plans to manage current safety and welfare issues based on the 2005 California Healthy Kids Survey and observations by staff and teachers. This survey was conducted at Bret Harte and Calaveras high schools. Deputy Sheriff School Resource Officer, teachers and administrators interviewed reported the major problem is alcohol and marijuana abuse. Incidents of harassment, theft from lockers, and unattended purses were also reported. Bret Harte Union School District received a $455,225 grant provided by the state departments of Justice and Education, to fund programs to prevent school violence. The district has started a character education program that includes peer counseling, group and individual counseling and after-school activities designed to create an atmosphere of tolerance and respect on campus and to 47 reduce or eliminate harassment in all its forms. The counselor/social worker at Bret Harte is directing these programs. Bret Harte has also hired a substance abuse counselor to work with individuals or with groups. The grant is also paying for a Calaveras County sheriff's deputy to spend time on the Vallecito High School campus observing, enforcing, and interacting with students. Two programs with newly trained leaders have been introduced: “Reconnecting Youth” at Vallecito High and “Too Good for Drugs and Alcohol” at Bret Harte High. They focus on developing self-management skills and on learning to make good decisions. According to counselor reports, Bret Harte High is recognizing the potential for the existence of gang activity. District superintendents and Deputy Sheriff School Resource Officer report that the districts have not yet experienced gang- like violence. Gang colors and attire are not allowed on campuses. Administrators acknowledge that training and resources for aides and teachers are needed to enable them to manage harassment, disruptive, and anti- social behavior in the classroom and on campus.
F2:
Bus maintenance records in all districts were well maintained and the inspections by the Department of Motor Vehicles showed high marks of approval. The districts are purchasing new buses to replace older busses and constructing new maintenance facilities as budgets permit.
F3:
The Grand Jury became aware of bus route and bus stop safety problems within the county. The Grand Jury selected the Pettinger Road bus route for detailed 48 observation and found excessive patching causing a rough uneven road with unsafe shoulders. Heavy traffic between Jenny Lind and Highway 12 during morning bus travel intensifies the danger. Transportation Director of the Calaveras Unified School District and bus drivers report the road to be unsafe. The Calaveras County Public Works Deputy Director of Operations and Maintenance reported that road safety is their main concern and that no complaint had been received from the Calaveras Unified School District. Therefore only routine attention was being paid to this road. The Deputy Director reports, equipment to monitor peak usage of this road will be set up and attention will be given as to whether the condition of the road and usage deserve priority for possible resurfacing or repair.
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
Calaveras County has a written policy “Calaveras County Travel and Reimbursement Policy, adopted by Board of Supervisors March 01, 2004”. The policy provides flexibility to comply with annual California state law and reimbursement rate changes without changing written policy annually. The administration, auditor and board members can discuss changes as needed in study sessions; changes need Board of Supervisors’ approval. The Auditor/Controller has responsibility to ensure all documentation complies with policy and reimbursements are issued accordingly. Operating procedures with proper oversight appear in order and meet county requirements.
F2:
The City of Angels recently incorporated its written “Expense Reimbursement Policy” into its manual as required by Government Code sections 53232.2 and 53233.3. The policy provides flexibility to comply with annual state law and reimbursement rate changes without changing written policy annually. The Finance Officer and City Council members can discuss changes as needed in study sessions and approve changes as needed. The Finance Officer has responsibility to ensure all documentation complies with policy and reimbursements are issued accordingly. Operating procedures with proper oversight appear in order and meet city requirements. SUMMARY After examining reimbursement practices of elected officials for both Calaveras County and City of Angels, the Grand Jury found sound accounting practices and supporting checks and balances are currently being used. 46
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The new fire station at Burson has yet to be completed. The planning and procurement process has raised the following questions: The district’s original cost and scheduling plan is outdated and needs to be revised to reflect current conditions and costs. This has resulted in a disorganized approach to building the new station. The fragmented process of letting bids for construction raises questions about bidding and final cost estimates. The bidding process should comply with the Public Contract Code. Because of pervasive ambiguities throughout the bidding process, many of the district’s contractual rights may have been waived or diminished. (Civil Code §1654)
F2:
While planning, bidding, and building Station #1 in Burson, the district failed to follow the Public Contract Code (PCC) regarding proper 5 procedure for soliciting and posting of construction contract bids (PCC § 20813). In addition, provisions requiring analysis of the project impact on the environment as required in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) were not followed (Public Resources Code § 21000). Noncollusion Certificates were not submitted nor executed as required under § 7106 of the PCC. Public construction contracts generally include indemnification requirements (PCC § 20103.6) and the securing of performance and payment bonds (Civil Code § 2819). FFPD did not include indemnification requirements in any of the contracts executed and did not secure any performance or payment bonds.
F3:
The Grand Jury found the following administrative deficiencies: 1. An incomplete policies and procedures manual. 2. No comprehensive training plan. 3. No existing comprehensive long-range plan. 4. No Fire Chief
F4:
Station 2 is not only inadequate to house equipment and administration, but does not appear to meet county building code standards. In a site visit it was noted that a major portion of a cinder block wall was removed for a vehicle pass-through with no header and post bracing. The Grand Jury could find no record of a permit being issued to have this wall removed. This may constitute a safety hazard to the people working in the building and the public attending meetings. Further investigation revealed the initial permits for expansion of the building have not received final approval.
F5:
FFPD is shorthanded of volunteer fire fighters. Currently there is an insufficient number of drivers with a Class B drivers license required to operate four of the larger fire apparatus.
F6:
Management and building deficiencies within the district have been exacerbated by lack of funding. Without a full time fire chief, there has been a legacy of last minute planning and personnel problems. A shoestring approach to the completion of the much-needed new Station #1 has contributed to the district’s existing problems. How well the district will serve its current and future residents will depend on the implementation of long range fiscal planning now. Although planned development and assessed valuation increases within the district can answer some of the district financial shortcomings, there may not be sufficient increases in funding for the district to catch up with projected growth and infrastructure requirements.
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
An incomplete policies and procedures manual.
R2:
No comprehensive training plan.
R3:
No existing comprehensive long-range plan.
R4:
No Fire Chief RECOMMENDATION The Grand Jury recommends the district complete and implement the following:
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends the Foothill Board of Directors request a Calaveras County deputy sheriff be present at board meetings to help maintain order. The chairman must conduct meetings according to the published agenda including time limits. If interruptions by either the public or staff prevent business from being conducted, the chair should ask the deputy to help restore order. If order cannot be restored, the chair should request the disruptive individual or individuals be removed from the meeting. If the meeting continues to be willfully interrupted by a group or groups of individuals, then the 9 board will need to request the meeting room cleared and continue in session in accordance with the Brown Act.
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends the following written statement be handed out to all members of the public and staff at the beginning of each scheduled meeting: A. This meeting of the Foothill Fire District Board of Directors will be conducted under the provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act. Brown Act 54950) B. Members of the public and staff will be allowed to address the board on a specific agenda item when recognized by the chairman and before a vote is taken on that item. Comments will be limited to three minutes per speaker and 15 minutes per topic. Once a vote is taken that item is closed to further comment. (Brown Act 54954.3.b) C. Members of the public and staff will be allowed to address the board on any topic not on the agenda at the end of the meeting. No more than 5 minutes per speaker will be allowed. (Brown Act 54954.3.a) D. Should interruptions by either the public or staff prevent business from being conducted, the chair will ask order to be restored. If order is unable to be restored, then the chair will need to request the disruptive individual or individuals be removed from the meeting. If the meeting continues to be willfully interrupted by a group or groups of individuals, then the board will need to request the meeting room cleared and to continue in session. (Brown Act 54957.9) SUMMARY In order to regain control of its regular and special board meetings, the Grand Jury recommends the Foothill Fire Protection District Board of Directors take extraordinary steps to ensure security at its meetings by requesting law enforcement personnel to assist with maintaining order. RESPONSE REQUESTED Foothill Fire Protection District Board of Directors Calaveras County Sheriff 10 RESPONSES FROM FOOTHILL FIRE PROTECTION BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND CALAVERAS COUNTY SHERIFF TO DECEMBER 20, 2006 GRAND JURY REPORT REASON FOR INVESTIGATION Foothill Fire Protection District (FFPD) Board meetings have become dysfunctional and unproductive due to the inability of the board to control willful interruptions during district board meetings.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
The District has a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) to address long-term infrastructure issues; the District still does not have a plan in place to address district-wide future needs.
F2:
While conducting interviews with district and plant management, the Grand Jury learned two separate policies and procedures manuals (aka operations manuals) exist. One manual contains policies and procedures regarding operation of the wastewater treatment plant while the other is for the pump station (headworks). These two manuals are dated 2000 and 2002 respectively and are out of date. Contact personnel and contact phone numbers are incorrect. Although a new employee handbook, dealing with personnel issues within the district, was adopted in 2006, a comprehensive, combined policies and procedures manual has yet to be written by district management and adopted by the board of directors. The CIP and employee handbook do not adequately 18 address the specifics of day-to-day operations, job definitions, emergency procedures, etc.
F3:
The wastewater treatment plant was upgraded in 2002-2003. Originally intended to operate in an automatic mode, the plant still has to be run manually because the upgrade was not completed as originally specified. According to the district engineer, he has received no direction from the district Board to rectify this deficiency.
F4:
The Grand Jury finds that little or no progress has been made on obtaining additional sources of discharge. This problem has been known and studied for a number of years without being resolved.
F5:
The district received a Notice of Violation (NoV) from the CRWQCB in January 2007 identifying violations from 2005 and 2006. Correction of the NoV is very expensive and time consuming. Since the district has a part-time manager it has limited resources to deal with the NoV.
F6:
Minutes of previous board meetings are being approved only when board members who attended those meetings are in attendance. No board action was made regarding this process. Minutes are often approved in batches at board meetings, and some are two to three months old. RECOMMEDATION The Grand Jury recommends minutes of previous meetings be approved at the following regular board meeting. Waiting to approve minutes does not improve accuracy and risks minutes never being approved in cases of illness or board vacancies. RESPONSE REQUESTED Murphys Sanitary District Board of Directors
F7:
On most agendas for regular meetings the board indicated that it would go into closed session to discuss pending litigation. There is no pending litigation. 20
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The treatment plant can operate continuously in automatic mode.
R2:
The NoV has been dealt with to the satisfaction of the CRWQCB.
R3:
An alternate source of discharge has been obtained.
R4:
A comprehensive emergency policy is written to include duties of all personnel and an accurate reporting policy. Copies of the emergency policy should follow both state and county reporting guidelines, be posted in all offices and plants, and be given to all district personnel including members of the board after having been reviewed and adopted by the district board. The Grand Jury also recommends: A. The district reorganize its management policy and procedures, including the hiring of a full time district manager. The district also institute a hiring and training program, including pay adjustments where appropriate, to reduce high staff turnover. B. A comprehensive policies and procedures manual be drafted and adopted by December 2007 that spells out all functions necessary for normal plant operation, special procedures that may be required from 21 time to time, and emergency procedures including accurate and lawful reporting methods. C. Long range planning be implemented, including a comprehensive district wide plan to deal with short term and long-range goals. D. Innovative funding solutions need to be explored due to the need for a large number of infrastructure requirements necessary within the next five years, and could include bonding arrangements with potential developers, grants from federal and state resources, and assessment districts where needed. E. With an eye on the limited capacity of the wastewater treatment facility, the district should promote an aggressive district wide water conservation policy in conjunction with UPUD. RESPONSE Murphys Sanitary District Board of Directors Union Public Utilities District 22
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
The first call made by MSD to report the spill was inadvertently made to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and not to OES. As a result, OES, in charge of disseminating information about the spill to all state and local agencies, has never been able to inform local agencies of the spill. A call to the City of Angels wastewater treatment plant was made by MSD notifying the treatment plant of the spill of raw sewage into Angels Creek. A call and fax reporting the spill was made by MSD to the CRWQCB. As of the writing of this report OES still has no record of being notified.
F2:
Media notification and Public Posting of sewage spills in excess of 1000 gallons is required by order of the Calaveras County Health Officer in compliance with §13271 of the California Water Code. A ‘Memorandum’, dated March of 1999, from the Calaveras County Health Officer was sent via certified mail to all County sanitary districts specifying procedures for notification, public and media. The spill of raw sewage into Angels Creek, November 26 and 27, 2006 received no public posting or media notification from MSD.
F3:
The spill occurred over a weekend and was discovered early Monday, November 27th 2006. When MSD staff first reported the spill to the Calaveras County Environmental Health Department, a message reporting the spill was left on the department’s voice mail because the office had not yet opened. Once the message was heard, the department did not follow up, because the department did not have an internal follow up policy in place to be sure the spill was receiving all necessary attention.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
LAFCO designated the New Hogan area to be within the FFPD sphere of influence in 2000 when the County Fire Department was divided into the existing special fire protection districts. Annexation of the New Hogan area was requested by FFPD in 2006 and a waiver of LAFCO fees for this process was requested when development of a small portion of the area began. LAFCO fees were originally waived for all of the newly formed districts at the time of formation in 2000. However, in 2006, LAFCO refused to waive the $2000 annexation fee for FFPD due to the delay in completing the process as originally planned.
F2:
The fire protection portions of county property taxes from the New Hogan area have been going to FFPD. Fire protection for New Hogan area development is being provided and not in question. Annexation of the area, however, has not been completed.
F3:
There is no financial incentive for annexation of New Hogan or other comparable areas by any special districts, until there is a buildup of a significant portion of the area. Development would then increase a special district’s portion of the assessed valuation. It is too late for needed infrastructure planning once there is 16 a significant buildup of an area. Although annexation, then, becomes a financial reward, it does not assure that planning for critical infrastructure will occur.