Lake County Grand Jury
2017-2018
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
Absenteeism is a significant problem in Lake County public school districts, where the absentee rate in most districts is worse than state average.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Lake County Office of Education, school districts and the county and city governments should establish early childhood education opportunities for children ages 3-5. Appropriate government departments in the incorporated cities and in the County should be directed to identify such available public structures (in their respective jurisdictions) that could be modified to function as workable preschools. Active efforts to identify any state or federal or private funding sources for the modifications and ongoing operation of such preschools should be established. (F1, F2, F4, F8)
F2:
Lake County public schools are losing significant revenue due to the absentee rates of students. Figure 1. Shows that Lake County schools are losing significant revenue.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Lake County Office of Education, school districts and the county and city governments should establish early childhood education opportunities for children ages 3-5. Appropriate government departments in the incorporated cities and in the County should be directed to identify such available public structures (in their respective jurisdictions) that could be modified to function as workable preschools. Active efforts to identify any state or federal or private funding sources for the modifications and ongoing operation of such preschools should be established. (F1, F2, F4, F8)
F3:
Lake County public school districts recognize the negative impact of absenteeism on both the education of students and revenue.
F4:
Lake County public school officials recognize that the high level of poverty in the Lake County community is a significant contributor to high levels of absenteeism.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Lake County Office of Education, school districts and the county and city governments should establish early childhood education opportunities for children ages 3-5. Appropriate government departments in the incorporated cities and in the County should be directed to identify such available public structures (in their respective jurisdictions) that could be modified to function as workable preschools. Active efforts to identify any state or federal or private funding sources for the modifications and ongoing operation of such preschools should be established. (F1, F2, F4, F8)
F5:
Lake County public schools have only limited resources to intercede with students and parents in order to combat absenteeism.
F6:
The most difficult issue in dealing with chronic absenteeism is the lack of cooperation from parents who themselves did not have good educational experiences and are poorly educated.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The County Superintendent of Schools and the Superintendents of the various school districts should publish to their Boards, parents and communities P1, P2, and P3 attendance reports along with an estimate of revenue loss due to absenteeism. (F6)
F7:
County educators believe that the most effective way to reduce absenteeism in the higher grades is to establish a strong dedication to attendance by the students when they are in preschool and in the primary grades (K – 3).
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
School districts should establish specific programs involving parents and children in promoting school attendance. (i.e. proven programs from other counties such as ‘attendance buddies’, car-pooling, walking groups, etc. for the lower primary grades.) This can be quickly enacted, have minimum cost, and show significant impact. (F7) 25 Request for Responses: Pursuant to Penal Code section 933(c), the following responses are required: Lake County Board of Supervisors (R2) (90 days) Lakeport City Council (R2) (90 days) Clearlake City Council (R2) (90 days) Superintendent of Schools, Lake County (R1, R2, R3, R4) (60 days) President of School Board, Kelseyville Unified School District (R3, R4) (60 days) President of School Board, Konocti Unified School District (R3, R4) (60 days) President of School Board, Lakeport Unified School District (R3, R4) (60 days) President of School Board, Lucerne Elementary School District (R3, R4) (60 days) President of School Board, Upper Lake Unified School District (R3, R4) (60 days) President of School Board, Middletown Unified School District (R3, R4) (60 days) The Grand Jury invites the following individuals to respond: Board of Supervisors, Lake County (R1) (90 days) City Council, City of Clearlake (R1) (90 days) City Council, City of Lakeport (R1) (90 days) Superintendent of Schools, Kelseyville Unified School District (R1, R2, R3, R4) (60 days) Superintendent of Schools, Konocti Unified School District (R1, R2, R3, R4) (60 days) Superintendent of Schools, Lakeport Unified School District (R1, R2, R3, R4) (60 days) Superintendent of Schools, Lucerne Elementary School District (R1, R2, R3, R4) (60 days) Superintendent of Schools, Upper Lake Unified School District (R1, R2, R3, R4) (60 days) Superintendent of Schools, Middletown Unified School District (R1, R2, R3, R4) (60 days) District Attorney, Lake County (R1, R2) 26
F8:
The stated County focus on creating a longer term improved economic base and being an attraction for multiple categories of businesses and investments would be greatly served by enhancing the educational quality and success 24 throughout the county. It has been broadly proven that readily available and utilized pre-schools establish a firmer base for children entering into the primary school level to achieve learning and socialization goals. Such firm foundations do continue into greater learning in the higher grades, improved standard testing results, greater numbers of high school graduates, and higher percentages of students continuing into college level education. This is a long-range tactic to firmly augment the County’s long-term goal.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Lake County Office of Education, school districts and the county and city governments should establish early childhood education opportunities for children ages 3-5. Appropriate government departments in the incorporated cities and in the County should be directed to identify such available public structures (in their respective jurisdictions) that could be modified to function as workable preschools. Active efforts to identify any state or federal or private funding sources for the modifications and ongoing operation of such preschools should be established. (F1, F2, F4, F8)
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Public school districts must work more closely with each other and county agencies to promote school attendance and to intercede in cases of truancy. This effort should be done in concert such that the consideration of school attendance is raised as a countywide priority, and efforts are coordinated to both improve attendance services and contain costs. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6.)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
20 findings
F1:
Property owners who chose to have their debris removed by the State/CalRecycle were asked in October-November, 2015, to sign a Right of Entry (ROE) prepared by Lake County Environmental Health. This ROE included the explanation that the amount of insurance coverage provided by their policy for debris removal would pay for such costs to the limit defined by their policy, and that they would not be responsible for any additional money.
F2:
The language within the ROE was interpreted by many owners as saying that the debris removal was “free” to them when actually they would be responsible to reimburse the County for the ‘debris removal’ payments made to the property owners by their insurance company.
F3:
Lake County did not have in effect an executed contract with CalRecyle during or after the structural debris removal. Absent this contract specifying terms and conditions, the County had no means of: a) Requiring CalRecycle to provide documentation of its charges b) Assuring that CalRecycle responded to property owners’ emails questioning the charges. 64
F4:
Although federal monies were available for the County’s collection of insurance proceeds designated for debris removal – a minimum of $300,000 - and the County issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) and had initially intended to award the contract to a third party, the ultimate decision was made to pursue/collect the insurance proceeds using County administrative staff.
F5:
The staffing for this collection program has been inadequate since its inception both in number and in requisite experience and skills. Early on, only one part-time employee was assigned to the program. In August 2017, a full-time dedicated employee was assigned, with the help of an “intern” for the summer and the assistance of one or two other administrative staff who might answer the phones.
F6:
The County did not initially create a duty statement or scope of work for the person responsible for collecting insurance proceeds for debris removal. Only in December 2017, were procedures formally created by Administration.
F7:
Although the residential debris removal was completed by March 2016, CalRecycle did not submit its bills to the County until June 2017, and has never submitted any documentation to support the amount of the bills.
F8:
Of the approximately 1200 property owners who signed up for the State removal of their debris, the County initially had little information as to the amount of insurance available to the owners.
F9:
The County, under the impression that insurance funds would be available to homeowners for only two years after the fire, hurriedly arranged to distribute the so called “INVOICE” to property owners in July 2017, during public meetings and via certified mail.
F10:
The breakdown of costs on the “INVOICE” included figures not only for “debris removal,” but also for non-site-specific services, such as “lot fee” and “community cost,” for which no explanations were provided.
F11:
Some property owners received at the same time a second “INVOICE” for “tree removal,” in some instances when no trees - or seemingly healthy trees - were removed, thus compounding their upset. Once again, the figure for non-site-specific “monitoring costs” on the “INVOICE” was unexplained. 65
F12:
The ROE specified certified arborist’s reports and property photographs (before-and-after) hazardous tree removal that were submitted by the tree removal subcontractor are maintained in another department. These records are separate from the primary files created by Administration. Thus, these documents are not available to staff who are attempting to respond to owners’ inquiries.
F13:
Some owners who went to – or called - the administrative office to vent their frustration over the “INVOICE” felt ignored by the response to their inquiry or complaint. Callers rarely spoke with an employee. Instead, they were automatically re-routed to voicemail. This was at the direction of senior administration management.
F14:
Despite having been informed on several occasions that they were responsible to pay only the allotted insurance coverage for debris removal, many property owners were confused, anguished, and angered by their “INVOICE”, which they interpreted to be demanding payment for the full amount listed, which averaged approximately $100,000.
F15:
When owners, a number of whom were present during the debris removal, requested supporting documentation for the billed amounts, the County stated that it passed on the requests to CalRecyle, with no response.
F16:
Some owners whose rebuilding monies were distributed to them by their insurance carriers had not been informed that the debris removal coverage was included therein. They then spent the money without paying the debris-removal portion to the County. The County is slowly attempting to work out a repayment program for these owners.
F17:
Approaching three years after the Valley Fire, the County still does not have the proof of “no insurance” from all of the owners so indicating.
F18:
To-date, three letters with copies of the “INVOICE” have been send out to property owners who have not yet paid the County their insurance proceeds for debris removal. Several owners have reported they were threatened verbally with being sent to collections, despite administrative denial of anyone doing so. When the specific amount owed is unknown thereby excluding external collections, how the County will force owners to pay is unclear. 66
F19:
Property owners affected by the Clayton Fire, who have received insurance proceeds for debris removal that they want to pay to the County, now are unable to do so for lack of a dedicated database created to document/track such payments for the Clayton Fire.
F20:
Part of the reason for the delay in collecting insurance proceeds was linked to the prolonged delay in issuing building permits by The Department of Community Development, as insurers often retained rebuilding payments until a permit was issued.
Additional Recommendations
15
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The County should amend the Right-of-Entry form to clarify the meaning of “no out-of-pocket cost” to the property owners and should avoid use of the term “free” on any official handouts. [F-1, F-14]
R2:
Prior to inevitable future fire emergencies, and such as was done in Calaveras County following the Butte Fire, the County should consider appointing one person to interact with the public and to be the centralized repository of disaster-response information. [F-5, F-10, F-13, F-14]
R3:
County personnel must be mindful of their “customer service” responsibilities when dealing with its stressed citizens. These attitudes and practices flow down from Administration and the department heads. Initial or additional “customer service” training by professionals should be implemented as necessary and should be heartily supported by management. [F-5, F-13]
R4:
In the immediate aftermath of a disastrous fire, Administration should proactively work with the property owners to ascertain their specific insurance coverage for debris removal. [F-8, F-16, F-17, F-18] *****Special Notation: The Grand Jury has become aware that, after months of investigation into this area, the staff of County Administration has reached out to other counties – now with continuing follow-through- on proactively dealing with this area. The Grand Jury applauds actions done in reaction to the obvious focus of its investigations instead of only following issuance of its final report. Whatever stimulus initiates the beneficial change/action is helpful to all the people of our communities. 67
R5:
The County should avoid using the term “INVOICE” on the insurance-collection paperwork distributed to property owners. [F-10, F-11, F-14]
R6:
The County should rework its insurance-collection documents so that the first page of the “billing” portions reflect the actual insurance coverage for that specific property owner and thus the amount actually due to the County. [F-10, F-14]
R7:
County administrative personnel should actively seek out training regarding State and Federal regulations pertaining to debris removal prior to beginning the insurance collection process. [F-6, F-9, F-16]
R8:
All administrative staff dealing with the public in the aftermath of a disaster should be cross-trained in the basics of State and Federal post-fire regulations as well as in Lake County post-fire insurance administrative procedures to provide backup continuity. [F-9, F-12, F-15, F-16, F-17]
R9:
A dedicated phone line for debris removal insurance coverage queries should be instituted before collection procedures begin for the Clayton, Sulphur, and any future fires. [F-5, F-13, F-14, F-15]
R10:
The preliminary message on that dedicated line should include words to the effect of “We have placed answers to many common questions on the Lake County OES website and we encourage you to peruse that site at “(County to develop a new web site location – specific to the fire/insurance issues).” This message should precede the caller’s transfer to the responsible County person assigned to that dedicated line. [F-13]
R11:
The County should strive always to have a person answering the dedicated phone line during business hours. Calls being forwarded from the public to Voicemail during business hours should be done only as a backup procedure and not as a primary means of communication. Procedures should be developed and implemented to assure that callers’ queries are addressed in a timely manner. [F-13, F-15]
R12:
The contract between the County and CalRecycle must specify the terms of payment of insurance proceeds to the State and reimbursement to the County for its insurance-collection costs. [F-2, F-3]
R13:
The County should develop, approve, print, and adhere to specific procedures under which any delinquent property owners are to be sent to “collections.” These procedures should accompany early communications regarding insurance reimbursement. [F-18] 68
R14:
As an example of proactive management, the best interest of its citizens would be served by the County’s establishing the working databases now for property owners affected by the Clayton and Sulphur fires. [F-19]
R15:
Any residual Valley Fire-related information and documents from other departments should be integrated into the databases and files created and maintained by Administration. [F-12] Request for Responses: Pursuant to Penal Code section 933(c), the following responses are required: Board of Supervisors: R-12 (90 days) The Grand Jury invites the following individuals to respond. Chief Administrative Officer: R1 through R-15 (60 days) Environmental Health Director: R-1, R-15 (60days) 69
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
15 findings
F1:
The County of Lake OES has drafted a thorough and exemplary body of work in planning how governmental agencies in the County should prepare for handling emergencies. This planning is evident in the EOP, which was approved by the Board of Supervisors in May 2018. The incorporated cities, Clearlake and Lakeport, have their own Emergency Operations Plans. These civic plans are not included in the county EOP.
F2:
OES did not actively involve residents and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and community groups in the development of the EOP and apparently had no plans to involve them in the execution of the EOP.
F3:
Although the EOP addresses Unified Command in case of an emergency, not all county governmental agencies report through a unified command structure. In an actual wildfire emergency, particularly one spanning multiple jurisdictions, lack of a pre-established unified command structure could result in confusion, miscommunication, and inaction, thus jeopardizing lives.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
Regarding Unified Command, the BOS and the Lake County Sheriff should immediately reconsider where to assign overall authority and responsibility for implementation of the OEP. Considerations should be based on what management configuration could most effectively implement all aspects of the Plan. The BOS should not assign authority and responsibility to the Sheriff’s Office simply because it provides the EOC and is responsible for emergency notifications and evacuations. (F3, F4, F5)
R2:
The Sheriff, with current responsibility, should direct the OES to negotiate a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with each of the responsible governmental organizations named in the EOP. These MOUs should establish the areas of responsibility and authority and the specific actions each organization is to take in the advent of a wildfire emergency. (F3, F4, F5)
R3:
The Sheriff, with current responsibility, should require the OES to develop a plan and negotiate a MOU with each of the incorporated cities as to how the EOC will be manned and managed in an emergency, especially in one crossing jurisdictional boundaries. This plan should include how to establish authority within the EOC initially and how to alter authority as the incident unfolds. (F3, F4) 127
F4:
Issues with Unified Command, operation of the Emergency Operations Center (EOC), and establishment of the Incident Command System (ICS) could arise within implementation of the EOP. Although the Plan clearly states the purposes and characteristics of these entities, it does not spell out how these entities will be established and coordinated in an actual emergency. The various agencies that respond to fires have already established command protocols that have proved effective and that 124 offer an Incident Command System in addressing fire emergencies. Absent such clear direction for many agencies that normally operate independently and report through disparate management authority, confusion and even disagreement as to who is in command in an emergency and what should be done is likely.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
Regarding Unified Command, the BOS and the Lake County Sheriff should immediately reconsider where to assign overall authority and responsibility for implementation of the OEP. Considerations should be based on what management configuration could most effectively implement all aspects of the Plan. The BOS should not assign authority and responsibility to the Sheriff’s Office simply because it provides the EOC and is responsible for emergency notifications and evacuations. (F3, F4, F5)
R2:
The Sheriff, with current responsibility, should direct the OES to negotiate a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with each of the responsible governmental organizations named in the EOP. These MOUs should establish the areas of responsibility and authority and the specific actions each organization is to take in the advent of a wildfire emergency. (F3, F4, F5)
R3:
The Sheriff, with current responsibility, should require the OES to develop a plan and negotiate a MOU with each of the incorporated cities as to how the EOC will be manned and managed in an emergency, especially in one crossing jurisdictional boundaries. This plan should include how to establish authority within the EOC initially and how to alter authority as the incident unfolds. (F3, F4) 127
F5:
Assignment of authority and responsibility over implementation of the OES to the Lake County Sheriff’s Office is problematic. As noted in the Discussion above, there are three reasons why this assignment may not work: a. The primary focus of the Sheriff’s Office is law enforcement. Emergency response is not purely a law enforcement function and includes many disparate agencies working in concert. General organizational principles would suggest that overall command should be given to the agency with the broadest responsibility. In this case, that would be the Board of Supervisors and the two city Councils. b. Currently, the OES reports to the County Sheriff, who does not report to the BOS. Thus, the line of management authority from BOS to OES is broken and may not function well. The Sheriff does command necessary functions in an emergency, but does not exert either wide authority within County government or any authority within cities and outside agencies. c. The Sheriff’s Office has clearly expressed that it does not have the administrative manpower to adequately manage and supervise both law enforcement functions and emergency planning and operations. In an emergency, this lack of trained and seasoned manpower to manage an emergency could significantly impair necessary actions.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
Regarding Unified Command, the BOS and the Lake County Sheriff should immediately reconsider where to assign overall authority and responsibility for implementation of the OEP. Considerations should be based on what management configuration could most effectively implement all aspects of the Plan. The BOS should not assign authority and responsibility to the Sheriff’s Office simply because it provides the EOC and is responsible for emergency notifications and evacuations. (F3, F4, F5)
R2:
The Sheriff, with current responsibility, should direct the OES to negotiate a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with each of the responsible governmental organizations named in the EOP. These MOUs should establish the areas of responsibility and authority and the specific actions each organization is to take in the advent of a wildfire emergency. (F3, F4, F5)
R4:
The Sheriff, with current responsibility, should require OES to plan with community groups, such as, for example, homeowner’s associations and HAM radio operators, as to how the groups will interface with governmental agencies and operate in an emergency. Such negotiated planning should consider the unique nature of individual neighborhoods and include in the planning neighborhood organizations. (F5, F6)
F6:
Agencies responsible for emergency services acknowledge that planning and execution related to emergencies can only be effective if it includes both governmental and non-governmental community groups. However, the OES has done little work in helping residents and community groups to prepare for and handle emergencies. In fact, the OES has, in some cases, discouraged active participation by residents and groups, such as homeowner’s associations and amateur radio (ham) operators.
Related Recommendations (4)
R4:
The Sheriff, with current responsibility, should require OES to plan with community groups, such as, for example, homeowner’s associations and HAM radio operators, as to how the groups will interface with governmental agencies and operate in an emergency. Such negotiated planning should consider the unique nature of individual neighborhoods and include in the planning neighborhood organizations. (F5, F6)
R5:
The Sheriff, with current responsibility, must develop plans and programs for educating residents and non-governmental organizations as to how to respond in the event of a possible or ongoing emergency. Two models would be the materials available through CalFire and the Hidden Valley Lake Association. (F6, F7, F10, F11)
R6:
The Sheriff, with current responsibility, must develop and implement plans and programs for warning residents and non-governmental organizations of an anticipated or ongoing emergency. The Sheriff must consider that more technical and electrically dependent emergency alert systems may not work in an actual wildfire emergency. Emergency planners should develop and implement more traditional methods of warning, such as sirens with battery backup and block captain systems, tailored to conditions in specific neighborhoods. (F6, F8, F9, F10)
R7:
The Sheriff, with current responsibility, and the cities must develop plans and programs for evacuating residents, particularly AFN persons, in case of an anticipated or ongoing emergency. Plans should concentrate on NGOs that house numerous persons that cannot provide for their own evacuation, such as nursery schools and nursing homes. (F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F12, F13)
F7:
County governmental agency plans and programs for educating and training residents and community groups in how to operate in an emergency are inadequate or non-existent. CalFire does publish and distribute detailed guides on how to plan for and respond to wildfire emergencies. No such informational program exists in the County or city governments. 125
Related Recommendations (2)
R5:
The Sheriff, with current responsibility, must develop plans and programs for educating residents and non-governmental organizations as to how to respond in the event of a possible or ongoing emergency. Two models would be the materials available through CalFire and the Hidden Valley Lake Association. (F6, F7, F10, F11)
R7:
The Sheriff, with current responsibility, and the cities must develop plans and programs for evacuating residents, particularly AFN persons, in case of an anticipated or ongoing emergency. Plans should concentrate on NGOs that house numerous persons that cannot provide for their own evacuation, such as nursery schools and nursing homes. (F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F12, F13)
F8:
The plans, programs, and systems for warning residents and community organizations of impending or ongoing emergencies have often proved inadequate. In recent wildfire disasters in 2017, technology-based warning systems were ineffective in alerting the majority of residents.
Related Recommendations (2)
R6:
The Sheriff, with current responsibility, must develop and implement plans and programs for warning residents and non-governmental organizations of an anticipated or ongoing emergency. The Sheriff must consider that more technical and electrically dependent emergency alert systems may not work in an actual wildfire emergency. Emergency planners should develop and implement more traditional methods of warning, such as sirens with battery backup and block captain systems, tailored to conditions in specific neighborhoods. (F6, F8, F9, F10)
R7:
The Sheriff, with current responsibility, and the cities must develop plans and programs for evacuating residents, particularly AFN persons, in case of an anticipated or ongoing emergency. Plans should concentrate on NGOs that house numerous persons that cannot provide for their own evacuation, such as nursery schools and nursing homes. (F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F12, F13)
F9:
More traditional warning systems, namely sirens, have proved effective in alerting residents to impending or actual emergencies. Such systems are particularly effective when they are protected against electric outages with battery backup. Though such systems do not indicate the nature of the emergency, they are effective in alerting people to actively seek information. Coupled with systems to promulgate emergency information, such warning systems have proved very effective. Hidden Valley Lake community already has an effective siren system in place and operating. The Middletown and Cobb areas have recently installed siren-warning systems.
Related Recommendations (2)
R6:
The Sheriff, with current responsibility, must develop and implement plans and programs for warning residents and non-governmental organizations of an anticipated or ongoing emergency. The Sheriff must consider that more technical and electrically dependent emergency alert systems may not work in an actual wildfire emergency. Emergency planners should develop and implement more traditional methods of warning, such as sirens with battery backup and block captain systems, tailored to conditions in specific neighborhoods. (F6, F8, F9, F10)
R7:
The Sheriff, with current responsibility, and the cities must develop plans and programs for evacuating residents, particularly AFN persons, in case of an anticipated or ongoing emergency. Plans should concentrate on NGOs that house numerous persons that cannot provide for their own evacuation, such as nursery schools and nursing homes. (F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F12, F13)
F10:
Community Emergency Response Training (CERT) has already proved its efficacy in educating residents and neighborhoods in preparing for and responding to emergencies. A community action group in Spring Valley, during several recent wildfires, employed CERT training that included self-directed wildfire response. This successful reaction proves the effectiveness of educating and training neighborhoods in emergency preparedness. The Cobb area residents are currently exploring emergency response training. Efforts by other neighborhood groups to obtain CERT training in other locations over the years have been met with apathy by responsible County officials. Some individuals/groups had to obtain training in other counties, such as Mendocino, Napa, Yolo and Marin.
Related Recommendations (3)
R5:
The Sheriff, with current responsibility, must develop plans and programs for educating residents and non-governmental organizations as to how to respond in the event of a possible or ongoing emergency. Two models would be the materials available through CalFire and the Hidden Valley Lake Association. (F6, F7, F10, F11)
R6:
The Sheriff, with current responsibility, must develop and implement plans and programs for warning residents and non-governmental organizations of an anticipated or ongoing emergency. The Sheriff must consider that more technical and electrically dependent emergency alert systems may not work in an actual wildfire emergency. Emergency planners should develop and implement more traditional methods of warning, such as sirens with battery backup and block captain systems, tailored to conditions in specific neighborhoods. (F6, F8, F9, F10)
R7:
The Sheriff, with current responsibility, and the cities must develop plans and programs for evacuating residents, particularly AFN persons, in case of an anticipated or ongoing emergency. Plans should concentrate on NGOs that house numerous persons that cannot provide for their own evacuation, such as nursery schools and nursing homes. (F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F12, F13)
F11:
OES has no plans to promote or assist neighborhoods in preparations for obtaining information in emergencies. Of critical importance, in safeguarding residents and community organizations in an anticipated or ongoing emergency, is the ability to deliver accurate and timely information. This is particularly critical in following up a general warning signal, such as a siren or electronic warning. Programs for communicating with residents and community groups in the EOP are inadequate. Effective plans for follow-up of an emergency alert can be implemented through pre- organized non-governmental entities, such as, for example, homeowner’s associations, CERT teams, and Block Captain/Neighborhood Watch programs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Sheriff, with current responsibility, must develop plans and programs for educating residents and non-governmental organizations as to how to respond in the event of a possible or ongoing emergency. Two models would be the materials available through CalFire and the Hidden Valley Lake Association. (F6, F7, F10, F11)
F12:
OES plans, programs, guides, and training for evacuation in case of an emergency are inadequate or non-existent. In fact, the Sheriff’s Department has made it clear that it cannot advise residents in establishing evacuation routes or evacuation protocols in case of an impending or ongoing emergency. Such lack of pre-planning could prove fatal in an emergency. 126
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The Sheriff, with current responsibility, and the cities must develop plans and programs for evacuating residents, particularly AFN persons, in case of an anticipated or ongoing emergency. Plans should concentrate on NGOs that house numerous persons that cannot provide for their own evacuation, such as nursery schools and nursing homes. (F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F12, F13)
F13:
Although the EOP includes recognition of the need for plans and programs to evacuate AFN persons in case of an impending or ongoing emergency, actual plans are inadequate or non-existent.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The Sheriff, with current responsibility, and the cities must develop plans and programs for evacuating residents, particularly AFN persons, in case of an anticipated or ongoing emergency. Plans should concentrate on NGOs that house numerous persons that cannot provide for their own evacuation, such as nursery schools and nursing homes. (F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F12, F13)
F14:
Amateur Radio (Ham) represents a non-governmental communication resource that has been instrumental in the past in providing critical support in emergencies. Hams are specially trained in radio operations and use equipment that is less subject to inoperability due to electrical failures. Hams are committed and highly motivated to provide communication services to Lake County during emergencies. OES has in its plans to include a manned Ham station in the EOC that is being remodeled.
Related Recommendations (2)
R9:
The OES should consider how to coordinate with the Lake County Amateur Radio Society (LCARS) and should develop a MOU clarifying LCARS’ role in providing vital communication during an emergency. (F14, F15) 128
R10:
OES should take advantage of the technical expertise of Hams in configuring the proposed OEC antenna to best effect radio transmissions. (F14, F15) Request for responses: Pursuant to Penal Code Section 933(c), the following responses are required: Board of Supervisors (R1, R2, R3, R6, R8) (90 days) Lake County Sheriff’s Office (R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9, R10) (60 days) City Manager of Lakeport (R1, R2, R3, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9) (60 days) City Manager of Clearlake (R1, R2, R3, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9) (60 days) The Grand Jury invites the following agencies to respond: California Department of Forestry & Fire Protection (R5, R6) Hidden Valley Lake Association Security Services (R4, R5, R6, R7, R8) Cobb Area Council (R4, R5, R6, R7, R8) Lake County Amateur Radio Society (R4, R9, R10) 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142
F15:
OES personnel indicate that the current location of the OEC is in a radio transmission “blind spot” that would preclude effective transmission of radio signals.
Related Recommendations (2)
R9:
The OES should consider how to coordinate with the Lake County Amateur Radio Society (LCARS) and should develop a MOU clarifying LCARS’ role in providing vital communication during an emergency. (F14, F15) 128
R10:
OES should take advantage of the technical expertise of Hams in configuring the proposed OEC antenna to best effect radio transmissions. (F14, F15) Request for responses: Pursuant to Penal Code Section 933(c), the following responses are required: Board of Supervisors (R1, R2, R3, R6, R8) (90 days) Lake County Sheriff’s Office (R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9, R10) (60 days) City Manager of Lakeport (R1, R2, R3, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9) (60 days) City Manager of Clearlake (R1, R2, R3, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9) (60 days) The Grand Jury invites the following agencies to respond: California Department of Forestry & Fire Protection (R5, R6) Hidden Valley Lake Association Security Services (R4, R5, R6, R7, R8) Cobb Area Council (R4, R5, R6, R7, R8) Lake County Amateur Radio Society (R4, R9, R10) 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R8:
The Sheriff, with current responsibility, should investigate the issue of effective evacuation from neighborhoods, particularly where egress is limited, such as Anderson Springs and Spring Valley, for example. The Sheriff should develop a program to inform residents and community groups of evacuation protocols and routes. The Sheriff should consider the development of a book of maps showing evacuation routes from neighborhoods, using as models the map book produced by CalFire (Lake County First Responders Map Book) and the evacuation route map created by the Hidden Valley Lake Association and provided to its residents. (Exhibit D) (F6, F7, F8, F9, F10,
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The Clearlake holding facility is not ADA compliant.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Clearlake Police Department should take reasonable measures to ensure disabled persons can manage adequately while in custody. (F1)
F2:
The Clearlake holding cells are inadequately monitored.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Clearlake Police Department should analyze and update the prisoner monitoring systems. (F2)
F3:
The Hill Road County Jail is well maintained and professionally managed.
F4:
A volunteer is needed for the Adult Literacy Program at the Hill Road facility.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Hill Road County Jail management and the County Library System management should jointly define and install an appropriate Adult Literacy instructor. (F4, F5) 46
F5:
The Lake County Library system has individuals identified who provide adult literacy training.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Hill Road County Jail management and the County Library System management should jointly define and install an appropriate Adult Literacy instructor. (F4, F5) 46
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
The libraries in the County are under-utilized by the County school systems. Most schools have minimized or eliminated on-site libraries and librarians in favor of internet accessible computers. The internet does not offer the precision or definition available from a physical library. “Google can bring you 100,000 answers. A librarian can bring you the right one.” Neil Gaiman-English Author
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Library System in the County should investigate/recommend a method for establishing a bookmobile service. The BOS should support options to facilitate this service. (F1, F3, F6)
F2:
During the January 2018 “Community Visioning Forums” conducted by the County, support for libraries and museums was among the top areas prioritized by the attendees.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
If the voters approve an increase to the County sales tax, a portion of this funding should be earmarked for the libraries. (F2, F4)
F3:
It is difficult for school systems to arrange for, and finance, student/class trips to the library. 56
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Library System in the County should investigate/recommend a method for establishing a bookmobile service. The BOS should support options to facilitate this service. (F1, F3, F6)
F4:
Libraries are inadequately staffed and volunteers are needed to help fill the voids.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
If the voters approve an increase to the County sales tax, a portion of this funding should be earmarked for the libraries. (F2, F4)
F5:
Limited library accessibility (hours of operation) hampers usage by students and working adults.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The libraries and museums need to expand hours of operation to increase accessibility and usage. (F5)
F6:
Several areas of the County (e.g., the communities on the northeast side of the Lake, Kelseyville, and Cobb Mountain communities) do not have reasonable access to brick and mortar libraries. Due to the remoteness of several areas of the County, a bookmobile service targeted at the primary schools (but also available to middle and high schools) would be a cost effective method of getting library services to the underserved students.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Library System in the County should investigate/recommend a method for establishing a bookmobile service. The BOS should support options to facilitate this service. (F1, F3, F6)
F7:
The museums are using creative ways (e.g., ‘Murder Mystery Dinners’, Weddings, etc.) that encourage residents to visit the museums, and in the process, enhance revenue. However, these measures do not address the underutilization of the museums by children and young adults.
Related Recommendations (2)
R4:
Creative and interactive programs should be established to encourage more participation of young people/students at the museums. (F7)
R5:
The libraries and museums need vigorous recruitment of young adults, retired educators and seniors to serve as volunteer staff. They should be tasked with the goal of creating programs directed at younger children. (F7)
F8:
There is inadequate publicity throughout the County on special exhibits and events offered by the museums.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Increased publicity of Museum events should be funded and enacted. (F8) 57 Request for Responses: Pursuant to Penal Code section 933(c), the following responses are required: Board of Supervisors (R1, R2, R6) (90 days) Lake County Superintendent of Schools (R6) (60 days) The Grand Jury invites the following individuals to respond: Director of Lake County Museums (R3, R4, R5) (60 days) Director of Lake County Libraries (R3, R5) (60 days) 58
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
There are numerous groups, organizations, government departments or individuals throughout the County and incorporated cities in need of support or assistance that cannot be obtained under current staffing or budgeting limitations.
Related Recommendations (4)
R1:
The County should establish a specific individual to facilitate ‘making connections.’ This should not be limited to volunteering strictly to support County governmental needs. They should have the responsibility of seeking out areas of organizational or capability needs, and then matching them to the willing and offered citizens or organizations that can assist in those needs. This function should include active outreach specific to these goals across the county in: area councils, citizen groups, NGO’s, service organizations. Included should be any internal governance requests/needs for voluntary support identified via existing departmental reporting structures throughout the County. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5)
R3:
Clearlake Animal Control (or the Clearlake City Manager’s office) should access the posted videos (on the main county website under administration/forums/forum videos/South County Forum between timestamps 1:05:00 and 1:15:00). Contact should be initiated with the citizen offering to foster multiple dogs (and neighbors of the speaker who also are willing to foster multiple animals) with the intent to establish such service. (F1, F2)
R4:
The County should review main county website (under administration/forums/forum videos/Lakeport Forum timestamp 1:24:00 to 1:25:00) and develop/enhance the grant writing effort and utilize volunteer help where it has been offered. An offer made during the Community Visioning Forums by an individual (ostensibly) experienced in this field to perform the service on a “no cost basis” to the county. This offer was not pursued or investigated. In the time since the forums, a paid County grant writer has been installed instead (F1, F2)
R5:
The Senior Centers in Middletown, Lakeport, Lucerne, and Clearlake Oaks should establish contact with the Clearlake Children’s Museum of Arts and Sciences (CMAS). This is program (NOT limited to children) that is already providing ‘no cost’/low cost art instruction at the Clearlake Senior Center. Contact is to determine if their volunteer service would be of interest/use to those other senior centers. (F1, F2). Request for Responses: Pursuant to Penal Code section 933(c), the following responses are required: Board of Supervisors, County Administrator (R1, R4)(90 days) The Grand Jury invites the following individuals to respond: County Administration (R2, R4) (60 days) City of Clearlake City Council (R3) (90 days) Clearlake Animal Control Department (R3) (60 days) Director of Middletown Senior Center (R5) (60 days) Director of Lakeport Senior Center (R5) (60 days) Director of Lucerne Senior Center (R5) (60 days) Director of Clearlake Oaks Senior Center (R5) (60 days) 149 Grand Jury Appendix 150 151 152 Grand Jury Complaint Form 153 Lake County Quilt Trail “Sail Away” 1860 High Street, Lakeport, California 154
F2:
There are groups and individuals throughout the county who have capabilities, time, and assets that they are willing to contribute to the betterment of specific areas or departments within the County or the incorporated cities.
Related Recommendations (4)
R1:
The County should establish a specific individual to facilitate ‘making connections.’ This should not be limited to volunteering strictly to support County governmental needs. They should have the responsibility of seeking out areas of organizational or capability needs, and then matching them to the willing and offered citizens or organizations that can assist in those needs. This function should include active outreach specific to these goals across the county in: area councils, citizen groups, NGO’s, service organizations. Included should be any internal governance requests/needs for voluntary support identified via existing departmental reporting structures throughout the County. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5)
R3:
Clearlake Animal Control (or the Clearlake City Manager’s office) should access the posted videos (on the main county website under administration/forums/forum videos/South County Forum between timestamps 1:05:00 and 1:15:00). Contact should be initiated with the citizen offering to foster multiple dogs (and neighbors of the speaker who also are willing to foster multiple animals) with the intent to establish such service. (F1, F2)
R4:
The County should review main county website (under administration/forums/forum videos/Lakeport Forum timestamp 1:24:00 to 1:25:00) and develop/enhance the grant writing effort and utilize volunteer help where it has been offered. An offer made during the Community Visioning Forums by an individual (ostensibly) experienced in this field to perform the service on a “no cost basis” to the county. This offer was not pursued or investigated. In the time since the forums, a paid County grant writer has been installed instead (F1, F2)
R5:
The Senior Centers in Middletown, Lakeport, Lucerne, and Clearlake Oaks should establish contact with the Clearlake Children’s Museum of Arts and Sciences (CMAS). This is program (NOT limited to children) that is already providing ‘no cost’/low cost art instruction at the Clearlake Senior Center. Contact is to determine if their volunteer service would be of interest/use to those other senior centers. (F1, F2). Request for Responses: Pursuant to Penal Code section 933(c), the following responses are required: Board of Supervisors, County Administrator (R1, R4)(90 days) The Grand Jury invites the following individuals to respond: County Administration (R2, R4) (60 days) City of Clearlake City Council (R3) (90 days) Clearlake Animal Control Department (R3) (60 days) Director of Middletown Senior Center (R5) (60 days) Director of Lakeport Senior Center (R5) (60 days) Director of Lucerne Senior Center (R5) (60 days) Director of Clearlake Oaks Senior Center (R5) (60 days) 149 Grand Jury Appendix 150 151 152 Grand Jury Complaint Form 153 Lake County Quilt Trail “Sail Away” 1860 High Street, Lakeport, California 154
F3:
There is no individual or department within the various governances that focuses on bringing together needs with offerings.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The County should establish a specific individual to facilitate ‘making connections.’ This should not be limited to volunteering strictly to support County governmental needs. They should have the responsibility of seeking out areas of organizational or capability needs, and then matching them to the willing and offered citizens or organizations that can assist in those needs. This function should include active outreach specific to these goals across the county in: area councils, citizen groups, NGO’s, service organizations. Included should be any internal governance requests/needs for voluntary support identified via existing departmental reporting structures throughout the County. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5)
F4:
Many citizens report that attempts by them to approach members of governance throughout the county with offerings of capabilities or assistance have either been overtly ignored or outright rebuffed.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The County should establish a specific individual to facilitate ‘making connections.’ This should not be limited to volunteering strictly to support County governmental needs. They should have the responsibility of seeking out areas of organizational or capability needs, and then matching them to the willing and offered citizens or organizations that can assist in those needs. This function should include active outreach specific to these goals across the county in: area councils, citizen groups, NGO’s, service organizations. Included should be any internal governance requests/needs for voluntary support identified via existing departmental reporting structures throughout the County. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5)
F5:
There will never be an expected ‘every issue will have a solution.’ It is a certainty that some issues/possible solutions may face insurmountable regulatory or procedural obstacles. Some offered assistance will be deemed inadequate for the designated problem. There may be so many ‘need’ issues that priorities may have to be set which then cannot address every one of them even if an asset/capability is available. Such situations are inevitable, but should not derail the enactment of a formal procedure. We should not let striving for ‘perfect’ to deter putting in place the ‘good’.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The County should establish a specific individual to facilitate ‘making connections.’ This should not be limited to volunteering strictly to support County governmental needs. They should have the responsibility of seeking out areas of organizational or capability needs, and then matching them to the willing and offered citizens or organizations that can assist in those needs. This function should include active outreach specific to these goals across the county in: area councils, citizen groups, NGO’s, service organizations. Included should be any internal governance requests/needs for voluntary support identified via existing departmental reporting structures throughout the County. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5)
F6:
At the time of the Community Visioning Forums it was stated by County officials that no multi-year budgetary forecast (revenues and expenditures) existed. In the interim, a 10 year ‘vision’ has been announced by County Officials, but it lacks projected budgetary numerical variations due to tax revisions, disaster funding, or other realistically potential areas that can affect the budget. These permutations are normally of important interest to anyone doing due diligence on relocating to, or investing in, a new economic or commercial venture. 147
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The County should develop a multi-year financial outlook (five years minimum, ten years preferred) based on current tax/cost/revenue understandings, but should also include potential variations that would alter the forecast in consideration of significant changes (such as tax increases). (Reference main county website under administration/forums/forum videos/South County Forum – timestamp 1:28:45 to 1:30:40) (F6)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
There is a real need for the Centers to be able to communicate with the County District Supervisors.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The BOS should communicate quarterly with their associated Senior Center representatives in order to address specific concerns. (F1)
F2:
The Senior Centers do not have adequate signage on the main thoroughfares to direct patrons to their locations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Install correct or additional signage to direct patrons to the Senior Centers. (F2)
F3:
The handicap door at the entrance to the Clearlake Oaks Senior Center does not function properly.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The County should ensure that the Clearlake Oaks Senior Centers’ handicap entrance functions properly. (F3)
F4:
The sidewalks in front of the Lucerne Center are in dis-repair.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The County should repair the sidewalks in front of the Lucerne Alpine Senior Center. (F4) Request for Responses: Pursuant to Penal Code §933(c), the following response is required. Board of Supervisors (R1,R2,R3) (90 days) The Grand Jury invites the following individuals to respond: County Code Enforcement (R1,R2) (60 days) County Fire Marshall or appropriate Fire Chiefs(R1,R2) (60 days) County Building Inspections Department (R1,R2) (60 days) County Community Development Department (R4) (60 days) County Public Works Department (R4) (60 days) County Area Agency on Aging (AAA) (R3) (60 days) 35 Planning and Public Works Lake County Quilt Trail “Home Sweet Home” 1002 11th Street, Lakeport, California 36 37 Where’s My Building Permit? Summary: Between 2015 and 2017 Lake County suffered many devastating wildfires. The county had never experienced such a large emergency and therefore did not have an updated comprehensive emergency plan in place. The Lake County Community Development Department failed to meet the greater needs of the public. The Grand Jury found there needs to be more cooperation between the County and the various communities and city directors. Background: In the past three years, our beautiful Lake County has suffered many devastating wildfires. Elements of the Lake County government were unprepared to respond appropriately to the sudden greater needs experienced by the public. After final containment of the Valley fire, it became apparent that the Lake County Building and Planning Department is significantly understaffed and unprepared for the unprecedented increase in workload. This led to a backlog of inspection and plan approvals, frustrating the public with lengthy delays. The Building and Planning Department did not have an emergency fund. The County found it necessary to hire outside contractors to perform planning approvals and inspections. One County Supervisor was performing inspections (and a second County Supervisor was being trained) to support the Community Development Department due to staffing issues within that department. This may not have been necessary had the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) existing between Lake County and the cities of Lakeport and Clearlake been activated. The MOU, had it been activated, could have allowed the cities to provide the needed personnel to expedite plan approvals and inspections. The cities confirmed that they were not contacted by the Lake County Community Development Department for help during or after the catastrophes. Methodology: The Grand Jury began this investigation from a complaint regarding poor management and inspection procedures in the County’s Community Development Department. The Grand Jury interviewed the pertinent persons from the County and cities. Discussion and Analysis: Problems within the Lake County Community Development Department were more extensive than first appeared. The Clearlake and Lakeport City Building and Planning Departments were performing well and could serve as a model for Lake County.
F5:
The food inspection process as performed by the County inspectors at each of the Senior Centers has been done properly and shows no area of concern or discrepancy.
F6:
There is a shortage of trained building inspectors, leading to long waits for periodic and final inspections. 39
F7:
The Grand Jury’s analysis is that Clearlake and Lakeport have well run and efficient Building and Planning Departments and could have been of significant assistance had the MOU been utilized.
F8:
The County Community Development Department does not communicate with the Cities of Clearlake and Lakeport regarding mutual aid. Recommendations:
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Establish yearly Countywide Community Development/Building and Inspection Department meetings to include the representatives from the cities of Lakeport and Clearlake Building and Planning Departments. (F8) Request for Responses: Pursuant to Penal Code §933(c), the following response is required. Board of Supervisors (R1,R4) (90 days) The Grand Jury invites the following individuals to respond: Head of Lake County Community Development Department (R2,R3,R4,R5) (60 days) Head of Clearlake Building and Planning Department (R3,R5) (60 days) Head of Lakeport Building and Planning Department (R3,R5) (60 days) 40