Humboldt County Grand Jury
2002-2003
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
Often comments made by individual Supervisors cannot be heard clearly, either by those in attendance at or observing the public broadcast of the Board of Supervisors= public meetings, because the microphones are not turned on or not spoken directly into, thus inhibiting the open conduct of the people=s business. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO F1: Agree, although each microphone in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers has recently been replaced with a longer microphone to enhance the audio quality.
F2:
Comments by those testifying often cannot be clearly heard by those in attendance, either at or observing the broadcast of the meetings, thus inhibiting the open conduct of the people=s business. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO F2: Agree, although each microphone in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers has recently been replaced with a longer microphone to enhance the audio quality. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO F2: Disagree partially. This was true prior to replacing the microphones, currently we have intermittent issues with people hearing the testimony.
F3:
Public awareness and disclosure of Board of Supervisors= meetings could be improved if Board meetings, which are presently only broadcast during the meetings, were re-broadcast at a variety of times by promptly transmitting a tape copy to Cox Cable as the county had agreed to do when the video equipment was originally donated. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO F3: Agree. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO F3: Agree
F4:
No minutes were taken of deliberations by the selection committee charged with assessing the relative suitability of proposals received as a result of the Request for Proposals. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO F4: Agree
F5:
Some of the selection committee members may not have felt free to express their opinions because voting was done openly, not by ballot. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO F5: Disagree partially, because we are unable to verify if any selection committee member felt uncomfortable in expressing their opinion. However, it was an interactive process that allowed the participants to share their thoughts based on the criteria.
F6:
Neither specific guidelines nor the ranking form used by the selection committee were made available to potential respondents. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO F6: Disagree partially. The original Request for Proposal (RFP) did indicate the guidelines (parameters) for the location being sought by the County.
F7:
Pertinent to R-7 The rear door has been repaired in the Hoopa Substation.
F8:
Pertinent to R-8 Did not determine if the fire door at the Hoopa Substation meets State standards
F9:
Pertinent to R-9 The Hoopa Substation does not meet ADA standards. Report 01-13 CLARK COMPLEX INTRODUCTION The Humboldt County Grand Jury inspected the Clark Complex, located on Harris Street between H and I Streets. A survey conducted by the 1999-2000 grand jury of custodial and maintenance procedure highlighted certain problems with the Clark Complex. The original building was built around 1916 as a hospital. The Clark addition was added in the late 1950s. The hospital moved out in the late 1970s. This complex now houses county offices for the following departments: public works, planning, election's office, coroner’s office, mental health, Sempervirens, rehabilitation center and various outbuildings used for storage. THE 2000-2001 GRAND JURY RECOMMENDED THE FOLLOWING: R-1 The County meet ADA access standards at the main building of the Clark Complex. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESPONSE: Will be implemented. The county has currently contracted with a firm to conduct an evaluation of all county buildings for disability access. Changes identified as a result of this evaluation will then be prioritized and budgeted. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE: Agree. Access to the building for the disabled currently is from the ground floor. A phone allows people to contact Planning, Elections and Public Works who will open the locked doors and escort the person or persons to the elevator from which the elevator can be accessed. The county has two disabled employees at Clark who routinely use this access for the building. The county currently is updating its facilities, evaluations for all buildings, including Clark, which will be used to complete an ADA transition plan. FINDING The 2002-2003 grand jury makes the following finding:
Additional Recommendations
9
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Recommendation pertinent to F1: The grand jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors: (a) Purchase lapel microphones to enhance thorough communication by individual Supervisors to all in attendance. (b) The Clerk of the Board and the Supervisors should ensure that all of the microphones are turned on for the entire meeting, so that the deliberative process is fully communicated. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO R1: Recommendation (a) to purchase lapel microphones will not be implemented because it is not warranted. Each of the microphones in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers has recently been replaced with a longer microphone to enhance audio quality. Staff is working on adjusting the volume for each microphone to ensure that the Supervisors, staff and the public can be clearly heard over the sound system. Recommendation (b) has been implemented. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R1: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. All the microphones in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers have been replaced with a longer microphone. We are currently working on adjusting the volume for each microphone to ensure that Supervisors, staff and the public are heard over the sound system. This is an ongoing process that is more cost efficient than having each Supervisor wear a lapel microphone. Also, the microphones are turned on every meeting.
R2:
Recommendation pertinent to F2: The grand jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors: (a) Research the feasibility of purchasing an adjustable podium or microphone so those who testify can be clearly heard. (B) The Board Chair will also instruct all who testify, staff and the public, to speak clearly into the provided microphones. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO R2: Has been implemented. There is an adjustable microphone on the podium for public speakers that has been replaced in the past six months. The microphones at the staff table have also been replaced, and adjustments continue to be made to adjust the volume to ensure staff and the public can be clearly heard over the sound system. All the microphones in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers are adjustable. When public testimony cannot be heard, the Board Chair requests the individual providing testimony to speak into the microphones provided. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R2: The recommendation has been implemented. There is an adjustable microphone on the podium for public speakers that has been replaced in the past six months. The microphones at the staff table have been replaced as well. We are currently working on adjusting the volume for the staff microphones. All the microphones in the Boards’ Chambers are adjustable.
R3:
Recommendation pertinent to F3: The grand jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors: (a) Provide a meeting tape to Cox Cable promptly after each meeting for re- broadcast. (b) Utilize the public government access channel available at Cox Cable. This would improve the ability for the public to view the conduct of the people=s business. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO R3: Has been implemented. Arrangements have been made with Cox Cable for the evening rebroadcast of Board of Supervisors meetings to take place Wednesdays at 8:00 p.m. This will begin with the Board meeting of September 2, 2003. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R3: Has been implemented. Arrangements have been made with Cox Cable for the evening rebroadcast of Board of Supervisors meetings to take place Wednesdays at 8:00 p.m. This will begin with the Board meeting of September 2, 2003. RESPONSES: THE FOLLOWING RESPONSES TO REPORT 03-AF-01 ARE REQUIRED PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE 933 AND THE STANDARD FORMAT FOR RESPONSES. 1. The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors shall respond to R1, R2 and R3. 2. The General Services Administration Director shall respond to R3. GRAND JURY REPORT NO: 03-AF-02 REAL PROPERTY DIVISION Administration & Finance Committee INTRODUCTION: The Humboldt County Grand Jury conducted a routine investigation of the operations of the Real Property Division (RPD). The RPD is supervised by the General Services Director. The staff consists of one Senior Real Property Agent whose function, in spite of having an extensive job description implying considerable authority, more resembles that of a clerical position. Although the RPD works closely with various department heads and the County=s architect in filling the space requirements of County government, little real authority is given to act as the County=s advocate in the resulting real property transactions. The grand jury=s investigation included analyzing two real estate transactions, one a purchase, the other a long-term lease. Several personal interviews were also conducted and document reviews of both transactions were made. Early in the purchase transaction, the seller=s agent declared themselves a Adual agent@, representing both the buyer and the seller. In the real estate business, dual agency means that the interests of both parties to the transaction must be uppermost in all the agent=s actions and recommendations. It is difficult, if not impossible, to serve two such divergent interests. The potential for inadequate representation is present as well as the temptation to minimize potential risks, costs and liabilities. Although the agent in this transaction correctly identified the potential existence of lead paint, firm estimates or bids to mitigate the hazard were not sought and renovation costs ballooned to over three times the preliminary estimate, largely due to environmental hazards abatement. The RPD should have the authority to conduct its own due diligence and negotiate all terms, including a reduction in the purchase price to reflect the value of its contribution to the transaction. Traditionally, a commission paid by the seller of a property is split between the seller=s agent and the buyer=s agent. If the RPD is doing the work of the buyer=s agent when the County buys real property, the County should benefit proportionately. The final purchase price should be negotiated downward to reflect the value of one-half of a standard real estate commission. In the long-term lease transaction, a relatively new Request for Proposals process was used. The process was flawed from the beginning; the proposed location map included the entire area of greater Eureka, when in fact only those proposals near the courthouse were to be seriously considered. This fact was specified within the documentation, but the prominence of the misleading map may have caused several respondents to discount the importance of proximity to the courthouse, resulting in the needless expenditure of tens of thousands of dollars for proposals having no chance of success. It appears that the selection committee may have used arbitrary methods to assign rankings to the subjective criteria intended to fairly compare the competing proposals. Ironically, the ranking criteria were not shared with the project sponsors until after the final decision was made. Rankings were not done using specific quantitative guidelines, but involved open discussion leading to consensus. The makeup of the committee included several employees of the affected department along with the department head. No minutes of these important sessions were kept. When two of the three Afinalists@ dropped out of contention, reportedly a sense of urgency felt by the department head on the committee caused them to not reconsider two other highly competitive projects. Lease costs, although purportedly a Aspecial@ ranking consideration, were not weighted as to proposed annual increases; the winning proposal was the most expensive. No final price negotiation was attempted by the County, although the County had that right.
R4:
Recommendation pertinent to F4: The grand jury recommends that minutes be taken and properly filed for future review should the need arise. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R4: The recommendation will be partially implemented when we undergo the next process for evaluating long-term lease proposals. Although step-by-step minutes will not be taken of the selection committee discussions, the outcome of those discussions will be documented and retained in the applicable file(s).
R5:
Recommendation pertinent to F5: The grand jury recommends that a secret ballot process be implemented for use by future selection committees. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R5: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. The selection process is based on evaluating the responding proposals both objectively and subjectively. After that evaluation, then a determination is made. It is not appropriate to use a secret ballot to make the final selection.
R6:
Recommendation pertinent to F6: The grand jury recommends that quantitative, specific guidelines and the selection criteria ranking form be made available to all parties by inclusion in the Request for Proposals documentation. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R6: The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. As stated earlier this was new process and the RFP did have guidelines (parameters) regarding the location the County was looking for, but did not indicate the ranking for the criteria. In future RFP for lease property, there will be a better handle on our needs, which will include the specific guidelines and selection criteria ranking in the actual RFP documentation. RESPONSES: THE FOLLOWING RESPONSES TO REPORT 03-AF-02 ARE REQUIRED PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE 933 AND THE STANDARD FORMAT FOR RESPONSES. 1. The General Services Administration Director shall respond to R1, R2, R3, R4, R5 and
R7:
Replace the rear door at the Hoopa Substation:
R8:
Replace the fire door at the Hoopa Substation with one that meets state standards:
R9:
Modify the Hoopa Substation to comply with American Disability Act (ADA) standards: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATIONS R-3 - R-9:
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
Often comments made by individual Supervisors cannot be heard clearly, either by those in attendance at or observing the public broadcast of the Board of Supervisors= public meetings, because the microphones are not turned on or not spoken directly into, thus inhibiting the open conduct of the people=s business. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO F1: Agree, although each microphone in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers has recently been replaced with a longer microphone to enhance the audio quality.
F2:
Comments by those testifying often cannot be clearly heard by those in attendance, either at or observing the broadcast of the meetings, thus inhibiting the open conduct of the people=s business. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO F2: Agree, although each microphone in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers has recently been replaced with a longer microphone to enhance the audio quality. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO F2: Disagree partially. This was true prior to replacing the microphones, currently we have intermittent issues with people hearing the testimony.
F3:
Public awareness and disclosure of Board of Supervisors= meetings could be improved if Board meetings, which are presently only broadcast during the meetings, were re-broadcast at a variety of times by promptly transmitting a tape copy to Cox Cable as the county had agreed to do when the video equipment was originally donated. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO F3: Agree. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO F3: Agree
F4:
No minutes were taken of deliberations by the selection committee charged with assessing the relative suitability of proposals received as a result of the Request for Proposals. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO F4: Agree
F5:
Some of the selection committee members may not have felt free to express their opinions because voting was done openly, not by ballot. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO F5: Disagree partially, because we are unable to verify if any selection committee member felt uncomfortable in expressing their opinion. However, it was an interactive process that allowed the participants to share their thoughts based on the criteria.
F6:
Neither specific guidelines nor the ranking form used by the selection committee were made available to potential respondents. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO F6: Disagree partially. The original Request for Proposal (RFP) did indicate the guidelines (parameters) for the location being sought by the County.
F7:
Pertinent to R-7 The rear door has been repaired in the Hoopa Substation.
F8:
Pertinent to R-8 Did not determine if the fire door at the Hoopa Substation meets State standards
F9:
Pertinent to R-9 The Hoopa Substation does not meet ADA standards. Report 01-13 CLARK COMPLEX INTRODUCTION The Humboldt County Grand Jury inspected the Clark Complex, located on Harris Street between H and I Streets. A survey conducted by the 1999-2000 grand jury of custodial and maintenance procedure highlighted certain problems with the Clark Complex. The original building was built around 1916 as a hospital. The Clark addition was added in the late 1950s. The hospital moved out in the late 1970s. This complex now houses county offices for the following departments: public works, planning, election's office, coroner’s office, mental health, Sempervirens, rehabilitation center and various outbuildings used for storage. THE 2000-2001 GRAND JURY RECOMMENDED THE FOLLOWING: R-1 The County meet ADA access standards at the main building of the Clark Complex. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESPONSE: Will be implemented. The county has currently contracted with a firm to conduct an evaluation of all county buildings for disability access. Changes identified as a result of this evaluation will then be prioritized and budgeted. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE: Agree. Access to the building for the disabled currently is from the ground floor. A phone allows people to contact Planning, Elections and Public Works who will open the locked doors and escort the person or persons to the elevator from which the elevator can be accessed. The county has two disabled employees at Clark who routinely use this access for the building. The county currently is updating its facilities, evaluations for all buildings, including Clark, which will be used to complete an ADA transition plan. FINDING The 2002-2003 grand jury makes the following finding:
Additional Recommendations
9
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Recommendation pertinent to F1: The grand jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors: (a) Purchase lapel microphones to enhance thorough communication by individual Supervisors to all in attendance. (b) The Clerk of the Board and the Supervisors should ensure that all of the microphones are turned on for the entire meeting, so that the deliberative process is fully communicated. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO R1: Recommendation (a) to purchase lapel microphones will not be implemented because it is not warranted. Each of the microphones in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers has recently been replaced with a longer microphone to enhance audio quality. Staff is working on adjusting the volume for each microphone to ensure that the Supervisors, staff and the public can be clearly heard over the sound system. Recommendation (b) has been implemented. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R1: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. All the microphones in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers have been replaced with a longer microphone. We are currently working on adjusting the volume for each microphone to ensure that Supervisors, staff and the public are heard over the sound system. This is an ongoing process that is more cost efficient than having each Supervisor wear a lapel microphone. Also, the microphones are turned on every meeting.
R2:
Recommendation pertinent to F2: The grand jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors: (a) Research the feasibility of purchasing an adjustable podium or microphone so those who testify can be clearly heard. (B) The Board Chair will also instruct all who testify, staff and the public, to speak clearly into the provided microphones. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO R2: Has been implemented. There is an adjustable microphone on the podium for public speakers that has been replaced in the past six months. The microphones at the staff table have also been replaced, and adjustments continue to be made to adjust the volume to ensure staff and the public can be clearly heard over the sound system. All the microphones in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers are adjustable. When public testimony cannot be heard, the Board Chair requests the individual providing testimony to speak into the microphones provided. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R2: The recommendation has been implemented. There is an adjustable microphone on the podium for public speakers that has been replaced in the past six months. The microphones at the staff table have been replaced as well. We are currently working on adjusting the volume for the staff microphones. All the microphones in the Boards’ Chambers are adjustable.
R3:
Recommendation pertinent to F3: The grand jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors: (a) Provide a meeting tape to Cox Cable promptly after each meeting for re- broadcast. (b) Utilize the public government access channel available at Cox Cable. This would improve the ability for the public to view the conduct of the people=s business. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO R3: Has been implemented. Arrangements have been made with Cox Cable for the evening rebroadcast of Board of Supervisors meetings to take place Wednesdays at 8:00 p.m. This will begin with the Board meeting of September 2, 2003. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R3: Has been implemented. Arrangements have been made with Cox Cable for the evening rebroadcast of Board of Supervisors meetings to take place Wednesdays at 8:00 p.m. This will begin with the Board meeting of September 2, 2003. RESPONSES: THE FOLLOWING RESPONSES TO REPORT 03-AF-01 ARE REQUIRED PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE 933 AND THE STANDARD FORMAT FOR RESPONSES. 1. The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors shall respond to R1, R2 and R3. 2. The General Services Administration Director shall respond to R3. GRAND JURY REPORT NO: 03-AF-02 REAL PROPERTY DIVISION Administration & Finance Committee INTRODUCTION: The Humboldt County Grand Jury conducted a routine investigation of the operations of the Real Property Division (RPD). The RPD is supervised by the General Services Director. The staff consists of one Senior Real Property Agent whose function, in spite of having an extensive job description implying considerable authority, more resembles that of a clerical position. Although the RPD works closely with various department heads and the County=s architect in filling the space requirements of County government, little real authority is given to act as the County=s advocate in the resulting real property transactions. The grand jury=s investigation included analyzing two real estate transactions, one a purchase, the other a long-term lease. Several personal interviews were also conducted and document reviews of both transactions were made. Early in the purchase transaction, the seller=s agent declared themselves a Adual agent@, representing both the buyer and the seller. In the real estate business, dual agency means that the interests of both parties to the transaction must be uppermost in all the agent=s actions and recommendations. It is difficult, if not impossible, to serve two such divergent interests. The potential for inadequate representation is present as well as the temptation to minimize potential risks, costs and liabilities. Although the agent in this transaction correctly identified the potential existence of lead paint, firm estimates or bids to mitigate the hazard were not sought and renovation costs ballooned to over three times the preliminary estimate, largely due to environmental hazards abatement. The RPD should have the authority to conduct its own due diligence and negotiate all terms, including a reduction in the purchase price to reflect the value of its contribution to the transaction. Traditionally, a commission paid by the seller of a property is split between the seller=s agent and the buyer=s agent. If the RPD is doing the work of the buyer=s agent when the County buys real property, the County should benefit proportionately. The final purchase price should be negotiated downward to reflect the value of one-half of a standard real estate commission. In the long-term lease transaction, a relatively new Request for Proposals process was used. The process was flawed from the beginning; the proposed location map included the entire area of greater Eureka, when in fact only those proposals near the courthouse were to be seriously considered. This fact was specified within the documentation, but the prominence of the misleading map may have caused several respondents to discount the importance of proximity to the courthouse, resulting in the needless expenditure of tens of thousands of dollars for proposals having no chance of success. It appears that the selection committee may have used arbitrary methods to assign rankings to the subjective criteria intended to fairly compare the competing proposals. Ironically, the ranking criteria were not shared with the project sponsors until after the final decision was made. Rankings were not done using specific quantitative guidelines, but involved open discussion leading to consensus. The makeup of the committee included several employees of the affected department along with the department head. No minutes of these important sessions were kept. When two of the three Afinalists@ dropped out of contention, reportedly a sense of urgency felt by the department head on the committee caused them to not reconsider two other highly competitive projects. Lease costs, although purportedly a Aspecial@ ranking consideration, were not weighted as to proposed annual increases; the winning proposal was the most expensive. No final price negotiation was attempted by the County, although the County had that right.
R4:
Recommendation pertinent to F4: The grand jury recommends that minutes be taken and properly filed for future review should the need arise. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R4: The recommendation will be partially implemented when we undergo the next process for evaluating long-term lease proposals. Although step-by-step minutes will not be taken of the selection committee discussions, the outcome of those discussions will be documented and retained in the applicable file(s).
R5:
Recommendation pertinent to F5: The grand jury recommends that a secret ballot process be implemented for use by future selection committees. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R5: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. The selection process is based on evaluating the responding proposals both objectively and subjectively. After that evaluation, then a determination is made. It is not appropriate to use a secret ballot to make the final selection.
R6:
Recommendation pertinent to F6: The grand jury recommends that quantitative, specific guidelines and the selection criteria ranking form be made available to all parties by inclusion in the Request for Proposals documentation. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R6: The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. As stated earlier this was new process and the RFP did have guidelines (parameters) regarding the location the County was looking for, but did not indicate the ranking for the criteria. In future RFP for lease property, there will be a better handle on our needs, which will include the specific guidelines and selection criteria ranking in the actual RFP documentation. RESPONSES: THE FOLLOWING RESPONSES TO REPORT 03-AF-02 ARE REQUIRED PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE 933 AND THE STANDARD FORMAT FOR RESPONSES. 1. The General Services Administration Director shall respond to R1, R2, R3, R4, R5 and
R7:
Replace the rear door at the Hoopa Substation:
R8:
Replace the fire door at the Hoopa Substation with one that meets state standards:
R9:
Modify the Hoopa Substation to comply with American Disability Act (ADA) standards: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATIONS R-3 - R-9:
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
Often comments made by individual Supervisors cannot be heard clearly, either by those in attendance at or observing the public broadcast of the Board of Supervisors= public meetings, because the microphones are not turned on or not spoken directly into, thus inhibiting the open conduct of the people=s business. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO F1: Agree, although each microphone in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers has recently been replaced with a longer microphone to enhance the audio quality.
F2:
Comments by those testifying often cannot be clearly heard by those in attendance, either at or observing the broadcast of the meetings, thus inhibiting the open conduct of the people=s business. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO F2: Agree, although each microphone in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers has recently been replaced with a longer microphone to enhance the audio quality. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO F2: Disagree partially. This was true prior to replacing the microphones, currently we have intermittent issues with people hearing the testimony.
F3:
Public awareness and disclosure of Board of Supervisors= meetings could be improved if Board meetings, which are presently only broadcast during the meetings, were re-broadcast at a variety of times by promptly transmitting a tape copy to Cox Cable as the county had agreed to do when the video equipment was originally donated. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO F3: Agree. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO F3: Agree
F4:
No minutes were taken of deliberations by the selection committee charged with assessing the relative suitability of proposals received as a result of the Request for Proposals. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO F4: Agree
F5:
Some of the selection committee members may not have felt free to express their opinions because voting was done openly, not by ballot. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO F5: Disagree partially, because we are unable to verify if any selection committee member felt uncomfortable in expressing their opinion. However, it was an interactive process that allowed the participants to share their thoughts based on the criteria.
F6:
Neither specific guidelines nor the ranking form used by the selection committee were made available to potential respondents. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO F6: Disagree partially. The original Request for Proposal (RFP) did indicate the guidelines (parameters) for the location being sought by the County.
F7:
Pertinent to R-7 The rear door has been repaired in the Hoopa Substation.
F8:
Pertinent to R-8 Did not determine if the fire door at the Hoopa Substation meets State standards
F9:
Pertinent to R-9 The Hoopa Substation does not meet ADA standards. Report 01-13 CLARK COMPLEX INTRODUCTION The Humboldt County Grand Jury inspected the Clark Complex, located on Harris Street between H and I Streets. A survey conducted by the 1999-2000 grand jury of custodial and maintenance procedure highlighted certain problems with the Clark Complex. The original building was built around 1916 as a hospital. The Clark addition was added in the late 1950s. The hospital moved out in the late 1970s. This complex now houses county offices for the following departments: public works, planning, election's office, coroner’s office, mental health, Sempervirens, rehabilitation center and various outbuildings used for storage. THE 2000-2001 GRAND JURY RECOMMENDED THE FOLLOWING: R-1 The County meet ADA access standards at the main building of the Clark Complex. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESPONSE: Will be implemented. The county has currently contracted with a firm to conduct an evaluation of all county buildings for disability access. Changes identified as a result of this evaluation will then be prioritized and budgeted. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE: Agree. Access to the building for the disabled currently is from the ground floor. A phone allows people to contact Planning, Elections and Public Works who will open the locked doors and escort the person or persons to the elevator from which the elevator can be accessed. The county has two disabled employees at Clark who routinely use this access for the building. The county currently is updating its facilities, evaluations for all buildings, including Clark, which will be used to complete an ADA transition plan. FINDING The 2002-2003 grand jury makes the following finding:
Additional Recommendations
9
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Recommendation pertinent to F1: The grand jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors: (a) Purchase lapel microphones to enhance thorough communication by individual Supervisors to all in attendance. (b) The Clerk of the Board and the Supervisors should ensure that all of the microphones are turned on for the entire meeting, so that the deliberative process is fully communicated. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO R1: Recommendation (a) to purchase lapel microphones will not be implemented because it is not warranted. Each of the microphones in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers has recently been replaced with a longer microphone to enhance audio quality. Staff is working on adjusting the volume for each microphone to ensure that the Supervisors, staff and the public can be clearly heard over the sound system. Recommendation (b) has been implemented. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R1: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. All the microphones in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers have been replaced with a longer microphone. We are currently working on adjusting the volume for each microphone to ensure that Supervisors, staff and the public are heard over the sound system. This is an ongoing process that is more cost efficient than having each Supervisor wear a lapel microphone. Also, the microphones are turned on every meeting.
R2:
Recommendation pertinent to F2: The grand jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors: (a) Research the feasibility of purchasing an adjustable podium or microphone so those who testify can be clearly heard. (B) The Board Chair will also instruct all who testify, staff and the public, to speak clearly into the provided microphones. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO R2: Has been implemented. There is an adjustable microphone on the podium for public speakers that has been replaced in the past six months. The microphones at the staff table have also been replaced, and adjustments continue to be made to adjust the volume to ensure staff and the public can be clearly heard over the sound system. All the microphones in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers are adjustable. When public testimony cannot be heard, the Board Chair requests the individual providing testimony to speak into the microphones provided. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R2: The recommendation has been implemented. There is an adjustable microphone on the podium for public speakers that has been replaced in the past six months. The microphones at the staff table have been replaced as well. We are currently working on adjusting the volume for the staff microphones. All the microphones in the Boards’ Chambers are adjustable.
R3:
Recommendation pertinent to F3: The grand jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors: (a) Provide a meeting tape to Cox Cable promptly after each meeting for re- broadcast. (b) Utilize the public government access channel available at Cox Cable. This would improve the ability for the public to view the conduct of the people=s business. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO R3: Has been implemented. Arrangements have been made with Cox Cable for the evening rebroadcast of Board of Supervisors meetings to take place Wednesdays at 8:00 p.m. This will begin with the Board meeting of September 2, 2003. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R3: Has been implemented. Arrangements have been made with Cox Cable for the evening rebroadcast of Board of Supervisors meetings to take place Wednesdays at 8:00 p.m. This will begin with the Board meeting of September 2, 2003. RESPONSES: THE FOLLOWING RESPONSES TO REPORT 03-AF-01 ARE REQUIRED PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE 933 AND THE STANDARD FORMAT FOR RESPONSES. 1. The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors shall respond to R1, R2 and R3. 2. The General Services Administration Director shall respond to R3. GRAND JURY REPORT NO: 03-AF-02 REAL PROPERTY DIVISION Administration & Finance Committee INTRODUCTION: The Humboldt County Grand Jury conducted a routine investigation of the operations of the Real Property Division (RPD). The RPD is supervised by the General Services Director. The staff consists of one Senior Real Property Agent whose function, in spite of having an extensive job description implying considerable authority, more resembles that of a clerical position. Although the RPD works closely with various department heads and the County=s architect in filling the space requirements of County government, little real authority is given to act as the County=s advocate in the resulting real property transactions. The grand jury=s investigation included analyzing two real estate transactions, one a purchase, the other a long-term lease. Several personal interviews were also conducted and document reviews of both transactions were made. Early in the purchase transaction, the seller=s agent declared themselves a Adual agent@, representing both the buyer and the seller. In the real estate business, dual agency means that the interests of both parties to the transaction must be uppermost in all the agent=s actions and recommendations. It is difficult, if not impossible, to serve two such divergent interests. The potential for inadequate representation is present as well as the temptation to minimize potential risks, costs and liabilities. Although the agent in this transaction correctly identified the potential existence of lead paint, firm estimates or bids to mitigate the hazard were not sought and renovation costs ballooned to over three times the preliminary estimate, largely due to environmental hazards abatement. The RPD should have the authority to conduct its own due diligence and negotiate all terms, including a reduction in the purchase price to reflect the value of its contribution to the transaction. Traditionally, a commission paid by the seller of a property is split between the seller=s agent and the buyer=s agent. If the RPD is doing the work of the buyer=s agent when the County buys real property, the County should benefit proportionately. The final purchase price should be negotiated downward to reflect the value of one-half of a standard real estate commission. In the long-term lease transaction, a relatively new Request for Proposals process was used. The process was flawed from the beginning; the proposed location map included the entire area of greater Eureka, when in fact only those proposals near the courthouse were to be seriously considered. This fact was specified within the documentation, but the prominence of the misleading map may have caused several respondents to discount the importance of proximity to the courthouse, resulting in the needless expenditure of tens of thousands of dollars for proposals having no chance of success. It appears that the selection committee may have used arbitrary methods to assign rankings to the subjective criteria intended to fairly compare the competing proposals. Ironically, the ranking criteria were not shared with the project sponsors until after the final decision was made. Rankings were not done using specific quantitative guidelines, but involved open discussion leading to consensus. The makeup of the committee included several employees of the affected department along with the department head. No minutes of these important sessions were kept. When two of the three Afinalists@ dropped out of contention, reportedly a sense of urgency felt by the department head on the committee caused them to not reconsider two other highly competitive projects. Lease costs, although purportedly a Aspecial@ ranking consideration, were not weighted as to proposed annual increases; the winning proposal was the most expensive. No final price negotiation was attempted by the County, although the County had that right.
R4:
Recommendation pertinent to F4: The grand jury recommends that minutes be taken and properly filed for future review should the need arise. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R4: The recommendation will be partially implemented when we undergo the next process for evaluating long-term lease proposals. Although step-by-step minutes will not be taken of the selection committee discussions, the outcome of those discussions will be documented and retained in the applicable file(s).
R5:
Recommendation pertinent to F5: The grand jury recommends that a secret ballot process be implemented for use by future selection committees. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R5: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. The selection process is based on evaluating the responding proposals both objectively and subjectively. After that evaluation, then a determination is made. It is not appropriate to use a secret ballot to make the final selection.
R6:
Recommendation pertinent to F6: The grand jury recommends that quantitative, specific guidelines and the selection criteria ranking form be made available to all parties by inclusion in the Request for Proposals documentation. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R6: The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. As stated earlier this was new process and the RFP did have guidelines (parameters) regarding the location the County was looking for, but did not indicate the ranking for the criteria. In future RFP for lease property, there will be a better handle on our needs, which will include the specific guidelines and selection criteria ranking in the actual RFP documentation. RESPONSES: THE FOLLOWING RESPONSES TO REPORT 03-AF-02 ARE REQUIRED PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE 933 AND THE STANDARD FORMAT FOR RESPONSES. 1. The General Services Administration Director shall respond to R1, R2, R3, R4, R5 and
R7:
Replace the rear door at the Hoopa Substation:
R8:
Replace the fire door at the Hoopa Substation with one that meets state standards:
R9:
Modify the Hoopa Substation to comply with American Disability Act (ADA) standards: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATIONS R-3 - R-9:
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
Often comments made by individual Supervisors cannot be heard clearly, either by those in attendance at or observing the public broadcast of the Board of Supervisors= public meetings, because the microphones are not turned on or not spoken directly into, thus inhibiting the open conduct of the people=s business. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO F1: Agree, although each microphone in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers has recently been replaced with a longer microphone to enhance the audio quality.
F2:
Comments by those testifying often cannot be clearly heard by those in attendance, either at or observing the broadcast of the meetings, thus inhibiting the open conduct of the people=s business. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO F2: Agree, although each microphone in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers has recently been replaced with a longer microphone to enhance the audio quality. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO F2: Disagree partially. This was true prior to replacing the microphones, currently we have intermittent issues with people hearing the testimony.
F3:
Public awareness and disclosure of Board of Supervisors= meetings could be improved if Board meetings, which are presently only broadcast during the meetings, were re-broadcast at a variety of times by promptly transmitting a tape copy to Cox Cable as the county had agreed to do when the video equipment was originally donated. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO F3: Agree. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO F3: Agree
F4:
No minutes were taken of deliberations by the selection committee charged with assessing the relative suitability of proposals received as a result of the Request for Proposals. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO F4: Agree
F5:
Some of the selection committee members may not have felt free to express their opinions because voting was done openly, not by ballot. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO F5: Disagree partially, because we are unable to verify if any selection committee member felt uncomfortable in expressing their opinion. However, it was an interactive process that allowed the participants to share their thoughts based on the criteria.
F6:
Neither specific guidelines nor the ranking form used by the selection committee were made available to potential respondents. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO F6: Disagree partially. The original Request for Proposal (RFP) did indicate the guidelines (parameters) for the location being sought by the County.
F7:
Pertinent to R-7 The rear door has been repaired in the Hoopa Substation.
F8:
Pertinent to R-8 Did not determine if the fire door at the Hoopa Substation meets State standards
F9:
Pertinent to R-9 The Hoopa Substation does not meet ADA standards. Report 01-13 CLARK COMPLEX INTRODUCTION The Humboldt County Grand Jury inspected the Clark Complex, located on Harris Street between H and I Streets. A survey conducted by the 1999-2000 grand jury of custodial and maintenance procedure highlighted certain problems with the Clark Complex. The original building was built around 1916 as a hospital. The Clark addition was added in the late 1950s. The hospital moved out in the late 1970s. This complex now houses county offices for the following departments: public works, planning, election's office, coroner’s office, mental health, Sempervirens, rehabilitation center and various outbuildings used for storage. THE 2000-2001 GRAND JURY RECOMMENDED THE FOLLOWING: R-1 The County meet ADA access standards at the main building of the Clark Complex. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESPONSE: Will be implemented. The county has currently contracted with a firm to conduct an evaluation of all county buildings for disability access. Changes identified as a result of this evaluation will then be prioritized and budgeted. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE: Agree. Access to the building for the disabled currently is from the ground floor. A phone allows people to contact Planning, Elections and Public Works who will open the locked doors and escort the person or persons to the elevator from which the elevator can be accessed. The county has two disabled employees at Clark who routinely use this access for the building. The county currently is updating its facilities, evaluations for all buildings, including Clark, which will be used to complete an ADA transition plan. FINDING The 2002-2003 grand jury makes the following finding:
Additional Recommendations
9
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Recommendation pertinent to F1: The grand jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors: (a) Purchase lapel microphones to enhance thorough communication by individual Supervisors to all in attendance. (b) The Clerk of the Board and the Supervisors should ensure that all of the microphones are turned on for the entire meeting, so that the deliberative process is fully communicated. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO R1: Recommendation (a) to purchase lapel microphones will not be implemented because it is not warranted. Each of the microphones in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers has recently been replaced with a longer microphone to enhance audio quality. Staff is working on adjusting the volume for each microphone to ensure that the Supervisors, staff and the public can be clearly heard over the sound system. Recommendation (b) has been implemented. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R1: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. All the microphones in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers have been replaced with a longer microphone. We are currently working on adjusting the volume for each microphone to ensure that Supervisors, staff and the public are heard over the sound system. This is an ongoing process that is more cost efficient than having each Supervisor wear a lapel microphone. Also, the microphones are turned on every meeting.
R2:
Recommendation pertinent to F2: The grand jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors: (a) Research the feasibility of purchasing an adjustable podium or microphone so those who testify can be clearly heard. (B) The Board Chair will also instruct all who testify, staff and the public, to speak clearly into the provided microphones. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO R2: Has been implemented. There is an adjustable microphone on the podium for public speakers that has been replaced in the past six months. The microphones at the staff table have also been replaced, and adjustments continue to be made to adjust the volume to ensure staff and the public can be clearly heard over the sound system. All the microphones in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers are adjustable. When public testimony cannot be heard, the Board Chair requests the individual providing testimony to speak into the microphones provided. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R2: The recommendation has been implemented. There is an adjustable microphone on the podium for public speakers that has been replaced in the past six months. The microphones at the staff table have been replaced as well. We are currently working on adjusting the volume for the staff microphones. All the microphones in the Boards’ Chambers are adjustable.
R3:
Recommendation pertinent to F3: The grand jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors: (a) Provide a meeting tape to Cox Cable promptly after each meeting for re- broadcast. (b) Utilize the public government access channel available at Cox Cable. This would improve the ability for the public to view the conduct of the people=s business. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO R3: Has been implemented. Arrangements have been made with Cox Cable for the evening rebroadcast of Board of Supervisors meetings to take place Wednesdays at 8:00 p.m. This will begin with the Board meeting of September 2, 2003. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R3: Has been implemented. Arrangements have been made with Cox Cable for the evening rebroadcast of Board of Supervisors meetings to take place Wednesdays at 8:00 p.m. This will begin with the Board meeting of September 2, 2003. RESPONSES: THE FOLLOWING RESPONSES TO REPORT 03-AF-01 ARE REQUIRED PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE 933 AND THE STANDARD FORMAT FOR RESPONSES. 1. The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors shall respond to R1, R2 and R3. 2. The General Services Administration Director shall respond to R3. GRAND JURY REPORT NO: 03-AF-02 REAL PROPERTY DIVISION Administration & Finance Committee INTRODUCTION: The Humboldt County Grand Jury conducted a routine investigation of the operations of the Real Property Division (RPD). The RPD is supervised by the General Services Director. The staff consists of one Senior Real Property Agent whose function, in spite of having an extensive job description implying considerable authority, more resembles that of a clerical position. Although the RPD works closely with various department heads and the County=s architect in filling the space requirements of County government, little real authority is given to act as the County=s advocate in the resulting real property transactions. The grand jury=s investigation included analyzing two real estate transactions, one a purchase, the other a long-term lease. Several personal interviews were also conducted and document reviews of both transactions were made. Early in the purchase transaction, the seller=s agent declared themselves a Adual agent@, representing both the buyer and the seller. In the real estate business, dual agency means that the interests of both parties to the transaction must be uppermost in all the agent=s actions and recommendations. It is difficult, if not impossible, to serve two such divergent interests. The potential for inadequate representation is present as well as the temptation to minimize potential risks, costs and liabilities. Although the agent in this transaction correctly identified the potential existence of lead paint, firm estimates or bids to mitigate the hazard were not sought and renovation costs ballooned to over three times the preliminary estimate, largely due to environmental hazards abatement. The RPD should have the authority to conduct its own due diligence and negotiate all terms, including a reduction in the purchase price to reflect the value of its contribution to the transaction. Traditionally, a commission paid by the seller of a property is split between the seller=s agent and the buyer=s agent. If the RPD is doing the work of the buyer=s agent when the County buys real property, the County should benefit proportionately. The final purchase price should be negotiated downward to reflect the value of one-half of a standard real estate commission. In the long-term lease transaction, a relatively new Request for Proposals process was used. The process was flawed from the beginning; the proposed location map included the entire area of greater Eureka, when in fact only those proposals near the courthouse were to be seriously considered. This fact was specified within the documentation, but the prominence of the misleading map may have caused several respondents to discount the importance of proximity to the courthouse, resulting in the needless expenditure of tens of thousands of dollars for proposals having no chance of success. It appears that the selection committee may have used arbitrary methods to assign rankings to the subjective criteria intended to fairly compare the competing proposals. Ironically, the ranking criteria were not shared with the project sponsors until after the final decision was made. Rankings were not done using specific quantitative guidelines, but involved open discussion leading to consensus. The makeup of the committee included several employees of the affected department along with the department head. No minutes of these important sessions were kept. When two of the three Afinalists@ dropped out of contention, reportedly a sense of urgency felt by the department head on the committee caused them to not reconsider two other highly competitive projects. Lease costs, although purportedly a Aspecial@ ranking consideration, were not weighted as to proposed annual increases; the winning proposal was the most expensive. No final price negotiation was attempted by the County, although the County had that right.
R4:
Recommendation pertinent to F4: The grand jury recommends that minutes be taken and properly filed for future review should the need arise. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R4: The recommendation will be partially implemented when we undergo the next process for evaluating long-term lease proposals. Although step-by-step minutes will not be taken of the selection committee discussions, the outcome of those discussions will be documented and retained in the applicable file(s).
R5:
Recommendation pertinent to F5: The grand jury recommends that a secret ballot process be implemented for use by future selection committees. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R5: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. The selection process is based on evaluating the responding proposals both objectively and subjectively. After that evaluation, then a determination is made. It is not appropriate to use a secret ballot to make the final selection.
R6:
Recommendation pertinent to F6: The grand jury recommends that quantitative, specific guidelines and the selection criteria ranking form be made available to all parties by inclusion in the Request for Proposals documentation. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R6: The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. As stated earlier this was new process and the RFP did have guidelines (parameters) regarding the location the County was looking for, but did not indicate the ranking for the criteria. In future RFP for lease property, there will be a better handle on our needs, which will include the specific guidelines and selection criteria ranking in the actual RFP documentation. RESPONSES: THE FOLLOWING RESPONSES TO REPORT 03-AF-02 ARE REQUIRED PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE 933 AND THE STANDARD FORMAT FOR RESPONSES. 1. The General Services Administration Director shall respond to R1, R2, R3, R4, R5 and
R7:
Replace the rear door at the Hoopa Substation:
R8:
Replace the fire door at the Hoopa Substation with one that meets state standards:
R9:
Modify the Hoopa Substation to comply with American Disability Act (ADA) standards: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATIONS R-3 - R-9:
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
Often comments made by individual Supervisors cannot be heard clearly, either by those in attendance at or observing the public broadcast of the Board of Supervisors= public meetings, because the microphones are not turned on or not spoken directly into, thus inhibiting the open conduct of the people=s business. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO F1: Agree, although each microphone in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers has recently been replaced with a longer microphone to enhance the audio quality.
F2:
Comments by those testifying often cannot be clearly heard by those in attendance, either at or observing the broadcast of the meetings, thus inhibiting the open conduct of the people=s business. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO F2: Agree, although each microphone in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers has recently been replaced with a longer microphone to enhance the audio quality. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO F2: Disagree partially. This was true prior to replacing the microphones, currently we have intermittent issues with people hearing the testimony.
F3:
Public awareness and disclosure of Board of Supervisors= meetings could be improved if Board meetings, which are presently only broadcast during the meetings, were re-broadcast at a variety of times by promptly transmitting a tape copy to Cox Cable as the county had agreed to do when the video equipment was originally donated. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO F3: Agree. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO F3: Agree
F4:
No minutes were taken of deliberations by the selection committee charged with assessing the relative suitability of proposals received as a result of the Request for Proposals. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO F4: Agree
F5:
Some of the selection committee members may not have felt free to express their opinions because voting was done openly, not by ballot. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO F5: Disagree partially, because we are unable to verify if any selection committee member felt uncomfortable in expressing their opinion. However, it was an interactive process that allowed the participants to share their thoughts based on the criteria.
F6:
Neither specific guidelines nor the ranking form used by the selection committee were made available to potential respondents. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO F6: Disagree partially. The original Request for Proposal (RFP) did indicate the guidelines (parameters) for the location being sought by the County.
F7:
Pertinent to R-7 The rear door has been repaired in the Hoopa Substation.
F8:
Pertinent to R-8 Did not determine if the fire door at the Hoopa Substation meets State standards
F9:
Pertinent to R-9 The Hoopa Substation does not meet ADA standards. Report 01-13 CLARK COMPLEX INTRODUCTION The Humboldt County Grand Jury inspected the Clark Complex, located on Harris Street between H and I Streets. A survey conducted by the 1999-2000 grand jury of custodial and maintenance procedure highlighted certain problems with the Clark Complex. The original building was built around 1916 as a hospital. The Clark addition was added in the late 1950s. The hospital moved out in the late 1970s. This complex now houses county offices for the following departments: public works, planning, election's office, coroner’s office, mental health, Sempervirens, rehabilitation center and various outbuildings used for storage. THE 2000-2001 GRAND JURY RECOMMENDED THE FOLLOWING: R-1 The County meet ADA access standards at the main building of the Clark Complex. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESPONSE: Will be implemented. The county has currently contracted with a firm to conduct an evaluation of all county buildings for disability access. Changes identified as a result of this evaluation will then be prioritized and budgeted. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE: Agree. Access to the building for the disabled currently is from the ground floor. A phone allows people to contact Planning, Elections and Public Works who will open the locked doors and escort the person or persons to the elevator from which the elevator can be accessed. The county has two disabled employees at Clark who routinely use this access for the building. The county currently is updating its facilities, evaluations for all buildings, including Clark, which will be used to complete an ADA transition plan. FINDING The 2002-2003 grand jury makes the following finding:
Additional Recommendations
9
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Recommendation pertinent to F1: The grand jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors: (a) Purchase lapel microphones to enhance thorough communication by individual Supervisors to all in attendance. (b) The Clerk of the Board and the Supervisors should ensure that all of the microphones are turned on for the entire meeting, so that the deliberative process is fully communicated. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO R1: Recommendation (a) to purchase lapel microphones will not be implemented because it is not warranted. Each of the microphones in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers has recently been replaced with a longer microphone to enhance audio quality. Staff is working on adjusting the volume for each microphone to ensure that the Supervisors, staff and the public can be clearly heard over the sound system. Recommendation (b) has been implemented. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R1: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. All the microphones in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers have been replaced with a longer microphone. We are currently working on adjusting the volume for each microphone to ensure that Supervisors, staff and the public are heard over the sound system. This is an ongoing process that is more cost efficient than having each Supervisor wear a lapel microphone. Also, the microphones are turned on every meeting.
R2:
Recommendation pertinent to F2: The grand jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors: (a) Research the feasibility of purchasing an adjustable podium or microphone so those who testify can be clearly heard. (B) The Board Chair will also instruct all who testify, staff and the public, to speak clearly into the provided microphones. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO R2: Has been implemented. There is an adjustable microphone on the podium for public speakers that has been replaced in the past six months. The microphones at the staff table have also been replaced, and adjustments continue to be made to adjust the volume to ensure staff and the public can be clearly heard over the sound system. All the microphones in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers are adjustable. When public testimony cannot be heard, the Board Chair requests the individual providing testimony to speak into the microphones provided. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R2: The recommendation has been implemented. There is an adjustable microphone on the podium for public speakers that has been replaced in the past six months. The microphones at the staff table have been replaced as well. We are currently working on adjusting the volume for the staff microphones. All the microphones in the Boards’ Chambers are adjustable.
R3:
Recommendation pertinent to F3: The grand jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors: (a) Provide a meeting tape to Cox Cable promptly after each meeting for re- broadcast. (b) Utilize the public government access channel available at Cox Cable. This would improve the ability for the public to view the conduct of the people=s business. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO R3: Has been implemented. Arrangements have been made with Cox Cable for the evening rebroadcast of Board of Supervisors meetings to take place Wednesdays at 8:00 p.m. This will begin with the Board meeting of September 2, 2003. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R3: Has been implemented. Arrangements have been made with Cox Cable for the evening rebroadcast of Board of Supervisors meetings to take place Wednesdays at 8:00 p.m. This will begin with the Board meeting of September 2, 2003. RESPONSES: THE FOLLOWING RESPONSES TO REPORT 03-AF-01 ARE REQUIRED PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE 933 AND THE STANDARD FORMAT FOR RESPONSES. 1. The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors shall respond to R1, R2 and R3. 2. The General Services Administration Director shall respond to R3. GRAND JURY REPORT NO: 03-AF-02 REAL PROPERTY DIVISION Administration & Finance Committee INTRODUCTION: The Humboldt County Grand Jury conducted a routine investigation of the operations of the Real Property Division (RPD). The RPD is supervised by the General Services Director. The staff consists of one Senior Real Property Agent whose function, in spite of having an extensive job description implying considerable authority, more resembles that of a clerical position. Although the RPD works closely with various department heads and the County=s architect in filling the space requirements of County government, little real authority is given to act as the County=s advocate in the resulting real property transactions. The grand jury=s investigation included analyzing two real estate transactions, one a purchase, the other a long-term lease. Several personal interviews were also conducted and document reviews of both transactions were made. Early in the purchase transaction, the seller=s agent declared themselves a Adual agent@, representing both the buyer and the seller. In the real estate business, dual agency means that the interests of both parties to the transaction must be uppermost in all the agent=s actions and recommendations. It is difficult, if not impossible, to serve two such divergent interests. The potential for inadequate representation is present as well as the temptation to minimize potential risks, costs and liabilities. Although the agent in this transaction correctly identified the potential existence of lead paint, firm estimates or bids to mitigate the hazard were not sought and renovation costs ballooned to over three times the preliminary estimate, largely due to environmental hazards abatement. The RPD should have the authority to conduct its own due diligence and negotiate all terms, including a reduction in the purchase price to reflect the value of its contribution to the transaction. Traditionally, a commission paid by the seller of a property is split between the seller=s agent and the buyer=s agent. If the RPD is doing the work of the buyer=s agent when the County buys real property, the County should benefit proportionately. The final purchase price should be negotiated downward to reflect the value of one-half of a standard real estate commission. In the long-term lease transaction, a relatively new Request for Proposals process was used. The process was flawed from the beginning; the proposed location map included the entire area of greater Eureka, when in fact only those proposals near the courthouse were to be seriously considered. This fact was specified within the documentation, but the prominence of the misleading map may have caused several respondents to discount the importance of proximity to the courthouse, resulting in the needless expenditure of tens of thousands of dollars for proposals having no chance of success. It appears that the selection committee may have used arbitrary methods to assign rankings to the subjective criteria intended to fairly compare the competing proposals. Ironically, the ranking criteria were not shared with the project sponsors until after the final decision was made. Rankings were not done using specific quantitative guidelines, but involved open discussion leading to consensus. The makeup of the committee included several employees of the affected department along with the department head. No minutes of these important sessions were kept. When two of the three Afinalists@ dropped out of contention, reportedly a sense of urgency felt by the department head on the committee caused them to not reconsider two other highly competitive projects. Lease costs, although purportedly a Aspecial@ ranking consideration, were not weighted as to proposed annual increases; the winning proposal was the most expensive. No final price negotiation was attempted by the County, although the County had that right.
R4:
Recommendation pertinent to F4: The grand jury recommends that minutes be taken and properly filed for future review should the need arise. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R4: The recommendation will be partially implemented when we undergo the next process for evaluating long-term lease proposals. Although step-by-step minutes will not be taken of the selection committee discussions, the outcome of those discussions will be documented and retained in the applicable file(s).
R5:
Recommendation pertinent to F5: The grand jury recommends that a secret ballot process be implemented for use by future selection committees. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R5: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. The selection process is based on evaluating the responding proposals both objectively and subjectively. After that evaluation, then a determination is made. It is not appropriate to use a secret ballot to make the final selection.
R6:
Recommendation pertinent to F6: The grand jury recommends that quantitative, specific guidelines and the selection criteria ranking form be made available to all parties by inclusion in the Request for Proposals documentation. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R6: The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. As stated earlier this was new process and the RFP did have guidelines (parameters) regarding the location the County was looking for, but did not indicate the ranking for the criteria. In future RFP for lease property, there will be a better handle on our needs, which will include the specific guidelines and selection criteria ranking in the actual RFP documentation. RESPONSES: THE FOLLOWING RESPONSES TO REPORT 03-AF-02 ARE REQUIRED PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE 933 AND THE STANDARD FORMAT FOR RESPONSES. 1. The General Services Administration Director shall respond to R1, R2, R3, R4, R5 and
R7:
Replace the rear door at the Hoopa Substation:
R8:
Replace the fire door at the Hoopa Substation with one that meets state standards:
R9:
Modify the Hoopa Substation to comply with American Disability Act (ADA) standards: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATIONS R-3 - R-9:
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
Often comments made by individual Supervisors cannot be heard clearly, either by those in attendance at or observing the public broadcast of the Board of Supervisors= public meetings, because the microphones are not turned on or not spoken directly into, thus inhibiting the open conduct of the people=s business. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO F1: Agree, although each microphone in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers has recently been replaced with a longer microphone to enhance the audio quality.
F2:
Comments by those testifying often cannot be clearly heard by those in attendance, either at or observing the broadcast of the meetings, thus inhibiting the open conduct of the people=s business. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO F2: Agree, although each microphone in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers has recently been replaced with a longer microphone to enhance the audio quality. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO F2: Disagree partially. This was true prior to replacing the microphones, currently we have intermittent issues with people hearing the testimony.
F3:
Public awareness and disclosure of Board of Supervisors= meetings could be improved if Board meetings, which are presently only broadcast during the meetings, were re-broadcast at a variety of times by promptly transmitting a tape copy to Cox Cable as the county had agreed to do when the video equipment was originally donated. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO F3: Agree. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO F3: Agree
F4:
No minutes were taken of deliberations by the selection committee charged with assessing the relative suitability of proposals received as a result of the Request for Proposals. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO F4: Agree
F5:
Some of the selection committee members may not have felt free to express their opinions because voting was done openly, not by ballot. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO F5: Disagree partially, because we are unable to verify if any selection committee member felt uncomfortable in expressing their opinion. However, it was an interactive process that allowed the participants to share their thoughts based on the criteria.
F6:
Neither specific guidelines nor the ranking form used by the selection committee were made available to potential respondents. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO F6: Disagree partially. The original Request for Proposal (RFP) did indicate the guidelines (parameters) for the location being sought by the County.
F7:
Pertinent to R-7 The rear door has been repaired in the Hoopa Substation.
F8:
Pertinent to R-8 Did not determine if the fire door at the Hoopa Substation meets State standards
F9:
Pertinent to R-9 The Hoopa Substation does not meet ADA standards. Report 01-13 CLARK COMPLEX INTRODUCTION The Humboldt County Grand Jury inspected the Clark Complex, located on Harris Street between H and I Streets. A survey conducted by the 1999-2000 grand jury of custodial and maintenance procedure highlighted certain problems with the Clark Complex. The original building was built around 1916 as a hospital. The Clark addition was added in the late 1950s. The hospital moved out in the late 1970s. This complex now houses county offices for the following departments: public works, planning, election's office, coroner’s office, mental health, Sempervirens, rehabilitation center and various outbuildings used for storage. THE 2000-2001 GRAND JURY RECOMMENDED THE FOLLOWING: R-1 The County meet ADA access standards at the main building of the Clark Complex. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESPONSE: Will be implemented. The county has currently contracted with a firm to conduct an evaluation of all county buildings for disability access. Changes identified as a result of this evaluation will then be prioritized and budgeted. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE: Agree. Access to the building for the disabled currently is from the ground floor. A phone allows people to contact Planning, Elections and Public Works who will open the locked doors and escort the person or persons to the elevator from which the elevator can be accessed. The county has two disabled employees at Clark who routinely use this access for the building. The county currently is updating its facilities, evaluations for all buildings, including Clark, which will be used to complete an ADA transition plan. FINDING The 2002-2003 grand jury makes the following finding:
Additional Recommendations
9
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Recommendation pertinent to F1: The grand jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors: (a) Purchase lapel microphones to enhance thorough communication by individual Supervisors to all in attendance. (b) The Clerk of the Board and the Supervisors should ensure that all of the microphones are turned on for the entire meeting, so that the deliberative process is fully communicated. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO R1: Recommendation (a) to purchase lapel microphones will not be implemented because it is not warranted. Each of the microphones in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers has recently been replaced with a longer microphone to enhance audio quality. Staff is working on adjusting the volume for each microphone to ensure that the Supervisors, staff and the public can be clearly heard over the sound system. Recommendation (b) has been implemented. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R1: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. All the microphones in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers have been replaced with a longer microphone. We are currently working on adjusting the volume for each microphone to ensure that Supervisors, staff and the public are heard over the sound system. This is an ongoing process that is more cost efficient than having each Supervisor wear a lapel microphone. Also, the microphones are turned on every meeting.
R2:
Recommendation pertinent to F2: The grand jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors: (a) Research the feasibility of purchasing an adjustable podium or microphone so those who testify can be clearly heard. (B) The Board Chair will also instruct all who testify, staff and the public, to speak clearly into the provided microphones. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO R2: Has been implemented. There is an adjustable microphone on the podium for public speakers that has been replaced in the past six months. The microphones at the staff table have also been replaced, and adjustments continue to be made to adjust the volume to ensure staff and the public can be clearly heard over the sound system. All the microphones in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers are adjustable. When public testimony cannot be heard, the Board Chair requests the individual providing testimony to speak into the microphones provided. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R2: The recommendation has been implemented. There is an adjustable microphone on the podium for public speakers that has been replaced in the past six months. The microphones at the staff table have been replaced as well. We are currently working on adjusting the volume for the staff microphones. All the microphones in the Boards’ Chambers are adjustable.
R3:
Recommendation pertinent to F3: The grand jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors: (a) Provide a meeting tape to Cox Cable promptly after each meeting for re- broadcast. (b) Utilize the public government access channel available at Cox Cable. This would improve the ability for the public to view the conduct of the people=s business. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO R3: Has been implemented. Arrangements have been made with Cox Cable for the evening rebroadcast of Board of Supervisors meetings to take place Wednesdays at 8:00 p.m. This will begin with the Board meeting of September 2, 2003. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R3: Has been implemented. Arrangements have been made with Cox Cable for the evening rebroadcast of Board of Supervisors meetings to take place Wednesdays at 8:00 p.m. This will begin with the Board meeting of September 2, 2003. RESPONSES: THE FOLLOWING RESPONSES TO REPORT 03-AF-01 ARE REQUIRED PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE 933 AND THE STANDARD FORMAT FOR RESPONSES. 1. The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors shall respond to R1, R2 and R3. 2. The General Services Administration Director shall respond to R3. GRAND JURY REPORT NO: 03-AF-02 REAL PROPERTY DIVISION Administration & Finance Committee INTRODUCTION: The Humboldt County Grand Jury conducted a routine investigation of the operations of the Real Property Division (RPD). The RPD is supervised by the General Services Director. The staff consists of one Senior Real Property Agent whose function, in spite of having an extensive job description implying considerable authority, more resembles that of a clerical position. Although the RPD works closely with various department heads and the County=s architect in filling the space requirements of County government, little real authority is given to act as the County=s advocate in the resulting real property transactions. The grand jury=s investigation included analyzing two real estate transactions, one a purchase, the other a long-term lease. Several personal interviews were also conducted and document reviews of both transactions were made. Early in the purchase transaction, the seller=s agent declared themselves a Adual agent@, representing both the buyer and the seller. In the real estate business, dual agency means that the interests of both parties to the transaction must be uppermost in all the agent=s actions and recommendations. It is difficult, if not impossible, to serve two such divergent interests. The potential for inadequate representation is present as well as the temptation to minimize potential risks, costs and liabilities. Although the agent in this transaction correctly identified the potential existence of lead paint, firm estimates or bids to mitigate the hazard were not sought and renovation costs ballooned to over three times the preliminary estimate, largely due to environmental hazards abatement. The RPD should have the authority to conduct its own due diligence and negotiate all terms, including a reduction in the purchase price to reflect the value of its contribution to the transaction. Traditionally, a commission paid by the seller of a property is split between the seller=s agent and the buyer=s agent. If the RPD is doing the work of the buyer=s agent when the County buys real property, the County should benefit proportionately. The final purchase price should be negotiated downward to reflect the value of one-half of a standard real estate commission. In the long-term lease transaction, a relatively new Request for Proposals process was used. The process was flawed from the beginning; the proposed location map included the entire area of greater Eureka, when in fact only those proposals near the courthouse were to be seriously considered. This fact was specified within the documentation, but the prominence of the misleading map may have caused several respondents to discount the importance of proximity to the courthouse, resulting in the needless expenditure of tens of thousands of dollars for proposals having no chance of success. It appears that the selection committee may have used arbitrary methods to assign rankings to the subjective criteria intended to fairly compare the competing proposals. Ironically, the ranking criteria were not shared with the project sponsors until after the final decision was made. Rankings were not done using specific quantitative guidelines, but involved open discussion leading to consensus. The makeup of the committee included several employees of the affected department along with the department head. No minutes of these important sessions were kept. When two of the three Afinalists@ dropped out of contention, reportedly a sense of urgency felt by the department head on the committee caused them to not reconsider two other highly competitive projects. Lease costs, although purportedly a Aspecial@ ranking consideration, were not weighted as to proposed annual increases; the winning proposal was the most expensive. No final price negotiation was attempted by the County, although the County had that right.
R4:
Recommendation pertinent to F4: The grand jury recommends that minutes be taken and properly filed for future review should the need arise. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R4: The recommendation will be partially implemented when we undergo the next process for evaluating long-term lease proposals. Although step-by-step minutes will not be taken of the selection committee discussions, the outcome of those discussions will be documented and retained in the applicable file(s).
R5:
Recommendation pertinent to F5: The grand jury recommends that a secret ballot process be implemented for use by future selection committees. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R5: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. The selection process is based on evaluating the responding proposals both objectively and subjectively. After that evaluation, then a determination is made. It is not appropriate to use a secret ballot to make the final selection.
R6:
Recommendation pertinent to F6: The grand jury recommends that quantitative, specific guidelines and the selection criteria ranking form be made available to all parties by inclusion in the Request for Proposals documentation. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R6: The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. As stated earlier this was new process and the RFP did have guidelines (parameters) regarding the location the County was looking for, but did not indicate the ranking for the criteria. In future RFP for lease property, there will be a better handle on our needs, which will include the specific guidelines and selection criteria ranking in the actual RFP documentation. RESPONSES: THE FOLLOWING RESPONSES TO REPORT 03-AF-02 ARE REQUIRED PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE 933 AND THE STANDARD FORMAT FOR RESPONSES. 1. The General Services Administration Director shall respond to R1, R2, R3, R4, R5 and
R7:
Replace the rear door at the Hoopa Substation:
R8:
Replace the fire door at the Hoopa Substation with one that meets state standards:
R9:
Modify the Hoopa Substation to comply with American Disability Act (ADA) standards: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATIONS R-3 - R-9:
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
Often comments made by individual Supervisors cannot be heard clearly, either by those in attendance at or observing the public broadcast of the Board of Supervisors= public meetings, because the microphones are not turned on or not spoken directly into, thus inhibiting the open conduct of the people=s business. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO F1: Agree, although each microphone in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers has recently been replaced with a longer microphone to enhance the audio quality.
F2:
Comments by those testifying often cannot be clearly heard by those in attendance, either at or observing the broadcast of the meetings, thus inhibiting the open conduct of the people=s business. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO F2: Agree, although each microphone in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers has recently been replaced with a longer microphone to enhance the audio quality. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO F2: Disagree partially. This was true prior to replacing the microphones, currently we have intermittent issues with people hearing the testimony.
F3:
Public awareness and disclosure of Board of Supervisors= meetings could be improved if Board meetings, which are presently only broadcast during the meetings, were re-broadcast at a variety of times by promptly transmitting a tape copy to Cox Cable as the county had agreed to do when the video equipment was originally donated. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO F3: Agree. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO F3: Agree
F4:
No minutes were taken of deliberations by the selection committee charged with assessing the relative suitability of proposals received as a result of the Request for Proposals. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO F4: Agree
F5:
Some of the selection committee members may not have felt free to express their opinions because voting was done openly, not by ballot. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO F5: Disagree partially, because we are unable to verify if any selection committee member felt uncomfortable in expressing their opinion. However, it was an interactive process that allowed the participants to share their thoughts based on the criteria.
F6:
Neither specific guidelines nor the ranking form used by the selection committee were made available to potential respondents. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO F6: Disagree partially. The original Request for Proposal (RFP) did indicate the guidelines (parameters) for the location being sought by the County.
F7:
Pertinent to R-7 The rear door has been repaired in the Hoopa Substation.
F8:
Pertinent to R-8 Did not determine if the fire door at the Hoopa Substation meets State standards
F9:
Pertinent to R-9 The Hoopa Substation does not meet ADA standards. Report 01-13 CLARK COMPLEX INTRODUCTION The Humboldt County Grand Jury inspected the Clark Complex, located on Harris Street between H and I Streets. A survey conducted by the 1999-2000 grand jury of custodial and maintenance procedure highlighted certain problems with the Clark Complex. The original building was built around 1916 as a hospital. The Clark addition was added in the late 1950s. The hospital moved out in the late 1970s. This complex now houses county offices for the following departments: public works, planning, election's office, coroner’s office, mental health, Sempervirens, rehabilitation center and various outbuildings used for storage. THE 2000-2001 GRAND JURY RECOMMENDED THE FOLLOWING: R-1 The County meet ADA access standards at the main building of the Clark Complex. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESPONSE: Will be implemented. The county has currently contracted with a firm to conduct an evaluation of all county buildings for disability access. Changes identified as a result of this evaluation will then be prioritized and budgeted. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE: Agree. Access to the building for the disabled currently is from the ground floor. A phone allows people to contact Planning, Elections and Public Works who will open the locked doors and escort the person or persons to the elevator from which the elevator can be accessed. The county has two disabled employees at Clark who routinely use this access for the building. The county currently is updating its facilities, evaluations for all buildings, including Clark, which will be used to complete an ADA transition plan. FINDING The 2002-2003 grand jury makes the following finding:
Additional Recommendations
9
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Recommendation pertinent to F1: The grand jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors: (a) Purchase lapel microphones to enhance thorough communication by individual Supervisors to all in attendance. (b) The Clerk of the Board and the Supervisors should ensure that all of the microphones are turned on for the entire meeting, so that the deliberative process is fully communicated. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO R1: Recommendation (a) to purchase lapel microphones will not be implemented because it is not warranted. Each of the microphones in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers has recently been replaced with a longer microphone to enhance audio quality. Staff is working on adjusting the volume for each microphone to ensure that the Supervisors, staff and the public can be clearly heard over the sound system. Recommendation (b) has been implemented. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R1: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. All the microphones in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers have been replaced with a longer microphone. We are currently working on adjusting the volume for each microphone to ensure that Supervisors, staff and the public are heard over the sound system. This is an ongoing process that is more cost efficient than having each Supervisor wear a lapel microphone. Also, the microphones are turned on every meeting.
R2:
Recommendation pertinent to F2: The grand jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors: (a) Research the feasibility of purchasing an adjustable podium or microphone so those who testify can be clearly heard. (B) The Board Chair will also instruct all who testify, staff and the public, to speak clearly into the provided microphones. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO R2: Has been implemented. There is an adjustable microphone on the podium for public speakers that has been replaced in the past six months. The microphones at the staff table have also been replaced, and adjustments continue to be made to adjust the volume to ensure staff and the public can be clearly heard over the sound system. All the microphones in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers are adjustable. When public testimony cannot be heard, the Board Chair requests the individual providing testimony to speak into the microphones provided. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R2: The recommendation has been implemented. There is an adjustable microphone on the podium for public speakers that has been replaced in the past six months. The microphones at the staff table have been replaced as well. We are currently working on adjusting the volume for the staff microphones. All the microphones in the Boards’ Chambers are adjustable.
R3:
Recommendation pertinent to F3: The grand jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors: (a) Provide a meeting tape to Cox Cable promptly after each meeting for re- broadcast. (b) Utilize the public government access channel available at Cox Cable. This would improve the ability for the public to view the conduct of the people=s business. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO R3: Has been implemented. Arrangements have been made with Cox Cable for the evening rebroadcast of Board of Supervisors meetings to take place Wednesdays at 8:00 p.m. This will begin with the Board meeting of September 2, 2003. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R3: Has been implemented. Arrangements have been made with Cox Cable for the evening rebroadcast of Board of Supervisors meetings to take place Wednesdays at 8:00 p.m. This will begin with the Board meeting of September 2, 2003. RESPONSES: THE FOLLOWING RESPONSES TO REPORT 03-AF-01 ARE REQUIRED PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE 933 AND THE STANDARD FORMAT FOR RESPONSES. 1. The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors shall respond to R1, R2 and R3. 2. The General Services Administration Director shall respond to R3. GRAND JURY REPORT NO: 03-AF-02 REAL PROPERTY DIVISION Administration & Finance Committee INTRODUCTION: The Humboldt County Grand Jury conducted a routine investigation of the operations of the Real Property Division (RPD). The RPD is supervised by the General Services Director. The staff consists of one Senior Real Property Agent whose function, in spite of having an extensive job description implying considerable authority, more resembles that of a clerical position. Although the RPD works closely with various department heads and the County=s architect in filling the space requirements of County government, little real authority is given to act as the County=s advocate in the resulting real property transactions. The grand jury=s investigation included analyzing two real estate transactions, one a purchase, the other a long-term lease. Several personal interviews were also conducted and document reviews of both transactions were made. Early in the purchase transaction, the seller=s agent declared themselves a Adual agent@, representing both the buyer and the seller. In the real estate business, dual agency means that the interests of both parties to the transaction must be uppermost in all the agent=s actions and recommendations. It is difficult, if not impossible, to serve two such divergent interests. The potential for inadequate representation is present as well as the temptation to minimize potential risks, costs and liabilities. Although the agent in this transaction correctly identified the potential existence of lead paint, firm estimates or bids to mitigate the hazard were not sought and renovation costs ballooned to over three times the preliminary estimate, largely due to environmental hazards abatement. The RPD should have the authority to conduct its own due diligence and negotiate all terms, including a reduction in the purchase price to reflect the value of its contribution to the transaction. Traditionally, a commission paid by the seller of a property is split between the seller=s agent and the buyer=s agent. If the RPD is doing the work of the buyer=s agent when the County buys real property, the County should benefit proportionately. The final purchase price should be negotiated downward to reflect the value of one-half of a standard real estate commission. In the long-term lease transaction, a relatively new Request for Proposals process was used. The process was flawed from the beginning; the proposed location map included the entire area of greater Eureka, when in fact only those proposals near the courthouse were to be seriously considered. This fact was specified within the documentation, but the prominence of the misleading map may have caused several respondents to discount the importance of proximity to the courthouse, resulting in the needless expenditure of tens of thousands of dollars for proposals having no chance of success. It appears that the selection committee may have used arbitrary methods to assign rankings to the subjective criteria intended to fairly compare the competing proposals. Ironically, the ranking criteria were not shared with the project sponsors until after the final decision was made. Rankings were not done using specific quantitative guidelines, but involved open discussion leading to consensus. The makeup of the committee included several employees of the affected department along with the department head. No minutes of these important sessions were kept. When two of the three Afinalists@ dropped out of contention, reportedly a sense of urgency felt by the department head on the committee caused them to not reconsider two other highly competitive projects. Lease costs, although purportedly a Aspecial@ ranking consideration, were not weighted as to proposed annual increases; the winning proposal was the most expensive. No final price negotiation was attempted by the County, although the County had that right.
R4:
Recommendation pertinent to F4: The grand jury recommends that minutes be taken and properly filed for future review should the need arise. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R4: The recommendation will be partially implemented when we undergo the next process for evaluating long-term lease proposals. Although step-by-step minutes will not be taken of the selection committee discussions, the outcome of those discussions will be documented and retained in the applicable file(s).
R5:
Recommendation pertinent to F5: The grand jury recommends that a secret ballot process be implemented for use by future selection committees. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R5: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. The selection process is based on evaluating the responding proposals both objectively and subjectively. After that evaluation, then a determination is made. It is not appropriate to use a secret ballot to make the final selection.
R6:
Recommendation pertinent to F6: The grand jury recommends that quantitative, specific guidelines and the selection criteria ranking form be made available to all parties by inclusion in the Request for Proposals documentation. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R6: The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. As stated earlier this was new process and the RFP did have guidelines (parameters) regarding the location the County was looking for, but did not indicate the ranking for the criteria. In future RFP for lease property, there will be a better handle on our needs, which will include the specific guidelines and selection criteria ranking in the actual RFP documentation. RESPONSES: THE FOLLOWING RESPONSES TO REPORT 03-AF-02 ARE REQUIRED PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE 933 AND THE STANDARD FORMAT FOR RESPONSES. 1. The General Services Administration Director shall respond to R1, R2, R3, R4, R5 and
R7:
Replace the rear door at the Hoopa Substation:
R8:
Replace the fire door at the Hoopa Substation with one that meets state standards:
R9:
Modify the Hoopa Substation to comply with American Disability Act (ADA) standards: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATIONS R-3 - R-9:
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
Often comments made by individual Supervisors cannot be heard clearly, either by those in attendance at or observing the public broadcast of the Board of Supervisors= public meetings, because the microphones are not turned on or not spoken directly into, thus inhibiting the open conduct of the people=s business. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO F1: Agree, although each microphone in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers has recently been replaced with a longer microphone to enhance the audio quality.
F2:
Comments by those testifying often cannot be clearly heard by those in attendance, either at or observing the broadcast of the meetings, thus inhibiting the open conduct of the people=s business. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO F2: Agree, although each microphone in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers has recently been replaced with a longer microphone to enhance the audio quality. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO F2: Disagree partially. This was true prior to replacing the microphones, currently we have intermittent issues with people hearing the testimony.
F3:
Public awareness and disclosure of Board of Supervisors= meetings could be improved if Board meetings, which are presently only broadcast during the meetings, were re-broadcast at a variety of times by promptly transmitting a tape copy to Cox Cable as the county had agreed to do when the video equipment was originally donated. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO F3: Agree. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO F3: Agree
F4:
No minutes were taken of deliberations by the selection committee charged with assessing the relative suitability of proposals received as a result of the Request for Proposals. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO F4: Agree
F5:
Some of the selection committee members may not have felt free to express their opinions because voting was done openly, not by ballot. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO F5: Disagree partially, because we are unable to verify if any selection committee member felt uncomfortable in expressing their opinion. However, it was an interactive process that allowed the participants to share their thoughts based on the criteria.
F6:
Neither specific guidelines nor the ranking form used by the selection committee were made available to potential respondents. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO F6: Disagree partially. The original Request for Proposal (RFP) did indicate the guidelines (parameters) for the location being sought by the County.
F7:
Pertinent to R-7 The rear door has been repaired in the Hoopa Substation.
F8:
Pertinent to R-8 Did not determine if the fire door at the Hoopa Substation meets State standards
F9:
Pertinent to R-9 The Hoopa Substation does not meet ADA standards. Report 01-13 CLARK COMPLEX INTRODUCTION The Humboldt County Grand Jury inspected the Clark Complex, located on Harris Street between H and I Streets. A survey conducted by the 1999-2000 grand jury of custodial and maintenance procedure highlighted certain problems with the Clark Complex. The original building was built around 1916 as a hospital. The Clark addition was added in the late 1950s. The hospital moved out in the late 1970s. This complex now houses county offices for the following departments: public works, planning, election's office, coroner’s office, mental health, Sempervirens, rehabilitation center and various outbuildings used for storage. THE 2000-2001 GRAND JURY RECOMMENDED THE FOLLOWING: R-1 The County meet ADA access standards at the main building of the Clark Complex. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESPONSE: Will be implemented. The county has currently contracted with a firm to conduct an evaluation of all county buildings for disability access. Changes identified as a result of this evaluation will then be prioritized and budgeted. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE: Agree. Access to the building for the disabled currently is from the ground floor. A phone allows people to contact Planning, Elections and Public Works who will open the locked doors and escort the person or persons to the elevator from which the elevator can be accessed. The county has two disabled employees at Clark who routinely use this access for the building. The county currently is updating its facilities, evaluations for all buildings, including Clark, which will be used to complete an ADA transition plan. FINDING The 2002-2003 grand jury makes the following finding:
Additional Recommendations
9
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Recommendation pertinent to F1: The grand jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors: (a) Purchase lapel microphones to enhance thorough communication by individual Supervisors to all in attendance. (b) The Clerk of the Board and the Supervisors should ensure that all of the microphones are turned on for the entire meeting, so that the deliberative process is fully communicated. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO R1: Recommendation (a) to purchase lapel microphones will not be implemented because it is not warranted. Each of the microphones in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers has recently been replaced with a longer microphone to enhance audio quality. Staff is working on adjusting the volume for each microphone to ensure that the Supervisors, staff and the public can be clearly heard over the sound system. Recommendation (b) has been implemented. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R1: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. All the microphones in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers have been replaced with a longer microphone. We are currently working on adjusting the volume for each microphone to ensure that Supervisors, staff and the public are heard over the sound system. This is an ongoing process that is more cost efficient than having each Supervisor wear a lapel microphone. Also, the microphones are turned on every meeting.
R2:
Recommendation pertinent to F2: The grand jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors: (a) Research the feasibility of purchasing an adjustable podium or microphone so those who testify can be clearly heard. (B) The Board Chair will also instruct all who testify, staff and the public, to speak clearly into the provided microphones. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO R2: Has been implemented. There is an adjustable microphone on the podium for public speakers that has been replaced in the past six months. The microphones at the staff table have also been replaced, and adjustments continue to be made to adjust the volume to ensure staff and the public can be clearly heard over the sound system. All the microphones in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers are adjustable. When public testimony cannot be heard, the Board Chair requests the individual providing testimony to speak into the microphones provided. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R2: The recommendation has been implemented. There is an adjustable microphone on the podium for public speakers that has been replaced in the past six months. The microphones at the staff table have been replaced as well. We are currently working on adjusting the volume for the staff microphones. All the microphones in the Boards’ Chambers are adjustable.
R3:
Recommendation pertinent to F3: The grand jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors: (a) Provide a meeting tape to Cox Cable promptly after each meeting for re- broadcast. (b) Utilize the public government access channel available at Cox Cable. This would improve the ability for the public to view the conduct of the people=s business. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO R3: Has been implemented. Arrangements have been made with Cox Cable for the evening rebroadcast of Board of Supervisors meetings to take place Wednesdays at 8:00 p.m. This will begin with the Board meeting of September 2, 2003. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R3: Has been implemented. Arrangements have been made with Cox Cable for the evening rebroadcast of Board of Supervisors meetings to take place Wednesdays at 8:00 p.m. This will begin with the Board meeting of September 2, 2003. RESPONSES: THE FOLLOWING RESPONSES TO REPORT 03-AF-01 ARE REQUIRED PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE 933 AND THE STANDARD FORMAT FOR RESPONSES. 1. The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors shall respond to R1, R2 and R3. 2. The General Services Administration Director shall respond to R3. GRAND JURY REPORT NO: 03-AF-02 REAL PROPERTY DIVISION Administration & Finance Committee INTRODUCTION: The Humboldt County Grand Jury conducted a routine investigation of the operations of the Real Property Division (RPD). The RPD is supervised by the General Services Director. The staff consists of one Senior Real Property Agent whose function, in spite of having an extensive job description implying considerable authority, more resembles that of a clerical position. Although the RPD works closely with various department heads and the County=s architect in filling the space requirements of County government, little real authority is given to act as the County=s advocate in the resulting real property transactions. The grand jury=s investigation included analyzing two real estate transactions, one a purchase, the other a long-term lease. Several personal interviews were also conducted and document reviews of both transactions were made. Early in the purchase transaction, the seller=s agent declared themselves a Adual agent@, representing both the buyer and the seller. In the real estate business, dual agency means that the interests of both parties to the transaction must be uppermost in all the agent=s actions and recommendations. It is difficult, if not impossible, to serve two such divergent interests. The potential for inadequate representation is present as well as the temptation to minimize potential risks, costs and liabilities. Although the agent in this transaction correctly identified the potential existence of lead paint, firm estimates or bids to mitigate the hazard were not sought and renovation costs ballooned to over three times the preliminary estimate, largely due to environmental hazards abatement. The RPD should have the authority to conduct its own due diligence and negotiate all terms, including a reduction in the purchase price to reflect the value of its contribution to the transaction. Traditionally, a commission paid by the seller of a property is split between the seller=s agent and the buyer=s agent. If the RPD is doing the work of the buyer=s agent when the County buys real property, the County should benefit proportionately. The final purchase price should be negotiated downward to reflect the value of one-half of a standard real estate commission. In the long-term lease transaction, a relatively new Request for Proposals process was used. The process was flawed from the beginning; the proposed location map included the entire area of greater Eureka, when in fact only those proposals near the courthouse were to be seriously considered. This fact was specified within the documentation, but the prominence of the misleading map may have caused several respondents to discount the importance of proximity to the courthouse, resulting in the needless expenditure of tens of thousands of dollars for proposals having no chance of success. It appears that the selection committee may have used arbitrary methods to assign rankings to the subjective criteria intended to fairly compare the competing proposals. Ironically, the ranking criteria were not shared with the project sponsors until after the final decision was made. Rankings were not done using specific quantitative guidelines, but involved open discussion leading to consensus. The makeup of the committee included several employees of the affected department along with the department head. No minutes of these important sessions were kept. When two of the three Afinalists@ dropped out of contention, reportedly a sense of urgency felt by the department head on the committee caused them to not reconsider two other highly competitive projects. Lease costs, although purportedly a Aspecial@ ranking consideration, were not weighted as to proposed annual increases; the winning proposal was the most expensive. No final price negotiation was attempted by the County, although the County had that right.
R4:
Recommendation pertinent to F4: The grand jury recommends that minutes be taken and properly filed for future review should the need arise. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R4: The recommendation will be partially implemented when we undergo the next process for evaluating long-term lease proposals. Although step-by-step minutes will not be taken of the selection committee discussions, the outcome of those discussions will be documented and retained in the applicable file(s).
R5:
Recommendation pertinent to F5: The grand jury recommends that a secret ballot process be implemented for use by future selection committees. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R5: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. The selection process is based on evaluating the responding proposals both objectively and subjectively. After that evaluation, then a determination is made. It is not appropriate to use a secret ballot to make the final selection.
R6:
Recommendation pertinent to F6: The grand jury recommends that quantitative, specific guidelines and the selection criteria ranking form be made available to all parties by inclusion in the Request for Proposals documentation. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R6: The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. As stated earlier this was new process and the RFP did have guidelines (parameters) regarding the location the County was looking for, but did not indicate the ranking for the criteria. In future RFP for lease property, there will be a better handle on our needs, which will include the specific guidelines and selection criteria ranking in the actual RFP documentation. RESPONSES: THE FOLLOWING RESPONSES TO REPORT 03-AF-02 ARE REQUIRED PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE 933 AND THE STANDARD FORMAT FOR RESPONSES. 1. The General Services Administration Director shall respond to R1, R2, R3, R4, R5 and
R7:
Replace the rear door at the Hoopa Substation:
R8:
Replace the fire door at the Hoopa Substation with one that meets state standards:
R9:
Modify the Hoopa Substation to comply with American Disability Act (ADA) standards: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATIONS R-3 - R-9:
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
Often comments made by individual Supervisors cannot be heard clearly, either by those in attendance at or observing the public broadcast of the Board of Supervisors= public meetings, because the microphones are not turned on or not spoken directly into, thus inhibiting the open conduct of the people=s business. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO F1: Agree, although each microphone in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers has recently been replaced with a longer microphone to enhance the audio quality.
F2:
Comments by those testifying often cannot be clearly heard by those in attendance, either at or observing the broadcast of the meetings, thus inhibiting the open conduct of the people=s business. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO F2: Agree, although each microphone in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers has recently been replaced with a longer microphone to enhance the audio quality. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO F2: Disagree partially. This was true prior to replacing the microphones, currently we have intermittent issues with people hearing the testimony.
F3:
Public awareness and disclosure of Board of Supervisors= meetings could be improved if Board meetings, which are presently only broadcast during the meetings, were re-broadcast at a variety of times by promptly transmitting a tape copy to Cox Cable as the county had agreed to do when the video equipment was originally donated. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO F3: Agree. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO F3: Agree
F4:
No minutes were taken of deliberations by the selection committee charged with assessing the relative suitability of proposals received as a result of the Request for Proposals. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO F4: Agree
F5:
Some of the selection committee members may not have felt free to express their opinions because voting was done openly, not by ballot. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO F5: Disagree partially, because we are unable to verify if any selection committee member felt uncomfortable in expressing their opinion. However, it was an interactive process that allowed the participants to share their thoughts based on the criteria.
F6:
Neither specific guidelines nor the ranking form used by the selection committee were made available to potential respondents. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO F6: Disagree partially. The original Request for Proposal (RFP) did indicate the guidelines (parameters) for the location being sought by the County.
F7:
Pertinent to R-7 The rear door has been repaired in the Hoopa Substation.
F8:
Pertinent to R-8 Did not determine if the fire door at the Hoopa Substation meets State standards
F9:
Pertinent to R-9 The Hoopa Substation does not meet ADA standards. Report 01-13 CLARK COMPLEX INTRODUCTION The Humboldt County Grand Jury inspected the Clark Complex, located on Harris Street between H and I Streets. A survey conducted by the 1999-2000 grand jury of custodial and maintenance procedure highlighted certain problems with the Clark Complex. The original building was built around 1916 as a hospital. The Clark addition was added in the late 1950s. The hospital moved out in the late 1970s. This complex now houses county offices for the following departments: public works, planning, election's office, coroner’s office, mental health, Sempervirens, rehabilitation center and various outbuildings used for storage. THE 2000-2001 GRAND JURY RECOMMENDED THE FOLLOWING: R-1 The County meet ADA access standards at the main building of the Clark Complex. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESPONSE: Will be implemented. The county has currently contracted with a firm to conduct an evaluation of all county buildings for disability access. Changes identified as a result of this evaluation will then be prioritized and budgeted. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE: Agree. Access to the building for the disabled currently is from the ground floor. A phone allows people to contact Planning, Elections and Public Works who will open the locked doors and escort the person or persons to the elevator from which the elevator can be accessed. The county has two disabled employees at Clark who routinely use this access for the building. The county currently is updating its facilities, evaluations for all buildings, including Clark, which will be used to complete an ADA transition plan. FINDING The 2002-2003 grand jury makes the following finding:
Additional Recommendations
9
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Recommendation pertinent to F1: The grand jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors: (a) Purchase lapel microphones to enhance thorough communication by individual Supervisors to all in attendance. (b) The Clerk of the Board and the Supervisors should ensure that all of the microphones are turned on for the entire meeting, so that the deliberative process is fully communicated. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO R1: Recommendation (a) to purchase lapel microphones will not be implemented because it is not warranted. Each of the microphones in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers has recently been replaced with a longer microphone to enhance audio quality. Staff is working on adjusting the volume for each microphone to ensure that the Supervisors, staff and the public can be clearly heard over the sound system. Recommendation (b) has been implemented. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R1: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. All the microphones in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers have been replaced with a longer microphone. We are currently working on adjusting the volume for each microphone to ensure that Supervisors, staff and the public are heard over the sound system. This is an ongoing process that is more cost efficient than having each Supervisor wear a lapel microphone. Also, the microphones are turned on every meeting.
R2:
Recommendation pertinent to F2: The grand jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors: (a) Research the feasibility of purchasing an adjustable podium or microphone so those who testify can be clearly heard. (B) The Board Chair will also instruct all who testify, staff and the public, to speak clearly into the provided microphones. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO R2: Has been implemented. There is an adjustable microphone on the podium for public speakers that has been replaced in the past six months. The microphones at the staff table have also been replaced, and adjustments continue to be made to adjust the volume to ensure staff and the public can be clearly heard over the sound system. All the microphones in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers are adjustable. When public testimony cannot be heard, the Board Chair requests the individual providing testimony to speak into the microphones provided. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R2: The recommendation has been implemented. There is an adjustable microphone on the podium for public speakers that has been replaced in the past six months. The microphones at the staff table have been replaced as well. We are currently working on adjusting the volume for the staff microphones. All the microphones in the Boards’ Chambers are adjustable.
R3:
Recommendation pertinent to F3: The grand jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors: (a) Provide a meeting tape to Cox Cable promptly after each meeting for re- broadcast. (b) Utilize the public government access channel available at Cox Cable. This would improve the ability for the public to view the conduct of the people=s business. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO R3: Has been implemented. Arrangements have been made with Cox Cable for the evening rebroadcast of Board of Supervisors meetings to take place Wednesdays at 8:00 p.m. This will begin with the Board meeting of September 2, 2003. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R3: Has been implemented. Arrangements have been made with Cox Cable for the evening rebroadcast of Board of Supervisors meetings to take place Wednesdays at 8:00 p.m. This will begin with the Board meeting of September 2, 2003. RESPONSES: THE FOLLOWING RESPONSES TO REPORT 03-AF-01 ARE REQUIRED PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE 933 AND THE STANDARD FORMAT FOR RESPONSES. 1. The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors shall respond to R1, R2 and R3. 2. The General Services Administration Director shall respond to R3. GRAND JURY REPORT NO: 03-AF-02 REAL PROPERTY DIVISION Administration & Finance Committee INTRODUCTION: The Humboldt County Grand Jury conducted a routine investigation of the operations of the Real Property Division (RPD). The RPD is supervised by the General Services Director. The staff consists of one Senior Real Property Agent whose function, in spite of having an extensive job description implying considerable authority, more resembles that of a clerical position. Although the RPD works closely with various department heads and the County=s architect in filling the space requirements of County government, little real authority is given to act as the County=s advocate in the resulting real property transactions. The grand jury=s investigation included analyzing two real estate transactions, one a purchase, the other a long-term lease. Several personal interviews were also conducted and document reviews of both transactions were made. Early in the purchase transaction, the seller=s agent declared themselves a Adual agent@, representing both the buyer and the seller. In the real estate business, dual agency means that the interests of both parties to the transaction must be uppermost in all the agent=s actions and recommendations. It is difficult, if not impossible, to serve two such divergent interests. The potential for inadequate representation is present as well as the temptation to minimize potential risks, costs and liabilities. Although the agent in this transaction correctly identified the potential existence of lead paint, firm estimates or bids to mitigate the hazard were not sought and renovation costs ballooned to over three times the preliminary estimate, largely due to environmental hazards abatement. The RPD should have the authority to conduct its own due diligence and negotiate all terms, including a reduction in the purchase price to reflect the value of its contribution to the transaction. Traditionally, a commission paid by the seller of a property is split between the seller=s agent and the buyer=s agent. If the RPD is doing the work of the buyer=s agent when the County buys real property, the County should benefit proportionately. The final purchase price should be negotiated downward to reflect the value of one-half of a standard real estate commission. In the long-term lease transaction, a relatively new Request for Proposals process was used. The process was flawed from the beginning; the proposed location map included the entire area of greater Eureka, when in fact only those proposals near the courthouse were to be seriously considered. This fact was specified within the documentation, but the prominence of the misleading map may have caused several respondents to discount the importance of proximity to the courthouse, resulting in the needless expenditure of tens of thousands of dollars for proposals having no chance of success. It appears that the selection committee may have used arbitrary methods to assign rankings to the subjective criteria intended to fairly compare the competing proposals. Ironically, the ranking criteria were not shared with the project sponsors until after the final decision was made. Rankings were not done using specific quantitative guidelines, but involved open discussion leading to consensus. The makeup of the committee included several employees of the affected department along with the department head. No minutes of these important sessions were kept. When two of the three Afinalists@ dropped out of contention, reportedly a sense of urgency felt by the department head on the committee caused them to not reconsider two other highly competitive projects. Lease costs, although purportedly a Aspecial@ ranking consideration, were not weighted as to proposed annual increases; the winning proposal was the most expensive. No final price negotiation was attempted by the County, although the County had that right.
R4:
Recommendation pertinent to F4: The grand jury recommends that minutes be taken and properly filed for future review should the need arise. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R4: The recommendation will be partially implemented when we undergo the next process for evaluating long-term lease proposals. Although step-by-step minutes will not be taken of the selection committee discussions, the outcome of those discussions will be documented and retained in the applicable file(s).
R5:
Recommendation pertinent to F5: The grand jury recommends that a secret ballot process be implemented for use by future selection committees. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R5: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. The selection process is based on evaluating the responding proposals both objectively and subjectively. After that evaluation, then a determination is made. It is not appropriate to use a secret ballot to make the final selection.
R6:
Recommendation pertinent to F6: The grand jury recommends that quantitative, specific guidelines and the selection criteria ranking form be made available to all parties by inclusion in the Request for Proposals documentation. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R6: The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. As stated earlier this was new process and the RFP did have guidelines (parameters) regarding the location the County was looking for, but did not indicate the ranking for the criteria. In future RFP for lease property, there will be a better handle on our needs, which will include the specific guidelines and selection criteria ranking in the actual RFP documentation. RESPONSES: THE FOLLOWING RESPONSES TO REPORT 03-AF-02 ARE REQUIRED PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE 933 AND THE STANDARD FORMAT FOR RESPONSES. 1. The General Services Administration Director shall respond to R1, R2, R3, R4, R5 and
R7:
Replace the rear door at the Hoopa Substation:
R8:
Replace the fire door at the Hoopa Substation with one that meets state standards:
R9:
Modify the Hoopa Substation to comply with American Disability Act (ADA) standards: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATIONS R-3 - R-9:
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
Often comments made by individual Supervisors cannot be heard clearly, either by those in attendance at or observing the public broadcast of the Board of Supervisors= public meetings, because the microphones are not turned on or not spoken directly into, thus inhibiting the open conduct of the people=s business. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO F1: Agree, although each microphone in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers has recently been replaced with a longer microphone to enhance the audio quality.
F2:
Comments by those testifying often cannot be clearly heard by those in attendance, either at or observing the broadcast of the meetings, thus inhibiting the open conduct of the people=s business. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO F2: Agree, although each microphone in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers has recently been replaced with a longer microphone to enhance the audio quality. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO F2: Disagree partially. This was true prior to replacing the microphones, currently we have intermittent issues with people hearing the testimony.
F3:
Public awareness and disclosure of Board of Supervisors= meetings could be improved if Board meetings, which are presently only broadcast during the meetings, were re-broadcast at a variety of times by promptly transmitting a tape copy to Cox Cable as the county had agreed to do when the video equipment was originally donated. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO F3: Agree. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO F3: Agree
F4:
No minutes were taken of deliberations by the selection committee charged with assessing the relative suitability of proposals received as a result of the Request for Proposals. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO F4: Agree
F5:
Some of the selection committee members may not have felt free to express their opinions because voting was done openly, not by ballot. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO F5: Disagree partially, because we are unable to verify if any selection committee member felt uncomfortable in expressing their opinion. However, it was an interactive process that allowed the participants to share their thoughts based on the criteria.
F6:
Neither specific guidelines nor the ranking form used by the selection committee were made available to potential respondents. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO F6: Disagree partially. The original Request for Proposal (RFP) did indicate the guidelines (parameters) for the location being sought by the County.
F7:
Pertinent to R-7 The rear door has been repaired in the Hoopa Substation.
F8:
Pertinent to R-8 Did not determine if the fire door at the Hoopa Substation meets State standards
F9:
Pertinent to R-9 The Hoopa Substation does not meet ADA standards. Report 01-13 CLARK COMPLEX INTRODUCTION The Humboldt County Grand Jury inspected the Clark Complex, located on Harris Street between H and I Streets. A survey conducted by the 1999-2000 grand jury of custodial and maintenance procedure highlighted certain problems with the Clark Complex. The original building was built around 1916 as a hospital. The Clark addition was added in the late 1950s. The hospital moved out in the late 1970s. This complex now houses county offices for the following departments: public works, planning, election's office, coroner’s office, mental health, Sempervirens, rehabilitation center and various outbuildings used for storage. THE 2000-2001 GRAND JURY RECOMMENDED THE FOLLOWING: R-1 The County meet ADA access standards at the main building of the Clark Complex. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESPONSE: Will be implemented. The county has currently contracted with a firm to conduct an evaluation of all county buildings for disability access. Changes identified as a result of this evaluation will then be prioritized and budgeted. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE: Agree. Access to the building for the disabled currently is from the ground floor. A phone allows people to contact Planning, Elections and Public Works who will open the locked doors and escort the person or persons to the elevator from which the elevator can be accessed. The county has two disabled employees at Clark who routinely use this access for the building. The county currently is updating its facilities, evaluations for all buildings, including Clark, which will be used to complete an ADA transition plan. FINDING The 2002-2003 grand jury makes the following finding:
Additional Recommendations
9
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Recommendation pertinent to F1: The grand jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors: (a) Purchase lapel microphones to enhance thorough communication by individual Supervisors to all in attendance. (b) The Clerk of the Board and the Supervisors should ensure that all of the microphones are turned on for the entire meeting, so that the deliberative process is fully communicated. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO R1: Recommendation (a) to purchase lapel microphones will not be implemented because it is not warranted. Each of the microphones in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers has recently been replaced with a longer microphone to enhance audio quality. Staff is working on adjusting the volume for each microphone to ensure that the Supervisors, staff and the public can be clearly heard over the sound system. Recommendation (b) has been implemented. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R1: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. All the microphones in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers have been replaced with a longer microphone. We are currently working on adjusting the volume for each microphone to ensure that Supervisors, staff and the public are heard over the sound system. This is an ongoing process that is more cost efficient than having each Supervisor wear a lapel microphone. Also, the microphones are turned on every meeting.
R2:
Recommendation pertinent to F2: The grand jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors: (a) Research the feasibility of purchasing an adjustable podium or microphone so those who testify can be clearly heard. (B) The Board Chair will also instruct all who testify, staff and the public, to speak clearly into the provided microphones. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO R2: Has been implemented. There is an adjustable microphone on the podium for public speakers that has been replaced in the past six months. The microphones at the staff table have also been replaced, and adjustments continue to be made to adjust the volume to ensure staff and the public can be clearly heard over the sound system. All the microphones in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers are adjustable. When public testimony cannot be heard, the Board Chair requests the individual providing testimony to speak into the microphones provided. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R2: The recommendation has been implemented. There is an adjustable microphone on the podium for public speakers that has been replaced in the past six months. The microphones at the staff table have been replaced as well. We are currently working on adjusting the volume for the staff microphones. All the microphones in the Boards’ Chambers are adjustable.
R3:
Recommendation pertinent to F3: The grand jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors: (a) Provide a meeting tape to Cox Cable promptly after each meeting for re- broadcast. (b) Utilize the public government access channel available at Cox Cable. This would improve the ability for the public to view the conduct of the people=s business. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO R3: Has been implemented. Arrangements have been made with Cox Cable for the evening rebroadcast of Board of Supervisors meetings to take place Wednesdays at 8:00 p.m. This will begin with the Board meeting of September 2, 2003. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R3: Has been implemented. Arrangements have been made with Cox Cable for the evening rebroadcast of Board of Supervisors meetings to take place Wednesdays at 8:00 p.m. This will begin with the Board meeting of September 2, 2003. RESPONSES: THE FOLLOWING RESPONSES TO REPORT 03-AF-01 ARE REQUIRED PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE 933 AND THE STANDARD FORMAT FOR RESPONSES. 1. The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors shall respond to R1, R2 and R3. 2. The General Services Administration Director shall respond to R3. GRAND JURY REPORT NO: 03-AF-02 REAL PROPERTY DIVISION Administration & Finance Committee INTRODUCTION: The Humboldt County Grand Jury conducted a routine investigation of the operations of the Real Property Division (RPD). The RPD is supervised by the General Services Director. The staff consists of one Senior Real Property Agent whose function, in spite of having an extensive job description implying considerable authority, more resembles that of a clerical position. Although the RPD works closely with various department heads and the County=s architect in filling the space requirements of County government, little real authority is given to act as the County=s advocate in the resulting real property transactions. The grand jury=s investigation included analyzing two real estate transactions, one a purchase, the other a long-term lease. Several personal interviews were also conducted and document reviews of both transactions were made. Early in the purchase transaction, the seller=s agent declared themselves a Adual agent@, representing both the buyer and the seller. In the real estate business, dual agency means that the interests of both parties to the transaction must be uppermost in all the agent=s actions and recommendations. It is difficult, if not impossible, to serve two such divergent interests. The potential for inadequate representation is present as well as the temptation to minimize potential risks, costs and liabilities. Although the agent in this transaction correctly identified the potential existence of lead paint, firm estimates or bids to mitigate the hazard were not sought and renovation costs ballooned to over three times the preliminary estimate, largely due to environmental hazards abatement. The RPD should have the authority to conduct its own due diligence and negotiate all terms, including a reduction in the purchase price to reflect the value of its contribution to the transaction. Traditionally, a commission paid by the seller of a property is split between the seller=s agent and the buyer=s agent. If the RPD is doing the work of the buyer=s agent when the County buys real property, the County should benefit proportionately. The final purchase price should be negotiated downward to reflect the value of one-half of a standard real estate commission. In the long-term lease transaction, a relatively new Request for Proposals process was used. The process was flawed from the beginning; the proposed location map included the entire area of greater Eureka, when in fact only those proposals near the courthouse were to be seriously considered. This fact was specified within the documentation, but the prominence of the misleading map may have caused several respondents to discount the importance of proximity to the courthouse, resulting in the needless expenditure of tens of thousands of dollars for proposals having no chance of success. It appears that the selection committee may have used arbitrary methods to assign rankings to the subjective criteria intended to fairly compare the competing proposals. Ironically, the ranking criteria were not shared with the project sponsors until after the final decision was made. Rankings were not done using specific quantitative guidelines, but involved open discussion leading to consensus. The makeup of the committee included several employees of the affected department along with the department head. No minutes of these important sessions were kept. When two of the three Afinalists@ dropped out of contention, reportedly a sense of urgency felt by the department head on the committee caused them to not reconsider two other highly competitive projects. Lease costs, although purportedly a Aspecial@ ranking consideration, were not weighted as to proposed annual increases; the winning proposal was the most expensive. No final price negotiation was attempted by the County, although the County had that right.
R4:
Recommendation pertinent to F4: The grand jury recommends that minutes be taken and properly filed for future review should the need arise. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R4: The recommendation will be partially implemented when we undergo the next process for evaluating long-term lease proposals. Although step-by-step minutes will not be taken of the selection committee discussions, the outcome of those discussions will be documented and retained in the applicable file(s).
R5:
Recommendation pertinent to F5: The grand jury recommends that a secret ballot process be implemented for use by future selection committees. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R5: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. The selection process is based on evaluating the responding proposals both objectively and subjectively. After that evaluation, then a determination is made. It is not appropriate to use a secret ballot to make the final selection.
R6:
Recommendation pertinent to F6: The grand jury recommends that quantitative, specific guidelines and the selection criteria ranking form be made available to all parties by inclusion in the Request for Proposals documentation. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R6: The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. As stated earlier this was new process and the RFP did have guidelines (parameters) regarding the location the County was looking for, but did not indicate the ranking for the criteria. In future RFP for lease property, there will be a better handle on our needs, which will include the specific guidelines and selection criteria ranking in the actual RFP documentation. RESPONSES: THE FOLLOWING RESPONSES TO REPORT 03-AF-02 ARE REQUIRED PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE 933 AND THE STANDARD FORMAT FOR RESPONSES. 1. The General Services Administration Director shall respond to R1, R2, R3, R4, R5 and
R7:
Replace the rear door at the Hoopa Substation:
R8:
Replace the fire door at the Hoopa Substation with one that meets state standards:
R9:
Modify the Hoopa Substation to comply with American Disability Act (ADA) standards: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATIONS R-3 - R-9:
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
Often comments made by individual Supervisors cannot be heard clearly, either by those in attendance at or observing the public broadcast of the Board of Supervisors= public meetings, because the microphones are not turned on or not spoken directly into, thus inhibiting the open conduct of the people=s business. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO F1: Agree, although each microphone in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers has recently been replaced with a longer microphone to enhance the audio quality.
F2:
Comments by those testifying often cannot be clearly heard by those in attendance, either at or observing the broadcast of the meetings, thus inhibiting the open conduct of the people=s business. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO F2: Agree, although each microphone in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers has recently been replaced with a longer microphone to enhance the audio quality. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO F2: Disagree partially. This was true prior to replacing the microphones, currently we have intermittent issues with people hearing the testimony.
F3:
Public awareness and disclosure of Board of Supervisors= meetings could be improved if Board meetings, which are presently only broadcast during the meetings, were re-broadcast at a variety of times by promptly transmitting a tape copy to Cox Cable as the county had agreed to do when the video equipment was originally donated. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO F3: Agree. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO F3: Agree
F4:
No minutes were taken of deliberations by the selection committee charged with assessing the relative suitability of proposals received as a result of the Request for Proposals. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO F4: Agree
F5:
Some of the selection committee members may not have felt free to express their opinions because voting was done openly, not by ballot. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO F5: Disagree partially, because we are unable to verify if any selection committee member felt uncomfortable in expressing their opinion. However, it was an interactive process that allowed the participants to share their thoughts based on the criteria.
F6:
Neither specific guidelines nor the ranking form used by the selection committee were made available to potential respondents. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO F6: Disagree partially. The original Request for Proposal (RFP) did indicate the guidelines (parameters) for the location being sought by the County.
F7:
Pertinent to R-7 The rear door has been repaired in the Hoopa Substation.
F8:
Pertinent to R-8 Did not determine if the fire door at the Hoopa Substation meets State standards
F9:
Pertinent to R-9 The Hoopa Substation does not meet ADA standards. Report 01-13 CLARK COMPLEX INTRODUCTION The Humboldt County Grand Jury inspected the Clark Complex, located on Harris Street between H and I Streets. A survey conducted by the 1999-2000 grand jury of custodial and maintenance procedure highlighted certain problems with the Clark Complex. The original building was built around 1916 as a hospital. The Clark addition was added in the late 1950s. The hospital moved out in the late 1970s. This complex now houses county offices for the following departments: public works, planning, election's office, coroner’s office, mental health, Sempervirens, rehabilitation center and various outbuildings used for storage. THE 2000-2001 GRAND JURY RECOMMENDED THE FOLLOWING: R-1 The County meet ADA access standards at the main building of the Clark Complex. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESPONSE: Will be implemented. The county has currently contracted with a firm to conduct an evaluation of all county buildings for disability access. Changes identified as a result of this evaluation will then be prioritized and budgeted. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE: Agree. Access to the building for the disabled currently is from the ground floor. A phone allows people to contact Planning, Elections and Public Works who will open the locked doors and escort the person or persons to the elevator from which the elevator can be accessed. The county has two disabled employees at Clark who routinely use this access for the building. The county currently is updating its facilities, evaluations for all buildings, including Clark, which will be used to complete an ADA transition plan. FINDING The 2002-2003 grand jury makes the following finding:
Additional Recommendations
9
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Recommendation pertinent to F1: The grand jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors: (a) Purchase lapel microphones to enhance thorough communication by individual Supervisors to all in attendance. (b) The Clerk of the Board and the Supervisors should ensure that all of the microphones are turned on for the entire meeting, so that the deliberative process is fully communicated. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO R1: Recommendation (a) to purchase lapel microphones will not be implemented because it is not warranted. Each of the microphones in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers has recently been replaced with a longer microphone to enhance audio quality. Staff is working on adjusting the volume for each microphone to ensure that the Supervisors, staff and the public can be clearly heard over the sound system. Recommendation (b) has been implemented. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R1: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. All the microphones in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers have been replaced with a longer microphone. We are currently working on adjusting the volume for each microphone to ensure that Supervisors, staff and the public are heard over the sound system. This is an ongoing process that is more cost efficient than having each Supervisor wear a lapel microphone. Also, the microphones are turned on every meeting.
R2:
Recommendation pertinent to F2: The grand jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors: (a) Research the feasibility of purchasing an adjustable podium or microphone so those who testify can be clearly heard. (B) The Board Chair will also instruct all who testify, staff and the public, to speak clearly into the provided microphones. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO R2: Has been implemented. There is an adjustable microphone on the podium for public speakers that has been replaced in the past six months. The microphones at the staff table have also been replaced, and adjustments continue to be made to adjust the volume to ensure staff and the public can be clearly heard over the sound system. All the microphones in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers are adjustable. When public testimony cannot be heard, the Board Chair requests the individual providing testimony to speak into the microphones provided. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R2: The recommendation has been implemented. There is an adjustable microphone on the podium for public speakers that has been replaced in the past six months. The microphones at the staff table have been replaced as well. We are currently working on adjusting the volume for the staff microphones. All the microphones in the Boards’ Chambers are adjustable.
R3:
Recommendation pertinent to F3: The grand jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors: (a) Provide a meeting tape to Cox Cable promptly after each meeting for re- broadcast. (b) Utilize the public government access channel available at Cox Cable. This would improve the ability for the public to view the conduct of the people=s business. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO R3: Has been implemented. Arrangements have been made with Cox Cable for the evening rebroadcast of Board of Supervisors meetings to take place Wednesdays at 8:00 p.m. This will begin with the Board meeting of September 2, 2003. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R3: Has been implemented. Arrangements have been made with Cox Cable for the evening rebroadcast of Board of Supervisors meetings to take place Wednesdays at 8:00 p.m. This will begin with the Board meeting of September 2, 2003. RESPONSES: THE FOLLOWING RESPONSES TO REPORT 03-AF-01 ARE REQUIRED PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE 933 AND THE STANDARD FORMAT FOR RESPONSES. 1. The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors shall respond to R1, R2 and R3. 2. The General Services Administration Director shall respond to R3. GRAND JURY REPORT NO: 03-AF-02 REAL PROPERTY DIVISION Administration & Finance Committee INTRODUCTION: The Humboldt County Grand Jury conducted a routine investigation of the operations of the Real Property Division (RPD). The RPD is supervised by the General Services Director. The staff consists of one Senior Real Property Agent whose function, in spite of having an extensive job description implying considerable authority, more resembles that of a clerical position. Although the RPD works closely with various department heads and the County=s architect in filling the space requirements of County government, little real authority is given to act as the County=s advocate in the resulting real property transactions. The grand jury=s investigation included analyzing two real estate transactions, one a purchase, the other a long-term lease. Several personal interviews were also conducted and document reviews of both transactions were made. Early in the purchase transaction, the seller=s agent declared themselves a Adual agent@, representing both the buyer and the seller. In the real estate business, dual agency means that the interests of both parties to the transaction must be uppermost in all the agent=s actions and recommendations. It is difficult, if not impossible, to serve two such divergent interests. The potential for inadequate representation is present as well as the temptation to minimize potential risks, costs and liabilities. Although the agent in this transaction correctly identified the potential existence of lead paint, firm estimates or bids to mitigate the hazard were not sought and renovation costs ballooned to over three times the preliminary estimate, largely due to environmental hazards abatement. The RPD should have the authority to conduct its own due diligence and negotiate all terms, including a reduction in the purchase price to reflect the value of its contribution to the transaction. Traditionally, a commission paid by the seller of a property is split between the seller=s agent and the buyer=s agent. If the RPD is doing the work of the buyer=s agent when the County buys real property, the County should benefit proportionately. The final purchase price should be negotiated downward to reflect the value of one-half of a standard real estate commission. In the long-term lease transaction, a relatively new Request for Proposals process was used. The process was flawed from the beginning; the proposed location map included the entire area of greater Eureka, when in fact only those proposals near the courthouse were to be seriously considered. This fact was specified within the documentation, but the prominence of the misleading map may have caused several respondents to discount the importance of proximity to the courthouse, resulting in the needless expenditure of tens of thousands of dollars for proposals having no chance of success. It appears that the selection committee may have used arbitrary methods to assign rankings to the subjective criteria intended to fairly compare the competing proposals. Ironically, the ranking criteria were not shared with the project sponsors until after the final decision was made. Rankings were not done using specific quantitative guidelines, but involved open discussion leading to consensus. The makeup of the committee included several employees of the affected department along with the department head. No minutes of these important sessions were kept. When two of the three Afinalists@ dropped out of contention, reportedly a sense of urgency felt by the department head on the committee caused them to not reconsider two other highly competitive projects. Lease costs, although purportedly a Aspecial@ ranking consideration, were not weighted as to proposed annual increases; the winning proposal was the most expensive. No final price negotiation was attempted by the County, although the County had that right.
R4:
Recommendation pertinent to F4: The grand jury recommends that minutes be taken and properly filed for future review should the need arise. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R4: The recommendation will be partially implemented when we undergo the next process for evaluating long-term lease proposals. Although step-by-step minutes will not be taken of the selection committee discussions, the outcome of those discussions will be documented and retained in the applicable file(s).
R5:
Recommendation pertinent to F5: The grand jury recommends that a secret ballot process be implemented for use by future selection committees. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R5: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. The selection process is based on evaluating the responding proposals both objectively and subjectively. After that evaluation, then a determination is made. It is not appropriate to use a secret ballot to make the final selection.
R6:
Recommendation pertinent to F6: The grand jury recommends that quantitative, specific guidelines and the selection criteria ranking form be made available to all parties by inclusion in the Request for Proposals documentation. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R6: The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. As stated earlier this was new process and the RFP did have guidelines (parameters) regarding the location the County was looking for, but did not indicate the ranking for the criteria. In future RFP for lease property, there will be a better handle on our needs, which will include the specific guidelines and selection criteria ranking in the actual RFP documentation. RESPONSES: THE FOLLOWING RESPONSES TO REPORT 03-AF-02 ARE REQUIRED PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE 933 AND THE STANDARD FORMAT FOR RESPONSES. 1. The General Services Administration Director shall respond to R1, R2, R3, R4, R5 and
R7:
Replace the rear door at the Hoopa Substation:
R8:
Replace the fire door at the Hoopa Substation with one that meets state standards:
R9:
Modify the Hoopa Substation to comply with American Disability Act (ADA) standards: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATIONS R-3 - R-9:
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
Often comments made by individual Supervisors cannot be heard clearly, either by those in attendance at or observing the public broadcast of the Board of Supervisors= public meetings, because the microphones are not turned on or not spoken directly into, thus inhibiting the open conduct of the people=s business. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO F1: Agree, although each microphone in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers has recently been replaced with a longer microphone to enhance the audio quality.
F2:
Comments by those testifying often cannot be clearly heard by those in attendance, either at or observing the broadcast of the meetings, thus inhibiting the open conduct of the people=s business. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO F2: Agree, although each microphone in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers has recently been replaced with a longer microphone to enhance the audio quality. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO F2: Disagree partially. This was true prior to replacing the microphones, currently we have intermittent issues with people hearing the testimony.
F3:
Public awareness and disclosure of Board of Supervisors= meetings could be improved if Board meetings, which are presently only broadcast during the meetings, were re-broadcast at a variety of times by promptly transmitting a tape copy to Cox Cable as the county had agreed to do when the video equipment was originally donated. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO F3: Agree. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO F3: Agree
F4:
No minutes were taken of deliberations by the selection committee charged with assessing the relative suitability of proposals received as a result of the Request for Proposals. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO F4: Agree
F5:
Some of the selection committee members may not have felt free to express their opinions because voting was done openly, not by ballot. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO F5: Disagree partially, because we are unable to verify if any selection committee member felt uncomfortable in expressing their opinion. However, it was an interactive process that allowed the participants to share their thoughts based on the criteria.
F6:
Neither specific guidelines nor the ranking form used by the selection committee were made available to potential respondents. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO F6: Disagree partially. The original Request for Proposal (RFP) did indicate the guidelines (parameters) for the location being sought by the County.
F7:
Pertinent to R-7 The rear door has been repaired in the Hoopa Substation.
F8:
Pertinent to R-8 Did not determine if the fire door at the Hoopa Substation meets State standards
F9:
Pertinent to R-9 The Hoopa Substation does not meet ADA standards. Report 01-13 CLARK COMPLEX INTRODUCTION The Humboldt County Grand Jury inspected the Clark Complex, located on Harris Street between H and I Streets. A survey conducted by the 1999-2000 grand jury of custodial and maintenance procedure highlighted certain problems with the Clark Complex. The original building was built around 1916 as a hospital. The Clark addition was added in the late 1950s. The hospital moved out in the late 1970s. This complex now houses county offices for the following departments: public works, planning, election's office, coroner’s office, mental health, Sempervirens, rehabilitation center and various outbuildings used for storage. THE 2000-2001 GRAND JURY RECOMMENDED THE FOLLOWING: R-1 The County meet ADA access standards at the main building of the Clark Complex. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESPONSE: Will be implemented. The county has currently contracted with a firm to conduct an evaluation of all county buildings for disability access. Changes identified as a result of this evaluation will then be prioritized and budgeted. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE: Agree. Access to the building for the disabled currently is from the ground floor. A phone allows people to contact Planning, Elections and Public Works who will open the locked doors and escort the person or persons to the elevator from which the elevator can be accessed. The county has two disabled employees at Clark who routinely use this access for the building. The county currently is updating its facilities, evaluations for all buildings, including Clark, which will be used to complete an ADA transition plan. FINDING The 2002-2003 grand jury makes the following finding:
Additional Recommendations
9
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Recommendation pertinent to F1: The grand jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors: (a) Purchase lapel microphones to enhance thorough communication by individual Supervisors to all in attendance. (b) The Clerk of the Board and the Supervisors should ensure that all of the microphones are turned on for the entire meeting, so that the deliberative process is fully communicated. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO R1: Recommendation (a) to purchase lapel microphones will not be implemented because it is not warranted. Each of the microphones in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers has recently been replaced with a longer microphone to enhance audio quality. Staff is working on adjusting the volume for each microphone to ensure that the Supervisors, staff and the public can be clearly heard over the sound system. Recommendation (b) has been implemented. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R1: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. All the microphones in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers have been replaced with a longer microphone. We are currently working on adjusting the volume for each microphone to ensure that Supervisors, staff and the public are heard over the sound system. This is an ongoing process that is more cost efficient than having each Supervisor wear a lapel microphone. Also, the microphones are turned on every meeting.
R2:
Recommendation pertinent to F2: The grand jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors: (a) Research the feasibility of purchasing an adjustable podium or microphone so those who testify can be clearly heard. (B) The Board Chair will also instruct all who testify, staff and the public, to speak clearly into the provided microphones. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO R2: Has been implemented. There is an adjustable microphone on the podium for public speakers that has been replaced in the past six months. The microphones at the staff table have also been replaced, and adjustments continue to be made to adjust the volume to ensure staff and the public can be clearly heard over the sound system. All the microphones in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers are adjustable. When public testimony cannot be heard, the Board Chair requests the individual providing testimony to speak into the microphones provided. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R2: The recommendation has been implemented. There is an adjustable microphone on the podium for public speakers that has been replaced in the past six months. The microphones at the staff table have been replaced as well. We are currently working on adjusting the volume for the staff microphones. All the microphones in the Boards’ Chambers are adjustable.
R3:
Recommendation pertinent to F3: The grand jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors: (a) Provide a meeting tape to Cox Cable promptly after each meeting for re- broadcast. (b) Utilize the public government access channel available at Cox Cable. This would improve the ability for the public to view the conduct of the people=s business. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO R3: Has been implemented. Arrangements have been made with Cox Cable for the evening rebroadcast of Board of Supervisors meetings to take place Wednesdays at 8:00 p.m. This will begin with the Board meeting of September 2, 2003. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R3: Has been implemented. Arrangements have been made with Cox Cable for the evening rebroadcast of Board of Supervisors meetings to take place Wednesdays at 8:00 p.m. This will begin with the Board meeting of September 2, 2003. RESPONSES: THE FOLLOWING RESPONSES TO REPORT 03-AF-01 ARE REQUIRED PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE 933 AND THE STANDARD FORMAT FOR RESPONSES. 1. The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors shall respond to R1, R2 and R3. 2. The General Services Administration Director shall respond to R3. GRAND JURY REPORT NO: 03-AF-02 REAL PROPERTY DIVISION Administration & Finance Committee INTRODUCTION: The Humboldt County Grand Jury conducted a routine investigation of the operations of the Real Property Division (RPD). The RPD is supervised by the General Services Director. The staff consists of one Senior Real Property Agent whose function, in spite of having an extensive job description implying considerable authority, more resembles that of a clerical position. Although the RPD works closely with various department heads and the County=s architect in filling the space requirements of County government, little real authority is given to act as the County=s advocate in the resulting real property transactions. The grand jury=s investigation included analyzing two real estate transactions, one a purchase, the other a long-term lease. Several personal interviews were also conducted and document reviews of both transactions were made. Early in the purchase transaction, the seller=s agent declared themselves a Adual agent@, representing both the buyer and the seller. In the real estate business, dual agency means that the interests of both parties to the transaction must be uppermost in all the agent=s actions and recommendations. It is difficult, if not impossible, to serve two such divergent interests. The potential for inadequate representation is present as well as the temptation to minimize potential risks, costs and liabilities. Although the agent in this transaction correctly identified the potential existence of lead paint, firm estimates or bids to mitigate the hazard were not sought and renovation costs ballooned to over three times the preliminary estimate, largely due to environmental hazards abatement. The RPD should have the authority to conduct its own due diligence and negotiate all terms, including a reduction in the purchase price to reflect the value of its contribution to the transaction. Traditionally, a commission paid by the seller of a property is split between the seller=s agent and the buyer=s agent. If the RPD is doing the work of the buyer=s agent when the County buys real property, the County should benefit proportionately. The final purchase price should be negotiated downward to reflect the value of one-half of a standard real estate commission. In the long-term lease transaction, a relatively new Request for Proposals process was used. The process was flawed from the beginning; the proposed location map included the entire area of greater Eureka, when in fact only those proposals near the courthouse were to be seriously considered. This fact was specified within the documentation, but the prominence of the misleading map may have caused several respondents to discount the importance of proximity to the courthouse, resulting in the needless expenditure of tens of thousands of dollars for proposals having no chance of success. It appears that the selection committee may have used arbitrary methods to assign rankings to the subjective criteria intended to fairly compare the competing proposals. Ironically, the ranking criteria were not shared with the project sponsors until after the final decision was made. Rankings were not done using specific quantitative guidelines, but involved open discussion leading to consensus. The makeup of the committee included several employees of the affected department along with the department head. No minutes of these important sessions were kept. When two of the three Afinalists@ dropped out of contention, reportedly a sense of urgency felt by the department head on the committee caused them to not reconsider two other highly competitive projects. Lease costs, although purportedly a Aspecial@ ranking consideration, were not weighted as to proposed annual increases; the winning proposal was the most expensive. No final price negotiation was attempted by the County, although the County had that right.
R4:
Recommendation pertinent to F4: The grand jury recommends that minutes be taken and properly filed for future review should the need arise. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R4: The recommendation will be partially implemented when we undergo the next process for evaluating long-term lease proposals. Although step-by-step minutes will not be taken of the selection committee discussions, the outcome of those discussions will be documented and retained in the applicable file(s).
R5:
Recommendation pertinent to F5: The grand jury recommends that a secret ballot process be implemented for use by future selection committees. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R5: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. The selection process is based on evaluating the responding proposals both objectively and subjectively. After that evaluation, then a determination is made. It is not appropriate to use a secret ballot to make the final selection.
R6:
Recommendation pertinent to F6: The grand jury recommends that quantitative, specific guidelines and the selection criteria ranking form be made available to all parties by inclusion in the Request for Proposals documentation. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R6: The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. As stated earlier this was new process and the RFP did have guidelines (parameters) regarding the location the County was looking for, but did not indicate the ranking for the criteria. In future RFP for lease property, there will be a better handle on our needs, which will include the specific guidelines and selection criteria ranking in the actual RFP documentation. RESPONSES: THE FOLLOWING RESPONSES TO REPORT 03-AF-02 ARE REQUIRED PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE 933 AND THE STANDARD FORMAT FOR RESPONSES. 1. The General Services Administration Director shall respond to R1, R2, R3, R4, R5 and
R7:
Replace the rear door at the Hoopa Substation:
R8:
Replace the fire door at the Hoopa Substation with one that meets state standards:
R9:
Modify the Hoopa Substation to comply with American Disability Act (ADA) standards: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATIONS R-3 - R-9:
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
Often comments made by individual Supervisors cannot be heard clearly, either by those in attendance at or observing the public broadcast of the Board of Supervisors= public meetings, because the microphones are not turned on or not spoken directly into, thus inhibiting the open conduct of the people=s business. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO F1: Agree, although each microphone in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers has recently been replaced with a longer microphone to enhance the audio quality.
F2:
Comments by those testifying often cannot be clearly heard by those in attendance, either at or observing the broadcast of the meetings, thus inhibiting the open conduct of the people=s business. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO F2: Agree, although each microphone in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers has recently been replaced with a longer microphone to enhance the audio quality. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO F2: Disagree partially. This was true prior to replacing the microphones, currently we have intermittent issues with people hearing the testimony.
F3:
Public awareness and disclosure of Board of Supervisors= meetings could be improved if Board meetings, which are presently only broadcast during the meetings, were re-broadcast at a variety of times by promptly transmitting a tape copy to Cox Cable as the county had agreed to do when the video equipment was originally donated. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO F3: Agree. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO F3: Agree
F4:
No minutes were taken of deliberations by the selection committee charged with assessing the relative suitability of proposals received as a result of the Request for Proposals. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO F4: Agree
F5:
Some of the selection committee members may not have felt free to express their opinions because voting was done openly, not by ballot. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO F5: Disagree partially, because we are unable to verify if any selection committee member felt uncomfortable in expressing their opinion. However, it was an interactive process that allowed the participants to share their thoughts based on the criteria.
F6:
Neither specific guidelines nor the ranking form used by the selection committee were made available to potential respondents. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO F6: Disagree partially. The original Request for Proposal (RFP) did indicate the guidelines (parameters) for the location being sought by the County.
F7:
Pertinent to R-7 The rear door has been repaired in the Hoopa Substation.
F8:
Pertinent to R-8 Did not determine if the fire door at the Hoopa Substation meets State standards
F9:
Pertinent to R-9 The Hoopa Substation does not meet ADA standards. Report 01-13 CLARK COMPLEX INTRODUCTION The Humboldt County Grand Jury inspected the Clark Complex, located on Harris Street between H and I Streets. A survey conducted by the 1999-2000 grand jury of custodial and maintenance procedure highlighted certain problems with the Clark Complex. The original building was built around 1916 as a hospital. The Clark addition was added in the late 1950s. The hospital moved out in the late 1970s. This complex now houses county offices for the following departments: public works, planning, election's office, coroner’s office, mental health, Sempervirens, rehabilitation center and various outbuildings used for storage. THE 2000-2001 GRAND JURY RECOMMENDED THE FOLLOWING: R-1 The County meet ADA access standards at the main building of the Clark Complex. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESPONSE: Will be implemented. The county has currently contracted with a firm to conduct an evaluation of all county buildings for disability access. Changes identified as a result of this evaluation will then be prioritized and budgeted. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE: Agree. Access to the building for the disabled currently is from the ground floor. A phone allows people to contact Planning, Elections and Public Works who will open the locked doors and escort the person or persons to the elevator from which the elevator can be accessed. The county has two disabled employees at Clark who routinely use this access for the building. The county currently is updating its facilities, evaluations for all buildings, including Clark, which will be used to complete an ADA transition plan. FINDING The 2002-2003 grand jury makes the following finding:
Additional Recommendations
9
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Recommendation pertinent to F1: The grand jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors: (a) Purchase lapel microphones to enhance thorough communication by individual Supervisors to all in attendance. (b) The Clerk of the Board and the Supervisors should ensure that all of the microphones are turned on for the entire meeting, so that the deliberative process is fully communicated. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO R1: Recommendation (a) to purchase lapel microphones will not be implemented because it is not warranted. Each of the microphones in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers has recently been replaced with a longer microphone to enhance audio quality. Staff is working on adjusting the volume for each microphone to ensure that the Supervisors, staff and the public can be clearly heard over the sound system. Recommendation (b) has been implemented. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R1: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. All the microphones in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers have been replaced with a longer microphone. We are currently working on adjusting the volume for each microphone to ensure that Supervisors, staff and the public are heard over the sound system. This is an ongoing process that is more cost efficient than having each Supervisor wear a lapel microphone. Also, the microphones are turned on every meeting.
R2:
Recommendation pertinent to F2: The grand jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors: (a) Research the feasibility of purchasing an adjustable podium or microphone so those who testify can be clearly heard. (B) The Board Chair will also instruct all who testify, staff and the public, to speak clearly into the provided microphones. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO R2: Has been implemented. There is an adjustable microphone on the podium for public speakers that has been replaced in the past six months. The microphones at the staff table have also been replaced, and adjustments continue to be made to adjust the volume to ensure staff and the public can be clearly heard over the sound system. All the microphones in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers are adjustable. When public testimony cannot be heard, the Board Chair requests the individual providing testimony to speak into the microphones provided. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R2: The recommendation has been implemented. There is an adjustable microphone on the podium for public speakers that has been replaced in the past six months. The microphones at the staff table have been replaced as well. We are currently working on adjusting the volume for the staff microphones. All the microphones in the Boards’ Chambers are adjustable.
R3:
Recommendation pertinent to F3: The grand jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors: (a) Provide a meeting tape to Cox Cable promptly after each meeting for re- broadcast. (b) Utilize the public government access channel available at Cox Cable. This would improve the ability for the public to view the conduct of the people=s business. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO R3: Has been implemented. Arrangements have been made with Cox Cable for the evening rebroadcast of Board of Supervisors meetings to take place Wednesdays at 8:00 p.m. This will begin with the Board meeting of September 2, 2003. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R3: Has been implemented. Arrangements have been made with Cox Cable for the evening rebroadcast of Board of Supervisors meetings to take place Wednesdays at 8:00 p.m. This will begin with the Board meeting of September 2, 2003. RESPONSES: THE FOLLOWING RESPONSES TO REPORT 03-AF-01 ARE REQUIRED PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE 933 AND THE STANDARD FORMAT FOR RESPONSES. 1. The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors shall respond to R1, R2 and R3. 2. The General Services Administration Director shall respond to R3. GRAND JURY REPORT NO: 03-AF-02 REAL PROPERTY DIVISION Administration & Finance Committee INTRODUCTION: The Humboldt County Grand Jury conducted a routine investigation of the operations of the Real Property Division (RPD). The RPD is supervised by the General Services Director. The staff consists of one Senior Real Property Agent whose function, in spite of having an extensive job description implying considerable authority, more resembles that of a clerical position. Although the RPD works closely with various department heads and the County=s architect in filling the space requirements of County government, little real authority is given to act as the County=s advocate in the resulting real property transactions. The grand jury=s investigation included analyzing two real estate transactions, one a purchase, the other a long-term lease. Several personal interviews were also conducted and document reviews of both transactions were made. Early in the purchase transaction, the seller=s agent declared themselves a Adual agent@, representing both the buyer and the seller. In the real estate business, dual agency means that the interests of both parties to the transaction must be uppermost in all the agent=s actions and recommendations. It is difficult, if not impossible, to serve two such divergent interests. The potential for inadequate representation is present as well as the temptation to minimize potential risks, costs and liabilities. Although the agent in this transaction correctly identified the potential existence of lead paint, firm estimates or bids to mitigate the hazard were not sought and renovation costs ballooned to over three times the preliminary estimate, largely due to environmental hazards abatement. The RPD should have the authority to conduct its own due diligence and negotiate all terms, including a reduction in the purchase price to reflect the value of its contribution to the transaction. Traditionally, a commission paid by the seller of a property is split between the seller=s agent and the buyer=s agent. If the RPD is doing the work of the buyer=s agent when the County buys real property, the County should benefit proportionately. The final purchase price should be negotiated downward to reflect the value of one-half of a standard real estate commission. In the long-term lease transaction, a relatively new Request for Proposals process was used. The process was flawed from the beginning; the proposed location map included the entire area of greater Eureka, when in fact only those proposals near the courthouse were to be seriously considered. This fact was specified within the documentation, but the prominence of the misleading map may have caused several respondents to discount the importance of proximity to the courthouse, resulting in the needless expenditure of tens of thousands of dollars for proposals having no chance of success. It appears that the selection committee may have used arbitrary methods to assign rankings to the subjective criteria intended to fairly compare the competing proposals. Ironically, the ranking criteria were not shared with the project sponsors until after the final decision was made. Rankings were not done using specific quantitative guidelines, but involved open discussion leading to consensus. The makeup of the committee included several employees of the affected department along with the department head. No minutes of these important sessions were kept. When two of the three Afinalists@ dropped out of contention, reportedly a sense of urgency felt by the department head on the committee caused them to not reconsider two other highly competitive projects. Lease costs, although purportedly a Aspecial@ ranking consideration, were not weighted as to proposed annual increases; the winning proposal was the most expensive. No final price negotiation was attempted by the County, although the County had that right.
R4:
Recommendation pertinent to F4: The grand jury recommends that minutes be taken and properly filed for future review should the need arise. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R4: The recommendation will be partially implemented when we undergo the next process for evaluating long-term lease proposals. Although step-by-step minutes will not be taken of the selection committee discussions, the outcome of those discussions will be documented and retained in the applicable file(s).
R5:
Recommendation pertinent to F5: The grand jury recommends that a secret ballot process be implemented for use by future selection committees. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R5: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. The selection process is based on evaluating the responding proposals both objectively and subjectively. After that evaluation, then a determination is made. It is not appropriate to use a secret ballot to make the final selection.
R6:
Recommendation pertinent to F6: The grand jury recommends that quantitative, specific guidelines and the selection criteria ranking form be made available to all parties by inclusion in the Request for Proposals documentation. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R6: The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. As stated earlier this was new process and the RFP did have guidelines (parameters) regarding the location the County was looking for, but did not indicate the ranking for the criteria. In future RFP for lease property, there will be a better handle on our needs, which will include the specific guidelines and selection criteria ranking in the actual RFP documentation. RESPONSES: THE FOLLOWING RESPONSES TO REPORT 03-AF-02 ARE REQUIRED PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE 933 AND THE STANDARD FORMAT FOR RESPONSES. 1. The General Services Administration Director shall respond to R1, R2, R3, R4, R5 and
R7:
Replace the rear door at the Hoopa Substation:
R8:
Replace the fire door at the Hoopa Substation with one that meets state standards:
R9:
Modify the Hoopa Substation to comply with American Disability Act (ADA) standards: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATIONS R-3 - R-9:
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
Often comments made by individual Supervisors cannot be heard clearly, either by those in attendance at or observing the public broadcast of the Board of Supervisors= public meetings, because the microphones are not turned on or not spoken directly into, thus inhibiting the open conduct of the people=s business. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO F1: Agree, although each microphone in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers has recently been replaced with a longer microphone to enhance the audio quality.
F2:
Comments by those testifying often cannot be clearly heard by those in attendance, either at or observing the broadcast of the meetings, thus inhibiting the open conduct of the people=s business. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO F2: Agree, although each microphone in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers has recently been replaced with a longer microphone to enhance the audio quality. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO F2: Disagree partially. This was true prior to replacing the microphones, currently we have intermittent issues with people hearing the testimony.
F3:
Public awareness and disclosure of Board of Supervisors= meetings could be improved if Board meetings, which are presently only broadcast during the meetings, were re-broadcast at a variety of times by promptly transmitting a tape copy to Cox Cable as the county had agreed to do when the video equipment was originally donated. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO F3: Agree. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO F3: Agree
F4:
No minutes were taken of deliberations by the selection committee charged with assessing the relative suitability of proposals received as a result of the Request for Proposals. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO F4: Agree
F5:
Some of the selection committee members may not have felt free to express their opinions because voting was done openly, not by ballot. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO F5: Disagree partially, because we are unable to verify if any selection committee member felt uncomfortable in expressing their opinion. However, it was an interactive process that allowed the participants to share their thoughts based on the criteria.
F6:
Neither specific guidelines nor the ranking form used by the selection committee were made available to potential respondents. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO F6: Disagree partially. The original Request for Proposal (RFP) did indicate the guidelines (parameters) for the location being sought by the County.
F7:
Pertinent to R-7 The rear door has been repaired in the Hoopa Substation.
F8:
Pertinent to R-8 Did not determine if the fire door at the Hoopa Substation meets State standards
F9:
Pertinent to R-9 The Hoopa Substation does not meet ADA standards. Report 01-13 CLARK COMPLEX INTRODUCTION The Humboldt County Grand Jury inspected the Clark Complex, located on Harris Street between H and I Streets. A survey conducted by the 1999-2000 grand jury of custodial and maintenance procedure highlighted certain problems with the Clark Complex. The original building was built around 1916 as a hospital. The Clark addition was added in the late 1950s. The hospital moved out in the late 1970s. This complex now houses county offices for the following departments: public works, planning, election's office, coroner’s office, mental health, Sempervirens, rehabilitation center and various outbuildings used for storage. THE 2000-2001 GRAND JURY RECOMMENDED THE FOLLOWING: R-1 The County meet ADA access standards at the main building of the Clark Complex. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESPONSE: Will be implemented. The county has currently contracted with a firm to conduct an evaluation of all county buildings for disability access. Changes identified as a result of this evaluation will then be prioritized and budgeted. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE: Agree. Access to the building for the disabled currently is from the ground floor. A phone allows people to contact Planning, Elections and Public Works who will open the locked doors and escort the person or persons to the elevator from which the elevator can be accessed. The county has two disabled employees at Clark who routinely use this access for the building. The county currently is updating its facilities, evaluations for all buildings, including Clark, which will be used to complete an ADA transition plan. FINDING The 2002-2003 grand jury makes the following finding:
Additional Recommendations
9
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Recommendation pertinent to F1: The grand jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors: (a) Purchase lapel microphones to enhance thorough communication by individual Supervisors to all in attendance. (b) The Clerk of the Board and the Supervisors should ensure that all of the microphones are turned on for the entire meeting, so that the deliberative process is fully communicated. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO R1: Recommendation (a) to purchase lapel microphones will not be implemented because it is not warranted. Each of the microphones in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers has recently been replaced with a longer microphone to enhance audio quality. Staff is working on adjusting the volume for each microphone to ensure that the Supervisors, staff and the public can be clearly heard over the sound system. Recommendation (b) has been implemented. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R1: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. All the microphones in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers have been replaced with a longer microphone. We are currently working on adjusting the volume for each microphone to ensure that Supervisors, staff and the public are heard over the sound system. This is an ongoing process that is more cost efficient than having each Supervisor wear a lapel microphone. Also, the microphones are turned on every meeting.
R2:
Recommendation pertinent to F2: The grand jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors: (a) Research the feasibility of purchasing an adjustable podium or microphone so those who testify can be clearly heard. (B) The Board Chair will also instruct all who testify, staff and the public, to speak clearly into the provided microphones. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO R2: Has been implemented. There is an adjustable microphone on the podium for public speakers that has been replaced in the past six months. The microphones at the staff table have also been replaced, and adjustments continue to be made to adjust the volume to ensure staff and the public can be clearly heard over the sound system. All the microphones in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers are adjustable. When public testimony cannot be heard, the Board Chair requests the individual providing testimony to speak into the microphones provided. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R2: The recommendation has been implemented. There is an adjustable microphone on the podium for public speakers that has been replaced in the past six months. The microphones at the staff table have been replaced as well. We are currently working on adjusting the volume for the staff microphones. All the microphones in the Boards’ Chambers are adjustable.
R3:
Recommendation pertinent to F3: The grand jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors: (a) Provide a meeting tape to Cox Cable promptly after each meeting for re- broadcast. (b) Utilize the public government access channel available at Cox Cable. This would improve the ability for the public to view the conduct of the people=s business. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO R3: Has been implemented. Arrangements have been made with Cox Cable for the evening rebroadcast of Board of Supervisors meetings to take place Wednesdays at 8:00 p.m. This will begin with the Board meeting of September 2, 2003. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R3: Has been implemented. Arrangements have been made with Cox Cable for the evening rebroadcast of Board of Supervisors meetings to take place Wednesdays at 8:00 p.m. This will begin with the Board meeting of September 2, 2003. RESPONSES: THE FOLLOWING RESPONSES TO REPORT 03-AF-01 ARE REQUIRED PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE 933 AND THE STANDARD FORMAT FOR RESPONSES. 1. The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors shall respond to R1, R2 and R3. 2. The General Services Administration Director shall respond to R3. GRAND JURY REPORT NO: 03-AF-02 REAL PROPERTY DIVISION Administration & Finance Committee INTRODUCTION: The Humboldt County Grand Jury conducted a routine investigation of the operations of the Real Property Division (RPD). The RPD is supervised by the General Services Director. The staff consists of one Senior Real Property Agent whose function, in spite of having an extensive job description implying considerable authority, more resembles that of a clerical position. Although the RPD works closely with various department heads and the County=s architect in filling the space requirements of County government, little real authority is given to act as the County=s advocate in the resulting real property transactions. The grand jury=s investigation included analyzing two real estate transactions, one a purchase, the other a long-term lease. Several personal interviews were also conducted and document reviews of both transactions were made. Early in the purchase transaction, the seller=s agent declared themselves a Adual agent@, representing both the buyer and the seller. In the real estate business, dual agency means that the interests of both parties to the transaction must be uppermost in all the agent=s actions and recommendations. It is difficult, if not impossible, to serve two such divergent interests. The potential for inadequate representation is present as well as the temptation to minimize potential risks, costs and liabilities. Although the agent in this transaction correctly identified the potential existence of lead paint, firm estimates or bids to mitigate the hazard were not sought and renovation costs ballooned to over three times the preliminary estimate, largely due to environmental hazards abatement. The RPD should have the authority to conduct its own due diligence and negotiate all terms, including a reduction in the purchase price to reflect the value of its contribution to the transaction. Traditionally, a commission paid by the seller of a property is split between the seller=s agent and the buyer=s agent. If the RPD is doing the work of the buyer=s agent when the County buys real property, the County should benefit proportionately. The final purchase price should be negotiated downward to reflect the value of one-half of a standard real estate commission. In the long-term lease transaction, a relatively new Request for Proposals process was used. The process was flawed from the beginning; the proposed location map included the entire area of greater Eureka, when in fact only those proposals near the courthouse were to be seriously considered. This fact was specified within the documentation, but the prominence of the misleading map may have caused several respondents to discount the importance of proximity to the courthouse, resulting in the needless expenditure of tens of thousands of dollars for proposals having no chance of success. It appears that the selection committee may have used arbitrary methods to assign rankings to the subjective criteria intended to fairly compare the competing proposals. Ironically, the ranking criteria were not shared with the project sponsors until after the final decision was made. Rankings were not done using specific quantitative guidelines, but involved open discussion leading to consensus. The makeup of the committee included several employees of the affected department along with the department head. No minutes of these important sessions were kept. When two of the three Afinalists@ dropped out of contention, reportedly a sense of urgency felt by the department head on the committee caused them to not reconsider two other highly competitive projects. Lease costs, although purportedly a Aspecial@ ranking consideration, were not weighted as to proposed annual increases; the winning proposal was the most expensive. No final price negotiation was attempted by the County, although the County had that right.
R4:
Recommendation pertinent to F4: The grand jury recommends that minutes be taken and properly filed for future review should the need arise. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R4: The recommendation will be partially implemented when we undergo the next process for evaluating long-term lease proposals. Although step-by-step minutes will not be taken of the selection committee discussions, the outcome of those discussions will be documented and retained in the applicable file(s).
R5:
Recommendation pertinent to F5: The grand jury recommends that a secret ballot process be implemented for use by future selection committees. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R5: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. The selection process is based on evaluating the responding proposals both objectively and subjectively. After that evaluation, then a determination is made. It is not appropriate to use a secret ballot to make the final selection.
R6:
Recommendation pertinent to F6: The grand jury recommends that quantitative, specific guidelines and the selection criteria ranking form be made available to all parties by inclusion in the Request for Proposals documentation. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R6: The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. As stated earlier this was new process and the RFP did have guidelines (parameters) regarding the location the County was looking for, but did not indicate the ranking for the criteria. In future RFP for lease property, there will be a better handle on our needs, which will include the specific guidelines and selection criteria ranking in the actual RFP documentation. RESPONSES: THE FOLLOWING RESPONSES TO REPORT 03-AF-02 ARE REQUIRED PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE 933 AND THE STANDARD FORMAT FOR RESPONSES. 1. The General Services Administration Director shall respond to R1, R2, R3, R4, R5 and
R7:
Replace the rear door at the Hoopa Substation:
R8:
Replace the fire door at the Hoopa Substation with one that meets state standards:
R9:
Modify the Hoopa Substation to comply with American Disability Act (ADA) standards: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATIONS R-3 - R-9:
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
Often comments made by individual Supervisors cannot be heard clearly, either by those in attendance at or observing the public broadcast of the Board of Supervisors= public meetings, because the microphones are not turned on or not spoken directly into, thus inhibiting the open conduct of the people=s business. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO F1: Agree, although each microphone in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers has recently been replaced with a longer microphone to enhance the audio quality.
F2:
Comments by those testifying often cannot be clearly heard by those in attendance, either at or observing the broadcast of the meetings, thus inhibiting the open conduct of the people=s business. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO F2: Agree, although each microphone in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers has recently been replaced with a longer microphone to enhance the audio quality. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO F2: Disagree partially. This was true prior to replacing the microphones, currently we have intermittent issues with people hearing the testimony.
F3:
Public awareness and disclosure of Board of Supervisors= meetings could be improved if Board meetings, which are presently only broadcast during the meetings, were re-broadcast at a variety of times by promptly transmitting a tape copy to Cox Cable as the county had agreed to do when the video equipment was originally donated. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO F3: Agree. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO F3: Agree
F4:
No minutes were taken of deliberations by the selection committee charged with assessing the relative suitability of proposals received as a result of the Request for Proposals. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO F4: Agree
F5:
Some of the selection committee members may not have felt free to express their opinions because voting was done openly, not by ballot. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO F5: Disagree partially, because we are unable to verify if any selection committee member felt uncomfortable in expressing their opinion. However, it was an interactive process that allowed the participants to share their thoughts based on the criteria.
F6:
Neither specific guidelines nor the ranking form used by the selection committee were made available to potential respondents. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO F6: Disagree partially. The original Request for Proposal (RFP) did indicate the guidelines (parameters) for the location being sought by the County.
F7:
Pertinent to R-7 The rear door has been repaired in the Hoopa Substation.
F8:
Pertinent to R-8 Did not determine if the fire door at the Hoopa Substation meets State standards
F9:
Pertinent to R-9 The Hoopa Substation does not meet ADA standards. Report 01-13 CLARK COMPLEX INTRODUCTION The Humboldt County Grand Jury inspected the Clark Complex, located on Harris Street between H and I Streets. A survey conducted by the 1999-2000 grand jury of custodial and maintenance procedure highlighted certain problems with the Clark Complex. The original building was built around 1916 as a hospital. The Clark addition was added in the late 1950s. The hospital moved out in the late 1970s. This complex now houses county offices for the following departments: public works, planning, election's office, coroner’s office, mental health, Sempervirens, rehabilitation center and various outbuildings used for storage. THE 2000-2001 GRAND JURY RECOMMENDED THE FOLLOWING: R-1 The County meet ADA access standards at the main building of the Clark Complex. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESPONSE: Will be implemented. The county has currently contracted with a firm to conduct an evaluation of all county buildings for disability access. Changes identified as a result of this evaluation will then be prioritized and budgeted. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE: Agree. Access to the building for the disabled currently is from the ground floor. A phone allows people to contact Planning, Elections and Public Works who will open the locked doors and escort the person or persons to the elevator from which the elevator can be accessed. The county has two disabled employees at Clark who routinely use this access for the building. The county currently is updating its facilities, evaluations for all buildings, including Clark, which will be used to complete an ADA transition plan. FINDING The 2002-2003 grand jury makes the following finding:
Additional Recommendations
9
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Recommendation pertinent to F1: The grand jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors: (a) Purchase lapel microphones to enhance thorough communication by individual Supervisors to all in attendance. (b) The Clerk of the Board and the Supervisors should ensure that all of the microphones are turned on for the entire meeting, so that the deliberative process is fully communicated. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO R1: Recommendation (a) to purchase lapel microphones will not be implemented because it is not warranted. Each of the microphones in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers has recently been replaced with a longer microphone to enhance audio quality. Staff is working on adjusting the volume for each microphone to ensure that the Supervisors, staff and the public can be clearly heard over the sound system. Recommendation (b) has been implemented. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R1: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. All the microphones in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers have been replaced with a longer microphone. We are currently working on adjusting the volume for each microphone to ensure that Supervisors, staff and the public are heard over the sound system. This is an ongoing process that is more cost efficient than having each Supervisor wear a lapel microphone. Also, the microphones are turned on every meeting.
R2:
Recommendation pertinent to F2: The grand jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors: (a) Research the feasibility of purchasing an adjustable podium or microphone so those who testify can be clearly heard. (B) The Board Chair will also instruct all who testify, staff and the public, to speak clearly into the provided microphones. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO R2: Has been implemented. There is an adjustable microphone on the podium for public speakers that has been replaced in the past six months. The microphones at the staff table have also been replaced, and adjustments continue to be made to adjust the volume to ensure staff and the public can be clearly heard over the sound system. All the microphones in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers are adjustable. When public testimony cannot be heard, the Board Chair requests the individual providing testimony to speak into the microphones provided. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R2: The recommendation has been implemented. There is an adjustable microphone on the podium for public speakers that has been replaced in the past six months. The microphones at the staff table have been replaced as well. We are currently working on adjusting the volume for the staff microphones. All the microphones in the Boards’ Chambers are adjustable.
R3:
Recommendation pertinent to F3: The grand jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors: (a) Provide a meeting tape to Cox Cable promptly after each meeting for re- broadcast. (b) Utilize the public government access channel available at Cox Cable. This would improve the ability for the public to view the conduct of the people=s business. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO R3: Has been implemented. Arrangements have been made with Cox Cable for the evening rebroadcast of Board of Supervisors meetings to take place Wednesdays at 8:00 p.m. This will begin with the Board meeting of September 2, 2003. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R3: Has been implemented. Arrangements have been made with Cox Cable for the evening rebroadcast of Board of Supervisors meetings to take place Wednesdays at 8:00 p.m. This will begin with the Board meeting of September 2, 2003. RESPONSES: THE FOLLOWING RESPONSES TO REPORT 03-AF-01 ARE REQUIRED PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE 933 AND THE STANDARD FORMAT FOR RESPONSES. 1. The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors shall respond to R1, R2 and R3. 2. The General Services Administration Director shall respond to R3. GRAND JURY REPORT NO: 03-AF-02 REAL PROPERTY DIVISION Administration & Finance Committee INTRODUCTION: The Humboldt County Grand Jury conducted a routine investigation of the operations of the Real Property Division (RPD). The RPD is supervised by the General Services Director. The staff consists of one Senior Real Property Agent whose function, in spite of having an extensive job description implying considerable authority, more resembles that of a clerical position. Although the RPD works closely with various department heads and the County=s architect in filling the space requirements of County government, little real authority is given to act as the County=s advocate in the resulting real property transactions. The grand jury=s investigation included analyzing two real estate transactions, one a purchase, the other a long-term lease. Several personal interviews were also conducted and document reviews of both transactions were made. Early in the purchase transaction, the seller=s agent declared themselves a Adual agent@, representing both the buyer and the seller. In the real estate business, dual agency means that the interests of both parties to the transaction must be uppermost in all the agent=s actions and recommendations. It is difficult, if not impossible, to serve two such divergent interests. The potential for inadequate representation is present as well as the temptation to minimize potential risks, costs and liabilities. Although the agent in this transaction correctly identified the potential existence of lead paint, firm estimates or bids to mitigate the hazard were not sought and renovation costs ballooned to over three times the preliminary estimate, largely due to environmental hazards abatement. The RPD should have the authority to conduct its own due diligence and negotiate all terms, including a reduction in the purchase price to reflect the value of its contribution to the transaction. Traditionally, a commission paid by the seller of a property is split between the seller=s agent and the buyer=s agent. If the RPD is doing the work of the buyer=s agent when the County buys real property, the County should benefit proportionately. The final purchase price should be negotiated downward to reflect the value of one-half of a standard real estate commission. In the long-term lease transaction, a relatively new Request for Proposals process was used. The process was flawed from the beginning; the proposed location map included the entire area of greater Eureka, when in fact only those proposals near the courthouse were to be seriously considered. This fact was specified within the documentation, but the prominence of the misleading map may have caused several respondents to discount the importance of proximity to the courthouse, resulting in the needless expenditure of tens of thousands of dollars for proposals having no chance of success. It appears that the selection committee may have used arbitrary methods to assign rankings to the subjective criteria intended to fairly compare the competing proposals. Ironically, the ranking criteria were not shared with the project sponsors until after the final decision was made. Rankings were not done using specific quantitative guidelines, but involved open discussion leading to consensus. The makeup of the committee included several employees of the affected department along with the department head. No minutes of these important sessions were kept. When two of the three Afinalists@ dropped out of contention, reportedly a sense of urgency felt by the department head on the committee caused them to not reconsider two other highly competitive projects. Lease costs, although purportedly a Aspecial@ ranking consideration, were not weighted as to proposed annual increases; the winning proposal was the most expensive. No final price negotiation was attempted by the County, although the County had that right.
R4:
Recommendation pertinent to F4: The grand jury recommends that minutes be taken and properly filed for future review should the need arise. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R4: The recommendation will be partially implemented when we undergo the next process for evaluating long-term lease proposals. Although step-by-step minutes will not be taken of the selection committee discussions, the outcome of those discussions will be documented and retained in the applicable file(s).
R5:
Recommendation pertinent to F5: The grand jury recommends that a secret ballot process be implemented for use by future selection committees. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R5: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. The selection process is based on evaluating the responding proposals both objectively and subjectively. After that evaluation, then a determination is made. It is not appropriate to use a secret ballot to make the final selection.
R6:
Recommendation pertinent to F6: The grand jury recommends that quantitative, specific guidelines and the selection criteria ranking form be made available to all parties by inclusion in the Request for Proposals documentation. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R6: The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. As stated earlier this was new process and the RFP did have guidelines (parameters) regarding the location the County was looking for, but did not indicate the ranking for the criteria. In future RFP for lease property, there will be a better handle on our needs, which will include the specific guidelines and selection criteria ranking in the actual RFP documentation. RESPONSES: THE FOLLOWING RESPONSES TO REPORT 03-AF-02 ARE REQUIRED PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE 933 AND THE STANDARD FORMAT FOR RESPONSES. 1. The General Services Administration Director shall respond to R1, R2, R3, R4, R5 and
R7:
Replace the rear door at the Hoopa Substation:
R8:
Replace the fire door at the Hoopa Substation with one that meets state standards:
R9:
Modify the Hoopa Substation to comply with American Disability Act (ADA) standards: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATIONS R-3 - R-9:
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
Often comments made by individual Supervisors cannot be heard clearly, either by those in attendance at or observing the public broadcast of the Board of Supervisors= public meetings, because the microphones are not turned on or not spoken directly into, thus inhibiting the open conduct of the people=s business. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO F1: Agree, although each microphone in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers has recently been replaced with a longer microphone to enhance the audio quality.
F2:
Comments by those testifying often cannot be clearly heard by those in attendance, either at or observing the broadcast of the meetings, thus inhibiting the open conduct of the people=s business. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO F2: Agree, although each microphone in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers has recently been replaced with a longer microphone to enhance the audio quality. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO F2: Disagree partially. This was true prior to replacing the microphones, currently we have intermittent issues with people hearing the testimony.
F3:
Public awareness and disclosure of Board of Supervisors= meetings could be improved if Board meetings, which are presently only broadcast during the meetings, were re-broadcast at a variety of times by promptly transmitting a tape copy to Cox Cable as the county had agreed to do when the video equipment was originally donated. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO F3: Agree. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO F3: Agree
F4:
No minutes were taken of deliberations by the selection committee charged with assessing the relative suitability of proposals received as a result of the Request for Proposals. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO F4: Agree
F5:
Some of the selection committee members may not have felt free to express their opinions because voting was done openly, not by ballot. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO F5: Disagree partially, because we are unable to verify if any selection committee member felt uncomfortable in expressing their opinion. However, it was an interactive process that allowed the participants to share their thoughts based on the criteria.
F6:
Neither specific guidelines nor the ranking form used by the selection committee were made available to potential respondents. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO F6: Disagree partially. The original Request for Proposal (RFP) did indicate the guidelines (parameters) for the location being sought by the County.
F7:
Pertinent to R-7 The rear door has been repaired in the Hoopa Substation.
F8:
Pertinent to R-8 Did not determine if the fire door at the Hoopa Substation meets State standards
F9:
Pertinent to R-9 The Hoopa Substation does not meet ADA standards. Report 01-13 CLARK COMPLEX INTRODUCTION The Humboldt County Grand Jury inspected the Clark Complex, located on Harris Street between H and I Streets. A survey conducted by the 1999-2000 grand jury of custodial and maintenance procedure highlighted certain problems with the Clark Complex. The original building was built around 1916 as a hospital. The Clark addition was added in the late 1950s. The hospital moved out in the late 1970s. This complex now houses county offices for the following departments: public works, planning, election's office, coroner’s office, mental health, Sempervirens, rehabilitation center and various outbuildings used for storage. THE 2000-2001 GRAND JURY RECOMMENDED THE FOLLOWING: R-1 The County meet ADA access standards at the main building of the Clark Complex. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESPONSE: Will be implemented. The county has currently contracted with a firm to conduct an evaluation of all county buildings for disability access. Changes identified as a result of this evaluation will then be prioritized and budgeted. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE: Agree. Access to the building for the disabled currently is from the ground floor. A phone allows people to contact Planning, Elections and Public Works who will open the locked doors and escort the person or persons to the elevator from which the elevator can be accessed. The county has two disabled employees at Clark who routinely use this access for the building. The county currently is updating its facilities, evaluations for all buildings, including Clark, which will be used to complete an ADA transition plan. FINDING The 2002-2003 grand jury makes the following finding:
Additional Recommendations
9
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Recommendation pertinent to F1: The grand jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors: (a) Purchase lapel microphones to enhance thorough communication by individual Supervisors to all in attendance. (b) The Clerk of the Board and the Supervisors should ensure that all of the microphones are turned on for the entire meeting, so that the deliberative process is fully communicated. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO R1: Recommendation (a) to purchase lapel microphones will not be implemented because it is not warranted. Each of the microphones in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers has recently been replaced with a longer microphone to enhance audio quality. Staff is working on adjusting the volume for each microphone to ensure that the Supervisors, staff and the public can be clearly heard over the sound system. Recommendation (b) has been implemented. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R1: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. All the microphones in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers have been replaced with a longer microphone. We are currently working on adjusting the volume for each microphone to ensure that Supervisors, staff and the public are heard over the sound system. This is an ongoing process that is more cost efficient than having each Supervisor wear a lapel microphone. Also, the microphones are turned on every meeting.
R2:
Recommendation pertinent to F2: The grand jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors: (a) Research the feasibility of purchasing an adjustable podium or microphone so those who testify can be clearly heard. (B) The Board Chair will also instruct all who testify, staff and the public, to speak clearly into the provided microphones. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO R2: Has been implemented. There is an adjustable microphone on the podium for public speakers that has been replaced in the past six months. The microphones at the staff table have also been replaced, and adjustments continue to be made to adjust the volume to ensure staff and the public can be clearly heard over the sound system. All the microphones in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers are adjustable. When public testimony cannot be heard, the Board Chair requests the individual providing testimony to speak into the microphones provided. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R2: The recommendation has been implemented. There is an adjustable microphone on the podium for public speakers that has been replaced in the past six months. The microphones at the staff table have been replaced as well. We are currently working on adjusting the volume for the staff microphones. All the microphones in the Boards’ Chambers are adjustable.
R3:
Recommendation pertinent to F3: The grand jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors: (a) Provide a meeting tape to Cox Cable promptly after each meeting for re- broadcast. (b) Utilize the public government access channel available at Cox Cable. This would improve the ability for the public to view the conduct of the people=s business. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO R3: Has been implemented. Arrangements have been made with Cox Cable for the evening rebroadcast of Board of Supervisors meetings to take place Wednesdays at 8:00 p.m. This will begin with the Board meeting of September 2, 2003. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R3: Has been implemented. Arrangements have been made with Cox Cable for the evening rebroadcast of Board of Supervisors meetings to take place Wednesdays at 8:00 p.m. This will begin with the Board meeting of September 2, 2003. RESPONSES: THE FOLLOWING RESPONSES TO REPORT 03-AF-01 ARE REQUIRED PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE 933 AND THE STANDARD FORMAT FOR RESPONSES. 1. The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors shall respond to R1, R2 and R3. 2. The General Services Administration Director shall respond to R3. GRAND JURY REPORT NO: 03-AF-02 REAL PROPERTY DIVISION Administration & Finance Committee INTRODUCTION: The Humboldt County Grand Jury conducted a routine investigation of the operations of the Real Property Division (RPD). The RPD is supervised by the General Services Director. The staff consists of one Senior Real Property Agent whose function, in spite of having an extensive job description implying considerable authority, more resembles that of a clerical position. Although the RPD works closely with various department heads and the County=s architect in filling the space requirements of County government, little real authority is given to act as the County=s advocate in the resulting real property transactions. The grand jury=s investigation included analyzing two real estate transactions, one a purchase, the other a long-term lease. Several personal interviews were also conducted and document reviews of both transactions were made. Early in the purchase transaction, the seller=s agent declared themselves a Adual agent@, representing both the buyer and the seller. In the real estate business, dual agency means that the interests of both parties to the transaction must be uppermost in all the agent=s actions and recommendations. It is difficult, if not impossible, to serve two such divergent interests. The potential for inadequate representation is present as well as the temptation to minimize potential risks, costs and liabilities. Although the agent in this transaction correctly identified the potential existence of lead paint, firm estimates or bids to mitigate the hazard were not sought and renovation costs ballooned to over three times the preliminary estimate, largely due to environmental hazards abatement. The RPD should have the authority to conduct its own due diligence and negotiate all terms, including a reduction in the purchase price to reflect the value of its contribution to the transaction. Traditionally, a commission paid by the seller of a property is split between the seller=s agent and the buyer=s agent. If the RPD is doing the work of the buyer=s agent when the County buys real property, the County should benefit proportionately. The final purchase price should be negotiated downward to reflect the value of one-half of a standard real estate commission. In the long-term lease transaction, a relatively new Request for Proposals process was used. The process was flawed from the beginning; the proposed location map included the entire area of greater Eureka, when in fact only those proposals near the courthouse were to be seriously considered. This fact was specified within the documentation, but the prominence of the misleading map may have caused several respondents to discount the importance of proximity to the courthouse, resulting in the needless expenditure of tens of thousands of dollars for proposals having no chance of success. It appears that the selection committee may have used arbitrary methods to assign rankings to the subjective criteria intended to fairly compare the competing proposals. Ironically, the ranking criteria were not shared with the project sponsors until after the final decision was made. Rankings were not done using specific quantitative guidelines, but involved open discussion leading to consensus. The makeup of the committee included several employees of the affected department along with the department head. No minutes of these important sessions were kept. When two of the three Afinalists@ dropped out of contention, reportedly a sense of urgency felt by the department head on the committee caused them to not reconsider two other highly competitive projects. Lease costs, although purportedly a Aspecial@ ranking consideration, were not weighted as to proposed annual increases; the winning proposal was the most expensive. No final price negotiation was attempted by the County, although the County had that right.
R4:
Recommendation pertinent to F4: The grand jury recommends that minutes be taken and properly filed for future review should the need arise. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R4: The recommendation will be partially implemented when we undergo the next process for evaluating long-term lease proposals. Although step-by-step minutes will not be taken of the selection committee discussions, the outcome of those discussions will be documented and retained in the applicable file(s).
R5:
Recommendation pertinent to F5: The grand jury recommends that a secret ballot process be implemented for use by future selection committees. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R5: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. The selection process is based on evaluating the responding proposals both objectively and subjectively. After that evaluation, then a determination is made. It is not appropriate to use a secret ballot to make the final selection.
R6:
Recommendation pertinent to F6: The grand jury recommends that quantitative, specific guidelines and the selection criteria ranking form be made available to all parties by inclusion in the Request for Proposals documentation. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R6: The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. As stated earlier this was new process and the RFP did have guidelines (parameters) regarding the location the County was looking for, but did not indicate the ranking for the criteria. In future RFP for lease property, there will be a better handle on our needs, which will include the specific guidelines and selection criteria ranking in the actual RFP documentation. RESPONSES: THE FOLLOWING RESPONSES TO REPORT 03-AF-02 ARE REQUIRED PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE 933 AND THE STANDARD FORMAT FOR RESPONSES. 1. The General Services Administration Director shall respond to R1, R2, R3, R4, R5 and
R7:
Replace the rear door at the Hoopa Substation:
R8:
Replace the fire door at the Hoopa Substation with one that meets state standards:
R9:
Modify the Hoopa Substation to comply with American Disability Act (ADA) standards: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATIONS R-3 - R-9:
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
Often comments made by individual Supervisors cannot be heard clearly, either by those in attendance at or observing the public broadcast of the Board of Supervisors= public meetings, because the microphones are not turned on or not spoken directly into, thus inhibiting the open conduct of the people=s business. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO F1: Agree, although each microphone in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers has recently been replaced with a longer microphone to enhance the audio quality.
F2:
Comments by those testifying often cannot be clearly heard by those in attendance, either at or observing the broadcast of the meetings, thus inhibiting the open conduct of the people=s business. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO F2: Agree, although each microphone in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers has recently been replaced with a longer microphone to enhance the audio quality. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO F2: Disagree partially. This was true prior to replacing the microphones, currently we have intermittent issues with people hearing the testimony.
F3:
Public awareness and disclosure of Board of Supervisors= meetings could be improved if Board meetings, which are presently only broadcast during the meetings, were re-broadcast at a variety of times by promptly transmitting a tape copy to Cox Cable as the county had agreed to do when the video equipment was originally donated. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO F3: Agree. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO F3: Agree
F4:
No minutes were taken of deliberations by the selection committee charged with assessing the relative suitability of proposals received as a result of the Request for Proposals. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO F4: Agree
F5:
Some of the selection committee members may not have felt free to express their opinions because voting was done openly, not by ballot. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO F5: Disagree partially, because we are unable to verify if any selection committee member felt uncomfortable in expressing their opinion. However, it was an interactive process that allowed the participants to share their thoughts based on the criteria.
F6:
Neither specific guidelines nor the ranking form used by the selection committee were made available to potential respondents. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO F6: Disagree partially. The original Request for Proposal (RFP) did indicate the guidelines (parameters) for the location being sought by the County.
F7:
Pertinent to R-7 The rear door has been repaired in the Hoopa Substation.
F8:
Pertinent to R-8 Did not determine if the fire door at the Hoopa Substation meets State standards
F9:
Pertinent to R-9 The Hoopa Substation does not meet ADA standards. Report 01-13 CLARK COMPLEX INTRODUCTION The Humboldt County Grand Jury inspected the Clark Complex, located on Harris Street between H and I Streets. A survey conducted by the 1999-2000 grand jury of custodial and maintenance procedure highlighted certain problems with the Clark Complex. The original building was built around 1916 as a hospital. The Clark addition was added in the late 1950s. The hospital moved out in the late 1970s. This complex now houses county offices for the following departments: public works, planning, election's office, coroner’s office, mental health, Sempervirens, rehabilitation center and various outbuildings used for storage. THE 2000-2001 GRAND JURY RECOMMENDED THE FOLLOWING: R-1 The County meet ADA access standards at the main building of the Clark Complex. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESPONSE: Will be implemented. The county has currently contracted with a firm to conduct an evaluation of all county buildings for disability access. Changes identified as a result of this evaluation will then be prioritized and budgeted. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE: Agree. Access to the building for the disabled currently is from the ground floor. A phone allows people to contact Planning, Elections and Public Works who will open the locked doors and escort the person or persons to the elevator from which the elevator can be accessed. The county has two disabled employees at Clark who routinely use this access for the building. The county currently is updating its facilities, evaluations for all buildings, including Clark, which will be used to complete an ADA transition plan. FINDING The 2002-2003 grand jury makes the following finding:
Additional Recommendations
9
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Recommendation pertinent to F1: The grand jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors: (a) Purchase lapel microphones to enhance thorough communication by individual Supervisors to all in attendance. (b) The Clerk of the Board and the Supervisors should ensure that all of the microphones are turned on for the entire meeting, so that the deliberative process is fully communicated. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO R1: Recommendation (a) to purchase lapel microphones will not be implemented because it is not warranted. Each of the microphones in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers has recently been replaced with a longer microphone to enhance audio quality. Staff is working on adjusting the volume for each microphone to ensure that the Supervisors, staff and the public can be clearly heard over the sound system. Recommendation (b) has been implemented. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R1: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. All the microphones in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers have been replaced with a longer microphone. We are currently working on adjusting the volume for each microphone to ensure that Supervisors, staff and the public are heard over the sound system. This is an ongoing process that is more cost efficient than having each Supervisor wear a lapel microphone. Also, the microphones are turned on every meeting.
R2:
Recommendation pertinent to F2: The grand jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors: (a) Research the feasibility of purchasing an adjustable podium or microphone so those who testify can be clearly heard. (B) The Board Chair will also instruct all who testify, staff and the public, to speak clearly into the provided microphones. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO R2: Has been implemented. There is an adjustable microphone on the podium for public speakers that has been replaced in the past six months. The microphones at the staff table have also been replaced, and adjustments continue to be made to adjust the volume to ensure staff and the public can be clearly heard over the sound system. All the microphones in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers are adjustable. When public testimony cannot be heard, the Board Chair requests the individual providing testimony to speak into the microphones provided. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R2: The recommendation has been implemented. There is an adjustable microphone on the podium for public speakers that has been replaced in the past six months. The microphones at the staff table have been replaced as well. We are currently working on adjusting the volume for the staff microphones. All the microphones in the Boards’ Chambers are adjustable.
R3:
Recommendation pertinent to F3: The grand jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors: (a) Provide a meeting tape to Cox Cable promptly after each meeting for re- broadcast. (b) Utilize the public government access channel available at Cox Cable. This would improve the ability for the public to view the conduct of the people=s business. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO R3: Has been implemented. Arrangements have been made with Cox Cable for the evening rebroadcast of Board of Supervisors meetings to take place Wednesdays at 8:00 p.m. This will begin with the Board meeting of September 2, 2003. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R3: Has been implemented. Arrangements have been made with Cox Cable for the evening rebroadcast of Board of Supervisors meetings to take place Wednesdays at 8:00 p.m. This will begin with the Board meeting of September 2, 2003. RESPONSES: THE FOLLOWING RESPONSES TO REPORT 03-AF-01 ARE REQUIRED PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE 933 AND THE STANDARD FORMAT FOR RESPONSES. 1. The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors shall respond to R1, R2 and R3. 2. The General Services Administration Director shall respond to R3. GRAND JURY REPORT NO: 03-AF-02 REAL PROPERTY DIVISION Administration & Finance Committee INTRODUCTION: The Humboldt County Grand Jury conducted a routine investigation of the operations of the Real Property Division (RPD). The RPD is supervised by the General Services Director. The staff consists of one Senior Real Property Agent whose function, in spite of having an extensive job description implying considerable authority, more resembles that of a clerical position. Although the RPD works closely with various department heads and the County=s architect in filling the space requirements of County government, little real authority is given to act as the County=s advocate in the resulting real property transactions. The grand jury=s investigation included analyzing two real estate transactions, one a purchase, the other a long-term lease. Several personal interviews were also conducted and document reviews of both transactions were made. Early in the purchase transaction, the seller=s agent declared themselves a Adual agent@, representing both the buyer and the seller. In the real estate business, dual agency means that the interests of both parties to the transaction must be uppermost in all the agent=s actions and recommendations. It is difficult, if not impossible, to serve two such divergent interests. The potential for inadequate representation is present as well as the temptation to minimize potential risks, costs and liabilities. Although the agent in this transaction correctly identified the potential existence of lead paint, firm estimates or bids to mitigate the hazard were not sought and renovation costs ballooned to over three times the preliminary estimate, largely due to environmental hazards abatement. The RPD should have the authority to conduct its own due diligence and negotiate all terms, including a reduction in the purchase price to reflect the value of its contribution to the transaction. Traditionally, a commission paid by the seller of a property is split between the seller=s agent and the buyer=s agent. If the RPD is doing the work of the buyer=s agent when the County buys real property, the County should benefit proportionately. The final purchase price should be negotiated downward to reflect the value of one-half of a standard real estate commission. In the long-term lease transaction, a relatively new Request for Proposals process was used. The process was flawed from the beginning; the proposed location map included the entire area of greater Eureka, when in fact only those proposals near the courthouse were to be seriously considered. This fact was specified within the documentation, but the prominence of the misleading map may have caused several respondents to discount the importance of proximity to the courthouse, resulting in the needless expenditure of tens of thousands of dollars for proposals having no chance of success. It appears that the selection committee may have used arbitrary methods to assign rankings to the subjective criteria intended to fairly compare the competing proposals. Ironically, the ranking criteria were not shared with the project sponsors until after the final decision was made. Rankings were not done using specific quantitative guidelines, but involved open discussion leading to consensus. The makeup of the committee included several employees of the affected department along with the department head. No minutes of these important sessions were kept. When two of the three Afinalists@ dropped out of contention, reportedly a sense of urgency felt by the department head on the committee caused them to not reconsider two other highly competitive projects. Lease costs, although purportedly a Aspecial@ ranking consideration, were not weighted as to proposed annual increases; the winning proposal was the most expensive. No final price negotiation was attempted by the County, although the County had that right.
R4:
Recommendation pertinent to F4: The grand jury recommends that minutes be taken and properly filed for future review should the need arise. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R4: The recommendation will be partially implemented when we undergo the next process for evaluating long-term lease proposals. Although step-by-step minutes will not be taken of the selection committee discussions, the outcome of those discussions will be documented and retained in the applicable file(s).
R5:
Recommendation pertinent to F5: The grand jury recommends that a secret ballot process be implemented for use by future selection committees. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R5: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. The selection process is based on evaluating the responding proposals both objectively and subjectively. After that evaluation, then a determination is made. It is not appropriate to use a secret ballot to make the final selection.
R6:
Recommendation pertinent to F6: The grand jury recommends that quantitative, specific guidelines and the selection criteria ranking form be made available to all parties by inclusion in the Request for Proposals documentation. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R6: The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. As stated earlier this was new process and the RFP did have guidelines (parameters) regarding the location the County was looking for, but did not indicate the ranking for the criteria. In future RFP for lease property, there will be a better handle on our needs, which will include the specific guidelines and selection criteria ranking in the actual RFP documentation. RESPONSES: THE FOLLOWING RESPONSES TO REPORT 03-AF-02 ARE REQUIRED PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE 933 AND THE STANDARD FORMAT FOR RESPONSES. 1. The General Services Administration Director shall respond to R1, R2, R3, R4, R5 and
R7:
Replace the rear door at the Hoopa Substation:
R8:
Replace the fire door at the Hoopa Substation with one that meets state standards:
R9:
Modify the Hoopa Substation to comply with American Disability Act (ADA) standards: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATIONS R-3 - R-9:
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F1:
Often comments made by individual Supervisors cannot be heard clearly, either by those in attendance at or observing the public broadcast of the Board of Supervisors' public meetings, because the microphones are not turned on or not spoken directly into, thus inhibiting the open conduct of the people's business. 5
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
In the purchase transaction, Humboldt County was represented by the seller's real estate agent acting as a dual agent.
F2:
Comments by those testifying often cannot be clearly heard by those in attendance, either at or observing the broadcast of the meetings, thus inhibiting the open conduct of the people's business.
F3:
Public awareness and disclosure of Board of Supervisors' meetings could be improved if Board meetings, which are presently only broadcast during the meetings, were re-broadcast at a variety of times by promptly transmitting a tape copy to Cox Cable as the county had agreed to do when the video equipment was originally donated.
F4:
No minutes were taken of deliberations by the selection committee charged with assessing the relative suitability of proposals received as a result of the Request for Proposals.
F5:
Some of the selection committee members may not have felt free to express their opinions because voting was done openly, not by ballot.
F6:
Neither specific guidelines nor the ranking form used by the selection committee were made available to potential respondents.
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Recommendation pertinent to F1: The grand jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors: (a) Purchase lapel microphones to enhance thorough communication by individual Supervisors to all in attendance. (b) The Clerk of the Board and the Supervisors should ensure that all of the microphones are turned on for the entire meeting, so that the deliberative process is fully communicated.
R2:
Recommendation pertinent to F2: The grand jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors: (a) Research the feasibility of purchasing an adjustable podium or microphone so those who testify can be clearly heard. (B) The Board Chair will also instruct all who testify, staff and the public, to speak clearly into the provided microphones.
R3:
Recommendation pertinent to F3: The grand jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors: (a) Provide a meeting tape to Cox Cable promptly after each meeting for re- broadcast. (b) Utilize the public government access channel available at Cox Cable. This would improve the ability for the public to view the conduct of the people's business. RESPONSES: THE FOLLOWING RESPONSES TO REPORT 03-AF-01 ARE REQUIRED PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE 933 AND THE STANDARD FORMAT FOR RESPONSES. 1. The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors shall respond to R1, R2 and R3. 2. The General Services Administration Director shall respond to R3. GRAND JURY REPORT NO: 03-AF-02 REAL PROPERTY DIVISION Administration & Finance Committee INTRODUCTION: The Humboldt County Grand Jury conducted a routine investigation of the operations of the Real Property Division (RPD). The RPD is supervised by the General Services Director. The staff consists of one Senior Real Property Agent whose function, in spite of having an extensive job description implying considerable authority, more resembles that of a clerical position. Although the RPD works closely with various department heads and the County's architect in filling the space requirements of County government, little real authority is given to act as the 6 County's advocate in the resulting real property transactions. The grand jury's investigation included analyzing two real estate transactions, one a purchase, the other a long-term lease. Several personal interviews were also conducted and document reviews of both transactions were made. Early in the purchase transaction, the seller's agent declared themselves a Adual agent@, representing both the buyer and the seller. In the real estate business, dual agency means that the interests of both parties to the transaction must be uppermost in all the agent's actions and recommendations. It is difficult, if not impossible, to serve two such divergent interests. The potential for inadequate representation is present as well as the temptation to minimize potential risks, costs and liabilities. Although the agent in this transaction correctly identified the potential existence of lead paint, firm estimates or bids to mitigate the hazard were not sought and renovation costs ballooned to over three times the preliminary estimate, largely due to environmental hazards abatement. The RPD should have the authority to conduct its own due diligence and negotiate all terms, including a reduction in the purchase price to reflect the value of its contribution to the transaction. Traditionally, a commission paid by the seller of a property is split between the seller's agent and the buyer's agent. If the RPD is doing the work of the buyer's agent when the County buys real property, the County should benefit proportionately. The final purchase price should be negotiated downward to reflect the value of one-half of a standard real estate commission. In the long-term lease transaction, a relatively new Request for Proposals process was used. The process was flawed from the beginning; the proposed location map included the entire area of greater Eureka, when in fact only those proposals near the courthouse were to be seriously considered. This fact was specified within the documentation, but the prominence of the misleading map may have caused several respondents to discount the importance of proximity to the courthouse, resulting in the needless expenditure of tens of thousands of dollars for proposals having no chance of success. It appears that the selection committee may have used arbitrary methods to assign rankings to the subjective criteria intended to fairly compare the competing proposals. Ironically, the ranking criteria were not shared with the project sponsors until after the final decision was made. Rankings were not done using specific quantitative guidelines, but involved open discussion leading to consensus. The makeup of the committee included several employees of the affected department along with the department head. No minutes of these important sessions were kept. When two of the three Afinalists@ dropped out of contention, reportedly a sense of urgency felt by the department head on the committee caused them to not reconsider two other highly competitive projects. Lease costs, although purportedly a Aspecial@ ranking consideration, were not weighted as to proposed annual increases; the winning proposal was the most expensive. No final price negotiation was attempted by the County, although the County had that right.
R4:
Recommendation pertinent to F4: The grand jury recommends that minutes be taken and properly filed for future review should the need arise.
R5:
Recommendation pertinent to F5: The grand jury recommends that a secret ballot process be implemented for use by future selection committees.
R6:
Recommendation pertinent to F6: The grand jury recommends that quantitative, specific guidelines and the selection criteria ranking form be made available to all parties by inclusion in the Request for Proposals documentation. RESPONSES: THE FOLLOWING RESPONSES TO REPORT 03-AF-02 ARE REQUIRED PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE 933 AND THE STANDARD FORMAT FOR RESPONSES. 1. The General Services Administration Director shall respond to R1, R2, R3, R4, R5 and
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
All employees in ISD are finger printed and have background checks through the sheriff's department, which uses Live Scan. This is a state system that maintains criminal history records. Report 01-03 HUMBOLDT COUNTY SHERIFF'S FARM INTRODUCTION Members of the Humboldt County Grand Jury visited the Humboldt County Sheriff's Farm located next to the Rohnerville Airport in the Fortuna area. Members of the grand jury met with two officers from the Sheriff's department and were given a tour of the farm and its operations. There were Sheriff’s Work Alternative Program (SWAP) personnel performing work at the farm during the visit. THE HUMBOLDT COUNTY 2000-2001 GRAND JURY RECOMMENDED THE FOLLOWING: R-1 A tractor located at the Sheriff's boat yard be transferred to the farm. SHERIFF'S RESPONSE: Partially agree. The tractor located at our boat yard is used frequently in moving large and sometimes extremely heavy equipment. We need a tractor for this same purpose. We have since obtained an additional tractor with a front-end bucket and a backhoe. We are using this tractor at the farm to good advantage. FINDING The 2002-2003 grand jury makes the following finding:
F2:
No action is expected. THE 2000-2001 GRAND JURY RECOMMENDED THE FOLLOWING: R-3 All obsolete and unusable materials, equipment, and debris be disposed of. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESPONSE TO R-3 This recommendation has been implemented and is in process. The removal of obsolete and unusable materials, equipment and debris is an ongoing process. Because of the large amount of accumulated debris, a portion is budgeted for removal each year. Considering budget constraints, it will take several years to fully complete this recommendation. FINDING The 2002-2003 grand jury makes the following finding pertinent to R-3:
F3:
The removal of obsolete and unserviceable equipment is an ongoing process at the airport. THE 2000-2001 GRAND JURY RECOMMENDED THE FOLLOWING: R-4 The remaining underground fuel storage tanks installed by the federal government be removed. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESPONSE: Partially completed and the remainder is in process. Most of the underground tanks have been removed. The remaining tanks will be processed for removal through a contract with Winzler and Kelly. FINDING The 2002-2003 grand jury makes the following finding pertinent to R-4:
F4:
Two underground fuel tanks were removed this year (2002) at a cost of $25,000.00 per tank with the others to be removed at later dates. One other 50,000-gallon concrete fuel tank has been cleaned and will not be removed. THE 2000-2001 GRAND JURY RECOMMENDED THE FOLLOWING: R-5 Upgrade the airport to include an air traffic control tower. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESPONSE Has been implemented. A mobile tower (temporary) has been secured and set up and is operational. Also funding for a permanent tower has been placed in the Federal budget by Representative Mike Thompson. FINDING The 2002-2003 grand jury makes the following finding pertinent to R-5:
F5:
The airport is still waiting for the permanent tower. Until then the airport will continue with the fully operational mobile tower. Report 01-08 HANDICAP PARKING ACCESSABILITY IN CITY OF EUREKA PUBLIC PARKING LOTS The 2002-2003 grand jury makes the following finding:
F6:
Pertinent to R-6: As of April 2003 the toilets in the Hoopa Substation had not been replaced.
F7:
Pertinent to R-7 The rear door has been repaired in the Hoopa Substation.
F8:
Pertinent to R-8 Did not determine if the fire door at the Hoopa Substation meets State standards
F9:
Pertinent to R-9 The Hoopa Substation does not meet ADA standards. Report 01-13 CLARK COMPLEX INTRODUCTION The Humboldt County Grand Jury inspected the Clark Complex, located on Harris Street between H and I Streets. A survey conducted by the 1999-2000 grand jury of custodial and maintenance procedure highlighted certain problems with the Clark Complex. The original building was built around 1916 as a hospital. The Clark addition was added in the late 1950s. The hospital moved out in the late 1970s. This complex now houses county offices for the following departments: public works, planning, election's office, coroner’s office, mental health, Sempervirens, rehabilitation center and various outbuildings used for storage. THE 2000-2001 GRAND JURY RECOMMENDED THE FOLLOWING: R-1 The County meet ADA access standards at the main building of the Clark Complex. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESPONSE: Will be implemented. The county has currently contracted with a firm to conduct an evaluation of all county buildings for disability access. Changes identified as a result of this evaluation will then be prioritized and budgeted. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES RESPONSE: Agree. Access to the building for the disabled currently is from the ground floor. A phone allows people to contact Planning, Elections and Public Works who will open the locked doors and escort the person or persons to the elevator from which the elevator can be accessed. The county has two disabled employees at Clark who routinely use this access for the building. The county currently is updating its facilities, evaluations for all buildings, including Clark, which will be used to complete an ADA transition plan. FINDING The 2002-2003 grand jury makes the following finding:
Additional Recommendations
9
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
A tractor located at the Sheriff's boat yard be transferred to the farm. SHERIFF'S RESPONSE: Partially agree. The tractor located at our boat yard is used frequently in moving large and sometimes extremely heavy equipment. We need a tractor for this same purpose. We have since obtained an additional tractor with a front-end bucket and a backhoe. We are using this tractor at the farm to good advantage. FINDING The 2002-2003 grand jury makes the following finding: F1: There is a tractor at the farm, but it has neither a front-end bucket or backhoe capability. Report 01-04 HUMBOLDT COUNTY CHILD WELFARE SERVICES HUMBOLDT COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH INTRODUCTION The Humboldt County Grand Jury received a citizen’s request to investigate the handling of a case by Child Welfare Services (CWS) and the Humboldt County Mental Health Department (MH). The case involved the murder of a 14-year-old boy by his mentally ill mother who was a client of MH. PROCEDURE The grand jury in its investigation interviewed fifteen individuals. These included personnel from the departments of mental health, social services, school personnel, concerned citizens and family members. The grand jury reviewed police reports, Suspected Child Abuse Reports, the California Penal Code, California Welfare and Institutions Code, section 827 and the California Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Law (Humboldt County Guidelines for Mandated Reporters), and other documents. FINDING The 2002-2003 grand jury makes the following finding: F1: Of the many findings and recommendations most were responded to with favorable explanations or had been implemented. Those regarding the refusal to allow the grand jury access to juvenile records deemed confidential per California Welfare and Institutions Code, sections 827 and 10850 the department was unable to respond to. No further improvements were anticipated on the basis of the responses provided. Report 01-05 HUMBOLDT COUNTY CHILD WELFARE SERVICES HUMBOLDT COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES INTRODUCTION The Humboldt County Grand Jury has been asked by members of the Yurok Tribal Council to investigate the removal of two children, perceived to be covered by the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), from a relative's foster care by Child Welfare Services (CWS). PROCEDURE The grand jury in its investigation of this matter interviewed nineteen individuals. These were social service professionals, representatives of the tribal community, and friends of the family. The grand jury has reviewed many documents including copies of court records and proceedings, California Penal Code, several publications related to ICWA, written testimonials of friends and neighbors, California Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Laws, Welfare and Institution Code, section 827, and a Resolution of the Yurok Tribal Council concerning one of the children. FINDING The 2002-2003 grand jury makes the following finding: F1: Most of the responses given by the Humboldt County Department of Health and Human Services and the Child Welfare Service to the many findings and recommendations cited Welfare and Institutions Code sections 827 and 10850 as reasons for being unable to respond. Others were responded to with favorable explanations or had already been implemented. No further improvements were anticipated on the basis of the responses provided. Report 01-06 ARCATA - EUREKA AIRPORT INTRODUCTION The Arcata-Eureka Airport was first developed by the federal government during World War II as a place to train pilots in bad weather flying. Sometime after the war, this airfield was turned over to Humboldt County for civilian purposes. Humboldt County has existing leases at the airport. The grand jury reviewed two tenant leases during a routine examination. THE 2000-2001 GRAND JURY RECOMMENDED THE FOLLOWING:
R2:
The County provide for regular examination of Security Servicing Corporation financial records BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESPONSE: Will not be implemented since existing lease is not based on income produced by the company and an audit of records therefore serves no purpose. FINDING The 2002-2003 grand jury makes the following finding: F2: No action is expected. THE 2000-2001 GRAND JURY RECOMMENDED THE FOLLOWING:
R3:
Personnel require extensive background checks on all new ISD staff INFORMATION SERVICES RESPONSE The recommendation will require further analysis. The procedures and costs of background checks must be determined with resource and budget issues identified. After appropriate analysis, the issue will be brought to the Board of Supervisors prior to December 31, 2001. FINDING The 2002-2003 grand jury makes the following finding: F1: All employees in ISD are finger printed and have background checks through the sheriff's department, which uses Live Scan. This is a state system that maintains criminal history records. Report 01-03 HUMBOLDT COUNTY SHERIFF'S FARM INTRODUCTION Members of the Humboldt County Grand Jury visited the Humboldt County Sheriff's Farm located next to the Rohnerville Airport in the Fortuna area. Members of the grand jury met with two officers from the Sheriff's department and were given a tour of the farm and its operations. There were Sheriff’s Work Alternative Program (SWAP) personnel performing work at the farm during the visit. THE HUMBOLDT COUNTY 2000-2001 GRAND JURY RECOMMENDED THE FOLLOWING:
R4:
The remaining underground fuel storage tanks installed by the federal government be removed. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESPONSE: Partially completed and the remainder is in process. Most of the underground tanks have been removed. The remaining tanks will be processed for removal through a contract with Winzler and Kelly. FINDING The 2002-2003 grand jury makes the following finding pertinent to R-4: F4: Two underground fuel tanks were removed this year (2002) at a cost of $25,000.00 per tank with the others to be removed at later dates. One other 50,000-gallon concrete fuel tank has been cleaned and will not be removed. THE 2000-2001 GRAND JURY RECOMMENDED THE FOLLOWING:
R5:
Upgrade the airport to include an air traffic control tower. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESPONSE Has been implemented. A mobile tower (temporary) has been secured and set up and is operational. Also funding for a permanent tower has been placed in the Federal budget by Representative Mike Thompson. FINDING The 2002-2003 grand jury makes the following finding pertinent to R-5: F5: The airport is still waiting for the permanent tower. Until then the airport will continue with the fully operational mobile tower. Report 01-08 HANDICAP PARKING ACCESSABILITY IN CITY OF EUREKA PUBLIC PARKING LOTS The 2002-2003 grand jury makes the following finding: F1: The 2001-2002 grand jury published a report on public parking in the city of Eureka which included findings and recommendation in regard to ADA compliance. Therefore the 2002-2003 grand jury did no follow-up on this report. Report 01-09 CARLOTTA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT INTRODUCTION The Humboldt County Grand Jury received two complaints about the Carlotta Community Service District. The Board of Supervisors on April 6, 1965, passed Resolution No. 2089; at that time, Carlotta Community Services District was formed pursuant to the provisions of Title 6 Division 2 of the California Government Code. Currently the Carlotta Community Services District Board consists of five members elected at large and a secretary: hereinafter known as the board. The Carlotta Volunteer Fire Protection Services was formed in the early 1950s. The Carlotta Volunteer Fire Department at this time has fifteen members: hereinafter known as the fire department. Lawsuits have been filed between the board and the volunteer fire department. PROCEDURE The grand jury interviewed members of the board and the fire department. In addition the grand jury inspected the two fire halls and equipment. NOTE: The response to this report was inadvertently left out of the 2000-2001 grand jury final report and responses. There was a note in that report indicating that, "No response from Carlotta Community Services District has been submitted through the County." The response was in fact submitted on August 31 2001 and was published in its entirety in the Final Report and Responses of the 2001-2002 grand jury. FINDING The 2002-2003 grand jury makes the following finding: F1: All recommendations made by the 2000-2001 grand jury have been implemented. Report 01-11 HUMBOLDT COUNTY GARBERVILLE VETERANS BUILDING INTRODUCTION The Humboldt County Grand Jury received a complaint from a member of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Garberville Post 6354 concerning the lease with the County of Humboldt for the Garberville veterans building. The last lease agreement between the county and the Veterans of Foreign Wars was signed in 1985 and expired in 1987. THE HUMBOLDT COUNTY 2000-2001 GRAND JURY RECOMMENDED THE FOLLOWING:
R6:
Replace toilets in the Hoopa Jail:
R7:
Replace the rear door at the Hoopa Substation:
R8:
Replace the fire door at the Hoopa Substation with one that meets state standards:
R9:
Modify the Hoopa Substation to comply with American Disability Act (ADA) standards: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATIONS R-3 - R-9:
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The City accepts lump sum payments from those collecting the UUT. There are no itemized statements of the amounts collected from each taxpayer and no audits are performed by the City to determine whether the utility companies are collecting taxes from all residents who owe them, collecting from those who do not owe them, or remitting the correct amounts
F2:
The complexities involved with fairly applying a UUT on cellular telephone and subscription TV services are numerous and seemingly unsolvable at this time.
F3:
Because there is no method to track the total amount of tax paid by any one taxpayer, some large utility users have been overcharged by paying in excess of the $1,000 annual cap.
F4:
A discrepancy exists between the refund procedure authorized in Ordinance #576 C.S. and the policy currently being followed by the City.
F5:
The City has funded a long-term base salary increase for police department personnel via a temporary tax.
F6:
Police personnel, and their political action committee, were encouraged to support Measure X for their own monetary self-interests.
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Recommendation pertinent to F1: The grand jury recommends that the City conduct periodic audits to provide an appropriate level of confidence to taxpayers and require each utility company to provide an itemization of monthly remittances to serve as an audit trail.
R2:
Recommendation pertinent to F2: The grand jury recommends that the City follow the correct legal procedures to eliminate the UUT on those telecommunications service providers until the complexities can be resolved.
R3:
Recommendation pertinent to F3: The grand jury recommends that the City prevent over- collection of the tax by establishing an effective monitoring procedure and by making periodic reminders to large utility users of the existence of the cap as well as detailed refund procedures.
R4:
Recommendation pertinent to F4: The grand jury recommends that the City either conform to Ordinance #576 C.S., which limits refunds of overpayments to three years, or follow the correct legal procedures to amend the ordinance to reflect the current practice of making refunds available as far back as 1994.
R5:
Recommendation pertinent to F5: The grand jury recommends that the City continue to research alternatives for long-term replacement of revenues generated by the UUT.
R6:
Recommendation pertinent to F6: The grand jury recommends that the City of Eureka refrain from promising future salary increases subject to voter's approval of a taxing measure. 10
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
Many small special districts have no written policy or operations procedures to guide board members and employees.
F2:
In spite of the progress made by the Auditor's Office, four small districts are still not current with audit requirements.
F3:
There is generally too little public interest in special district operations and too little attendance at public meetings for most constituents to be aware of important issues affecting them.
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Recommendation pertinent to F1: The grand jury recommends that the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors join the California Special Districts Association as an affiliate member and send informational letters to all special districts informing them that resource materials relating to district operations and the Brown Act are available at a discount.
R2:
Recommendation pertinent to F2: The grand jury recommends that the Humboldt County Auditor's Office send an informational letter to each district containing copies of the code relating to audit requirements as well as the fact that low-cost audits are now available through the Auditor's office.
R3:
Recommendation pertinent to F3: The grand jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors designate a ASpecial Districts Month@ to draw attention to the importance of citizen participation in their own special districts. RESPONSES: THE FOLLOWING RESPONSES TO REPORT 03-CD-02 ARE REQUIRED PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE 933 AND THE STANDARD FORMAT FOR RESPONSES. 1. The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors shall respond to R1and R3 2. The Humboldt County Auditor's Office shall respond to R2. 13
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
Without an integrated filing/computer database program in place, it is difficult for the county to maintain and monitor an on-going complaint reporting system.
F2:
Information obtained by the grand jury reports the existence of filing cabinet resources for use by the HRC located in the BOS staff room office. No such cabinets were found upon investigation. If such cabinets were to exist, they would not be accessible to members of the HRC because of their physical location in a restricted area.
F3:
The weekly meeting agenda of the BOS does not routinely include considerations of HRC related issues.
F4:
Vacancies on the HRC frequently remain open for extended periods of time.
F5:
The HRC predicts a constantly increasing complaint level in incidents of alleged discrimination, racial tension and situations that occur as a result of economic polarization within the county as well as a result of the conflicts associated with the timber industry. 14
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Recommendation pertinent to F1: The grand jury recommends the installation of a computer-based complaint reporting work station in the courthouse that allows access and report preparation by HRC commissioners.
R2:
Recommendation pertinent to F2: The grand jury recommends a centralized filing system resource be made available to members of the HRC in an area of the courthouse where access could be controlled.
R3:
Recommendation pertinent to F3: The grand jury recommends that the HRC monthly reports be integrated into the regular BOS agenda.
R4:
Recommendation pertinent to F4: The grand jury recommends the BOS fill vacancies on a timelier basis.
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F6:
The HRC reports a pervasive insensitivity to gays, lesbians and ethnic groups in city and county law enforcement agencies.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R5:
Recommendation pertinent to F5: The grand jury recommends the BOS foster the development of programs that work to mitigate tensions within the county.
R6:
Recommendation pertinent to F6: The grand jury recommends the HRC continuously monitor and review cultural diversity/sensitivity training programs for all city and county law enforcement personnel. RESPONSES: THE FOLLOWING RESPONSES TO REPORT 03-HS-01 ARE REQUIRED PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE 933 AND THE STANDARD FORMAT FOR RESPONSES. 1. The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors shall respond to R1 through R6. 2. Information Services shall respond to R1. 3. The General Services Administration Director shall respond to R2. GRAND JURY REPORT NO. 03-HS-02 CARE GIVERS & IN-HOME HEALTH CARE Health, Education & Social Services Committee INTRODUCTION: Because the Humboldt County Grand Jury received a complaint in the death of an invalid receiving in-home health care, it looked into the issue of the care of invalids and disabled people in the county and learned that care givers are not required to be registered and that no level of training is required. Those care givers who are hired under the auspices of In- Home Health Services (IHHS) are currently paid by the State of California which has enacted legislation to make Humboldt County the "employer of record.@ The state has no training requirements and no background investigation on in-home health care providers. They are hired by the individual needing care, paid by the state and now the county is mandated to be the employer of record. This raises concerns over liability and responsibility in the event of fraud, abuse, neglect or even wrongful death to either the client or the care giver. Confidentiality laws made to protect the privacy of individuals have been cited by county agencies and departments as reason to deny access to information by the grand jury. The grand jury is an investigative and entirely confidential (California Penal Code Sec. 924) "watchdog" Body charged by law (P.C. 914) to investigate or inquire into county matters of civil concern and to safeguard the public from malfeasance, nonfeasance and misfeasance by county departments and agencies. When this grand jury requested information from Adult Protective Services (APS) regarding that agencies' reasons for closing a case, it was refused the information based on Welfare & Institutions Code 10850. Thus, legislation enacted to protect the public’s right to privacy is used to thwart grand jury investigations. 15
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
Training for care givers and a registry of trained care givers exists in the area.
F2:
A small percentage of care givers are now hired from the registry.
F3:
This grand jury investigation was stymied by the way county departments and agencies used and interpreted confidentiality laws.
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Recommendation pertinent to F1: The grand jury recommends that the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors (BOS) continue to support care giver training and maintain a registry of care givers.
R2:
Recommendation pertinent to F2: The grand jury recommends that the BOS pursue publicizing the registry.
R3:
Recommendation pertinent to F3: The grand jury recommends the BOS encourage county departments and agencies to provide the jury with information to further its investigations, and that County Counsel reassess its interpretation of confidentiality laws as they pertain to grand jury investigations. RESPONSES: THE FOLLOWING RESPONSES TO REPORT 03-HS-02 ARE REQUIRED PURSUANT TO P.C. AND THE STANDARD FORMAT FOR RESPONSES. 1. The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors shall respond to R1, R2 and R3. 2. The Humboldt County Counsel shall respond to R3. GRAND JURY REPORT: NO: 03-JL-01 SHERIFF'S BOATS Jail Committee INTRODUCTION: Members of the Humboldt County Grand Jury visited the Humboldt County Sheriff's boats located at the Woodley Island Marina and the impound lot near Redwood Acres in east Eureka. Members of the grand jury met two deputies from the Sheriff's Department and were given a tour of the 44 foot boat docked at the marina. The deputies are responsible for the maintenance of the boat as well as the Safety Program. The boat docked at the marina is a 1972, 44 foot, United States Coast Guard (USCG) rescue boat acquired from the USCG in Tillamook, Oregon. The USCG gave this boat to the Sheriff's Department along with $30,000 worth of spare parts. The boat has retained the same systems it had when received. Two Global Positioning Systems and dual controls, one outside and one inside the cabin have been added. It has two diesel engines with 200 horsepower each. There is space at the aft of the boat where prisoners could be 16
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
Most of the calls they receive are to tow boats into the harbor for which there is no charge.
F2:
__ The six smaller boats are mostly used for rescue in the rivers and lakes in the county. It takes several hours to transport a boat from the Eureka impound lot to the Hoopa area for rescue operations.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Recommendation pertinent to F1: The grand jury recommends that the Sheriff's Department consider charging a fee for towing.
R2:
Recommendation pertinent to F2: The grand jury recommends the Sheriff's Department consider stationing a boat at the Hoopa substation for search and rescue use.. RESPONSES: THE FOLLOWING RESPONSES TO REPORT 03-JL-01 ARE REQUIRED PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE 933 AND THE STANDARD FORMAT FOR RESPONSES. 1. The Humboldt County Sheriff's Department shall respond to R1, and R2. GRAND JURY REPORT NO: 03-JL-02 FORTUNA CITY JAIL Jail Committee INTRODUCTION: Members of the Humboldt County Grand Jury visited the Fortuna Police Department. They have two holding cells with toilets and washbasins, no bedding The cells are monitored with cameras and audio devices. The cells are very clean. Most of the booking is done at the Humboldt County Correctional Facility (County Jail). Prisoners booked at the Fortuna Police Department for being drunk in public are usually held no more than four hours and released. The Fortuna Police Department has 16 Officers and seven correctional officers.
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
An arrestee, who had been involved in a domestic fight, was booked into County Jail and subsequently died. The Arcata Police Department officer who had been informed that the arrestee had been kicked in the head did not include that information in the Humboldt County Correctional Facility Booking Report. According to the coroner's report, the arrestee died due to being Astruck in the head.
F2:
The Arcata Police Department shall respond to R1. GRAND JURY REPORT 03-JL-04 SHERIFF’S AGRICULTURAL FARM Jail Committee INTRODUCTION: Members of the Humboldt County Grand Jury inspected the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Agricultural Farm (Farm) located next to the Rohnerville Airport in the Fortuna area. Members of the grand jury met with two deputies from the Sheriff’s Department and were given a tour of the Farm along with an explanation of its operation. The Sheriff’s Work Alternative Program (SWAP) inmates maintain the Farm. The SWAP inmates are required to work a minimum of one day a week which permits them to maintain regular outside employment. Each SWAP inmate is charged $60 for administration cost to enter the program plus $18 per day for each day worked. The fees pay for the cost of the program and their worker’s compensation insurance, and the balance is deposited into the county General Fund. A day is deducted from their jail sentence for each day worked at the Farm. The vegetables grown (lettuce, squash, beans, Swiss chard and garlic) are used at the Humboldt County Correctional Facility (County Jail) and Juvenile Hall with the excess given to a mission. There are no public sales of vegetables. The Farm can use the County Jail budget to purchase the vegetable seeds. The Farm raises pigs and cattle for meat which is used at the County Jail. The Farm sells some pigs to the public and the funds received are deposited into the county’s General Fund. This is the first year the Farm has raised cattle and eight calves were purchased at auction for a total of $1,000. In 2002, 83 pigs and 2,000 pounds of produce went to the County Jail for inmate consumption. The pigs are fed a variety of surplus food from various sources. The pig pens are washed out every day, and straw is used for bedding. There was no odor, but flies were a problem. The tractor at the Farm was obtained through a government surplus program at no cost to the county. It has a flail mower and a box blade, but does not have a bucket. The Sheriff’s deputies stated that a bucket would be very helpful with moving bales of straw and to carry materials around the Farm. The grand jury was informed that the Farm is totally self-supporting. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS F1: The tractor at the Farm has no bucket. R1. Recommendation pertinent to F1: The grand jury recommends that the Sheriff’s Department obtain a bucket for the Farm tractor. RESPONSE: THE FOLLOWING RESPONSE TO REPORT 03-JL-04 IS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE 933 AND THE STANDARD FORMAT FOR RESPONSES.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Recommendation pertinent to F1: The grand jury recommends that the Arcata Police Department establish a policy requiring a report to the County Jail if the arrestee has been in an accident or fight even if there are no visible injuries or complaints of injury by the arrestee. RESPONSES: THE FOLLOWING RESPONSES TO REPORT 03-JL-03 ARE REQUIRED PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE 933 AND THE STANDARD FORMAT FOR RESPONSES. 1. The Arcata City Council shall respond to R1. 2. The Arcata Police Department shall respond to R1. GRAND JURY REPORT 03-JL-04 SHERIFF’S AGRICULTURAL FARM Jail Committee INTRODUCTION: Members of the Humboldt County Grand Jury inspected the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Agricultural Farm (Farm) located next to the Rohnerville Airport in the Fortuna area. Members of the grand jury met with two deputies from the Sheriff’s Department and were given a tour of the Farm along with an explanation of its operation. The Sheriff’s Work Alternative Program (SWAP) inmates maintain the Farm. The SWAP inmates are required to work a minimum of one day a week which permits them to maintain regular outside employment. Each SWAP inmate is charged $60 for administration cost to enter the program plus $18 per day for each day worked. The fees pay for the cost of the program and their worker’s compensation insurance, and the balance is deposited into the county General Fund. A day is deducted from their jail sentence for each day worked at the Farm. The vegetables grown (lettuce, squash, beans, Swiss chard and garlic) are used at the Humboldt County Correctional Facility (County Jail) and Juvenile Hall with the excess given to a mission. There are no public sales of vegetables. The Farm can use the County Jail budget to purchase the vegetable seeds. The Farm raises pigs and cattle for meat which is used at the County Jail. The Farm sells some pigs to the public and the funds received are deposited into the county’s General Fund. This is the first year the Farm has raised cattle and eight calves were purchased at auction for a total of $1,000. In 2002, 83 pigs and 2,000 pounds of produce went to the County Jail for inmate consumption. The pigs are fed a variety of surplus food from various sources. The pig pens are washed out every day, and straw is used for bedding. There was no odor, but flies were a problem. The tractor at the Farm was obtained through a government surplus program at no cost to the county. It has a flail mower and a box blade, but does not have a bucket. The Sheriff’s deputies stated that a bucket would be very helpful with moving bales of straw and to carry materials around the Farm. The grand jury was informed that the Farm is totally self-supporting.
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
The security screens bolted over the outside of the office windows pose a threat in the event of a fire, and there is the possibility of being trapped with no egress from the office.
F2:
There is no set schedule when the maintenance workers from Eureka will arrive at the facility to perform any needed work.
F3:
The Sheriff's deputies have been involved in river search and rescue operations and have to depend on a boat being transported from Eureka.
F4:
The two concrete toilets cannot be properly cleaned as they are 46 years old and have deteriorated. On a second inspection in April, 2003, the toilets had not been replaced as stated in the Sheriffs' response to the 2001-2002 grand jury report.
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Recommendations pertinent to F1: The grand jury recommends that the steel security screens be retrofitted so they can be opened from inside the office as a means of escape in the event of an emergency.
R2:
Recommendation pertinent to F2: The grand jury recommends that the Substation be on a fixed maintenance schedule.
R3:
Recommendation pertinent to F3: The grand jury recommends that a boat be stationed at the Substation to facilitate search and rescue operations.
R4:
Recommendation pertinent to F4: The grand jury recommends that the two concrete toilets be replaced with stainless steel combination sink and toilet units. 20
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F1:
The Substation needs a larger facility.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Recommendation pertinent to F1: The grand jury recommends that the Substation be enlarged. 21
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F2:
The Substation could use another vehicle.
F3:
The Substation is not ADA compliant.
F4:
Weeds on the outside of building are a fire danger when dry.
F5:
The current janitorial schedule is insufficient.
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R2:
Recommendation pertinent to F2: The grand jury recommends that the Sheriff's Department consider another vehicle be supplied for prisoner transport.
R3:
Recommendation pertinent to F3: The grand jury recommends structural modification to the door threshold for wheelchair accessibility.
R4:
Recommendation pertinent to F4: The grand jury recommends weed removal and maintenance.
R5:
Recommendation pertinent to F5: The grand jury recommends the janitorial schedule be increased. RESPONSES: THE FOLLOWING RESPONSES TO REPORT 03-JL-06 ARE REQUIRED PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE 933 AND THE STANDARD FORMAT FOR RESPONSES. 1. The Humboldt County Sheriff's Department shall respond to R1, R2, R3, R4 and R5. GRAND JURY REPORT NO: 03-JL-07 EUREKA CITY JAIL Jail Committee INTRODUCTION: The Humboldt County Grand Jury inspected the Eureka Police Department's (EPD) jail on November 18, 2002. The entire facility was clean and in good repair. There are three holding cells. One is currently being used as evidence storage. The other two are monitored by audio only. Cell checks are done every 30 minutes. There are no meals served to detainees. There are no cells adequate for disabled persons. Jewelry and belts are removed but the detainees may retain their shoes with shoe laces unless they seem suicidal. Each cell can hold up to four detainees. There is no visitation. Detainees are held no longer than six hours in the holding cells. There are no detox or safety cells. No medical services are provided at EPD. If treatment is 22
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
The doors of the unvented closet that houses the freezers must be kept open due to overheating. Excessive noise levels are present in the Lab.
F2:
Showers were in need of cleaning when they were inspected.
F3:
The clothes washer and dryer get very heavy use.
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Recommendation pertinent to F1: The grand jury recommends the Lab freezers be relocated to a vented area. RESPONSES: THE FOLLOWING RESPONSE TO REPORT 03-JL-07 IS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE 933 AND THE STANDARD FORMAT FOR RESPONSES. 1. The Eureka City Council shall respond to R1. 2. The Eureka Police Department shall respond to R1. GRAND JURY REPORT NO: 03-JL-08 JUVENILE HALL Jail Committee INTRODUCTION: Members of the Humboldt County Grand Jury inspected the Juvenile Hall (the Hall).The Hall houses male and female inmates (Detainees) from eight years of age to 19. This facility is managed by the Humboldt County Probation Department. The Humboldt County Office of Education operates the school (Von Humboldt) on the premises. The Hall's bed capacity is 26 but they have had as many as 40 Detainees in lock-up. During the time of the inspection on December 22, 2002_ there were 33 Detainees locked up. The additional Detainees are doubled up two to a cell or they can use the day room, the holding area, or any other secure areas for sleeping. Detainees can be sent to sleep at the Regional Facility next door. Detainees entering the Hall come in through a Sally port and then into the intake room in which there are cameras providing both video and audio monitoring. There are four separate areas for medical exams. There is a holding area with a toilet and separate shower. There is a large shower area in the male wing and one in the female wing for the Detainees. The school in the Hall is set up for 26 Students and one teacher. In the school the Detainees are called Students. When they have more than 26 Students a second teacher is brought in. The Student records are kept even when the Students are released so they can continue their studies if they return. Some Students have poor reading skills, reading at the first or second grade levels. The school has books printed for those Students who read at first or second grade level. We were informed that Students are strictly disciplined in the classroom and are not a problem in the classroom area. There is a Registered Nurse (RN) on duty 40 hours a week, sharing the time with the Regional Facility next door. The RN usually spends 35 hours in Juvenile Hall and five hours at the Regional Facility. Access to a medical doctor is arranged through the Humboldt County Correctional Facility. The Detainees' clothes are all washed on-site with a regular extra capacity washer and normal size dryer. Sheets and towels are sent out to be washed and blankets are sent out once each quarter to be cleaned by Mission Linen. The Hall has a fairly new commercial kitchen, with a walk-in refrigerator and a large walk-in freezer. We inspected commercial appliances such as the dishwasher, slicers, mixers and juicers. The Hall's computer system is connected to juvenile records and they have their own server, which is backed up every night. The computers are maintained by Information Services.
R2:
Recommendation pertinent to F2: The grand jury recommends that a regular cleaning schedule for the showers be maintained.
R3:
Recommendation pertinent to F3:_ The grand jury recommends that when the washer and dryer need to be replaced, that they be replaced with a commercial grade washer and dryer. RESPONSES: THE FOLLOWING RESPONSES TO REPORT 03-JL-08 ARE REQUIRED PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE 933 AND THE STANDARD FORMAT FOR RESPONSES. 1. The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors shall respond to R1 and R3. 24
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
A risk of injury existed to workers in the kitchen who could slip on water from the walk-in coolers that leak onto the kitchen floor.
F2:
Prisoners waiting processing are sometimes forced to spend time in the HCCF barefooted. This subjects them, unnecessarily, to uncomfortable, unsanitary and possibly hazardous conditions.
F3:
Prisoners are given plastic bags from the commissary and use small plastic trash bags in their cell for garbage.
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Recommendation pertinent to F1: The grand jury recommends that corrective action be taken to eliminate the risk of injury to workers.
R2:
Recommendation pertinent to F2: The grand jury recommends that all prisoners who are relieved of their shoes and are barefooted be issued either socks or slippers which are readily available from the HCCF inventories.
R3:
Recommendation pertinent to F3: The grand jury recommends that in order to reduce suicide attempts paper bags be used for commissary goods delivery and trash containers in cells. RESPONSES: THE FOLLOWING RESPONSES TO REPORT 03-JL-09 ARE REQUIRED PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE 933 AND THE STANDARD FORMAT FOR RESPONSES. 1. The Humboldt County Sheriff's Department shall respond to R1, R2 and R3. 2. The General Services Administration Director, Risk Manager shall respond to R1, R2 and R3. 27
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
A possible design flaw in the dryer vent system may have caused the accumulation of lint and a fire.
F2:
Due to the number of loads of laundry done daily, it is less efficient and economical for the Facility to utilize the non-commercial washer and dryer.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Recommendation pertinent to F1: The grand jury recommends that the dryer vent system be inspected by an expert to determine if a fire hazard exists and that corrective action be taken if recommended.
R2:
Recommendation pertinent to F2: The grand jury recommends that when the washer and dryer require replacement, they are replaced with commercial appliances. 28
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
Written procedures for handling citizen complaints are in place at all eight city and county law enforcement agencies.
F2:
The grand jury experienced that some officers of the Eureka Police Department would not voluntarily appear before the grand jury, when requested to do so by the grand jury.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Recommendation pertinent to F1: None
R2:
Recommendation pertinent to F2: The grand jury recommends that the Eureka City Manager inform the Eureka Police Department of the authority grand juries have in conducting investigations into citizen complaints and encourage public officials to voluntarily cooperate with those investigations, without having the need of the grand jury issuing subpoenas. RESPONSES: THE FOLLOWING RESPONSES TO REPORT 03-LJ-01 ARE REQUIRED PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE 933 AND THE STANDARD FORMAT FOR RESPONSES. 1. The Eureka City Manager shall respond to R2. 2. The Eureka C ity Council shall respond to R2. GRAND JURY REPORT NO: 03-PW-01 AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT Public Works Committee INTRODUCTION: In response to a complaint from a concerned citizen the grand jury investigated the restroom facilities of the Humboldt County Parks for compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). In 2001, the Board of Supervisors (BOS) hired a consultant to do a study that outlined ADA deficiencies and estimated costs to bring each of these locations into compliance. Technically, none of the parks meet the specific requirements of the ADA. The parks were grouped into three categories and recommendations were made where applicable. The three categories are: (1) no restrooms (No recommendations are made for these parks which are Crab Park, Hammond Trail, M. Lockwood and Pedrazzini Boat Ramp.) (2) not accessible to the disabled and (3) accessible but not ADA compliant. 30
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
The restrooms at the following parks were not accessible to the disabled. They are Freshwater, Centerville Beach, Moonstone Beach, Tooby Memorial, Luffenholtz Beach and Mad River Boat Ramp.
F2:
The restrooms at the following parks are accessible and friendly to persons with disabilities but do not strictly meet the requirements of the ADA. They are A. W. Way, Big Lagoon, Clam Beach, Samoa Boat Ramp, Swimmers Delight, Pamplin Grove and Fields Landing Boat Ramp.
F3:
The grand jury finds that park restroom facilities are not readily identified with signs as to location and ADA accessibility.
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Recommendation pertinent to F1: The grand jury recommends the County make these restroom facilities ADA compliant. However, due to the major remodeling costs involved in most of these locations, the County should provide ADA approved portable toilets in the interim.
R2:
Recommendation pertinent to F2: It is recommended that the County should immediately begin to bring these park restrooms into compliance with the ADA.
R3:
Recommendation pertinent to F3: a. The grand jury recommends signs be placed along park walkways and entrances directing visitors to the location of restroom facilities and indicating their ADA status. b. The grand jury further recommends that all park literature indicate the ADA status of each Park restroom. RESPONSES: THE FOLLOWING RESPONSES TO REPORT 03-PW-01 ARE REQUIRED PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE 933 AND THE STANDARD FORMAT FOR RESPONSES. 1. The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors shall respond to R1 and R2. 2. The Director of the County Public Works Department shall respond to R1 and R3. GRAND JURY REPORT NO. 03-PW-02 ANIMAL CONTROL Public Works Committee INTRODUCTION: Due to intense local concern over reports of animal neglect and abuse at the Band of Mercy animal refuge, the Humboldt County Grand Jury looked at the case record which reveals public nuisance complaints beginning in1994 and ending eight years later. In 2002, the County condemned the residence and two people were arrested for animal abuse. Previously, in 1997, the Environmental Health and the Planning Departments sent violation letters which were 31 subsequently dead-filed two years later even though the presence of rats and the offensive odors clearly evidenced a significant problem. However, due to the absence of governmental oversight, no County agency regulates non-profit animal rescue facilities. A lack of follow-up by government agencies as well as their failure to ask to enter the premises (due to some confusion over the authority to enter private property) exacerbated the problem. This public nuisance problem was allowed to continue until 2002 when Miranda's Animal Rescue and the Sheriff's department finally removed 34 cats and 19 dogs, most of whom needed to be euthanized due to gross neglect. The grand jury interviewed employees and/or reviewed files from the Departments of Agriculture, Environmental Health, Planning, and Sheriff's Departments and the Code Enforcement Unit of the County Counsel's office. Neither Planning nor Environmental Health availed themselves of a Code Enforcement Unit referral which might have resulted in appropriate enforcement of Penal Code 370 (PC 370), to correct a public nuisance defined as A. . . injurious to health or indecent or offensive to the senses . . .@. It appears that government did not function properly in this instance with a lack of communication between the various agencies on these public nuisance complaints. As a consequence, a public health danger was allowed to continue for an entirely unacceptable period of time.
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The Planning Division determined this project to be a Aministerial@ project rather than a Adiscretionary project. Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines section 15369, ministerial Adescribes a governmental decision involving little or no personal judgment by the public official as to wisdom or manner of carrying out the project. The public official merely applies the law to the facts as presented but uses no special discretion or judgment in reaching a decision. A ministerial decision involves only the use of fixed standards or objective measurements, and the public official cannot use personal, subjective judgment in deciding whether or how the project should be carried out.@ This regulation is pointed out in the annotated discussion in Friends of Westwood, Inc. V. Los Angeles (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 259. In CEQA guidelines section 15357 Adiscretionary projects means a project which requires the exercise of judgment or deliberation when the public Agency decides to approve or disapprove a particular activity, as distinguished from situations where the public agency merely has to determine whether there has been conformity with applicable statutes, ordinances, or regulations.@ That this project should have been categorized as a discretionary project is evident from the changes which were allowed without ODCC or other agency review. These changes included, but were not limited to the exterior finish, the fencing materials, the height of the building and the definition of the zoning to which CEQA was applicable, but not applied by the Planning Division. Further, under CEQA guidelines section 15268 (d) ...@where a project involves an approval that contains elements of both a ministerial and a discretionary action, the 34 project will be deemed to be discretionary and will be subject to the requirements of CEQA.@ When planning made the discretionary decision on this proposed Aoffice building@ that the building would meet the current zoning of Acommercial recreation,@ (Humboldt County General Plan, Volume II, Orick Community Plan, May 7, 1985, Section 2342: ‘campgrounds, RV Park, motel . . . and other visitor-serving uses such as gift shops, restaurants, bait shop,’ etc.) it automatically triggered the need to follow CEQA and the need to consider the potential impact on the environment. Numerous impacts have been identified as involving discretionary actions by the Planning Division while failing to comply with CEQA rules.
F2:
In its stipulations to the Planning Division the ODCC specifically noted the exterior of the project was to be redwood or some color replicating redwood. However, when the project was nearing completion a non-redwood like paint finish was applied to the exterior surface. When questioned during the grand jury investigation, the Planning Division personnel acknowledged the ODCC's stipulation, but admitted to their failure to communicate accordingly with the ODCC as required and stated they were, in fact, unaware of the changes made by the developer in the selection of an exterior finish. The barbed wire topped chain link fencing around the perimeter is clearly contrary to the original specifications approved by the ODCC in their meeting on November 3, 2000. No such fencing appears in the originally submitted renderings by the architect/developer or presented for approval to the ODCC in their meeting on November 3, 2000. The wording of the ODCC fencing stipulation was quite different...@six feet or under cyclone/wood slatted fence for vehicular enclosure and wrought iron fencing for perimeter@.
F3:
In the Planning Division’s records of the project specifications, the height of the building was shown as 40 feet. However, the actual height of the building approximates 52 feet. This difference exceeds the Humboldt County rule of allowing discretionary changes of 10% in specifications (Humboldt County Code Section 312-11.1.1.3). The Planning Division explanation for the difference is the addition of a raised facade above the first floor. In fact, where does the actual height of a building end; at its very top or somewhere between top and ground level?
F4:
Inadequate training and staffing hindered Environmental Health's ability to respond in a timely or appropriate fashion to these nuisance complaints.
F5:
There is no clear line of responsibility as to which County department has the authority to enforce animal abuse complaints.
F6:
Many of the deviations from the stipulations of the ODCC were brought to the attention of the Planning Division as early as 2002 either by the ODCC directly in their communications with the Planning Division or by concerned citizens residing in Orick. In each instance the Planning Division was aware of these concerns and nevertheless moved ahead with changes. The Environmental Health Division of the Humboldt County Department of Health and Human Services allowed the developer to install a low pressure sewage disposal system at a time when the county was recording the highest April rainfall in its history in spite of the fact that the 36 general specifications for installing this system carries a prohibitive warning...@this system may not be installed during wet weather.@
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Recommendation pertaining to F1: The grand jury recommends that the Planning Division of the Humboldt County Community Development Services distinguish between projects that are ministerial or discretionary so as to avoid the misapplication of CEQA or other zoning regulations that may affect the project.
R2:
Recommendations pertaining to F2: The grand jury recommends that the Planning Division follow the ODCC's original stipulations as to exterior appearances by requiring the developer to change the exterior color appearances to meet the design committee's original stipulations and to install the fencing materials stipulated by the ODCC.
R3:
Recommendations pertaining toF3: The grand jury recommends that the Planning Division incorporate in its policies relating to the physical specifications, that the height of a 35 building is the distance measured from the ground to the very highest extremity of the building.
R4:
Recommendation pertinent to F4: The grand jury recommends that the Director of Health and Human Services: (a) Implement new training standards which include the level of authority Environmental Health staff holds in a public nuisance situation. (b) Review the Environmental Health staffing levels and make an appropriate recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.
R5:
Recommendation pertinent to F5: The grand jury recommends that a clear line of responsibility to monitor and control animal abuse situations be established. RESPONSES: THE FOLLOWING RESPONSES TO REPORT 03-PW-02 ARE REQUIRED PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE 933 AND THE STANDARD FORMAT FOR RESPONSES. 1. The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors shall respond to R1, R2, R3, R4 and
R6:
Recommendation pertaining to F6: The grand jury recommends that waivers and changes offered to meet arbitrary deadlines or special requests by the developer should be prohibited by the Planning Division when said changes and requests are in conflict with regulations.