Lake County Grand Jury
2015-2016
Findings & Recommendations
17 findings
F1:
Instability in the OES is evident in the turnover in management and rotation between departments since 1995.
F2:
Confusion existed about the identity, staffing and operations of an EOC.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Define and promote the nature and works of the OES, the Disaster Council and the OAW to effected agencies and the public. (F2, F4, F5, F7, F11)
F3:
Confusion existed about the use of the EOP.
Related Recommendations (5)
R1:
Create an up-to-date County EOP and post it on the County information website and the Sheriff’s Department website. (F3, F8)
R2:
Conduct an orientation to the updated EOP for the community disaster support and preparedness agencies. (F3, F4, F5, F11)
R3:
Reinstate and populate the OES webpages with all relevant information. (F3, F7)
R5:
Include representatives from all County agencies involved in providing emergency services and post disaster services, in updating the EOP. (F3, F4, F7, F8)
R10:
Develop outreach literature and associated training for community groups eligible to participate in emergency preparedness. (F3, F4, F5, F7)
F4:
Confusion existed among responders about the role of the OES.
Related Recommendations (4)
R2:
Conduct an orientation to the updated EOP for the community disaster support and preparedness agencies. (F3, F4, F5, F11)
R4:
Define and promote the nature and works of the OES, the Disaster Council and the OAW to effected agencies and the public. (F2, F4, F5, F7, F11)
R5:
Include representatives from all County agencies involved in providing emergency services and post disaster services, in updating the EOP. (F3, F4, F7, F8)
R10:
Develop outreach literature and associated training for community groups eligible to participate in emergency preparedness. (F3, F4, F5, F7)
F5:
The local community and County employees had not received adequate training in how to proceed in an emergency.
Related Recommendations (5)
R2:
Conduct an orientation to the updated EOP for the community disaster support and preparedness agencies. (F3, F4, F5, F11)
R4:
Define and promote the nature and works of the OES, the Disaster Council and the OAW to effected agencies and the public. (F2, F4, F5, F7, F11)
R8:
Establish a dedicated EOC with all necessary equipment on hand and with a clear set of instructions, contact numbers, expected duties and responsibilities for the responders. (F5, F7)
R9:
Produce a procedural manual and conduct periodic trainings about activation processes and staffing of the EOC. (F5, F7)
R10:
Develop outreach literature and associated training for community groups eligible to participate in emergency preparedness. (F3, F4, F5, F7)
F6:
A Strategic Plan for the OES was submitted in 2014 but not fully implemented.
Related Recommendations (1)
R12:
Update and maintain the 2014 OES Strategic Plan (F6)
F7:
Disaster workers who reported to the EOC at the time of the Valley Fire were uncertain of their responsibilities.
Related Recommendations (6)
R3:
Reinstate and populate the OES webpages with all relevant information. (F3, F7)
R4:
Define and promote the nature and works of the OES, the Disaster Council and the OAW to effected agencies and the public. (F2, F4, F5, F7, F11)
R5:
Include representatives from all County agencies involved in providing emergency services and post disaster services, in updating the EOP. (F3, F4, F7, F8)
R8:
Establish a dedicated EOC with all necessary equipment on hand and with a clear set of instructions, contact numbers, expected duties and responsibilities for the responders. (F5, F7)
R9:
Produce a procedural manual and conduct periodic trainings about activation processes and staffing of the EOC. (F5, F7)
R10:
Develop outreach literature and associated training for community groups eligible to participate in emergency preparedness. (F3, F4, F5, F7)
F8:
The County EOP contained outdated information and was removed from the County’s OES webpage during a critical emergency.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
Create an up-to-date County EOP and post it on the County information website and the Sheriff’s Department website. (F3, F8)
R5:
Include representatives from all County agencies involved in providing emergency services and post disaster services, in updating the EOP. (F3, F4, F7, F8)
F9:
The OES manager position appeared to be formerly underpaid as evidenced by a 20% salary increase with no additional duties or responsibilities for the next OES Manager.
F10:
Supervision of the OES manager was inconsistent.
F11:
Duties and responsibilities of the OES, the OAW, the Disaster Council and the Sheriff’s Department were unclear in terms of the separation of their roles before and during emergencies.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
Conduct an orientation to the updated EOP for the community disaster support and preparedness agencies. (F3, F4, F5, F11)
R4:
Define and promote the nature and works of the OES, the Disaster Council and the OAW to effected agencies and the public. (F2, F4, F5, F7, F11)
F12:
The Disaster Council was in violation of its bylaws by not holding quarterly meetings announced to the public, or submitting an annual report and strategic plan to the BOS.
Related Recommendations (2)
R6:
Submit Disaster Council annual reports and a Strategic Plan to the BOS as per their bylaws. (F12)
R7:
Convene quarterly meetings of The Disaster Council and announce them to the public. (F12)
F13:
A full-time manager of the OES with adequate support staff was needed to handle the responsibilities of that office.
F14:
One of the job duties of an OES Manager is to obtain grant monies for disaster preparedness and as such has a legitimate need to have a voice in deciding how those monies are spent.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
Include the OES Manager as a primary decision maker in the allocation of grant monies. (F14)
F15:
Advantages of having the OES under the Sheriff’s office are that the Sheriff’s Department is routinely involved in emergencies. In addition, several of the employees of the office have completed certification in disaster preparedness. A potential disadvantage is that the Sheriff’s Office has a great number of responsibilities of its own. Additionally, as an elected official, the position of Sheriff is subject to change every four years.
F16:
An advantage of having the OES report to the County Administrative Officer (CAO) is that this office is policy-driven versus operations-driven, thus facilitating the coordination functions that the office must perform. A potential disadvantage is that the job description of the CAO does not currently require the incumbent to have any expertise in OES functions. Additionally, as an at-will hire, the CAO can be terminated or leave that position at any time without notice.
F17:
Advantages of having the OES exist as an independent agency with adequate support staff, are that federal preparedness grants exist to support such an agency; County coordination of disaster response duties represents a full-time activity; and an independent agency would allow full-time focus on those critical activities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R13:
Establish the Lake County OES as an independent agency that works closely with the Disaster Council and the Operations Area Workgroup. (F17) Request for Responses • Lake County Sheriff’s Office (60 days) • Board of Supervisors (90 days) • County Administrative Officer (courtesy request) Bibliography 1. www.co.lake.ca.us/Government/Directory/Administration OES; Feb 2016 2. Bylaws of the County of Lake Disaster Council, June 25, 2014 3. Strategic Plan, County of Lake, Emergency Services, June 25, 2014 4. www.fema.gov/fiscal-year-2015-homeland-security-grant program. 5. www.fema.gov/media-library-data-/assets/documents/105618; Emergency Management Performance Grant Funding Guidelines. 6. Final Recommended Budget for BU 2704 Fiscal Year 2015/16 Budget and Finance I made this flower to represent our family. The big flower is my Mom and the little flower is me, the bud is my sister and the stem and the leaves is my Dad Grand Jury Art Contest Winner Wyatt Chadwell, Age 9 PENSION PLAN REVIEWS
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
17 findings
F1:
Instability in the OES is evident in the turnover in management and rotation between departments since 1995.
F2:
Confusion existed about the identity, staffing and operations of an EOC.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Define and promote the nature and works of the OES, the Disaster Council and the OAW to effected agencies and the public. (F2, F4, F5, F7, F11)
F3:
Confusion existed about the use of the EOP.
Related Recommendations (5)
R1:
Create an up-to-date County EOP and post it on the County information website and the Sheriff’s Department website. (F3, F8)
R2:
Conduct an orientation to the updated EOP for the community disaster support and preparedness agencies. (F3, F4, F5, F11)
R3:
Reinstate and populate the OES webpages with all relevant information. (F3, F7)
R5:
Include representatives from all County agencies involved in providing emergency services and post disaster services, in updating the EOP. (F3, F4, F7, F8)
R10:
Develop outreach literature and associated training for community groups eligible to participate in emergency preparedness. (F3, F4, F5, F7)
F4:
Confusion existed among responders about the role of the OES.
Related Recommendations (4)
R2:
Conduct an orientation to the updated EOP for the community disaster support and preparedness agencies. (F3, F4, F5, F11)
R4:
Define and promote the nature and works of the OES, the Disaster Council and the OAW to effected agencies and the public. (F2, F4, F5, F7, F11)
R5:
Include representatives from all County agencies involved in providing emergency services and post disaster services, in updating the EOP. (F3, F4, F7, F8)
R10:
Develop outreach literature and associated training for community groups eligible to participate in emergency preparedness. (F3, F4, F5, F7)
F5:
The local community and County employees had not received adequate training in how to proceed in an emergency.
Related Recommendations (5)
R2:
Conduct an orientation to the updated EOP for the community disaster support and preparedness agencies. (F3, F4, F5, F11)
R4:
Define and promote the nature and works of the OES, the Disaster Council and the OAW to effected agencies and the public. (F2, F4, F5, F7, F11)
R8:
Establish a dedicated EOC with all necessary equipment on hand and with a clear set of instructions, contact numbers, expected duties and responsibilities for the responders. (F5, F7)
R9:
Produce a procedural manual and conduct periodic trainings about activation processes and staffing of the EOC. (F5, F7)
R10:
Develop outreach literature and associated training for community groups eligible to participate in emergency preparedness. (F3, F4, F5, F7)
F6:
A Strategic Plan for the OES was submitted in 2014 but not fully implemented.
Related Recommendations (1)
R12:
Update and maintain the 2014 OES Strategic Plan (F6)
F7:
Disaster workers who reported to the EOC at the time of the Valley Fire were uncertain of their responsibilities.
Related Recommendations (6)
R3:
Reinstate and populate the OES webpages with all relevant information. (F3, F7)
R4:
Define and promote the nature and works of the OES, the Disaster Council and the OAW to effected agencies and the public. (F2, F4, F5, F7, F11)
R5:
Include representatives from all County agencies involved in providing emergency services and post disaster services, in updating the EOP. (F3, F4, F7, F8)
R8:
Establish a dedicated EOC with all necessary equipment on hand and with a clear set of instructions, contact numbers, expected duties and responsibilities for the responders. (F5, F7)
R9:
Produce a procedural manual and conduct periodic trainings about activation processes and staffing of the EOC. (F5, F7)
R10:
Develop outreach literature and associated training for community groups eligible to participate in emergency preparedness. (F3, F4, F5, F7)
F8:
The County EOP contained outdated information and was removed from the County’s OES webpage during a critical emergency.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
Create an up-to-date County EOP and post it on the County information website and the Sheriff’s Department website. (F3, F8)
R5:
Include representatives from all County agencies involved in providing emergency services and post disaster services, in updating the EOP. (F3, F4, F7, F8)
F9:
The OES manager position appeared to be formerly underpaid as evidenced by a 20% salary increase with no additional duties or responsibilities for the next OES Manager.
F10:
Supervision of the OES manager was inconsistent.
F11:
Duties and responsibilities of the OES, the OAW, the Disaster Council and the Sheriff’s Department were unclear in terms of the separation of their roles before and during emergencies.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
Conduct an orientation to the updated EOP for the community disaster support and preparedness agencies. (F3, F4, F5, F11)
R4:
Define and promote the nature and works of the OES, the Disaster Council and the OAW to effected agencies and the public. (F2, F4, F5, F7, F11)
F12:
The Disaster Council was in violation of its bylaws by not holding quarterly meetings announced to the public, or submitting an annual report and strategic plan to the BOS.
Related Recommendations (2)
R6:
Submit Disaster Council annual reports and a Strategic Plan to the BOS as per their bylaws. (F12)
R7:
Convene quarterly meetings of The Disaster Council and announce them to the public. (F12)
F13:
A full-time manager of the OES with adequate support staff was needed to handle the responsibilities of that office.
F14:
One of the job duties of an OES Manager is to obtain grant monies for disaster preparedness and as such has a legitimate need to have a voice in deciding how those monies are spent.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
Include the OES Manager as a primary decision maker in the allocation of grant monies. (F14)
F15:
Advantages of having the OES under the Sheriff’s office are that the Sheriff’s Department is routinely involved in emergencies. In addition, several of the employees of the office have completed certification in disaster preparedness. A potential disadvantage is that the Sheriff’s Office has a great number of responsibilities of its own. Additionally, as an elected official, the position of Sheriff is subject to change every four years.
F16:
An advantage of having the OES report to the County Administrative Officer (CAO) is that this office is policy-driven versus operations-driven, thus facilitating the coordination functions that the office must perform. A potential disadvantage is that the job description of the CAO does not currently require the incumbent to have any expertise in OES functions. Additionally, as an at-will hire, the CAO can be terminated or leave that position at any time without notice.
F17:
Advantages of having the OES exist as an independent agency with adequate support staff, are that federal preparedness grants exist to support such an agency; County coordination of disaster response duties represents a full-time activity; and an independent agency would allow full-time focus on those critical activities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R13:
Establish the Lake County OES as an independent agency that works closely with the Disaster Council and the Operations Area Workgroup. (F17) Request for Responses • Lake County Sheriff’s Office (60 days) • Board of Supervisors (90 days) • County Administrative Officer (courtesy request) Bibliography 1. www.co.lake.ca.us/Government/Directory/Administration OES; Feb 2016 2. Bylaws of the County of Lake Disaster Council, June 25, 2014 3. Strategic Plan, County of Lake, Emergency Services, June 25, 2014 4. www.fema.gov/fiscal-year-2015-homeland-security-grant program. 5. www.fema.gov/media-library-data-/assets/documents/105618; Emergency Management Performance Grant Funding Guidelines. 6. Final Recommended Budget for BU 2704 Fiscal Year 2015/16 Budget and Finance I made this flower to represent our family. The big flower is my Mom and the little flower is me, the bud is my sister and the stem and the leaves is my Dad Grand Jury Art Contest Winner Wyatt Chadwell, Age 9 PENSION PLAN REVIEWS
Findings & Recommendations
17 findings
F1:
Instability in the OES is evident in the turnover in management and rotation between departments since 1995.
F2:
Confusion existed about the identity, staffing and operations of an EOC.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Define and promote the nature and works of the OES, the Disaster Council and the OAW to effected agencies and the public. (F2, F4, F5, F7, F11)
F3:
Confusion existed about the use of the EOP.
Related Recommendations (5)
R1:
Create an up-to-date County EOP and post it on the County information website and the Sheriff’s Department website. (F3, F8)
R2:
Conduct an orientation to the updated EOP for the community disaster support and preparedness agencies. (F3, F4, F5, F11)
R3:
Reinstate and populate the OES webpages with all relevant information. (F3, F7)
R5:
Include representatives from all County agencies involved in providing emergency services and post disaster services, in updating the EOP. (F3, F4, F7, F8)
R10:
Develop outreach literature and associated training for community groups eligible to participate in emergency preparedness. (F3, F4, F5, F7)
F4:
Confusion existed among responders about the role of the OES.
Related Recommendations (4)
R2:
Conduct an orientation to the updated EOP for the community disaster support and preparedness agencies. (F3, F4, F5, F11)
R4:
Define and promote the nature and works of the OES, the Disaster Council and the OAW to effected agencies and the public. (F2, F4, F5, F7, F11)
R5:
Include representatives from all County agencies involved in providing emergency services and post disaster services, in updating the EOP. (F3, F4, F7, F8)
R10:
Develop outreach literature and associated training for community groups eligible to participate in emergency preparedness. (F3, F4, F5, F7)
F5:
The local community and County employees had not received adequate training in how to proceed in an emergency.
Related Recommendations (5)
R2:
Conduct an orientation to the updated EOP for the community disaster support and preparedness agencies. (F3, F4, F5, F11)
R4:
Define and promote the nature and works of the OES, the Disaster Council and the OAW to effected agencies and the public. (F2, F4, F5, F7, F11)
R8:
Establish a dedicated EOC with all necessary equipment on hand and with a clear set of instructions, contact numbers, expected duties and responsibilities for the responders. (F5, F7)
R9:
Produce a procedural manual and conduct periodic trainings about activation processes and staffing of the EOC. (F5, F7)
R10:
Develop outreach literature and associated training for community groups eligible to participate in emergency preparedness. (F3, F4, F5, F7)
F6:
A Strategic Plan for the OES was submitted in 2014 but not fully implemented.
Related Recommendations (1)
R12:
Update and maintain the 2014 OES Strategic Plan (F6)
F7:
Disaster workers who reported to the EOC at the time of the Valley Fire were uncertain of their responsibilities.
Related Recommendations (6)
R3:
Reinstate and populate the OES webpages with all relevant information. (F3, F7)
R4:
Define and promote the nature and works of the OES, the Disaster Council and the OAW to effected agencies and the public. (F2, F4, F5, F7, F11)
R5:
Include representatives from all County agencies involved in providing emergency services and post disaster services, in updating the EOP. (F3, F4, F7, F8)
R8:
Establish a dedicated EOC with all necessary equipment on hand and with a clear set of instructions, contact numbers, expected duties and responsibilities for the responders. (F5, F7)
R9:
Produce a procedural manual and conduct periodic trainings about activation processes and staffing of the EOC. (F5, F7)
R10:
Develop outreach literature and associated training for community groups eligible to participate in emergency preparedness. (F3, F4, F5, F7)
F8:
The County EOP contained outdated information and was removed from the County’s OES webpage during a critical emergency.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
Create an up-to-date County EOP and post it on the County information website and the Sheriff’s Department website. (F3, F8)
R5:
Include representatives from all County agencies involved in providing emergency services and post disaster services, in updating the EOP. (F3, F4, F7, F8)
F9:
The OES manager position appeared to be formerly underpaid as evidenced by a 20% salary increase with no additional duties or responsibilities for the next OES Manager.
F10:
Supervision of the OES manager was inconsistent.
F11:
Duties and responsibilities of the OES, the OAW, the Disaster Council and the Sheriff’s Department were unclear in terms of the separation of their roles before and during emergencies.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
Conduct an orientation to the updated EOP for the community disaster support and preparedness agencies. (F3, F4, F5, F11)
R4:
Define and promote the nature and works of the OES, the Disaster Council and the OAW to effected agencies and the public. (F2, F4, F5, F7, F11)
F12:
The Disaster Council was in violation of its bylaws by not holding quarterly meetings announced to the public, or submitting an annual report and strategic plan to the BOS.
Related Recommendations (2)
R6:
Submit Disaster Council annual reports and a Strategic Plan to the BOS as per their bylaws. (F12)
R7:
Convene quarterly meetings of The Disaster Council and announce them to the public. (F12)
F13:
A full-time manager of the OES with adequate support staff was needed to handle the responsibilities of that office.
F14:
One of the job duties of an OES Manager is to obtain grant monies for disaster preparedness and as such has a legitimate need to have a voice in deciding how those monies are spent.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
Include the OES Manager as a primary decision maker in the allocation of grant monies. (F14)
F15:
Advantages of having the OES under the Sheriff’s office are that the Sheriff’s Department is routinely involved in emergencies. In addition, several of the employees of the office have completed certification in disaster preparedness. A potential disadvantage is that the Sheriff’s Office has a great number of responsibilities of its own. Additionally, as an elected official, the position of Sheriff is subject to change every four years.
F16:
An advantage of having the OES report to the County Administrative Officer (CAO) is that this office is policy-driven versus operations-driven, thus facilitating the coordination functions that the office must perform. A potential disadvantage is that the job description of the CAO does not currently require the incumbent to have any expertise in OES functions. Additionally, as an at-will hire, the CAO can be terminated or leave that position at any time without notice.
F17:
Advantages of having the OES exist as an independent agency with adequate support staff, are that federal preparedness grants exist to support such an agency; County coordination of disaster response duties represents a full-time activity; and an independent agency would allow full-time focus on those critical activities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R13:
Establish the Lake County OES as an independent agency that works closely with the Disaster Council and the Operations Area Workgroup. (F17) Request for Responses • Lake County Sheriff’s Office (60 days) • Board of Supervisors (90 days) • County Administrative Officer (courtesy request) Bibliography 1. www.co.lake.ca.us/Government/Directory/Administration OES; Feb 2016 2. Bylaws of the County of Lake Disaster Council, June 25, 2014 3. Strategic Plan, County of Lake, Emergency Services, June 25, 2014 4. www.fema.gov/fiscal-year-2015-homeland-security-grant program. 5. www.fema.gov/media-library-data-/assets/documents/105618; Emergency Management Performance Grant Funding Guidelines. 6. Final Recommended Budget for BU 2704 Fiscal Year 2015/16 Budget and Finance I made this flower to represent our family. The big flower is my Mom and the little flower is me, the bud is my sister and the stem and the leaves is my Dad Grand Jury Art Contest Winner Wyatt Chadwell, Age 9 PENSION PLAN REVIEWS
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
Vector Control is important to the health and safety of all Lake County residents.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The Vector Control Board of Trustees assume the role of leading Vector Control and the residents of the Esplanade neighborhood to communicate by or before the end of 2016 regarding a reasonable approach to their restructured operation at Esplanade which also reduces their impact on the neighborhood. (F1, F2, F3)
R2:
Lakeport Community Development Director take the leadership role to bring the Planning Commission, Vector Control, Lakeport City Council, and the residents of the Esplanade neighborhood into agreement over the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance changes and ensure The General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance are consistent by or before the end of Fiscal Year 2016-2017. (F1, F2, F3, F4) Request for Responses • Lakeport City Council (90 days) • Vector Control Board of Trustees (90 days) Bibliography 1. November 1996 - Memorandum of Understanding 2. November 1996 – City Planning Commission 3. December 1996 – Community Development Department Initial Study 4. January 1997, Memorandum from R. Knoll Community Development Director to Planning Commission 5. January 1997 - Minutes City of Lakeport Planning Commission 6. August 1997 - City of Lakeport to Vector Control , Right of Way Improvement Deferral Agreement 7. August 2002, Staff Report City Council 8. August 2002 - Agreement Transferring Lead Agency Status back to Vector Control 9. Jan 2003 – Letter from City of Lakeport to Del Lago [Esplanade] Homeowner’s Association 10. March 2003- Notice of 3 public hearings on April 9, 2003 11. April 2015 - Memorandum to M. Silveira City Manager from K. Ingram Community Development Director 12. Oct 15, 2014, Letter from resident , V. Schaffer to Andrew Britton re: parking 13. Oct. 28, 2014 , Letter from resident R. Bertsch to A. Britton, Community Development 14. November 2014 - Community Development Department Supplemental Memorandum to Staff Report 15. January 2015 – Soil Report by Pacific Agricultural Lab 16. Vector Control Minutes: Mar, Apr, Jun, August 2015 17. March 2015 – Vector Control Minutes 18. April 2015 – Lake Co News Article 19. June 2015 – Complaint to the CGJ re Lake County Vector Control 20. Planning, Zoning, and Development Laws – 2012 - Governor's Office of Planning and Research Web Sites Accessed 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methoprene 2. http://www.lifescript.com/health/center/kids_health/drugs/;pyre thrin_andPiperonyl_butoxide_topical.aspx?p=1 3. http:///npic.orst.edu/factsheets/ResGen.html 4. www.toxipedia.org/display/toxipedia/Piperonly&Butoxide 5. www.greenfacts.org/glossary/der/epacancer- classifications.htm#a3 6. www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/REDS/piperonly_red.pdf 7. www.epa.state.il.us 8. https://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/PZD2012.pdf Neighbors Object to Vector Control’s Expansion Plans on Esplanade Street in Lakeport Summary The Vector Control Special District office and laboratory building are located on Esplanade Street in Lakeport. They serve a vital function for the county in the identification and control of vectors (disease-carrying insects). Vector Control has proposed expanding and modernizing their Esplanade Street operation, however, objections from neighbors and zoning irregularities have prevented this from happening. Responding to a 2015 citizen’s complaint the 2015-2016 Lake County Grand Jury (Grand Jury) found that some of the concerns of neighbors in the Esplanade vicinity have merit. Perhaps the most troubling aspect is that resolution of this conflict has been put off for the last decade with no resolution in sight. The timeline of events shows the importance of good long-range planning and good communication between all entities of Lake County (County). The Grand Jury found that errors have been made. However, resolution of this conflict to the mutual satisfaction of all is possible and in the best interest of the citizens of this county. Background The County Mosquito Abatement District was formed in 1947 in response to California’s Mosquito Abatement Act of 1915. The District’s stated purpose is to protect people from the health risks posed by mosquitoes. In 1990 the name was changed to the Lake County Mosquito and Vector Control District (Vector Control). The purpose of the district grew to provide all of the County with disease-carrying insect (vectors) control using chemical sprays and fish whose diet consists of mosquito larvae. Vector Control also identifies tick species and collects samples, since Lyme disease can be a serious problem from deer ticks. Recent discoveries of the West Nile and Zika viruses add to the number of diseases transmitted by mosquitoes and other insects. The identification and control of these vectors is an extremely important function for the health and safety of the County residents. Vector Control is governed by a Board of Trustees that establishes policies for the operation of the district. The board consists of five trustees: one appointed by the City of Clearlake, one appointed by the City of Lakeport, and three appointed by the County. Each trustee is appointed to serve a two–year or four- year term, at the discretion of the appointing authority. Since 2003 residents of the neighborhood community have objected to the presence of the facility on Esplanade Street. Neighborhood objections to Vector Control include allegations of incorrect zoning1, unsightly and dilapidated buildings, infringement on neighborhood parking, failure to advise neighbors of intended building expansion, lack of a federally mandated ADA compliant parking space, and dumping of toxic chemicals. The neighbors also complained about the violation of the 1997 agreement to remove the old building before continuing with plans for new construction. A neighborhood resident provided a copy of a soil analysis report from Pacific Agricultural Laboratory (Lab) in Portland Oregon of a sample they had submitted as proof of chemical dumping. Neighbors cited smoke issuing from some of Vector Control’s trucks as evidence of chemical air pollution. The neighbors have appeared before the Board of Trustees and at Lakeport City Council meetings to voice their concerns. In 2015 neighbors spoke out at a City Council Meeting at which the Vector Control building application was an agenda item. At that meeting, the strong objections of the neighbors resulted in the Lakeport City Council unanimously rejecting the Planning Commission’s approval of Vector Control’s application for a General Plan amendment and zoning change. This effectively blocked Vector Control’s rebuilding and expansion plans. A complaint received by the Grand Jury consisted of the objections noted above. In addition, the complainant suggested that the best solution was to move Vector Control from Esplanade Street entirely and adjust the zoning.
F2:
Vector Control could better fulfill its mission with a modern laboratory and updated equipment.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The Vector Control Board of Trustees assume the role of leading Vector Control and the residents of the Esplanade neighborhood to communicate by or before the end of 2016 regarding a reasonable approach to their restructured operation at Esplanade which also reduces their impact on the neighborhood. (F1, F2, F3)
R2:
Lakeport Community Development Director take the leadership role to bring the Planning Commission, Vector Control, Lakeport City Council, and the residents of the Esplanade neighborhood into agreement over the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance changes and ensure The General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance are consistent by or before the end of Fiscal Year 2016-2017. (F1, F2, F3, F4) Request for Responses • Lakeport City Council (90 days) • Vector Control Board of Trustees (90 days) Bibliography 1. November 1996 - Memorandum of Understanding 2. November 1996 – City Planning Commission 3. December 1996 – Community Development Department Initial Study 4. January 1997, Memorandum from R. Knoll Community Development Director to Planning Commission 5. January 1997 - Minutes City of Lakeport Planning Commission 6. August 1997 - City of Lakeport to Vector Control , Right of Way Improvement Deferral Agreement 7. August 2002, Staff Report City Council 8. August 2002 - Agreement Transferring Lead Agency Status back to Vector Control 9. Jan 2003 – Letter from City of Lakeport to Del Lago [Esplanade] Homeowner’s Association 10. March 2003- Notice of 3 public hearings on April 9, 2003 11. April 2015 - Memorandum to M. Silveira City Manager from K. Ingram Community Development Director 12. Oct 15, 2014, Letter from resident , V. Schaffer to Andrew Britton re: parking 13. Oct. 28, 2014 , Letter from resident R. Bertsch to A. Britton, Community Development 14. November 2014 - Community Development Department Supplemental Memorandum to Staff Report 15. January 2015 – Soil Report by Pacific Agricultural Lab 16. Vector Control Minutes: Mar, Apr, Jun, August 2015 17. March 2015 – Vector Control Minutes 18. April 2015 – Lake Co News Article 19. June 2015 – Complaint to the CGJ re Lake County Vector Control 20. Planning, Zoning, and Development Laws – 2012 - Governor's Office of Planning and Research Web Sites Accessed 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methoprene 2. http://www.lifescript.com/health/center/kids_health/drugs/;pyre thrin_andPiperonyl_butoxide_topical.aspx?p=1 3. http:///npic.orst.edu/factsheets/ResGen.html 4. www.toxipedia.org/display/toxipedia/Piperonly&Butoxide 5. www.greenfacts.org/glossary/der/epacancer- classifications.htm#a3 6. www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/REDS/piperonly_red.pdf 7. www.epa.state.il.us 8. https://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/PZD2012.pdf Neighbors Object to Vector Control’s Expansion Plans on Esplanade Street in Lakeport Summary The Vector Control Special District office and laboratory building are located on Esplanade Street in Lakeport. They serve a vital function for the county in the identification and control of vectors (disease-carrying insects). Vector Control has proposed expanding and modernizing their Esplanade Street operation, however, objections from neighbors and zoning irregularities have prevented this from happening. Responding to a 2015 citizen’s complaint the 2015-2016 Lake County Grand Jury (Grand Jury) found that some of the concerns of neighbors in the Esplanade vicinity have merit. Perhaps the most troubling aspect is that resolution of this conflict has been put off for the last decade with no resolution in sight. The timeline of events shows the importance of good long-range planning and good communication between all entities of Lake County (County). The Grand Jury found that errors have been made. However, resolution of this conflict to the mutual satisfaction of all is possible and in the best interest of the citizens of this county. Background The County Mosquito Abatement District was formed in 1947 in response to California’s Mosquito Abatement Act of 1915. The District’s stated purpose is to protect people from the health risks posed by mosquitoes. In 1990 the name was changed to the Lake County Mosquito and Vector Control District (Vector Control). The purpose of the district grew to provide all of the County with disease-carrying insect (vectors) control using chemical sprays and fish whose diet consists of mosquito larvae. Vector Control also identifies tick species and collects samples, since Lyme disease can be a serious problem from deer ticks. Recent discoveries of the West Nile and Zika viruses add to the number of diseases transmitted by mosquitoes and other insects. The identification and control of these vectors is an extremely important function for the health and safety of the County residents. Vector Control is governed by a Board of Trustees that establishes policies for the operation of the district. The board consists of five trustees: one appointed by the City of Clearlake, one appointed by the City of Lakeport, and three appointed by the County. Each trustee is appointed to serve a two–year or four- year term, at the discretion of the appointing authority. Since 2003 residents of the neighborhood community have objected to the presence of the facility on Esplanade Street. Neighborhood objections to Vector Control include allegations of incorrect zoning1, unsightly and dilapidated buildings, infringement on neighborhood parking, failure to advise neighbors of intended building expansion, lack of a federally mandated ADA compliant parking space, and dumping of toxic chemicals. The neighbors also complained about the violation of the 1997 agreement to remove the old building before continuing with plans for new construction. A neighborhood resident provided a copy of a soil analysis report from Pacific Agricultural Laboratory (Lab) in Portland Oregon of a sample they had submitted as proof of chemical dumping. Neighbors cited smoke issuing from some of Vector Control’s trucks as evidence of chemical air pollution. The neighbors have appeared before the Board of Trustees and at Lakeport City Council meetings to voice their concerns. In 2015 neighbors spoke out at a City Council Meeting at which the Vector Control building application was an agenda item. At that meeting, the strong objections of the neighbors resulted in the Lakeport City Council unanimously rejecting the Planning Commission’s approval of Vector Control’s application for a General Plan amendment and zoning change. This effectively blocked Vector Control’s rebuilding and expansion plans. A complaint received by the Grand Jury consisted of the objections noted above. In addition, the complainant suggested that the best solution was to move Vector Control from Esplanade Street entirely and adjust the zoning.
F3:
Vector Control cannot create a modern laboratory on their Esplanade property until the inconsistencies between the Lakeport General Plan and Zoning Ordinances are resolved.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The Vector Control Board of Trustees assume the role of leading Vector Control and the residents of the Esplanade neighborhood to communicate by or before the end of 2016 regarding a reasonable approach to their restructured operation at Esplanade which also reduces their impact on the neighborhood. (F1, F2, F3)
R2:
Lakeport Community Development Director take the leadership role to bring the Planning Commission, Vector Control, Lakeport City Council, and the residents of the Esplanade neighborhood into agreement over the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance changes and ensure The General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance are consistent by or before the end of Fiscal Year 2016-2017. (F1, F2, F3, F4) Request for Responses • Lakeport City Council (90 days) • Vector Control Board of Trustees (90 days) Bibliography 1. November 1996 - Memorandum of Understanding 2. November 1996 – City Planning Commission 3. December 1996 – Community Development Department Initial Study 4. January 1997, Memorandum from R. Knoll Community Development Director to Planning Commission 5. January 1997 - Minutes City of Lakeport Planning Commission 6. August 1997 - City of Lakeport to Vector Control , Right of Way Improvement Deferral Agreement 7. August 2002, Staff Report City Council 8. August 2002 - Agreement Transferring Lead Agency Status back to Vector Control 9. Jan 2003 – Letter from City of Lakeport to Del Lago [Esplanade] Homeowner’s Association 10. March 2003- Notice of 3 public hearings on April 9, 2003 11. April 2015 - Memorandum to M. Silveira City Manager from K. Ingram Community Development Director 12. Oct 15, 2014, Letter from resident , V. Schaffer to Andrew Britton re: parking 13. Oct. 28, 2014 , Letter from resident R. Bertsch to A. Britton, Community Development 14. November 2014 - Community Development Department Supplemental Memorandum to Staff Report 15. January 2015 – Soil Report by Pacific Agricultural Lab 16. Vector Control Minutes: Mar, Apr, Jun, August 2015 17. March 2015 – Vector Control Minutes 18. April 2015 – Lake Co News Article 19. June 2015 – Complaint to the CGJ re Lake County Vector Control 20. Planning, Zoning, and Development Laws – 2012 - Governor's Office of Planning and Research Web Sites Accessed 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methoprene 2. http://www.lifescript.com/health/center/kids_health/drugs/;pyre thrin_andPiperonyl_butoxide_topical.aspx?p=1 3. http:///npic.orst.edu/factsheets/ResGen.html 4. www.toxipedia.org/display/toxipedia/Piperonly&Butoxide 5. www.greenfacts.org/glossary/der/epacancer- classifications.htm#a3 6. www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/REDS/piperonly_red.pdf 7. www.epa.state.il.us 8. https://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/PZD2012.pdf Neighbors Object to Vector Control’s Expansion Plans on Esplanade Street in Lakeport Summary The Vector Control Special District office and laboratory building are located on Esplanade Street in Lakeport. They serve a vital function for the county in the identification and control of vectors (disease-carrying insects). Vector Control has proposed expanding and modernizing their Esplanade Street operation, however, objections from neighbors and zoning irregularities have prevented this from happening. Responding to a 2015 citizen’s complaint the 2015-2016 Lake County Grand Jury (Grand Jury) found that some of the concerns of neighbors in the Esplanade vicinity have merit. Perhaps the most troubling aspect is that resolution of this conflict has been put off for the last decade with no resolution in sight. The timeline of events shows the importance of good long-range planning and good communication between all entities of Lake County (County). The Grand Jury found that errors have been made. However, resolution of this conflict to the mutual satisfaction of all is possible and in the best interest of the citizens of this county. Background The County Mosquito Abatement District was formed in 1947 in response to California’s Mosquito Abatement Act of 1915. The District’s stated purpose is to protect people from the health risks posed by mosquitoes. In 1990 the name was changed to the Lake County Mosquito and Vector Control District (Vector Control). The purpose of the district grew to provide all of the County with disease-carrying insect (vectors) control using chemical sprays and fish whose diet consists of mosquito larvae. Vector Control also identifies tick species and collects samples, since Lyme disease can be a serious problem from deer ticks. Recent discoveries of the West Nile and Zika viruses add to the number of diseases transmitted by mosquitoes and other insects. The identification and control of these vectors is an extremely important function for the health and safety of the County residents. Vector Control is governed by a Board of Trustees that establishes policies for the operation of the district. The board consists of five trustees: one appointed by the City of Clearlake, one appointed by the City of Lakeport, and three appointed by the County. Each trustee is appointed to serve a two–year or four- year term, at the discretion of the appointing authority. Since 2003 residents of the neighborhood community have objected to the presence of the facility on Esplanade Street. Neighborhood objections to Vector Control include allegations of incorrect zoning1, unsightly and dilapidated buildings, infringement on neighborhood parking, failure to advise neighbors of intended building expansion, lack of a federally mandated ADA compliant parking space, and dumping of toxic chemicals. The neighbors also complained about the violation of the 1997 agreement to remove the old building before continuing with plans for new construction. A neighborhood resident provided a copy of a soil analysis report from Pacific Agricultural Laboratory (Lab) in Portland Oregon of a sample they had submitted as proof of chemical dumping. Neighbors cited smoke issuing from some of Vector Control’s trucks as evidence of chemical air pollution. The neighbors have appeared before the Board of Trustees and at Lakeport City Council meetings to voice their concerns. In 2015 neighbors spoke out at a City Council Meeting at which the Vector Control building application was an agenda item. At that meeting, the strong objections of the neighbors resulted in the Lakeport City Council unanimously rejecting the Planning Commission’s approval of Vector Control’s application for a General Plan amendment and zoning change. This effectively blocked Vector Control’s rebuilding and expansion plans. A complaint received by the Grand Jury consisted of the objections noted above. In addition, the complainant suggested that the best solution was to move Vector Control from Esplanade Street entirely and adjust the zoning.
F4:
The Lakeport General Plan and Zoning Ordinance are inconsistent with each other. This appears to differ with State Law.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Lakeport Community Development Director take the leadership role to bring the Planning Commission, Vector Control, Lakeport City Council, and the residents of the Esplanade neighborhood into agreement over the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance changes and ensure The General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance are consistent by or before the end of Fiscal Year 2016-2017. (F1, F2, F3, F4) Request for Responses • Lakeport City Council (90 days) • Vector Control Board of Trustees (90 days) Bibliography 1. November 1996 - Memorandum of Understanding 2. November 1996 – City Planning Commission 3. December 1996 – Community Development Department Initial Study 4. January 1997, Memorandum from R. Knoll Community Development Director to Planning Commission 5. January 1997 - Minutes City of Lakeport Planning Commission 6. August 1997 - City of Lakeport to Vector Control , Right of Way Improvement Deferral Agreement 7. August 2002, Staff Report City Council 8. August 2002 - Agreement Transferring Lead Agency Status back to Vector Control 9. Jan 2003 – Letter from City of Lakeport to Del Lago [Esplanade] Homeowner’s Association 10. March 2003- Notice of 3 public hearings on April 9, 2003 11. April 2015 - Memorandum to M. Silveira City Manager from K. Ingram Community Development Director 12. Oct 15, 2014, Letter from resident , V. Schaffer to Andrew Britton re: parking 13. Oct. 28, 2014 , Letter from resident R. Bertsch to A. Britton, Community Development 14. November 2014 - Community Development Department Supplemental Memorandum to Staff Report 15. January 2015 – Soil Report by Pacific Agricultural Lab 16. Vector Control Minutes: Mar, Apr, Jun, August 2015 17. March 2015 – Vector Control Minutes 18. April 2015 – Lake Co News Article 19. June 2015 – Complaint to the CGJ re Lake County Vector Control 20. Planning, Zoning, and Development Laws – 2012 - Governor's Office of Planning and Research Web Sites Accessed 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methoprene 2. http://www.lifescript.com/health/center/kids_health/drugs/;pyre thrin_andPiperonyl_butoxide_topical.aspx?p=1 3. http:///npic.orst.edu/factsheets/ResGen.html 4. www.toxipedia.org/display/toxipedia/Piperonly&Butoxide 5. www.greenfacts.org/glossary/der/epacancer- classifications.htm#a3 6. www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/REDS/piperonly_red.pdf 7. www.epa.state.il.us 8. https://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/PZD2012.pdf Neighbors Object to Vector Control’s Expansion Plans on Esplanade Street in Lakeport Summary The Vector Control Special District office and laboratory building are located on Esplanade Street in Lakeport. They serve a vital function for the county in the identification and control of vectors (disease-carrying insects). Vector Control has proposed expanding and modernizing their Esplanade Street operation, however, objections from neighbors and zoning irregularities have prevented this from happening. Responding to a 2015 citizen’s complaint the 2015-2016 Lake County Grand Jury (Grand Jury) found that some of the concerns of neighbors in the Esplanade vicinity have merit. Perhaps the most troubling aspect is that resolution of this conflict has been put off for the last decade with no resolution in sight. The timeline of events shows the importance of good long-range planning and good communication between all entities of Lake County (County). The Grand Jury found that errors have been made. However, resolution of this conflict to the mutual satisfaction of all is possible and in the best interest of the citizens of this county. Background The County Mosquito Abatement District was formed in 1947 in response to California’s Mosquito Abatement Act of 1915. The District’s stated purpose is to protect people from the health risks posed by mosquitoes. In 1990 the name was changed to the Lake County Mosquito and Vector Control District (Vector Control). The purpose of the district grew to provide all of the County with disease-carrying insect (vectors) control using chemical sprays and fish whose diet consists of mosquito larvae. Vector Control also identifies tick species and collects samples, since Lyme disease can be a serious problem from deer ticks. Recent discoveries of the West Nile and Zika viruses add to the number of diseases transmitted by mosquitoes and other insects. The identification and control of these vectors is an extremely important function for the health and safety of the County residents. Vector Control is governed by a Board of Trustees that establishes policies for the operation of the district. The board consists of five trustees: one appointed by the City of Clearlake, one appointed by the City of Lakeport, and three appointed by the County. Each trustee is appointed to serve a two–year or four- year term, at the discretion of the appointing authority. Since 2003 residents of the neighborhood community have objected to the presence of the facility on Esplanade Street. Neighborhood objections to Vector Control include allegations of incorrect zoning1, unsightly and dilapidated buildings, infringement on neighborhood parking, failure to advise neighbors of intended building expansion, lack of a federally mandated ADA compliant parking space, and dumping of toxic chemicals. The neighbors also complained about the violation of the 1997 agreement to remove the old building before continuing with plans for new construction. A neighborhood resident provided a copy of a soil analysis report from Pacific Agricultural Laboratory (Lab) in Portland Oregon of a sample they had submitted as proof of chemical dumping. Neighbors cited smoke issuing from some of Vector Control’s trucks as evidence of chemical air pollution. The neighbors have appeared before the Board of Trustees and at Lakeport City Council meetings to voice their concerns. In 2015 neighbors spoke out at a City Council Meeting at which the Vector Control building application was an agenda item. At that meeting, the strong objections of the neighbors resulted in the Lakeport City Council unanimously rejecting the Planning Commission’s approval of Vector Control’s application for a General Plan amendment and zoning change. This effectively blocked Vector Control’s rebuilding and expansion plans. A complaint received by the Grand Jury consisted of the objections noted above. In addition, the complainant suggested that the best solution was to move Vector Control from Esplanade Street entirely and adjust the zoning.
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
VWP did not place much reliance on outside assistance for grant- seeking opportunities in recent years.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Lake County should continue to provide necessary supplemental funding VWP. There should also be a goal to lower this over a two year period. (F1)
F2:
The VATS methodology is outdated and requires replacement in order to enhance administrative efficiency. This also would improve the possibility of better positioning for future grants.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
VATS should be updated or replaced as soon as practical and affordable. (F2) Request for Responses • District Attorney’s Office (60 days) • Board of Supervisors (90 days) Health and Human Services Grand Jury Art Contest Winner Indira Duncan, Age 13 Alcohol and Drug Services Available In Lake County Summary Incidences of driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs (DUIs) are on the rise, and so are the injuries and deaths from the misuse of alcohol, drugs and prescription medicines. It’s a complex issue with many causes including poverty, high unemployment, unresolved mental health issues and a lack of information about the dangers of prescription medicines, to name just a few. It affects people of all ages, all nationalities and all income levels. The current penalties under the law (Appendix: Table 2) do not seem to be a sufficient deterrent. Some violators even choose incarceration over treatment and lengthy terms of probation. This report focuses on the treatment options available for individuals and families in Lake County (County). Background Because alcohol and drug problems may arise from unresolved mental problems in the past, having Mental Health and Alcohol and Other Drug Services (AODS) under one roof is a good marriage of agencies and skills. Behavioral Health Services (BHS) is now the agency in charge of both Mental Health and AODS. BHS is headquartered in two main locations: Lucerne and the City of Clearlake. They also operate and support a number of wellness centers to meet the needs of those who receive no services and those that would otherwise be underserved. Those populations include adolescents, Latinos, and Native Americans. There are also Transitional Age Youth Services for clients between sixteen and twenty-five years. Fees are based upon a sliding scale and Medi-Cal is also accepted.
F3:
The VWP facilities are very well maintained and conducive to providing comfort to those assisted.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R2:
A much greater reliance is recommended on contracted grant writer advice and assistance to gain more new grant sources. ( F1,F2)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
BHS and the AODS component provide compassionate and professional services to their clients while respecting the cultural heritage and diversity of the County’s population.
F2:
Assistance provided by the Probation Department in job placement is very effective and improves the odds of success for all clients including veterans. It is also cost effective for the county as the county can then obtain compensation for incarceration services and victim reimbursement.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The Probation Department continue to promote their special services, including those for veterans. (F2)
R3:
The Probation Department help in the development of more Alternative Work Programs that could be based on Helbush Drive. (F2) Request for Responses • Board of Supervisors (90 days)
F3:
As a result of the Valley Fire the Hilltop Residential Center has expanded to include another facility in Clearlake Oaks, which opened in January 2016.
F4:
The information program used by the CHP to educate drivers about their prescription drug use and the impact on their driving skills has been shown to be effective.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The CHP and AODS therapists visit Senior Centers to provide information to seniors about the dangers of driving after using certain prescription and over-the-counter medications. (F4)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
17 findings
F1:
Instability in the OES is evident in the turnover in management and rotation between departments since 1995.
F2:
Confusion existed about the identity, staffing and operations of an EOC.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Define and promote the nature and works of the OES, the Disaster Council and the OAW to effected agencies and the public. (F2, F4, F5, F7, F11)
F3:
Confusion existed about the use of the EOP.
Related Recommendations (5)
R1:
Create an up-to-date County EOP and post it on the County information website and the Sheriff’s Department website. (F3, F8)
R2:
Conduct an orientation to the updated EOP for the community disaster support and preparedness agencies. (F3, F4, F5, F11)
R3:
Reinstate and populate the OES webpages with all relevant information. (F3, F7)
R5:
Include representatives from all County agencies involved in providing emergency services and post disaster services, in updating the EOP. (F3, F4, F7, F8)
R10:
Develop outreach literature and associated training for community groups eligible to participate in emergency preparedness. (F3, F4, F5, F7)
F4:
Confusion existed among responders about the role of the OES.
Related Recommendations (4)
R2:
Conduct an orientation to the updated EOP for the community disaster support and preparedness agencies. (F3, F4, F5, F11)
R4:
Define and promote the nature and works of the OES, the Disaster Council and the OAW to effected agencies and the public. (F2, F4, F5, F7, F11)
R5:
Include representatives from all County agencies involved in providing emergency services and post disaster services, in updating the EOP. (F3, F4, F7, F8)
R10:
Develop outreach literature and associated training for community groups eligible to participate in emergency preparedness. (F3, F4, F5, F7)
F5:
The local community and County employees had not received adequate training in how to proceed in an emergency.
Related Recommendations (5)
R2:
Conduct an orientation to the updated EOP for the community disaster support and preparedness agencies. (F3, F4, F5, F11)
R4:
Define and promote the nature and works of the OES, the Disaster Council and the OAW to effected agencies and the public. (F2, F4, F5, F7, F11)
R8:
Establish a dedicated EOC with all necessary equipment on hand and with a clear set of instructions, contact numbers, expected duties and responsibilities for the responders. (F5, F7)
R9:
Produce a procedural manual and conduct periodic trainings about activation processes and staffing of the EOC. (F5, F7)
R10:
Develop outreach literature and associated training for community groups eligible to participate in emergency preparedness. (F3, F4, F5, F7)
F6:
A Strategic Plan for the OES was submitted in 2014 but not fully implemented.
Related Recommendations (1)
R12:
Update and maintain the 2014 OES Strategic Plan (F6)
F7:
Disaster workers who reported to the EOC at the time of the Valley Fire were uncertain of their responsibilities.
Related Recommendations (6)
R3:
Reinstate and populate the OES webpages with all relevant information. (F3, F7)
R4:
Define and promote the nature and works of the OES, the Disaster Council and the OAW to effected agencies and the public. (F2, F4, F5, F7, F11)
R5:
Include representatives from all County agencies involved in providing emergency services and post disaster services, in updating the EOP. (F3, F4, F7, F8)
R8:
Establish a dedicated EOC with all necessary equipment on hand and with a clear set of instructions, contact numbers, expected duties and responsibilities for the responders. (F5, F7)
R9:
Produce a procedural manual and conduct periodic trainings about activation processes and staffing of the EOC. (F5, F7)
R10:
Develop outreach literature and associated training for community groups eligible to participate in emergency preparedness. (F3, F4, F5, F7)
F8:
The County EOP contained outdated information and was removed from the County’s OES webpage during a critical emergency.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
Create an up-to-date County EOP and post it on the County information website and the Sheriff’s Department website. (F3, F8)
R5:
Include representatives from all County agencies involved in providing emergency services and post disaster services, in updating the EOP. (F3, F4, F7, F8)
F9:
The OES manager position appeared to be formerly underpaid as evidenced by a 20% salary increase with no additional duties or responsibilities for the next OES Manager.
F10:
Supervision of the OES manager was inconsistent.
F11:
Duties and responsibilities of the OES, the OAW, the Disaster Council and the Sheriff’s Department were unclear in terms of the separation of their roles before and during emergencies.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
Conduct an orientation to the updated EOP for the community disaster support and preparedness agencies. (F3, F4, F5, F11)
R4:
Define and promote the nature and works of the OES, the Disaster Council and the OAW to effected agencies and the public. (F2, F4, F5, F7, F11)
F12:
The Disaster Council was in violation of its bylaws by not holding quarterly meetings announced to the public, or submitting an annual report and strategic plan to the BOS.
Related Recommendations (2)
R6:
Submit Disaster Council annual reports and a Strategic Plan to the BOS as per their bylaws. (F12)
R7:
Convene quarterly meetings of The Disaster Council and announce them to the public. (F12)
F13:
A full-time manager of the OES with adequate support staff was needed to handle the responsibilities of that office.
F14:
One of the job duties of an OES Manager is to obtain grant monies for disaster preparedness and as such has a legitimate need to have a voice in deciding how those monies are spent.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
Include the OES Manager as a primary decision maker in the allocation of grant monies. (F14)
F15:
Advantages of having the OES under the Sheriff’s office are that the Sheriff’s Department is routinely involved in emergencies. In addition, several of the employees of the office have completed certification in disaster preparedness. A potential disadvantage is that the Sheriff’s Office has a great number of responsibilities of its own. Additionally, as an elected official, the position of Sheriff is subject to change every four years.
F16:
An advantage of having the OES report to the County Administrative Officer (CAO) is that this office is policy-driven versus operations-driven, thus facilitating the coordination functions that the office must perform. A potential disadvantage is that the job description of the CAO does not currently require the incumbent to have any expertise in OES functions. Additionally, as an at-will hire, the CAO can be terminated or leave that position at any time without notice.
F17:
Advantages of having the OES exist as an independent agency with adequate support staff, are that federal preparedness grants exist to support such an agency; County coordination of disaster response duties represents a full-time activity; and an independent agency would allow full-time focus on those critical activities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R13:
Establish the Lake County OES as an independent agency that works closely with the Disaster Council and the Operations Area Workgroup. (F17) Request for Responses • Lake County Sheriff’s Office (60 days) • Board of Supervisors (90 days) • County Administrative Officer (courtesy request)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F4:
Neither the County, Clearlake nor Lakeport have Pension Committees that oversee pension plan administration, compliance or costs.
F5:
The role of the pension plans in total employee compensation is not clearly articulated. It is not obvious how it fits in the total compensation structure.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
A policy statement be developed to serve as a guide in program administrative, plan funding, and as a communication aid to participants and the public. (F5)
F6:
Employee satisfaction with the pension plans is unknown.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
An employee survey be conducted biannually of both active and retired employees to assess the cost/benefit effectiveness of their pension plans. (F6)
F7:
Lakeport and the County are proactively reducing their unfunded pension liability.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
Clearlake be more proactive in reducing its unfunded pension liability. It should review Lakeport’s plan to determine if that approach would be beneficial. (F7) Request for Responses • Lake County Auditor (60 days) • Lake County Board of Supervisors (90 days) • Lakeport City Council (90 days) • Clearlake City Council (90 days) Bibliography 1. CalPERS web site (https:/www.CalPERS.ca.gov/). 2. Circular Letter 200-032-09 (https:www.CalPERS.ca.gov/page/employers/policies-and- procedures/circular-letters). 3. Net pension liability (https:/www.CalPERS.ca.gov/docs/forms- publications/gasb-68-net-pension-liability-employer-2013,pdf). 4. 2014 pension results (https:/www/CalPERS.ca.gov/docs/forms- publications/gasb-68-schedule-pension-amounts.pdf). 5. California Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act (PEPRA) effective January 2013 (http:/www.publiclaegroup.com/wp- content/uploads/2012/12A-Guide-to-Pension-Reform-Under- AB340-and-AB-197.pdf). 6. Acceptable levels of solvency for pension plans (http://etf.wi.gov/news/morningstar-report2013.pdf ).
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
A summary Annual Pension Report be compiled and reported annually to the governing bodies of the County, Clearlake and Lakeport. This report should include: • The annual cost • A breakdown of the funded and unfunded liabilities and comparison to established policy or goals • The plan benefit formulas and any changes • A summary of plan investment results • CalPERS administration costs • Benefit payments made • Pending or projected changes or issues
R2:
This Annual Pension Report be posted and made available to plan participants and the public. Most of this data is available in the CalPERS GASB 68 reports.
R4:
The County, Clearlake and Lakeport establish a specific percentage of funding (Goal) by next fiscal year that must be achieved. The goal and actual achievement would be reported in the annual report per Recommendation 1 and
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
Changes in laws such as AB109 and Prop 47 can critically reduce the number of inmates housed in local jails such as Hill Road Correctional Facility in Lakeport.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Sheriff’s Department and the Hill Road Correction Facility should work with CAL FIRE to make their inmates who qualify available to transfer to the Conservation Camp Program. (F1)
F2:
The Middletown Rancheria fire department will be eligible to be part of the Lake County Fire Chief’s Association to coordinate with other fire chiefs for the most effective use of resources.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Lake County Fire Chief’s Association and the Board of Supervisors should encourage and support any efforts made by the Middletown Rancheria tribe in setting up another fire district. (F2)
F3:
There is an emergency warning system that consists of land line alerts such as Nixle, City Watch (Reverse 911), and voice over internet alerts. All of those systems require either telephone lines, internet connections or cell towers for operation. This is a dangerous situation for Lake County.In the Valley fire the telephone lines and cell towers were quickly destroyed negating any effective warning system for residents of Cobb and Middletown. The warning siren is a “low tech” option being investigated.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Lake County should pursue more options for warning systems such as the sirens used in the past and IPAWS. Investigations could include solar power options for the sirens and/or any other alternatives that would supplement the existing telephone and internet systems.(F3) Request for Responses • Sheriff and Undersheriff , (60 days) • Board of Supervisors (90 days) • Lake County Fire Chief’s Association (courtesy request) Bibliography 1. CAL FIRE: www.fire.ca.gov 2. Lake County: www.co.lake.ca.us 3. ICS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incident_Command_System 4. NIMS/ICS Training: www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/nims/nims- training_program.pdf 5. AB109 : www.cdcr.ca.gov/realignment 6. Lake County Rotary Clubs Association Fire Relief Fund: www.LARCA5130.org
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
The fires that occurred in the County this year created a significant burden due to the heavy volume of mail returned by the post office as undeliverable.
F2:
In reviewing the Tax Collector’s processing procedures and methodology, the Grand Jury found that no timing analysis could be done. Recommendations
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The existing Payment Receiving and Coding procedures should be revised to include instructions for date stamping and/or logging in each payment when received by the County’s mail department so a timing analysis can be performed. (F2) Request for Responses • Treasurer - Tax Collector (60 days) • Board of Supervisors (90 days) Government Services Grand Jury Art Contest Winner Madison Witt, Age 13