⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings 20 findings
F1
Absenteeism is a significant problem in Lake County public school districts, where the absentee rate in most districts is worse than state average.
F2
Lake County public schools are losing significant revenue due to the absentee rates of students. Figure 1. Shows that Lake County schools are losing significant revenue.
F3
Lake County public school districts recognize the negative impact of absenteeism on both the education of students and revenue.
F4
Lake County public school officials recognize that the high level of poverty in the Lake County community is a significant contributor to high levels of absenteeism.
F5
Lake County public schools have only limited resources to intercede with students and parents in order to combat absenteeism.
F6
The most difficult issue in dealing with chronic absenteeism is the lack of cooperation from parents who themselves did not have good educational experiences and are poorly educated.
F7
County educators believe that the most effective way to reduce absenteeism in the higher grades is to establish a strong dedication to attendance by the students when they are in preschool and in the primary grades (K – 3).
F8
The stated County focus on creating a longer term improved economic base and being an attraction for multiple categories of businesses and investments would be greatly served by enhancing the educational quality and success 24 throughout the county. It has been broadly proven that readily available and utilized pre-schools establish a firmer base for children entering into the primary school level to achieve learning and socialization goals. Such firm foundations do continue into greater learning in the higher grades, improved standard testing results, greater numbers of high school graduates, and higher percentages of students continuing into college level education. This is a long-range tactic to firmly augment the County’s long-term goal.
F9
The County, under the impression that insurance funds would be available to homeowners for only two years after the fire, hurriedly arranged to distribute the so called “INVOICE” to property owners in July 2017, during public meetings and via certified mail.
F10
The breakdown of costs on the “INVOICE” included figures not only for “debris removal,” but also for non-site-specific services, such as “lot fee” and “community cost,” for which no explanations were provided.
F11
Some property owners received at the same time a second “INVOICE” for “tree removal,” in some instances when no trees - or seemingly healthy trees - were removed, thus compounding their upset. Once again, the figure for non-site-specific “monitoring costs” on the “INVOICE” was unexplained. 65
F12
The ROE specified certified arborist’s reports and property photographs (before-and-after) hazardous tree removal that were submitted by the tree removal subcontractor are maintained in another department. These records are separate from the primary files created by Administration. Thus, these documents are not available to staff who are attempting to respond to owners’ inquiries.
F13
Some owners who went to – or called - the administrative office to vent their frustration over the “INVOICE” felt ignored by the response to their inquiry or complaint. Callers rarely spoke with an employee. Instead, they were automatically re-routed to voicemail. This was at the direction of senior administration management.
F14
Despite having been informed on several occasions that they were responsible to pay only the allotted insurance coverage for debris removal, many property owners were confused, anguished, and angered by their “INVOICE”, which they interpreted to be demanding payment for the full amount listed, which averaged approximately $100,000.
F15
When owners, a number of whom were present during the debris removal, requested supporting documentation for the billed amounts, the County stated that it passed on the requests to CalRecyle, with no response.
F16
Some owners whose rebuilding monies were distributed to them by their insurance carriers had not been informed that the debris removal coverage was included therein. They then spent the money without paying the debris-removal portion to the County. The County is slowly attempting to work out a repayment program for these owners.
F17
Approaching three years after the Valley Fire, the County still does not have the proof of “no insurance” from all of the owners so indicating.
F18
To-date, three letters with copies of the “INVOICE” have been send out to property owners who have not yet paid the County their insurance proceeds for debris removal. Several owners have reported they were threatened verbally with being sent to collections, despite administrative denial of anyone doing so. When the specific amount owed is unknown thereby excluding external collections, how the County will force owners to pay is unclear. 66
F19
Property owners affected by the Clayton Fire, who have received insurance proceeds for debris removal that they want to pay to the County, now are unable to do so for lack of a dedicated database created to document/track such payments for the Clayton Fire.
F20
Part of the reason for the delay in collecting insurance proceeds was linked to the prolonged delay in issuing building permits by The Department of Community Development, as insurers often retained rebuilding payments until a permit was issued.
Recommendations 10
-
R1Public school districts must work more closely with each other and county agencies to promote school attendance and to intercede in cases of truancy. This effort should be done in concert such that the consideration of school attendance is raised as a countywide priority, and efforts are coordinated to both improve attendance services and contain costs. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6.)
-
R7County administrative personnel should actively seek out training regarding State and Federal regulations pertaining to debris removal prior to beginning the insurance collection process. [F-6, F-9, F-16]
-
R8All administrative staff dealing with the public in the aftermath of a disaster should be cross-trained in the basics of State and Federal post-fire regulations as well as in Lake County post-fire insurance administrative procedures to provide backup continuity. [F-9, F-12, F-15, F-16, F-17]
-
R9A dedicated phone line for debris removal insurance coverage queries should be instituted before collection procedures begin for the Clayton, Sulphur, and any future fires. [F-5, F-13, F-14, F-15]
-
R10The preliminary message on that dedicated line should include words to the effect of “We have placed answers to many common questions on the Lake County OES website and we encourage you to peruse that site at “(County to develop a new web site location – specific to the fire/insurance issues).” This message should precede the caller’s transfer to the responsible County person assigned to that dedicated line. [F-13]
-
R11The County should strive always to have a person answering the dedicated phone line during business hours. Calls being forwarded from the public to Voicemail during business hours should be done only as a backup procedure and not as a primary means of communication. Procedures should be developed and implemented to assure that callers’ queries are addressed in a timely manner. [F-13, F-15]
-
R12The contract between the County and CalRecycle must specify the terms of payment of insurance proceeds to the State and reimbursement to the County for its insurance-collection costs. [F-2, F-3]
-
R13The County should develop, approve, print, and adhere to specific procedures under which any delinquent property owners are to be sent to “collections.” These procedures should accompany early communications regarding insurance reimbursement. [F-18] 68
-
R14As an example of proactive management, the best interest of its citizens would be served by the County’s establishing the working databases now for property owners affected by the Clayton and Sulphur fires. [F-19]
-
R15Any residual Valley Fire-related information and documents from other departments should be integrated into the databases and files created and maintained by Administration. [F-12]
No Responses Found 9
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
Clearlake
City
Kelseyville Unified School District
School District
Konocti Unified School District
School District
Lake County Board of Supervisors
Elected County Office
Lakeport
City
Lakeport Unified School District
School District
Lucerne Elementary School District
School District
Middletown Unified School District
School District
Upper Lake Unified School District
School District