Calaveras County Grand Jury
2007-2008
Quick View
Full Details →
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 indirect costs to all of the county agencies involved in the process. Cost estimates also do not include overruns generated by possible litigation. 64
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.
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.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
The jail itself continues to be inadequate and obsolete due to the increase in crime and the age of the building. The jail was constructed in the early 1960’s to incarcerate an inmate population of 47. The crime rate of Calaveras County continues to grow at a rapid pace, with no expansion feasible within the existing jail structure. A court order mandates the capacity of the jail not to exceed 65 inmates. As a result, the sheriff frequently must initiate, and the inmates knowingly take advantage of, the early release program in order to make room for new prisoners. This becomes a public safety issue as some inmates bypass drug or other treatment programs because they will probably be released from jail early under the current system. This adult jail facility continues to be the only jail within the county serving the Sheriff’s Department, the City of Angels Police Department, as well as the local arrests initiated by the California Highway Patrol, Department of Fish and Game, and other State and Federal agencies as needed. 24
F2:
The Grand Jury found the conditions of confinement under Federal, State and local laws, for the most part, are being met. However, since inmate recreation is provided via the enclosed recreation yard, writing materials, television, and library books, monitoring these activities has resulted in the utilization of additional deputy support from the field to meet the compliance regulations. This provision of additional deputy support to maintain inmate control does negatively impact the police response in the community by having less law enforcement officers available. The outer perimeter of the jail continues to constitute a security and safety issue. There are no secure areas outside the jail where the inmates are moved between vehicles, the Court House or the jail itself.
F3:
Security and safety issues still exist due to the physical layout of the jail. Blind spots hamper officers from visible observations of inmate and staff movement in certain locations within the jail. Other locations would not provide an entrance or exit route in an emergency situation should a fire erupt or during an inmate related disturbance. Most doors are only 24 inches wide, which do not meet current California building codes. The jail has not been able to comply with the American Disabilities Act due to cost and restructuring of the building. One option mentioned was to turn the two (men and women) rest rooms in the front of the building into one for use by both men and women. Additional manpower is required to monitor inmates arrested for substance abuse offenses; this restricts staff from monitoring the remainder of the inmates. Supplies and storage items lined the hallways making it difficult to pass without obstruction.
F4:
On September 1, 2007 a rainstorm hit San Andreas causing a power outage. The jail is normally equipped with a back up generator to handle this type of emergency. On this occasion the lights flickered and the generator failed causing damages to and loss of major electronics and equipment. These damages included disabling the 911 emergency call system, which is housed within the jail building. Inspection by a Sacramento electrical corporation revealed that with the existing connections, the electrical system has the potential for over-heating and complete failure. The backup generator is antiquated and is not equipped with 25 protective devices to prevent it from shutting down when there are power irregularities. Damages are estimated at over $45, 000.00 to date.
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. 72
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 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. 74
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 77 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.
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Administrative Office has proposed a new maintenance project for the Fiscal Year 07-08 Final Budget for the removal of the asbestos in various areas of the County Jail.
R2:
The Sheriff Department, County Administrative Officer, the Environmental Consultant (National Analytical Laboratories), and a member of the Board of Supervisors will review the project with a projected completion date of August,
R3:
Copies for staff as needed
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 90 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.
Findings & Recommendations
2 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 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 85 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.
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 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
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 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. 47
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.
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.
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 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 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.
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 53 did not have an internal follow up policy in place to be sure the spill was receiving all necessary attention.
Additional Recommendations
12
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Department normally responds to all voice mails and there is some question as to whether the Department was actually notified of this particular incident.
R2:
It is the responsibility of the sanitary district to follow proper reporting procedures. When a sewage release occurs in excess of 1000 gallons to land or any amount is discharged into waters of the state, sanitary districts are required by law to notify the State Office of Emergency Services (OES). The Sanitary District failed to follow proper reporting procedures as prescribed in law.
R3:
Sewage spills are not subject to Proposition 65 notification as cited in the Grand Jury Report.
R4:
Referring callers to 911 for sewage spills is not necessary if a Sanitary District follows reporting procedures as prescribed in law.
R5:
The Department normally responds to all voice mails and there is some question as to whether the Department was actually notified of this particular incident.
R6:
It is the responsibility of the sanitary district to follow proper reporting procedures. When a sewage release occurs in excess of 1000 gallons to land or any amount is discharged into waters of the state, sanitary districts are required by law to notify the State Office of Emergency Services (OES). The Sanitary District failed to follow proper reporting procedures as prescribed in law.
R7:
Sewage spills are not subject to Proposition 65 notification as cited in the Grand Jury Report.
R8:
Referring callers to 911 for sewage spills is not necessary if a Sanitary District follows reporting procedures as prescribed in law.
R9:
The Department normally responds to all voice mails and there is some question as to whether the Department was actually notified of this particular incident.
R10:
It is the responsibility of the sanitary district to follow proper reporting procedures. When a sewage release occurs in excess of 1000 gallons to land or any amount is discharged into waters of the state, sanitary districts are required by law to notify the State Office of Emergency Services (OES). The Sanitary District failed to follow proper reporting procedures as prescribed in law.
R11:
Sewage spills are not subject to Proposition 65 notification as cited in the Grand Jury Report.
R12:
Referring callers to 911 for sewage spills is not necessary if a Sanitary District follows reporting procedures as prescribed in law.
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 a significant buildup of an area. Although annexation, then, becomes a financial reward, it does not assure that planning for critical infrastructure will occur. 34
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
While in the process of seeking tentative map approval in 2006, the proponents for Valley Springs Estates were unfortunately misinformed by Calaveras County staff that the New Hogan Lake County Protection Area (CPA) did not have local agency fire protection and emergency rescue services. A Planning Department mapping error reinforced this perception. Research would have determined that the County had contracted for those services and that the Foothill Fire Protection District (Foothill Fire) had been the authorized fire agency to sign off on projects to be located in the New Hogan Lake area for almost seven years.
R2:
In 2000, Calaveras County entered into a contract with the newly formed Foothill Fire Protection District to perform, on the County's behalf, the following "all-inclusive" services "within its current capabilities" to the New Hogan Lake Service Area, including but not limited to: (a) Structure Fire Protection; (b) Wildland Fire Protection; (c) EMS First Responder services; (d) Vehicle Fires and Accidents; (e) Haz-Mat Responses The contract further states: "Any responsibility and duty not specifically identified in this agreement as the responsibility of Calaveras County Fire but associated with provision of all-inclusive Fire and Emergency services shall be the responsibility of the Foothill Fire Protection District."
R3:
Jenny Lind Fire Protection District staff raised the question about adequacy of services in the New Hogan Lake area at a Calaveras County Local 36 Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) public meeting on May 15, 2006. JLFPD staff believed their district could better serve the proposed development. This occurred during discussion of an agendized request for waiver of fees requested by Foothill Fire. The request asked LAFCO to consider granting a waiver of fees for their previously submitted application to annex the New Hogan Lake service area. This request was based on the fact that the original application submitted by the County in 2001 had yet to be processed, and the County had previously agreed by resolution to cover the costs of the original annexation proposal. a. The subject annexation Was originally initiated by Calaveras County on April 23, 2001, by resolution of application approved by the Board of Supervisors. b. Calaveras County LAFCO successfully processed two other annexation requests contained in the same resolution of application, but for some reason LAFCO did not process the New Hogan Lake annexation to Foothill Fire at the same time, as requested by the Board of Supervisors. c. Calaveras County proposed to cover all costs of the three proposed annexations. d. Since LAFCO did not process all three actions requested by the County, costs for annexing New Hogan Lake service area into Foothill Fire have yet to be paid e. Reasons for the delay in processing are unknown, but could include changes in personnel and a reorganization of staffing that ensued during the next few years. The ball was literally dropped at this level. f.
R4:
Foothill Fire Protection District (Foothill Fire) had approved and submitted a resolution of application to LAFCO requesting initiation of proceedings for annexation of the New Hogan Lake CPA on May 5,2006. This application was in the initial stages of review by LAFCO staff, and had not yet been circulated for comments by the Executive Officer. 37 a. Jenny Lind FPD's request to consider their agency's ability to provide services to the proposed development was premature. The annexation proposal had not yet been processed by the LAFCO Executive Officer, and therefore was not on the agenda, nor available for consideration or
R5:
Jenny Lind FPD has not to date submitted any type of application to LAFCO requesting that Jenny Lind's Sphere of Influence be amended to 38 include the New Hogan Lake service area. Nor have they submitted a request to annex that area into their district.
R6:
The proper agency for reviewing annexation requests is the Calaveras County Local Agency Formation Commission, an independent commission. It is responsible for, among other things, (a) reviewing boundary change requests, formations or dissolution of special districts, and (b) studying municipal services and future growth of existing special districts under their jurisdiction. More detail on these services may be found in the aforementioned "Fire and Emergency Response Services in the New Hogan Lake Area" study. A. Response to Finding 1:
Quick View
Full Details →
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. 60
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
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 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 29
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. 30
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 29 RECOMMENDATION The Grand Jury recommends the district complete and implement the following:
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.