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,
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
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
CFMG is providing adequate medical care for inmates at the LCCF under the applicable California statutes of California Code of Regulations, Title 15, Articles 8 through 10, California Welfare and Institutions Code §5150 et seq., and 5600.4, and California Penal Code §4011.6.
F2:
Mental health services are inadequate as provided by CFMG, as an inmate with mental health issues is less likely to benefit from counseling sessions provided via a video screen instead of live interactions and observations. 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 167
F3:
Intensive care coordination and discharge planning is critical for inmates with identified mental health issues to prevent recidivism. However, care coordination with County agencies is inconsistent.
F4:
Despite a decrease in the number of prisoners, over the past decade the percentage of State prisoners with mental illness has increased by 77 percent. (Stanford Justice Advocacy Project) (See Exhibit 1 attached)
F5:
The total change in the percent of LCCF population with an active mental health case between 2009 and 2019 went from less than 10 percent to almost 50 percent. (California Health Policy Strategies calhps.com, utilizing data from the Board of State and Community Corrections jail profile surveys) RECOMMENDATIONS
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
That Public Health, Behavioral Health and the Sheriff/Coroner future agreements for inmate health contractors continue to comply with all state requirements. (F-1)
R2:
That all future agreements for inmate mental health services be required to conduct interviews and counseling sessions in- person. (F-2)
R3:
That Lake County Behavioral Health work in coordination with CFMG or subsequent contractors to ensure recommended follow-up care so that appropriate resources are provided when inmates with mental health issues are paroled from LCCF. (F-3,
R4:
That the Director of Lake County Public Health be charged with the oversight of the LCCF agreement for inmate health services in order to assure compliance with its terms. (F-2, F-3, F-5) 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 168 RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal Code section 933(c), the following responses are required: Director of Public Health (R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4) 90 Days Director of Behavioral Health (R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4) 90 Days Sheriff/Coroner (R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4) 60 Days Invited response: California Forensic Medical Group, Secretary and COO (R-1, R-2) 90 Days 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 169 Exhibit 1 Secretary, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Manuel Jimenez, BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CARE AND THE JUSTICE-INVOLVED: WHY IT IS SO IMPORTANT? In fiscal year 2015-16 a total of 35,098 individuals returned to their communities from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). Within that group, 23.1 percent were identified by CDCR as having mental health needs ranging from severe to moderate and 57.7 percent as having substance use treatment needs. While those numbers are likely to shift slightly once home due to changing circumstances and stressors, clearly there is a significant need for behavioral health services upon re-entry. The consequence of behavioral health needs not being met effectively in the community is costly. People with mental illness have higher recidivism rates and stay longer, once incarcerated, than those who do not have these challenges (Kim, Becker-Cohen, & Serakos, 2015). A study by PEW and the MacArthur Foundation (2014) found that correctional spending on adults with mental illness alone is two to three times higher than for those without mental illnesses. • The number of prisoners with mental illness in California is on the rise: while the overall state prison population has decreased dramatically, the number of prisoners with mental illness continues to climb and is expected to grow in the years ahead. Over the past decade, the percentage of state prisoners with mental illness had increased by 77 percent (Stanford Justice Advocacy Project). • Defendants with mental illness receive longer prison sentences: On average, prisoners with mental illness in California receive sentences that are 12 percent longer than prisoners convicted of the same crimes but without mental health diagnoses (Stanford Justice Advocacy Project). Released inmates have high rates of poverty, unemployment, and ultimately homelessness - wreaking havoc on health status 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 170 • A survey of over 1000 returning offenders from prisons found that 4 in 10 men and 6 in 10 women reported a combination of physical health, mental health, and substance abuse conditions • These individuals reported poorer employment noting that health problems interfered with their ability to work, and reported a need for housing assistance • Worsening health status and lack of primary care may be associated with higher rates of recidivism, while not having a primary care provider may lead to under-treated or untreated mental health and substance abuse disorder, which are indirectly linked to recidivism EXPANDED HEALTH CARE IN CONJUNCTION WITH CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM: A UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY FOR CALIFORNIA TO ADDRESS BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CARE NEEDS FOR THE JUSTICE- INVOLVED HEALTH CARE REFORMS 1991 Realignment and the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) supported a behavioral healthcare system in California that was county-driven but tax revenue reliant. The financial crisis of the mid to late 2000s disseminated the state’s health care safety net, including behavioral health services despite revenue from the MHSA In the 2010 the Affordable Care Act was signed into law significantly expanding services and eligibility, particularly the inclusion of essential health benefits and the availability of never before health care for low income, childless adults under expanded Medi-Cal (CA’s Medicaid Program), offered significant opportunities and challenges In 2015 the Drug Medi-Cal Organized Delivery System (ODS) Waiver launched so that counties could substantially expand substance use benefits - including to the justice-involved By 2016 Whole Person Care (WPC) Pilots were being developed to provide comprehensive and coordinated care for high utilizing Medi-Cal recipients including those reentering from correctional settings 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 171 CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORMS 2009 Senate Bill 678 Provided financial incentives to counties to reduce the number of felony offenders sent to state prison for probation failures. 2011 Public Safety Realignment Shifted low level felons (non- serious & non- violent) to probation and county jail systems 2012 Proposition 36 Revised the ‘three strikes law” so that a life sentence was only imposed with a NEW serious and violent crime 2014 Proposition 47 Reduced penalties associated with certain lower- level drug and property offenses 2016 Proposition 57 Increases the number of inmates eligible for parole consideration by awarding sentencing credits to inmates for positive behavior such as participating in rehabilitative programming. The measure also makes changes to state law to require that youths have a hearing in juvenile court before they can be transferred to adult court. Of the nearly 10 million people released from correctional facilities each year, as many as 70 percent leaving prison and 90 percent leaving jail were estimated to be uninsured prior to the enactment of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in January 2014 HEALTH CARE AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM WORKING TOGETHER TO SAVE LIVES AND MONEY • Community mental health treatment is more effective and less expensive than incarceration: The annual cost of incarcerating an average state prisoner in California is over $70,000, not including mental healthcare costs, while the cost of treating a person with mental illness in the community is approximately $22,000 (Stanford Justice Advocacy Project). • For those released from jail with serious mental illnesses, having Medicaid coverage and receiving behavioral health services lead to a 16 percent reduction in recidivism (Morrissey et al, 2006). • The use of publicly funded substance services resulted in 18 percent less rearrests in Washington (DSHS, 2009). HOW CAN CALIFORNIA IMPLEMENT WHAT WORKS • Through the Drug Medi-Cal ODS over 30,000 2016-17 referrals are projected to come from the criminal justice system and this represents 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 172 only 20 of the 58 counties. Plans are still being approved and implemented. • Almost half of approved WPC Pilot Plans focus on individuals released from institutions including correctional settings. Other pilots will likely serve the justice- involved due to a focus on homelessness, high utilizers with chronic conditions, and individuals with mental health and substance use disorder conditions. • More counties are seeing the benefit of using AB109 funds for evidence-based substance use and mental health treatment. • Under Prop 47, 23 counties, cities, law enforcement agencies, and educational institutions have been awarded over $103 million in funds for the next three years to provide programs and services, including housing and employment assistance, for justice-involved youth and adults living with substance use and mental health disorders. 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 173
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
OES provides critical services intended to improve the health and safety of Lake County residents.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Disaster Council to report regularly to the Board of Supervisors with written recommendations and updates. (F1, F4, F5)
F2:
The Manager of Emergency Services position was vacant from October, 2021 until January, 2022, and the OES Specialist remains unfilled at the time of this report.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
The Disaster Council leadership to be delegated to either the Director of Emergency Services or the Emergency Services Manager in order 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 149 to function more effectively as an advisory body to the Board of Supervisors. (F2, F4)
R3:
Vacant positions within the OES system need to be filled on an urgent basis due to the critical nature of these responsibilities and the likelihood of future disasters. (F2)
F3:
Community involvement in the Disaster Council is lacking.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Disaster Council to be reorganized to include community organizations such as both of the Lake County Fire Safe Councils, the Firewise Communities in the County, North Coast Opportunities, Clear Lake Environmental Research Center, and homeowners’ associations as members. (F3)
F4:
The Disaster Council, currently lead by a Supervisor, is not making any formal recommendations to the Board of Supervisors according to the posted meeting minutes.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
The Disaster Council leadership to be delegated to either the Director of Emergency Services or the Emergency Services Manager in order 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 149 to function more effectively as an advisory body to the Board of Supervisors. (F2, F4)
R4:
The Disaster Council to report regularly to the Board of Supervisors with written recommendations and updates. (F1, F4, F5)
F5:
The Disaster Council only meets once every three months. RECOMMENDATIONS
Related Recommendations (2)
R4:
The Disaster Council to report regularly to the Board of Supervisors with written recommendations and updates. (F1, F4, F5)
R5:
The Disaster Council to meet monthly, especially during declared disasters. (F5) REQUIRED RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal Code §933(c), the following responses are required: Board of Supervisors R1, R2, R4, R5 90 days Sheriff/Coroner R1, R2, R3, R5 60 days
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
Shelter professionals concur that TNRM (Trap, Neuter, Return, and Monitor) is the most effective management strategy for community cats.
F2:
Restrictions, due to the pandemic, greatly reduced the two shelters’ provision of low-cost or free spay/neuter surgeries for community cats in Lake County.
F3:
The veterinary clinics in the County, including Lake County Animal Care & Control and Clearlake Animal Control, are shorthanded and 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 106 overstretched, and providing low-cost sterilizations for community cats is not a priority.
F4:
The undermanned veterinary clinics are unable to purchase and staff a mobile vet clinic.
F5:
Lake County Animal Care & Control’s long-term veterinarian recently died; thus, the facility’s Community Cat Program has been on-hold.
F6:
The Advisory Committee for Lake County Animal Care & Control has not met for almost two years. RECOMMENDATIONS
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
That the Board of Supervisors fast-track its recruitment for a replacement veterinarian. (F-1, F-5)
R2:
That the Board of Supervisors commit a portion of its cannabis income to underwrite a voucher system for low-income residents to assist with community cat management. (F-1, F-2, F-3)
R3:
That the Board of Supervisors designate reserve funds over a period of three years to purchase a mobile van to be used by Animal Care & Control staff and trained volunteers to provide vaccinations and sterilization procedures to underserved County residents. (F-1, F-4)
R4:
That the Director of Lake County Animal Care & Control reconvene the Department’s Advisory Committee. (F-1, F-6) RESPONSES In response to Penal Code § 933 (c), the following Response is required: Board of Supervisors (R-1, R-2, R-3) 90 days The following Response is invited: Lake County Animal Care & Control (R-4) 60 days 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 107 BIBLOGRAPHY Alley Cat Allies - Providing Food and Water: https://www.alleycat.org/community-cat-care/food-and-water-tips/ Alley Cat Allies - Providing Shelter: https://www.alleycat.org/community- cat-care/providing-shelter/ Alley Cat Allies - Helping Cats and People Co-exist: https://www.alleycat.org/community-cat-care/how-to-keep-community-cats- in-an-area/ Alley Cat Allies - How to Help Feral Cats: https://www.alleycat.org/community-cat-care/how-to-keep-community-cats- in-an-area/ Alley Cat Allies - Working with a Veterinarian, https://alleycat.org/community-cat-care/ Animal Control Intake of Free-Roaming Cats. National Animal Care & Control Association, 3/22/2021, https://www.nacanet.org/animal-control- intake-of-free-roaming-cats/ ASPCA Position Statements: Community Cats and Community Cat Programs Responsibilities of Animal Shelters, https://www.spca.org/about-us/aspca-policy-and-position-statements Best Friends Animal Society – Feral Car Resources, https://resources.bestfriends.org/advocacy/community-cats Managing Community Cats. A Guide for Municipal Leaders. The Humane Society of the US. Updated January 2020 San Francisco SPCA Community Cat Resources. https://www.sfspca.org/our-work/community-medicine/community- cats/community-cats-resources/ 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 108 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 109
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
Each Lake County School District followed CDPH pandemic protocols and procedures because the March 2020 Lake County Declaration of Health Emergency, from the Lake County PHO, did not provide sufficient direction to the School Districts. This resulted in inconsistencies between and, sometimes within, the School Districts. The CDPH never definitively defined pandemic protocols and procedures until the CDPH March 12, 2022, guidance. The CDPH guideline was issued 2 years after the March 2020 Lake County Declaration of Health Emergency.
F2:
The Lake County Superintendent of Schools held weekly meetings with the PHO or his representative attempting to facilitate consistent Lake 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 116 County COVID-19 School District protocols and procedures. The Lake County Superintendent of Schools does not have the authority to mandate or direct each School District to follow a centralized procedure, program, or plan.
F3:
Impacted parents experienced inconsistent COVID-19 protocols from district to district and from school to school within their district. RECOMMENDATIONS
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
That the PHO anticipate the impact on Lake County School Districts’ parents and students prior to any Declaration of Local Health Emergency. [F1]
R2:
That the Lake County Superintendent of Schools be authorized to manage and direct consistent School District protocols and procedurals in response to a Declaration of Local Health Emergency. [F2]
R3:
That the Lake County Superintendent of Schools Office be staffed and receive appropriate allocations to insure consistent countywide responses for affected parents, students, and School District Staff. [F3] RESPONSES In response to Penal Code § 933 (c), the following Response is required: Lake County Superintendent of Schools R1, R2, R3 60 days Lake County Public Health Officer (BOS) R1 90 days Lake County Board of Supervisors R1, R2, R3 90 days 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 117
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
Probation requirements, such as attendance and completion of anger management classes, are not tracked completely and consistently.
F2:
There is inadequate communication among agencies (DA’s office, probation, counselors, victim witness) after individuals have been convicted.
F3:
There is no sex offender treatment program in Lake County. Offenders are referred to Sonoma County for treatment.
F4:
There is no juvenile treatment center in Lake County. Offenders are referred to Tehama County for treatment.
F5:
A very limited number of domestic violence programs and counselors are available and active in Lake County.
F6:
There is no Victim Witness Service Coordinator to provide coordination between the offender and the victim and county agencies.
F7:
There are many interrelated issues affecting domestic violence within the indigenous community. RECOMMENDATIONS
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
A comprehensive system needs to be developed and utilized that will track domestic violence offenses, the requirements of the defendants’ probation, the level of fulfillment of those requirements, and any success attributed to those programs. This tracking system needs to be accessible to all relevant agencies. (F-1)
R2:
Systematic communication, including a quarterly meeting with department representatives, needs to be developed and utilized on an ongoing basis. Discussions will include individuals on probation, with an emphasis on how county agencies can work together to produce individual change and to reduce recidivism. (F-2) 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 125
R3:
Behavioral Health and Probation need to coordinate and develop a sex offender program that is available within the Lake County. (F- 3)
R4:
More domestic violence programs need to be developed and additional counselors need to be available within Lake County. (F-5)
R5:
A Victim Witness Coordinator needs to be funded, hired, and trained to work with offenders, victims, and allied agencies. (F-6)
R6:
The Grand Jury recommends that the next Grand Jury (2022-2023) complete a thorough study of domestic violence and substance abuse in the indigenous community and the tribes’ interaction with relevant agencies in Lake County. (F-7) RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal Code section 933(c), the following responses are required: Board of Supervisors
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F1:
- The Juvenile Justice Center is a well-run program that provides individualized programming to assist the wards with educational and rehabilitation needs. It is operating well below the maximum capacity of 64 due to COVID-19 constraints.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Continue current practices that support the needs of Tehama County youth and the needs of youth in surrounding counties. REQUIRED RESPONSE: None 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 163
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
The Lake County Sheriff–Coroner’s office does not have a formal chain-of-custody procedure for release of a body to the mortuary.
F2:
The Agreement for Mortuary Services line item 6 states, “The mortuary shall respond, when dispatched, within 30 to 45 minutes but in no event shall mortuaries’ response time exceed 60 minutes.”
F3:
The Forensic Pathologist has been performing Lake County autopsies since December 2017. In the past, the contract has been automatically renewed. RECOMMENDATIONS
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
That the Lake County Sheriff-Coroner’s office implement a chain- of-custody process for the movement of remains that includes a signature, printed name, date, and time. (F-1)
R2:
That the response-time requirement in the mortuary contract be enforced. (F-2)
R3:
That the Sheriff-Coroner review the contract and RFP (request for proposal) every five years. (F-3) 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 181 RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal Code § 933(c), the following responses are required: Lake County Sheriff–Coroner (R-1, R-2, R-3) 60 days Lake County Board of Supervisors (R-1, R-2, R-3) 90 days
R30-45:
minutes, but at no time shall the mortuary response time exceed 60 minutes.
Findings & Recommendations
21 findings
F1:
The Board members are unpaid and are appointed - by the City of Lakeport (two members) and the Lake County BOS (three members) - not elected by District residents.
F2:
The Board has no process to rotate automatically the office of Chairman, and the current Chairman has held that position for many years straight.
F3:
The Board has not voted to accept a proposed Policies and Procedures Manual.
F4:
The Measure M parcel tax legal requirements for a separate account and annual public accounting have not been met. 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 66
F5:
Adherence to Brown Act requirements has been lacking in regard to entrances being unlocked to the public during Board Meetings.
F6:
Adherence to Brown Act requirements has been lacking in regard to the provision of agendas to the public that include attached documents.
F7:
Adherence to Brown Act requirements has been lacking in regard to the Board meeting location’s lack of wheelchair (disabled) access.
F8:
Adherence to Brown Act requirements has been intermittent in regard to publicly reporting actions, if any, along with the vote, occurring during a closed session.
F9:
Major financial decisions are pending regarding the two LFPD Stations in Lakeport, the Finley station, and the vacant property.
F10:
No Fee Schedule has been created and adopted for the requisite annual inspections of business and residential facilities, and, to fulfill this requirement, staffing may also need to be increased.
F11:
Physical exams and cancer screenings for paid and volunteer firefighters were not provided annually for several years. None of this year’s exams included cancer screenings.
F12:
The LFPD has no Safety Officer, Battalion Chief, or Fire Marshall as backup for the interim Chief.
F13:
There is no designated on-call Chaplain or mental-health specialist to help the staff process traumatic events.
F14:
The firefighter who is filling the role of Fleet Mechanic uses his personal equipment.
F15:
Stations 50 and 52 lack vehicle exhaust systems.
F16:
Stations 50 and 52 are not earthquake-proof. 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 67
F17:
Station 50 contains asbestos, has non-Code electrical connectivity (with power cords running from the attic through the ceiling), and has roof leaks.
F18:
The District was and is losing revenue due to inadequate ambulance billing coding and collection practices.
F19:
For a period of years, the Board did not provide sufficient oversight on correcting budgetary deficits.
F20:
Firefighter layoffs were demoralizing to staff and community.
F21:
The staff (paid and volunteer) and the Board lack effective communication, a sense of collaboration while facing serious ongoing issues, and mutual understanding. RECOMMENDATIONS
Additional Recommendations
41
Not linked to specific findings.
R00-01:
$362,125 $373,324 $815,170 $87,348
R1:
That a full forensic audit be conducted of the LFPD, specifically regarding Measure M revenue and expenditures. (F-4)
R2:
That the LFPD comply with all of the provisions of the Brown Act. through F-8)
R3:
That the Board decide and vote whether to sell, upgrade, or further develop its various properties – Station 50, Larrecou property, Finley station, and Station 52. (F-9, F-15 - F-17)
R4:
That the acting Fleet Mechanic be given a clear and regular maintenance schedule and be provided district equipment and property. (F-14)
R5:
That physical exams and cancer screenings be conducted locally on all paid and volunteer firefighters annually. (F-11)
R6:
That the next Chief have operational backup in the form of a Safety Officer, Battalion Chief, and/or Fire Marshall. (F-12) 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 68
R7:
That a Board Ordinance be established and implemented that allow the department to charge and collect appropriate fees for annual inspections of business and residential facilities. (F-10)
R8:
That the LFPD make a formal arrangement with a Chaplain or mental health specialist in-County to be on-call to assist the firefighters in processing traumatic events. (F-13)
R9:
That the LFPD Board vote to convert to implementing district-wide election, rather than City or County appointment, of its five members. (F-1)
R10:
That the Board approve and adopt organizational and operational Policies and Procedures that include specifying periodic rotation of the role of Chairman. (F-2, F-3)
R11:
That the Board make a consistent effort to interact informally/socially with the firefighters in order to improve morale and trust. (F-11, F-14, F-15, F-20, F-21)
R12:
That the 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury continue this investigation to follow-up on the above Recommendations and report on further developments, including the hiring of a new Chief. (F-1 through F- 21) RESPONSES In response to Penal Code § 933 (c), the following Response is required: Lakeport Fire Protection District (R-1 through R-12) 90 Days Lakeport City Council (R-9) 90 Days 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 69 EXHIBIT 1 - SEPARATELY TRACKED LAKEPORT FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 445 North Main Street, Lakeport, CA 95453 Telephone: (707) 263-4396 Fax: (707) 263-7087 April 20, 2022 Beverly Benedict Hill Foreperson Lake County Civil Grand Jury P.O. Box 1078 Kelseyville, CA 95451 Re: REVISED Measure M reporting for fiscal years 2019/20 and 2020/21 Dear Foreperson Benedict Hill, This report has been revised from the April 18 version to correct the amount of revenue reported, as well as correcting a typo in the table of figures (total INCLUDES payroll). First off, please allow us to apologize for not providing this report to you by your requested date of April 15. Second, below please find a report indicating revenue received and expenses associated with Measure M for fiscal years ending June 30, 2020 and June 30, 2021. This report will encompass both years, but future reports will be done annually. Below are revenues received from Measure M, per the final year-end financial statement from the County: FYE 06/2020 = $ 1,307,537 FYE 06/2021 = $ 1,440,789 2-yr total = $ 2,748,326 The following information was taken from the final year-end financial statements provided by the County. Increased Staffing Levels was one of the priorities established by Measure M. In 2018, Lakeport Fire Protection District (LFPD) had to lay off 50% of its firefighting staff due to budget shortages. This resulted in the three (3) firefighting shifts being staffed by 2 firefighters, rather than 4 firefighters. One of the first things done, post-Measure M, was to re-hire back these 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 70 firefighters. Post-layoffs, LFPD's monthly average payroll cost was approximately $62,000. The current payroll for a fully-staffed station is approximately $93,000, Measure M Report for 2019/20 and 2020/21 April 20, 2022 resulting in a $31,000 monthly increase in payroll, post-Measure M. Annualized, these increased payroll costs amount to $372,000/year, or $744,000 over the last 2 years. Increased Equipment Maintenance was another priority established by Measure M. For the fiscal year ending June 30, 2019 (pre-Measure M), approximately $9,000 was spend on equipment maintenance. For the FYE June 30, 2020, approximately $75,000 was spent on equipment maintenance (a $66,000 increase over the prior/pre-Measure M year) and for the FYE June 30, 2021, approximately $90,000 was spent on equipment maintenance (an $81,000 increase over the pre-Measure M year). Increased Building Maintenance was another priority established by Measure M. For the fiscal year ending June 30, 2019 (pre-Measure M), approximately $4,600 was spent on building maintenance. For the FYE June 30, 2020, that number increased by almost $9,500 as $12,000 was spent to upgrade the Station 50 lobby/admin area. Upgrading and Maintaining Fixed Assets was another priority established by Measure M. In the FYE ending 06/2019 (pre-Measure M), LFPD spent $0 on Fixed Assets- Equipment. For the FYE 06/2020, approximately $51,000 was spent on the purchase of a used Engine ($40,000) and a Lucas/chest compression device ($10,600). For the FYE ending 06/2020, approximately $425,000 was spent on Fixed Assets-Equipment. This included approximately $160,000 for SCBA equipment and $200,000 as a down payment toward a Pierce Pumper (Total to be spent is approximately $900,000). In addition, approximately $17,000 was spent on firehoses and approximately $43,000 was spent on extrication equipment. 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 71 The explanations above are summarized in the table below: 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 Increased Payroll to return laid off workers $372,000 $372,000 Vehicle/Equip Maintenance $9,197 $74,691 $90,031 Building Maintenance $4,603 $14,075 $4,271 Equip Rental/Lease $28,821 $28,613 $33,003 Tools/Instruments 613 $2,647 $7,625 Fixed Assets - Equipment $50,593 $424,635 Fixed Assets - Building Total $43,234 $542, 619 $931,565 Future uses of Measure M money for equipment include continued payments to pay off the Pierce Pumper purchased in 2020 (approx. $700,000 still owed), a diesel exhaust system for stations 50 & 52 (approximately $200,000 for both), as well as making Station 52 a fully Measure M Report for 2019/20 and 2020/21functional, habitable station (approximately $100,000 + exhaust system already noted). Future uses for staffing include a 25% increase in staffing from 4 per shift to 5 per shift and hiring a Fire Marshall and a Fleet Manager. Additionally, LFPD would like to start a Rescue Watercraft Program and funds will be needed to staff and equip this program. Sincerely, Finance & Administration cc: Fire Chief LFPD Board of Directors 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 72 EXHIBIT 2 - BROWN ACT SUMMARY The Brown Act requirements that the Grand Jury found that the Board were not following are bolded below. What is a “Meeting”? A meeting is “any congregation of a majority of the members of a legislative body at the same time and place to hear, discuss, or deliberate upon any item that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body” (§54952.2 (a)). For instance, regarding LFPD, when the quorum for a Board of Directors reaches the number necessary to be a majority (i.e., 3 out of 5), that is considered a meeting under the Brown Act. Also, when the same or a greater number of directors are attending a social gathering, for which no meeting notice was given, and they start discussing business under the jurisdiction of their legislative body, that would be considered a meeting that falls under Brown Act regulations. The key elements for a meeting are quorum and discussion or hearing about or deliberating the issues. The meetings need not to be formally convened in order to be subject to the Act. That means that “informal,” “study,” “discussion,” “informational,” “fact-finding,” or “pre-council” gatherings of a quorum of the members of the Board are within the scope of the Act as “meetings.” Exceptions - Meetings Not Covered by the Brown Act Conferences and retreats, other public meetings, meetings of other legislative bodies, and social or ceremonial events are exempt from the Brown Act provided that Board members follow certain rules such as limiting the discussion to the agenda in the conference and not discussing among themselves the business of the LFPD. Regulations for these exceptions to meetings are contained in §54952.2(c). Also excluded are individual contacts or conversations between a member of the Board and any other person (§54952.2(c) (1), defined as a non-staff or non-Board member. 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 73 Serial Meetings The Brown Act explicitly prohibits the use of “direct communication, personal intermediaries [e.g., an attorney or staff member], or technological devices [i.e., phones, emails, texts] employed by a majority of the members of the legislative body to develop a collective concurrence [consensus] as to action to be taken on an item by the members of the legislative body” (§5495.2(b)). Serial meetings involve communication between members of the Board that are less than a quorum (3) but, when all participants are counted, constitute a majority. For example, a chain of communications involving contact from Director A to Director B who then communicates with Director C would constitute a "serial meeting" involving a “quorum.” Similarly, when a Director acts as the hub of a wheel (Director A) and communicates individually with the various spokes (Directors B and C), a serial meeting has occurred. Closed Sessions The Brown Act allows closed sessions under the scope of a regular meeting. It stipulates that they (1) shall comply with agenda-posting and (2) be held within the jurisdiction of the Board meeting room (§ 4954), and (3) the open- meeting agenda shall include a description of the topics to be discussed (§54954.2) [emphasis added]. In addition, prior to holding any closed session, the Board must disclose verbally, in an open meeting, the item or items to be discussed in the closed session (§ 54957.7). [emphasis added] Subjects that can be discussed by the Board in Closed Session are, according to §54954.5: • License or permit determination (§54956.7) • Conference with real property negotiators (§54956.8) • Conference with legal counsel regarding existing or anticipated litigation (§54956.9) • Liability claims (§54956.95) • Threat to public services or facilities (§54957(a)) • Public employee appointment, employment, performance evaluation, discipline, dismissal or release (§54957(b)) • Conference with labor negotiators (§54957.6) 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 74 • Case review or planning (§54957.8) • Report involving trade secret or hearings (§54956.87, California Health and Safety code §§1461,32106 and 32155; or California Government Code §§ 37606 and 37624.3) • Charge or complaint involving information protected by federal law (§54956.86). • The Board should publicly report actions, along with the vote and abstention count, taken as result of a closed session (§54957.1). [emphasis added] Documentation relative to the reports should be available to any person on the next business day following the meeting (§54957.1(c)). Special Meetings Either the Chairman of the Board or the majority of the Directors may call special meetings at any time by delivering to each of its members a written notice and by notifying the media (which has previously requested notification of special meetings). The notice shall be received at least 24 hours in advance before the meeting. Special meetings notice shall be also posted at least 24 hours prior to the meeting and it should be held in a location that is freely accessible to members of the public. The discussions at the special meeting are limited to the issues posted in the agenda. No other business shall be considered (§54956) [emphasis added]. What Rules Must a Meeting Follow? The Board, in order to comply with the Brown Act, shall: Hold open and public meetings (§54953 (a). In addition, the District shall not conduct any meeting in a facility that prohibits the admittance of any person(s) on the basis of: race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex; or that is inaccessible to disabled persons, or where the public, in order to gain access to the facility, needs to pay or purchase something (§54961 (a) [emphasis added]. • Vote publicly, no secret ballots are allowed (§54953 (c)) • Comply with the protections and prohibitions of Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (§54953.2) 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 75 • NOT require public registration, as a condition for attendance; the public is not required to register, provide any other information –such as self-identification--, or fulfill any condition precedent to its attendance. If an attendance list is circulated, it shall clearly state that the signing, registering, or completion of the document is voluntary (§54953.3) • Allow recording of the proceeding (videotape, audiotape) provided that recording is done in an undisruptive way (§54953.5) • NOT prohibit or restrict broadcasting unless there is a finding that this would be disruptive to the proceedings (§54953.6) • Post notice of meetings and include specified time and location, except for advisory or standing committees (§54954 (a)) • Post agendas at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting and it shall contain a brief general description of each item of business (§54954.2(a)) [emphasis added] [This requirement was reinstituted by the Board.] • NOT take action or discuss any item not appearing on the posted agenda except under certain conditions (§54954.2(a), conditions appear on subsection (b)) • Hold meetings in the jurisdiction of the legislative body (§54954 (b)) • Allow and honor any person’s request to be provided by mail a copy of the agenda at the time the agenda is posted (at least 72 hours in advance) or of all the documents of the agenda packet of any meeting (§54954.1) [emphasis added] • Provide an opportunity for comment from members of the public to directly address the legislative body on any item of interest to the public on every agenda for regular meetings (§54954.3(a)) • Allow public criticism of the legislative body (§54954.3(c)) • Hold at least one public meeting, allowing for public comment, before adopting any new or increased general tax or increased assessment, and the legislative body shall provide at least 45 days public notice of such meeting (§54954.6) • Not charge fees for the attendance to a meeting or for carrying out any provision in the Brown Act (§54956.6). The only exception is when legislative bodies are allowed to charge a fee that covers the cost of mailing an agenda or agenda packet (§54954.1). A related requirement is found on §54961(a) that prohibits meetings in a place where the public needs to pay or purchase something 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 76 • Disclose to the public the agendas of public meetings and any other writings [i.e., Agenda packet of materials] distributed to all, or a majority of all, of the members of a legislative body of a local agency.] In addition, under the California Public Records Act these documents shall be made available upon request and without delay (§54957.5) • Preserve the order in meetings. Moreover, if a group willfully interrupts a meeting and the order can only be restored by the removal of disruptive individuals, then the legislative body may order the meeting room to be cleared. The session might be reinitiated, and representatives of the media shall be allowed to stay and attend the session. The legislative body may also establish a procedure for readmitting individual(s) not responsible for the disruptive conduct that caused the meeting room to be cleared (§54957.9) Violations of the Brown Act Each member of the legislative who has taken action in violation of any provision of the Brown Act, and where there was willful deprivation of information to the public, is guilty of a misdemeanor (§54959). Civil remedies (injunction, mandamus, declaratory relief, and voiding past actions of the Board) are provided in case of violation of the Brown Act (§§54960 and 5490.1) pursuant to §§54953, 54954.2, 54954.5, 54954.6, 54956, and 54956.5 (that is, for violations to requirements for: general open meeting, agenda posting, closed sessions, tax and assessment, special meetings and, emergency meetings). A court may award court costs and reasonable attorney fees to the plaintiff in an action brought pursuant to §§54960 and 5490.1. In order to correct a violation to the Brown Act, the legislative body can act to correct its error of its own volition or in response to a complaint by an interested party. If the legislative body fails to correct the challenged action, the complainant may file suit. (§54960.1) 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 77 EXHIBIT 3 – Lake LAFCO 2007 Review Fire Protection Municipal Service Review: Resolution 2007-0007 Fire Protection Districts Sphere of Influence: Resolution 2007-0008 Adopted October 19, 2007 6. LAKEPORT FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 6.1 Lakeport Fire Protection District Background The Lakeport Fire Protection District provides fire protection and emergency medical services in and around the City of Lakeport. The district is the result of a merger in 2000 in which the district merged with the City of Lakeport’s Fire Department. The City of Lakeport, California is located in Lake County. Lakeport is located on the western shore of Clear Lake. State Highway 29 is located on the west side of the City, and provides access to Napa to the south and Ukiah to the west via State Highway 20. The “Lake County General Plan Goals and Policies Report” describes the City of Lakeport as follows: The City of Lakeport, which is the County Seat for Lake County, is located on the western shore of Clear Lake. The City, which was incorporated in 1888, still contains many of the historic buildings from the turn of the century. The City’s Library Park, which is located at the Clear Lake shoreline, is the site of many annual events (e.g., fishing tournament and boat races). The City also is home to the Lake County Fairgrounds, which hosts the annual Lake County Fair and County Rodeo. The 2000 population was 4,820. The Lakeport Unified School District has two elementary schools, one middle school, and one high school. The City is located two miles from the Lampson Field Airport. Water supply and wastewater service is provided by the City of Lakeport. Municipal water sources include a combination of groundwater and surface water. Lakeport is within the Big Valley Water Inventory Unit. Point of Interest include the Lake County Museum, Library Park, Lake County Fairgrounds and Speedway. 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 78 6.2 Lakeport Population Data Although the Lakeport Fire Protection District includes a larger area than the City of Lakeport, population data is only available for the City. However, the population data for the City should be indicative of the population characteristics for the district. As of the U.S. Census of 2000, there were 4,820 people, 1,967 households, and 1,233 families residing in the City. There were 2,394 housing units. There were 1,967 households out of which 29.7% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 44.7% were married couples living together, 12.6% had a female householder with no husband present, and 37.3% were non- families. 31.0% of all households were made up of individuals and 16.2% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average size was 2.36 and the average family size was 2.93 in the City of Lakeport. The median age was 41 years. For every 100 females there were 86.9 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 84.7 males in the City of Lakeport. The median income for a household in the city was $32,226, and the median income for a family was $37,900. Males had a median income of $36,719 versus $25,089 for females. The per capita income for the city was $17,215. About 13.5% of families and 15.7% of the population were below the poverty line, including 20.9% of those under age 18 and 5.6% of those aged 65 or over. 6.3 Lakeport Fire Protection District Personnel The Lakeport Fire Protection District has nine sworn safety employees and one clerical employee. The district also uses 21 volunteer fire fighters. The ISO rating in town is 4. 6.4 Lakeport Fire Protection District Facilities and Equipment Lakeport Fire Protection District Fire Stations Station Number Location Type 50 445 North Main Street, Lakeport Full 52 3600 Hill Road East, Lakeport Substation Lakeport Fire Protection District Equipment Vehicle Station Type Year Engine 152 52 Mack 1974 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 79 Engine 150 50 Pierce 1987 Engine 250 50 Spartan 2001 Engine 350 50 International 1975 Engine 252 52 International Navistar 1997 WT 152 52 Kenworth 1984 T-150 50 American La France Aerial 1980 Has Mat 150 50 Ford Haz Mat 1982 Air 150 50 Chevy Air Truck 1986 M-250 50 Ford Ambulance 1988 M-150 50 Lifeline Ambulance 1993 M-350 50 Lifeline Ambulance 2004 M-450 50 Lifeline Ambulance 2000 W-150 (Utility) 50 Chevy Pickup S-10 1995 500 50 Chevy Blazer 1996 6.5 Lakeport FPD Calls for Service Lakeport FPD Calls for Service Type of Call 2000 2001 2006 Emergency Medical Service 936 1000 2121* Fire 141 150 74 Note: The district recently took over Ambulance services. In 2006, 1500 calls were attributable to transporting people. Source: Lakeport Fire Protection District, September 2007 The district provides its own ambulance service. The average response time for Fire/EMS services within district boundaries is two to four minutes from receipt of call to personnel movement, plus travel time. Travel time to specific emergencies is dependent upon distance from responding stations to the emergency, as well as the condition of roadways along the route. The average remote distance response time is eight minutes. There are some remote areas within the district in which these response times are further extended, especially during winter months. 6.6 Lakeport Fire Protection District Water Supply Fire flows within the District service area are generally adequate. Hydrants within the Findley service area no longer experience poor flow rates since Kelseyville County Waterworks District water is being supplied to Findley. 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 80 6.7 Lakeport Fire Protection District Finances Lakeport FPD Reported Income Fiscal Year Property Tax Revenue Charge for Services Total Revenue EOY Balance 04-05 $617,317 $1,493,670 $1,619,260 $125,590 00-01 $362,125 $373,324 $815,170 $87,348 01-02 $539,126 $407,146 $1,194,113 $457,750 02-03 $489,981 $335,062 $880,965 $151,615 Source: 2004-2005 Annual Special Districts Report, State Controller’s Office, 2000-2001 Annual Special Districts Report, State Controller’s Office, 2003- 2004 Adopted Budgets, County of Lake. The Lakeport Fire Protection District Budget for 2006-2007 is $1,723,625. 6.8 Lakeport Fire Protection District Board The Lakeport Fire Protection District is governed by a five-member Board of Directors. The Lakeport FPD holds regularly scheduled meetings of its Board on the second Tuesday of every month. The district posts meeting agendas on public bulletin boards at fire district facilities. Representatives of the district appear to be open and accessible to the public. The Phone Number for the District is 707-263-4396. 6.9 MSR Lakeport Fire Protection District Written Determinations 6.9.1 Lakeport FPD infrastructure needs or deficiencies 1-1) The district is planning to develop a new Main Station. The property is being secured and construction should be completed in approximately 2 years. The district is also working with the County on securing property at the Airport. The district is also working on a possible addition to Station 52 within the next 2 years and replacing the ladder truck with a new model. 6.9.2 Lakeport FPD growth and population projections for the affected area 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 81 2-1) The Lakeport FPD does not project population, but rather relies on incremental improvements and upgrades to address additional service demands related to growth. A Possible Growth scenario is 473 Single Family Dwellings proposed in the City of Lakeport as of March 2007, 60 units of affordable housing, and 12 duplex units. Lake County Community Development Departments has projected 2,576 lots in the Lakeport Fire Protection District could be subdivided. 2-2) It is common for fire districts in rural areas to rely on this method of accommodating projected growth. 2-3) The district has adopted and implemented mitigation fees for new development, which is intended to offset costs of growth on District operations. 2-4) The district appears able to adequately accommodate increased service demand associated with population growth. 6.9.3 Lakeport FPD financing constraints and opportunities 3-1) The Lakeport FPD maintains sufficient budgetary reserves and has maintained a positive balance in accounts over the past five years. 3-2) The district uses a modified cash basis for financial statements, which varies from generally accepted accounting principles. 3-3) The district has submitted budgetary documents on time, and the merging of the district with the Lakeport Fire Department increased revenues while allowing for economies of scale to be realized. 3-4) The District’s financial status is considered good. 6.9.4 Lakeport FPD cost avoidance opportunities 4-1) The Lakeport FPD has had significant budget increases in each of the last three years, with a 28 percent total increase between FY 2001/02 and FY 2003/04. 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 82 4-2) Budgetary increases have primarily been in the areas of salaries and benefits for employees (including rising costs associated with provision of health and worker’s compensation insurance), and the implementation of set- aside monies for contingencies. 4-3) The district uses all available income generation options, including service fees for fire and emergency services, mitigation fees, and other miscellaneous revenue sources. 6.9.5 Lakeport FPD opportunities for rate restructuring 5-1) Lakeport FPD, as a fire service provider, is a non-enterprise district. 5-2) Funding for the fire protection services of the district is derived from a combination of property taxes, service charges for emergency medical services, interest from investments, and local, State, and Federal grants. 5-3) The current rate structure of the district has been sufficient to supplement other revenue sources and allow for financial stability within the district’s operations. 5-4) The rate structure of the district is considered appropriate. 6.9.6 Lakeport FPD opportunities for shared facilities 6-1) Each of Lake County’s fire protection districts has a verbal agreement with CDF, which allows the Fire Protection Districts within the County to call on CDF for assistance in major fires that are beyond the control of that particular Fire Protection District. 6-2) The district participated in the Operation Get Ready (OGRE) training exercises with other districts in 2000. 6-4) The district is adjacent to three other fire districts in the County, and may have the potential to share administrative or equipment resources with other districts. 6-5) Given the financial stability of the district and the location of the two fire stations, it is not likely that such arrangements would be cost-effective. 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 83 6-6) There are no existing or proposed facilities sharing arrangements within the district. 6.9.7 Lakeport FPD government structure options 7-1) The Lakeport FPD encompasses the City of Lakeport and some surrounding areas, and has a Sphere of Influence that extends southwest to the county line. 7-2) The existing physical boundaries of the district are appropriate, given the location of facilities and the structure of the district. 7-3) Current SOI boundaries are also logical and appropriate, as Lakeport FPD is the only district contiguous to most of the SOI area. 7-4) The boundaries and SOI of the district are considered suitable for continued efficient operation of fire services in this area of the County. 6.9.8 Lakeport FPD evaluation of management efficiencies 8-1) The Lakeport FPD has a management structure appropriate and sufficient to ensure fire and emergency service provision within its district boundaries and SOI. 8-2) The district maintains a sound financial and management system, with adequate personnel and equipment to provide service and meet internal thresholds for service adequacy. 8-3) The management structure of the district, consisting of a governing Board of Commissioners, with an appointed Fire Chief overseeing a department of firefighters and administrative staff, is appropriate for provision of fire and emergency services. 6.9.9 Lakeport FPD local accountability and governance 9-1) The Lakeport FPD holds regularly scheduled meetings of its Board on the second Tuesday of every month. 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 84 9-2) The district posts meeting agendas on public bulletin boards at fire district facilities. Representatives of the District appear to be open and accessible to the public. 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 85 EXHIBIT 4 – LAKEPORT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW Adopted July 18, 2012 3.3 Fire Protection 3.3.1 Fire Protection - Issues The following is a general discussion of matters of interest and standards related to fire protection, including mutual aid, dispatch, response times, staffing and water supply: A. Fire Protection Mutual Aid Most of the fire protection and EMS providers primarily serve their own jurisdictions. Given the critical need for rapid response, however, there are extensive mutual aid efforts that cross jurisdictional boundaries. Mutual aid refers to reciprocal services provided under a mutual aid agreement, a prearranged plan and contract between agencies for reciprocal assistance upon request by the first-response agency. In addition, the jurisdictions rely on automatic aid primarily for coverage of areas with street access limitations and freeways. Automatic aid refers to reciprocal services provided under an automatic aid agreement, a prearranged plan or contract between agencies for an automatic response for services with no need for a request to be made. 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 2009/2010 2010/2011 2011/2012 Actual Budget Revenue $ $53,049 $177,789 $198,215 $203,405 $240,472 Expenditures Salaries/Benefits $43,281 $41,935 $167,647 $183,839 $187,052 $220,856 Operating Expense 15,409 10,986 10,142 14,376 $15,953 $19,410 Capital Outlay 0 127 0 0 400 $206 Total Expense $58,689 $53,049 $177,789 $198,215 $203,405 $240,472 B. Fire and EMS Dispatch 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 86 Dispatch for fire and medical calls is increasingly becoming regionalized and specialized. This increased regionalization and specialization is motivated by the following nine factors: 1) Constituents increasingly expect emergency medical dispatching (EMD), which involves over-the-phone medical procedure instructions to the 911 caller and requires specialized staff. 2) Paramedics increasingly rely on EMD, which also involves preparing the paramedic en route for the type of medical emergency and procedures. 3) Dispatch technology and protocols have become increasingly complex. 4) Modern technology has enabled better measurement and regulatory oversight of Fire Department (FD) response times, and increased pressure for FDs to meet response time guidelines. 5) FDs need standard communication protocols, due to their reliance on mutual aid. 6) Dispatching of calls from cell phones is particularly inefficient due to multiple transfers, length of time the caller spends on hold, and lack of location information. Response times are further delayed when callers that are unfamiliar with the area are unable to describe rural locations to the dispatch personnel. 7) All new cell phones are now equipped with GPS; however, it will take a few years for all old phones to be replaced by phones with GPS capability and/or construction of specialized cell phone towers. 8) The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) recommends a 60- second standard for dispatch time, the time between the placement of the 911 call and the notification of the emergency responders. The Center for Public Safety Excellence recommends a 50-second benchmark for dispatch time. 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 87 9) There are clear economies of scale in providing modern fire and medical dispatch services. C. Fire Protection and EMS Response Time Response times reflect the time elapsed between the dispatch of personnel and the arrival of the first responder on the scene. For fire and paramedic service, there are service standards relating to response times, dispatch times, staffing, and water flow. Particularly in cases involving patients who have stopped breathing or are suffering from heart attacks, the chances of survival improve when the patient receives medical care quickly. The National Fire Protection Association is a non-profit association of fire chiefs, firefighters, manufacturers and consultants. Similarly, a quick fire suppression response can potentially prevent a structure fire from reaching the “flashover” point at which very rapid fire spreading occurs—generally in less than 10 minutes. The guideline established by the NFPA for fire response times is six minutes at least 90 percent of the time, with response time measured from the 911-call time to the arrival time of the first-responder at the scene. The fire response time guideline established by the Center for Public Safety Excellence (formerly the Commission on Fire Accreditation International) is 5 minutes, 50 seconds at least 90 percent of the time. D. Fire Protection Staffing For structure fires, NFPA recommends that the response team include 14 personnel—a commander, five water supply line operators, a two-person search and rescue team, a two-person ventilation team, a two-person initial rapid intervention crew, and two support people. The NFPA guidelines require fire departments to establish overall staffing levels to meet response time standards, and to consider the hazard to human life, firefighter safety, potential property loss, and the firefighting approach. 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 88 NFPA recommends that each engine, ladder or truck company be staffed by four on-duty firefighters, and that at least four firefighters (two in and two out), each with protective clothing and respiratory protection, be on-scene to initiate fire-fighting inside a structure. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standard requires that when two firefighters enter a structure fire, two will remain on the outside to assist in rescue activities. For emergency medical response with advanced life support needs, NFPA recommends the response team include two paramedics and two basic-level emergency medical technicians. E. Fire Protection Water Supply For structure fires, NFPA recommends the availability of an uninterrupted water supply for 30 minutes with enough pressure to apply at least 400 gallons of water per minute. NFPA Standard 1710, 2004. Guideline for a full structure fire is response within ten minutes by a 12-15 person response team at least 90 percent of the time. Commission on Fire Accreditation International, 2000 21 29 CFR 1910.134. 3.3.2 City of Lakeport Fire Protection Lakeport Fire Protection District provides fire protection and emergency medical services in and around the City of Lakeport. The District is the result of a merger in 2000 in which the District merged with the City of Lakeport’s Fire Department. The Lakeport Fire Protection District (LFPD) is an independent fire district which serves the City of Lakeport and unincorporated Lakeport areas. There are two stations in the District as follows: 1) Station 50 which is the Main Fire Station, located at 445 North Main Street 2) Station 52 is the District’s Sub-Station located at 3600 Hill Road. The main station is staffed with four personnel on duty at all times. 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 89 LFPD's website is located at lakeportfire.com. The phone number for the District is 707- 263-4396. The ISO rating in town is 4. Fire protection equipment includes the following: • 4 Ambulances • 1 Utility Truck • 1 Air Trailer • 4 Engines • 1 Water Tender • 1 Ladder Truck The paid staff includes 1 chief, 1 deputy chief, 3 captains, 6 firefighters, and 1 district secretary. (Six of the staff members are qualified as paramedics.) The volunteer staff includes 8 fire apparatus engineers, and 12 firefighters. (Four volunteers are qualified as paramedics.) The mission of the District is as follows: The Lakeport Fire Protection District’s mission is to be a leading emergency service Department by: • Meeting the needs of our community in fire prevention, fire suppression, and rescue • Utilizing and improving the dedication and skills of our people • Constantly improving all of our services and operation In carrying out this mission The Lakeport Fire Protection District Will: • Give top priority to firefighter safety and equipment concerns • Encourage the professional and personal development of our members • Work as teams to take full advantage of our skills, knowledge and creativity • Communicate openly and honestly to our members and community to inspire trust and confidence The District provides ambulance services. The average response time for Fire/EMS services within the City of Lakeport boundaries is four to seven 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 90 minutes for emergency calls and ten minutes for non-emergency calls. Travel time to specific emergencies is dependent upon distance from responding stations to the emergency, as well as the condition of roadways along the route. The average remote distance response time is eight minutes. There are some remote areas within the District in which these response times are further extended, especially during winter months. Lakeport Fire Protection District responds to over 2,200 calls per year including structure and wildland fires, vehicle accidents, and medical aid. Activity for a typical month is shown below: October 2009 Monthly Report Number/Percent Medical Assist 88 /42 Inter-facility Transport 79 /37 Traffic Accident 9 /5 Fire Structure 0 Vehicle 0 Vegetation 2 Other 1 Total Fire 3 /2 Hazmat 0 False Alarm 5 /3 Good Intent Call 24 /11 _____________________________________ Total 208 /100.00 Other significant events: 1) Continue trial of Lifepak 15 cardiac monitor 2) Purchase EZ-IO equipment and conduct training for all paramedics 3) Seek funding options for Zoll Autopulse 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 91 EXHIBIT 5 – Lake LAFCO 2015 Review 5.2 Lakeport FPD Overview 5.2.1 Lakeport FPD History The Lakeport Fire Department was formed in 1894 to provide fire protection to the City of Lakeport. In 1956 the Lakeport County Fire Protection District was formed to provide fire protection to the unincorporated areas of Lakeport. The Lakeport County Fire Protection District merged with the Lakeport Fire Department to provide unified fire protection for the area. 5.2.2 Lakeport FPD Contact Information Contact Information for the Lakeport Fire District is as follows: Mailing Address: 445 North Main Street, Lakeport CA. 95453 Phone and E-mail: 707-263-4396, lakeportfire@lakeportfire.com Fire Chief: [name omitted] 5.2.3 Lakeport FPD Board of Directors Board Members are appointed by the Lake County Board of Supervisors and are as follows: [names omitted] The Board of Directors meets at 6:00 pm on the second Tuesday of each month at the Main Station, 445 North Main Street, Lakeport, CA 95453. The agendas are posted at the Fire Station. 5.2.4 Lakeport FPD Mission Statement The Lakeport Fire Protection District’s mission is to be a leading emergency service Department by: • Meeting the need of our community in fire prevention, fire suppression, and rescue • Utilizing and improving the dedication and skills of our people • Constantly improving all of our services and operation In carrying out this mission, The Lakeport County Fire Protection District will: 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 92 • Give top priority to firefighter safety and equipment concerns • Encourage the professional and personal development of our members • Work as teams to take full advantage of our skills, knowledge and creativity • Communicate openly and honestly to our members and community to inspire trust and confidence 5.2.5 Personnel The Lakeport Fire District provides fire protection and ALS ambulance service to the citizens in the unincorporated and incorporated areas of Lakeport. The Lakeport Fire District operates out of two fire station locations: • Headquarters (Station 50) is located at 445 North Main Street. • Substation (Station 52) is located at 3600 Hill Road East. Lakeport Fire responds to over 3,000 calls per year including structure and Wildland Fires, vehicle accidents, and medical aid. The Main Station (Station 50) is staffed with 4 personnel on duty at all times. The District uses a combination fire department, paid and volunteer as follows: • Paid staff includes 1 Chief, 3 Captains, 6 Firefighters, and 1 District Secretary. • Volunteer staff includes 1 Deputy Chief, 3 Lieutenants, 5 Fire Apparatus Engineers, and 14 Firefighters. • 58 Training drills are held on the first Wednesday of each month from 6 to 9 pm. 5.2.6 Lakeport FPD Equipment The Lakeport Fire District has the following equipment: HM-5011 1982 Ford Haz-Mat response vehicle Air-5011 1986 Chevy Air Support vehicle WT-5011 1984 Kenworth Water Tender E-5211 1987 Pierce Type 1 Fire Engine E-5011 1991 Seagrave Type 1 Fire Engine E-5012 2001 Spartan Type 1 Fire Engine 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 93 E-5021 1997 Navistar Type 2 Fire Engine E-5031 1975 International Type 3 Fire Engine T-5011 1999 Seagrave Type 1 Ladder Truck (75 foot) U-5011 1995 Chevy Type 1 Utility Pick-up U-5021 1996 Chevy Type 2 Utility SUV M-5011 1993 Ford ALS Ambulance M-5012 2008 Dodge ALS Ambulance M-5013 2004 Ford ALS Ambulance M-5014 2009 Dodge ALS Ambulance M-5015 2002 Ford ALS Ambulance C-500 2008 Dodge Type 1 Utility Pick-up 58 Lakeport County FPD, http://www.lakeportfire.com/about/, January 28, 2014. 5.2.6 Lakeport Fire District Calls and Response Time The Lakeport Fire District calls for 2012 are shown below: Calls Received in 2012 Structure fires 47 Medical 2,102 Grass fires 14 False alarms 107 Public assist 106 Hazard conditions 12 Other 474 Total Calls 2,862 As is common with most fire protection districts, the medical calls (74%) outnumber all other calls combined. The ISO Rating for the Lakeport Fire District was done January 28, 2008 with the following classifications: CLASS 4, applies to properties within 5-road miles of a recognized fire station and within 1,000 feet of a fire hydrant or alternate water supply. 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 94 CLASS 8B, applies to properties beyond 1,000 feet of a fire hydrant but within 5-road miles of a recognized fire station. CLASS 10, applies to properties over 5-road miles of a recognized fire station. The average response time for all responses within district boundaries is two to four minutes. Travel time to specific incidents is dependent upon distance from station location. Time is also dependent on the season, traffic, weather and remoteness. Difficulties during winter months include road conditions, road surface, traffic, weather (rain or snow) and areas in remote locations. 4.2.7 Lakeport County FPD Water Supply The Lakeport Fire District has hydrants in the following areas: Finley City of Lakeport Konocti Vista Casino Mission Rancheria North Lakeport (in the County) Robin Hill 4.2.8 Lakeport Volunteer Firefighter's Association The Lakeport Volunteer Firefighter’s Association is a nonprofit organization that is made up of both professional and volunteer firefighters, from the Lakeport Fire District. The association currently has 28 members. The association officers are as follows: [names omitted] Starting in 2010, the Association has raised funds by holding an Annual Dinner, Dance, and Auction in October. 5.2.9 Lakeport FPD Budget Lakeport County Fire Protection District Budget 2013-14 REVENUE PROPERTY TAXES 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 10-10 Current Secured 709,628 739,941 725,500 10-20 Current Unsecured 18,038 17,803 17,900 10-25 Supplemental 813-Current (1,736) (3,797) 0 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 95 10-35 Supplemental 813-Prior 2,065 2,447 2,000 10-40 Prior Unsecured 665 672 0 PERMITS 21-60 Other 8,142 8,441 8,000 FINES, FORFEIT, PENALTIES 31-95 Penalties and Cost on Delinquencies 7 24 0 RENTS AND CONCESSIONS 42-10 Rents and Concessions 2,520 2,520 2,500 REVENUE FROM USE OF MONEY 42-01 Interest 1,039 2,809 2,000 STATE AID 54-60 HOPTR 10,842 10,721 10,000 54-90 Other 33,792 0 0 OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCIES 56-30 Other 128,055 73,763 16,303 PUBLIC PROTECTION 68-60 Institutional Care and Services 1,081,525 1,191,952 735,685 OTHER CURRENT SERVICES 69-29 Fire Protection* 217,830 221,554 214,000 OTHER 79-90 Miscellaneous 28,035 2,144 0 79-91 Cancelled Checks 0 57 0 OPERATING TRANSFERS 81-22 In 42,348 97,443 42,348 RESIDUAL EQUITY TRANSFERS 81-31 Residual Equity Transfer 0 47,537 0 TOTAL REVENUE 2,282,795 2,416,031 1,759,933 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 96 *Fire assessment from Prop. 218 passed 2002. The City of Lakeport and the County area each have a separate assessment schedule. A single-family home in the City of Lakeport would pay $39.60 per year and in the County a single- family home would pay $30.00 per year. Other types of structures would pay according to the schedule. Lakeport County Fire Protection District Budget 2013-14 EXPENSES 2011-12 Actual 2012-13 Actual 2013-14Adopted SALARIES AND EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 01-11 Permanent 580,179 629,746 696,760 01-12 Extra Help 274,141 336,540 309,000 01-13 OT, Holiday, Standby 96,331 119,263 170,000 02-21 FICA 19,678 23,731 35,000 02-22 PERS 243,179 265,072 291,500 03-30 Health/Life Insurance 235,463 248,331 256,000 03-31 Unemployment 8,405 0 7,500 03-39 State Disability 0 0 5 04-00 Worker’s Comp 67,725 74,028 90,000 SERVICES AND SUPPLIES 11-00 Clothing & Perl Sup 8,822 8,674 9,350 12-00 Communications 4,240 6,014 7,000 14-00 Household Expense 1,875 2,055 2,500 15-10 Other 29,093 31,136 33,400 17-00 Maintenance-Equip 10,535 94,166 20,000 18-00 Maintenance Buildings & Improvements 1,771 6,189 11,000 20-00 Memberships 3,096 2,565 3,800 22-70 Supplies 2,787 3,393 4,800 22-71 Postage 850 991 1,200 22-72 Books & Periodicals 1,125 1,424 1,300 23-80 Professional/Special 58,222 56,473 59,000 24-00 Publ and Legal Notices 57 105 250 25-00 Rents & Leases-Equip 42,348 42,348 42,348 26-00 Rents & Leases- Buildings/Improvements 0 0 5 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 97 27-00 Small Tools and Instr 256 234 4,100 28-30 Supplies and Services 623 2,693 2,500 28-48 Ambulance Expense 109,844 133,188 130,000 29-50 Trans & Travel 3,815 2,948 4,500 30-00 Utilities 59,952 6,219 65,000 OTHER CHARGES 48-00 Taxes and Assessments 42 42 50 CAPITAL ASSETS 62-71 Office 5,000 0 0 62-72 Autos & Light Trucks 0 38,875 0 62-74 Other 117,818 5,363 5,500 TOTAL EXPENDITURES/ APPROPRIATIONS 1,987,272 2,198,206 2,263,368 Net Cost (295,523) (217,825) 503,435
R21:
RESPONSES In response to Penal Code § 933 (c), the following Response is required:
R50:
is staffed with 4 personnel on duty at all times. The District uses a combination fire department, paid and volunteer as follows: • Paid staff includes 1 Chief, 3 Captains, 6 Firefighters, and 1 District Secretary. • Volunteer staff includes 1 Deputy Chief, 3 Lieutenants, 5 Fire Apparatus Engineers, and 14 Firefighters. • 58 Training drills are held on the first Wednesday of each month from 6 to 9 pm. 5.2.6 Lakeport FPD Equipment The Lakeport Fire District has the following equipment: HM-5011 1982 Ford Haz-Mat response vehicle Air-5011 1986 Chevy Air Support vehicle WT-5011 1984 Kenworth Water Tender E-5211 1987 Pierce Type 1 Fire Engine E-5011 1991 Seagrave Type 1 Fire Engine E-5012 2001 Spartan Type 1 Fire Engine 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 93 E-5021 1997 Navistar Type 2 Fire Engine E-5031 1975 International Type 3 Fire Engine T-5011 1999 Seagrave Type 1 Ladder Truck (75 foot) U-5011 1995 Chevy Type 1 Utility Pick-up U-5021 1996 Chevy Type 2 Utility SUV M-5011 1993 Ford ALS Ambulance M-5012 2008 Dodge ALS Ambulance M-5013 2004 Ford ALS Ambulance M-5014 2009 Dodge ALS Ambulance M-5015 2002 Ford ALS Ambulance C-500 2008 Dodge Type 1 Utility Pick-up 58 Lakeport County FPD, http://www.lakeportfire.com/about/, January 28, 2014. 5.2.6 Lakeport Fire District Calls and Response Time The Lakeport Fire District calls for 2012 are shown below:
R01-02:
$539,126 $407,146 $1,194,113 $457,750
R01-13:
OT, Holiday, Standby 96,331
R02-03:
$489,981 $335,062 $880,965 $151,615
R03-30:
Health/Life Insurance 235,463
R04-05:
$617,317 $1,493,670 $1,619,260 $125,590
R10-25:
Supplemental 813-Current (1,736) (3,797) 0
R10-35:
Supplemental 813-Prior 2,065 2,447 2,000
R11-00:
Clothing & Perl Sup 8,822
R12-00:
Communications 4,240
R14-00:
Household Expense 1,875
R17-00:
Maintenance-Equip 10,535
R18-00:
Maintenance Buildings & Improvements
R22-72:
Books & Periodicals 1,125
R23-80:
Professional/Special 58,222
R24-00:
Publ and Legal Notices 57
R25-00:
Rents & Leases-Equip 42,348
R26-00:
Rents & Leases- Buildings/Improvements 0
R27-00:
Small Tools and Instr 256
R28-30:
Supplies and Services 623
R28-48:
Ambulance Expense 109,844
R31-95:
Penalties and Cost on Delinquencies
R42-10:
Rents and Concessions
R48-00:
Taxes and Assessments 42
R62-72:
Autos & Light Trucks 0
R68-60:
Institutional Care and Services 1,081,525 1,191,952 735,685
R81-31:
Residual Equity Transfer 0
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
“Benefit unit” parcel taxes are perhaps the most complex forms of parcel taxation because rates vary significantly and are highly specific to a property.
F2:
The disparate tax rates for large property owners, on top of a 2% annual increase, were not well received.
F3:
An “us-vs-them” mindset developed between the less affluent and agricultural areas and the more affluent Rivieras and Buckingham.
F4:
Many voters disputed whether all District residents would benefit from either an increased response time or lower property insurance rates.
F5:
Not all voters in the District are media-savvy and could appreciate the plethora of ballot information available online.
F6:
Both consulting firms, including the one that conducted the election in lieu of Lake County, were from Southern California, and resistance was expressed to “out-of-towners” telling the community what was best for them.
F7:
The COVID pandemic restricted in-person interaction with District voters.
F8:
Contrary to the perception of some of the voters, a sunset clause of, at latest, 2057/58 for the bond was included in the Resolution adopted on 9/22/21.
F9:
Conducting an all-mail-ballot special election, as was done with Measure A, put the Measure before voters in an election that typically has the lowest turnout.
F10:
The District could not have a specific location identified for the new firehouse, or construction plans and costs available prior to the election. RECOMMENDATIONS 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 145
Additional Recommendations
8
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
That KFPD schedule its next parcel-tax measure to coincide with either a primary or general election in order to attract a higher voter turnout. (F-9)
R2:
That if KFPD again retains outside consultants that it consider whether more- regional companies could provide the desired services. (F-6)
R3:
That KFPD personnel solicit volunteers from all areas of the District to emphasize unity of purpose and beneficial effects of a parcel tax. F-3, F-4)
R4:
That KFPD staff and volunteers plan more door-to-door canvassing and in-person informational meetings or even kiosks at County fairs and farmers’ markets (F-5, F-7)
R5:
That a reduction in property insurance costs not be emphasized in any printed material. (R-4).
R6:
That KFPD consider a less confusing tax rate that is more equitable for large landowners. (F-2)
R7:
That KPFD employ the services of the Lake County Registrar of Voters for its second parcel-tax election. (F-6)
R8:
That if KFPD again includes a request for a new station, as well as for equipment and increased staffing, that it explain more clearly to voters that a specific location, specific plans, and a breakdown of estimated specific costs cannot be known until a property is purchased after the election. (F-10) REQUESTED RESPONSE Kelseyville Fire Protection District Board of Directors (R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, R-5, R-6, R-7, R-8) 90 days
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
There remains an important role for the human intelligence and visual acuity of fire tower lookouts in detecting wildland fires at an early stage.
F2:
The FFLA strives to raise awareness and support for lookout towers, and the California Central Western Region has gone to great lengths to try to stimulate support for Mt. Konocti.
F3:
The Konocti Fire Tower has been granted historic designation at both the Federal and State levels.
F4:
Repairs to the Konocti Fire Tower remain in limbo as no preliminary engineering survey has occurred, and the Tower appears to have been deemed obsolete by its operating agency, CalFire. RECOMMENDATIONS
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
That the Board of Supervisors consider re-leasing the Tower from CAL FRE or acquiring the Tower, if the State declines to repair it and declares it “surplus property,” to add to the County Park as a tourist attraction and hiking destination and as homage to its historic significance. (F-1, F-2, F-3, F-4) RESPONSES In response to Penal Code § 933 (c), the following Response is required: Board of Supervisors (R-1) 90 days The following response is requested: CAL FIRE (South Lake County/Kelsey-Cobb 60 days 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 35 Exhibit 1 FFLA-SDRC A LOOKOUTS DAY IN THE TOWER Arrive well before the “going in service time” (Usually 9:00 AM = 0900): Open the tower and take complete weather measurements and observations 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 36 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 37 Call the U.S. Forest Service dispatch on radio and advise that tower is in service. Provide weather readings, which are forwarded to the U.S. Weather Service. 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 38 Using binoculars, conduct a careful scan of the entire visible area for smoke. Scans are conducted every 15 minutes. 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 39 When a smoke is spotted: Binoculars on Smoke Record the azimuth, using the Osborne Fire Finder Estimate the distance Identify landmarks Note fire characteristics. 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 40 Report all the information to dispatch via the radio. Monitor the fire and report updates on its status until firefighters arrive on scene. 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 41 Dispatch will sometimes call the tower and ask the lookout to verify smokes reported by the public. Questionable smokes 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 42 Record all significant events in the tower log, and submit an activity report blog entry to the lookouts’ internal website. 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 43 Lookout’s at certain locations in addition to Forest Fire Lookout duties preform as Docents: They greet visitors; answer questions; conduct tours and interpretive services. 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 44 Report significant weather developments on the radio. Fire crews arrange their positions and availability based on the potential for lightning strikes. 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 45 Report and record lightning down strikes. Monitor the area of the strike in case a wildfire erupts. Subsequent lookout shifts continue to watch these areas in case the wind blows smoldering materials into flame. 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 46 Secure all equipment and advise Dispatch that the tower is “out of service”. Turn off all radios and lock up the tower at end of shift. Begin the drive home knowing that you provided a valuable community service. 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 47
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
15 findings
F1:
Eastlake Sanitary Landfill meets EPA standards for methane gas.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
That the Clearlake City Council formulate ordinances requiring any retail businesses that sell plastic bottles also to redeem them, including possibly using reverse vending machines, as a condition of their business license. (F8, F10, F11, F12, F1, F14) RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal Code §933(c), the following responses are required: Lake County Board of Supervisors (R1) 90 days Lakeport City Council (R2) 90 days Clearlake City Council (R3) 90 days 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 211 BIBLIOGRAPHY https://illumin.usc.edu/reduce-reuse-recycle-with-the-reverse-vending- machine/ https://www.storyofstuff.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Californias- Bottle-Bill-The-Path-to-Redemption.pdf https://www.bottlebill.org/index.php/current-and-proposed- laws/usa/california http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/15-16/bill/sen/sb_1351- 1400/sb_1383_bill_20160919_chaptered.pdf https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-and- recycling/food-material-specific-data CalRecycle: 2018 Facility-Based Characterization of Solid Waste in California. May 15, 2020. Difeliciantonio, Chase: California is about to witness its biggest change to trash since the 80s. Hint: it’s all about composting. San Francisco Chronicle, January 1, 2022. Rainey, James: What you need to know about California’s new composting law – a game changer for food waste. Los Angeles Times, December 26, 2921. SCS Engineers: Report of Disposal Site Information Report of Waste Discharge/Preliminary Final Closure and Post-Closure Maintenance Plan: CCR Title 27 … Joint Technical Document for Eastlake Sanitary Landfill, Clearlake, California. July 30, 2018. “National Overview: Facts and Figures on Material, Wastes and Recycling” https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-and- recycling/national-overview-facts-and-figures-materials) 2 October 2017. Retrieved 2021-07-14 “Typical Anatomy of a Landfill (http://wm.com/thinkgreen/pdfs/Anatomy- of-a-landfill.pdf) “State Law SB 1383: Food Recovery Requirements” (https://sfenvironment.org?SB-1383) “Preventing Waste Is A Better Solution Than Recycling It” (http://seattletimes.com/opinion/preventing-waste-is-a-better-solution) Waste Management Hierarchy and Homeland Security Incidents” (https://www.epa.gov/homeland-security-waste/waste-management- hierarchy...) A Proposed Expansion of Eastlake Landfill Will Go before The Lake County Planning Commission”, Aidan Freeman Record-Bee May 27, 2020, Update June 4, 2020. 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 212 “Eastlake Sanitary Landfill Expansion Project” (https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2020010546/2) “Eastlake Landfill Busier Than Ever” (https:/www.record- bee.com/article/NQ/201601059957). Retrieved 2018-06-15 “Lake County Board of Supervisors Accepts Fire Debris at Eastlake Landfill- WasteToday” (www.wastetodaymagazine.com/article/lake-county-board-of- supervisors-accepts-fire-debris-at-eastlake-landfill/)WasteToday. Retrieved 2018-06-15. Cal. Pub. Resources Code § 14525.5 Download PDF Current through the 2022 Legislative Session Section 14525.5 - Reverse vending machine "Reverse vending machine" means a mechanical device which accepts one or more types of empty beverage containers and issues a cash refund or a redeemable credit slip with a value not less than the container's refund value. The refund value payments shall be aggregated and then paid, if more than one container is redeemed in a single transaction. Ca. Pub. Res. Code § 14525.5 Amended by Stats. 1989, Ch. 1339, Sec. 15. Effective October 2, 1989. Cal. Pen. Code § 319.5 Download PDF Current through the 2022 Legislative Session Section 319.5 - Inapplicability to possession or operation of reverse vending machine 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 213 Exhibit 1 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 214 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 215 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 216 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 217 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 218 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 219 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 220 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 221 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 222 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 223 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 224 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 225 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 226 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 227 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 228 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 229 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 230 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 231 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 232 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 233 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 234 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 235 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 236 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 237 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 238 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 239
F2:
SB 1383 mandates recycling as separate waste for all food scraps and food products.
F3:
Eastlake Sanitary Landfill operates on a net-zero self-sustaining budget. 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 209
F4:
Phase 2 of the expansion plan will begin next year (2023). The proposed landfill expansion project will take place in phases with modules constructed every 4 to 9 years.
F5:
The Eastlake Sanitary Landfill is well run and meets all regulatory requirements
F6:
SB 1383 mandates the separate recycling of all food scraps into animal feed, industrial fluids, soil amendments, and the recovery of edible food products for distribution to the needy.
F7:
On May 2nd the Board of Supervisors considered an ordinance establishing Chapter 31 of the Lake County Code for an edible food recovery program. The Board is examining the requirements and associated cost of meeting the State mandates of SB 1383.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
That the Lake County Board of Supervisor formulate ordinances requiring any retail businesses that sell plastic bottles also to redeem them, including possibly using reverse vending machines, as a condition of their County license. (F7, F10, F11, F12, F13, F14)
F8:
Clearlake has confirmed to the Grand Jury that it will participate in the edible food program and are determining how the program can be instituted.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
That the Clearlake City Council formulate ordinances requiring any retail businesses that sell plastic bottles also to redeem them, including possibly using reverse vending machines, as a condition of their business license. (F8, F10, F11, F12, F1, F14) RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal Code §933(c), the following responses are required: Lake County Board of Supervisors (R1) 90 days Lakeport City Council (R2) 90 days Clearlake City Council (R3) 90 days 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 211 BIBLIOGRAPHY https://illumin.usc.edu/reduce-reuse-recycle-with-the-reverse-vending- machine/ https://www.storyofstuff.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Californias- Bottle-Bill-The-Path-to-Redemption.pdf https://www.bottlebill.org/index.php/current-and-proposed- laws/usa/california http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/15-16/bill/sen/sb_1351- 1400/sb_1383_bill_20160919_chaptered.pdf https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-and- recycling/food-material-specific-data CalRecycle: 2018 Facility-Based Characterization of Solid Waste in California. May 15, 2020. Difeliciantonio, Chase: California is about to witness its biggest change to trash since the 80s. Hint: it’s all about composting. San Francisco Chronicle, January 1, 2022. Rainey, James: What you need to know about California’s new composting law – a game changer for food waste. Los Angeles Times, December 26, 2921. SCS Engineers: Report of Disposal Site Information Report of Waste Discharge/Preliminary Final Closure and Post-Closure Maintenance Plan: CCR Title 27 … Joint Technical Document for Eastlake Sanitary Landfill, Clearlake, California. July 30, 2018. “National Overview: Facts and Figures on Material, Wastes and Recycling” https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-and- recycling/national-overview-facts-and-figures-materials) 2 October 2017. Retrieved 2021-07-14 “Typical Anatomy of a Landfill (http://wm.com/thinkgreen/pdfs/Anatomy- of-a-landfill.pdf) “State Law SB 1383: Food Recovery Requirements” (https://sfenvironment.org?SB-1383) “Preventing Waste Is A Better Solution Than Recycling It” (http://seattletimes.com/opinion/preventing-waste-is-a-better-solution) Waste Management Hierarchy and Homeland Security Incidents” (https://www.epa.gov/homeland-security-waste/waste-management- hierarchy...) A Proposed Expansion of Eastlake Landfill Will Go before The Lake County Planning Commission”, Aidan Freeman Record-Bee May 27, 2020, Update June 4, 2020. 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 212 “Eastlake Sanitary Landfill Expansion Project” (https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2020010546/2) “Eastlake Landfill Busier Than Ever” (https:/www.record- bee.com/article/NQ/201601059957). Retrieved 2018-06-15 “Lake County Board of Supervisors Accepts Fire Debris at Eastlake Landfill- WasteToday” (www.wastetodaymagazine.com/article/lake-county-board-of- supervisors-accepts-fire-debris-at-eastlake-landfill/)WasteToday. Retrieved 2018-06-15. Cal. Pub. Resources Code § 14525.5 Download PDF Current through the 2022 Legislative Session Section 14525.5 - Reverse vending machine "Reverse vending machine" means a mechanical device which accepts one or more types of empty beverage containers and issues a cash refund or a redeemable credit slip with a value not less than the container's refund value. The refund value payments shall be aggregated and then paid, if more than one container is redeemed in a single transaction. Ca. Pub. Res. Code § 14525.5 Amended by Stats. 1989, Ch. 1339, Sec. 15. Effective October 2, 1989. Cal. Pen. Code § 319.5 Download PDF Current through the 2022 Legislative Session Section 319.5 - Inapplicability to possession or operation of reverse vending machine 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 213 Exhibit 1 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 214 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 215 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 216 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 217 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 218 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 219 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 220 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 221 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 222 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 223 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 224 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 225 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 226 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 227 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 228 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 229 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 230 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 231 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 232 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 233 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 234 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 235 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 236 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 237 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 238 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 239
F9:
Lakeport has indicated to the Grand Jury that they will introduce an ordinance to augment the Municipal Code to establish regulations regarding the edible food recovery program.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
That the Lakeport City Council formulate ordinances requiring any retail businesses that sell plastic bottles also to redeem them, including possibly using reverse vending machines, as a condition of their business license. (F9, F10, F11, F12, F13, F14)
F10:
The only two cans/bottles/plastics recycling centers in Lake County are Diamond Recycling in the Burns Valley Shopping Center in Clearlake and Robinson Rancheria in Nice.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
That the Lake County Board of Supervisor formulate ordinances requiring any retail businesses that sell plastic bottles also to redeem them, including possibly using reverse vending machines, as a condition of their County license. (F7, F10, F11, F12, F13, F14)
R2:
That the Lakeport City Council formulate ordinances requiring any retail businesses that sell plastic bottles also to redeem them, including possibly using reverse vending machines, as a condition of their business license. (F9, F10, F11, F12, F13, F14)
R3:
That the Clearlake City Council formulate ordinances requiring any retail businesses that sell plastic bottles also to redeem them, including possibly using reverse vending machines, as a condition of their business license. (F8, F10, F11, F12, F1, F14) RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal Code §933(c), the following responses are required: Lake County Board of Supervisors (R1) 90 days Lakeport City Council (R2) 90 days Clearlake City Council (R3) 90 days 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 211 BIBLIOGRAPHY https://illumin.usc.edu/reduce-reuse-recycle-with-the-reverse-vending- machine/ https://www.storyofstuff.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Californias- Bottle-Bill-The-Path-to-Redemption.pdf https://www.bottlebill.org/index.php/current-and-proposed- laws/usa/california http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/15-16/bill/sen/sb_1351- 1400/sb_1383_bill_20160919_chaptered.pdf https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-and- recycling/food-material-specific-data CalRecycle: 2018 Facility-Based Characterization of Solid Waste in California. May 15, 2020. Difeliciantonio, Chase: California is about to witness its biggest change to trash since the 80s. Hint: it’s all about composting. San Francisco Chronicle, January 1, 2022. Rainey, James: What you need to know about California’s new composting law – a game changer for food waste. Los Angeles Times, December 26, 2921. SCS Engineers: Report of Disposal Site Information Report of Waste Discharge/Preliminary Final Closure and Post-Closure Maintenance Plan: CCR Title 27 … Joint Technical Document for Eastlake Sanitary Landfill, Clearlake, California. July 30, 2018. “National Overview: Facts and Figures on Material, Wastes and Recycling” https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-and- recycling/national-overview-facts-and-figures-materials) 2 October 2017. Retrieved 2021-07-14 “Typical Anatomy of a Landfill (http://wm.com/thinkgreen/pdfs/Anatomy- of-a-landfill.pdf) “State Law SB 1383: Food Recovery Requirements” (https://sfenvironment.org?SB-1383) “Preventing Waste Is A Better Solution Than Recycling It” (http://seattletimes.com/opinion/preventing-waste-is-a-better-solution) Waste Management Hierarchy and Homeland Security Incidents” (https://www.epa.gov/homeland-security-waste/waste-management- hierarchy...) A Proposed Expansion of Eastlake Landfill Will Go before The Lake County Planning Commission”, Aidan Freeman Record-Bee May 27, 2020, Update June 4, 2020. 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 212 “Eastlake Sanitary Landfill Expansion Project” (https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2020010546/2) “Eastlake Landfill Busier Than Ever” (https:/www.record- bee.com/article/NQ/201601059957). Retrieved 2018-06-15 “Lake County Board of Supervisors Accepts Fire Debris at Eastlake Landfill- WasteToday” (www.wastetodaymagazine.com/article/lake-county-board-of- supervisors-accepts-fire-debris-at-eastlake-landfill/)WasteToday. Retrieved 2018-06-15. Cal. Pub. Resources Code § 14525.5 Download PDF Current through the 2022 Legislative Session Section 14525.5 - Reverse vending machine "Reverse vending machine" means a mechanical device which accepts one or more types of empty beverage containers and issues a cash refund or a redeemable credit slip with a value not less than the container's refund value. The refund value payments shall be aggregated and then paid, if more than one container is redeemed in a single transaction. Ca. Pub. Res. Code § 14525.5 Amended by Stats. 1989, Ch. 1339, Sec. 15. Effective October 2, 1989. Cal. Pen. Code § 319.5 Download PDF Current through the 2022 Legislative Session Section 319.5 - Inapplicability to possession or operation of reverse vending machine 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 213 Exhibit 1 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 214 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 215 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 216 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 217 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 218 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 219 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 220 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 221 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 222 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 223 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 224 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 225 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 226 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 227 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 228 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 229 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 230 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 231 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 232 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 233 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 234 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 235 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 236 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 237 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 238 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 239
F11:
The two recycling centers redeem cans/bottles/plastics by weight rather than per-item, resulting in decreased economic incentive to recycle.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
That the Lake County Board of Supervisor formulate ordinances requiring any retail businesses that sell plastic bottles also to redeem them, including possibly using reverse vending machines, as a condition of their County license. (F7, F10, F11, F12, F13, F14)
R2:
That the Lakeport City Council formulate ordinances requiring any retail businesses that sell plastic bottles also to redeem them, including possibly using reverse vending machines, as a condition of their business license. (F9, F10, F11, F12, F13, F14)
R3:
That the Clearlake City Council formulate ordinances requiring any retail businesses that sell plastic bottles also to redeem them, including possibly using reverse vending machines, as a condition of their business license. (F8, F10, F11, F12, F1, F14) RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal Code §933(c), the following responses are required: Lake County Board of Supervisors (R1) 90 days Lakeport City Council (R2) 90 days Clearlake City Council (R3) 90 days 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 211 BIBLIOGRAPHY https://illumin.usc.edu/reduce-reuse-recycle-with-the-reverse-vending- machine/ https://www.storyofstuff.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Californias- Bottle-Bill-The-Path-to-Redemption.pdf https://www.bottlebill.org/index.php/current-and-proposed- laws/usa/california http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/15-16/bill/sen/sb_1351- 1400/sb_1383_bill_20160919_chaptered.pdf https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-and- recycling/food-material-specific-data CalRecycle: 2018 Facility-Based Characterization of Solid Waste in California. May 15, 2020. Difeliciantonio, Chase: California is about to witness its biggest change to trash since the 80s. Hint: it’s all about composting. San Francisco Chronicle, January 1, 2022. Rainey, James: What you need to know about California’s new composting law – a game changer for food waste. Los Angeles Times, December 26, 2921. SCS Engineers: Report of Disposal Site Information Report of Waste Discharge/Preliminary Final Closure and Post-Closure Maintenance Plan: CCR Title 27 … Joint Technical Document for Eastlake Sanitary Landfill, Clearlake, California. July 30, 2018. “National Overview: Facts and Figures on Material, Wastes and Recycling” https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-and- recycling/national-overview-facts-and-figures-materials) 2 October 2017. Retrieved 2021-07-14 “Typical Anatomy of a Landfill (http://wm.com/thinkgreen/pdfs/Anatomy- of-a-landfill.pdf) “State Law SB 1383: Food Recovery Requirements” (https://sfenvironment.org?SB-1383) “Preventing Waste Is A Better Solution Than Recycling It” (http://seattletimes.com/opinion/preventing-waste-is-a-better-solution) Waste Management Hierarchy and Homeland Security Incidents” (https://www.epa.gov/homeland-security-waste/waste-management- hierarchy...) A Proposed Expansion of Eastlake Landfill Will Go before The Lake County Planning Commission”, Aidan Freeman Record-Bee May 27, 2020, Update June 4, 2020. 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 212 “Eastlake Sanitary Landfill Expansion Project” (https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2020010546/2) “Eastlake Landfill Busier Than Ever” (https:/www.record- bee.com/article/NQ/201601059957). Retrieved 2018-06-15 “Lake County Board of Supervisors Accepts Fire Debris at Eastlake Landfill- WasteToday” (www.wastetodaymagazine.com/article/lake-county-board-of- supervisors-accepts-fire-debris-at-eastlake-landfill/)WasteToday. Retrieved 2018-06-15. Cal. Pub. Resources Code § 14525.5 Download PDF Current through the 2022 Legislative Session Section 14525.5 - Reverse vending machine "Reverse vending machine" means a mechanical device which accepts one or more types of empty beverage containers and issues a cash refund or a redeemable credit slip with a value not less than the container's refund value. The refund value payments shall be aggregated and then paid, if more than one container is redeemed in a single transaction. Ca. Pub. Res. Code § 14525.5 Amended by Stats. 1989, Ch. 1339, Sec. 15. Effective October 2, 1989. Cal. Pen. Code § 319.5 Download PDF Current through the 2022 Legislative Session Section 319.5 - Inapplicability to possession or operation of reverse vending machine 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 213 Exhibit 1 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 214 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 215 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 216 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 217 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 218 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 219 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 220 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 221 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 222 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 223 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 224 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 225 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 226 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 227 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 228 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 229 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 230 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 231 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 232 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 233 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 234 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 235 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 236 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 237 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 238 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 239
F12:
As a result of the economic disincentive to recycle, the State collects and holds the unrefunded deposits is a sum totaling more than a half a billion dollars.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
That the Lake County Board of Supervisor formulate ordinances requiring any retail businesses that sell plastic bottles also to redeem them, including possibly using reverse vending machines, as a condition of their County license. (F7, F10, F11, F12, F13, F14)
R2:
That the Lakeport City Council formulate ordinances requiring any retail businesses that sell plastic bottles also to redeem them, including possibly using reverse vending machines, as a condition of their business license. (F9, F10, F11, F12, F13, F14)
R3:
That the Clearlake City Council formulate ordinances requiring any retail businesses that sell plastic bottles also to redeem them, including possibly using reverse vending machines, as a condition of their business license. (F8, F10, F11, F12, F1, F14) RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal Code §933(c), the following responses are required: Lake County Board of Supervisors (R1) 90 days Lakeport City Council (R2) 90 days Clearlake City Council (R3) 90 days 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 211 BIBLIOGRAPHY https://illumin.usc.edu/reduce-reuse-recycle-with-the-reverse-vending- machine/ https://www.storyofstuff.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Californias- Bottle-Bill-The-Path-to-Redemption.pdf https://www.bottlebill.org/index.php/current-and-proposed- laws/usa/california http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/15-16/bill/sen/sb_1351- 1400/sb_1383_bill_20160919_chaptered.pdf https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-and- recycling/food-material-specific-data CalRecycle: 2018 Facility-Based Characterization of Solid Waste in California. May 15, 2020. Difeliciantonio, Chase: California is about to witness its biggest change to trash since the 80s. Hint: it’s all about composting. San Francisco Chronicle, January 1, 2022. Rainey, James: What you need to know about California’s new composting law – a game changer for food waste. Los Angeles Times, December 26, 2921. SCS Engineers: Report of Disposal Site Information Report of Waste Discharge/Preliminary Final Closure and Post-Closure Maintenance Plan: CCR Title 27 … Joint Technical Document for Eastlake Sanitary Landfill, Clearlake, California. July 30, 2018. “National Overview: Facts and Figures on Material, Wastes and Recycling” https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-and- recycling/national-overview-facts-and-figures-materials) 2 October 2017. Retrieved 2021-07-14 “Typical Anatomy of a Landfill (http://wm.com/thinkgreen/pdfs/Anatomy- of-a-landfill.pdf) “State Law SB 1383: Food Recovery Requirements” (https://sfenvironment.org?SB-1383) “Preventing Waste Is A Better Solution Than Recycling It” (http://seattletimes.com/opinion/preventing-waste-is-a-better-solution) Waste Management Hierarchy and Homeland Security Incidents” (https://www.epa.gov/homeland-security-waste/waste-management- hierarchy...) A Proposed Expansion of Eastlake Landfill Will Go before The Lake County Planning Commission”, Aidan Freeman Record-Bee May 27, 2020, Update June 4, 2020. 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 212 “Eastlake Sanitary Landfill Expansion Project” (https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2020010546/2) “Eastlake Landfill Busier Than Ever” (https:/www.record- bee.com/article/NQ/201601059957). Retrieved 2018-06-15 “Lake County Board of Supervisors Accepts Fire Debris at Eastlake Landfill- WasteToday” (www.wastetodaymagazine.com/article/lake-county-board-of- supervisors-accepts-fire-debris-at-eastlake-landfill/)WasteToday. Retrieved 2018-06-15. Cal. Pub. Resources Code § 14525.5 Download PDF Current through the 2022 Legislative Session Section 14525.5 - Reverse vending machine "Reverse vending machine" means a mechanical device which accepts one or more types of empty beverage containers and issues a cash refund or a redeemable credit slip with a value not less than the container's refund value. The refund value payments shall be aggregated and then paid, if more than one container is redeemed in a single transaction. Ca. Pub. Res. Code § 14525.5 Amended by Stats. 1989, Ch. 1339, Sec. 15. Effective October 2, 1989. Cal. Pen. Code § 319.5 Download PDF Current through the 2022 Legislative Session Section 319.5 - Inapplicability to possession or operation of reverse vending machine 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 213 Exhibit 1 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 214 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 215 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 216 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 217 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 218 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 219 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 220 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 221 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 222 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 223 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 224 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 225 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 226 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 227 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 228 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 229 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 230 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 231 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 232 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 233 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 234 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 235 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 236 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 237 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 238 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 239
F13:
Single use plastics continue to pollute our environment, are toxic to humans and animals, and negatively impact landfill capacity. 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 210
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
That the Lake County Board of Supervisor formulate ordinances requiring any retail businesses that sell plastic bottles also to redeem them, including possibly using reverse vending machines, as a condition of their County license. (F7, F10, F11, F12, F13, F14)
R2:
That the Lakeport City Council formulate ordinances requiring any retail businesses that sell plastic bottles also to redeem them, including possibly using reverse vending machines, as a condition of their business license. (F9, F10, F11, F12, F13, F14)
F14:
Reverse Vending Machine are being used increasingly to recycle bottles and cans because of ease of use.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
That the Lake County Board of Supervisor formulate ordinances requiring any retail businesses that sell plastic bottles also to redeem them, including possibly using reverse vending machines, as a condition of their County license. (F7, F10, F11, F12, F13, F14)
R2:
That the Lakeport City Council formulate ordinances requiring any retail businesses that sell plastic bottles also to redeem them, including possibly using reverse vending machines, as a condition of their business license. (F9, F10, F11, F12, F13, F14)
R3:
That the Clearlake City Council formulate ordinances requiring any retail businesses that sell plastic bottles also to redeem them, including possibly using reverse vending machines, as a condition of their business license. (F8, F10, F11, F12, F1, F14) RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal Code §933(c), the following responses are required: Lake County Board of Supervisors (R1) 90 days Lakeport City Council (R2) 90 days Clearlake City Council (R3) 90 days 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 211 BIBLIOGRAPHY https://illumin.usc.edu/reduce-reuse-recycle-with-the-reverse-vending- machine/ https://www.storyofstuff.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Californias- Bottle-Bill-The-Path-to-Redemption.pdf https://www.bottlebill.org/index.php/current-and-proposed- laws/usa/california http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/15-16/bill/sen/sb_1351- 1400/sb_1383_bill_20160919_chaptered.pdf https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-and- recycling/food-material-specific-data CalRecycle: 2018 Facility-Based Characterization of Solid Waste in California. May 15, 2020. Difeliciantonio, Chase: California is about to witness its biggest change to trash since the 80s. Hint: it’s all about composting. San Francisco Chronicle, January 1, 2022. Rainey, James: What you need to know about California’s new composting law – a game changer for food waste. Los Angeles Times, December 26, 2921. SCS Engineers: Report of Disposal Site Information Report of Waste Discharge/Preliminary Final Closure and Post-Closure Maintenance Plan: CCR Title 27 … Joint Technical Document for Eastlake Sanitary Landfill, Clearlake, California. July 30, 2018. “National Overview: Facts and Figures on Material, Wastes and Recycling” https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-and- recycling/national-overview-facts-and-figures-materials) 2 October 2017. Retrieved 2021-07-14 “Typical Anatomy of a Landfill (http://wm.com/thinkgreen/pdfs/Anatomy- of-a-landfill.pdf) “State Law SB 1383: Food Recovery Requirements” (https://sfenvironment.org?SB-1383) “Preventing Waste Is A Better Solution Than Recycling It” (http://seattletimes.com/opinion/preventing-waste-is-a-better-solution) Waste Management Hierarchy and Homeland Security Incidents” (https://www.epa.gov/homeland-security-waste/waste-management- hierarchy...) A Proposed Expansion of Eastlake Landfill Will Go before The Lake County Planning Commission”, Aidan Freeman Record-Bee May 27, 2020, Update June 4, 2020. 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 212 “Eastlake Sanitary Landfill Expansion Project” (https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2020010546/2) “Eastlake Landfill Busier Than Ever” (https:/www.record- bee.com/article/NQ/201601059957). Retrieved 2018-06-15 “Lake County Board of Supervisors Accepts Fire Debris at Eastlake Landfill- WasteToday” (www.wastetodaymagazine.com/article/lake-county-board-of- supervisors-accepts-fire-debris-at-eastlake-landfill/)WasteToday. Retrieved 2018-06-15. Cal. Pub. Resources Code § 14525.5 Download PDF Current through the 2022 Legislative Session Section 14525.5 - Reverse vending machine "Reverse vending machine" means a mechanical device which accepts one or more types of empty beverage containers and issues a cash refund or a redeemable credit slip with a value not less than the container's refund value. The refund value payments shall be aggregated and then paid, if more than one container is redeemed in a single transaction. Ca. Pub. Res. Code § 14525.5 Amended by Stats. 1989, Ch. 1339, Sec. 15. Effective October 2, 1989. Cal. Pen. Code § 319.5 Download PDF Current through the 2022 Legislative Session Section 319.5 - Inapplicability to possession or operation of reverse vending machine 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 213 Exhibit 1 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 214 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 215 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 216 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 217 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 218 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 219 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 220 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 221 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 222 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 223 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 224 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 225 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 226 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 227 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 228 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 229 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 230 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 231 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 232 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 233 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 234 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 235 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 236 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 237 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 238 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 239
F15:
The Recycling Handbook created by the Department of Public Services was thorough and informative. RECOMMENDATIONS
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
The natural beauty of the lands in Lake County is tarnished by the presence of unsightly, trashed, abandoned vehicles.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
That the County Community Development Department dedicate two Code Enforcement Officers full-time to the abatement of abandoned vehicles. (F1 – F4)
R2:
That the Clearlake Police Department dedicate one Code Enforcement Officer full-time to the abatement of abandoned vehicles. (F1 – F4)
F2:
Abating abandoned vehicles is a costly, labor intensive, and time- consuming undertaking.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
That the County Community Development Department dedicate two Code Enforcement Officers full-time to the abatement of abandoned vehicles. (F1 – F4)
R2:
That the Clearlake Police Department dedicate one Code Enforcement Officer full-time to the abatement of abandoned vehicles. (F1 – F4)
F3:
The vehicle registration fees collected within Lake County are insufficient to fund abatement of all, or even most, of the abandoned vehicles on public and private properties. 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 136
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
That the County Community Development Department dedicate two Code Enforcement Officers full-time to the abatement of abandoned vehicles. (F1 – F4)
R2:
That the Clearlake Police Department dedicate one Code Enforcement Officer full-time to the abatement of abandoned vehicles. (F1 – F4)
F4:
All three Code Enforcement agencies have limited staff and multiple other, often more pressing, investigative and enforcement responsibilities beyond vehicle abatement.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
That the County Community Development Department dedicate two Code Enforcement Officers full-time to the abatement of abandoned vehicles. (F1 – F4)
R2:
That the Clearlake Police Department dedicate one Code Enforcement Officer full-time to the abatement of abandoned vehicles. (F1 – F4)
F5:
The Code Enforcement officers report insufficient dialogue with the County AVA Authority in setting priorities for Code Enforcement.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
That the County AVA Authority interact regularly with the officers in the three jurisdictions who are striving to abate nuisance vehicles. (F5) 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 137 RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal Code section 933(c), the following responses are required: Lake County Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Service Authority - 90 days Lake County Community Department (through BOS) - 90 days City of Clearlake Police Department (through City Council) - 90 days Bibliography California Highway Patrol Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Program Handbook, HPH 87.1, 2021. http://www.chp.ca.gov/programs/vehabate.html Lake County Code, Chapter 13: Lake County Uniform Abatement of Public Nuisance Code. California Department of Motor Vehicles: Dismantler’s Handbook of Registration Procedures. California Vehicle Code §§ 22650 – 22711. California Government Code §§6500 et seq.
F6:
At the time of interviews in 2022, the County Code Enforcement officers had no dedicated computer for their abatement work.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
That the County Community Development Department provide its vehicle abatement officers with computers and uniforms. (F6 - F7)
F7:
At the time of interviews in 2022, the County Code Enforcement officers had no uniform making them readily identifiable to the public.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
That the County Community Development Department provide its vehicle abatement officers with computers and uniforms. (F6 - F7)
F8:
The County AVA Commission has been found to be out-of- compliance with budget and annual-report requirements and was suspended from receiving DMV registration fees for one year. RECOMMENDATIONS
Findings & Recommendations
11 findings
F1:
Periodic meetings and updates were provided by the contracted search firm, however, they were routine status updates. The critical need for a Lake County PHO demanded that the contracted search firm aggressively seek appropriate candidates. A contracted search firm’s frequent communication will minimize the duration of time it takes to fill critical Lake County positions.
F2:
Search firm incentives or disincentives were not offered. The critical need to fill the Lake County PHO demanded that the Lake County HR Department create incentives or disincentives for the contracted search firm.
F3:
Lake County does not have a dedicated human resource staff member with appropriate skills to ensure complete coordination and follow-up.
F4:
Lake County does not have a dedicated resource staff member to ensure responsible, interdepartmental coordination and follow-up to address the need. Instead, Lake County HR are developing a position of Generalist.
F5:
Lake County does not have a dedicated staff member designated to facilitate any departmental collaborative training to enhance interdepartmental cooperation.
F6:
Lake County does not conduct Exit Interviews, in order to understand and minimize future turnover.
F7:
Lake County does not have any defined succession programs, in order to minimize delays in filling critical positions.
F8:
Lake County does not have any new employee transitional housing that will encourage recruitment and retention of Critical Positions.
F9:
Lake County does not have or use HR Metrics nor a HRIS system that allows for the storage and production of HR Metrics in order to ensure effective management. 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 192
F10:
Lake County does not negotiate 30 to 60-day Transition Periods to ease the relocation of the newly hired incumbent and family.
F11:
The PHO is not listed as a Critical Position. RECOMMENDATIONS
Additional Recommendations
11
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
That the Lake County Board of Supervisors (BOS), CAO and HR Director (HRD) require contracted search firms to provide weekly updates to the recruitment status of the assigned search position. [F1]
R2:
That the Lake County BOS, CAO and HRD negotiate incentives and/or disincentives with contracted search firms. [F2]
R3:
That the Lake County BOS, CAO and HRD establish a dedicated Recruiter. [F-3, F-4]
R4:
That the Lake County BOS, CAO and HRD establish full-service Generalists (Recruitment and Employee Relations) in the HR department. [F-3, F-4]
R5:
That the Lake County HR Department coordinate interdepartmental training to ensure and enhance collaboration between departments, reduce errors and enhance the quality of services rendered to the public. [F-5]
R6:
That the Lake County HR Department conduct exit interviews of appropriate terminating employees. [F6]
R7:
That the Lake County HR Department develop a succession program for all key management positions. [F7]
R8:
That the Lake County BOS, CAO and HRD provide short-term transitional housing for new hires in identified positions. [F8]
R9:
That Lake County HR provide appropriate and applicable quarterly HR Metrics through the installation of a HR-friendly 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 193 HRIS (Human Resource Information System) program to the Lake County BOS, CAO, and Lake County Department heads. [F9]
R10:
That Lake County HR negotiate a minimum 30 to 60-day Transition Period, inclusive of the normal 2-week notification, for Senior Lake County Executive positions at the time of hire. [F10]
R11:
That the PHO position be listed as a Critical Position. [F11] RESPONSES Lake County HR Director [R1 – R11] 90 days Lake County CAO [R1-R10] 90 days Lake County Board of Supervisors [R1 – R4, R7-9, R10] 90 days
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
The CWPP is in the process of being updated from its 2009 edition and a preliminary draft has been created. Regulations require its update every five years.
F2:
The County is planning to hire a Climate Resilience Officer to interact with wildfire mitigation stakeholders to prioritize tasks and share resources.
F3:
Reduction of State prison inmate fire crews substantially impact CAL FIRE’s fuel reduction mitigation and also fire suppression, as “troops on the ground” do the heaviest work in each area.
F4:
Lake County’s Code Enforcement Division is understaffed and under-resourced and cannot prioritize wildfire mitigation or enforcement/collection of fines.
F5:
The Northshore Fire Protection District has developed a fuel- reduction crew that will be available for projects across Lake County.
F6:
The indigenous community historically has had special expertise in forest management that is being recognized, belatedly, by government and community groups active in mitigation efforts through support of prescribed burns.
F7:
The Board of Supervisors has declared a local bark-beetle tree- mortality emergency, which is expected to make additional mitigation funding available, including possibly to private property owners for whom tree removal is cost-prohibitive. 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 267
F8:
CAL FIRE has arranged for an “air curtain incinerator” to be available on Cobb for one year to burn brush and trees.
F9:
The Lake County Fire Safe Council is not independent of the Board of Supervisors, whereas the South Lake County Fire Safe Council is a 501(c)(3) with strong community support.
F10:
The total amount of Kelseyville Riviera mitigation assessment funds raised in 2018 were not expended as planned, and the amount and location of the balance is unknown to the public. RECOMMENDATIONS
Additional Recommendations
9
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Led by CAL FIRE, the State of California must engage in collaborative landscape-level forest management for long-term forest resiliency. This planning process should include stakeholders at all levels of government, Native American tribes, scientists, environmental and environmental justice groups, private industry representatives and local residents. Because forest health impacts Californians in urban and coastal areas, efforts should be made to include representatives from non-forested regions to elevate the importance of California’s forests to the entire state’s wellbeing. Leaders also should review existing forestry practices and procedures, including the state’s Forest Practice Rules, to assess whether they facilitate forest resiliency in a changing climate. • Over time, funding gradually should be shifted from reacting to the consequences of poor forest management to preventative treatments that promote forest health and resilience. This should include spreading the costs among a greater array of beneficiaries of healthy forests statewide. • State agencies should plan to make greater use of the Good Neighbor Authority to perform treatments on federal land • State leaders should continue to remind federal lawmakers and policymakers of federal obligations to its forests within California. 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 274
R2:
On CAL FIRE funds that have time constraints for encumbrance and liquidation, the Department of Finance should allow longer timelines to facilitate collaborative large-scale forest management planning.
R3:
The State of California should lead a policy shift from fire suppression to using fire as a tool. • This should include creating dedicated prescribed fire crews. These job classifications should be designed to attract the state’s top talent, with pay comparable to non-prescribed fire crews.
R4:
Treating the land at the scale outlined in the draft Forest Carbon Plan will require more resources. CAL FIRE, local air districts and other affected agencies should develop a list of potions they will need to meet the draft Forest Carbon Plan goals of treating 500,000 acres of nonfederal land per year, 500,000 acres of USDA Forest Service land per year and 10,000 to 15,000 acres of acres of Bureau of Land Management land per year. State agencies should assume that at least part of the federal lands acreage treated will be by state entities working under the Good Neighbor Authority, and predict their staffing needs accordingly. The Legislature should then fund these extra positions, including the positions at the local level. • As more funding ñ such as the jump from $40 million to more than $200 million in Greenhouse Gas Reduction Funds between FY 2016-17 and 2017-18 ñ is allocated for forest management to CAL FIRE and other agencies, these entities must be responsible for properly planning for its use, including an adequate number of staff with necessary skills. If new positions are necessary, CAL FIRE and other agencies and departments should not be penalized for developing the resources needed to successfully administer the forest management program.
R5:
The California Air Resources Board, land managers and other stakeholders should continue to actively work to find ways to increase prescribed burning through better use of technology, including modeling software, traditional portable air quality monitoring and new low- cost sensor monitoring. 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 275 • State agencies and other stakeholders should continue to participate to the extent possible in the Fire MOU and Air, Land and Water meetings, as well as other collaborative cross-jurisdictional efforts to overcome the barriers to prescribed fire. Pertinent agencies that currently do not participate in these efforts should participate.
R6:
The State of California should encourage the development of additional infrastructure to utilize material removed from the forests as part of long-term forest management. • The California Natural Resources Agency, along with members of the steering committee and the interagency leads for each recommendation, should report back to the Commission on the implementation of the SB 859 working group’s recommendations. • The state should issue grants to small communities so they can develop infrastructure according to their needs. • The state should develop a statewide biomass policy that takes into account the needs of different parts of the state. All stakeholder communities, including environmental justice, should provide input into this policy. • Part of this plan should explore the potential of biomass near forested communities with newer, cleaner facilities vis-a-vis the economies of scale provided by larger facilities. • Additionally, this should include research on the public benefits provided by biomass energy within the context of the Renewables Portfolio Standard policy of “least cost best fit,” and whether those benefits qualify biomass energy as the best in certain situations. Further, analysis of public benefits should give consideration to whether biomass should receive subsidies to lower costs in certain cases, particularly in facilities developed or retrofitted with cleaner technology. • Recommendation 7: To better educate Californians about the suite of benefits healthy forests provide to the state, the state should consider the following: 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 276 • The state should invest in a long-term forest health campaign similar to Save our Water by contracting with an organization that can use its expertise to raise public awareness of forest health issues. A high-ranking person within the Governor’s Administration - preferably the Governor - must champion this effort. Outreach messages should be based on research. • The Legislature should fund extensive statewide public outreach campaigns for CAL FIRE to continue to educate the public on the benefits of healthy forests and prescribed fire. • The California Natural Resources Agency should work with the Department of Education to catalog existing educational resources on resilient forests, the history of fire in California’s ecological development and from where pupils’ water originates to allow teachers to easily access and incorporate the information into their curricula. Additionally, the California Natural Resources Agency should advertise this collection to teachers to spread awareness of these resources. • The California Natural Resources Agency should collaborate with state colleges and universities offering forestry programs to increase awareness of forest health concerns in their communities, to both educate the public and increase enrollment • In these programs. Forestry technical advisors affiliated with universities should be consulted on where they are encountering educational gaps to help identify where efforts should be targeted. • Water districts should play a greater role in educating their customers on the sources of their water. To facilitate this, the state should provide funding for an organization to create educational toolkits that water agencies easily can customize. • The state should provide grant funding for an educational organization to bring lawmakers, policymakers and their staff to forests to teach them about the benefits provided by forests, the consequences of forest neglect and the different forest treatment outcomes. The organization should work closely with the Legislature and other appropriate bodies to overcome logistical hurdles. 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 277 • Californians’ knowledge levels and attitudes toward forest health should be measured at the onset of educational campaigns, and policymakers should set clear goals for the changes they would like to see in those attributes. These should be measured throughout the campaigns, with course corrections designed as necessary if the state does not meet its outcomes. • Recommendation 8: The Tree Mortality Task Force should evolve into a forest management planning entity, with dedicated funding. • It should help set a strategic direction for forest management, identify measureable goals, decide how to track results and recommend course corrections to better achieve those goals. • It should advise on how to incorporate technology in assessing and improving forest health. • This should include reviewing the planning process and developing recommendations on where streamlining can occur.
R7:
That consideration be given to creating a single County-wide Fire Safe Council to offer consistent messaging and provide more widespread wildfire risk mitigation information. (F-9) 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 268
R8:
That the Board of Supervisors publicly account for the remaining Riviera mitigation assessment funds that targeted properties with high fire risk in 2018-2019. (F-10) RESPONSES In response to Penal Code § 933 (c), the following Responses are required: Board of Supervisors (R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, R-5, R-7, R-8) 90 days Lake County Community Development Department (R-7) 90 days The following responses are requested: CAL FIRE (R-6) …………………………………………… 90 days South Lake County Fire Safe Council (R-7) …………………90 days 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 269 Bibliography Little Hoover Commission: Fire on the Mountain: Rethinking Forest Management in the Sierra Nevada. Report # 242. February 2018. Lake County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update. February 2018. National Fire Protection Assoc.: Outthinkng Wildfire. A call to end the destruction of communities by wildfire. 2020. Cal Fire: General Plan Safety Element Assessment. June 2020. Cal Fire: Sonoma-Lake-Napa Unit 2020 Strategic Fire Plan. Cal Fire: Sonoma-Lake-Napa Unit 2021 Strategic Fire Plan. International Fire Chiefs’ Assoc: Wildland-Urban Interface. Chief’s Guide. 2nd Edition, undated. Clark, SA, et al., for the Karuk Tribe: Good Fire. Current barriers to the expansion of cultural burning. Prescribed fire in California and recommended solutions, undated. Bay Area Council Economic Institute: The true cost of wildfires. Analyzing the impact of wildfires on the California economy. 2021. Pacific Gas & Electric: 2011 Wildfire Mitigation Plan Update. February 25, 2022. Seigler Springs Community Redevelopment Association: Living with Wildfire in Lake County California. 2022. 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 270 Exhibit 1 Fire on the Mountain: Rethinking Forest Management in the Sierra Nevada Overview In this report, the Commission calls for transformational culture change in its forest management practices. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) reported in December 2017 that approximately 27 million trees had died statewide on federal, state and private lands since November 2016. The tally brought to 129 million the number of trees that have died in California forests during years of drought and bark beetle infestations since 2010. During its review, the Commission found that California’s forests suffer from neglect and mismanagement, resulting in overcrowding that leaves them susceptible to disease, insects and wildfire. The Commission found commitment to long-lasting forest management changes at the highest levels of government, but that support for those changes needs to spread down not just through the state’s massive bureaucracy and law- and policymaking apparatuses, but among the general public as well. Complicating the management problem is the fact that the State of California owns very few of the forests within its borders – most are owned by the federal government or private landowners. Among the Commission’s nine recommendations, it urges the state to take a greater leadership role in collaborative forest management planning at the watershed level. The Good Neighbor Authority granted in the 2014 Farm Bill provides a mechanism for the state to conduct restoration activities on federal land, but state agencies must have the financial and personnel resources to perform this work. As part of this collaborative effort, it calls upon the state to use more prescribed fire to reinvigorate forests, inhibit firestorms and help protect air and water quality. Central to these efforts must be a statewide public education campaign to help Californians understand why healthy forests matter to them, and elicit buy-in for the much-needed forest treatments. California’s forests are reaching a breaking point. Poor management policies that interrupted the natural and historical cycle of fire, combined now with a changing climate, have left forests vulnerable to disease, insects, catastrophic 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 271 fire and drought. If the state does not take appropriate action soon, Californians risk losing the priceless benefits provided by forests. One forest supervisor told the Commission that management decisions made during the next five to 10 years will determine the forests’ condition in 100 to 200 years. The Commission is encouraged that state leaders recognize the need for decisive action to restore California’s forests to resiliency. But much work is needed to change a culture focused almost solely on emergency firefighting to one that supports long-term forest restoration and management. Prioritizing forest management for the long run - for the healthier, less overgrown forests that enhance watersheds and wildlife, reduce the scale of catastrophic wild- fires and better withstand the scourges of bark beetles and a warming climate - will require more money and staff. The Commission typically does not recommend increasing financial and human resources to fix problems, but here it recognizes the savings that ultimately will result from such investment. Today, California spends all too much for the immediate, emergency consequences of its long-neglected forests. Massive landscapes once sustained by beneficial, low-intensity wild fires are overrun with fire- intolerant trees and thick carpets of forest fuels that can turn even the smallest camp re or sparking power line into a raging firestorm. Property damage and firefighting costs for local, state and federal governments run into the billions of dollars annually. Property damage for the wild fires in October 2017 alone exceeded $9 billion dollars, and the state spent approximately $700 million fighting fires between July 2017 and mid-January 2018.After devastating fires, local water districts pay millions more to remove tons of eroded soils from mountain reservoirs that supply downstream customers. Now state government has invested millions of dollars responding to the horrific damage of bark beetles and the tree mortality crisis in the Sierra Nevada; when CAL FIRE testified before the Commission in January 2017, only 15 months following Governor Brown’s declaration of a State of Emergency for tree mortality, it already had allocated more than 80,000 hours of staff time and $43.6 million dollars solely to responding to the crisis. Local governments and private landowners also are spending heavily to remove hazard trees as a result of the tree mortality crisis. The costs of long neglecting and mismanaging forests have become an unsustainable burden in California. The new investments the Commission recommends are intended to drive a strategy 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 272 in which the state pays more for front-end forest management, and eventually, pays less reacting to crises and disasters. The Commission’s findings and recommendations (listed in full at the end of this section) fall into five categories: § Increasing Pace and Scale of Forest Restoration through Collaboration. Speeding up and expanding treatments to restore forests to good health demands greater teamwork between state government and the federal government, which owns nearly 60 percent of the forest land in California. California has authority to conduct forest restoration work on federal land through the Good Neighbor Authority authorized in the 2014 Farm Bill. Success will depend on joint government plans and work at the ecosystem and watershed level. § Creating a Culture where Fire is a Tool, not a Threat. California’s forests evolved with fire and were shaped by fire. Though the increasing number of homes built in or near forests means re cannot feasibly be returned to the forest everywhere, prescribed fire, where possible, should be used to treat forests. Prescribed fires work in calm conditions that prevent fire from burning out of control and limit smoke and carbon emissions § Developing a Long-Term Plan for Forest Materials. Appropriate management will result in trees being removed from the forest. When possible, this wood should generate income for forest management. The state already is working to boost demand, within state government and externally, for California forest products, particularly from smaller-diameter trees that historically have had little value. Bioenergy from forest biomass is another op on for smaller-diameter wood. The Commission heard important arguments for and against forest bioenergy. As the Commission monitors state efforts to maximize demand for removed wood, it would like the state to develop a long-term bioenergy plan - one that clearly delineates the state’s position on bioenergy and mitigates the effects of using or rejecting it. § Educating Californians on Forest Resiliency. Californians are woefully uneducated on the importance of healthy forests and the benefits they provide. The state should invest in a large-scale outreach and education campaign to inform the public about the ecological importance of forests and the necessity for prescribed burns to bring about a lasting culture change in how the state 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 273 views and treats its forests. Fortunately, a model already exists in California in how the state has approached drought education. § Planning for the Long Term and Ensuring Accountability. Formalizing a multijurisdictional planning process will be necessary to undertake the long- term work of restoring California’s forests. Here, too, the state has a successful model in the Tree Mortality Task Force. A scaled-down version of this task force could be used as a steering committee for the larger forest restoration effort. Ensuring accountability for goals stated in the state’s Forest Carbon Plan also will be critical in successfully managing the forests of California. The Commission recommends regular reporting on progress toward these goals, and may hold future hearings on the topic. Little Hoover Commission Recommendations on Forest Management Recommendation 1: Led by CAL FIRE, the State of California must engage in collaborative landscape-level forest management for long-term forest resiliency. This planning process should include stakeholders at all levels of government, Native American tribes, scientists, environmental and environmental justice groups, private industry representatives and local residents. Because forest health impacts Californians in urban and coastal areas, efforts should be made to include representatives from non-forested regions to elevate the importance of California’s forests to the entire state’s wellbeing. Leaders also should review existing forestry practices and procedures, including the state’s Forest Practice Rules, to assess whether they facilitate forest resiliency in a changing climate. • Over time, funding gradually should be shifted from reacting to the consequences of poor forest management to preventative treatments that promote forest health and resilience. This should include spreading the costs among a greater array of beneficiaries of healthy forests statewide. • State agencies should plan to make greater use of the Good Neighbor Authority to perform treatments on federal land • State leaders should continue to remind federal lawmakers and policymakers of federal obligations to its forests within California. 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 274 Recommendation 2: On CAL FIRE funds that have time constraints for encumbrance and liquidation, the Department of Finance should allow longer timelines to facilitate collaborative large-scale forest management planning. Recommendation 3: The State of California should lead a policy shift from fire suppression to using fire as a tool. • This should include creating dedicated prescribed fire crews. These job classifications should be designed to attract the state’s top talent, with pay comparable to non-prescribed fire crews. Recommendation 4: Treating the land at the scale outlined in the draft Forest Carbon Plan will require more resources. CAL FIRE, local air districts and other affected agencies should develop a list of potions they will need to meet the draft Forest Carbon Plan goals of treating 500,000 acres of nonfederal land per year, 500,000 acres of USDA Forest Service land per year and 10,000 to 15,000 acres of acres of Bureau of Land Management land per year. State agencies should assume that at least part of the federal lands acreage treated will be by state entities working under the Good Neighbor Authority, and predict their staffing needs accordingly. The Legislature should then fund these extra positions, including the positions at the local level. • As more funding ñ such as the jump from $40 million to more than $200 million in Greenhouse Gas Reduction Funds between FY 2016-17 and 2017-18 ñ is allocated for forest management to CAL FIRE and other agencies, these entities must be responsible for properly planning for its use, including an adequate number of staff with necessary skills. If new positions are necessary, CAL FIRE and other agencies and departments should not be penalized for developing the resources needed to successfully administer the forest management program. Recommendation 5: The California Air Resources Board, land managers and other stakeholders should continue to actively work to find ways to increase prescribed burning through better use of technology, including modeling software, traditional portable air quality monitoring and new low- cost sensor monitoring. 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 275 • State agencies and other stakeholders should continue to participate to the extent possible in the Fire MOU and Air, Land and Water meetings, as well as other collaborative cross-jurisdictional efforts to overcome the barriers to prescribed fire. Pertinent agencies that currently do not participate in these efforts should participate. Recommendation 6: The State of California should encourage the development of additional infrastructure to utilize material removed from the forests as part of long-term forest management. • The California Natural Resources Agency, along with members of the steering committee and the interagency leads for each recommendation, should report back to the Commission on the implementation of the SB 859 working group’s recommendations. • The state should issue grants to small communities so they can develop infrastructure according to their needs. • The state should develop a statewide biomass policy that takes into account the needs of different parts of the state. All stakeholder communities, including environmental justice, should provide input into this policy. • Part of this plan should explore the potential of biomass near forested communities with newer, cleaner facilities vis-a-vis the economies of scale provided by larger facilities. • Additionally, this should include research on the public benefits provided by biomass energy within the context of the Renewables Portfolio Standard policy of “least cost best fit,” and whether those benefits qualify biomass energy as the best in certain situations. Further, analysis of public benefits should give consideration to whether biomass should receive subsidies to lower costs in certain cases, particularly in facilities developed or retrofitted with cleaner technology. • Recommendation 7: To better educate Californians about the suite of benefits healthy forests provide to the state, the state should consider the following: 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 276 • The state should invest in a long-term forest health campaign similar to Save our Water by contracting with an organization that can use its expertise to raise public awareness of forest health issues. A high-ranking person within the Governor’s Administration - preferably the Governor - must champion this effort. Outreach messages should be based on research. • The Legislature should fund extensive statewide public outreach campaigns for CAL FIRE to continue to educate the public on the benefits of healthy forests and prescribed fire. • The California Natural Resources Agency should work with the Department of Education to catalog existing educational resources on resilient forests, the history of fire in California’s ecological development and from where pupils’ water originates to allow teachers to easily access and incorporate the information into their curricula. Additionally, the California Natural Resources Agency should advertise this collection to teachers to spread awareness of these resources. • The California Natural Resources Agency should collaborate with state colleges and universities offering forestry programs to increase awareness of forest health concerns in their communities, to both educate the public and increase enrollment • In these programs. Forestry technical advisors affiliated with universities should be consulted on where they are encountering educational gaps to help identify where efforts should be targeted. • Water districts should play a greater role in educating their customers on the sources of their water. To facilitate this, the state should provide funding for an organization to create educational toolkits that water agencies easily can customize. • The state should provide grant funding for an educational organization to bring lawmakers, policymakers and their staff to forests to teach them about the benefits provided by forests, the consequences of forest neglect and the different forest treatment outcomes. The organization should work closely with the Legislature and other appropriate bodies to overcome logistical hurdles. 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 277 • Californians’ knowledge levels and attitudes toward forest health should be measured at the onset of educational campaigns, and policymakers should set clear goals for the changes they would like to see in those attributes. These should be measured throughout the campaigns, with course corrections designed as necessary if the state does not meet its outcomes. • Recommendation 8: The Tree Mortality Task Force should evolve into a forest management planning entity, with dedicated funding. • It should help set a strategic direction for forest management, identify measureable goals, decide how to track results and recommend course corrections to better achieve those goals. • It should advise on how to incorporate technology in assessing and improving forest health. • This should include reviewing the planning process and developing recommendations on where streamlining can occur. Recommendation 9: The California Natural Resources Agency, its relevant departments and the California Environmental Protection Agency should regularly report to the Legislature and post online progress on the metrics listed in the Forest Carbon Plan, as well as the steps it is taking to begin implementing the plan. The Commission may hold a follow-up hearing on these steps as well as the progress made on its recommendations. 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 278 Exhibit 2 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 279 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 280 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 281 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 282 Exhibit 3 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 283 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 284 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 285 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 286 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 287 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 288 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 289 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 290 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 291 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 292 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 293 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 294 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 295 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 296 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 297 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 298 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 299 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 300 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 301 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 302 Exhibit 4 Lake County - Aligning to Action Healing the Land, Healing the People Prepared by the Community Mitigation Assistance Team - May 27, 2021 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Large wildfires over the past six years, which scorched thousands of acres and resulted in the loss of several thousand homes, served as wake-up call to the residents and land managers in Lake County. In 2019, talk about bringing in a Community Mitigation Assistance Team (CMAT) began. Those same fires, as well as the pandemic in 2020, delayed the Team’s start but both the community and the CMAT recognized the need and finally made it happen, albeit virtually. The County has many things going for it - numerous Firewise USA® Communities working to increase mitigation with their neighborhoods; strong relationships between CAL Fire and the local fire departments; adoption of both the Wildland Urban Interface Code and Buildings Codes; a partnership between the Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians, Robinson Rancheria Band of Pomo Indians, USFS, BLM, and New Paradigm College formed a non- 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 303 profit, the Tribal EcoRestoration Alliance (TERA) to create a training program for Tribal members to increase the mitigation workforce in the County. In 2018, the County adopted a Hazardous Vegetation Abatement Ordinance, though implementation has been slowed by the pandemic. Though efforts were underway, mitigation leaders, residents, organizations, and governmental agencies recognized that they often didn’t know who was doing what and that their efforts had minimal cohesive focus. Amazing work and partnerships were flourishing with some groups and in some areas of the County but not at the level everyone felt was needed. Lake County and the Mendocino National Forest requested a CMAT to enhance Lake County’s collaborative efforts and evaluate their wildfire mitigation strategy, including relevant plans, programs, and activities. They also requested CMAT develop priorities, clarify roles and responsibilities of involved parties, and provide them with an actionable plan to implement. This report summarizes the CMAT’s findings and provides recommendations that incorporate wildfire mitigation best practices to support the further development of collaborative efforts and increase mitigation actions across Lake County, California. This CMAT assignment was conducted virtually due to travel and in-person gathering restrictions related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Team Members undertook an extensive review of existing mitigation resources and documents, followed by hosting an intensive SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) exercise with active members of the mitigation community, and followed up with numerous individual and small group dialogues which enhanced the CMAT’s understanding of the situation. An additional interactive workshop focused on learning about successful mitigation efforts from CMAT members. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The report captures findings and provides actionable recommendations to increase public participation in mitigation activities and enhance the overall effectiveness of Lake County’s strategies and tactics. The Mitigation Guiding Principles are overarching best practices gleaned from numerous successful practitioners and should be used to guide all partner’s mitigation and 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 304 engagement efforts. The Team’s findings and recommendations fall into two categories, Collaboration and Mitigation. CMAT has created an online Community Toolbox (link) that contains research and reference documents related to the specific recommendations provided in this report. GUIDING PRINCIPLES Consider these guiding principles when developing your Lake County wildfire mitigation strategy and the projects that comprise it; they will make your efforts more effective. 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 305 Work together -A group of people who share the same goals can get more done together than separately. They plan together, piggyback on strengths, share resources, staff, and the work. A partnership is more likely to get supporting funding. Collaboratively planning, implementing, sharing successes and lessons learned is an essential first step in building a common vision and gaining broad community support. Be strategic - Be strategic by creating larger landscape fuel treatments and helping clusters of homes reduce risk but realize this takes time. Incremental actions, (one home / one acre), is progress! No boundaries - Wildfires do not stop at jurisdictional boundaries. Link fuel reduction and defensible space projects to benefit cross-boundary areas. Engage with other neighborhoods and other jurisdictions to accomplish work on adjoining properties. Promote home hardening and defensible space -Having homeowners prepare their yard and structure for wildfire is the most important thing they can do to avoid loss and is always where work should begin. Help underserved populations - Provide mitigation assistance for low-income, elderly, and disabled residents who may be unable to accomplish this work on their own. Face-to-face engagement - Sharing with residents is best done face-to-face through a home assessment and conversations about actions they must take. 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 306 Often this discussion has to take place many times before someone takes action. Stretch project funds - Homeowner contributions should be part of the funding equation, but expectations for investment vary by community and homeowner. When and where appropriate, require an investment of labor, time, or financial resources. This investment empowers the homeowner to take responsibility for what’s theirs and makes them more likely to maintain their project over time. Think creatively to meet unfunded needs - Always engage local and regional partners that have something to lose or gain; these individuals and businesses may have financial resources to contribute. Even when a grant received does not have a match requirement, consider asking for some percent (5-10%) of the sub award amount from the homeowner group or resident that could be used to help increase the overall value of the project or program. Funds could be used to: Assist with coordination or administrative costs, provide support for the underserved or chipping programs, or conducting fuel reduction assessments. Invest most of your time and resources on risk reduction actions - Meetings, recognition programs, news releases, or going to events do not accomplish mitigation. Respect everyone’s time. Do not hold additional meetings if wildfire mitigation discussions can be consolidated into existing forums. Make meetings short and strategic. Ensure tasks and initiatives are clear at the end of each meeting and are moving the partnership forward. Celebrate success! - Sustained participation in any partnership will require frequent communication and recognition of everyone’s contributions. Recognition does not have to be formal and can be as simple as a handwritten thank you. Recognition in the presence of peers and partners goes a long way toward retaining volunteers. Share accomplishments through media, presentations, yard signage, or site visits to build momentum for mitigation work. Stories, especially those from the perspective of the property owner, often have the biggest impact. 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 307 INTRODUCTION Located in the west-central portion of northern California, Lake County lies midway between the Pacific Ocean and the Sacramento Valley. Clear Lake, the oldest and largest lake in California, sits in at the center of the County, surrounded by burned and unburned ridges. The diverse topography of Lake County ranges from level valleys and rolling hills to rugged mountains. Public lands comprise just over half of the County’s acreage. The area experiences warm, dry summers and cool winters with moderate precipitation. Lake County is home to seven Tribal Nations, and as of 2018, had a population of 64,382. Recreation and tourism make up a significant sector of the County’s economy along with vineyards, pear, and walnut orchards. Mining and timber harvesting are a minor component of the economy. Wildfires have impacted the majority of Lake County, resulting in numerous homes lost and almost every resident being evacuated at least once. Since 2015, three of California’s largest wildfires have occurred in and adjacent to Lake County, including the Valley Fire (2015), Ranch Fire (2018), and August Complex (2020), renewing the community’s interest in wildfire mitigation. Planning efforts have been extensive. A revision of the 2009 Community Wildfire Protection Plan is currently underway and is expected to be approved in late June. Both the County of Lake and the cities of Lakeport and Clearlake have current Natural Hazard Mitigation Plans. The Tribal Nations developed a Multi-Tribal Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan, the first in the nation, that has been approved by FEMA. The County has also formally adopted the Wildland Urban Interface Code as well as the 2008 Building Code. In 2018, they adopted a Hazardous Vegetation Abatement Ordinance. 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 308 In 2017, the County formalized the Risk Reduction Authority, which under a Joint Powers Authority (JPA), is responsible for a wide variety of programs and projects for all hazards COLLABORATION Lake County, California has a multitude of resources focused on all phases of wildfire. Individual neighbors, groups, organizations, agencies, and governments are arranged in formal (with authority) and informal (without perceived authority) working groups. Some organizations have a clear chain of command and hierarchy in place for decision making and action, while others have little oversight and decision-making accountability. The County is geographically large and demographically diverse. Because of this, programs do not always cover the entire land area or populations. To frame this section of the findings and recommendations, CMAT focuses on the activities of: 1. County-wide organizations: Risk Reduction Authority, Fire Safe Councils 2. Individual organizations (Partners) which provide mitigation services within Lake County. County-wide organizations, such as the Risk Reduction Authority (RRA) and Lake County Fire Safe Council (LCFSC) act as convening bodies for the individual organizations and have a vital role to play in fostering collaborative mitigation. There are several individual organizations with independent and autonomous governing oversight bodies that invest in the community, provide resources, and add to the overall mitigation ecosystem. Their inclusion in this section is intended to highlight the value they bring and the opportunities that may be enhanced. If an organization was not included, this was not intended to reduce their value, rather it is because they did not fit within the context of the analysis or we did not directly interact with them. 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 309 CMAT compiled a Lake County Partners List to be used as a template (link). The Collaborative - Developing a Common Direction A well-defined structure of an organization allows participants to easily understand the flow of information, how decisions are reached, expectations, and where to go for assistance. In the fire response world, the hierarchy is known as the Incident Command System. This structure focuses on accountability, action planning, unity of command, personal responsibility, span of control, and resource tracking. In this section we highlight the current structure and strongly suggest some changes. 1. Finding - Work occurs in organizational silos and while some good work is getting done, often it is not being completed together. Three organizations appear to carry a great deal of responsibility and there is no clear definition of which organization is responsible for which activity. a. The Risk Reduction Authority (RRA), under the Joint Powers Authority (JPA), is responsible for a wide variety of programs and projects for all hazards. These include: i. Development of low- or no-cost resources to reduce the risks of fire from hazardous vegetation, earthquakes, and environmental causes. ii. Development of community infrastructure improvements. iii. Development of property inspection programs with scoring and assessment tools to prioritize the level of individual and community risk. iv. Development and management of funding sources necessary to the Authority's risk reduction programs. v. Development of educational and training tools to assist Authority members, the public and non-member 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 310 governmental agencies in discovering, assessing, reducing the risks associated with fire and other disasters, and mitigating potential impacts. vi. Development of community programs to improve the resilience of our local forested areas. vii. Enforcement of County, State, and Federal laws. b. The Lake County Fire Safe Council is currently a stand-alone organization, staffed by one individual. c. The vision of the Lake County Fire Safe Council is to foster a fire adapted county developed through ongoing public education, training, community collaboration, and is responsible for a wide variety of programs and projects. These include: i. Implementing the Lake County CWPP and supervising the re-write of the document. (The CWPP process by its very nature is collaborative. Collaboration is not the current process.) ii. Empowering Lake County residents and businesses with the information, knowledge, and support to protect their families and properties from wildfire. d. The South Lake Fire Safe Council (SLFSC) has taken responsibility for coordinating wildfire mitigation efforts within the boundaries of the South Lake Fire District since the early 2000s. They are incorporated as a501(c)(3) with a volunteer Board of Directors and no staff. 2. Finding - Due to the extensive responsibility placed on the Risk Reduction Authority (RRA) it is evident that they need to delegate responsibility to other partners. Recommendations: a. Agree upon and formally designate one entity to pull the entire group together. b. The Risk Reduction Authority (RRA) will serve as the bridge to provide high level direction and support to the overall goals and objectives of wildfire risk reduction activities throughout the entire county (amongst other RRA duties.) c. Fire Safe Councils will act as the convening body for partners in wildfire mitigation work and must develop working groups to focus on specific tasks. The working groups should include, at a minimum: 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 311 i. Implementation ii. Communications - Outreach, Education and Training iii. Science and Monitoring d. The role of the Fire Safe Council will be multi-pronged and include the following: i. Community liaisons to local organizations and citizens ii. Education, outreach iii. Implementation of a consistent communication strategy iv. Source for available resources and programs v. Grant clearinghouse (sharing, informing, and assisting with grant applications) vi. See
R9:
The California Natural Resources Agency, its relevant departments and the California Environmental Protection Agency should regularly report to the Legislature and post online progress on the metrics listed in the Forest Carbon Plan, as well as the steps it is taking to begin implementing the plan. The Commission may hold a follow-up hearing on these steps as well as the progress made on its recommendations. 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 278 Exhibit 2 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 279 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 280 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 281 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 282 Exhibit 3 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 283 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 284 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 285 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 286 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 287 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 288 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 289 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 290 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 291 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 292 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 293 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 294 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 295 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 296 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 297 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 298 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 299 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 300 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 301 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 302 Exhibit 4 Lake County - Aligning to Action Healing the Land, Healing the People Prepared by the Community Mitigation Assistance Team - May 27, 2021