Shasta County Grand Jury Report With All Responses

The Grand Jury has determined that the Coroner's office is in dire need of new gurneys.

Sobriety checkpoints should be integrated with DUI saturation patrols, public information and education.

Prosecutorial support is needed for the DUI enforcement program to be successful

Sobriety checkpoints when integrated with an aggressive enforcement program and prosecutorial support are an effective deterrent to combat the impaired driving problem.

There is no medical facility at Sugar Pine other than basic first aid. Inmates that require emergency medical care are transported to Redding, if non-emergency care is required, inmates are transferred to Susanville.

Inmates learn job skills and a work ethic that will help them after their prison sentence is completed.

Sugar Pine Conservation Camp is to be commended for maintaining a well run facility that saves the State of California money by providing labor to fight fires and assist in other conservation efforts. RECOMMENDATIONS None REQUEST FOR RESPONSES None City of Redding's Use of Sobriety Checkpoints “Deterrent for Impaired Drivers” SUMMARY The Grand Jury initiated an investigation into the City of Redding’s Sobriety checkpoint and DUI Enforcement Program. The purpose of the program is to maximize the deterrent effect and increase the perception of “risk apprehension” of motorists who would operate a vehicle while impaired by alcohol. Members of the Grand Jury observed Sobriety Checkpoints in action and rode with Redding Police Department’s DUI Saturation Patrol. Interviews were conducted with Officers of the RPD and volunteers from MADD. (Mothers Against Drunk Driving). The Grand Jury found that Sobriety checkpoints when integrated with an aggressive enforcement program and judicial support are an effective deterrent to combat the impaired driving problem. BACKGROUND A 1984 California Attorney General’s opinion and the 1990 US Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of conducting Sobriety Checkpoints. Redding receives state grants to fund the DUI enforcement program, which includes the Sobriety Checkpoint program as well as the salaries of specialized DUI enforcement officers that have taken extensive training in detecting impaired drivers. In 2009 there were 731 total DUI arrests in Redding, with 138 alcohol related collisions, which is 2nd highest in the state of like size cities APPROACH Members of the Grand Jury were present at and witnessed two Sobriety Checkpoints and spent two Saturday nights riding with a Redding Police Department DUI patrol. Interviews were conducted with officers of the RPD and volunteers of MADD. Grand Jury members observed DUI court in action, and sat in on the Sober Choice mandatory DUI class. A number of documents were reviewed by the Grand Jury. DISCUSSION The 2009 California Office of Traffic Safety Report compared traffic collisions in 104 California cities with similar populations of Redding. Redding was ranked fifth in both fatal and injury accidents as well as third in overall accident rates. In the same study, the City of Redding ranked 2nd in “driving under the influence” (DUI) of drugs or alcohol-associated collisions. In light of these disturbing numbers the RPD has made DUI enforcement a high priority. The use of Sobriety Checkpoints is but one tool of enforcing and deterring the impaired driving problem that is plaguing our community. Another tool used is the DUI Saturation Patrol. Redding currently has 2 officers assigned to DUI enforcement. The officers concentrate their enforcement on impaired driving behaviors, such as driving left of center, following too closely, reckless driving and speeding. Saturation patrols afford a more effective means of detecting repeat offenders who are likely to avoid detection at sobriety checkpoints. These patrols also may target specific areas with a history of high number of alcohol-related crashes. The Grand Jury had an opportunity to ride with the DUI patrol on 2 Saturday nights from 8:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. The DUI patrol does not have a specified beat and officers are free to patrol areas that they feel need to be targeted During each shift observed by the Grand Jury, the officer stopped over 20 vehicles and assisted other officers in conducting Field Sobriety Checks. DUI arrests were witnessed on both evenings. Prosecutorial support is another factor in the DUI enforcement effort. In October of 2010 the Shasta County’s District Attorney’s office received a $245,000 grant to fund 2 positions, a Deputy District Attorney to prosecute felony DUI cases and an investigator to assist with DUI investigations. Redding has at least six preferred locations to set up Sobriety checkpoints within the city limits. The purpose of the checkpoint is to deter or detect DUI or suspended/unlicensed drivers. The officers attempt to stop every vehicle when possible, however if traffic backs up where it will take four minutes or more to go through the checkpoint, the traffic will be sent through until an acceptable traffic level is achieved. In the Grand Jury’s observation of the checkpoint, when traffic backs up to an unacceptable level, the officers use a set number of cars to be sent through the checkpoint without checking and are diligent in not discriminating due to the appearance of the driver or type of vehicle. Random stops are not utilized. An “escape route” must be available to drivers who wish to avoid the checkpoint by legally turning before entering the checkpoint area. A driver can be pulled over only if an officer observes a traffic violation or probable cause exists to take action. The act of avoiding a checkpoint does not constitute grounds for a stop. In stopping the vehicles, the officers greet the driver and asks for and checks driver license, they ask about drinking and observe for signs of DUI. The officers make a concerted effort to limit contact to less than 30 seconds. If an officer suspects that a driver is under the influence, the driver will be directed to a parking area where a Field Sobriety Check (FST) is given, normally 2 officers handle the FST. The FST would consist of the Walk and Turn test, One-Leg Stand test and the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus. After the completion of the FST, the officer may use a portable breath testing device (PBT). If drugs are suspected, an officer who is specifically trained to detect drugs is called. If it is determined that the driver is impaired, an arrest is made and the car is impounded. After an arrest an evidential test to determine blood alcohol concentration is administered either at the County Jail booking area or Shasta Regional Medical Center. The arrestee has a choice of providing blood ,urine or may utilize a specially calibrated breathalyzer. Over 600 cars were screened at one of the checkpoints observed by the Grand Jury with 15 drivers given additional screening. Field Sobriety Tests were administered to six drivers, with three being arrested for DUI. There were also four drivers with suspended or no license and five cars impounded. FINDINGS F1. Impaired driving and impaired related crashes are a threat to the safety and well being of the citizens of Redding. F2. Sobriety checkpoints should be integrated with DUI saturation patrols, public information and education. F3. Prosecutorial support is needed for the DUI enforcement program to be successful F4. Sobriety checkpoints when integrated with an aggressive enforcement program and prosecutorial support are an effective deterrent to combat the impaired driving problem. RECOMMENDATIONS R1. The Grand Jury recommends that the City of Redding continue to fund the Sobriety Checkpoint Program, as well as the DUI Enforcement. R2. That the Redding Police Department continue the use of specialized DUI patrols that can focus on removing impaired drivers from the roadways. REQUIRED RESPONSES Redding City Council to respond to findings F1 through F4 and recommendations R1 and R2. REQUESTED RESPONSES Chief of Redding Police Department to respond to F1 through F4 and R1 and R2. City Manager of Redding to respond to F1 through F4 and R1 and R2. Response: City of Redding's Use of Sobriety Checkpoints “Deterrent for Impaired Drivers” SUMMARY The Grand Jury initiated an investigation into the City of Redding’s Sobriety checkpoint and DUI Enforcement Program. The purpose of the program is to maximize the deterrent effect and increase the perception of “risk apprehension” of motorists who would operate a vehicle while impaired by alcohol. Members of the Grand Jury observed Sobriety Checkpoints in action and rode with Redding Police Department’s DUI Saturation Patrol. Interviews were conducted with Officers of the RPD and volunteers from MADD. (Mothers Against Drunk Driving). The Grand Jury found that Sobriety checkpoints when integrated with an aggressive enforcement program and judicial support are an effective deterrent to combat the impaired driving problem. RECOMMENDATIONS R1. The Grand Jury recommends that the City of Redding continue to fund the Sobriety Checkpoint Program, as well as the DUI Enforcement. R2. That the Redding Police Department continue the use of specialized DUI patrols that can focus on removing impaired drivers from the roadways. RESPONSE Response to Recommendation No. 1: The City of Redding Police Department will continue to fund the Sobriety Checkpoint Program, as well as DUI Enforcement, within budget limitations. The Redding Police Department will continue to actively pursue available grants to fund special operations for DUI Enforcement. Response to Recommendation No. 2: The Redding Police Department will continue the use of specialized DUI patrols that can focus on removing impaired drivers from the roadways within budget limitations. The Redding Police Department will continue to seek grant funds to support this program. Submitted By: Missy McArthur, Mayor - Kurt Starman, City Manager Peter T. Hanson, Chief of police What It Takes to Become a Law Enforcement Officer in Shasta County “Finding the Best Applicants” SUMMARY The Grand Jury initiated an investigation into the hiring practices of three law enforcement agencies in Shasta County: the Anderson Police Department, the Redding Police Department and the Shasta County Sheriff's Department. Administrative staff from all three agencies were interviewed and provided the Grand Jury with materials that are routinely distributed to potential applicants as part of the hiring process. The Grand Jury found all three agencies engage in similar hiring practices. Although certification is not mandatory, the Grand Jury determined that not all police agencies in Shasta County utilize POST certified background investigators in their screening process. The cost of POST training is very reasonable. All Shasta County law enforcement agencies could take advantage of that training. GLOSSARY Entry Level Officer An applicant who has graduated from a police academy, is POST certified and has less than one year of experience in law enforcement. Lateral Officer An applicant who has graduated from a police academy, is POST certified and has more than one year of experience in law enforcement. POST Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) is a state commission established by the Legislature in 1959 to set minimum selection and training standards for California law enforcement. Recruit An applicant who has not been to a police academy or is currently enrolled in a police academy and has a minimum of 30 semester units from a college. A POST certified academy or community college gives a score for the applicant’s math, writing and memory skills. Each department sets the minimum score for its recruits. Entry level officers and lateral transfers are not required to take this test because they earned a score in the academy. DISCUSSION In reviewing the materials provided by each agency, the Grand Jury noted that most policies employed by one department mirror those of the other two with few exceptions. For example, Anderson gives applicants a spelling test and Redding gives a physical agility test, but the overall process utilized by the departments is fundamentally the same. All three agencies require that an applicant must be a US citizen, 21 years of age and have a high school diploma or GED (General Education Development) high school diploma. The applicant cannot have any felony convictions and must pass a criminal history background check conducted by an in-house background investigator. The applicant must also pass a physical examination conducted by a local health clinic and a psychological evaluation conducted by a psychologist. Credit reports, military records, educational background, family criminal history and driving records are also taken into consideration. During the background check, the applicant is asked about marital status to assess whether there have been incidents of domestic violence or bigamy in the applicant's past. Applicants are required to interview before an oral review board. The oral review board is made up of individuals selected by administrative personnel. Sometimes an officer from an outside agency, someone from the city's personnel department or a civilian from the community is invited to participate. The oral board seeks to determine the applicant's ability to work effectively with others, express themselves clearly and exercise good judgment in stressful situations. They also assess the applicant's interest in law enforcement as a profession. Once the screening and oral board interview process has been completed, applicants are ranked according to their scores. A ranking is provided to the chief or the sheriff who makes the final determination of who should be hired. All three agencies say they also consider how well the applicant will "fit" into their department in making a final determination. Redding and Anderson utilize a polygraph examination in the screening process. The Sheriff's Department prefers to use a CVSA (Computer Voice Stress Analysis ) which can be administered by a trained employee. The Sheriff’s Department allows new hires to be related by blood or marriage to a current employee. Redding allows employees to retain their position should they marry a co-worker after their date of hire. Anderson Police Department prohibits employees from being related in any way with the exception of seasonal workers, part time help or volunteers. Although it is not mandatory, the Anderson Police Department is the only agency in the County that does not utilize a POST certified background investigator. It was determined by the Grand Jury that a 32-hour certification class is available at American River College in Sacramento at a cost of $73. POST reimburses the department for travel expenses, lodging, meals and pays a per diem for an officer taking the class. Although it is not mandatory, POST provides training for background investigators and gives a certification to officers who have completed that training. All three agencies have had to cut employees because of budget constraints at the state, county and city level. All three indicated that it is common for positions not to be funded when a vacancy occurs and new employees are not being hired to fill those positions. FINDINGS F1 The Anderson Police Department is the only police agency in the county that does not use a POST certified background investigator. RECOMMENDATIONS None. RESPONSES None. Anderson Police Department SHASTA COUNTY COMMITTEE Overview: The County Committee investigated the Mountain Gate Community Services District and came up with a number of recommendations to improve the operations of the district. Mountain Gate Community Services District “Claims of Questionable Decisions by the Board” SUMMARY The Grand Jury initiated an investigation into the Mountain Gate Community Services District after several citizens from that district questioned the conduct of the board of directors. Complaints addressed the possibility of violations of the Brown Act, misuse of the district’s credit card policy and tailoring a job description to fit a predetermined candidate. BACKGROUND The district was formed in 1956 to provide water service and fire protection to the community. There are 670 water meters and 147 fire hydrants. The district currently has ten employees that include a manager, a part-time fire chief, six full-time employees (three are water certified), two part-time employees and 18 volunteer fire fighters. The current board consists of five board members who reside in the district. Three board members are required for a quorum. APPROACH The Grand Jury attended seven of the board’s monthly meetings, reviewed documents including board minutes, agendas, bylaws, and interviewed all five board members, the general manager and several community members. DISCUSSION Early on in the investigation, the Grand Jury noted that the meetings were disorganized with audience members speaking out of turn, and a marked lack of control of the proceedings was prevalent. During board meetings, it was observed that there was disrespectful behavior among the board members. As the Grand Jury continued to attend board meetings throughout the year, an improvement was noted in meeting decorum after board members and the general manager received training in the Brown Act. According to the board, the training was provided by the California Rural Water Association. Audience outbursts were controlled and meetings were then being run appropriately. One complainant alleged that there was a lack of accountability for credit card charges. The board is in the process of updating bylaws and has no current policies and procedures manual detailing proper accounting methods for credit card transactions. In the Grand Jury's investigation, it was discovered that there were three questionable transactions on the district’s credit card account. Transactions were incorrectly reported as fuel purchases where in reality the charges were for employee lunches. The district’s bylaws state that gas, oil, repairs of vehicles, travel expense, hotel, meals, tuition for board members and managerial staff, office supplies and equipment, materials and miscellaneous necessary items may be bought by the district. These bylaws were recently augmented to state that no personal use of the district’s credit cards will be authorized and the district manager, office manager, managerial staff and the fire chief are the only employees authorized to use district credit cards. A complainant alleged favoritism by the board in the hiring of the former board chairman as general manager. The Grand Jury determined that the current manager served on the board of directors from February 24, 2009 to December 11, 2009. He resigned from the board on December 17, 2009 and on March 9, 2010 was hired as the general manager on an interim basis. He was subsequently hired as permanent general manager on December 9, 2010. The board sent eight of the applications it had received for the general manager position to the managers of three water districts to review and rank those applications. The current Mountain Gate general manager was rated eighth in the list of applicants by those managers. The complainant also alleged that in July of 2009, while the current manager was chairman of the board, the board voted to lower the employment standards for the manager’s position. The Grand Jury determined that the board altered the job description for the general manager’s position by eliminating the need for a Grade 2 Water Treatment Certification and overseeing the operations of the fire department. The board voted 3-2 in favor with the chairman of the board casting one of the three votes in favor. That action worked to the chairman’s personal financial benefit since he had been paid $50 per meeting per month, not to exceed $100 per month as the board chairman and now earns $5,250 per month as General Manager. The complainant alleged the changes to the job description were made for the specific purpose of benefiting the former board chairman. The Grand Jury reviewed the district’s counsel’s opinion letter in which it was stated that this did not constitute a conflict of interest. The change to the employment standards may have been questionable or inappropriate; however, the Grand Jury did not determine it was a violation of the Brown Act. All five board members and the general manager have completed ethics training as mandated by Assembly Bill 1234. The training was provided by the Fair Political Practices Commission. FINDINGS F1. The Mountain Gate board was advised by its legal counsel that there was no conflict of interest in the hiring of the General Manager. The Grand Jury, however, determined there was the appearance of favoritism when the board lowered the employment standards and hired the former board member to be general manager. F2. Prior to the board implementing a policy on credit card usage, charges to the district’s credit card were incorrectly reported as fuel expenses when actually they were meals for employees. Although the bylaws allow for a per diem, there is no specific authorization in the bylaws for employees to charge meals on the district’s credit card. F3. After receiving training, board meetings attended by the Grand Jury were orderly. RECOMMENDATIONS The Grand Jury recommends: R1. The board create a policies and procedures manual separate from the bylaws for all operations of the district The manual should state which personnel may use the district’s credit card and for what purpose. R2. All board members complete training on the Brown Act and government ethics every two years as required by law. R3. The policies and procedures manual should designate the maximum reimbursement rates for lodging. Further, meal reimbursement should be limited to authorized out-of-county travel. REQUEST FOR RESPONSES Mountain Gate Community Services District board to respond to all findings and recommendations. Response: Mountain Gate Community Services District “Claims of Questionable Decisions by the Board” SUMMARY The Grand Jury initiated an investigation into the Mountain Gate Community Services District after several citizens from that district questioned the conduct of the board of directors. Complaints addressed the possibility of violations of the Brown Act, misuse of the district's credit card policy and tailoring a job description to fit a predetermined candidate. FINDINGS F1. The Mountain Gate board was advised by its legal counsel that there was no conflict of interest in the hiring of the General Manager. The Grand Jury, however, determined there was the appearance of favoritism when the board lowered the employment standards and hired the former board member to be general manager. F2. Prior to the board implementing a policy on credit card usage, charges to the district’s credit card were incorrectly reported as fuel expenses when actually they were meals for employees. Although the bylaws allow for a per diem, there is no specific authorization in the bylaws for employees to charge meals on the district’s credit card. F3. After receiving training, board meetings attended by the Grand Jury were orderly. RECOMMENDATIONS The Grand Jury recommends: R1. The board create a policies and procedures manual separate from the bylaws for all operations of the district The manual should state which personnel may use the district’s credit card and for what purpose. R2. All board members complete training on the Brown Act and government ethics every two years as required by law. R3. The policies and procedures manual should designate the maximum reimbursement rates for lodging. Further, meal reimbursement should be limited to authorized out-of-county travel. RESPONSE FINDINGS: F1 The respondent disagrees partially with the findings, the board of directors did not lower the employment standards. The General Managers job description was revised to conform with the ACWA Joint Powers Insurance Authority Water Industry Job Descriptions and Americans with disabilities act manual. ACWA/JPIA is our insurance carrier. F2 The respondent agrees with the findings. F3 The respondent agrees with the findings. RECOMMENDATIONS: R1 The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, the district's attorney is already writing the new by-laws and a draft has been presented to the board. The adoption of these by-laws should be within the next few months. The policies and procedures manual is a work in progress with completion in the near future. R2 The recommendation has been implemented. R3 The recommendation has been implemented. Response By: David Selby, Chairman of the Board - Cary Park, Vice Chairman - Greg Peterson, Director - Gary Gunter, Director - Janice Heck, Secretary to the Board Mountain Gate Community Services District Office LOCAL DISTRICTS & AGENCIES COMMITTEE Overview: The LD&A Committee with the assistance of the City Committee investigated a citizen complaint about the operation of the Burney community swimming pool. Burney Water District “Financial Solvency of Local Swimming Pool” SUMMARY The Grand Jury received a complaint claiming the Burney Water District is “utilizing monies intended for water and sewer services paid for by the district’s rate payers to balance the community swimming pool (fund) without voter approval is a violation of Proposition 218 and an injustice to the community as a whole.” The complaint also states that the pool has not been financially self-sufficient since it became the responsibility of the district and the fees charged to the public for the use of the pool do not cover the cost of maintaining the pool, requiring the district to subsidize pool operations. The Grand Jury determined the Burney Water District is in compliance with Proposition 218 but did find that the district has been deficit spending to maintain its water and sewer service and the operation of the community pool. The district does not maintain enough money in the three enterprise funds to cover operation expenses and depreciation of equipment. Reserve funds have fallen dangerously low and will not cover the cost of system upgrades, modernization and catastrophic repairs in the future. GLOSSARY Proposition 218 Passed in 1996 and deals with reform of assessments and property related fees. Fees cannot be charged by a government agency unless voters approve. California Constitution XIII (D) Amendment to the California State Constitution in 1996 that implemented the requirements of Proposition 218. Enterprise Fund A government fund that is used to account for business- type activities of a public agency, such as utility operations. Oversight Committee A standing committee formed to oversee government functions. BACKGROUND The Burney community pool was built in 1990 on surplus land that was purchased from a local school district for one dollar. In 1990, the district took over maintenance of the pool. In 1995, Measure B was passed by the voters to assess district customers a pool fee of two dollars on their monthly bill. In return, customers were given pool passes to use the community pool during free swim hours. In 2005, another Measure B was placed on the ballot. It authorized the Burney Water District to increase the pool fee per month from two dollars to four dollars and gave the district authority to raise the fee one dollar per month every five years, upon the recommendation of the oversight committee. Measure B passed with a 66.7% to 33.3% vote. The Board of Directors appointed a five member oversight committee to serve a two-year term. Members may be re-appointed by the board for additional terms. This committee was instituted in the district’s bylaws in April 2006 and its first members were selected in January 2007. The committee was created to recommend changes to pool fees, per Measure B. In 2008, the district received a $200,000 grant from the Pacific Forest and Land Council to replace pool decking and to plaster and tile the pool. In recent years the district has received other grants to cover community pool expenses. In March 2011, the oversight committee recommended an increase in monthly pool fees by one dollar to five dollars per month per customer which is expected to increase annual revenue by $18,000. Of the four oversight committee members present at that meeting, the vote was unanimous. As of April, 2011, the Board of Directors had not approved this increase. Maintenance and repair of the pool and pool equipment are provided by district employees. Minimal care is required until preparation for the swim season. During this time, seasonal employees (the pool manager and lifeguards) run the pool and offer water safety instruction and swimming lessons to the community. APPROACH The Grand Jury reviewed Proposition 218 and Article XIII (D) of the California Constitution. The Grand Jury interviewed all five district board members, a quorum of the oversight committee, the manager and an employee. The Grand Jury reviewed the Burney Water District Audit Report for fiscal years 2009 and 2010; time reports submitted by field staff for a breakout of hours to water, sewer or pool enterprises accounts; the pool budget for fiscal year 2010/11, the Stewardship Council Grant Application for a $200,000 grant; a sample customer billing statement and job descriptions for field superintendent, utility workers, pool manager, assistant pool manager and lifeguards, and minutes from several board meetings. Income and Expenses for 2010 1 Pool Water Sewer Capital grants and contributions $ 2,606 $ 0 $ 0 Property taxes $ 0 $ 0 $ 56,342. Utility revenue $ 0 $656,912 $390,524 Water customer fees, gate fees and swimming lesson fees $88,576 $ 0 $ 0 Interest income from the reserve fund $ 897 $ 3,582 $ 3,325 TOTAL REVENUE $92,079 $660,494 $450,191 Operating expenses $73,530 $616,643 $418,125 Depreciation for the pool and equipment $25,545 $ 95,388 $ 84,734 TOTAL EXPENSES $99,075 $720,781 $502,859 OPERATING INCOME (LOSS) ($6,996.) ($60,287) ($52,668) 1 (1) Burney Water District Audit Report, June 30, 2010 FACTS The district: • Maintains three enterprise funds (pool, water, and sewer). These funds are invested and managed by the Shasta County Treasurer. • Did not maintain accounting records showing complete cash balances or interest income. Depreciation and interest income were not being posted to the individual funds. • Ended each fiscal year with a net operating loss for at least the last three years. • Did not budget for sick pay, vacation pay, compensation time or standby time and did not budget for increases in health insurance premiums. • Did not budget for interest payments on municipal bonds. • Incurred unanticipated legal expenses regarding the formation of an employee association. • Clearly designates the pool fee in customer bills. • Submitted all increases in pool fees to the district voters. • Correctly reported employee time reports to the appropriate proprietary fund. • Did not include maintenance and repair of the community pool in job descriptions. • Ends each fiscal year with a net operating loss in all three of the enterprise funds. FINDINGS The district: F1. Has sufficient funds to maintain operations. F2. Does not consider depreciation, equipment costs and future upgrades when pool expenses are budgeted. F3. Did not transfer funds from water or sewer accounts into the pool fund for the period covered by the Grand Jury’s investigation. F4. Did not violate Proposition 218 because voters approved all fees and increases in fees for the community pool. RECOMMENDATION R1 The district needs to eliminate its operating losses and be able to handle unanticipated future expenses. R2 The district should continue to designate funds for system upgrades and replacement, as cash flows permit. It should carefully monitor operations to bring the district into a break-even position. R3 The district should continue to look at all sources to increase the revenue stream. REQUEST FOR RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal Code Section 933.05, the Grand Jury requests responses as follows: Burney Water District board of directors as to all findings and recommendations. The board of directors should be aware that the comment or response of the governing body must be conducted subject to the notice, agenda and open meeting requirements of the Brown Act. Workers ready the Burney community pool for season opening in 2009 Photo by Cindy Dodds, Intermountain News Response: Burney Water District “Financial Solvency of Local Swimming Pool” SUMMARY The Grand Jury received a complaint claiming the Burney Water District is “utilizing monies intended for water and sewer services paid for by the district’s rate payers to balance the community swimming pool (fund) without voter approval is a violation of Proposition 218 and an injustice to the community as a whole.” The complaint also states that the pool has not been financially self-sufficient since it became the responsibility of the district and the fees charged to the public for the use of the pool do not cover the cost of maintaining the pool, requiring the district to subsidize pool operations. The Grand Jury determined the Burney Water District is in compliance with Proposition 218 but did find that the district has been deficit spending to maintain its water and sewer service and the operation of the community pool. The district does not maintain enough money in the three enterprise funds to cover operation expenses and depreciation of equipment. Reserve funds have fallen dangerously low and will not cover the cost of system upgrades, modernization and catastrophic repairs in the future. FINDINGS F1. Has sufficient funds to maintain operations. F2. Does not consider depreciation, equipment costs and future upgrades when pool expenses are budgeted. F3. Did not transfer funds from water or sewer accounts into the pool fund for the period covered by the Grand Jury’s investigation. F4. Did not violate Proposition 218 because voters approved all fees and increases in fees for the community pool. RECOMMENDATION R1 The district needs to eliminate its operating losses and be able to handle unanticipated future expenses. R2 The district should continue to designate funds for system upgrades and replacement, as cash flows permit. It should carefully monitor operations to bring the district into a break-even position. R3 The district should continue to look at all sources to increase the revenue stream. RESPONSE FINDINGS F1 We agree with Finding Fl, that the Burney Water District has sufficient funds to maintain operations. F2 We agree with Finding F2, that the Burney Water District does not consider depreciation, equipment costs and future upgrades when pool expenses are budgeted. We will include depreciation in its 2011-2012 fiscal year budgeting process, and we will look to incorporate a capital improvement projects budget to account for equipment costs and future upgrades as we improve and refine our budgeting process. F3 We agree with Finding F3, that the Burney Water District did not transfer funds from water or sewer accounts into the pool fund for the period covered by the Grand Jury's investigation. F4 We agree with Finding F4, that the Burney Water District did not violate Proposition 218 because voters approved all fees and increase in fees for the community pool. In 2005, the voters within the Burney Water District boundaries passed Measure B to increase fees from $2.00 to $4.00, with provision for a $1.00 fee increase every five years upon recommendation of an oversight committee and Board adoption. RECOMMENDATIONS R1 We have not yet implemented Recommendation R1, to eliminate operating losses and be prepared to handle unanticipated future expenses. We continue to work on managing expenses and adjusting rates in all District enterprises and will continue to work to implement this recommendation until operating losses are eliminated in all District enterprises. R2 We have not yet implemented Recommendation R2, to continue to designate funds for system upgrades and replacement, as cash flows permit, and to carefully monitor operations to bring the Burney Water District into a break-even position. We continue to work on monitoring operating expenses in all District enterprises to bring the Burney Water District into a breakeven position and will continue to work to implement this recommendation until cash flows permit movement of funds to reserves for system upgrades and replacement. R3 Recommendation R3 advises us to continue to look at all sources to increase the revenue stream. We continue to seek out new possibilities for increasing the revenue stream in all enterprises, and will continue to work to implement this recommendation to improve the longterm financial health of the Burney Water District. Response By: Sharon K. Quinlan, President of the Board of Directors, Burney Water District SHASTA COUNTY LOCAL DISTRICTS AND AGENCIES Cemetery Districts Water Districts Anderson Cemetery District Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District Burney Cemetery District Bella Vista Water District Cottonwood Cemetery District Burney Water District Fall River Mills Cemetery District Cottonwood Water District Halcumb Cemetery District Shasta County Water Agency Manton Joint Cemetery District Craig View Water Agency Millville Cemetery District Pine Grove Cemetery District Mosquito Districts Community Service Districts Burney Basin Mosquito Abatement Dist. Centerville Community Services District Pine Grove Mosquito Abatement Dist. Clear Creek Community Services District Shasta Mosquito & Vector Control Dist. Fall River Mills Community Services District Igo-Ono Community Services District Mountain Gate Community Services District Shasta Community Services District Conservation Districts Other Districts/Agencies Fall River Resource Conservation Dist. Shasta Area Safety Communications Agency Western Shasta Resource Conservation Mayers Memorial Health Care District District Shasta County Air Quality Management Dist. Keswick Community Services Area School Districts, Agencies & Programs Fire Districts Anderson Union High School District Anderson Fire Protection District Bella Vista Elementary School Dist. Burney Fire Protection District Black Butte Union School District Castella Fire Protection District Cascade Elementary School District Cottonwood Fire Protection District Castle Rock Elementary School Dist. Fall River Mills Fire Protection District Columbia Elementary School District Happy Valley Fire Protection District Cottonwood Union Elementary McArthur Fire Protection District School District Millville Fire Protection District Enterprise Elementary School District Shasta Lake Fire Protection District School Districts, Agencies & Programs (Continued) Fall River Joint Unified School District Oak Run Elementary School District French Gulch-Whiskeytown Union Pacheco Union School District Elementary School District Redding School District Gateway Unified School District Shasta County Office of Education Grant Elementary School District Shasta County Board of Education Happy Valley Union School District Shasta-Tehama-Trinity Joint Igo-Ono Platina School District Community College District Indian Springs Elementary School District Shasta Regional Occupational Program Junction Elementary School District Shasta Union Elementary School District Millville Elementary School District Shasta Union High School District Mountain Union School District Shasta-Trinity Regional Occupational North Cow Creek School District Program Igo-Ono-Platina School District Whitmore Elementary School District Indian Springs Elementary School Dist. Junction Elementary School District Millville Elementary School District Shasta County Grand Jury Investigative Reports - 2000 to 2011 CITY OF ANDERSON City of Anderson …………………….. 06/07 Economic Development ……………………… 07/08 CITY OF REDDING Development Services Department Land Purchases ……………………… 04/05 Redevelopment Agency ……………………… 05/06 Redding Fire Department ……………………… 05/06 Zoning and Planning …………………….... 04/05 Nuisance Water Complaint ……………………… 10/11 Stillwater Business Park …………………….... 07/08 Wastewater Treatment Plants ……………………… 09/10 Redding Ballot Measures A and B ……………………… 10/11 Electric Utility Department ……………………… 09/10 Finance Department Assessment Districts (General) ……………………… 99/00 Information Technology ……………………… 08/09 Police Department ……………………… 01/02, 05/06, 08/09 Police Department Complaints ……………………... 08/09 Police Department Facility ……………………… 08/09 Red Light Enforcement Program ……………………… 08/09 Public Works Department CITY OF SHASTA LAKE Economic Development ……………………… 07/08 COUNTY OF SHASTA Agriculture/Weights and Measures ……………………… 08/09 Assessor/Recorder Office ……………………… 05/06, 08/09 Auditor/Controller’s Office ……………………… 01/02, 08/09 Audit and Management Report ……………………… annually Employee Orientation/Training ……………………… 00/01 Management Audit ……………………… 03/04 Audit – Retired Senior Volunteer Program ……………... 02/03 County Clerk’s Office Registrar of Voters ……………………… 00/01, 03/04 County Fire Department ……………………… 06/07 Economic Development ……………………… 07/08 Mental Health Department ……………………… 01/02, 04/05, 07/08 Shasta County Grand Jury Investigative Reports - 2000 to 2011 (Continued) COUNTY OF SHASTA (Continued) Planning Division ……………………… 07/08 Probation Department Juvenile Assessment Center ………………………. 00/01 P.A.C.T. ………………………. 08/09 Public Health Department Small Pox Vaccination Program ………………………. 02/03 Water Fluoridation Ballot Measure ………………………. 03/04 Public Works Department Fall River Mills and Shingletown Airports ……………… 00/01 Public Works ………………………. 06/07 Sheriff/Coroner’s Office Animal Shelter ………………………. 04/05, 06/07, 09/10 Boating Safety ………………………. 07/08 Crystal Creek Boy’s Camp ………………………. annually to closing in 2008 Firearms Confiscation ………………………. 08/09 Fire Arms Training Simulator ………………………. 10/11 Jail Inmate Welfare Fund ………………………. 06/07 Property/Evidence Facility ………………………. 08/09 Shasta County Coroner ………………………. 10/11 Shasta County Detention Annex ………………………. annually to closing in 2004 Shasta County Jail ………………………. annually Shasta County Jail Cell Searches ………………………. 10/11 Shasta County Juvenile Hall ………………………. annually Sheriff/Patrol Division ………………………. 05/06 Sobriety Check Points ………………………. 10/11 Training – Handling the Mentally Ill ………………………. 04/05 Work Release Program ………………………. 03/04, 05/06, 07/08 Social Services Department Public Guardian ………………………. 02/03 Adult Services ………………………. 08/09 Support Services ………………………. 08/09 Treasurer/Tax Collector’s Office Use Permits ………………………. 04/05 Vehicle Usage ………………………. 04/05 Special Districts Management of District Boards ……………………….. 09/10 Anderson/Cottonwood Irrigation District ………………. 04/05 Anderson Fire Protection District ……………………….. 09/10 Burney Fire Protection District ………………00/01, 04/05, 05/06, 07/08 Burney Water District ……………………… 10/11 Centerville Community Services District ……………… 05/06 Cottonwood Fire Protective District ……………... 04/05 Fall River Mills Community Services District ……………... 03/04 Shasta County Grand Jury Investigative Reports - 2000 to 2011 (Continued) Local Districts and Agencies (Continued) Mountain Gate Community Services District ……………… 08/09, 10/11 Shasta Community Service District ……………... 03/04,05/06, 06/07 Shasta Mosquito and Vector Control District ……………… 01/02, 04/05, 08/09 Shasta Lake Fire Protection District ……………… 02/03 Western Shasta Conservation District (WSRCD) …………... 02/03 SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS Anderson Union High School District …………………… 02/03 Black Butte School District …………………… 99/00 Consolidation/Unification of Shasta County Schools ……………… 05/06 Cottonwood Union School District ……………………………. 07/08 Gateway Unified School District ……………………………. 04/05 Grant Elementary School ……………………………. 03/04 Safe School Initiative ……………………………. 06/07 Shasta County Office of Education Camp Latieze ……………………………. 99/00 Shasta Union High School District ……………………………. 04/05 MISCELLANEOUS City and County Websites …………………………….. 07/08 Credit Cards – Usage by Public Entities …………………………….. 03/04 Duration of Independent Audit Contracts …………………..... 99/00 Gangs/Gang Activities (SAGE) …………………………….. 06/07 Law Enforcement Preparedness: Schools ……………………. 00/01 Railroad Operations in Shasta County ……………………. 01/02 Redding Area Bus Authority (RABA) ……………… 06/07 SHASCOM: Shasta Area Safety Communications ………… 00/01, 03/04, 05/06, 07/08 Shasta Interagency Narcotics Task Force ……………………. 03/04, 06/07 Special Districts in Shasta County …………………… 07/08 Sugar Pine Conservation Camp …………………… annually Western Shasta Resource Conservation District …………………… 02/03 What It Take to Become a Law Enforcement Officer …………… 10/11 2010 / 2011 Shasta County Grand Jury Photo Courtesy of T.A. Schmidt & Associates Left to Right, Front Row: Mark Doyle, Dorothea Howerton, Rochelle (Shelly) Jenkins, Foreman Jim Berg, Christina Candelaria, Patricia Carver, Alvin Parker Second Row: Pat Arnold, Doug Cook, Colette Butler, John Gonzalez, James Dillon, Jeff Herndon, Charlotte Ramage, George Clarke, Erin Murphy, Marti Leard, David Plowman. 1 •