Final Report - 2009 - 2010

Recommendations 7

• R1

  Page 117
  10 Glendale Water and Power (GWP), Long Beach Water Department, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP), Pasadena Water and Power Department, City of San Fernando Public Works Water, and the City of Santa Monica Water Department should support instructional literature and possible funding efforts for home purple pipe installations and gray water systems. Geographic Water Use To gain an understanding of water use, six LAC cities’ water departments were reviewed to see if they were targeting any specific geographic areas. The cities 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 97 selected were Santa Monica, Glendale, San Fernando, Long Beach, Pasadena, and Los Angeles. None of the cities questioned targeted specific geographic areas at the current time. San Fernando targeted the top ten internal users for water and has achieved a 5% reduction in use. The city was planning to review the top ten external users of water. HOW WAS THE CITY OF SAN FERNANDO PUBLIC WORKS WATER WAS ABLE TO REPLACE 75% OF ITS WATER CONVEYANCE INFRASTRUCTURE?
• R2

  Page 134
  16 The City of Los Angeles Board of Water and Power Commissioners should establish a full-time position of Inspector General in the City Controller auditor’s office funded by the LADWP. This position would be dedicated to auditing and reviewing activities of the LADWP only. 2.17 The Inspector General for LADWP would be administered and selected by the Los Angeles City Controller. Water Rates Some rate increases for water nationwide were predicated on poor financial management and fraud by the specific water district. Many times water rate increases were dependent on the replacement of the infrastructure. Rate increases reflected the increased cost of acquiring additional water sources. Fixed costs for infrastructure were an ongoing issue in LAC, especially in the City of Los Angeles. Rate increases are a way to force conservation. The rates to the users of water in Los Angeles increased even though more water was being conserved. Because there was a shortage of water in LAC, it was imperative that all residents should use less water on a regular basis. The cost of replacing and retrofitting the infrastructure must still be absorbed. The use of fewer gallons of water means infrastructure repair and replacement expenses would be spread over fewer gallons of water. 114 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT The LADWP continued to increase the rates for water usage to its customers on a regular basis; primarily as a result that much of the existing infrastructure is over one hundred years old. The rates are evaluated by the BWPC and passed on to the Los Angeles City Council for approval, and finally signed by the Mayor of Los Angeles. LADWP recommended the following objectives to restructure water rates (BWPC Proposal April 23, 2009): 1. To encourage conservation on a year-round basis modify the existing rates so that the differential between the First and Second Tier rates is based on the marginal cost of treated water purchased from Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD). 2. Include all surcharges and pass-through charges in both First Tier and Second Tier rates. 3. Keep the Second Tier base rates the same year-round rather than reduced during the low season. 4. Establish a Third Tier rate based on the marginal cost of recycled water to be imposed for very high usage, consistent with the original concept for LADWP’s water rate structure to provide a forward-looking price signal for the cost of new water supplies. 5. Realign household size adjustments at the First Tier rate using the current best management practices and technologies for indoor water use. 6. Utilize application of climate based conservation data to make adjustments in current First Tier usage blocks. 7. Increase low income and lifeline subsidies. 8. Update General Provision J of the Water Rates Ordinance, Adjustment Factor Limitations, based on the current projections for the adjustment factor components. 9. Modify Water Shortage Year Rates based on experience following initial implementation of these rates in 2009 and incorporate the rate restructuring. Increase the current minimum period for review by the City Council and the Mayor following approval by the Board to implement Shortage Year Rates from fifteen days to thirty days. 10. Eliminate Board approval of the water recycle contract for each LADWP customer and establish the commodity charge as 80% of the total First Tier billing rate for potable water (including adjustments). 11. Set lot size or temperature zone adjustments. 12. Revise the Water Quality Adjustment cap requirements. 13. Revise the Water Procurement Adjustment factor to encourage water conservation and fully recognize the results of demand-side management programs. LADWP water rates were based on establishing a water budget for a reasonable amount of water for each consumer. Consumption within that amount was then charged at First Tier rates. Consumption above the budget was charged at the higher Second Tier rate. 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 115 The cost to validate the methodologies and analyses that their rate increases will be based on, included up to $150,000 in consulting services. In addition to LADWP staff expense, it was proposed that a resolution to the BWPC for the adoption of the rate increase be completed by January 2010. The process from proposal to approval was nine months. Water rate increases were approved by Los Angeles City Council and were passed on to the consumers within the city. These rate increases were predicated on water use and conservation efforts. Los Angeles had fixed costs for the delivery of water to the LADWP consumer. Additionally, many cities such as Pasadena, Glendale, Santa Monica, and Long Beach had tiered water rates based on the consumer’s use of water over and above set limits. In early 2010 San Fernando did not have a tiered rate system in place for water usage but was considering this option. There was general public agreement for the addition of a ratepayer advocate (RPA) responsible to review any rate increases. The RPA should be acceptable to all stakeholders. The RPA must function outside of the LADWP organization. The RPA must be assured of full access to any and all data and information from the LADWP that would be needed to accomplish its goals. The CGJ recommends that funding of the RPA, its staff, and office come from the LADWP. These are funds that are paid by all ratepayers. The selection and appointment process for creating the RPA must be accomplished with the utmost care to assure every interested party in the city of the independence and integrity of the RPA's organization and recommendations. Requirements for the RPA organization would include: • A staff of competent, qualified analysts and experts in the electric and water utility industries who will evaluate all significant proposals and monitor and advise management, when warranted, of any proposed or actual actions or omissions that may adversely affect the LADWP's ratepayers • The ability to monitor and provide transparency to ratepayers of all major projects and project proposals of management • The responsibility to monitor and publicize where necessary efforts by the LADWP to increase rates • The monitoring and publicizing of the status of the infrastructure and technology necessary to run LADWP effectively and efficiently • The review and analysis on a timely and continuous basis of the operations, finances, and management of the LADWP • The Rate Payers Advocate shall be beholden only to LADWP Rate Payers, although it may advise the City Council, the Mayor, and other interested parties • A place at the table at meetings of the Board of Water and Power Commissioners and at the City Council when LADWP affairs are being discussed • Complete independence from the governments of the City, County, and State and any of their suppliers or unions • The necessary education, experience and skills to perform its duties, including an understanding of the operations and finances of public utilities 116 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS 2.18 The City of Los Angeles Board of Water and Power Commissioners should require a detailed analysis of the basis of any rate increase and this analysis should be included in that portion of the rate increase. 2.19 The City of Los Angeles Board of Water and Power Commissioners should provide the basis and details for any rate increases to the public with an appropriate period allowing for public response. 2.20 The City of Los Angeles Board of Water and Power Commissioners should provide the basis and details of any significant changes to the billing process with an appropriate period allowing for public response. 2.21 LADWP should establish a Rate Payer Advocate organization with the duties and structure as defined above. Non-Revenue Water (NRW) NRW was defined as water that has been produced and is lost before it reached the customer. Losses could be real losses through leaks, sometimes also referred to as physical losses or apparent losses (for example through theft or metering inaccuracies). High levels of NRW are detrimental to the financial viability of water utilities, as well to the quality of water itself. NRW is typically measured as the volume of water lost as a share of net water produced. It is sometimes also expressed as the volume of water lost per kilometer of water distribution network per day There are other sources of NRW, the major sources were leaks, evaporation, fire hydrants, inaccurate meters, and unauthorized use. The California Department of Water Resources distinguished between authorized unmetered uses and water losses. Authorized unmetered uses could have included water used for beneficial purposes, such as fire fighting and main flushing. Most definitions identified some of the potential sources of NRW, including water for fire fighting and flushing, leaks and breaks, illegal connections, faulty meters, and other sources. A report entitled Water Conservation a Local and Regional Perspective was submitted to the World Water Forum, by the LADWP and the MWD of Southern California, dated March 2006 with the following statement: “In terms of total actual use within the City, single-family and multi-family dwellings constitute the greatest demands (60% of the total demand). Commercial water use accounts for over 20%, governmental use about 7 percent, industrial use about 4%, and non-revenue water system loss accounts for about 8% of the total water demand. “Non-revenue water is lost in the process of transporting and delivering water to customers. LADWP’s efforts to minimize water loss through an aggressive infrastructure rehabilitation and maintenance program include pipeline rehabilitation, leak detection and repair, meter replacement, and cement lining programs.” 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 117 It was also reported on February 2007 in a report titled, Water Loss Control in North America: More Cost Effective Than Customer Side Conservation- Why Wouldn’t You Do It? “LADWP has a relatively low level of real water losses. However, economic analyses have shown that a more aggressive active leak detection and repair policy is economically feasible. Since the part of the project has not started yet it was necessary to estimate the cost for the leak detection and repair program based on average industry cost data. The average cost for the entire program including the cost for a detailed water audit that forms the bases for the intervention program and the cost to detect and repair the leaks was calculated to be $347 per acre foot of water saved.” The CGJ was informed by LADWP that in 2009 the NRW was approximately 4.5%. This would be a significant change from what was reported in the March 2006 report, and was consistent with the February 2007 report that was prepared in conjunction with the 2007 CA/NV AWWA (American Water Works Association) Spring Conference held in Las Vegas. The CGJ reviewed literature on the percent of NRW throughout the United States. The rate went as high as 40% and as low as 2%. The CGJ commended LADWP for maintaining such a low percent on NRW.
• R3

  Page 45
  LASD Risk Management Department should resume random drug testing. Los Angeles County Fire Department Although the CGJ met with the managers of the Los Angeles County Fire Department, the managers were reluctant to provide information regarding their policy procedure and drug testing statistics. Los Angeles County Probation Department The Department of Probation (DOP) has 6,100 budgeted positions of which 4,000 have peace officer status. Pre-employment drug testing began in 2007, however random drug testing of Deputy Probation Officers with peace office status along with other key DOP personnel are not currently conducted. Since August 2007 there have been eighteen individuals charged with possession of controlled substances resulting in: • 12 employees discharged • 2 offenders suspended • 3 pending performance management review • 1 unknown disposition There is a DOT requirement to test transportation/drivers employed by DOP. The Department utilizes the DOT guidelines to test transportation/drivers. Implementation of random testing DOP employees would be a collective bargaining issue. DOP negotiates with two unions consisting of three bargaining units. To date the unions has not agreed to random testing. A probation employee arrested for drug use anywhere at any time is subject to investigation and possible termination under the zero tolerance policy.
• R4

  Page 45
  Department of Probation (DOP) key employees should be randomly tested. This would include Deputy Probation Officers who are considered safety of- ficers and should be held responsible and accountable as are the Police, safe- ty Police and Sheriff’s Officers. In addition, permanent county employees of residential detention centers and services should be randomly tested. County of Los Angeles Safety Police The Los Angeles County Office of Safety Police (OSP) is scheduled to merge with the Sheriff’s Department in June 2010. Currently there are 596 sworn officers, 70 civilian and approximately 1,100 contracted employees. OSP provides policing staff for: 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 33 • Board of Supervisors • Chief Economic Office • Registrar Recorder • Department of Public Social Services • Department of Children and Family Services • Department of Health Services • Department of Mental Health • Department of Parks and Recreation • Department of Probation All employment candidates are drug tested. Random drug testing procedures mirror those of the Sheriff’s Department. The OSP also manages a public Hotline. This Hotline is for the public and employees to anonymously report suspected fraud, job abuse, drug abuse as well as malfeasance of vendors, managers, or contractors. OSP is required to report the complaints to the appropriate department for investigation.
• R5

  Page 46
  The Los Angeles County Office of Safety Police (OSP) public Hotline should be integrated into the Sheriff’s Department and continue to function. Develop and maintain a categorized log of all calls. Initiate a county wide awareness pro- gram relative to the ability of the Hotline to anonymously report job related abuses. Office of the Auditor Controller The Auditor Controller staff also maintains a free County Fraud Hotline which receives allegations of fraud, drug/alcohol abuse and other complaints pertaining to county employees, managers, contractors and vendors. Allegations are also submitted and received by mail as well by walk-in contact. Each allegation is logged, a report is submitted or referral sent to the appropriate department for investigation and resolution. If a complaint is criminal in nature, the law enforcement agency of jurisdiction is contacted to investigate and adjudicate.
• R6

  Page 46
  The Office of Auditor-Controller should develop a policy/procedure manual to categorize, maintain statistical records of complaints, communicate to all 34 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT agencies the availability of the Hotline, publicize the Hotline number and stress the assurance of confidentiality. CITY OF LOS ANGELES
• R7

  Page 47
  The Los Angeles City Department of Personnel should collaborate and share contract information with other agencies including the County of Los Angeles to utilize the same drug testing facilities as a possible cost saving measure. Los Angeles Police Department The Los Angeles Police Department has approximately 10,000 officers. Officers are tested up to six times per year during their one year probationary period,. Permanent officers below the rank of Captain are subject to random testing three times per year. Officers testing positive are referred to a Board of Review and may be terminated. Since 1991 sixteen officers have been terminated. If an officer voluntarily informs the department of an addiction or other drug use related problems, he/she will be eligible for the Employee Assistance Program. Participation is confidential and the department cooperates and encourages the employee’s rehabilitation. The employee is allowed to use sick time and other available accrued time during the rehabilitation period. The drug testing procedures for probationary and permanent employees follow a very strict protocol to assure a drug free workplace. 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 35 Los Angeles City Fire Department After numerous attempts by the CGJ to schedule an information gathering meeting, Los Angeles City Fire Department failed to respond. 36 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT FORENSICS COMMITTEE MEMBERS Chairperson- H. Russell Justice Carolyn Cobb Ray O’Keefe FORENSICS INTRODUCTION The 2009-2010 Civil Grand Jury (CGJ) investigated the City of Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) and Los Angeles County Sheriff Department (LASD) Forensic Science Services. Forensic Science plays a very important role in criminal investigations. The LAPD and LASD have attempted to provide the citizenry with the latest advancement in forensic science and remain abreast of the industry with new technology. The areas investigated were: Protocol, Procedures, Staffing and Operations. BACKGROUND The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) and Los Angeles County Sheriff Department (LASD) Forensic Science Services are located at the Herzberg-Davis Forensic Center on the campus of California State University at Los Angeles. The LASD houses its DNA, Firearms, Chemical Processing, Photo/Digital Imaging, Trace Evidence, Latent Fingerprinting and Questioned Documents Section in the facility. The LAPD Scientific Investigation Division houses its Crime Scene Investigation, Firearms, and Clandestine Narcotics Section on site. The protocols of each agency effectively keep them from combining into one entity. However, the close proximity has provided the opportunity for both agencies to discuss methodology. There appears to be a viable working relationship between them. In addition, the California State University Criminalistics Department and the California Forensics Science Institute are housed in the facility. This report is divided into two sections: Section I reports on the LAPD and Section II reports on LASD. METHODOLOGY The CGJ conducted interviews with the administrative staff of both agencies to determine if the most viable actions were being taken to ensure that the scientific principles of forensic science were being aggressively procured and followed. The Committee conducted on-site visits. Forensic science staff provided statistical data and valuable insight on procedures as well as the purpose of each section. LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT–SECTION I BACKGROUND The Latent Print Unit (LPU) is a civilian unit and is responsible for collecting, preserving, analyzing and documenting latent print evidence from crime scenes. There are five details: Los Angeles Automated Fingerprint Identification System (LAFIS), Manual Comparison, Chemical Processing, Cold Case and Field. The LPU operations are located at Parker Center, the main location of LPU, with two field offices, Van Nuys and Westchester. 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 37 The LPU handles approximately 24,000 cases annually. In 2007, LAPD began to reduce the approximately 7,500 backlogged evidence kits. The evidence kits which had not been analyzed were collected from rape victims, sexual assault victims, burglaries and murders. The backlog issue was actively addressed by the Mayor and Chief of Police. A Task Force was established and funds obtained from the City’s General Fund, Proposition 69, Grants, the Police Foundation and other sources. It was decided to outsource the evidence to private laboratories to assist in reducing the backlog. In addition to reducing the backlog to approximately 1,500 remaining kits, there has been a tangible payoff. Examination of the evidence led to the matching, arrest, conviction and profiling of 341 individuals in the State’s criminal database. The backlog is expected to be completed by the end of FY 2010-2011. Due to a hiring freeze there are twenty-six allocated DNA Technician positions which remained unfilled. The City Council, however, approved lifting the freeze. Projected hiring is to be completed by 2011. There are eighty-nine technicians employed. Lack of DNA trained personnel inhibits the crime lab’s ability to process most cases in-house. Contractor cost to process rape assault kits for LAPD is $1,200. The cost to process the kits in-house is $800-$1000 per case. The Crime lab is required to prepare all the outsourced DNA kits before shipment, normally a four hour process. The turnaround time results in long delays depending on many factors such as complexity, distance, and courier availability. It takes four to eight hours to process the results upon return of an analyzed kit. This process includes input to the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS). It is a secured system and can only be accessed by authorized LAPD personnel.