Plumas County Grand Jury
2009-2010
From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (17)
Quick View
Full Details →
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Board of Supervisors is urged to adopt ordinances requiring stringent minimum standards that developers must meet prior to Subdivision Master Plan approval that include: A signed contract for fire protection services Installed fire protection infrastructure and equipment Sufficient emergency water supplies Background: A major concern examined by the 2009-2010 Plumas County Grand Jury is the provision of fire protection and fire prevention services in this county. Specifically investigated were the County Building and Planning Departments. The Grand Jury found that the use and enforcement of fire codes and standards varies depending on whether they are being applied to a structure (homes, outbuildings, and commercial buildings), to the area immediately surrounding a structure (defensible space, access roads, turnarounds, fuel tanks and emergency water for fighting fires) or to the nearby wildlands (national and private forests as well as grasslands). The Grand Jury found that a large number of parcels (4,631) have been approved for building construction and occupancy located outside of fire protection districts. Homeowners and business owners are likely unaware that in the event their structures catch fire, there are no fire fighters mandated to respond and fight that fire. The Grand Jury asked how new subdivisions and residences get approved in areas where there is no entity responsible for fighting a fire, should a home catch fire. We studied the processes employed by developers, working with county officials and the Board of Supervisors, to gain approvals for fire protection services. This included provision of emergency water supplies. After a developer acquires land outside of a fire protection district (FPD), one of the requirements of a plan for further subdivision and construction is that there be fire protection. The Board of Supervisor requests the Local Area Formation Commission (LAFCo) to either (a) create a new Community Services District (CSD), or (b) approve annexation to an existing fire protection district (FPD). Either alternative meets the requirement for approval. If a new CSD is formed, the Board of Supervisors by statute becomes the Board of Directors of the new district. They have authorized the new CSD to operate a fire department, but without the specific responsibility to provide fire protection or the requirement for knowledgeable employees and minimal equipment to fight a structural fire. Unfortunately, this is sufficient for the approval process of the development. At this point, it is the Board of Supervisors and their key employees (Planning, Building, and Environmental Health Departments) that must decide whether this CSD is capable of providing fire service and sufficient emergency water to fight a fire. If annexation is 41 the approved option, then the plan can go through the entire approval process without any formal agreements or contracts for fire protection or the provision of water service. In the case of annexation as authorized by LAFCo, it is noted that the LAFCo Board is chaired by a member of the County Board of Supervisors; seated on that Board is a second member of the Board of Supervisors and each of these individuals has a designated alternate that is also a Board of Supervisors member. Evaluation of the plans for compliance of nonstructural state fire codes is the responsibility of the CSD that probably has no qualified employees, or a volunteer Fire Chief with little time to review plans before the approval deadline. The key players in the process of new development approval are (1) the developer, (2) the Board of Supervisors, (3) the Local Area Formation Commission, and (4) key county staff persons who report to and are evaluated by the Board of Supervisors. The Planning Department is charged with responsibility for approving the subdivision of a parcel into lots for single-family residences, multiple housing units, and/or commercial units from what formerly was a single land parcel. The problem involves a developer acquiring land outside of any established fire protection districts authorized to provide fire protection services. To obtain subdivision approval the developer follows one of two scenarios to obtain fire protection and water services. Scenario #1: LAFCo approves annexation of a parcel adjacent to a FPD and/or CSD which has the authorization to operate a fire department. All county fire protection entities are volunteer organizations at the time annexation is approved, which may or may not have facilities, professional employees or resources. This annexation option is a relatively new choice for developers. Scenario #2: LAFCo, following a resolution by the Plumas County Board of Supervisors, requested by the developer, establishes a new CSD with responsibility for providing potable and emergency water supplies, sewage disposal, and authority to operate a fire department. This CSD has no resources, employees, or facilities, but will manage the facilities produced by the developer once the development is completed. Because there are no full time residents within the new development or the new district, the Board of Directors of this entity is composed of the members of the County Board of Supervisors, a role that is mandated by law. The County Director of Public Works serves as the General Manager of the District; within the recent past the developer was selected to serve in this role. In both scenarios the Development Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) cite the FPD and water service provider proposed for annexation or the new CSD as the source of fire protection and water and sewer services. The Plumas County Planning Director is responsible for overall assessment and approval of the EIR and Development Plan and for overseeing evaluations made by state agencies in the case of larger subdivisions. The Planning Director refers the Plan to the Building Department for compliance with Building Codes as might be 42 applicable. The EIR and Development Plan are referred to the Environmental Health Director for assessment of water and sewage plans. To establish whether the Plan complies with non-structural fire codes (roads, turnarounds, emergency water supply, etc.), it is sent to the FPD or CSD with a short turnaround deadline and default approval if no response is provided. Ultimately, the Planning Director, who also serves as the County’s Zoning Administrator, is charged with approving the Development Plan and EIR and then submitting his recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for final evaluation and approval. In most cases, the Board of Supervisors also sits as the Board of Directors of the new CSD as well as having responsibility for reviewing the performance of the Planning, Environmental Health, and Public Works Directors, setting their respective compensation, and approving each of the Department’s operating budgets. The Grand Jury believes the department directors’ close subordinate relationship to the Board of Supervisors creates an unreasonable position for senior staff. It also has potential to interfere with the Board providing objective oversight. Today there is a critical need for local county-elected and appointed officials to begin restructuring this County’s former dependence upon on-going, essentially “rubber stamped” master plan subdivision approvals that historically generated an increasing property tax revenue stream that supported the County’s menu of services perceived to benefit the local resident population. Concurrent with the bursting of the national housing and real estate “bubble” beginning in 2004-2005, the County Chief Administrative Officer has observed and reported a new and distressing five-year or possibly longer trend in declining revenues associated with declining property values and associated assessed valuations. Early in its investigation of structural fire protection this Grand Jury learned that subdivision master plans approved by the Planning Department prior to 1991 had no requirement to be included in a local district providing fire protection services. The rationale offered focused on the potential expense to that category of parcel owners in gaining access to such services. Apparently omitted from any consideration was the number of years that lapsed prior to subdivision build out; in Plumas County subdivision build out timelines stretch 20 or more years for most developments. During those extended periods of years many things are subject to change except the absence of structural fire protection services. Now that Plumas County property owners have entered the 21st Century, it is clearly time for this past practice to be corrected for the good of all. There is a related concern as subdivision master plans continue to be approved within Plumas County. Almost without exception with each approval action the Board of Supervisors authorizes yet another small community water service utility with primary responsibility for emergency water supplies. Most often these developer recommended districts are proposed to serve very limited numbers of parcels in the range of 100 to 600. In fact, such subdivision approvals have created a needless proliferation of local utility districts that cannot economically provide minimal essential services. 43
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
The County is not focused on economic development, as defined by the Grand Jury. The Board of Supervisors relies entirely on Plumas Corporation and the local Chambers of Commerce to set priorities and direction for economic development and tourism marketing.
F2:
The County is not providing stable or enough funding to support ongoing economic development. There is a tendency to decrease funding for economic development and tourism promotion when the economy is in a downturn. This is evidenced by recent across-the-board budget cuts.
F3:
Plumas County has no contractual obligations attached to its use of public funds for economic development. In the 2009-2010 Plumas County budget, Plumas Corporation received over $230,000. There is no formal accountability mechanism in place.
F4:
Because of the unique geography in Plumas County, regional economic centers exist: Almanor Basin, Blairsden-Graeagle, Eastern Plumas, Greenville, and Quincy. Each center has its own distinctive qualities and economies but all fall under the jurisdiction of the county.
F5:
The Board of Supervisors has hired consultants and the General Plan update is moving toward completion in 2011. Yet Plumas County has not contracted with the current General Plan consultants to include the optional Economic Development Element.
F6:
The City of Portola has an Economic Development Element in its General Plan, and the city documents the status of each implementation measure. However, there are measures listed for which no progress is shown.
F7:
The Grand Jury saw little evidence in our investigation that Plumas County and the City of Portola have made an effort to collaborate on economic development.
F8:
As defined by the Government Code, “Sphere of Influence” is a plan for the probable physical boundaries and service area of a local agency. The City of Portola is in the process of updating and redefining its Sphere of Influence and needs cooperation and support from the county to get this done.
Additional Recommendations
8
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Board of Supervisors should take a leadership role by defining and implementing an economic development policy and program to include planning, funding, implementing, and monitoring economic development in the county. The Grand Jury recommends that the county employ an economic development coordinator to focus on business recruitment and follow through on an economic development plan.
R2:
The Board of Supervisors should recognize that economic development is a high priority for Plumas County and fund it accordingly to ensure resilience as the economy improves.
R3:
The County should execute an annual contract with Plumas Corporation for each year’s economic development program. A formal contract should include a detailed scope of work and benchmarks for success which can be validated.
R4:
Any updated economic development plan completed by the county should take into account the differences between our economic centers and provide specific objectives to assist them in developing and growing their economies.
R5:
Plumas County should ensure that economic development is an essential component of the General Plan update. This critical element must be a high priority. City of Portola
R6:
The City should set priorities and employ an economic development professional to recommend implementation strategies. Plumas County and City of Portola--Collaboration
R7:
The timing is right for the county to make sure the Economic Development Element of its General Plan is compatible with the city’s updated element. The city and the county should collaborate to develop compatible economic development plans and provide countywide leadership to attract new businesses and industry. Both should consider sharing the cost of an economic development professional for mutually beneficial projects.
R8:
The Grand Jury feels that much can be gained by the two governments working together on the city’s Sphere of Influence. Plumas County and the City of Portola must come together to agree upon an updated Sphere of Influence for the city. Advance sales tax and hotel tax sharing agreements between the two governments should be considered to facilitate moving forward on development projects which could help our economy grow. Background Information: In researching economic development in Plumas County, the Grand Jury determined that all of the following governments and agencies are involved in promoting the economy and use some local public funds to accomplish their programs: ●Chambers of Commerce: Chester/Lake Almanor, Eastern Plumas, Indian Valley and Quincy ●City of Portola ●Plumas Corporation/Plumas County Visitor’s Bureau ●Plumas County There are no statutes on the books requiring governments to get involved in economic development. It is not a core service, such as, police protection, road maintenance, or social services; however, city and county officials can play an important role in fostering and maintaining a diversified economy. They can shore up the local economy by 16 funding economic development programs, improving infrastructure, i.e., roads, water and sewer services, devising clear, concise and timely land use policies, and creating a business-friendly atmosphere. Plumas County The Chair of the Board of Supervisors informed the Grand Jury that the county does not have a countywide economic development plan; however, our research indicates that there is a plan which was completed by Plumas Corporation and approved by the Board of Supervisors on October 22, 2002. Instead of systematically implementing their plan, the Board of Supervisors promotes economic development in other ways. They participate in organizational meetings related to economic development within and outside of the county. Periodically, the Board approves economic incentives to help stimulate the economy. Recently, for example, the county waived the development impact fee that was imposed on all building permits. The Board also supports various development projects which benefit their constituents. A variety of mixed commercial/residential subdivisions have been approved by the Board of Supervisors throughout the county in the last decade. Some of these projects are not built out as planned, and with the downturn in the economy, some are struggling to stay afloat. The county does not have clearly defined land use policies in place for potential developments because its 1981 General Plan is outdated. The State has granted a two-year extension of the Plan, and the county has hired consultants to implement the updating process. Some development projects have been placed on hold until that process is completed in 2011. In addition to the seven required elements of the General Plan, there are three additional elements which the county can contract with the consultants to complete. One of those is the Economic Element. Plumas Corporation Our research indicates that the Board of Supervisors relies solely upon Plumas Corporation for promotion of tourism and strategic economic development planning. This non-profit was first incorporated in 1983 as a lobbying entity with the specific purpose of promoting the expansion of the county’s economic base. According to the 2007 revision of its bylaws, in addition to promoting economic vitality, it now also promotes good land stewardship. Eighty percent of the agency’s 2009 budget was dedicated to erosion control and fire safe programs. Plumas Corporation does some long range planning for economic development and provides economic indicators and other data each year for the Board of Supervisors. The agency produced a sixty-eight page Economic Development Strategy plan in 2002 for the county and currently is in the process of updating that document. The agency also uses some of the county funding to apply for grants and to interface with other agencies involved in economic development inside and outside of the county. There is no contract in place between the county and Plumas Corporation. The non-profit files an annual independent auditor’s report with the County Administrator’s Office. Plumas County Visitors Bureau The Plumas County Visitors Bureau, which is under the umbrella of Plumas Corporation, receives a major share of the county’s funding for economic development. According to the Plumas Corporation Director, it is the county’s official destination marketing organization. Essentially, the staff promotes tourism by marketing Plumas County’s tourist events, recreational opportunities, and natural resources all over the country through electronic and print advertising. Their annual report and strategic marketing plan, available on their website, give a comprehensive view of what they do. They are housed in the same building as Plumas Corporation. Chambers of Commerce The county contributes funds each year to the Chambers of Commerce: Chester/Lake Almanor, Eastern Plumas, Indian Valley, and Quincy. These are non-profit dues paying associations. They support local businesses through advertising and the production of local events which draw customers for their members. The Chambers’ events bring out- of-towners into the county, thus increasing the levels of hotel and sales tax revenues and generating profits for local businesses. Their focus on supporting local businesses and promoting tourism contributes to the overall economic health of the county. The businesses they support create and sustain local jobs and are an important component of economic development. City of Portola Although there are several economic centers in the county with which we are all familiar, such as Chester, Greenville, Blairsden-Graeagle, and Quincy, the City of Portola is the only incorporated city with its own municipal government. The city is responsible for its own economic development plan. The city’s General Plan was completed in 2001 with land use projections valid to 2020. The Planning Commission is currently completing a ten-year update. The City’s General Plan includes the Economic Development Element which clearly defines the city’s plan for economic development and includes nine pages of policies and implementation guidelines. The Element includes such implementation measures as: developing an incentive program for industries, preparing an inventory of the local resources to assist in marketing the area to prospective new employers, preparing a target industries study, establishing a set of standards and “quality of life” criteria for attracting new businesses, working more closely with the schools to establish job training and vocational education programs, and appointing an economic development coordinator. The city played the leadership role in the proposed development of the Woodbridge at Portola Project, a 400 acre master planned community with a village center, which will provide up to 945 high, medium, and low density residential units and 60 commercial/mixed use dwellings. The city purchased, prepared and then sold the land for the Woodbridge project to the developer which produced a net profit for the city of approximately $3.8 million. The city also worked diligently to convince Nestlé’s Bottled Water Company to take advantage of the city’s five natural springs, located on city- owned property, by situating a bottling plant in Portola. If successful, up to 150 new jobs could be created. Funding Streams: Plumas County As discussed above, the county accomplishes its economic development programs through local non-profits. The current budget for these programs totals $350,112. The following information explains briefly who gets the money and how it is spent. Plumas Corporation Plumas Corporation received $28,500 for economic development planning and activities administered by the Executive Director. This amount covers 10% of the Executive Director’s salary and 20% of an administrative assistant. Non-personnel costs, such as technical assistance from Sierra Business Council, marketing through Upstate California EDC, and travel, make up the remaining 70%. Plumas County Visitors Bureau Plumas Corporation received $208,990, which is dedicated to tourism activities carried out by one of its divisions, the Plumas County Visitors Bureau. This contribution pays for 2.75 staff positions, print advertising, internet marketing, publications, promotional supplies, mailers and general administration services provided by Plumas Corporation at a cost of $36,239 budgeted for the current year. Chambers of Commerce The Chambers of Commerce - Chester/Lake Almanor, Indian Valley, Eastern Plumas and Quincy - each got an equal share of $28,155.50 for fiscal year 2009/2010. The Chambers’ income is generated by members’ dues, fundraising events, and annual funding from the county. The county funding to these agencies supports part-time paid staff, except for the Chester/Lake Almanor Chamber which has no paid staff, basic operating costs, and some of the many activities that they sponsor. All of the Chambers depend on their dedicated volunteers to help keep costs down. City of Portola The city doesn’t have a specific budget for economic development. They support individual projects as needed. They do have a $3.8 million reserve which can be tapped for economic development. Additionally, the City Manager informed the Grand Jury that the city may receive up to $3 million in settlement funds from the State for business and revenue losses due to the Pike Eradication Project. Some of those funds will be used to repair the economic damage done to Portola by the project. Revenue In researching how economic development programs might be financed, the Hotel Tax was identified as a related revenue source. Cities and counties have the authority to levy a tax on hotels, inns, tourist homes, motels, or other lodging. Plumas County levies a tax of 9% on tourists when they stay in local lodgings. This tax generated $1,152,277 last year. Monies budgeted by the county for economic development programs and tourism promotion for the current fiscal year represent 30.7% of the anticipated Hotel Tax revenue. While the actual revenue from the Hotel Tax increased 16.8% from fiscal 19 year 2001-2002 to 2008-2009, the amount of funding for tourism promotion decreased 20.2% during that same time period. The City of Portola also collects Hotel Tax, but it is not a significant revenue source as they have only one motel within the city limits. Some grant revenues may also become available from time to time for specific projects for the county, the city and the economic centers located throughout the county. Most of those grant dollars are obtained by Plumas Corporation on behalf of the county and by the city manager and city staff on behalf of the city. The grants may fund such projects as landscaping downtown areas. Procedure: In researching this matter, the Grand Jury obtained information from the following sources and from their websites: ●Board of Supervisors/County Administrator’s Office/County Planning Department ●Chambers of Commerce of Chester/Lake Almanor, Eastern Plumas, Indian Valley, and Quincy ●City of Portola ●Feather River Bulletin ●Plumas Corporation/Plumas County Visitors Bureau Documents reviewed included: ●Chambers of Commerce Budget and Expenditure Reports ●City of Portola Budget, Audit Report, Economic Development Element, Special Project Reports and Studies ●Plumas Corporation Audits, Annual Reviews, Budget Requests, Economic Development Plans and Reports, Marketing Plans ●Plumas County Budgets, General Plan Consultant’s Proposal and Contract The Grand Jury interviewed: ●Chair of the Plumas County Board of Supervisors ●City Manager of the City of Portola ●County Administrator of Plumas County ●Directors and/or Members of Boards of Directors of the Chambers of Commerce ●Plumas Corporation’s Executive Director Conclusion: This recession is a wakeup call for all of us. We need to start today to plan for a successful economic recovery. Tomorrow may be too late. It is time for Plumas County and the City of Portola to take the lead in economic development and to form a partnership for the common good of our citizens. No matter where economic development occurs, we will all benefit by increased revenues and taxes to support the services, infrastructure and economy in our county. 20
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
Plumas County ordinances do not require that restaurants and other food facilities visibly display their inspection sheet, so customers don’t know the quality and cleanliness of the facility. The Grand Jury believes that more transparency should exist for the inspection results.
F2:
Presently, mobile/temporary food facilities don’t have to display their permits or inspection compliance sheets.
F4:
The Division’s web site, where food facility inspection results are posted, is a very positive process for creating transparency and awareness for food safety. The 23 Grand Jury commends the effort, but believes that many County residents and tourists are not aware of the site.
F5:
The funding for the department comes from a variety of sources. If any of those funds were reduced, service would suffer if the other sources were not increased.
Additional Recommendations
8
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The County’s Environmental Health Division should either establish a grading system whereby the quality and cleanliness (safety) of the facility is displayed in the form of letter grade of A, B, or C, or by the colors green, yellow, or red, as determined by the quality of the latest inspection. If a grading system is determined not workable, the Division should require food facilities to display the most recent inspection form, placed near the entrance, visible to patrons.
R2:
If a grading system is not used for all food handling facilities, the Division should require the mobile/temporary businesses to display the operating permit and the results of the most recent inspection, visible to potential customers.
R3a:
The Division should establish a brief but detailed set of instructions for inspectors to apply uniformly for correction of infractions.
R3b:
The Division should establish a standard pattern of rotation for inspectors in such a manner that the same inspector does not conduct more than one of the two inspections of a facility in the same calendar year.
R3c:
The Division should establish a standard schedule of fines or sanctions for reoccurring violations of a consistent nature.
R3d:
The Division should establish a fee for owner/operator requested re-inspections for those owners who want to improve their previous inspection grade.
R4:
The Grand Jury suggests that the Division increase their effort to publicize the existence and nature of this site, using any and all media approaches to reach as many people as possible.
R5:
That the Board of Supervisors not reduce the County’s tax contribution further than it is now nor take any actions that would compromise the state and other resources that fund the program. Background information: In Plumas County, the Environmental Health Division of the Plumas County Public Health Agency has the responsibility for Food Safety and Consumer Protection as one of its nine functions. The Department inspects every restaurant, grocery, and mobile or temporary food facility in the County twice a year for compliance with the “California Retail Food Code”. A procedural manual for guidelines and training of food facility inspectors—the “Food inspection Data Fields Marking Guideline”—is used to gain consistency and uniformity in the inspection process. When infractions are found, the Division must assure that the facilities correct them to meet the Code. The Division has three Specialists assigned to Food Safety in specified geographic areas of the County. They each inspect all of the facilities in their given area. Among their other State mandated functions, these three Specialists are responsible for inspecting more than two hundred food facilities twice a year. In addition to the inspections of food handling facilities themselves, the Division places on the County web site all food facility inspection sheets for public viewing. Since only about half of the Counties within the State do this, the Jury feels the process is a positive asset for our County. To view these inspection sheets go to (www.countyofplumas.com/publichealth/envhealth). The Division also takes an active role in public education regarding public and consumer safety issues. A list of the Division’s functions and parameters are published in the Annual Report. The Division furnishes information on the County web site where much information about the Division, including the Annual Report can be found. The Division also publishes newspaper articles, handouts, and other information regarding food safety. As a free service to County clients, they also administer the State required Serve Safe Certificate test for food service workers. As indicated in the 2008 Annual Report, the Division’s total revenue sources for all programs, including the Food Safety program, are “Fees for Service—34%, State Realignment—32%, State Program Reimbursement Grants—15% Contracts for Services and other revenue—16%, and County Contribution—3%. The Grand Jury feels that if any of the funding sources mentioned above were reduced, the Division’s performance could be negatively affected, and the Division’s functions are crucial to the well being of County residents. 24
Findings & Recommendations
12 findings
F1:
For the 2008-2009 year, the Airport Department operated with a budget that ended with $5,391 in the black. At midyear this year, the airport budget is in the black by $7,783.19. We commend the Airport Department for maintaining a budget that allows our airfield to able to provide their services while not being any sort of financial burden on the people who live and pay taxes in our county.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The Board of Supervisors should continue to fund our airports as they have done in the past. Any operating surplus remaining in the budget should be reinvested in the airports for future growth and improvements.
R01-02:
Agriculture Commissioner Χ Airport Operations
F2:
An inspection at our three airfields during January 2010 by Exxon Mobil Aviation examined the general facilities, personal and flight line safety, records and receipts, fuel documentation, and filtration. One hundred and twelve quality control checks were performed in this inspection without any "discrepancy description or
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends the airports continue to adhere to their high standards of safety, service, and quality. We commend all three managers for their fine work, both in their offices and on the grounds throughout our airport facilities. This award would not have been given without the dedication of airport staff trained in the many procedures ensuring the safety of fuels and the flight line.
R02-03:
01-02 Х Fair Farm Advisor Х Feather River College Fire Management Х Health Dept./Environmental Health Х (Plumas Co Public Health Agency) Χ Hospital Districts
F3:
During the summer of 2009, the Department of Transportation (DOT) made an inspection of the runways and surrounding airspace path of any aircraft at each of our airports. Critical issues were addressed in a timely manner. With the agreement of the DOT, items that were identified as not being critical safety issues will be corrected when funding from DOT becomes available.
Related Recommendations (5)
R3:
The Grand Jury encourages the Airport Department to continue their compliance with DOT standards. Background Information: Plumas County owns and operates three airports within the county. Rogers Field in Chester, Nervino Airport in Beckwourth, and Gansner Field in Quincy. All three airports handle the typical traffic of private planes, with Rogers Field and Nervino Airport able to land jet aircraft. Airport traffic operates without control towers, but by the use of each pilot's own visual discretion and radio transmissions concerning their intent of takeoff or landing. Runway lights are controlled by radio transmission from the pilot. Fueling is self service, using a card lock system. Hangar and tie down facilities are available at all three airports. Each hangar owner pays their own utilities and is responsible for any upkeep needed on their hangar. Rent is paid to the county for all hangars at a rate of 41 cents per square foot. Property tax and luxury tax is paid to the county each year at a rate of 1%. Charter and sightseeing flights and flight instruction is available at each airport. A light industrial aircraft repair business is operated at Nervino Airport. Rogers Field in Chester has a large building that houses the Chester Fire Department as well as the Chester Public Utilities District. Director of Facility Services The county's Director of Facilities Services also supervises the Airport Department. Seventeen percent of the Director of Facility Services' duties are devoted and budgeted for Airport operations. While supervising the two contract managers who oversee Rogers Field and Nervino Airport, he serves as manager for Gansner Field. Salary and benefits for the Director in his service to the airports is $21,001. Contract Managers Rogers Field and Nervino Airport are supervised by contract managers. These managers also have their own private air service business housed at their airports. Salary and benefits are $18,106. Each manager receives a benefit package and a PERS retirement. Additional income for the Chester manager comes through collecting one half of the profits from fuel sales and all of the tie down fees. Managers are not exempt from paying rent on their hangars or any other fees paid by other pilots. Managers can utilize non-county employees they have hired and trained for airport duties at their own expense. Duties of managers are (some duties may be particular to a given airport and not another): Maintain safe, obstruction-free airport grounds Perform fuel testing Snow removal (estimated time is two hours for every inch of snow) Refueling air attack aircraft
R3a:
The Division should establish a brief but detailed set of instructions for inspectors to apply uniformly for correction of infractions.
R3b:
The Division should establish a standard pattern of rotation for inspectors in such a manner that the same inspector does not conduct more than one of the two inspections of a facility in the same calendar year.
R3c:
The Division should establish a standard schedule of fines or sanctions for reoccurring violations of a consistent nature.
R3d:
The Division should establish a fee for owner/operator requested re-inspections for those owners who want to improve their previous inspection grade.
F4:
Because of the unique geography in Plumas County, regional economic centers exist: Almanor Basin, Blairsden-Graeagle, Eastern Plumas, Greenville, and Quincy. Each center has its own distinctive qualities and economies but all fall under the jurisdiction of the county.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Any updated economic development plan completed by the county should take into account the differences between our economic centers and provide specific objectives to assist them in developing and growing their economies.
F5:
The Board of Supervisors has hired consultants and the General Plan update is moving toward completion in 2011. Yet Plumas County has not contracted with the current General Plan consultants to include the optional Economic Development Element.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Plumas County should ensure that economic development is an essential component of the General Plan update. This critical element must be a high priority. City of Portola
F6:
The City of Portola has an Economic Development Element in its General Plan, and the city documents the status of each implementation measure. However, there are measures listed for which no progress is shown.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The City should set priorities and employ an economic development professional to recommend implementation strategies. Plumas County and City of Portola--Collaboration
F7:
The Grand Jury saw little evidence in our investigation that Plumas County and the City of Portola have made an effort to collaborate on economic development.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The timing is right for the county to make sure the Economic Development Element of its General Plan is compatible with the city's updated element. The city and the county should collaborate to develop compatible economic development plans and provide countywide leadership to attract new businesses and industry. Both should consider sharing the cost of an economic development professional for mutually beneficial projects.
F8:
As defined by the Government Code, "Sphere of Influence" is a plan for the probable physical boundaries and service area of a local agency. The City of Portola is in the process of updating and redefining its Sphere of Influence and needs cooperation and support from the county to get this done.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The Grand Jury feels that much can be gained by the two governments working together on the city's Sphere of Influence. Plumas County and the City of Portola must come together to agree upon an updated Sphere of Influence for the city. Advance sales tax and hotel tax sharing agreements between the two governments should be considered to facilitate moving forward on development projects which could help our economy grow. Background Information: In researching economic development in Plumas County, the Grand Jury determined that all of the following governments and agencies are involved in promoting the economy and use some local public funds to accomplish their programs: Chambers of Commerce: Chester/Lake Almanor, Eastern Plumas, Indian Valley and
F9:
All websites associated with the above agencies
F10:
May 1 Power-Point Presentation made to Plumas County firefighters by Ray Zachau, Division Chief, Fire Marshal, South Lake Tahoe Fire Department: The 2007 Angora Fire & What Went Wrong Documents reviewed by the committee: California Master Cooperative Wildland Fire Management and Stafford Act Response Agreement, March 28, 2008 • Cooperative Fire Protection Agreement / Operating Plan (Between US Forest Service and ... CAL FIRE) May 15, 2009
F11:
Prattville-Almanor FPD
F13:
Sierra Valley FPD It is generally understood that there are two critically important elements to successfully protect structures from being destroyed by fire. The first is proximity to and services received from fire protection service providers. The hallmark descriptor is universally understood to be response time, or how long will it take emergency fire protection staff and equipment to arrive at an incident. The second essential necessity in the saving of persons' property from structural fire is an immediately available emergency water supply. Current structural fire fighting vehicles here in Plumas County pump water at a rate of 1,000 gallons per minute and require sustained water flows approximating one hour to save a typical residential structure; that would amount to a sustained water supply of 60,000 gallons per pumper truck. There was consensus among fire experts providing testimony that Plumas County could support one to five fire emergency services districts. Those fire and emergency service providers are needed to protect all parcels and structures within the County. Clearly, increasing the number of districts is not what the experts have recommended, nor would it be cost effective. Plumas County Fire Safe Council Individual wildland fires cause the most property destruction of all categories of fire emergencies. All Californians, as well as Plumas County residents, will not soon forget the Oakland Hills Inferno, the Malibu Canyons wildfires, or the very recent Angora Fire located in the South Lake Tahoe Basin that destroyed 309 residential and business structures. Etched in everyone's memories are those vivid televised images of block after block of destroyed buildings. Wildland fires occur in what has been termed a community-at-risk (CAR). All Plumas County communities are communities-at-risk. Typically homeowners prize these zones as they represent the aesthetically attractive midpoint between the edge of suburbia and most typically beautiful forested areas. Hilly terrain offering premium vistas are frequently a distinct asset of a community-at-risk. Unfortunately, extreme fire hazards are commonly ignored by individuals purchasing property in these zones. Here in Plumas County one voluntary organization, the Fire Safe Council, has made tremendous strides by developing a model that mitigates the wildland fire danger inherent to all community-at-risk zones. The Grand Jury found that the use and enforcement of fire codes and standards varies depending on whether they are being applied to a structure (homes, outbuildings, and commercial buildings), to the area immediately surrounding a structure (defensible space, access roads, turnarounds, fuel tanks and emergency water for fighting fires) or to the nearby wildlands (national and private forests as well as grasslands). In Plumas County, responsibility for prevention and hazardous mitigation of fire conditions in forests next to family residences belongs to the US Forest Service, if the forest is a national forest. If the forest is privately owned, it is the responsibility of the landowner with the possibility of additional assistance from a private, nongovernmental organization, the Plumas County Fire Safe Council. Thousands of Plumas County residents' homes are located in or next to forests, in what has been termed communities-at-risk. The overriding concern facing homeowners located in this environment is the threat of wildland fire. While the State of California has enacted legislation extending the defensible space perimeter requirement around homes from 30 to 100 feet, wildland fires represent an even greater threat than ever before to homeowners in forested areas. This is because most forests have not benefited from naturally occurring, periodic forest fires that consumed naturally occurring fuels. This hazardous situation has been compounded as the number of homes being built in the forest interface has rapidly increased during the last 10 to 15 years. During the past several years the Plumas County Fire Safe Council (PCFSC) has developed grant funded projects that have served groups of homeowners, homeowners associations, and other groups in mitigating or reducing the quantity of wildland fire fuels on our forest floors. These projects thin forested areas, remove fire ladder vegetation that frequently leads to devastating crown fires in addition to removing combustible materials that result in healthier, safer and more attractive forested areas. In summary, these projects provide a responsible alternative to periodic wildfires. The Mission Statement of the PCFSC is: To reduce the loss of natural and manmade resources caused by wildfire through Firewise community programs and pre-fire activities. The Council maintains an informative webpage: Fire Services - CAL FIRE In round figures, two-thirds of the Plumas County land surface is part of the Plumas and Lassen National Forest. and Lassen Volcanic National Park; the remaining one-third is comprised of privately owned parcels of which a substantial majority are located in what California has designated as this county's State Responsibility Area (SRA). Exceptions to this classification are parcels within Local Responsibility Areas (LRA) that include the lands within the City Limits of Portola, a relatively large area surrounding Chester, two small areas of several blocks each located in Quincy, and small areas near the fire houses in Graeagle, Whitehawk, Beckwourth, and Chilcoot. Plumas County's SRA includes numerous approved subdivisions as well as privately owned forest production and agricultural parcels. The SRA and LRA designations were actually made by CAL FIRE on behalf of the State a number of years ago and every five years that agency is required to revisit and evaluate those classifications. Currently that every five-year evaluation is being implemented in this county. CAL FIRE is also fiscally responsible for protection from and prevention of wildland fires including forested and agricultural lands as well as structures. Superficially it would appear to be a "good thing" that a majority of Plumas County residents' homes are located in designated SRA's. Statewide CAL FIRE has an outstanding reputation for its emergency fire protection services. CAL FIRE's presence in Plumas County is extremely limited. CAL FIRE does not employ any emergency responders, nor does it house any firefighting equipment within our county. The situation occurred almost 20 years ago in 1991 with the adoption of a "Cooperative Fire Management Agreement" (CFMA) between the US Forest Service and CAL FIRE. CAL FIRE traded off its Plumas County acreage emergency services responsibilities to the US Forest Service in exchange for acreage located somewhere else. The missions of the Federal and State agencies are quite different. The US Forest Service attempts to protect the national forests, while CAL FIRE protects forests and also provides structural fire protection in locales where it has an active presence. CAL FIRE does maintain a small administrative presence in Quincy; however, the reality of having a SRA designation is essentially meaningless for our county residents. In designated SRA's, CAL FIRE has the fiscal responsibility for provision of the following services:
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R95-96:
98-99 Auditor/Controller
R98-99:
Х District Attorney Facility Services
R99-00:
Human Resources Х investigation
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
12 findings
F1:
For the 2008-2009 year, the Airport Department operated with a budget that ended with $5,391 in the black. At midyear this year, the airport budget is in the black by $7,783.19. We commend the Airport Department for maintaining a budget that allows our airfield to able to provide their services while not being any sort of financial burden on the people who live and pay taxes in our county.
F2:
An inspection at our three airfields during January 2010 by Exxon Mobil Aviation examined the general facilities, personal and flight line safety, records and receipts, fuel documentation, and filtration. One hundred and twelve quality control checks were performed in this inspection without any "discrepancy description or
F3:
During the summer of 2009, the Department of Transportation (DOT) made an inspection of the runways and surrounding airspace path of any aircraft at each of our airports. Critical issues were addressed in a timely manner. With the agreement of the DOT, items that were identified as not being critical safety issues will be corrected when funding from DOT becomes available.
F4:
Because of the unique geography in Plumas County, regional economic centers exist: Almanor Basin, Blairsden-Graeagle, Eastern Plumas, Greenville, and Quincy. Each center has its own distinctive qualities and economies but all fall under the jurisdiction of the county.
F5:
The Board of Supervisors has hired consultants and the General Plan update is moving toward completion in 2011. Yet Plumas County has not contracted with the current General Plan consultants to include the optional Economic Development Element.
F6:
The City of Portola has an Economic Development Element in its General Plan, and the city documents the status of each implementation measure. However, there are measures listed for which no progress is shown.
F7:
The Grand Jury saw little evidence in our investigation that Plumas County and the City of Portola have made an effort to collaborate on economic development.
F8:
As defined by the Government Code, "Sphere of Influence" is a plan for the probable physical boundaries and service area of a local agency. The City of Portola is in the process of updating and redefining its Sphere of Influence and needs cooperation and support from the county to get this done.
F9:
All websites associated with the above agencies
F10:
May 1 Power-Point Presentation made to Plumas County firefighters by Ray Zachau, Division Chief, Fire Marshal, South Lake Tahoe Fire Department: The 2007 Angora Fire & What Went Wrong Documents reviewed by the committee: California Master Cooperative Wildland Fire Management and Stafford Act Response Agreement, March 28, 2008 • Cooperative Fire Protection Agreement / Operating Plan (Between US Forest Service and ... CAL FIRE) May 15, 2009
F11:
Prattville-Almanor FPD
F13:
Sierra Valley FPD It is generally understood that there are two critically important elements to successfully protect structures from being destroyed by fire. The first is proximity to and services received from fire protection service providers. The hallmark descriptor is universally understood to be response time, or how long will it take emergency fire protection staff and equipment to arrive at an incident. The second essential necessity in the saving of persons' property from structural fire is an immediately available emergency water supply. Current structural fire fighting vehicles here in Plumas County pump water at a rate of 1,000 gallons per minute and require sustained water flows approximating one hour to save a typical residential structure; that would amount to a sustained water supply of 60,000 gallons per pumper truck. There was consensus among fire experts providing testimony that Plumas County could support one to five fire emergency services districts. Those fire and emergency service providers are needed to protect all parcels and structures within the County. Clearly, increasing the number of districts is not what the experts have recommended, nor would it be cost effective. Plumas County Fire Safe Council Individual wildland fires cause the most property destruction of all categories of fire emergencies. All Californians, as well as Plumas County residents, will not soon forget the Oakland Hills Inferno, the Malibu Canyons wildfires, or the very recent Angora Fire located in the South Lake Tahoe Basin that destroyed 309 residential and business structures. Etched in everyone's memories are those vivid televised images of block after block of destroyed buildings. Wildland fires occur in what has been termed a community-at-risk (CAR). All Plumas County communities are communities-at-risk. Typically homeowners prize these zones as they represent the aesthetically attractive midpoint between the edge of suburbia and most typically beautiful forested areas. Hilly terrain offering premium vistas are frequently a distinct asset of a community-at-risk. Unfortunately, extreme fire hazards are commonly ignored by individuals purchasing property in these zones. Here in Plumas County one voluntary organization, the Fire Safe Council, has made tremendous strides by developing a model that mitigates the wildland fire danger inherent to all community-at-risk zones. The Grand Jury found that the use and enforcement of fire codes and standards varies depending on whether they are being applied to a structure (homes, outbuildings, and commercial buildings), to the area immediately surrounding a structure (defensible space, access roads, turnarounds, fuel tanks and emergency water for fighting fires) or to the nearby wildlands (national and private forests as well as grasslands). In Plumas County, responsibility for prevention and hazardous mitigation of fire conditions in forests next to family residences belongs to the US Forest Service, if the forest is a national forest. If the forest is privately owned, it is the responsibility of the landowner with the possibility of additional assistance from a private, nongovernmental organization, the Plumas County Fire Safe Council. Thousands of Plumas County residents' homes are located in or next to forests, in what has been termed communities-at-risk. The overriding concern facing homeowners located in this environment is the threat of wildland fire. While the State of California has enacted legislation extending the defensible space perimeter requirement around homes from 30 to 100 feet, wildland fires represent an even greater threat than ever before to homeowners in forested areas. This is because most forests have not benefited from naturally occurring, periodic forest fires that consumed naturally occurring fuels. This hazardous situation has been compounded as the number of homes being built in the forest interface has rapidly increased during the last 10 to 15 years. During the past several years the Plumas County Fire Safe Council (PCFSC) has developed grant funded projects that have served groups of homeowners, homeowners associations, and other groups in mitigating or reducing the quantity of wildland fire fuels on our forest floors. These projects thin forested areas, remove fire ladder vegetation that frequently leads to devastating crown fires in addition to removing combustible materials that result in healthier, safer and more attractive forested areas. In summary, these projects provide a responsible alternative to periodic wildfires. The Mission Statement of the PCFSC is: To reduce the loss of natural and manmade resources caused by wildfire through Firewise community programs and pre-fire activities. The Council maintains an informative webpage: Fire Services - CAL FIRE In round figures, two-thirds of the Plumas County land surface is part of the Plumas and Lassen National Forest. and Lassen Volcanic National Park; the remaining one-third is comprised of privately owned parcels of which a substantial majority are located in what California has designated as this county's State Responsibility Area (SRA). Exceptions to this classification are parcels within Local Responsibility Areas (LRA) that include the lands within the City Limits of Portola, a relatively large area surrounding Chester, two small areas of several blocks each located in Quincy, and small areas near the fire houses in Graeagle, Whitehawk, Beckwourth, and Chilcoot. Plumas County's SRA includes numerous approved subdivisions as well as privately owned forest production and agricultural parcels. The SRA and LRA designations were actually made by CAL FIRE on behalf of the State a number of years ago and every five years that agency is required to revisit and evaluate those classifications. Currently that every five-year evaluation is being implemented in this county. CAL FIRE is also fiscally responsible for protection from and prevention of wildland fires including forested and agricultural lands as well as structures. Superficially it would appear to be a "good thing" that a majority of Plumas County residents' homes are located in designated SRA's. Statewide CAL FIRE has an outstanding reputation for its emergency fire protection services. CAL FIRE's presence in Plumas County is extremely limited. CAL FIRE does not employ any emergency responders, nor does it house any firefighting equipment within our county. The situation occurred almost 20 years ago in 1991 with the adoption of a "Cooperative Fire Management Agreement" (CFMA) between the US Forest Service and CAL FIRE. CAL FIRE traded off its Plumas County acreage emergency services responsibilities to the US Forest Service in exchange for acreage located somewhere else. The missions of the Federal and State agencies are quite different. The US Forest Service attempts to protect the national forests, while CAL FIRE protects forests and also provides structural fire protection in locales where it has an active presence. CAL FIRE does maintain a small administrative presence in Quincy; however, the reality of having a SRA designation is essentially meaningless for our county residents. In designated SRA's, CAL FIRE has the fiscal responsibility for provision of the following services:
Additional Recommendations
17
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Board of Supervisors should continue to fund our airports as they have done in the past. Any operating surplus remaining in the budget should be reinvested in the airports for future growth and improvements.
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends the airports continue to adhere to their high standards of safety, service, and quality. We commend all three managers for their fine work, both in their offices and on the grounds throughout our airport facilities. This award would not have been given without the dedication of airport staff trained in the many procedures ensuring the safety of fuels and the flight line.
R3:
The Grand Jury encourages the Airport Department to continue their compliance with DOT standards. Background Information: Plumas County owns and operates three airports within the county. Rogers Field in Chester, Nervino Airport in Beckwourth, and Gansner Field in Quincy. All three airports handle the typical traffic of private planes, with Rogers Field and Nervino Airport able to land jet aircraft. Airport traffic operates without control towers, but by the use of each pilot's own visual discretion and radio transmissions concerning their intent of takeoff or landing. Runway lights are controlled by radio transmission from the pilot. Fueling is self service, using a card lock system. Hangar and tie down facilities are available at all three airports. Each hangar owner pays their own utilities and is responsible for any upkeep needed on their hangar. Rent is paid to the county for all hangars at a rate of 41 cents per square foot. Property tax and luxury tax is paid to the county each year at a rate of 1%. Charter and sightseeing flights and flight instruction is available at each airport. A light industrial aircraft repair business is operated at Nervino Airport. Rogers Field in Chester has a large building that houses the Chester Fire Department as well as the Chester Public Utilities District. Director of Facility Services The county's Director of Facilities Services also supervises the Airport Department. Seventeen percent of the Director of Facility Services' duties are devoted and budgeted for Airport operations. While supervising the two contract managers who oversee Rogers Field and Nervino Airport, he serves as manager for Gansner Field. Salary and benefits for the Director in his service to the airports is $21,001. Contract Managers Rogers Field and Nervino Airport are supervised by contract managers. These managers also have their own private air service business housed at their airports. Salary and benefits are $18,106. Each manager receives a benefit package and a PERS retirement. Additional income for the Chester manager comes through collecting one half of the profits from fuel sales and all of the tie down fees. Managers are not exempt from paying rent on their hangars or any other fees paid by other pilots. Managers can utilize non-county employees they have hired and trained for airport duties at their own expense. Duties of managers are (some duties may be particular to a given airport and not another): Maintain safe, obstruction-free airport grounds Perform fuel testing Snow removal (estimated time is two hours for every inch of snow) Refueling air attack aircraft
R3a:
The Division should establish a brief but detailed set of instructions for inspectors to apply uniformly for correction of infractions.
R3b:
The Division should establish a standard pattern of rotation for inspectors in such a manner that the same inspector does not conduct more than one of the two inspections of a facility in the same calendar year.
R3c:
The Division should establish a standard schedule of fines or sanctions for reoccurring violations of a consistent nature.
R3d:
The Division should establish a fee for owner/operator requested re-inspections for those owners who want to improve their previous inspection grade.
R4:
Any updated economic development plan completed by the county should take into account the differences between our economic centers and provide specific objectives to assist them in developing and growing their economies.
R5:
Plumas County should ensure that economic development is an essential component of the General Plan update. This critical element must be a high priority. City of Portola
R6:
The City should set priorities and employ an economic development professional to recommend implementation strategies. Plumas County and City of Portola--Collaboration
R7:
The timing is right for the county to make sure the Economic Development Element of its General Plan is compatible with the city's updated element. The city and the county should collaborate to develop compatible economic development plans and provide countywide leadership to attract new businesses and industry. Both should consider sharing the cost of an economic development professional for mutually beneficial projects.
R8:
The Grand Jury feels that much can be gained by the two governments working together on the city's Sphere of Influence. Plumas County and the City of Portola must come together to agree upon an updated Sphere of Influence for the city. Advance sales tax and hotel tax sharing agreements between the two governments should be considered to facilitate moving forward on development projects which could help our economy grow. Background Information: In researching economic development in Plumas County, the Grand Jury determined that all of the following governments and agencies are involved in promoting the economy and use some local public funds to accomplish their programs: Chambers of Commerce: Chester/Lake Almanor, Eastern Plumas, Indian Valley and
R01-02:
Agriculture Commissioner Χ Airport Operations
R02-03:
01-02 Х Fair Farm Advisor Х Feather River College Fire Management Х Health Dept./Environmental Health Х (Plumas Co Public Health Agency) Χ Hospital Districts
R95-96:
98-99 Auditor/Controller
R98-99:
Х District Attorney Facility Services
R99-00:
Human Resources Х investigation
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
Beckwourth FPD 1. C-Road CSD
F2:
There is no clear way for landowners to ascertain if their property taxes are paying for fire protection services.
F3:
City of Portola FPD 3. Greenhorn CSD
F4:
Crescent Mills FPD 4. Indian Valley CSD
F5:
Eastern Plumas FPD 5. Long Valley CSD
F6:
Graeagle FPD 6. Plumas Eureka CSD
F7:
Hamilton Branch FPD 7. West Almanor CSD
F11:
Prattville-Almanor FPD
F13:
Sierra Valley FPD It is generally understood that there are two critically important elements to successfully protect structures from being destroyed by fire. The first is proximity to and services received from fire protection service providers. The hallmark descriptor is universally understood to be response time, or how long will it take emergency fire protection staff and equipment to arrive at an incident. The second essential necessity in the saving of persons’ property from structural fire is an immediately available emergency water supply. Current structural fire fighting vehicles here in Plumas County pump water at a rate of 1,000 gallons per minute and require sustained water flows approximating one hour to save a typical residential structure; that would amount to a sustained water supply of 60,000 gallons per pumper truck. There was consensus among fire experts providing testimony that Plumas County could support one to five fire emergency services districts. Those fire and emergency service providers are needed to protect all parcels and structures within the County. Clearly, increasing the number of districts is not what the experts have recommended, nor would it be cost effective. Plumas County Fire Safe Council Individual wildland fires cause the most property destruction of all categories of fire emergencies. All Californians, as well as Plumas County residents, will not soon forget the Oakland Hills Inferno, the Malibu Canyons wildfires, or the very recent Angora Fire located in the South Lake Tahoe Basin that destroyed 309 residential and business structures. Etched in everyone’s memories are those vivid televised images of block after block of destroyed buildings. Wildland fires occur in what has been termed a community-at-risk (CAR). All Plumas County communities are communities-at-risk. Typically homeowners prize these zones as they represent the aesthetically attractive midpoint between the edge of suburbia and most typically beautiful forested areas. Hilly terrain offering premium vistas are frequently a distinct asset of a community-at-risk. Unfortunately, extreme fire hazards are commonly ignored by individuals purchasing property in these zones. Here in Plumas County one voluntary organization, the Fire Safe Council, has made tremendous strides by developing a model that mitigates the wildland fire danger inherent to all community-at-risk zones. The Grand Jury found that the use and enforcement of fire codes and standards varies depending on whether they are being applied to a structure (homes, outbuildings, and commercial buildings), to the area immediately surrounding a structure (defensible space, access roads, turnarounds, fuel tanks and emergency water for fighting fires) or to the nearby wildlands (national and private forests as well as grasslands). In Plumas County, responsibility for prevention and mitigation of hazardous fire conditions in forests next to family residences belongs to the US Forest Service, if the forest is a national forest. If the forest is privately owned, it is the responsibility of the landowner with the possibility of additional assistance from a private, nongovernmental organization, the Plumas County Fire Safe Council. Thousands of Plumas County residents’ homes are located in or next to forests, in what has been termed communities-at-risk. The overriding concern facing homeowners located in this environment is the threat of wildland fire. While the State of California has enacted legislation extending the defensible space perimeter requirement around homes from 30 to 100 feet, wildland fires represent an even greater threat than ever before to homeowners in forested areas. This is because most forests have not benefited from naturally occurring, periodic forest fires that consumed naturally occurring fuels. This hazardous situation has been compounded as the number of 37 homes being built in the forest interface has rapidly increased during the last 10 to 15 years. During the past several years the Plumas County Fire Safe Council (PCFSC) has developed grant funded projects that have served groups of homeowners, homeowners associations, and other groups in mitigating or reducing the quantity of wildland fire fuels on our forest floors. These projects thin forested areas, remove fire ladder vegetation that frequently leads to devastating crown fires in addition to removing combustible materials that result in healthier, safer and more attractive forested areas. In summary, these projects provide a responsible alternative to periodic wildfires. The Mission Statement of the PCFSC is: To reduce the loss of natural and manmade resources caused by wildfire through Firewise community programs and pre-fire activities. The Council maintains an informative webpage: Fire Services - CAL FIRE In round figures, two-thirds of the Plumas County land surface is part of the Plumas and Lassen National Forest. and Lassen Volcanic National Park; the remaining one-third is comprised of privately owned parcels of which a substantial majority are located in what California has designated as this county’s State Responsibility Area (SRA). Exceptions to this classification are parcels within Local Responsibility Areas (LRA) that include the lands within the City Limits of Portola, a relatively large area surrounding Chester, two small areas of several blocks each located in Quincy, and small areas near the fire houses in Graeagle, Whitehawk, Beckwourth, and Chilcoot. Plumas County’s SRA includes numerous approved subdivisions as well as privately owned forest production and agricultural parcels. The SRA and LRA designations were actually made by CAL FIRE on behalf of the State a number of years ago and every five years that agency is required to revisit and evaluate those classifications. Currently that every five-year evaluation is being implemented in this county. CAL FIRE is also fiscally responsible for protection from and prevention of wildland fires including forested and agricultural lands as well as structures. Superficially it would appear to be a “good thing” that a majority of Plumas County residents’ homes are located in designated SRA’s. Statewide CAL FIRE has an outstanding reputation for its emergency fire protection services. CAL FIRE’s presence in Plumas County is extremely limited. CAL FIRE does not employ any emergency responders, nor does it house any firefighting equipment within our county. The situation occurred almost 20 years ago in 1991 with the adoption of a “Cooperative Fire Management Agreement” (CFMA) between the US Forest Service and CAL FIRE. CAL FIRE traded off its Plumas County acreage emergency services responsibilities to the US Forest Service in exchange for acreage located somewhere else. The missions of the Federal and State agencies are quite different. The US Forest Service attempts to protect the national forests, while CAL FIRE protects forests and also provides structural fire protection in locales where it has an active presence. CAL FIRE does maintain a small administrative presence in Quincy; however, the reality of having a SRA designation is essentially meaningless for our county residents. In designated SRA’s, CAL FIRE has the fiscal responsibility for provision of the following services:
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
Once individual private wells are permitted and approved, no other monitoring or testing is done unless the owner requests it. With 10,000 to 11,000 septic systems in the county, some of them quite old, can we assume the well water is not affected?
F2:
Private wells fed by aquifers within the County are only tested for coliform bacteria. Metal contamination and other microbial contamination are not tested. If mercury is found in lakes and streams, is it in our well water?
F3:
Because of non existing recordkeeping during earlier years, there are an undetermined number of water wells existing within the county without documentation as to their location.
F4:
With new developments larger than 200 water connections, the EHD is not involved in evaluating the quality or quantity of the source of water proposed by the developer and sanctioned by the state, until after the development is approved. As it is 27 now, there is no one within the county who evaluates whether the state is doing an adequate job of assuring there is enough water available for the development.
F5:
There is a history of developments gaining approval without demonstrating that the proposed water source is sufficient to provide for both residential water, and water for fire protection of the development.
F6:
Realistically, the water quality of our lakes and streams is fragile to say the least. There are multiple county agencies, departments and community groups that oversee that fact. This Grand Jury believes that maintaining the quality of above- ground water is also the task of each individual that lives here and those who come to enjoy the beauty and recreate.
F7:
Once a septic system is installed, there is no requirement for ongoing monitoring. There is no requirement for periodic pumping of septic tanks.
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Each Individual aquifer should be tested for contamination periodically on a schedule determined by the EHD.
R2:
The EHD should also test well water from each aquifer within the county for the following potentially toxic metals: Antimony, Arsenic, Beryllium, Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Lead, Mercury, Nickel, Selenium, Silver, Thallium and Zinc. This is especially relevant in an area such as Plumas County with a history of mining. Additionally, because of increased development and agricultural activity, testing should be done for a broader spectrum of disease producing microbes.
R4:
This Grand Jury strongly recommends that the EHD be actively involved in the Planning Department’s approval process to independently evaluate all aspects of the water quality and quantity proposed by the development to assure that the water source for the development is adequate and won’t adversely affect another. This would lessen the chance of a development being approved without sufficient water, as has happened in the past.
R5:
The Board of Supervisors should not approve any development without the EHD first evaluating and certifying that the proposed water source for both domestic and emergency fire protection use is sufficient.
R6:
The EHD and other agencies should develop a public relations campaign to raise awareness that our lakes and streams are fragile.
R7:
The Board of Supervisors, through the EHD, should establish a countywide requirement for mandatory pumping of septic tanks when a property is sold, and actively inform residents of the need to pump their septic systems every three to five years. Background Information: In Plumas County the Environmental Health Division of the Plumas County Public Health Agency has the responsibility for drinking water protection and determining sufficient quantities of water for individual wells and wells for development up to 199 connections. As indicated in their 2009 Annual Report, in 2005 their Division was certified as the Local Primacy Agency (LPA) by the California Department of Health. This allowed water system purveyors and operators a local contact and resource in helping to protect drinking water quality. Again, from their Annual Report, the EHD monitors 139 drinking water systems throughout the county. These include non- community systems, such as resorts and campgrounds, small systems serving less than 15 connections, and community systems with up to 199 connections. Whenever drinking water does not meet established standards, the system operator must advise its customers, and when there is an immediate risk to human health, the operator must issue a Boil Water Advisory. The EHD also partners with the California Department of Fish and Game, a sub group to the Almanor Basin Watershed Advisory Committee that monitors Lake Almanor water 28 quality, and other water quality organizations to help protect lakes, streams and groundwater water supplies. One example of this was in 2008, when the EHD completed the 10th and final year of well testing as a result of the 1997 pike eradication project. In 2007, they began year one of a new ten year testing cycle for chemicals used in the 2007 treatment. Also in 2008, the EHD received Department of Public Health accreditation for water quality testing. The EHD offers certified water quality analysis for coliform bacteria and E. coli. The EHD’s Annual Report for 2008 goes on to say that this service supplements the nearest private laboratory options in Chico or Reno. It is available for wells, springs, or surface water, making the analyses useful for routine water quality checks for private sources or to help pinpoint contamination problems with public water systems. Within the permitting process for wells and septic systems, the EHD insures that wells are at least 50 feet from a septic tank, and at least 100 feet from leach lines. After permitting for wells and septic systems for individual private connections, there is no monitoring by the EHD. If there are problems, the EHD will act in a consulting manner to help correct the problem, but there is no county or state requirement for monitoring. There is also no requirement for periodic pumping of septic tanks. The EHD has recommendations and flyers that encourage pumping every 3-5 years, but there are no recommendations to make it mandatory. With septic systems that feed into a common leach field, the threshold for installation requirement goes up. With 2 connections the threshold goes higher, and when it reaches 5, the Regional Water Control Board takes over the permitting process and perhaps ongoing monitoring. With individual private wells, for the permit process, the individual will do well to follow the information in the County’s “Well Manual—Information on the Well Installation and Permit Process.” It mentions water supply that meets the ground water well standards, where to locate it, the type of material to use in drilling, how to put on a sanitary seal, and other such things. The individual submits an application which, when completed, spells out what the person wants to do. The application then goes to the EHD, and if it is complete, they have a set of administrative standards to meet, standards that consider the well’s distance from septic tanks and leach fields, and how far wells can be from creeks, rivers, and lakes. If the individual can meet the various criteria, the EHD issues the permit. A community well is one that is used by several units like a resort or campground. There is a one stop permitting agreement with the Building Department and behind the scenes various county agencies look at their piece of the process. Once the application reaches the EHD, permitting is basically an administrative process. With a development, permitting depends on the size of the development, the density, and the developer’s proposal. Approval depends on the county’s general plan and the zoning requirements. If a development is proposed in a “prime opportunity” area, the developer will have to connect to a community water system. In this case the developer will need a “Will Serve” letter from the district, stating that the community system has 29 the quantity and quality of water to meet their needs. The developer will get their “Will Serve” letter which satisfies the water needs for the development. Depending on the number of connections of the development, the criteria for permitting and approval gets more stringent. If the development is 5 or more connections, it becomes a classification called a “State Small Water System.” The EHD refers to those standards to determine what infrastructure is needed. It would become more sophisticated with more chemical monitoring and other things. The next higher threshold is 15 or more connections, and each time the criteria for approval gets more involved. The EHD is the regulatory body of developments with up to 199 connections. At 200 connections it falls under the jurisdiction of the California Department of Health. If the development is proposed for over 200 connections, the EHD will administer and monitor the development until 200 connections are made. With a “new” development of over 200 connections, the EHD would function as the local liaison without any further involvement in the decision making process. They would field questions by the developer and try to connect them with the state, but they wouldn’t have direct responsibilities for the development other than seeing that the reports were filed and that some of the conditions put upon the development are in place. With developments over 200 connections, the approval process starts with the Plumas County Planning Department. When the developer starts to develop property, the Planning Department looks at all the issues. They will look at traffic, air quality, water supply and liquid waste, all items under the California Environmental Quality Act. The Planning Department is the hub that supplies these coordinating services. The water supply is just one stroke. The ultimate responsibility, authority, and jurisdiction are under the California Department of Health. The parties work directly with the Planning Department. Any comment the EHD would make would be indicating that the development is under the jurisdiction of the California Department of Health. The Planning Department has the responsibility to compile all of the process into the Environmental Impact Report, distributed for public comment. The document must then be approved by the Planning Department with any additional conditions required for approval. The EHD is not involved with the original permitting and approval process for these large water systems. However, once all the planning and all the agreements are satisfied, then the EHD is the local permitting agency and the responsible agency for enforcement of state regulations for that system, from 15 to 199 connections until it goes beyond that number, despite the fact that they have no input during the approval process. The EHD gets concurrence from the California Department of Health, drawing from the state’s expertise when necessary. The EHD relies on information from the hydrologist, for the kind of pump tests, the duration, and qualitative issues, referring to the California Department of Health when there are questions. Procedure: The Grand Jury obtained information about the Environmental Health Division from the 2008 General Fund Budget publication. We also have the Plumas County Public Health Agency Environmental Health Division Annual Report for 2008. There is much 30 information about the EHD and its program on their web site (www.countyofplumas.com/publichealth/envhealth). The EHD’s Director has supplied manuals and information pamphlets about water wells and septic systems installations and permitting processes. The Grand Jury has obtained much information by interviewing the EHD Director about the approval process for wells and septic systems, and the kind of oversight and control the EHD has or doesn’t have over the existence and life of such projects. The Grand Jury has also obtained information from interviews with the Directors of both the County Planning and Building Departments and took time to question the Director of the Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District to learn how his organization affects Plumas County water. The Grand Jury wants to determine the effectiveness of the EHD’s involvement in keeping our county’s domestic water safe, and assuring that informed judgments are made in determining if there is sufficient water supply for individual and development needs. Conclusion: The Grand Jury wishes to express its appreciation to the Director and staff of the Environmental Health Division for their cooperation in our investigation. The EHD has charge of many programs, all related to the health and safety of County citizens. As we all look to our county’s future and “where we are going,” the Environmental Health Division must take on this Grand Jury’s role as “watch dog” to protect and sustain those qualities of life that make Plumas County such a desirable place to live. 31
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
The Grand Jury Audit Committee members found it very helpful to meet the independent auditor and county officials early on in our terms and to learn firsthand about the audit process.
F2:
In January, the County Auditor/Controller provided a very rough electronic draft of the pending financial statements to the two Grand Jury members participating in the Audit Committee. The draft was difficult to follow and understand. It was not feasible for the Grand Jury members to provide comments based upon that draft. The final audit report was not made available to the Grand Jury until the final audit review meeting. 48
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
County Administrator’s Office
F2:
Board of Supervisors
F4:
No organization in Plumas County discloses with certainty if a parcel is located in a fire protection district.
F5:
County Building Department
F6:
Local Agency Formation Commission
F7:
Local Fire Protection and Community Service Districts
F8:
Plumas County Emergency Services Advisory Committee
F9:
All websites associated with the above agencies
F10:
May 1 Power-Point Presentation made to Plumas County firefighters by Ray Zachau, Division Chief, Fire Marshal, South Lake Tahoe Fire Department: The 2007 Angora Fire & What Went Wrong Documents reviewed by the committee: California Master Cooperative Wildland Fire Management and Stafford Act Response Agreement, March 28, 2008 Cooperative Fire Protection Agreement / Operating Plan (Between US Forest Service and … CAL FIRE) May 15, 2009 Plumas County Final Budget for 2009-2010 and previous years Members of the Board of Supervisors concurrently serving as Directors of local CSD Boards, LAFCo Board of Directors, and as employers of critical County Department Administrative Officials Multiple Large Scale GIS County Maps prepared by Planning Department Staff Plumas County Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission November 10, 2009, Workshop focused on the new County General Plan California Association of Realtors®: STATEWIDE BUYER AND SELLER ADVISORY, SBSA Revised 4/07, (front and back) of 10 (e.g., standard form “disclosures”) 46
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Board of Supervisors is urged to adopt ordinances requiring stringent minimum standards that developers must meet prior to Subdivision Master Plan approval that include: A signed contract for fire protection services Installed fire protection infrastructure and equipment Sufficient emergency water supplies Background: A major concern examined by the 2009-2010 Plumas County Grand Jury is the provision of fire protection and fire prevention services in this county. Specifically investigated were the County Building and Planning Departments. The Grand Jury found that the use and enforcement of fire codes and standards varies depending on whether they are being applied to a structure (homes, outbuildings, and commercial buildings), to the area immediately surrounding a structure (defensible space, access roads, turnarounds, fuel tanks and emergency water for fighting fires) or to the nearby wildlands (national and private forests as well as grasslands). The Grand Jury found that a large number of parcels (4,631) have been approved for building construction and occupancy located outside of fire protection districts. Homeowners and business owners are likely unaware that in the event their structures catch fire, there are no fire fighters mandated to respond and fight that fire. The Grand Jury asked how new subdivisions and residences get approved in areas where there is no entity responsible for fighting a fire, should a home catch fire. We studied the processes employed by developers, working with county officials and the Board of Supervisors, to gain approvals for fire protection services. This included provision of emergency water supplies. After a developer acquires land outside of a fire protection district (FPD), one of the requirements of a plan for further subdivision and construction is that there be fire protection. The Board of Supervisor requests the Local Area Formation Commission (LAFCo) to either (a) create a new Community Services District (CSD), or (b) approve annexation to an existing fire protection district (FPD). Either alternative meets the requirement for approval. If a new CSD is formed, the Board of Supervisors by statute becomes the Board of Directors of the new district. They have authorized the new CSD to operate a fire department, but without the specific responsibility to provide fire protection or the requirement for knowledgeable employees and minimal equipment to fight a structural fire. Unfortunately, this is sufficient for the approval process of the development. At this point, it is the Board of Supervisors and their key employees (Planning, Building, and Environmental Health Departments) that must decide whether this CSD is capable of providing fire service and sufficient emergency water to fight a fire. If annexation is 41 the approved option, then the plan can go through the entire approval process without any formal agreements or contracts for fire protection or the provision of water service. In the case of annexation as authorized by LAFCo, it is noted that the LAFCo Board is chaired by a member of the County Board of Supervisors; seated on that Board is a second member of the Board of Supervisors and each of these individuals has a designated alternate that is also a Board of Supervisors member. Evaluation of the plans for compliance of nonstructural state fire codes is the responsibility of the CSD that probably has no qualified employees, or a volunteer Fire Chief with little time to review plans before the approval deadline. The key players in the process of new development approval are (1) the developer, (2) the Board of Supervisors, (3) the Local Area Formation Commission, and (4) key county staff persons who report to and are evaluated by the Board of Supervisors. The Planning Department is charged with responsibility for approving the subdivision of a parcel into lots for single-family residences, multiple housing units, and/or commercial units from what formerly was a single land parcel. The problem involves a developer acquiring land outside of any established fire protection districts authorized to provide fire protection services. To obtain subdivision approval the developer follows one of two scenarios to obtain fire protection and water services. Scenario #1: LAFCo approves annexation of a parcel adjacent to a FPD and/or CSD which has the authorization to operate a fire department. All county fire protection entities are volunteer organizations at the time annexation is approved, which may or may not have facilities, professional employees or resources. This annexation option is a relatively new choice for developers. Scenario #2: LAFCo, following a resolution by the Plumas County Board of Supervisors, requested by the developer, establishes a new CSD with responsibility for providing potable and emergency water supplies, sewage disposal, and authority to operate a fire department. This CSD has no resources, employees, or facilities, but will manage the facilities produced by the developer once the development is completed. Because there are no full time residents within the new development or the new district, the Board of Directors of this entity is composed of the members of the County Board of Supervisors, a role that is mandated by law. The County Director of Public Works serves as the General Manager of the District; within the recent past the developer was selected to serve in this role. In both scenarios the Development Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) cite the FPD and water service provider proposed for annexation or the new CSD as the source of fire protection and water and sewer services. The Plumas County Planning Director is responsible for overall assessment and approval of the EIR and Development Plan and for overseeing evaluations made by state agencies in the case of larger subdivisions. The Planning Director refers the Plan to the Building Department for compliance with Building Codes as might be 42 applicable. The EIR and Development Plan are referred to the Environmental Health Director for assessment of water and sewage plans. To establish whether the Plan complies with non-structural fire codes (roads, turnarounds, emergency water supply, etc.), it is sent to the FPD or CSD with a short turnaround deadline and default approval if no response is provided. Ultimately, the Planning Director, who also serves as the County’s Zoning Administrator, is charged with approving the Development Plan and EIR and then submitting his recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for final evaluation and approval. In most cases, the Board of Supervisors also sits as the Board of Directors of the new CSD as well as having responsibility for reviewing the performance of the Planning, Environmental Health, and Public Works Directors, setting their respective compensation, and approving each of the Department’s operating budgets. The Grand Jury believes the department directors’ close subordinate relationship to the Board of Supervisors creates an unreasonable position for senior staff. It also has potential to interfere with the Board providing objective oversight. Today there is a critical need for local county-elected and appointed officials to begin restructuring this County’s former dependence upon on-going, essentially “rubber stamped” master plan subdivision approvals that historically generated an increasing property tax revenue stream that supported the County’s menu of services perceived to benefit the local resident population. Concurrent with the bursting of the national housing and real estate “bubble” beginning in 2004-2005, the County Chief Administrative Officer has observed and reported a new and distressing five-year or possibly longer trend in declining revenues associated with declining property values and associated assessed valuations. Early in its investigation of structural fire protection this Grand Jury learned that subdivision master plans approved by the Planning Department prior to 1991 had no requirement to be included in a local district providing fire protection services. The rationale offered focused on the potential expense to that category of parcel owners in gaining access to such services. Apparently omitted from any consideration was the number of years that lapsed prior to subdivision build out; in Plumas County subdivision build out timelines stretch 20 or more years for most developments. During those extended periods of years many things are subject to change except the absence of structural fire protection services. Now that Plumas County property owners have entered the 21st Century, it is clearly time for this past practice to be corrected for the good of all. There is a related concern as subdivision master plans continue to be approved within Plumas County. Almost without exception with each approval action the Board of Supervisors authorizes yet another small community water service utility with primary responsibility for emergency water supplies. Most often these developer recommended districts are proposed to serve very limited numbers of parcels in the range of 100 to 600. In fact, such subdivision approvals have created a needless proliferation of local utility districts that cannot economically provide minimal essential services. As subdivision master plans continue to be approved within Plumas County the result is a continued proliferation of small FPDs or CFDs that are supposed to provide emergency fire protection services; in most cases the fact that these new districts are scaled to the subdivision proposed size renders them too small to be operated on a cost effective basis not dissimilar to the community water districts referenced above. Board of Supervisors
R4:
The Board of Supervisors will mandate that: The Planning Department will disclose fire protection status for every parcel in the County (including fire protection district name or “no district”). The Building Department will require written acknowledgement of that status from a property owner who applies for a building permit. All sellers of real estate disclose fire protection status for any real estate sale in the county. Background: Reference Fire Services, Development and
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
The County is not focused on economic development, as defined by the Grand Jury. The Board of Supervisors relies entirely on Plumas Corporation and the local Chambers of Commerce to set priorities and direction for economic development and tourism marketing.
F2:
The County is not providing stable or enough funding to support ongoing economic development. There is a tendency to decrease funding for economic development and tourism promotion when the economy is in a downturn. This is evidenced by recent across-the-board budget cuts.
F3:
Plumas County has no contractual obligations attached to its use of public funds for economic development. In the 2009-2010 Plumas County budget, Plumas Corporation received over $230,000. There is no formal accountability mechanism in place.
F4:
Because of the unique geography in Plumas County, regional economic centers exist: Almanor Basin, Blairsden-Graeagle, Eastern Plumas, Greenville, and Quincy. Each center has its own distinctive qualities and economies but all fall under the jurisdiction of the county.
F5:
The Board of Supervisors has hired consultants and the General Plan update is moving toward completion in 2011. Yet Plumas County has not contracted with the current General Plan consultants to include the optional Economic Development Element.
F6:
The City of Portola has an Economic Development Element in its General Plan, and the city documents the status of each implementation measure. However, there are measures listed for which no progress is shown.
F7:
The Grand Jury saw little evidence in our investigation that Plumas County and the City of Portola have made an effort to collaborate on economic development.
F8:
As defined by the Government Code, “Sphere of Influence” is a plan for the probable physical boundaries and service area of a local agency. The City of Portola is in the process of updating and redefining its Sphere of Influence and needs cooperation and support from the county to get this done.
Additional Recommendations
8
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Board of Supervisors should take a leadership role by defining and implementing an economic development policy and program to include planning, funding, implementing, and monitoring economic development in the county. The Grand Jury recommends that the county employ an economic development coordinator to focus on business recruitment and follow through on an economic development plan.
R2:
The Board of Supervisors should recognize that economic development is a high priority for Plumas County and fund it accordingly to ensure resilience as the economy improves.
R3:
The County should execute an annual contract with Plumas Corporation for each year’s economic development program. A formal contract should include a detailed scope of work and benchmarks for success which can be validated.
R4:
Any updated economic development plan completed by the county should take into account the differences between our economic centers and provide specific objectives to assist them in developing and growing their economies.
R5:
Plumas County should ensure that economic development is an essential component of the General Plan update. This critical element must be a high priority. City of Portola
R6:
The City should set priorities and employ an economic development professional to recommend implementation strategies. Plumas County and City of Portola--Collaboration
R7:
The timing is right for the county to make sure the Economic Development Element of its General Plan is compatible with the city’s updated element. The city and the county should collaborate to develop compatible economic development plans and provide countywide leadership to attract new businesses and industry. Both should consider sharing the cost of an economic development professional for mutually beneficial projects.
R8:
The Grand Jury feels that much can be gained by the two governments working together on the city’s Sphere of Influence. Plumas County and the City of Portola must come together to agree upon an updated Sphere of Influence for the city. Advance sales tax and hotel tax sharing agreements between the two governments should be considered to facilitate moving forward on development projects which could help our economy grow. Background Information: In researching economic development in Plumas County, the Grand Jury determined that all of the following governments and agencies are involved in promoting the economy and use some local public funds to accomplish their programs: ●Chambers of Commerce: Chester/Lake Almanor, Eastern Plumas, Indian Valley and Quincy ●City of Portola ●Plumas Corporation/Plumas County Visitor’s Bureau ●Plumas County There are no statutes on the books requiring governments to get involved in economic development. It is not a core service, such as, police protection, road maintenance, or social services; however, city and county officials can play an important role in fostering and maintaining a diversified economy. They can shore up the local economy by 16 funding economic development programs, improving infrastructure, i.e., roads, water and sewer services, devising clear, concise and timely land use policies, and creating a business-friendly atmosphere. Plumas County The Chair of the Board of Supervisors informed the Grand Jury that the county does not have a countywide economic development plan; however, our research indicates that there is a plan which was completed by Plumas Corporation and approved by the Board of Supervisors on October 22, 2002. Instead of systematically implementing their plan, the Board of Supervisors promotes economic development in other ways. They participate in organizational meetings related to economic development within and outside of the county. Periodically, the Board approves economic incentives to help stimulate the economy. Recently, for example, the county waived the development impact fee that was imposed on all building permits. The Board also supports various development projects which benefit their constituents. A variety of mixed commercial/residential subdivisions have been approved by the Board of Supervisors throughout the county in the last decade. Some of these projects are not built out as planned, and with the downturn in the economy, some are struggling to stay afloat. The county does not have clearly defined land use policies in place for potential developments because its 1981 General Plan is outdated. The State has granted a two-year extension of the Plan, and the county has hired consultants to implement the updating process. Some development projects have been placed on hold until that process is completed in 2011. In addition to the seven required elements of the General Plan, there are three additional elements which the county can contract with the consultants to complete. One of those is the Economic Element. Plumas Corporation Our research indicates that the Board of Supervisors relies solely upon Plumas Corporation for promotion of tourism and strategic economic development planning. This non-profit was first incorporated in 1983 as a lobbying entity with the specific purpose of promoting the expansion of the county’s economic base. According to the 2007 revision of its bylaws, in addition to promoting economic vitality, it now also promotes good land stewardship. Eighty percent of the agency’s 2009 budget was dedicated to erosion control and fire safe programs. Plumas Corporation does some long range planning for economic development and provides economic indicators and other data each year for the Board of Supervisors. The agency produced a sixty-eight page Economic Development Strategy plan in 2002 for the county and currently is in the process of updating that document. The agency also uses some of the county funding to apply for grants and to interface with other agencies involved in economic development inside and outside of the county. There is no contract in place between the county and Plumas Corporation. The non-profit files an annual independent auditor’s report with the County Administrator’s Office. Plumas County Visitors Bureau The Plumas County Visitors Bureau, which is under the umbrella of Plumas Corporation, receives a major share of the county’s funding for economic development. According to the Plumas Corporation Director, it is the county’s official destination marketing organization. Essentially, the staff promotes tourism by marketing Plumas County’s tourist events, recreational opportunities, and natural resources all over the country through electronic and print advertising. Their annual report and strategic marketing plan, available on their website, give a comprehensive view of what they do. They are housed in the same building as Plumas Corporation. Chambers of Commerce The county contributes funds each year to the Chambers of Commerce: Chester/Lake Almanor, Eastern Plumas, Indian Valley, and Quincy. These are non-profit dues paying associations. They support local businesses through advertising and the production of local events which draw customers for their members. The Chambers’ events bring out- of-towners into the county, thus increasing the levels of hotel and sales tax revenues and generating profits for local businesses. Their focus on supporting local businesses and promoting tourism contributes to the overall economic health of the county. The businesses they support create and sustain local jobs and are an important component of economic development. City of Portola Although there are several economic centers in the county with which we are all familiar, such as Chester, Greenville, Blairsden-Graeagle, and Quincy, the City of Portola is the only incorporated city with its own municipal government. The city is responsible for its own economic development plan. The city’s General Plan was completed in 2001 with land use projections valid to 2020. The Planning Commission is currently completing a ten-year update. The City’s General Plan includes the Economic Development Element which clearly defines the city’s plan for economic development and includes nine pages of policies and implementation guidelines. The Element includes such implementation measures as: developing an incentive program for industries, preparing an inventory of the local resources to assist in marketing the area to prospective new employers, preparing a target industries study, establishing a set of standards and “quality of life” criteria for attracting new businesses, working more closely with the schools to establish job training and vocational education programs, and appointing an economic development coordinator. The city played the leadership role in the proposed development of the Woodbridge at Portola Project, a 400 acre master planned community with a village center, which will provide up to 945 high, medium, and low density residential units and 60 commercial/mixed use dwellings. The city purchased, prepared and then sold the land for the Woodbridge project to the developer which produced a net profit for the city of approximately $3.8 million. The city also worked diligently to convince Nestlé’s Bottled Water Company to take advantage of the city’s five natural springs, located on city- owned property, by situating a bottling plant in Portola. If successful, up to 150 new jobs could be created. Funding Streams: Plumas County As discussed above, the county accomplishes its economic development programs through local non-profits. The current budget for these programs totals $350,112. The following information explains briefly who gets the money and how it is spent. Plumas Corporation Plumas Corporation received $28,500 for economic development planning and activities administered by the Executive Director. This amount covers 10% of the Executive Director’s salary and 20% of an administrative assistant. Non-personnel costs, such as technical assistance from Sierra Business Council, marketing through Upstate California EDC, and travel, make up the remaining 70%. Plumas County Visitors Bureau Plumas Corporation received $208,990, which is dedicated to tourism activities carried out by one of its divisions, the Plumas County Visitors Bureau. This contribution pays for 2.75 staff positions, print advertising, internet marketing, publications, promotional supplies, mailers and general administration services provided by Plumas Corporation at a cost of $36,239 budgeted for the current year. Chambers of Commerce The Chambers of Commerce - Chester/Lake Almanor, Indian Valley, Eastern Plumas and Quincy - each got an equal share of $28,155.50 for fiscal year 2009/2010. The Chambers’ income is generated by members’ dues, fundraising events, and annual funding from the county. The county funding to these agencies supports part-time paid staff, except for the Chester/Lake Almanor Chamber which has no paid staff, basic operating costs, and some of the many activities that they sponsor. All of the Chambers depend on their dedicated volunteers to help keep costs down. City of Portola The city doesn’t have a specific budget for economic development. They support individual projects as needed. They do have a $3.8 million reserve which can be tapped for economic development. Additionally, the City Manager informed the Grand Jury that the city may receive up to $3 million in settlement funds from the State for business and revenue losses due to the Pike Eradication Project. Some of those funds will be used to repair the economic damage done to Portola by the project. Revenue In researching how economic development programs might be financed, the Hotel Tax was identified as a related revenue source. Cities and counties have the authority to levy a tax on hotels, inns, tourist homes, motels, or other lodging. Plumas County levies a tax of 9% on tourists when they stay in local lodgings. This tax generated $1,152,277 last year. Monies budgeted by the county for economic development programs and tourism promotion for the current fiscal year represent 30.7% of the anticipated Hotel Tax revenue. While the actual revenue from the Hotel Tax increased 16.8% from fiscal 19 year 2001-2002 to 2008-2009, the amount of funding for tourism promotion decreased 20.2% during that same time period. The City of Portola also collects Hotel Tax, but it is not a significant revenue source as they have only one motel within the city limits. Some grant revenues may also become available from time to time for specific projects for the county, the city and the economic centers located throughout the county. Most of those grant dollars are obtained by Plumas Corporation on behalf of the county and by the city manager and city staff on behalf of the city. The grants may fund such projects as landscaping downtown areas. Procedure: In researching this matter, the Grand Jury obtained information from the following sources and from their websites: ●Board of Supervisors/County Administrator’s Office/County Planning Department ●Chambers of Commerce of Chester/Lake Almanor, Eastern Plumas, Indian Valley, and Quincy ●City of Portola ●Feather River Bulletin ●Plumas Corporation/Plumas County Visitors Bureau Documents reviewed included: ●Chambers of Commerce Budget and Expenditure Reports ●City of Portola Budget, Audit Report, Economic Development Element, Special Project Reports and Studies ●Plumas Corporation Audits, Annual Reviews, Budget Requests, Economic Development Plans and Reports, Marketing Plans ●Plumas County Budgets, General Plan Consultant’s Proposal and Contract The Grand Jury interviewed: ●Chair of the Plumas County Board of Supervisors ●City Manager of the City of Portola ●County Administrator of Plumas County ●Directors and/or Members of Boards of Directors of the Chambers of Commerce ●Plumas Corporation’s Executive Director Conclusion: This recession is a wakeup call for all of us. We need to start today to plan for a successful economic recovery. Tomorrow may be too late. It is time for Plumas County and the City of Portola to take the lead in economic development and to form a partnership for the common good of our citizens. No matter where economic development occurs, we will all benefit by increased revenues and taxes to support the services, infrastructure and economy in our county. 20
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The procedure for booking and detaining arrestees is secure and efficient. Because of the inadequate staffing, the exercise areas are potentially problematic. The workout room can hold only 20 inmates at a time with one officer monitoring them. The exercise yard has only one officer monitoring of 35 inmates at a time. This ratio is totally inadequate for individuals with violent and/or psychotic proclivities.
F2:
The grievance process for inmates seemed to be adequate. Concerns of the inmates are appropriately addressed and dealt with.
F3:
Programs offered at the jail include: educational, religious, medical/dental and mental health. Not offered, because of a lack of need for them or as a result of the minimal time spent at the facility, (all inmates are released within one year) are programs concerned with; vocational, domestic violence, victim/gang, diversity awareness and work furlough activities.
F4:
Is the complaint involved in litigation? No Yes
F5:
Should we contact any other agencies or persons? (Please give names, addresses, phone numbers, etc.)
F6:
What action do you think the Grand Jury should take? Signature: IT IS A CRIME TO REPORT TO THE GRAND JURY THAT A CRIME HAS BEEN COMMITTED KNOWING THE REPORT TO BE FALSE. (Penal Code No. 148.5.d) ATTACH COPIES OF PERTINENT DOCUMENTS AND CORRESPONDENCE (USE AND ATTACH ADDITIONAL SHEETS IF NECESSARY) The Grand Jury may also review and acknowledge all written, dated and signed citizen complaints. Within the time allowed by its established investigatory priorities, the Grand Jury may investigate complaints where appropriate. All complaints are treated confidentially. This applies to the written documents as well as the testimony of witnesses and participants. The complainant may be asked to appear as a witness. Note should be made that the sitting panel functions only as a civil Grand Jury and does not deal with criminal matters. If a complaint appears to involve the criminal court system, the matter is handed over to the office of the District Attorney for review and investigation. Citizen Complaint forms may be obtained on-line at the Grand Jury page of the Plumas County Website or by sending a written request to: Plumas County Grand Jury P.O. Box 784 Quincy, CA 95971 62 Appendix E - Note to Respondents/Requirements for Response As a result of Grand Jury investigation and reporting, certain agencies, entities, departments, districts, and functions of county government may be the subject of the final report which outlines findings and recommendations. Penal Code Sec. 933.05 outlines the requirements for those responding to the Grand Jury final report. For the assistance of all respondents, this Code is summarized as follows: The responding person or entity must, within time frames specified in Penal Code 933(c), respond in one of two ways: That you agree with the finding; That you disagree 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 for the disagreement.
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R01-02:
Agriculture Commissioner Airport Operations X Alcohol & Drug 95-96
R02-03:
Fair 01-02 X Farm Advisor Feather River College X Fire Management X Health Dept./Environmental Health X (Plumas Co Public Health Agency) X Hospital Districts 01-02 X Housing & Community Development -recommended for Human Resources 99-00 X investigation Information Technology 99-00 follow-up Jail Annual X X X X X X X Juvenile Hall 02-03 X Law Library 99-00 Library 98-99 Local Agency Formation X Commission (LAFCo) Mental Health 95-96
R98-99:
Auditor/Controller 01-02 Board of Supervisors 01-02 X X X X Building Department 02-03 X X Clerk/Recorder 01-02 Community Services Districts X County Counsel District Attorney 98-99 X Facility Services 99-00 X
R99-00:
Museum 98-99 Nutrition Program 95-96 X Office of Emergency Services X Planning Department X Plumas Corporation 01-02 X Plumas County Flood Control X X & Water Conservation Dist Plumas Unified SD 02-03 X X Probation Department 98-99 X -recommended for
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
Plumas County ordinances do not require that restaurants and other food facilities visibly display their inspection sheet, so customers don’t know the quality and cleanliness of the facility. The Grand Jury believes that more transparency should exist for the inspection results.
F2:
Presently, mobile/temporary food facilities don’t have to display their permits or inspection compliance sheets.
F4:
The Division’s web site, where food facility inspection results are posted, is a very positive process for creating transparency and awareness for food safety. The 23 Grand Jury commends the effort, but believes that many County residents and tourists are not aware of the site.
F5:
The funding for the department comes from a variety of sources. If any of those funds were reduced, service would suffer if the other sources were not increased.
Additional Recommendations
8
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The County’s Environmental Health Division should either establish a grading system whereby the quality and cleanliness (safety) of the facility is displayed in the form of letter grade of A, B, or C, or by the colors green, yellow, or red, as determined by the quality of the latest inspection. If a grading system is determined not workable, the Division should require food facilities to display the most recent inspection form, placed near the entrance, visible to patrons.
R2:
If a grading system is not used for all food handling facilities, the Division should require the mobile/temporary businesses to display the operating permit and the results of the most recent inspection, visible to potential customers.
R3a:
The Division should establish a brief but detailed set of instructions for inspectors to apply uniformly for correction of infractions.
R3b:
The Division should establish a standard pattern of rotation for inspectors in such a manner that the same inspector does not conduct more than one of the two inspections of a facility in the same calendar year.
R3c:
The Division should establish a standard schedule of fines or sanctions for reoccurring violations of a consistent nature.
R3d:
The Division should establish a fee for owner/operator requested re-inspections for those owners who want to improve their previous inspection grade.
R4:
The Grand Jury suggests that the Division increase their effort to publicize the existence and nature of this site, using any and all media approaches to reach as many people as possible.
R5:
That the Board of Supervisors not reduce the County’s tax contribution further than it is now nor take any actions that would compromise the state and other resources that fund the program. Background information: In Plumas County, the Environmental Health Division of the Plumas County Public Health Agency has the responsibility for Food Safety and Consumer Protection as one of its nine functions. The Department inspects every restaurant, grocery, and mobile or temporary food facility in the County twice a year for compliance with the “California Retail Food Code”. A procedural manual for guidelines and training of food facility inspectors—the “Food inspection Data Fields Marking Guideline”—is used to gain consistency and uniformity in the inspection process. When infractions are found, the Division must assure that the facilities correct them to meet the Code. The Division has three Specialists assigned to Food Safety in specified geographic areas of the County. They each inspect all of the facilities in their given area. Among their other State mandated functions, these three Specialists are responsible for inspecting more than two hundred food facilities twice a year. In addition to the inspections of food handling facilities themselves, the Division places on the County web site all food facility inspection sheets for public viewing. Since only about half of the Counties within the State do this, the Jury feels the process is a positive asset for our County. To view these inspection sheets go to (www.countyofplumas.com/publichealth/envhealth). The Division also takes an active role in public education regarding public and consumer safety issues. A list of the Division’s functions and parameters are published in the Annual Report. The Division furnishes information on the County web site where much information about the Division, including the Annual Report can be found. The Division also publishes newspaper articles, handouts, and other information regarding food safety. As a free service to County clients, they also administer the State required Serve Safe Certificate test for food service workers. As indicated in the 2008 Annual Report, the Division’s total revenue sources for all programs, including the Food Safety program, are “Fees for Service—34%, State Realignment—32%, State Program Reimbursement Grants—15% Contracts for Services and other revenue—16%, and County Contribution—3%. The Grand Jury feels that if any of the funding sources mentioned above were reduced, the Division’s performance could be negatively affected, and the Division’s functions are crucial to the well being of County residents. 24
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The current jail is one of the last linear designed jails in California. The design has the cells and other rooms in a straight line where it does not permit the staff to easily observe inmates in different locations of the jail or to be able to respond to emergencies.
F2:
In addition, due to the poor construction design, radio communication within the facility is spotty, allowing potentially dangerous situation to develop with weak response.
F3:
Another concern, which is due to occasional overcrowding are the forced early release of inmates into the community. A larger facility would alleviate this reoccurring problem. 54
F4:
The perimeter fence in the exercise yard is bordered by a public access road. Outsiders have clear access to the fence enclosing the exercise yard. They can then place drugs, weapons and other contraband where inmates can retrieve them. There have been two escapes (one being abetted by an accomplice) in the past dozen years, but both were soon captured.
F5:
There are risks involved in transporting prisoners to the courthouse. Video arraignment, where the inmate is arraigned from the jail was tried, but poor acoustics in the jail precluded its use.
F6:
The washer and dryer need replacing but the kitchen was adequate and clean but is overdue for a fire inspection. Meals are well-prepared and nutritious.
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
For the 2008-2009 year, the Airport Department operated with a budget that ended with $5,391 in the black. At midyear this year, the airport budget is in the black by $7,783.19. We commend the Airport Department for maintaining a budget that allows our airfield to able to provide their services while not being any sort of financial burden on the people who live and pay taxes in our county.
F2:
An inspection at our three airfields during January 2010 by Exxon Mobil Aviation examined the general facilities, personal and flight line safety, records and receipts, fuel documentation, and filtration. One hundred and twelve quality control checks were performed in this inspection without any “discrepancy description or
F3:
During the summer of 2009, the Department of Transportation (DOT) made an inspection of the runways and surrounding airspace path of any aircraft at each of our airports. Critical issues were addressed in a timely manner. With the agreement of the DOT, items that were identified as not being critical safety issues will be corrected when funding from DOT becomes available.
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Board of Supervisors should continue to fund our airports as they have done in the past. Any operating surplus remaining in the budget should be reinvested in the airports for future growth and improvements.
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends the airports continue to adhere to their high standards of safety, service, and quality. We commend all three managers for their fine work, both in their offices and on the grounds throughout our airport facilities. This award would not have been given without the dedication of airport staff trained in the many procedures ensuring the safety of fuels and the flight line.
R3:
The Grand Jury encourages the Airport Department to continue their compliance with DOT standards. Background Information: Plumas County owns and operates three airports within the county. Rogers Field in Chester, Nervino Airport in Beckwourth, and Gansner Field in Quincy. All three airports handle the typical traffic of private planes, with Rogers Field and Nervino Airport able to land jet aircraft. Airport traffic operates without control towers, but by the use of each pilot’s own visual discretion and radio transmissions concerning their intent of takeoff or landing. Runway lights are controlled by radio transmission from the pilot. Fueling is self service, using a card lock system. Hangar and tie down facilities are available at all three airports. Each hangar owner pays their own utilities and is responsible for any upkeep needed on their hangar. Rent is paid to the county for all hangars at a rate of 41 cents per square foot. Property tax and luxury tax is paid to the county each year at a rate of 1%. Charter and sightseeing flights and flight instruction is available at each airport. A light industrial aircraft repair business is operated at Nervino Airport. Rogers Field in Chester has a large building that houses the Chester Fire Department as well as the Chester Public Utilities District. Director of Facility Services The county’s Director of Facilities Services also supervises the Airport Department. Seventeen percent of the Director of Facility Services’ duties are devoted and budgeted for Airport operations. While supervising the two contract managers who oversee Rogers Field and Nervino Airport, he serves as manager for Gansner Field. Salary and benefits for the Director in his service to the airports is $21,001. Contract Managers Rogers Field and Nervino Airport are supervised by contract managers. These managers also have their own private air service business housed at their airports. Salary and benefits are $18,106. Each manager receives a benefit package and a PERS retirement. Additional income for the Chester manager comes through collecting one half of the profits from fuel sales and all of the tie down fees. Managers are not exempt from paying rent on their hangars or any other fees paid by other pilots. Managers can utilize non-county employees they have hired and trained for airport duties at their own expense. Duties of managers are (some duties may be particular to a given airport and not another): Maintain safe, obstruction-free airport grounds Perform fuel testing Snow removal (estimated time is two hours for every inch of snow) 9 Refueling air attack aircraft Maintaining runway lights and beacon Monitor use of Unicom (radio frequency airport auto lighting) Availability for FAA or DOT inspections Record keeping County Owned and Operated Airports 1. Gansner Field, Quincy Runway length: 4,125 feet Future Airport Improvements Plan by year: 2011--Reseal Pavement, paint airfield markings 2012--Tee hangar site development, three 5 unit buildings 2015--Replace 4 unit tee hangar building 2017--Jet fuel tank dispenser 2. Rogers Field, Chester Runway length: 5,100 feet with 6,000 feet possible Chester houses an air attack base operated by the U. S. Forest Service. Future Airport Improvement Plans by year: 2011-2012--Develop east hangar area, including access road 2013--Extend taxiway A to end of pavement (35’ X 1,000’) 2014--Reconstruct tee hangar Taxiways (4 @ 60’ X 450’) 2017 New Snow Plow Vehicle 3. Nervino Airport Runway length: 4.625 with 6,000 feet possible Future Airport Improvement Plans by year 2010--New Snow Plow Vehicle 2010--Engineering Design 2010--startup of the US Forest Service Air Attack Base/multi-agency fire center 2011--Reseal pavement joints and paint airfield markings 2012--Tee hangar site development 2013-- Environment assessment study 2014--Engineering Design 2015--Replace 4 unit tee hangar building, plus 2016--Construct two 5 unit nested tee hangars, plus 2017--Jet fuel tank dispenser Increasingly, Nervino Airport is becoming a more important center with the traffic overflow from Stead Air Base in Reno. It is also the site of the county’s next U. S. Forest Service Air Attack Base. This development is facilitated by Plumas National Forest applying for and receiving $2.2 million from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. It will become a multi-agency fire center. This facility would allow federal, county and private emergency response services to serve Plumas County. The Director of Facility Services says that he projects the Air Attack Base would also include a helicopter attack base for the Forest Service and a possible CareFlight station. The airport would be annexed into Beckwourth Fire District, allowing surrounding areas to get faster emergency response times. The county will receive rent from the Forest 10 Service ($25,000/year), Beckwourth Fire, and CareFlight. The Forest Service will pay for and construct their needed facilities with those capital improvements becoming county property in thirty years. This thirty year turnover is typical for all structures that are built on any airport properties by private parties. Department of Transportation Airport Inspection In June of 2009, the Department of Transportation (DOT) made an inspection for state permit compliance of our three airfields. Previous inspection letters and the most recent State Airport Permit were used for this evaluation. The corrections noted by the DOT reports, for all three airports: Brush within the Runway Safety Area (60 feet side of centerline and 240 feet beyond each end of runway) needs to be removed Coniferous trees that penetrate the FAR Transitional Surface needs to be topped or removed Lip of runway needs to be filled and compacted flush to grade Runway needs to be displaced for local highway penetrating Federal Aviation Regulations Approach Surface Concerning specific issues at Gansner Field on the DOT inspection of June 18, 2009, two items of concern were noted: A fire hydrant between parallel taxiways An electrical box on a segment of asphalt between taxiways It was recommended that the fire hydrant either be relocated or marked with reflective tape and be given a low profile barricade. The electrical box should also be given reflective tape and have a yellow “X” on the asphalt, at the side of the taxiway. Action on these two non-critical issues has yet to be taken, but is planned. Noting the resource burden associated with some of these needs above, the DOT remarked at the end of the inspection report, “The Department will continue to offer both financial and technical assistance to Plumas County.” Monies planned for these compliance issues were not provided because of our State’s own budget woes. An agreement stands between both state and county that the issues not resolved may be done at a later date. Rogers Field had similar small tasks to correct that included cutting down trees along the airport’s perimeter. Nervino had tall brush and weeds to cut down and an old truck to remove. Finances Total expenditures for 2008-2009: $358,674 Total revenues for 2008-2009: $373,070 * Rents and concessions: $103,117 Sale of fuel: $225,705 State aid for aviation: $30,000 Fuel Facility-other: $7,286 Landing Fees: $5,940 Interest-Investment funds: $693 Reimbursements: $328.00 11 * Pumping fees of $8,291 come out of these revenues. Ten thousand dollars a year is paid on a loan that was taken out in 2006. This loan has been repaid. Additional funding is available through the FAA for specific improvement programs. The DOT inspects airport grounds once a year and provides major maintenance (e.g. resurfacing) through Cal Trans. This is funded by the FAA through their Airport Improvement Program. Plumas County employs an airport consultant to obtain FAA grants and oversee project designs. Mid Year Budget Report Revenues for this part of the year 2009-2010 are down by 23%. However the airports are currently running in the black by $7783. The shortage in revenue is partly due to the state freezing the California Aid to Aviation Program, in the amount of $30,000. Revenues were further diminished by the expected loss of fuel sales and the reduced rent when a lessee defaulted on last fiscal year’s lease. This property has since been leased to the Chester Fire Department in exchange for fire service. This default can result in loss of revenues in the amount of $18,000. Cautious optimism prevails for this next fiscal year. The state program for aviation is possibly going to be released on July 1, 2010. Additionally, this fiscal year, a loan to the state for the Roger’s field fuel farm has been repaid. This will allow a little more breathing room in the coming year. Other All three airports are in compliance with FAA regulations. Procedures To ascertain the leadership and general operation of our airports the Grand Jury gained information from the following sources: Interviews Director of Facility Services Rogers Field airport manager Nervino Airport manager Airports Toured Gansner Field Rogers Field Nervino Airport Documents reviewed Supplier contracts: Branding and fuel from Exxon Mobile Manager contracts Land lease contracts Plumas County 2008-2009 budget 2008-2009 Airport budget Airport mid-year (2009-2010) budget report to Chief Administrative Officer and Board of Supervisors DOT/FAA permit compliance reports Airport capital improvement program (projected costs 2010-2024) 12
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
Beckwourth FPD 1. C-Road CSD
F2:
There is no clear way for landowners to ascertain if their property taxes are paying for fire protection services.
F3:
City of Portola FPD 3. Greenhorn CSD
F4:
Crescent Mills FPD 4. Indian Valley CSD
F5:
Eastern Plumas FPD 5. Long Valley CSD
F6:
Graeagle FPD 6. Plumas Eureka CSD
F7:
Hamilton Branch FPD 7. West Almanor CSD
F11:
Prattville-Almanor FPD
F13:
Sierra Valley FPD It is generally understood that there are two critically important elements to successfully protect structures from being destroyed by fire. The first is proximity to and services received from fire protection service providers. The hallmark descriptor is universally understood to be response time, or how long will it take emergency fire protection staff and equipment to arrive at an incident. The second essential necessity in the saving of persons’ property from structural fire is an immediately available emergency water supply. Current structural fire fighting vehicles here in Plumas County pump water at a rate of 1,000 gallons per minute and require sustained water flows approximating one hour to save a typical residential structure; that would amount to a sustained water supply of 60,000 gallons per pumper truck. There was consensus among fire experts providing testimony that Plumas County could support one to five fire emergency services districts. Those fire and emergency service providers are needed to protect all parcels and structures within the County. Clearly, increasing the number of districts is not what the experts have recommended, nor would it be cost effective. Plumas County Fire Safe Council Individual wildland fires cause the most property destruction of all categories of fire emergencies. All Californians, as well as Plumas County residents, will not soon forget the Oakland Hills Inferno, the Malibu Canyons wildfires, or the very recent Angora Fire located in the South Lake Tahoe Basin that destroyed 309 residential and business structures. Etched in everyone’s memories are those vivid televised images of block after block of destroyed buildings. Wildland fires occur in what has been termed a community-at-risk (CAR). All Plumas County communities are communities-at-risk. Typically homeowners prize these zones as they represent the aesthetically attractive midpoint between the edge of suburbia and most typically beautiful forested areas. Hilly terrain offering premium vistas are frequently a distinct asset of a community-at-risk. Unfortunately, extreme fire hazards are commonly ignored by individuals purchasing property in these zones. Here in Plumas County one voluntary organization, the Fire Safe Council, has made tremendous strides by developing a model that mitigates the wildland fire danger inherent to all community-at-risk zones. The Grand Jury found that the use and enforcement of fire codes and standards varies depending on whether they are being applied to a structure (homes, outbuildings, and commercial buildings), to the area immediately surrounding a structure (defensible space, access roads, turnarounds, fuel tanks and emergency water for fighting fires) or to the nearby wildlands (national and private forests as well as grasslands). In Plumas County, responsibility for prevention and mitigation of hazardous fire conditions in forests next to family residences belongs to the US Forest Service, if the forest is a national forest. If the forest is privately owned, it is the responsibility of the landowner with the possibility of additional assistance from a private, nongovernmental organization, the Plumas County Fire Safe Council. Thousands of Plumas County residents’ homes are located in or next to forests, in what has been termed communities-at-risk. The overriding concern facing homeowners located in this environment is the threat of wildland fire. While the State of California has enacted legislation extending the defensible space perimeter requirement around homes from 30 to 100 feet, wildland fires represent an even greater threat than ever before to homeowners in forested areas. This is because most forests have not benefited from naturally occurring, periodic forest fires that consumed naturally occurring fuels. This hazardous situation has been compounded as the number of 37 homes being built in the forest interface has rapidly increased during the last 10 to 15 years. During the past several years the Plumas County Fire Safe Council (PCFSC) has developed grant funded projects that have served groups of homeowners, homeowners associations, and other groups in mitigating or reducing the quantity of wildland fire fuels on our forest floors. These projects thin forested areas, remove fire ladder vegetation that frequently leads to devastating crown fires in addition to removing combustible materials that result in healthier, safer and more attractive forested areas. In summary, these projects provide a responsible alternative to periodic wildfires. The Mission Statement of the PCFSC is: To reduce the loss of natural and manmade resources caused by wildfire through Firewise community programs and pre-fire activities. The Council maintains an informative webpage: Fire Services - CAL FIRE In round figures, two-thirds of the Plumas County land surface is part of the Plumas and Lassen National Forest. and Lassen Volcanic National Park; the remaining one-third is comprised of privately owned parcels of which a substantial majority are located in what California has designated as this county’s State Responsibility Area (SRA). Exceptions to this classification are parcels within Local Responsibility Areas (LRA) that include the lands within the City Limits of Portola, a relatively large area surrounding Chester, two small areas of several blocks each located in Quincy, and small areas near the fire houses in Graeagle, Whitehawk, Beckwourth, and Chilcoot. Plumas County’s SRA includes numerous approved subdivisions as well as privately owned forest production and agricultural parcels. The SRA and LRA designations were actually made by CAL FIRE on behalf of the State a number of years ago and every five years that agency is required to revisit and evaluate those classifications. Currently that every five-year evaluation is being implemented in this county. CAL FIRE is also fiscally responsible for protection from and prevention of wildland fires including forested and agricultural lands as well as structures. Superficially it would appear to be a “good thing” that a majority of Plumas County residents’ homes are located in designated SRA’s. Statewide CAL FIRE has an outstanding reputation for its emergency fire protection services. CAL FIRE’s presence in Plumas County is extremely limited. CAL FIRE does not employ any emergency responders, nor does it house any firefighting equipment within our county. The situation occurred almost 20 years ago in 1991 with the adoption of a “Cooperative Fire Management Agreement” (CFMA) between the US Forest Service and CAL FIRE. CAL FIRE traded off its Plumas County acreage emergency services responsibilities to the US Forest Service in exchange for acreage located somewhere else. The missions of the Federal and State agencies are quite different. The US Forest Service attempts to protect the national forests, while CAL FIRE protects forests and also provides structural fire protection in locales where it has an active presence. CAL FIRE does maintain a small administrative presence in Quincy; however, the reality of having a SRA designation is essentially meaningless for our county residents. In designated SRA’s, CAL FIRE has the fiscal responsibility for provision of the following services:
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F3:
The County Audit Committee final review meeting was scheduled one hour prior to final audit presentation to the Board of Supervisors.
F4:
The Board of Supervisors representatives were not present at any of the County Audit Committee meetings.
F5:
The two members of the 2009-2010 Grand Jury Audit Committee had substantial professional work experience in public sector finance and accounting that made their participation on the County Audit Committee reasonably easy. Future years’ Grand Jury participants may not have that sort of professional background.
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R2:
The County Auditor/Controller should release the final audit report within a reasonable timeframe to allow for Grand Jury review and questions prior to the scheduled County Audit Committee final review meeting.
R3:
The County Audit Committee final review should take place at least one week prior to presentation of the report to the Board of Supervisors to allow for any necessary changes found during the final audit review.
R4:
The two members of the Board of Supervisors appointed to the County Audit Committee should attend the meetings.
R5:
The County Auditor/Controller, as committee facilitator, needs to be highly sensitive to the diverse backgrounds of the Grand Juror participants to assure full understanding of both the governmental audit process, as well as, any resulting
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
Once individual private wells are permitted and approved, no other monitoring or testing is done unless the owner requests it. With 10,000 to 11,000 septic systems in the county, some of them quite old, can we assume the well water is not affected?
F2:
Private wells fed by aquifers within the County are only tested for coliform bacteria. Metal contamination and other microbial contamination are not tested. If mercury is found in lakes and streams, is it in our well water?
F3:
Because of non existing recordkeeping during earlier years, there are an undetermined number of water wells existing within the county without documentation as to their location.
F4:
With new developments larger than 200 water connections, the EHD is not involved in evaluating the quality or quantity of the source of water proposed by the developer and sanctioned by the state, until after the development is approved. As it is 27 now, there is no one within the county who evaluates whether the state is doing an adequate job of assuring there is enough water available for the development.
F5:
There is a history of developments gaining approval without demonstrating that the proposed water source is sufficient to provide for both residential water, and water for fire protection of the development.
F6:
Realistically, the water quality of our lakes and streams is fragile to say the least. There are multiple county agencies, departments and community groups that oversee that fact. This Grand Jury believes that maintaining the quality of above- ground water is also the task of each individual that lives here and those who come to enjoy the beauty and recreate.
F7:
Once a septic system is installed, there is no requirement for ongoing monitoring. There is no requirement for periodic pumping of septic tanks.
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Each Individual aquifer should be tested for contamination periodically on a schedule determined by the EHD.
R2:
The EHD should also test well water from each aquifer within the county for the following potentially toxic metals: Antimony, Arsenic, Beryllium, Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Lead, Mercury, Nickel, Selenium, Silver, Thallium and Zinc. This is especially relevant in an area such as Plumas County with a history of mining. Additionally, because of increased development and agricultural activity, testing should be done for a broader spectrum of disease producing microbes.
R4:
This Grand Jury strongly recommends that the EHD be actively involved in the Planning Department’s approval process to independently evaluate all aspects of the water quality and quantity proposed by the development to assure that the water source for the development is adequate and won’t adversely affect another. This would lessen the chance of a development being approved without sufficient water, as has happened in the past.
R5:
The Board of Supervisors should not approve any development without the EHD first evaluating and certifying that the proposed water source for both domestic and emergency fire protection use is sufficient.
R6:
The EHD and other agencies should develop a public relations campaign to raise awareness that our lakes and streams are fragile.
R7:
The Board of Supervisors, through the EHD, should establish a countywide requirement for mandatory pumping of septic tanks when a property is sold, and actively inform residents of the need to pump their septic systems every three to five years. Background Information: In Plumas County the Environmental Health Division of the Plumas County Public Health Agency has the responsibility for drinking water protection and determining sufficient quantities of water for individual wells and wells for development up to 199 connections. As indicated in their 2009 Annual Report, in 2005 their Division was certified as the Local Primacy Agency (LPA) by the California Department of Health. This allowed water system purveyors and operators a local contact and resource in helping to protect drinking water quality. Again, from their Annual Report, the EHD monitors 139 drinking water systems throughout the county. These include non- community systems, such as resorts and campgrounds, small systems serving less than 15 connections, and community systems with up to 199 connections. Whenever drinking water does not meet established standards, the system operator must advise its customers, and when there is an immediate risk to human health, the operator must issue a Boil Water Advisory. The EHD also partners with the California Department of Fish and Game, a sub group to the Almanor Basin Watershed Advisory Committee that monitors Lake Almanor water 28 quality, and other water quality organizations to help protect lakes, streams and groundwater water supplies. One example of this was in 2008, when the EHD completed the 10th and final year of well testing as a result of the 1997 pike eradication project. In 2007, they began year one of a new ten year testing cycle for chemicals used in the 2007 treatment. Also in 2008, the EHD received Department of Public Health accreditation for water quality testing. The EHD offers certified water quality analysis for coliform bacteria and E. coli. The EHD’s Annual Report for 2008 goes on to say that this service supplements the nearest private laboratory options in Chico or Reno. It is available for wells, springs, or surface water, making the analyses useful for routine water quality checks for private sources or to help pinpoint contamination problems with public water systems. Within the permitting process for wells and septic systems, the EHD insures that wells are at least 50 feet from a septic tank, and at least 100 feet from leach lines. After permitting for wells and septic systems for individual private connections, there is no monitoring by the EHD. If there are problems, the EHD will act in a consulting manner to help correct the problem, but there is no county or state requirement for monitoring. There is also no requirement for periodic pumping of septic tanks. The EHD has recommendations and flyers that encourage pumping every 3-5 years, but there are no recommendations to make it mandatory. With septic systems that feed into a common leach field, the threshold for installation requirement goes up. With 2 connections the threshold goes higher, and when it reaches 5, the Regional Water Control Board takes over the permitting process and perhaps ongoing monitoring. With individual private wells, for the permit process, the individual will do well to follow the information in the County’s “Well Manual—Information on the Well Installation and Permit Process.” It mentions water supply that meets the ground water well standards, where to locate it, the type of material to use in drilling, how to put on a sanitary seal, and other such things. The individual submits an application which, when completed, spells out what the person wants to do. The application then goes to the EHD, and if it is complete, they have a set of administrative standards to meet, standards that consider the well’s distance from septic tanks and leach fields, and how far wells can be from creeks, rivers, and lakes. If the individual can meet the various criteria, the EHD issues the permit. A community well is one that is used by several units like a resort or campground. There is a one stop permitting agreement with the Building Department and behind the scenes various county agencies look at their piece of the process. Once the application reaches the EHD, permitting is basically an administrative process. With a development, permitting depends on the size of the development, the density, and the developer’s proposal. Approval depends on the county’s general plan and the zoning requirements. If a development is proposed in a “prime opportunity” area, the developer will have to connect to a community water system. In this case the developer will need a “Will Serve” letter from the district, stating that the community system has 29 the quantity and quality of water to meet their needs. The developer will get their “Will Serve” letter which satisfies the water needs for the development. Depending on the number of connections of the development, the criteria for permitting and approval gets more stringent. If the development is 5 or more connections, it becomes a classification called a “State Small Water System.” The EHD refers to those standards to determine what infrastructure is needed. It would become more sophisticated with more chemical monitoring and other things. The next higher threshold is 15 or more connections, and each time the criteria for approval gets more involved. The EHD is the regulatory body of developments with up to 199 connections. At 200 connections it falls under the jurisdiction of the California Department of Health. If the development is proposed for over 200 connections, the EHD will administer and monitor the development until 200 connections are made. With a “new” development of over 200 connections, the EHD would function as the local liaison without any further involvement in the decision making process. They would field questions by the developer and try to connect them with the state, but they wouldn’t have direct responsibilities for the development other than seeing that the reports were filed and that some of the conditions put upon the development are in place. With developments over 200 connections, the approval process starts with the Plumas County Planning Department. When the developer starts to develop property, the Planning Department looks at all the issues. They will look at traffic, air quality, water supply and liquid waste, all items under the California Environmental Quality Act. The Planning Department is the hub that supplies these coordinating services. The water supply is just one stroke. The ultimate responsibility, authority, and jurisdiction are under the California Department of Health. The parties work directly with the Planning Department. Any comment the EHD would make would be indicating that the development is under the jurisdiction of the California Department of Health. The Planning Department has the responsibility to compile all of the process into the Environmental Impact Report, distributed for public comment. The document must then be approved by the Planning Department with any additional conditions required for approval. The EHD is not involved with the original permitting and approval process for these large water systems. However, once all the planning and all the agreements are satisfied, then the EHD is the local permitting agency and the responsible agency for enforcement of state regulations for that system, from 15 to 199 connections until it goes beyond that number, despite the fact that they have no input during the approval process. The EHD gets concurrence from the California Department of Health, drawing from the state’s expertise when necessary. The EHD relies on information from the hydrologist, for the kind of pump tests, the duration, and qualitative issues, referring to the California Department of Health when there are questions. Procedure: The Grand Jury obtained information about the Environmental Health Division from the 2008 General Fund Budget publication. We also have the Plumas County Public Health Agency Environmental Health Division Annual Report for 2008. There is much 30 information about the EHD and its program on their web site (www.countyofplumas.com/publichealth/envhealth). The EHD’s Director has supplied manuals and information pamphlets about water wells and septic systems installations and permitting processes. The Grand Jury has obtained much information by interviewing the EHD Director about the approval process for wells and septic systems, and the kind of oversight and control the EHD has or doesn’t have over the existence and life of such projects. The Grand Jury has also obtained information from interviews with the Directors of both the County Planning and Building Departments and took time to question the Director of the Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District to learn how his organization affects Plumas County water. The Grand Jury wants to determine the effectiveness of the EHD’s involvement in keeping our county’s domestic water safe, and assuring that informed judgments are made in determining if there is sufficient water supply for individual and development needs. Conclusion: The Grand Jury wishes to express its appreciation to the Director and staff of the Environmental Health Division for their cooperation in our investigation. The EHD has charge of many programs, all related to the health and safety of County citizens. As we all look to our county’s future and “where we are going,” the Environmental Health Division must take on this Grand Jury’s role as “watch dog” to protect and sustain those qualities of life that make Plumas County such a desirable place to live. 31
* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.