Lake County Grand Jury
2020-2021
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F3:
- In October 2020, the Board of Supervisors insisted on timely passage of the proposed pay increases for staff. F. 4 - In October 2020, County administrators presented their own and managers’ proposed salary increases but not ones for staff; this upset staff and exacerbated mistrust among them. F. 5 - Many County employees have long-standing mistrust of County administration. F. 6 - Ordering preparation of the Class and Compensation Study (hereinafter ‘the study’) was a good first step toward repairing the County’s relationships with its employees. F. 7 - Lake County is insufficiently flexible in designing and offering recruitment incentives for professionals and executives. F. 8 - For some employees, the deductions for benefits are too expensive. F. 9 - The County offers a large array of benefits to its employees. This variety actually increases the overall cost to employees. F. 10 - The County did not adopt the study’s recommendation to modify its step system (from 12 step to 5 step) for employee advancement. F. 11- Recommendations from the study for some Y ratings were not adhered to, and the ‘selected application’ of others was viewed as unfair. F 12 - The County does not conduct exit interviews with all employees who leave its employ. F. 13 - County administrators interfered with some directors’ succession planning. F. 14 - The County has made questionably legal offers to unions during collective bargaining. F.-15 - Some employee worksites are not properly designed or well maintained. F.-16. – Not Every County department head has a succession plan. RECOMMENDATIONS
F12:
- The County does not conduct exit interviews with all employees who leave its employ. F. 13 - County administrators interfered with some directors’ succession planning. F. 14 - The County has made questionably legal offers to unions during collective bargaining. F.-15 - Some employee worksites are not properly designed or well maintained. F.-16. – Not Every County department head has a succession plan. RECOMMENDATIONS R-1. The County should regularly, at least every three years, review its employees salaries and benefits levels to ensure they are competitive and reasonable for employees and within the County’s labor market. (F-1, F-8, F-9) R-2. The Board of Supervisors and County administrators should take care not to suggest by any action or statement lack of appreciation for the concerns of staff employees. (F-2, F-4, F-5, F-6) R-3. Every County employee’s contract/work agreement should include an annual COLA. (F-1) R-4. The Board of Supervisors and County administrators must remain cognizant of and avoid the appearance of self-dealing, unfairness or disregard of their employees in all their activities, especially when setting their own remuneration. (F-2, F-4, F-5) R-5. The County must be more flexible and open to alternatives for salaries and benefits when recruiting managers and professionals. (F-7) R-6. Every department should have its own employee retention plan. (F-13, F- 16) R-7. The County should conduct an exit interview with every employee who leaves. (F-12) R-8. The County should provide an array of benefit plans that allow employees to select ones that are within their means and which permit them to maintain a reasonable income. (F-8, F -9) 138 R-9. The Board of Supervisors should have more in-person contact with County employees, preferably in the employees’ workplaces. (F-2) R-10. The County should pay attention to the state of employee work sites and break areas to make sure they are comfortable, well-lit, clean and conducive to the employees’ duties. (F-15) R-11. Every department head should have a succession plan. (F 16) R-12. County administrators should defer to a department head’s succession plan and avoid interrupting training of a successor. (F -16) R-13. The County should review and, if necessary, revise its decision to Y-rate mission critical employees (i.e., Nurses, Heavy-Equipment Operators.) (F-13) R-14. The County should ensure that all employees who were Y-rated are currently paid at Level 5 or above. (F-11) R-15. The County should reconsider whether it should alter its 12-steps for employee advancement as recommended by the study. (F-10) R-16. The County should always negotiate in good faith with its unions. (F-14) R-17. The County should not make offers in collective bargaining that it knows the union will reject. (F-14) 139 INVITATIONS TO RESPOND PER PENAL CODE 933: Required Responses: Lake County Board of Supervisors (R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, R-5, R-6, R-7, R-8, R-9, R-10, R-11, R-12, R-13, R-14, R-15, R-16, R-17) (90 days) 140 141 142
Additional Recommendations
17
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The County should regularly, at least every three years, review its employees salaries and benefits levels to ensure they are competitive and reasonable for employees and within the County’s labor market. (F-1, F-8, F-9)
R2:
The Board of Supervisors and County administrators should take care not to suggest by any action or statement lack of appreciation for the concerns of staff employees. (F-2, F-4, F-5, F-6)
R3:
Every County employee’s contract/work agreement should include an annual COLA. (F-1)
R4:
The Board of Supervisors and County administrators must remain cognizant of and avoid the appearance of self-dealing, unfairness or disregard of their employees in all their activities, especially when setting their own remuneration. (F-2, F-4, F-5)
R5:
The County must be more flexible and open to alternatives for salaries and benefits when recruiting managers and professionals. (F-7)
R6:
Every department should have its own employee retention plan. (F-13, F- 16)
R7:
The County should conduct an exit interview with every employee who leaves. (F-12)
R8:
The County should provide an array of benefit plans that allow employees to select ones that are within their means and which permit them to maintain a reasonable income. (F-8, F -9) 138
R9:
The Board of Supervisors should have more in-person contact with County employees, preferably in the employees’ workplaces. (F-2)
R10:
The County should pay attention to the state of employee work sites and break areas to make sure they are comfortable, well-lit, clean and conducive to the employees’ duties. (F-15)
R11:
Every department head should have a succession plan. (F 16)
R12:
County administrators should defer to a department head’s succession plan and avoid interrupting training of a successor. (F -16)
R13:
The County should review and, if necessary, revise its decision to Y-rate mission critical employees (i.e., Nurses, Heavy-Equipment Operators.) (F-13)
R14:
The County should ensure that all employees who were Y-rated are currently paid at Level 5 or above. (F-11)
R15:
The County should reconsider whether it should alter its 12-steps for employee advancement as recommended by the study. (F-10)
R16:
The County should always negotiate in good faith with its unions. (F-14)
R17:
The County should not make offers in collective bargaining that it knows the union will reject. (F-14) 139 INVITATIONS TO RESPOND PER PENAL CODE 933: Required Responses: Lake County Board of Supervisors (R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, R-5, R-6, R-7, R-8, R-9,
Findings & Recommendations
11 findings
F1:
Emergency responders in Lake County do not routinely track/identify calls relating to fires, health emergencies, or criminal acts by homeless persons and thus the impact on, and the resulting costs to, society cannot readily be calculated.
F2:
An unknown, but substantial, number of law enforcement calls pertain to complaints about troublesome behaviors by the homeless that evidence mental- health or substance abuse causes.
F3:
Hospitals and Jails have become cost centers for treating the homeless, with healthcare costs accounting for about half of expenditures and justice-system costs accounting for about one-third of expenditures.
F4:
No acute-care psychiatric facility exists in Lake County, resulting in both patients’ needing acute hospitalization having to be placed out-of-county and also in the Jail’s becoming a de facto psych ward for the chronically mentally ill.
F5:
Both Hope Center and Elijah House, as residential centers, are providing a significant step in helping to break the cycle of homelessness complicated by mental health and substance-abuse issues and lack of transitional housing.
F6:
No freestanding “housing department” exists in Lake County and thus the County has no centralized focus on providing housing for the homeless.
F7:
Section-8 housing vouchers are currently not available in Lake County due to a lack of available housing.
F8:
Bakersfield has had impressive success in providing housing for its homeless population.
F9:
Other jurisdictions report that documenting a history of incarceration via the PIT count is useful in augmenting their understanding of the contributors to homelessness.
F10:
First responders find that Behavioral Health staff are sometimes unable to respond at all to their calls for assistance or respond only after lengthy delays.
F11:
A number of homeless individuals refuse offers to enter shelters because the shelters do not accept their pets. RECOMMENDATIONS
Additional Recommendations
15
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
All First Responders within Lake County should consider collecting individualized longitudinal data on their interactions with the homeless and referrals for services. (F-1, F-2)
R2:
Lake County – and the cities of Lakeport and Clearlake - should inventory their vacant and surplus property to assess whether any structure/parcel could be realistically modified to provide affordable housing for the chronically homeless. (F-5, F-6, F-7)
R3:
Lake County should sell the former Juvenile Hall to Elijah House, if so requested, so that their vital services can continue to benefit Lake County’s vulnerable populations. (F-5)
R4:
The Probation Department should remove its property from Elijah House so that the facility’s housing capacity could be increased. (F-5)
R5:
The Continuum of Care should augment its PIT questionnaire to include queries about prior incarceration so as to permit a more comprehensive view of the causes of homelessness. (F-9)
R6:
The County should make a concerted effort to arrange for the availability of Section-8 housing. (F-6, F-7, F-8)
R7:
Subsidized housing that can be made available and affordable for homeless residents should be prioritized by the County for the most frequent users of public services (high-cost, high-need) so as to stabilize the neediest – and most costly – individuals. The Bakersfield approach would be a useful model. (F-3, F-6, F-7, F- 8)
R8:
Targeted supportive services from Behavioral Health and Social Services should continue post-housing to improve housing retention rates and reduce the staffing logistics and cost burdens on the two hospitals, the first responders, and the Jail. (F-3, F-4)
R9:
The County and Behavioral Health should focus on the costs of shipping acute psychiatric homeless patients out-of-county and of perpetuating the “revolving door” maintenance of homeless chronic psychiatric patients at the Jail and determine whether providing an in-county facility is economically feasible. (F- 4) 181
R10:
Behavioral Health should clarify and communicate its crisis-response protocols to law enforcement and fire/EMS agencies in the County so that all parties know what to expect when dealing with relevant urgent/emergent situations. (F-10)
R11:
The County should create a specific position dedicated to assessing the needs of - and coordinating the provision of housing to - its homeless residents (F- 6, F-7, F-8)
R12:
The 2020-2021 Civil Grand Jury urges the 2021-2022 Grand Jury to follow- up on the above Recommendations to assess what progress the County is making in providing services, including stable housing, for its most vulnerable residents. (R-2, R-6, R-7, R-11)
R13:
Lake County Animal Control and Clearlake Animal Control could consider investigating how safe and secure overnight shelter for pets of those homeless who are seeking their own overnight or long-term sheltering. (F-11)
R14:
The County and the Cities of Lakeport and Clearlake should form a taskforce to devise a workable and coordinated method of determining the true costs to law enforcement and fire/EMS agencies of responding to emergency calls pertaining to the homeless so that limited resources could be allocated and targeted based on a factual understanding. This would be an expansion of R1. (F-1, F-2) 182 RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, the following responses are required: Lake County Board of Supervisors (R-2, R-3, R-6, R-7, R-9, R-11,
R30-60:
day drug/alcohol treatments and for 4-6 month transitional housing, using Project Roomkey funds. Former convicts who are eligible for the San Francisco-based Delancey Street programs must make a 2-yr commitment. Of the 180-200 homeless who have been treated/housed through HOT intervention, the Sgt. estimated that 90% have stayed clean. 7. No discussion of alternative responses would be complete without reference to Eugene, Oregon and CAHOOTS (Crisis Assistance Helping Out On The Streets), which is a mobile crisis-intervention program staffed by White Bird Clinic personnel using City of Eugene vehicles. This relationship has been in place for nearly 30 years and is well embedded in the community. CAHOOTS provides support for Eugene PD (EPD) personnel by taking on many of the social-service-type calls for service to include crisis counseling. 171
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
The Clearlake Police Department Holding Facility is not currently in use due to COVID-19 restrictions.
F2:
The BSCC final report determined that the facility was in compliance with applicable regulations. RECOMMENDATIONS: None. 2. TEHAMA COUNTY JUVENILE HALL: Lake County Probation no longer operates a juvenile hall and, instead, contracts with Tehama County for juvenile detention services. Youths are detained in juvenile hall in Red Bluff pending their Juvenile Court hearings, while they are serving a commitment or while they are awaiting home detention or out-of-home placement in a foster/group home, camp, or other institution. The Tehama County Juvenile Facility houses as many as 60 wards of the Court and has as homelike an environment as possible. The Facility disciplinary system relies on positive behavior management rather than on punishment. Multiple programs for the youths are available. Only parents, legal guardians, and grandparents are allowed to visit, and no children younger than age 18 can visit. Maintaining family ties is encouraged. The youths can make collect phone calls only to home and are entitled to two hours of visitation each week. Both Zoom visits and Zoom court hearings are utilized. The facility has a courtroom on-site. Medical care is available in an adjacent building. The population has been declining, due in part to changes in the approach to juvenile justice. As of mid-April 2021, Lake County had placed only two male detainees there, both age 14. The cost is $150/detainee/day plus all medical costs after the first medical visit. If no detainees are placed there, Lake County is not charged. Since the County contracted with Tehama County on 10/1/17, 85 youths have been incarcerated there. In 2020, an average of 4-6 detainees were placed there. The total cost in 2020 was $61,000, out of the annual department budget for juveniles of $350.000. The overall recidivism rate for youths in 2020 was 1.9%. When the Juvenile Hall in Lake County was last operational, the average number of detainees was in the 12-19 range. When a child is arrested and transported to Probation, the child’s offense, social/criminal history, and an assessment score on the Detention Risk Assessment Instrument all determine whether the child will remain in custody and be transferred to Red Bluff until a court hearing is held. The County occasionally accesses two other juvenile facilities for more violent youths or those in gangs. The duration of the sentence is up to the judge, usually about six months. Customized care plans are created for each youth that involve education, life skills, group meetings for alcohol and other drugs, mental health, anger management, and, whenever possible, child-parent classes. About 90% of the youths have substance use disorders, mostly marijuana. The length of time on probation depends on the needs of the child. The upper age limit is currently 21, although that may be raised to 26. The most current BSCC report from February 2020, stated that, overall, they found the facility to be operated in a safe and secure manner for the detention of youth. They noted the positive effects of the efforts made by staff and supervisors working directly with the youth under their care and observed that a great deal of time was spent directly engaged with the youth throughout their stay, extra counseling efforts were made to deescalate in times of crisis, and particular efforts were made to communicate facility expectations. The BSCC also found that the policy manual needed to be updated, and documentation of events in incident reports, forms, and logs lacked consistency. All juvenile traffic tickets are sent by the CHP to Probation. From Traffic Court, the youths are usually sentenced to community service. With additional training, Probation Officers can act as School Resource Officers. Currently, only the Upper Lake Unified School District contracts with Probation to have an officer on-campus. FINDINGS:
F3:
If there are no detainees, there is no cost to Lake County.
F4:
The current Probation Department budget for Juveniles is $350,000.00.
F5:
The BSCC complimented the staff for the amount of one-on-one time effectively spent with the youths. 106
F6:
The Lake County Probation Department can provide School Resource Officers to the school districts who can coordinate with staff and can identify and counsel problem students before they enter juvenile detention. RECOMMENDATIONS:
F7:
Additional mental-health support from Behavioral Health is desirable.
F8:
More funding needs to be committed to the community-supervision alternatives-to-jail programs.
F9:
Critical staffing issues continue to exist in several departments of the Sheriff’s Office, including among both correctional officers and aides at the Jail, and such short-handedness impacts morale and retention and increases overtime and retraining costs. RECOMMENDATIONS:
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Due to its exceptional facility and programs, the County should continue to contract with Tehama County for detaining troubled youths. (F-5)
R2:
Using Probation officers as school resource officers should be encouraged by the County’s school districts. (F-6) REQUESTED RESPONSES: Pursuant to Penal Code section 933(c), the following responses are required: Board of Supervisors – R-1 – 90 days Probation Department – R-1, R-2 – 60 days Lake County Superintendent of Schools – R-2 – 60 days 3. LAKE COUNTY COURTHOUSE HOLDING FACILITY: This facility has “aged out” of the BSCC system and is on permanent waiver. As a part of the courthouse, the holding facility falls under state jurisdiction and is only maintained by the County. The facility is very basic and has had no improvements for many years and is rarely used. Inmates are usually taken directly to the courtroom for appearances and are rarely placed in the holding cells. CONCLUSION: There were no reportable findings. 4. KONOCTI CONSERVATION CAMP #27: The facility is jointly operated by the State Departments of Forestry and Fire Prevention (CalFire) and the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). Its primary mission is to provide inmate fire suppression crews wherever needed in California. There are 35 minimum-security camps, statewide, in 25 counties, of which two are for women. Inmates volunteer to be assigned to a camp, and only those with fewer than five years left on their sentences and no history of arson, rape, or other sex crimes are eligible. Rehabilitation is continuously emphasized, beginning with simple discipline, such as getting up at 6 a.m., to help 107 them “make it in the world.” The formal disciplinary procedures progress from verbal warnings to written warnings to, at the extreme, being returned to prison. The Camp has a capacity of 100 inmates and currently houses 33 inmates, with some on fire crews and the rest in support roles (kitchen, vehicle maintenance, water treatment, office). In order to build cohesion, each fire crew has 12-16 members that train together, work together, sleep in the same pod, eat together, and relax together 24/7. All of the training is for wildland, not structure, fires. If an inmate passes an initial one week of physical education, he is then sent for two weeks of firefighting training. The inmates also prepare food in the field using mobile trailers. The inmates are paid $2.45/day, with an extra $1/hour when actually fighting a fire. Their sentences may be reduced because of their participation in this program. During the recent years of wildland fires, the inmates spent nearly eight thousand man-hours fighting fires throughout the State. CalFire has changed its policies to permit hiring qualified inmates after release. The US Forest Service and private fire agencies also can hire inmates, but municipal fire departments cannot. CC#27 also provides equipment maintenance and repair for all manner of fire service equipment. This unit can also operate as a mobile unit that travels to make repairs on-site. CC#27 also participates in conservation, fuel-reduction, and community-service programs in Lake, Napa, Sonoma, Yolo, Colusa, and Mendocino counties. The BSCC does not inspect this facility. FINDINGS:
R3:
The County should negotiate a higher hourly rate for correctional officers and aides in accordance with the Class & Comp survey findings and supplement their health-care benefit costs on a par with the patrol officers. (F-5, F-8) 115 REQUEST FOR RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal Code section 933(c), the following responses are required: Board of Supervisors R-1, R-2, R-3 90 days Lake County Sheriff R-1, R-2, R-3 60 days The following response is invited: Behavioral Health (via BOS) R-2 90 days 116 117 118
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
17 findings
F1:
Multiple County agencies failed to adequately respond to a serious sewage/pollution spill into the Lake. This lack of response occurred despite assertions of staff that ‘strike teams’ had been established to be deployed when necessary.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Board of Supervisors should direct responsible County departments to fulfill their commitments to ensure the safety of the Lake. (F1)
F2:
Repeated meetings and communications by the property owners and County departments failed to produce any discernable results or decisions over a 14-month period.
F3:
The property owners were given, and trustingly accepted, statements and implied assurances by both elected officials and senior County staff. These were, in some cases, unable to be fulfilled because of lack of knowledge of the system procedures; or in other cases by conscious decisions made not supporting those statements and assurances.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Commitments from elected officials to the public, even implied ones, should be based on practical procedural realities and a willingness to ensure those commitments are met. (F3, F4)
F4:
The property owners were misguided into submitting a claim with the County despite the property owners’ several statements of not wishing to do so. The citing of ‘gift of public funds’ was utilized incorrectly as the California State Constitution adds the explanatory language that when the main beneficiary of public funds is a public domain (such as our Lake that all commenting Supervisors stated was their greatest concern), any secondary benefit to an individual shall not be considered cause for prohibition.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Commitments from elected officials to the public, even implied ones, should be based on practical procedural realities and a willingness to ensure those commitments are met. (F3, F4)
F5:
Responsible County staff failed to ensure legal aspects of the claim procedure were being consistently followed by the retained out-of-county service handling claims.
F6:
Multiple procedural mistakes were made in the processing/notification to the citizen regarding this claim.
F7:
The initial 3rd party engineering report, despite early assurances, was not made available to the property owner for six months after it was completed. (April 2021)
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
County departments and staff should be directed to comply with legal requests, and ‘best practices,’ and fulfill commitments in the utilization of publically financed documents. (F7, F8, F9, F10, F12, F13) 96
F8:
The initial engineering report was revised based on ‘new information’ supplied by the County. This was completed in January 2021. Eight of the ten items of ‘new information’ were deemed unsupported by documentation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
County departments and staff should be directed to comply with legal requests, and ‘best practices,’ and fulfill commitments in the utilization of publically financed documents. (F7, F8, F9, F10, F12, F13) 96
F9:
The revised report was made available to the property owners simultaneous to the initial report. (April 2021) 94
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
County departments and staff should be directed to comply with legal requests, and ‘best practices,’ and fulfill commitments in the utilization of publically financed documents. (F7, F8, F9, F10, F12, F13) 96
F10:
Four months after the issue had been extensively discussed in an open Board of Supervisors meeting, it was then – multiple times – brought back to the Board in closed sessions (in December 2020) under two California Government Code references – one of which (i.e. “significant exposure to litigation”) does follow procedures expected in review/discussion of any filed claim –and the second (i.e. “threat of litigation”) being incorrect and potentially misleading to the Board members.
Related Recommendations (2)
R4:
County staff, when dealing with claims, should provide the Board members with accurate and complete information to allow them to make informed and deliberative decisions. (F10, F11)
R5:
County departments and staff should be directed to comply with legal requests, and ‘best practices,’ and fulfill commitments in the utilization of publically financed documents. (F7, F8, F9, F10, F12, F13) 96
F11:
The Board members were not informed that there had separately been an initial report and then a subsequent revision; nor did they know the circumstances (additional County inputs) leading to the revision and supplemental conclusions.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
County staff, when dealing with claims, should provide the Board members with accurate and complete information to allow them to make informed and deliberative decisions. (F10, F11)
F12:
A County department initially failed to provide to the Grand Jury documents, which, per the California Penal code, the Grand Jury has the right and the responsibility to inspect.
Related Recommendations (2)
R5:
County departments and staff should be directed to comply with legal requests, and ‘best practices,’ and fulfill commitments in the utilization of publically financed documents. (F7, F8, F9, F10, F12, F13) 96
R7:
rd Party independent engineering reports (both original and revised). (F12, F13, F15, F15, F16, F17) Request for Responses: Pursuant to Penal Code section 933(c), the following responses are required: Board of Supervisors (R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6) (90 days) 97 98 99 100 101 102
F13:
County Counsel initially advised the County department to not provide the documents pending a review. If such a review was actually accomplished, no results of that review were provided to the Grand Jury by either County Counsel or the County department.
Related Recommendations (2)
R5:
County departments and staff should be directed to comply with legal requests, and ‘best practices,’ and fulfill commitments in the utilization of publically financed documents. (F7, F8, F9, F10, F12, F13) 96
R7:
rd Party independent engineering reports (both original and revised). (F12, F13, F15, F15, F16, F17) Request for Responses: Pursuant to Penal Code section 933(c), the following responses are required: Board of Supervisors (R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6) (90 days) 97 98 99 100 101 102
F14:
By eight months after the extended Board meeting presentation and the required submission of a claim by the County, the only ‘compromise’ proposal proffered to the property owners had all responsibility assigned to Park A for financing and work based on a complicated set of criteria and including potential financial assistance that would be in violation of County departmental rules. (ergo, unlikely to actually be approved.)
F15:
The proffered ‘compromise’ hinged on statements that the lateral entered into the main sewer line at a 90° angle. There is no supporting evidence (industry standards, construction documentation, direct video examination by the county) to indicate that is factual. Visual inspection and reporting by the commercial firm retained for the April 9, 2019 spill by the property owner directly refutes that notion.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
rd Party independent engineering reports (both original and revised). (F12, F13, F15, F15, F16, F17) Request for Responses: Pursuant to Penal Code section 933(c), the following responses are required: Board of Supervisors (R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6) (90 days) 97 98 99 100 101 102
F16:
While no other ‘major spill’ has occurred at the specific site since April 2019, based on significantly reduced rainfall (which can be a large contributing factor) it is possible another occurrence could happen if circumstances alter significantly in the upcoming years. 95
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
rd Party independent engineering reports (both original and revised). (F12, F13, F15, F15, F16, F17) Request for Responses: Pursuant to Penal Code section 933(c), the following responses are required: Board of Supervisors (R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6) (90 days) 97 98 99 100 101 102
F17:
The State documented 15,000 gallons of raw sewage entered the Lake. This occurred during the 24-hour period between the first reporting of the leak to the County department and the completion of the State inspection and report. Water usage by Park A averaged less than 3000 gallons a day (established by water bills) and an assumed equal amount is expected for similar sized Park B. The combined 6,000 gallons per day is significantly short of the 15,000 gallons documented. Raw sewage from the main system had to be ‘back flowing’ into the lateral and became the largest percentage of the material entering the Lake.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
rd Party independent engineering reports (both original and revised). (F12, F13, F15, F15, F16, F17) Request for Responses: Pursuant to Penal Code section 933(c), the following responses are required: Board of Supervisors (R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6) (90 days) 97 98 99 100 101 102
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R3:
A procedural review and periodic independent inspections should be conducted of the retained out-of-county arbiter service to ensure full compliance to the California Government Code laws as pertains to claims against the County. As claims are filed with the Board of Supervisors, their responsibility for proper handling does not go away by assigning the task to a staff department. (F5. F6)
R6:
To forego a new spillage problem occurring, but with deference to the legal complexities surrounding a final resolution, a temporary solution comprised of: a) reclassify the multi-property lateral as ‘public’ pending final outcome (as concluded by the 3rd party independent engineering report.) A sunset date can be placed on this action. b) assign responsibility for dealing with back-ups/overflows of this lateral to the Special Districts that has the equipment and trained staff to deal with such issues. This should be tied to the final outcome. A sunset date can be placed on this action. c) obtain written approval for 24/7 access to the lateral manhole/maintenance opening on Park A property from the property owner. d) a means of stopping backflow leakage from the lateral access point to the affected storm drain (as simple as sized metal plates held in place by sand bags) should be planned and developed for potential future lake pollution occurrences at this site. The County, and – as necessary – the several property owners should work towards a final plan and proposal to be met before the expiration of the sunset date. (F14,
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
13 findings
F1:
No effective communication occurred between the Board of Supervisors, County Administration, and the designated responsible departments leading to ineffective implementation of the COVID-19 enforcement ordinance.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
All future county-wide ordinances which designate multi-departmental involvement are discussed in advance with the specific departments including feasibility studies, staffing needs, training needs, and additional departmental budgeting to support the efforts. (F1)
F2:
As no administrative fees were levied by the county, and education/guidance methods were only sporadically utilized, the ordinance in its present form did not enhance protection of the County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The current ordinance be amended to accurately represent what the County is willing and prepared to follow through on and then reissued to be on public record. (F2)
F3:
No process currently exists to guide effective response to unexpected urgent and serious county-wide challenges. Existing Emergency Operations Plans do not effectively address this area.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
An adaptive and workable set of guidelines in dealing with unforeseen emergencies be developed to aid future county Boards, staff, and departments in addressing governmental leadership, regulations, and public conformity. (F3, F4) Request for Responses: Pursuant to Penal Code section 933(c), the following responses are required: Board of Supervisors (R1, R2, R3) (90 days) 36 37 38 Civil Grand Jury 2020/2021 EMERGENCY EVACUATIONS IN RESPONSE TO WILDFIRES
F4:
There are no documented set of policies and procedures completed for implementation and/or enforcement of the current ordinance.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
An adaptive and workable set of guidelines in dealing with unforeseen emergencies be developed to aid future county Boards, staff, and departments in addressing governmental leadership, regulations, and public conformity. (F3, F4) Request for Responses: Pursuant to Penal Code section 933(c), the following responses are required: Board of Supervisors (R1, R2, R3) (90 days) 36 37 38 Civil Grand Jury 2020/2021 EMERGENCY EVACUATIONS IN RESPONSE TO WILDFIRES
F5:
The Sheriff’s videos and radio interviews were intended to be effective for the audience they reached and could be, in the future, supplemented/targeted to reach additional segments of the population, especially with simultaneous or sequential bilingual translation.
F6:
Lists of at-risk residents are maintained by at least five groups, with approximately 7,000 names on the lists that are currently available.
F7:
The PG&E Medical Baseline Program list is made available only if a NDA has been provided by the requesting agency.
F8:
Information on preparing for wildfires is widely available online and provided as handouts and mailers by CalFire, County agencies, and non- profits such as Firewise Communities/USA, but individualized evacuation plans created for the disabled and elderly are far less common.
F9:
The Sheriff’s customization of the new Zonehaven database will provide essential geographic information during emergencies and will be available to County administration, emergency managers, and the public. 50
F10:
The AFN Annex of the County’s Emergency Operations Plan was last updated in 2017.
F11:
The EOC website and/or phone may not be available to the public 24/7 during an emergency.
F12:
CERT training has been effected by North Coast Opportunities, and team members can fill support roles during emergencies.
F13:
HIPPA restrictions may be waived during declared emergencies. (Privacy section of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act) 51 RECOMMENDATIONS:
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R4:
County government departments serving the elderly and disabled and AAA/Senior Centers should consider assisting their clients or encouraging their clients’ families/caregivers to create an individualized evacuation plan. (F-6, F-8, F-13)
R5:
County government departments serving the elderly and disabled, as well as the law-enforcement agencies, should confirm that they can currently access the PG&E Medical Baseline Program list or else submit a NDA to permit access. (F-7, F-13)
R6:
The Sheriff should consider providing bilingual communications universally to the public during emergencies. (F-5)
R7:
The OES Manager should update the AFN Annex of the County’s Emergency Operations Plan from its 2017 edition. (F-10) 52 RESPONSES: Pursuant to Penal Code section 933(c), the following Responses are required: Board of Supervisors (R-2) 90 days Sheriff (R-1, R-2, R-6, R-7) 60 days The following Responses are invited: Department of Social Services (R-3, R-4, R-5) 90 days Department of Behavioral Health (R-4, R-5) 90 days Clearlake Police Department (R-5) 60 days 53 54 55 56 Civil Grand Jury 2020/2021 Wastewater - Getting It Right Conservation, ecology, and the environment: these are areas getting increased interest everywhere around the world. It is always easy to focus on portions of these topics getting lots of attention in the news. However, the greater subjects contain perhaps less noticeable but critically important segments that underlie all of our daily lives. One of these segments is sewage and the removal of wastewater. In Lake County, a good portion of rural residences and businesses are maintained by septic systems. The larger majority of locations, though, are serviced by specialized semi-private or public departments. The primary systems the Grand Jury investigated are: Clearlake Oaks Community Water District Hidden Valley Lake Community Services District Lake County Special Districts Each of these systems provides well designed and monitored, as well as high quality and efficient, modern technology to fulfill their needed goals. Each of them has broad coverage over wide service areas maintaining everything from the sewers under the streets as the primary movement points through pumping stations, through filtration processing, and through cleaning/sanitizing techniques until the re-processed water is returned to the environment in several ways. In each of these differing districts, great attention is given to not only deal with a standard or normal level of need but also to have working systems and methods to deal with unexpected and exceptional needs (such as during very significant weather/rain occurrences). In addition to the extent of the residential and commercial wastewater handling in our cities and towns, the realm of wastewater processing and handling for selected areas of agriculture – particularly the vineyards – has importance to the County. While not necessarily a topic of common conversation, Lake County citizens should take pride in how our combined systems are not only servicing the basic need but also in participation in quite innovative and future-thinking solutions benefiting both our people and our environment. Discussion Sewage, when reaching the end of the sewer piping system, goes through three basic treatment steps: a) the ‘primary’ has the removal of large objects, some solids (such as debris or gravel or sand), and certain liquids and semi-liquids (such as fats, oils, and grease); b) the ‘secondary treatment’ which is the degradation of biological content (human waste, food, soaps, detergents); and c) the ‘tertiary treatment’ which is the final process to increase the water quality to desired levels before it is returned to the environment. There can be many segments, each of importance and working in unison with the others, in these basic steps. The Grand Jury reviewed engineering plans for each of the three districts as well as emergency and overflow systems and procedures to assure maximum safety and environmental responsibility. An extended tour was made of the County operations located northwest of Lakeport and in Middletown. This proved to be far more interesting and informative than any of the jurors would have imagined prior to the visit. A “step-by-step” description of the Lakeport facility shows: 1) All raw sewage that has moved through piping and pumps arrives at the preliminary screening and ‘comminutor’ (grinder) station (Note – this was the only point in the entire facility/process that evidenced any particular or expected odor at all.) 58 2) The wastewater continues through grit filters and the primary clarifier for removal of sludge that is separately treated for disposal. 3) The water then proceeds to the first aeration tank to begin a further separation of sludge through an activated biological process. 4) The water is then moved to a different pond where a new technology called the “Blue Frog System” (a commercial name) where oxygen is moved laterally through numerous water columns – as opposed to the more traditional vertical movement – to dissolve bio-solids, which allows them to settle and then, at a known and controlled rate, decompose. This step keeps a quantity of active bio- material in the pond to facilitate the ongoing process. 5) Upon completion of the lateral oxygenation process, the water passes through a chemical monitoring station where small amounts of disinfectant chemicals are added as necessary. 6) The water moves to another aeration pond to complete the purification process. 7) The water then is pumped to a final holding pond. 59 *****All measures for safety are rigorously identified and followed at the facility***** Within this processing facility is a central district monitoring system that entails a quite large number of factors. In addition to the chemical/purity sensors throughout the above processes, there are reporting sensors from every pumping station throughout the entire County-operated sewage and effluent (ready for return to the environment) water. These data inputs are formatted and recorded to allow long term tracking, monitoring, and projection of system maintenance needs, which is very thorough and efficient. Short-term planned updates to this capability will allow real-time monitors to immediately alert Special Districts staff of any system shutdown or failure and to assure response on the scene in a very short time anytime day or night. This overall facility has a large solar panel array (joining with conventional generators) to provide power even during times of area-wide disruptions (such as Public Safety Power Shutoffs) A system upgrade is planned to install Tesla storage batteries for increased capacity and efficiency for the solar array. As noted earlier, the effluent water can be returned to the environment in several ways. For Hidden Valley Lake, some of the effluent is spread (via giant sprinklers) over large tracts of open fields. Some other portions are sent for non- potable usages in their areas. Some other portions are intentionally funneled to water runs that flow away from any public waterway and allow for natural evaporation to progress. For Lake County Special Districts, including Clearlake Oaks, the effluent water is used in a unique and highly environmentally sensitive way. The combined effluent from the several facilities that operate similarly to the one described above (located in Lakeport, Clearlake Oaks, Clearlake, and Middletown) is sent through a major pipeline with multiple pumping stations from the north central part of the county, all the way around the Lake, down to the southwestern portion of the county 61 The effluent leaves the control of Lake County outside of Middletown where it is then further pumped by CalPine (commercial energy production consortium) to ‘The Geysers’ twenty plus steam geothermal electricity generation sites. The effluent water is injected under high pressure into the geothermal active areas (322 steam wells and 54 injection wells) in the Mayacamas Mountains where it is converted to steam that powers turbines for generation of electricity. The heat for this process comes from magma located four miles beneath the surface. This group of generation facilities, utilizing Lake County effluent wastewater as well as effluent water from Santa Rosa, is the largest geothermal electricity generation center in the world. Lake County delivers eight to nine million gallons of reclaimed water per day through our county-wide pipeline, equating to roughly 3 billion gallons each year. Winery Wastewater For our county’s important wine industry, a very different set of factors, processes, and controls are used. Across California there are more than 4,600 wine grape growers and more than 2,800 wineries. California produced 680 million gallons of wine last year. Wastewater production from the wine industry varies (by location and type of grape/wine) from 3 to 10 gallons of wastewater per gallon of consumable wine. Looking at averages would indicate about 4 billion gallons of specialized wastewater statewide per year. To manage this, a number of Regional Water Quality Control Boards have been established for differing sections of California. The largest is the Central Valley region and Lake County is within their designated control area. The individual regional boards have differing standards they set for their districts. The Central Valley regional standards have been the most restrictive/controlled of any region in the state. Untreated wastewater from wine production contains everything from organic solids (leaves, stems, skins, seeds and pulp) to yeast to salts and other chemicals to regular dirt. All winery wastewater is collected for cleansing/processing. The smaller growers and bottlers often ship the untreated wastewater out to specialized facilities for processing. The larger producers generally do that conversion from untreated to effluent on their own property. The actual process has many similarities to the general sewage treatment process. Greater attention is paid to agricultural specific chemical/biological supplements and additives such as pesticides and fertilizers. Often aeration ponds are replaced with evaporation ponds wherein remaining sludge can be more readily collected and further processed. But, the aeration pond process does still have some significant usage in the industry. The goal of any effluent water production is to finally utilize it for other agricultural, construction (roads/highways would be common), decorative, and other non-potable applications. As the volume of consumable wine increases at any given industry location, the wastewater processing testing, quality, handling, and effluent dispersal regulations becomes more stringent. Mistakes leading to ground water or surface water contamination – while quite rare – are dealt with quickly and severely. For such a large and broad geographic based industry, the successes in meeting and exceeding the required standards are a matter of industry-wide pride. Lake County’s wineries attain the same forward thinking and environmentally protective results as does our general sewage processing system. COVID-19 and Wastewater The public has brought forward numerous questions regarding COVID-19 and the sewage processing systems in our county. Very early on in the first stages of learning about, and reactions to, the virus, testing was done by an out-of-state company specifically looking for signs of waste bearing the virus. As our county health department, using nasal swab techniques, was determining how much the virus might have spread in certain portions of our population, the simultaneous wastewater testing was confirming that the actual spread of the virus was broader based and detectable in many areas of the county. Even though both methods still showed small numbers of actual cases, they did verify the presence and spread of the virus. These kinds of wastewater testing began in March, 2020 and continued through until July, 2020 at which point no questions remained as to the reality of the virus spreading throughout the entire county. It is most important to note that the careful processing steps turning wastewater into effluent water done by all of the sewage districts in Lake County completely disinfects any traces of COVID-19. There has not been, nor will there be, any spread of COVID-19 via these facilities. Findings: F1. The sewage processing facilities maintained by Lake County Special Districts and the reviewed operations in Clearlake Oaks and Hidden Valley Lake are meeting their quality and service goals. F2. The processing of wastewater into effluent water for agricultural and energy production usage is a progressive achievement for Lake County and of significant importance in environmental protection and renewable resource management. Recommendations: R1. A specific program be developed - that provides information and tours (methods of operation and environmental impact) for appropriate secondary school science classes - between the Lake County Office of Education and Lake County Special Districts Department. The Grand Jury invites the following to respond: Board of Supervisors (R1) (90 days) Lake County Superintendent of Schools (R1) (60 days) 65 66 67 68
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
No regular schedule for review of on-going large scale contracts has been formalized across all county departments.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
A system of regular and scheduled reviews of on-going contracts and supplier usage be instituted to ensure optimal efficiency in expenditure of county funds. (F1)
F2:
The language/classification designated for no-bid contracts utilized in Board of Supervisors agendas and minutes does not allow for specification or detail into why any given contract has the competitive bidding process waived.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R2:
No bid contracts/purchase orders for Board of Supervisors review and approvals to have specific