Placer County 2002-2003 - California Grand Jury Reports

F1: The Alta Fire Protection District has not been in compliance with Items 1 and 2 of the Independent Auditor's Report since June 30, 1995.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: Future Grand Juries should monitor the facility to see that a) the inmate walkway is completed by October, 2003; b) the fire suppression systems are completed by October, 2003; and c) the fire escape from the 2nd floor is installed.

F2: The 2002-2003 Grand Jury does not agree with Item 3 by the independent auditor and finds that the District submits both bills and money receipts on a monthly basis. These are applied to the proper cost accounts.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: Future Grand Juries must stay on top of situations concerning the construction of an entirely new facility. No response required. Addendum After the Grand Jury report was written and finalized, correspondence from the office of the County Executive and the North Tahoe Fire Protection District were received. The 2002-2003 Grand Jury felt that both of these letters should be included for informational purposes. The letter from the County Executive shows at least some thought and some preliminary action on recommendations by prior Grand Juries. The letter from the North Tahoe Fire Protection District reiterates the problems that have prompted several successive Grand Juries to make the recommendations that have been made. NORTH TAHOE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT DUANE WHITELAW, Chief P.O. Box 5879 300 North Lake Boulevard Tahoe City, CA 96145 (530) 583-6911 Fax (530) 583-6909 Date: March 22, 2003 Subject: Burton Creek Administration Center 2501 North Lake Blvd. Tahoe City, Placer County 2003 Fire/Life Safety Inspection Ellie Shelton Deputy State Fire Marshall III Office of the State Fire Marshall Code Enforcement - North P.O. Box 944246 Sacrament, CA 94244-2460 Dear Ellie; On January 22, 2003, an inspection was made of the Burton Creek Administration Center in Tahoe City. This facility houses the Sheriff's Department including the jail facility, the District Attorney's Office and Municipal Court. Minor deficiencies affecting fire/life safety were found and noted on the accompanying North Tahoe Fire Protection District Fire/Life Safety Inspection Report. These items are in addition to the noted concerns by North Tahoe Fire Protection District as outlined in the letter to the Placer County Grand Jury, dated January 17, 2002. For communication pertaining to the above project, contact Steven D. Hook, Fire Prevention Technician at (530) 583-6911. Sincerely, DUANE WHITELAW Fire Chief STEVEN D. HOOK Fire Prevention Technician, Fire and Life Safety Enclosure Captain Kent Hawthorne, Placer County Sheriff's Office Cc: Virginia Ferral, Director of Communication Services for Placer County NORTH TAHOE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 300 N. Lake Blvd. Business: (530) 583-6930 FIRE/LIFE SAFETY INSPECTION REPORT P.O. Box 5879 Emergency 911 Tahoe City, CA 96145 Business Name: PLACER COUNTY BURTON CREEK Address: 2501 NORTH LAKE BLUD. City: TAHOE CITY State: CA Zip: 96145 Mailing Address:_ Contact Name: Sgt DON HUCHINSOM Phone: (530) 581-6314 Property Owner: PLACE COUNTY Phone:_____ City:_____State:___Zip:___ Owner Address: Conditions discussed with: Ly Huchinson ☐ Check if new information above □ No violations noted - THANK YOU. An inspection of your facility revealed the following violations which must be corrected: 1) In Dispatch Center replace power strip servicing 2 coffee makers and a refrigerator with permanent wiring. 2) In new Detective Squad Room - replace power strip servicing air conditioning unit, refrigerator, toaster, 2 coffee pots, Stereo and box fan with permanent wiring. Attic space - replace cover plates on 2 Junction boxes Seen. 3) Inspect spaces where new wiring is going in for uncovered Janction boxes. F) Gasoline storage for snow blower to be in approved safety can with soring latch, maximum 5 gallons. MOTE: Pefer to January 17, 2002 letter to Fred Copeland - Placer county Grand Jury regarding on going concerns regarding this facility. TITEMS 1, 2 1344 MUST BE CORRECTED WITHIN 30 DAYS. ☐ ITEMS ______ MUST BE CORRECTED WITHIN _____ DAYS. Upon correction of all listed violations, please sign & date below and return a copy of this form to the address above. Violations Corrected - Signature: Date: ._____ Print Name: _ ☐ A reinspection will be conducted on or about Date 4/2/03 Inspected By: Received By: Reinspected By:__ Corrected: Yes No/ Item # Date: Reinspected By: Corrected: Yes No/ Item #_ Date: Refer to F.P.B. ☐Refer to other: Date: STATE OF CALIFORNIA --- THE RESOURCES AGENCY GRAY DAVIS, Governor OFFICE OF THE STATE FIRE MARSHAL Code Enforcement - North DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION P.O. Box 944246 Sacramento, CA 94244-2460 Web Site: www.fire.ca.gov (916) 445-8550 (916) 324-3784 FAX March 4, 2003 DUANE WHITELAW 31044 NORTH TAHOE FPD PO BOX 5879 TAHOE CITY CA 96145 Dear Chief DUANE WHITELAW:California Health and Safety Code Section 13146.1 requires the State Fire Marshal to inspect every place of detention annually, unless the Chief of the local fire authority notifies the State Fire Marshal in writing that the Chief or a representative of their fire department will be conducting the inspection(s). Our records indicate that the detention facilities listed on the attached page(s) fall within your jurisdiction. In order to expedite the inspection process, please indicate the following: The Chief or a representative of my Fire Department; Will be inspecting ALL detention facilities. [ ] Will be inspecting SOME of the detention facilities as indicated on the attached Facility Listing Sheet. Will NOT be inspecting any of the detention facilities. Please sign and date this form and return it with the attached Facility Listing Sheet by April 1, 2003 to: Office of the State Fire Marshal Code Enforcement - North P.O. Box 944246 Sacramento, CA 94244-2460 or FAX to (916) 324-3784 In order for us to schedule our inspections for 2003, it is imperative that you respond promptly. We appreciate your cooperation and look forward to hearing from you soon. If you have any questions regarding this form or the attached Facility Listing Sheet, please contact Connie Marques at (916) 445-8550. Sincerely, lie Sheller Ellie Shelton Deputy State Fire Marshal III FIRE AUTHORITY STATEMENT SIGNATURE: DATE: (Must'be signed by Fire Chief Only) TELEPHONE NUMBER: CONTACT PERSO CONSERVATION IS WISE --- KEEP CALIFORNIA GREEN AND GOLDEN PLEASE REMEMBER TO CONSERVE ENERGY. FOR TIPS AND INFORMATION, VISIT "FLEX YOUR POWER" AT WWW.CA.GOV 2003 FIRE/LIFE SAFETY INSPECTION REPORT ADULT/JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITIES FACILITY TYPE: (check one) Facility: MAdult max/med security [] Adult minimum security [] Juvenile max/med security [] Juvenile minimum security [] Holding Cell(s) only 40-31-44-0011-000-044-L PLACER CO. SHERIFF'S DEPT JAIL 2501 NORTH LAKE BLVD TAHOE CITY CA 96145 An inspection of this facility was conducted per the mandate of Section 13146.1, California Health and Safety Code, and applicable requirements of Titles 19 and 24, California Code of Regulations. (Check appropriate box) No deficiencies affecting fire/life safety were noted. Fire clearance is granted. [] Minor deficiencies affecting fire/life safety were noted and are pending correction. K Fire clearance granted Fire clearance is withheld pending correction of deficiencies. (List of deficiencies is [] attached). Prisoners are no longer detained at this facility.

F3: The Alta Fire Protection District was unresponsive to the County Auditor- Controller and to this Grand Jury.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: The Alta Fire Protection District should implement policies and procedures whereby they are more responsive to the County Auditor-Controller, the Grand Jury, and to their constituents. Respondents Alta Fire Protection District Board of Directors Placer County Auditor-Controller RESPONSE REQUIRED WITHIN 90 DAYS TO: The Honorable Presiding Judge of Superior Court 11546 B Avenue Auburn, CA 95603 BURTON CREEK (TAHOE) SHERIFF'S SUBSTATION, COURT FACILITIES AND JAIL INSPECTION California Penal Code Section 919 requires the Grand Jury to inspect Placer County Jails to evaluate conditions and management of these facilities, to inquire about prisoners not indicted and to review any changes implemented since the previous Grand Jury's inspection.

F4: The second device was a microphone with smokeless powder confiscated from a youth.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: "Conduct workshops on a regular basis to ensure staff becomes familiar with policies to be followed." All staff are issued a copy of the policy manual and its content is reviewed at staff meetings and on an ongoing basis.

F5: The Grand Jury is satisfied that in the future no explosive device will be stored at the station and that Sheriff's advisory bulletins will be followed. Discussion Based on the facts in this case no one was placed in harm's way. What could have been an enormously dangerous situation was found to be innocuous. However, because this device was handled at the school by first the custodian and then the principal, the Grand Jury was concerned about the handling of potentially explosive devices at this or any other school within Placer County. The Grand Jury decided it should take a survey of all school districts in the county to ascertain whether or not there were plans or guidelines for the handling of explosive devices. Following is a report on that set of circumstances. HANDLING OF POTENTIALLY EXPLOSIVE DEVICES ON SCHOOL GROUNDS WITHIN PLACER COUNTY – FOLLOW-UP REPORT Complaint 2002B-02 Discussion The 2002-2003 Grand Jury sent a letter to all school district offices within Placer County requesting copies of current Emergency Response Plans and the method of review. Responses were received from all districts in the county. While some were more detailed than others, the overall quality of all the plans were acceptable. The district offices reported in all cases that the policies and procedures are reviewed with all employees at the beginning of the year, handbooks are readily available, and teachers are responsible for reviewing the policies and procedures with the students in the classroom. Some districts require schools to conduct drills of different potential incidents throughout the year. Finding Every plan addressed procedures to follow when a bomb threat is received: how to react, whom to notify, how to evacuate, and how to work with law enforcement. However, only one district addressed the handling of a found device: Should a bomb threat be received, the Principal or his designated representative shall: A. Notify local police or sheriffs department of intended actions. The Principal or his designated representative may request assistance. If assistance is requested, state clearly where he or his representative will meet officers. B. Notify: . The Superintendent . Others (according to local school district organization). C. Make the decision on whether or not to evacuate the buildings (conduct fire drill?) on an individual basis or general fire alarm. D. Avoid any publicity concerning the bomb threat. If the "bomb threat" caller has alerted the news media, assistance for the Principal in working with the press will be supplied by the District Office. E. NO ONE SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO TOUCH, HANDLE, OR MOVE THE SUSPICIOUS OBJECT. F. If a search is to be conducted, police or fire agencies will be asked to conduct such a search.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: Sierra College should rewrite its explanation of the student ID card and explain that the cards are free, that the ASSC fee gives them opportunities to save on the cost of student functions and purchases on and off campus. Respondents Sierra College President Sierra College Associate Vice-President of Student Services. RESPONSE REQUIRED WITHIN 90 DAYS TO: The Honorable Presiding Judge of the Superior Court 11546 B Ave. Auburn, California 95603 Note To Respondents Effective 1 January 1997, there was an extensive change in the law affecting respondents and responses to grand jury findings and recommendations. The legal requirements are contained in California Penal Code, Section 933.05. The full text of the law is printed below. Each Respondent should become familiar with these legal requirements and, if in doubt, should consult legal counsel prior to responding. For the assistance of all Respondents, Sec. 933.05, Penal Code is summarized as follows: How To Respond To Findings The responding person or entity must respond in one of two (2) ways: (1) That you agree with the finding. That you disagree wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the (2) response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons for the disagreement. How To Report Action In Response To Recommendations Recommendations by the grand jury require action. The responding person or entity must report action on all recommendations in one of four (4) ways: The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary of the (1) implemented action. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented (2) in the future, with a time frame for implementation. The recommendation requires further analysis. If a person or entity reports (3) in this manner, the law requires a detailed explanation of the analysis or study must be submitted to the officer, director or governing body of the agency being investigated. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or (4) is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. Budgetary Or Personnel Recommendations If either a finding or recommendation deals with budgetary or personnel matters of a County department headed by an elected officer, both the elected officer and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if the Grand Jury so requests. While the Board of Supervisors' response is somewhat limited, the response by the department head must address all aspects of the finds or recommendations. Appearance Before The Grand Jury Prior to the publication or release of Grand Jury findings, the Grand Jury may request a personal appearance by the person or entity to discuss the proposed findings. Advance Release Of Grand Jury Report Disclosure Prohibited Prior To Public Release Two working days prior to release of the Final Report, the Grand Jury will provide a copy of the portion of the report to all affected agencies or persons. No officer, agency, department, or governing boy of a public agency shall disclose the contents of the report prior to its public release. Time To Respond, Where And To Whom To Respond Section 933(c), Penal Code, depending on the type of Respondent, provides for two different response times and to whom you must respond: (1) Public Agency: The governing body of any public agency must respond within ninety (90) days. The response must be addressed to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Elective Office or Agency Head: All elected officers or heads of agencies (2) who are required to respond must do so within sixty (60) days, to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, with an information copy provided to the Board of Supervisors. The Presiding Judge of the Placer County Superior Court system is: The Honorable Alan V. Pineschi Presiding Judge of the Superior Court County of Placer 11546 B Avenue Auburn, CA 95603 California Penal Code Section 933.05 For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each Grand Jury finding, the (a) responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: The Respondent agrees with the finding. (1) (2) The Respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each Grand Jury finding, the (b) responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following actions: The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the (1) implemented action. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented (2) in the future, with a time frame for implementation. The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the (3) scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or (4) is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. However, if a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or (c) personnel matters of a County agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision-making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. A Grand Jury may request a subject person or entity to come before the Grand Jury (d) for the purpose of reading and discussing the findings of the Grand Jury report that relates to that person or entity in order to verify the accuracy of the findings prior to their release. During an investigation, the Grand Jury shall meet with the subject of that (e) investigation regarding that investigation, unless the court, either on its own determination or upon request of the foreperson of the Grand Jury, determines that such a meeting would be detrimental. A grand jury shall provide to the affected agency a copy of the portion of the Grand (f) Jury report relating to that person or entity two (2) working days prior to its public release and after the approval of the Presiding Judge. No officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency shall disclose any contents of the report prior to the public release of the Final Report. Respondents Alta Fire Protection Board of Directors .................................... Cities Auburn .................................... Colfax.................................... Lincoln .................................... Rocklin .................................... Roseville 47 Town of Loomis................................... LAFCO.................................... Loomis Fire Protection District .................................... Penryn Fire Protection District .................................... Placer County Auditor-Controller ................................... Placer County Board of Supervisors ................................... Placer County Information Technology .................................... Placer County Director of Library Services .................................... Placer County Office of Emergency Services .................................... Placer County Office of the County Executive .................................... Placer County Office of Education .................................... Placer County Personnel Department......41 Placer County Risk Management and Training.......35 Placer County Water Agency ......47 School Districts Ackerman Elementary......20 Alta Dutch Flat .................................... Auburn Union Elementary .................................... Colfax Elementary.................................... Eureka Union ................................... Loomis Union ................................... Newcastle Elementary .................................... Ophir Elementary .................................... Penryn ................................... Placer Hills Union................................... Placer Union High School ................................... Rocklin Unified .................................... Roseville City .................................... Roseville Joint Union High School ................................... Sierra Joint Community College.................................. Tahoe-Truckee Unified .................................... Sierra Joint Community College: Superintendent/President .................................... Associate Vice-President of Student Services .................................... South Placer County Fire Protection District................................... .

F80: Additionally no public transportation is available from this location to Placer County medical, child immunization and mental health facilities at DeWitt Center, Auburn. Jury members attended the Placer County Transportation Grand Commission's annual Unmet Transit Needs hearing held in February, 2003. The recommendation from this meeting states, "This is not an unmet transit It is recommended that Placer County Health and Human need. Services consider relocating customer-oriented facilities, such as this one, to a location already served by public transportation. Alternatively, the County could provide shuttle service to and from the closest bus stop."