Mendocino County Grand Jury
2012-2013
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The City of Ukiah ceased accepting refuse in September 2001 and is twelve years out of compliance. By not adhering to the March 13, 2012 directive from CalRecycle, the city is exposing itself to penalties of an undetermined amount and potential litigation.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
The City of Ukiah meet the requirements of the regulatory agencies and develop an acceptable Final Closure Plan including engineering, plans and permits, (F1, F3-
R3:
The City of Ukiah develops and submits an acceptable Post-Closure Plan. (F1-F6) 4
F2:
After twelve years, the City of Ukiah and the Regulatory Agencies have not yet determined the appropriate type of cap for the Ukiah landfill.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The City of Ukiah obtain resolution regarding which cap will be used, (F2 )
R3:
The City of Ukiah develops and submits an acceptable Post-Closure Plan. (F1-F6) 4
F3:
The city staff has no plan, no schedule, and shows no motivation to close the landfill.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
The City of Ukiah meet the requirements of the regulatory agencies and develop an acceptable Final Closure Plan including engineering, plans and permits, (F1, F3-
R3:
The City of Ukiah develops and submits an acceptable Post-Closure Plan. (F1-F6) 4
F4:
A final closure plan and post closure plan are required by the LEA, CalRecycle and the Water Board.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The City of Ukiah develops and submits an acceptable Post-Closure Plan. (F1-F6) 4
F5:
The City of Ukiah continues to set money aside for closure and post-closure costs, until there is a final closure plan, their estimates are arbitrary. The city has a reserve of $5,081,411; however, the exact cost is unknown.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The City of Ukiah develops and submits an acceptable Post-Closure Plan. (F1-F6) 4
F6:
The longer this construction project is delayed, the greater the costs will be. The closure costs are subject to changes in the regulatory process which were not contemplated in the original Closure Plan. (Closure Reserve Fund 664).
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The City of Ukiah develops and submits an acceptable Post-Closure Plan. (F1-F6) 4
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
The Mental Health Department scheduling one crisis worker after hours and weekends is insufficient for Mendocino County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Mental Health provides an additional crisis worker after 6:00 p.m. and on weekends. (F1)
F2:
Crisis workers have conflicting responsibility and authority.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Health and Human Services Agency re-examine their policies regarding crisis workers making the determination for releasing 5150s when a supervisor’s authorization is required to hospitalize a patient. (F2) 4
F3:
Health and Human Services Agency and Ukiah Valley Medical Center have conflicting views on the procedures for treatment of patients with dual diagnoses.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Health and Human Services Agency clarify the procedures for treatment of patients with dual diagnoses. (F3)
F4:
Mendocino County Jail enlisted the help of MH staff to begin a follow-up program for released patients deemed mentally ill.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Mental Health funds be used to implement a discharge /follow-up program for mentally ill inmates released from the jail. (F4)
F5:
The current method of providing psychiatric services needs improvement. Telepsychiatry (doc-in-the-box) is an expensive/poor substitute for the “real thing”, a psychiatrist.
Related Recommendations (2)
R5:
The doc-in-the-box camera be repositioned for improved personal interaction. (F5)
R6:
Mental Health continues the search for a County psychiatrist for the jail. (F5)
F6:
Mental health patients in crisis are costly to area hospitals and law enforcement.
F7:
HIPAA regulations prevent mental health communication between law enforcement and medical staff. Hospital staff may only transmit patient information to the medical staff at the jail.
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
The quantity of food served at the jail and JH are state mandates and monitored by a dietitian and annually by state inspectors.
F2:
The kitchen produces adequate meals at a very low cost, excluding condiments.
F3:
The Sheriff’s bread-baking program is a success.
F4:
If inmates eat all food provided they would exceed guidelines for a healthy diet.
F5:
The complaints about food service were unwarranted.
F6:
Juvenile Hall kitchen staff needs a computer.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Juvenile Hall administration provide a computer and train the cook to utilize nutrition program resources. (F6)
F7:
Currently only male inmates are permitted to work in the garden.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Jail administration locate a volunteer or additional resources to hire a part-time female gardener so female inmates may work in the garden. (F7)
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The Mendocino County LAFCo has not met the requirements of the Cortese-Knox- Hertsberg Act of 2000.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
That LAFCo continue toward its goal and schedule of completing all required MSRs by the end of 2014, and pursue the development of all related SOIs. (F1-F2,
R3:
That LAFCo provide the leadership to facilitate the consolidation of some of the resources and services of the valley and coastal areas in order to reduce ratepayer costs and improve the level of service. (F1- F4,F6)
R4:
That LAFCo become visible and involved with all related agencies by conducting special work sessions dealing with specific concerns of these agencies.(F1-F6)
F2:
The new contract with Baracco Associates as EO of Mendocino County LAFCo has focused the LAFCo board on meeting their responsibilities.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3:
That LAFCo provide the leadership to facilitate the consolidation of some of the resources and services of the valley and coastal areas in order to reduce ratepayer costs and improve the level of service. (F1- F4,F6)
R4:
That LAFCo become visible and involved with all related agencies by conducting special work sessions dealing with specific concerns of these agencies.(F1-F6)
F3:
The significant areas of concern for LAFCo to address are the problems of water and sewer service in the valley. 5
Related Recommendations (3)
R2:
That LAFCo be more proactive in identifying interagency problems and assisting agencies in conflict resolution.(F3-F4,F6)
R3:
That LAFCo provide the leadership to facilitate the consolidation of some of the resources and services of the valley and coastal areas in order to reduce ratepayer costs and improve the level of service. (F1- F4,F6)
R4:
That LAFCo become visible and involved with all related agencies by conducting special work sessions dealing with specific concerns of these agencies.(F1-F6)
F4:
There is a proliferation of Special Districts in the Coastal and Valley areas of Mendocino County.
Related Recommendations (3)
R2:
That LAFCo be more proactive in identifying interagency problems and assisting agencies in conflict resolution.(F3-F4,F6)
R3:
That LAFCo provide the leadership to facilitate the consolidation of some of the resources and services of the valley and coastal areas in order to reduce ratepayer costs and improve the level of service. (F1- F4,F6)
R4:
That LAFCo become visible and involved with all related agencies by conducting special work sessions dealing with specific concerns of these agencies.(F1-F6)
F5:
LAFCo is making significant improvments in establishing a schedule and goal for developing MSRs for all the local agencies under its purview by the end of calendar year 2014.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
That LAFCo become visible and involved with all related agencies by conducting special work sessions dealing with specific concerns of these agencies.(F1-F6)
F6:
There is a need for more proactive outreach and coordination with the local agencies by LAFCo.
Related Recommendations (3)
R2:
That LAFCo be more proactive in identifying interagency problems and assisting agencies in conflict resolution.(F3-F4,F6)
R3:
That LAFCo provide the leadership to facilitate the consolidation of some of the resources and services of the valley and coastal areas in order to reduce ratepayer costs and improve the level of service. (F1- F4,F6)
R4:
That LAFCo become visible and involved with all related agencies by conducting special work sessions dealing with specific concerns of these agencies.(F1-F6)
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
Leadership and policies have significantly improved since 2009.
F2:
The cost of maintaining a small school district is expensive. 3
F3:
The Leggett school district needs technical training for the school computer records management.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Request technical support specialist from Mendocino County Office of Education to help with computer programs. (F3)
F4:
All Board seats (5) will become vacant in November 2013.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Recruit qualified Board members. (F4)
F5:
The Board and community fear they will not be able to maintain an independent district in the future.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Keep community informed of State funding changes and continuing financial condition of the school. (F5-F6) REQUESTED FOR RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal code section 933.05, the following responses are required: Leggett School District Board (all findings; all recommendations) within 90 days.
F6:
The community is having difficulty understanding the depth of the financial crisis.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Keep community informed of State funding changes and continuing financial condition of the school. (F5-F6) REQUESTED FOR RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal code section 933.05, the following responses are required: Leggett School District Board (all findings; all recommendations) within 90 days.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
Review and allow or disallow the formation or creation of new service provider agencies under its purview (i.e. cities and certain types of districts).
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Review and allow or disallow the formation or creation of new service provider agencies under its purview (i.e. cities and certain types of districts).
F2:
Review and allow or disallow changes of boundaries of existing agencies, known as “changes of organization” (G.C. 56021).
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Review and allow or disallow changes of boundaries of existing agencies, known as “changes of organization” (G.C. 56021).
F3:
Determine the Sphere of Influence (SOI) for cities and districts (G.C. 56425). • A SOI is defined as a “plan for the probable physical boundaries and service area of a local agency.” (G.C. 56076) • To develop or update a SOI for an agency, LAFCO is required to conduct a review (known as Municipal Service Review or MSR) of the agency’s ability to provide 1 services within its current jurisdictional boundaries and its proposed SOI. (G.C. 56430) • The MSR is an adjunct study to the Sphere of Influence study process and is to occur “before or in conjunction with” the SOI determination. • The requirement to conduct a MSR study does not exist independent of the SOI process. It is not an agency planning or regulatory document.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Determine the Sphere of Influence (SOI) for cities and districts (G.C. 56425). • A SOI is defined as a “plan for the probable physical boundaries and service area of a local agency.” (G.C. 56076) • To develop or update a SOI for an agency, LAFCO is required to conduct a review (known as Municipal Service Review or MSR) of the agency’s ability to provide 1 services within its current jurisdictional boundaries and its proposed SOI. (G.C. 56430) • The MSR is an adjunct study to the Sphere of Influence study process and is to occur “before or in conjunction with” the SOI determination. • The requirement to conduct a MSR study does not exist independent of the SOI process. It is not an agency planning or regulatory document.
F4:
Determine the maximum service area of an agency. (G.C. 56378) In performing the above indicated roles, LAFCO is to make decisions regarding agency boundaries that provide for the orderly and efficient extension of government services that meet the purposes of LAFCO as provided by the legislature. Purpose of LAFCO The GJ's Report indicates: "The two primary purposes of LAFCO are: discourage urban sprawl and encourage orderly government."1 This statement gets it wrong. Government Code Section 56301 states: "Among the purposes of a commission are discouraging urban sprawl, preserving open space and prime agricultural lands, efficiently providing government services and encouraging the orderly formation and development of local agencies based upon local conditions and circumstances." (underline/bold added) "Encouraging the orderly formation and development of local agencies" is a significantly different statement than the GJ's statement that one of the primary purposes of LAFCO is to "encourage orderly government". This mistaken belief about LAFCO's role in "encouraging orderly government" colors the GJ's Report which implies that LAFCO has the right to intrude upon the operations, management and planning of existing government agencies such as districts to see that they are "orderly". LAFCO simply does not have that authority; it has not been given that purpose or power by the Legislature. By this statement, the GJ appears to greatly misunderstand the actual role of LAFCO. Should the GJ think that the phrase "efficiently providing government services" somehow gives LAFO the right to intrude on the operations and management of an existing agency to see about the efficiency of the agency's service provision, the GJ should read the complete Section 56301. They will then see that context is important to this phrase. Guidance as to the meaning of this phrase is provided further down in this Section whereby it is indicated that when LAFCO is considering the formation of a new agency, the commission is to "make a determination as to whether existing agencies can feasibly provide the needed service or services in a more efficient and accountable manner." (bold added) 1 , Grand Jury Report, May 1, 2013, Forming and Reforming a Community 2 Thus, as is often the case in law, early statements are modified by later statements; one has to read the whole statute in context as well as other statutes that may also modify. Generally, for purposes of interpreting a law, one has to review the whole of a law and cannot pick and choose phrases for interpretation. We point this out because the general context and flavor of this Report indicates that the GJ is under the misapprehension that LAFCO has powers and duties that it does not have. Under LAFCO law, LAFCO is to effect the purposes provided in Section 56301 by allowing or disallowing the expansion of the boundaries of existing agencies under its purview and/or by allowing or disallowing the creation of new service provider agencies. Once territory is within the jurisdictional boundaries of an agency such as an independent special district, LAFCO has no authority over the provision of services or the operations of that agency. It has no authority to see if the operations of that agency are "orderly" or otherwise and has no authority for the planning and regulation of service provision. Cities are under the purview of LAFCO as to incorporation and boundary changes; to "gut check" our previous statement, contemplate the idea that LAFCO would go to a city and tell them how to be "orderly" in their operations. Hard to imagine, isn't it? It would be no less true for independent special districts. Powers and Duties of LAFCO This Report makes the declaratory statement that, "LAFCO has planning and regulatory powers"2 That is simply not the case. The Report does not provide citations for its sources as to how the GJ came to declare this statement. If the GJ has been informed otherwise, it has been seriously misled. Statements by others are not a sufficiently credible source for such a powerful statement of fact. If told by others that this is the case, the GJ should have verified the exact location in LAFCO law that provides these "planning and regulatory powers". That would have been basic research for a Report such as this. The powers and duties of LAFCO are defined in G.C. Section 56375. Nowhere in that Section does it state that LAFCO is provided "planning and regulatory powers". Actually, LAFCO when reviewing a change of organization proposal is specifically enjoined by G.C. Section 56375 from imposing conditions that would "directly regulate land use density, property development or subdivision requirements"; these are the general planning powers of cities and counties. District Boards of Directors have been given the authority by the Legislature to provide services within their jurisdictional boundaries as authorized by their Principal Act and to plan for this provision of services. LAFCO has not been given power to affect internal planning decisions or the development of planning documents as represented by budgets, capital improvement plans, engineering plans, management plans or other such plans of a district. There is a reason that districts are known as "independent special districts", only the districts boards and staff have the power to plan for their respective agencies and to make decisions as to oversight and control. 2 3 It is true that LAFCO's decision to approve or not approve a change of organization (G.C. Section 56021) or its decision to determine a Sphere of Influence (G.C. Section 56425) has a planning effect as far as the boundaries of districts. This however does not allow LAFCO to plan for districts or provide for the "regulation of services"3 within a district. In the case of water or wastewater agencies, the Legislature, the California State Districts Association, the state Department of Water Resources, the state Department of Health Services and the Regional Water Quality Control Board would be considerably surprised to learn that LAFCO has somehow been given this regulatory power by the Grand Jury. Additionally, nowhere in Section 56375 is LAFCO provided the power to "perform oversight and control of all of the interfacing government agencies within the county"4 or to "conduct outreach"5 to help "the districts meet and perform their services"6 or "to arbitrate and resolve disputes and operational/service differences."7 Parsing those statements provides the following response: • "Oversight and Control" implies that LAFCO is somehow in charge of the operations and management of agencies. Oversight and control is the primary duty of the Board of Directors of an independent special district. There is no place in LAFCO law that gives LAFCO the authority to preempt or supersede the Board's duties. It simply lacks that authority; it would be illegal for them to attempt to do so. Additionally, for the GJ to make that statement, they would have to believe that the respective Boards of Directors do not understand and are not performing their statutory functions. This certainly is not the case for the UVSD and the GJ has not made that case. • "All of the interfacing government agencies within the county" would include state and federal agencies as well as the County, school districts, college districts, air pollution control districts and other agencies for which LAFCO has no authority whatsoever. See G.C. Section 56036 for those agencies for which LAFCO is specifically excluded from exercising any activity. This statement simply lacks precision; lack of precision leads to sloppy thinking which causes poor decisions, e.g. findings and recommendations. • 'Conduct outreach" to help "the districts meet and perform their services" sounds like the GJ thinks that districts needs missionary work from LAFCO. It implies that LAFCO has the necessary expertise and resources to assist all of the various independent districts within the County. Does the GJ really think that LAFCO knows how to perform the services provided by a hospital district, a fire district, water and wastewater districts and all of the other kinds of districts within this county? Does the GJ actually think that the Boards of Directors and management of these districts know less than LAFCO? This 3 4 , 5 IBID 6 IBID 7 , 4 statement also assumes that LAFCO has the resources to do such a thing (see comments below about LAFCO). It also implies that the existing management and Board of Directors have little comprehension as to how to perform the services for which the agency was formed. Again, this simply is not the case. • "Arbitrate and resolve disputes and operational/service differences." We are not sure what that statement actually intends because we do not know what "disputes" the GJ thinks needs to be arbitrated by LAFCO (no specific disputes were mentioned in the Report) or what "operational/service differences" exist that would require arbitration at all, let alone arbitration from a non-arbitration-trained LAFCO staff. An arbitrator or mediator has to be a neutral third party. By the nature of its statutory role, LAFCO will have to make decisions about districts as to boundary changes or SOI assignments, this disqualifies it as being neutral. The appointments of commissioners are made by the County, cities and districts; these agencies may have issues with each other so the appointed commissioners will not be seen as neutral deciders. Given that the E.O. is a creature of the Commission (he or she serves at the pleasure of the Commission) that person will not be seen as a neutral person as well. If two districts decided they needed arbitration for a dispute that has risen between them, LAFCO is not where they would go for arbitration. The natural response to this kind of statement is the GJ does not understand arbitration processes, districts or LAFCO Mendocino LAFCO Circumstances Mendocino LAFCO Commissioners are volunteers. Six of them are elected to other agency's Boards or Councils and then appointed to the Commission; the public member is appointed by the other six. The Commissioners come together once a month for a one to three hour meeting and occasionally some of them meet in sub-committee. Most of the Commissioners are very busy with their primary elected positions and/or their jobs or businesses. Based on long observation, it would be a good bet that most Commissioners have not read the statutory requirements for LAFCO (G.C. Sections 56000 - 57000), the principal acts of districts, the myriad regulatory requirements that districts must meet or even understand the various regulatory permit processes that various districts must accomplish. They do not make a study of the laws and regulations as they apply to various districts (e.g. fire districts, hospital districts, water districts, sewer districts and many others). Therefore, they are generally not very knowledgeable of all the laws and regulations that affect various districts. Clearly, it is not their job to be knowledgeable about these laws and regulations; it is the role of the individual district's Boards of Directors and management to know these things. They certainly don't have the time to attend "frequent meetings with member agencies"8 nor would they necessarily have any understanding as to the issues before all types of districts unless the district staff spent an inordinate amount of time briefing them. This would require valuable 8 5 staff time that would be taken away from the management and operations of these districts. The GJ presumes that the commissioners and district boards and staff have that kind of time to spend in not particularly useful meetings. Independent special districts have Boards of Directors who spend a great deal of time understanding the special needs of their particular district and provide "oversight and control" to the staff of their district. This is their role; it is not the role of LAFCO commissioners or LAFCO staff. Regarding LAFCO staff, the present Executive Officer has been in that position for approximately one year. He lives 4 to 5 hours away from Mendocino County. Prior to his appointment to this position, he probably did not know the names of Mendocino County districts, he certainly was not aware of the specific conditions, circumstances or issues that these districts face. It is doubtful that he has since become an expert about these districts superior to the existing expertise of the boards of directors and management. His contract calls for him to provide 167 hours per year to the executive officer position.9 This equates to 3.2 hours per week; many of those hours are telecommute hours, not actual hours in the County. To suggest that he can somehow understand the issues before the districts, provide “leadership”10 and “outreach”11 to help districts "perform their services"12, attend "frequent meetings with the member agencies"13 and "arbitrate" issues for them in this amount of time is ludicrous on the surface. In this amount of time, he couldn't accomplish phone calls once a week to all 50 of the special districts within Mendocino County. And, we can assure the GJ that no independent special district would recognize that he had the necessary expertise to provide leadership, outreach and arbitration or the right or authority to meddle in the management affairs of independent special districts. Municipal Service Reviews As previously indicated, in order to prepare and to update spheres of influence (SOI) in accordance with G.C. Section 56425, the commission is required to perform an adjunct study to the SOI study know as a "service review" (G.C. Section 56430) and prepare written “determinations” in six categories. The SOI study and its companion MSR study are prepared at most once every five years. There is no actual statutory requirement that MSRs be completed every five years nor is there a statutory requirement that SOIs be determined every five years. This only occurs if the commission considers it "necessary". (See Subsection (g) of Section 56425.) 9 LAFCO FY 2013-2014 Budget 10 11 IBID 12 IBID 13 6 Within the state, the development of these service review reports have become formulaic reports prepared by consultants who obtain their information from existing documents and information (e.g. interviews of managers, district websites, budgets, capital improvement plans, management plans, engineering reports and plans, reports to regulatory agencies and other internal reports such as agendas, agenda summary reports and minutes) created by the districts. The MSR reports as produced by most consultants and most LAFCOs are simply documents that reorganize existing information developed by the districts into a report format acceptable to G.C. Section 56430. The information in these service review reports is not original content developed by the consultants nor is there much in way of original insight about the districts in these reports. At best, MSRs are a snapshot in time about the district. Mostly, they are little more than "cut and paste" jobs using information culled from documents previously developed by the agencies in the Report. Generally speaking, little or no new information or insights are produced by these Reports. They are dated immediately upon creation because they rely upon dated information from dated documents. In any case, circumstances within districts change faster than once every five years. Any person who reads a MSR and then thinks he or she understands the districts for which the report is written and can somehow apply that "understanding" to assist districts as indicated by this GJ Report is woefully simplistic in their thinking. To get an inkling of the limitations of MSRs, read some of the determinations and then wonder about the insightfulness of these reports. As an example, the recent districts’ MSR that was created by a Sacramento area consultant and accepted by LAFCO contained these wonderfully “insightful" determinations:14 1. The UVSD is able to provide services with limited staffing of a part-time general manager and part-time staff.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Determine the maximum service area of an agency. (G.C. 56378) In performing the above indicated roles, LAFCO is to make decisions regarding agency boundaries that provide for the orderly and efficient extension of government services that meet the purposes of LAFCO as provided by the legislature. Purpose of LAFCO The GJ's Report indicates: "The two primary purposes of LAFCO are: discourage urban sprawl and encourage orderly government."1 This statement gets it wrong. Government Code Section 56301 states: "Among the purposes of a commission are discouraging urban sprawl, preserving open space and prime agricultural lands, efficiently providing government services and encouraging the orderly formation and development of local agencies based upon local conditions and circumstances." (underline/bold added) "Encouraging the orderly formation and development of local agencies" is a significantly different statement than the GJ's statement that one of the primary purposes of LAFCO is to "encourage orderly government". This mistaken belief about LAFCO's role in "encouraging orderly government" colors the GJ's Report which implies that LAFCO has the right to intrude upon the operations, management and planning of existing government agencies such as districts to see that they are "orderly". LAFCO simply does not have that authority; it has not been given that purpose or power by the Legislature. By this statement, the GJ appears to greatly misunderstand the actual role of LAFCO. Should the GJ think that the phrase "efficiently providing government services" somehow gives LAFO the right to intrude on the operations and management of an existing agency to see about the efficiency of the agency's service provision, the GJ should read the complete Section 56301. They will then see that context is important to this phrase. Guidance as to the meaning of this phrase is provided further down in this Section whereby it is indicated that when LAFCO is considering the formation of a new agency, the commission is to "make a determination as to whether existing agencies can feasibly provide the needed service or services in a more efficient and accountable manner." (bold added) 1 , Grand Jury Report, May 1, 2013, Forming and Reforming a Community 2 Thus, as is often the case in law, early statements are modified by later statements; one has to read the whole statute in context as well as other statutes that may also modify. Generally, for purposes of interpreting a law, one has to review the whole of a law and cannot pick and choose phrases for interpretation. We point this out because the general context and flavor of this Report indicates that the GJ is under the misapprehension that LAFCO has powers and duties that it does not have. Under LAFCO law, LAFCO is to effect the purposes provided in Section 56301 by allowing or disallowing the expansion of the boundaries of existing agencies under its purview and/or by allowing or disallowing the creation of new service provider agencies. Once territory is within the jurisdictional boundaries of an agency such as an independent special district, LAFCO has no authority over the provision of services or the operations of that agency. It has no authority to see if the operations of that agency are "orderly" or otherwise and has no authority for the planning and regulation of service provision. Cities are under the purview of LAFCO as to incorporation and boundary changes; to "gut check" our previous statement, contemplate the idea that LAFCO would go to a city and tell them how to be "orderly" in their operations. Hard to imagine, isn't it? It would be no less true for independent special districts. Powers and Duties of LAFCO This Report makes the declaratory statement that, "LAFCO has planning and regulatory powers"2 That is simply not the case. The Report does not provide citations for its sources as to how the GJ came to declare this statement. If the GJ has been informed otherwise, it has been seriously misled. Statements by others are not a sufficiently credible source for such a powerful statement of fact. If told by others that this is the case, the GJ should have verified the exact location in LAFCO law that provides these "planning and regulatory powers". That would have been basic research for a Report such as this. The powers and duties of LAFCO are defined in G.C. Section 56375. Nowhere in that Section does it state that LAFCO is provided "planning and regulatory powers". Actually, LAFCO when reviewing a change of organization proposal is specifically enjoined by G.C. Section 56375 from imposing conditions that would "directly regulate land use density, property development or subdivision requirements"; these are the general planning powers of cities and counties. District Boards of Directors have been given the authority by the Legislature to provide services within their jurisdictional boundaries as authorized by their Principal Act and to plan for this provision of services. LAFCO has not been given power to affect internal planning decisions or the development of planning documents as represented by budgets, capital improvement plans, engineering plans, management plans or other such plans of a district. There is a reason that districts are known as "independent special districts", only the districts boards and staff have the power to plan for their respective agencies and to make decisions as to oversight and control. 2 3 It is true that LAFCO's decision to approve or not approve a change of organization (G.C. Section 56021) or its decision to determine a Sphere of Influence (G.C. Section 56425) has a planning effect as far as the boundaries of districts. This however does not allow LAFCO to plan for districts or provide for the "regulation of services"3 within a district. In the case of water or wastewater agencies, the Legislature, the California State Districts Association, the state Department of Water Resources, the state Department of Health Services and the Regional Water Quality Control Board would be considerably surprised to learn that LAFCO has somehow been given this regulatory power by the Grand Jury. Additionally, nowhere in Section 56375 is LAFCO provided the power to "perform oversight and control of all of the interfacing government agencies within the county"4 or to "conduct outreach"5 to help "the districts meet and perform their services"6 or "to arbitrate and resolve disputes and operational/service differences."7 Parsing those statements provides the following response: • "Oversight and Control" implies that LAFCO is somehow in charge of the operations and management of agencies. Oversight and control is the primary duty of the Board of Directors of an independent special district. There is no place in LAFCO law that gives LAFCO the authority to preempt or supersede the Board's duties. It simply lacks that authority; it would be illegal for them to attempt to do so. Additionally, for the GJ to make that statement, they would have to believe that the respective Boards of Directors do not understand and are not performing their statutory functions. This certainly is not the case for the UVSD and the GJ has not made that case. • "All of the interfacing government agencies within the county" would include state and federal agencies as well as the County, school districts, college districts, air pollution control districts and other agencies for which LAFCO has no authority whatsoever. See G.C. Section 56036 for those agencies for which LAFCO is specifically excluded from exercising any activity. This statement simply lacks precision; lack of precision leads to sloppy thinking which causes poor decisions, e.g. findings and recommendations. • 'Conduct outreach" to help "the districts meet and perform their services" sounds like the GJ thinks that districts needs missionary work from LAFCO. It implies that LAFCO has the necessary expertise and resources to assist all of the various independent districts within the County. Does the GJ really think that LAFCO knows how to perform the services provided by a hospital district, a fire district, water and wastewater districts and all of the other kinds of districts within this county? Does the GJ actually think that the Boards of Directors and management of these districts know less than LAFCO? This 3 4 , 5 IBID 6 IBID 7 , 4 statement also assumes that LAFCO has the resources to do such a thing (see comments below about LAFCO). It also implies that the existing management and Board of Directors have little comprehension as to how to perform the services for which the agency was formed. Again, this simply is not the case. • "Arbitrate and resolve disputes and operational/service differences." We are not sure what that statement actually intends because we do not know what "disputes" the GJ thinks needs to be arbitrated by LAFCO (no specific disputes were mentioned in the Report) or what "operational/service differences" exist that would require arbitration at all, let alone arbitration from a non-arbitration-trained LAFCO staff. An arbitrator or mediator has to be a neutral third party. By the nature of its statutory role, LAFCO will have to make decisions about districts as to boundary changes or SOI assignments, this disqualifies it as being neutral. The appointments of commissioners are made by the County, cities and districts; these agencies may have issues with each other so the appointed commissioners will not be seen as neutral deciders. Given that the E.O. is a creature of the Commission (he or she serves at the pleasure of the Commission) that person will not be seen as a neutral person as well. If two districts decided they needed arbitration for a dispute that has risen between them, LAFCO is not where they would go for arbitration. The natural response to this kind of statement is the GJ does not understand arbitration processes, districts or LAFCO Mendocino LAFCO Circumstances Mendocino LAFCO Commissioners are volunteers. Six of them are elected to other agency's Boards or Councils and then appointed to the Commission; the public member is appointed by the other six. The Commissioners come together once a month for a one to three hour meeting and occasionally some of them meet in sub-committee. Most of the Commissioners are very busy with their primary elected positions and/or their jobs or businesses. Based on long observation, it would be a good bet that most Commissioners have not read the statutory requirements for LAFCO (G.C. Sections 56000 - 57000), the principal acts of districts, the myriad regulatory requirements that districts must meet or even understand the various regulatory permit processes that various districts must accomplish. They do not make a study of the laws and regulations as they apply to various districts (e.g. fire districts, hospital districts, water districts, sewer districts and many others). Therefore, they are generally not very knowledgeable of all the laws and regulations that affect various districts. Clearly, it is not their job to be knowledgeable about these laws and regulations; it is the role of the individual district's Boards of Directors and management to know these things. They certainly don't have the time to attend "frequent meetings with member agencies"8 nor would they necessarily have any understanding as to the issues before all types of districts unless the district staff spent an inordinate amount of time briefing them. This would require valuable 8 5 staff time that would be taken away from the management and operations of these districts. The GJ presumes that the commissioners and district boards and staff have that kind of time to spend in not particularly useful meetings. Independent special districts have Boards of Directors who spend a great deal of time understanding the special needs of their particular district and provide "oversight and control" to the staff of their district. This is their role; it is not the role of LAFCO commissioners or LAFCO staff. Regarding LAFCO staff, the present Executive Officer has been in that position for approximately one year. He lives 4 to 5 hours away from Mendocino County. Prior to his appointment to this position, he probably did not know the names of Mendocino County districts, he certainly was not aware of the specific conditions, circumstances or issues that these districts face. It is doubtful that he has since become an expert about these districts superior to the existing expertise of the boards of directors and management. His contract calls for him to provide 167 hours per year to the executive officer position.9 This equates to 3.2 hours per week; many of those hours are telecommute hours, not actual hours in the County. To suggest that he can somehow understand the issues before the districts, provide “leadership”10 and “outreach”11 to help districts "perform their services"12, attend "frequent meetings with the member agencies"13 and "arbitrate" issues for them in this amount of time is ludicrous on the surface. In this amount of time, he couldn't accomplish phone calls once a week to all 50 of the special districts within Mendocino County. And, we can assure the GJ that no independent special district would recognize that he had the necessary expertise to provide leadership, outreach and arbitration or the right or authority to meddle in the management affairs of independent special districts. Municipal Service Reviews As previously indicated, in order to prepare and to update spheres of influence (SOI) in accordance with G.C. Section 56425, the commission is required to perform an adjunct study to the SOI study know as a "service review" (G.C. Section 56430) and prepare written “determinations” in six categories. The SOI study and its companion MSR study are prepared at most once every five years. There is no actual statutory requirement that MSRs be completed every five years nor is there a statutory requirement that SOIs be determined every five years. This only occurs if the commission considers it "necessary". (See Subsection (g) of Section 56425.) 9 LAFCO FY 2013-2014 Budget 10 11 IBID 12 IBID 13 6 Within the state, the development of these service review reports have become formulaic reports prepared by consultants who obtain their information from existing documents and information (e.g. interviews of managers, district websites, budgets, capital improvement plans, management plans, engineering reports and plans, reports to regulatory agencies and other internal reports such as agendas, agenda summary reports and minutes) created by the districts. The MSR reports as produced by most consultants and most LAFCOs are simply documents that reorganize existing information developed by the districts into a report format acceptable to G.C. Section
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R5:
LAFCO policies relating to updating spheres of influence may impact how the UVSD provides services outside current boundaries. Municipal Service Review Ukiah Valley Special Districts, LAFCO of Mendocino County, E. Mulberg & Associates, -32 7 These MSR Reports are therefore not very useful tools for managing districts or providing oversight as the GJ suggests that LAFCO utilize to provide "assistance in helping districts meet and perform their services."15 Contrary to what the writer or writers of this GJ Report thinks, district Boards of Directors and District Managers have far more knowledge and understanding of the issues and circumstances of their district than either LAFCO commissioners, LAFCO's 3.2 hour Executive Officer or that contained in a MSR. We wonder if the GJ actually meant to be that insulting to districts or conversely, if they are that oblivious. UVSD Report The Grand Jury mentions a study created by John Dickerson for UVSD titled, "Consolidation of Wastewater and Water Services in the Ukiah Valley". The Board agrees it is a good report. It provides a depth of review and financial analysis that can be of assistance for Ukiah area water districts and UVSD's general interest to reorganize into a larger regional agency. Notably, this Report was not created by LAFCO; given the limitations of LAFCO and given the "cut-and- paste" process described above for LAFCO reports, a similar report would likely not be created. For the GJ’s reference and knowledge, Mr. Dickerson obtained some of his insights for this Report when he worked for the former executive officer of LAFCO as a financial analyst. At that time he was assisting the then executive officer prepare an in-depth MSR regarding sewer services provided by the City of Ukiah and UVSD. During the course of the in-depth financial review performed by Mr. Dickerson, several millions of dollars were discovered to be of issue between the City and District which was ultimately resolved in favor of the District. Because of this circumstance and other statements in the proposed MSR Report that the City did not like, the report containing that analysis was prevented from being completed. Past Grand Juries have been given copies of the initial administrative version of this report; it should be in your archives. Of final note, is that after this experience, the then executive officer was informed by two "lengthy service"16 commissioners (perhaps the same as the lengthy service commissioners interviewed by the GJ) that he was never to hire Mr. Dickerson again to assist in the financial analysis for any MSR and that this depth of analysis was not needed for MSRs. Thus, the UVSD Board finds it ironic that the GJ approvingly mentions a report created for the UVSD by a capable financial analyst that was determined to be persona non grata by two "lengthy service" commissioners. 15 16 8 Present Working Efforts of Ukiah Valley Water and Wastewater Districts The GJ may or may not be aware that Redwood Valley CWD, Calpella CWD, Millview CWD, Hopland PUD and Willow CWD are sharing management, operations and maintenance personnel, equipment, billing operations and office staff. Additionally, past meetings have been held with these agencies and UVSD as to the possibility of forming a regional water and wastewater agency. If the UVSD is successful in removing itself from the burden of the present Participation Agreement with the City of Ukiah, it too will likely seek to enter into similar contractual arrangements for the sharing of resources. The UVSD and the other mentioned water agencies have not failed to understand the value of working together and the potential “sweet spot” possible with a reorganization to a larger water/wastewater agency. This cooperation and
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The City of Ukiah has not provided UVSD with sufficient information forcing UVSD to make a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The City of Ukiah should provide UVSD with a copy of their customer list per the FOIA request. (F1, F2, F3)
F2:
The City of Ukiah’s antiquated financial systems have added to the tension between the two organizations.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The City of Ukiah should provide UVSD with a copy of their customer list per the FOIA request. (F1, F2, F3)
R2:
The UVSD complete the creation of its own accounting system. (F2)
F3:
The unilateral management by the City of Ukiah has resulted in fees/fines that the UVSD has been required to pay. City upper management has shown a lack of respect to UVSD by being unresponsive to requests, and expecting UVSD to immediately concur with the city’s decisions.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The City of Ukiah should provide UVSD with a copy of their customer list per the FOIA request. (F1, F2, F3)
R3:
The UVSD use legal counsel to recapture lost revenues from the City of Ukiah. (F3)
F4:
The Participation Agreement (PA) is not a workable document and has a clear bias towards the City of Ukiah.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The UVSD seek legal counsel regarding options to disassociate from the Participation Agreement. (F4)
F5:
LAFCo is in a position to facilitate resolution of conflicts between agencies by means of the municipal service review and sphere of influence.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
LAFCo conduct a feasibility study on consolidation of sewer and water agencies and provide conflict resolution between UVSD and the City of Ukiah. (F5)
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
Certain practices of the Ukiah FB led to the perception of misappropriations of food by volunteers. Clients do not know the policies and procedures regarding their food allotment. 5
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
FB Managers train all clients and volunteers on the procedures for receiving their food allotment. The training should be based on easily accessible written policies. (F1)
R5:
The Administrators of the three FBs meet periodically to exchange information, best practices, operations, and website design. (F1-F6)
F2:
Many clients do not know how to prepare staples and do not understand the meaning of dates stamped on food products, such as best by/use by/good for a week after sell by date, and expired on.
Related Recommendations (2)
R5:
The Administrators of the three FBs meet periodically to exchange information, best practices, operations, and website design. (F1-F6)
R6:
FB management creates and distributes educational materials to clients for instruction on the preparation of food staples and the meaning of expiration dates stamped on food products. (F2)
F3:
In Ukiah, the merger of the UCC and Ford Street Project Board of Directors and the selection of one Executive Director increased the workload of the Director and lessened the amount of available time dedicated to the FB.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Administrators of the three FBs meet periodically to exchange information, best practices, operations, and website design. (F1-F6)
F4:
Most Ukiah board members are not familiar with the FB operation, procedures, and food distribution.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
The Board of Directors of each FB visits their FB at least twice a year to observe food distribution and overall operation. Board meeting notes shall include a written report of these site visits. (F4)
R5:
The Administrators of the three FBs meet periodically to exchange information, best practices, operations, and website design. (F1-F6)
F5:
In Ukiah, there is inequality in the distribution of food between the “general distribution” and “senior/disabled distribution”. The overall quality and quantity of food is deficient.
Related Recommendations (2)
R4:
Ukiah FB management staff develops a procedure to ensure that general and senior/disabled distribution is of equal quality and quantity of food. (F5)
R5:
The Administrators of the three FBs meet periodically to exchange information, best practices, operations, and website design. (F1-F6)
F6:
Ukiah does not participate in the REFB. Willits and Fort Bragg appear to benefit from participation in the program.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3:
Ukiah FB management staff applies to become a participant in the REFB program. (F6)
R5:
The Administrators of the three FBs meet periodically to exchange information, best practices, operations, and website design. (F1-F6)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
At the CEO’s recommendation, the BOS Standing Committee assignments were made as required by the County Procedures. However, none of the Standing Committees was activated and the use of Ad Hoc Committees was continued.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Standing Committees be activated, assigned all appropriate issues requiring special BOS attention, and used as the primary vehicle for policy guidance and direction to the BOS. (F1, F2, F4 & F5)
F2:
Mendocino County use of Ad Hoc Committees does not conform to the accepted practices of other counties. Ad Hoc Committees should be investigative, issue- specific and of short term duration.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Ad Hoc Committee issue status reports at each regular BOS meeting in accordance with the County Rules of Procedure #31. ( F4)
F3:
The exclusive use of Ad Hoc Committees is not consistent with the intent of the Brown Act.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Ad Hoc Committees only be formed to investigate single issues anticipated for resolution within the current calendar year. (F2, F4 & F5)
F4:
Ad Hoc Committees do not afford the public sufficient notice or opportunity for meaningful participation in County government. Ad Hoc Committees are not reporting in compliance with the County Rules of Procedure (Rule 31). 4
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Executive Office post and update a list of the current Ad Hoc Committees on the BOS website. (F4)
F5:
Ad Hoc Committees limit long-term planning and continuity. Adequate record keeping, including written and published meeting minutes, is not required or currently available.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
Mendocino County senior administrative management has not effectively focused on the HR department’s organizational needs, resulting in the inability to retain a qualified department head. 5
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The CEO and BOS allocate budget and staff to design and implement recruiting and training/staff development functions within the HR department. Summaries of progress should be reported to the BOS in the CEO’s report. (F1)
F2:
Not all departments use the same budgeting premises for training which has led to lack of transparency and accuracy of the training budget and training activities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The CEO and BOS create a line item in the budget and fund the initiation of the leadership development and succession planning program. (F2)
F3:
The HR department does not perform long term planning of recruitment and staff development to the detriment of building a sustainable workforce.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The CEO and BOS officially request in next year’s budget instructions that training budgets across the County be zero based and non-fungible. (F3)
F4:
HR recruitment is currently governed by either the Civil Service System or the Merit System Services which increases hiring complexity and extends recruiting time.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The CEO issue a letter of instruction to the new HR department head to initiate a feasibility study on streamlining the two recruiting systems into a single compliant system. (F4)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
Advanced planning, private donations/loans and the dedicated work of parent volunteers enabled the school to become functional within six months.
F2:
The charter school is meeting the needs of particular students at a cost to general educational funding for the Willits School District.
F3:
State laws concerning requirements for schools are very specific; however schools may exempt themselves from these laws by a 2/3 vote of the governing board i.e. Willits Unified School District Board.
F4:
The school appeared suddenly at a problematic location after the Charter School Board exempted themselves from all restrictions. The school has made an effort to overcome the problems of the location.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The charter school should continue and document the search for a permanent location that meets the needs of child safety and environmental regulations. (F4)
F5:
The GJ noticed the following areas of concern: the school ramps lack a non-skid surface windows lack coverings classroom doors do not have internal locks cabinets for cleaning supplies require locks electrical panels need to be locked classrooms need general cleaning to meet the sanitary and safety demands of a school environment the school has no public address system for early warning
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
Install window coverings immediately and make every attempt to improve classroom safety and cleanliness. (F5)
R3:
Install internal locks and a public address system for school security. (F5)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.