2003-04 Final Report

Recommendations 44

• R1

  Page 17
  • Combine local police departments with the County Sheriff to utilize shared services efficiently. Vehicle Maintenance Facts: • The cities contract with different garages for the maintenance and repair of law enforcement vehicles. • The County Corporation Yard has the appropriate staff and facilities to service additional law enforcement vehicles.
• R2

  Page 17
  • Standardize the maintenance and repair of law enforcement vehicles by using the County Corporation Yard. Fuel Facts: • Sutter Creek and Jackson purchase fuel from the County. • Ione purchases fuel from a private source.
• R3

  Page 17
  • Contracts should be made for fuel purchases through the County Corporation Yard. Equipment/Vehicle Purchase Facts: • Equipment such as light bars, computers, push bumpers, cages, plastic back seats, and vehicles are procured individually by each city. • Researching, locating, and purchasing of equipment and vehicles are done by each city individually. Findings: • Purchasing power would be enhanced by buying equipment in bulk and vehicles at fleet prices. • Equipment and vehicle purchases are duplicated by each city. Recommendations: • Evaluate equipment and vehicular needs on a county-wide basis. • Centralize equipment and vehicular purchases to take advantage of bulk and fleet pricing. • Purchase necessary equipment and vehicles according to the County’s needs. Law Enforcement Motor Pool Facts: • No more than two officers are on duty at any given time in each city. • Each city has 6-12 law enforcement vehicles available. Findings: • The number of law enforcement vehicles available to each city exceeds its need. • Combining law enforcement into one county-wide agency would reduce the number of excess vehicles. • Eliminating excess law enforcement vehicles would reduce maintenance and fuel costs. Recommendations: • Establish a law enforcement motor pool based on county-wide needs. • Evaluate law enforcement vehicle needs on a county-wide basis and make appropriate vehicular reductions in each city. Grant Applications Facts: • Grants are an integral part of county and city law enforcement funding. • The County and each city apply for law enforcement grants individually.
• R4

  Page 19
  • Organize the law enforcement training schedule on a county-wide basis so adequate and cost-effective police coverage always exists. Promotions Fact: • Law enforcement promotional opportunities within the cities are limited.
• R5

  Page 19
  • Combine law enforcement agencies to provide greater promotional opportunities at the County level. City Police Office Hours Fact: • City police stations are closed evenings, weekends and holidays.
• R6

  Page 20
  • Retain City Managers and consolidate supervisory law enforcement personnel under the Sheriff’s Office. Administration Facts: • Each of the 3 cities employs its own Police Chief. • Two Lieutenants and 2 Sergeants are staffed within the 3 cities. • Each city has a police clerical staff. Findings: • A duplication of administrative law enforcement personnel exists. • Staffing is redundant. • Clerical duties are duplicated. Recommendations: • Shift police supervisory positions (Chiefs, Lieutenants, and Sergeants) to the Sheriff’s Office. • Retain police patrol in the cities. • Shift the city police clerical duties to the Sheriff’s Office. Budgets Facts: • The combined police department budget of the three cities is $2.1 million. • In 1997, the City of Plymouth saved approximately $75,000 by eliminating its police department and contracting with the Sheriff. Findings: • The police budget is the largest item in each of the three cities’ budgets. • A substantial savings is available by utilizing the Sheriff for all law enforcement duties within the County.
• R7

  Page 21
  • Consolidate local police departments into one law enforcement agency administered by the County Sheriff. Conclusion: Numerous superfluous costs are incurred by the cities within Amador County as a result of a duplication of law enforcement services. By consolidating some or all police functions, substantial savings are available to each city. The amount of savings available is contingent upon the degree to which each city chooses to participate in a cooperative, county-wide law enforcement effort. Unique civic identity could be maintained and regional pride enhanced, by the establishment of an economically and managerially sound law enforcement agency for the County of Amador.
• R8

  Page 46
  • All comments and discussions related to matters before the City Council should be made in an open public forum. Letter of Support On September 11, 2003, the City of Plymouth held its regularly scheduled meeting. At this meeting the ballots were counted to indicate the support or lack of support for the casino project. Although the project lacked community support, the following actions were taken by the City Council: Facts: • A council member moved that a letter of support be drafted for the casino project in spite of the overwhelming public rejection of the casino project. • The motion to send a letter of support of the casino to the Governor was seconded and passed. • The letter was sent on September 15, 2003 to the Tribal Chair with copies to the City Planner, a City Attorney, the Tribal Attorney and the financial backer of the proposed casino, but not to the Governor. • Since this action did not conform to the motion made on September 11, 2003, an attorney representing a private citizen requested that this error be corrected or the City would face legal action. • A special meeting was held on October 16, 2003. After a closed session to discuss the potential legal action, the Council reconvened the public meeting. The Council moved that City Resolution 2003-19 be adopted outlining the City’s support and that the Governor be notified. • Resolution 2003-19 in support of the casino project passed on a 3-1 vote. • The Grand Jury requested confirmation that Resolution 2003-19 was sent to the Governor. The City has been unable to produce this confirmation. Findings: • The City acted without authority in writing a letter of support to the Tribal Chair, not to the Governor. The letter of support was intended for the Governor. • The City did not rescind the motion of September 11th, but passed a new motion in support of the casino project. • The Grand Jury has not received evidence that a letter has been sent to the Governor in support of the casino project.
• R9

  Page 46
  • The City Council should establish a tracking system to verify that directives of the City Council are completed. Serial Meetings: The Brown Act prohibits council members from privately discussing issues that would be taken up before the official council. When council meetings are attended by less than a quorum (in this case, two members constitute less than a quorum), no violation exists. However, if subsequent to the initial meeting a third council member (thus creating a quorum) is influenced by either of the two members in the original meeting, it becomes a “serial meeting”. In order to determine if a violation of the Brown Act has occurred in regards to a serial meeting, two questions must be addressed. First, did the actions of the City Council actually qualify as a serial meeting? Second, did these meetings result in a concurrence related to the passage of the proposed agreement? If both answers are affirmative, then a Brown Act violation has transpired. Facts: • A fifth Council member was appointed by a vote of the Council to fill the vacant City Council seat. • The fifth Council member appointed is the Mayor’s father who was previously a member of the City Council. • The Mayor authorized the drafting of a Municipal Services Agreement (MSA). • Private meetings were held to draft the MSA. • The Mayor as well as two other Council members attended the MSA draft meetings. • Only one of the other two members was in attendance at any single meeting, thus a rotation of this second Council member’s attendance occurred. • Other people were in attendance at the MSA draft meetings to provide technical assistance. • The public was barred from attending the MSA draft meetings. • A vote of three to one was rendered in favor of the MSA. • The three City Council members (the Mayor and two other members) who attended the private MSA draft meetings voted in favor of the MSA. • The single dissenting City Council member initiated the sole discussion about the advantages and disadvantages of the MSA. • The three Council members who rotated attendance at the MSA draft meetings made no public comments at the special public meeting held to confirm the MSA. Findings: • A quorum of City Council members rotated its attendance at private MSA draft meetings, which constituted one component of a serial meeting. • The Mayor and one member who attended the MSA draft meetings voted in favor of the City’s support for the Tribe’s casino proposal. • The other favorable vote came from the Mayor’s father. • The City Council had previously voted in support of the casino proposal; therefore, the support for the MSA reflected that support. • Inconclusive evidence exists to substantiate the concern the serial meeting resulted in the favorable vote on the MSA. • The dissenting vote on the MSA came from the Council member that did not attend the MSA draft meetings and previously voted against the casino proposal. Recommendations: • Open negotiating meetings to citizen observers. • Designate a single City Council member to attend negotiation meetings. • Institute workshop style meetings to allow public participation. Political Reform Act (PRA) Violation Background The Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) was created by the Political Reform Act of 1974, a ballot initiative passed by California voters. The Act sets ethics rules for State and local government officials that impose strict limits on decisions or votes that affect the official’s interests. The California Code of Regulations is referred to as the CCR. CCR Government Code Section 87105(a) refers to a public official, who, having a financial interest in a decision, must do all of the following: o Publicly identify the financial interest that gives rise to a conflict or potential conflict of interest, o Recuse oneself from discussing and voting on the matter, o Leave the room until after the discussion, vote, and other dispositions of the matter is concluded unless the matter has been placed on the portion of the agenda reserved for uncontested matters, o The public official may speak on the issue during the time that the general public speaks on the issue. Facts: • One Plymouth City Council member owns property adjacent to the proposed casino • PRA defines a conflict of interest as the holding of real property within 500 feet of a proposed development. • Council members having a conflict of interest are barred from participating or voting on the casino issue. • On two separate occasions, when the casino was being discussed, the Council member with the conflict of interest identified himself and then spoke in protest. • The identified Council member was seen in the back of the room and did not leave the room immediately. • In a subsequent meeting, the identified Council member requested that the City Council minutes state that he left the room when he did not. Findings: • The manner in which the Council member with a conflict of interest disqualified himself from the proceedings was improper. • The Council member with a conflict of interest made a speech which was intended to influence the other Council members. • The Mayor did not take action after the infraction had been brought to the Council’s attention.
• R10

  Page 48
  • Provide training on the Political Reform Act (PRA) to all members of the City Council. • Refer the conflict of interest matter to the Fair Political Practices Commission. Water Rate Increase Facts: • In April 2003, the City determined that providing water service was costing more than the monthly fee collected for the service. • The rate during that time was $2.30 per 100 cubic feet of water. • The City formed an Ad Hoc Committee to review and make recommendations to the City for determining an appropriate rate increase. • The City had adopted a budget of $240,000 for the year for water services. • The Ad Hoc Committee proposed four different rate structures, but the adopted $3.10 per cubic feet was not one of them. • The City alleged that this rate increase was supported by the Ad Hoc Committee. • The City adopted a $3.10 rate increase over the objections of the Ad Hoc Committee. • The AD Hoc Committee’s recommendation was an immediate temporary increase to $2.94 per 100 cubic feet of water for a period of 60 days until further decisions could be made.
• R11

  Page 52
  • None Conflict of Interest Facts: • The real estate firm that had a financial connection to the Kennedy Meadow development employed the Mayor of Jackson in a position as a real estate agent. • The Mayor was not the agent involved in the real estate transaction of this project. • The Jackson City Attorney rendered the opinion that no disqualifying conflict existed. • The conflict was then brought to the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC). • The FPPC ruled there was no conflict of interest violation. Findings: • Public discussions and responses regarding this project became very personal and heated. • Although a Council member may not be in a conflict of interest position, the appearance of a conflict may cause added public concern and speculation.
• R12

  Page 52
  • Responses to public discussions should be handled with diplomacy and in a professional manner. • Public officials should conduct themselves in a manner that is above reproach. Resolution Actions (Application for HOME Grant Funds) Citizens alleged that the reduction of the number of units originally proposed should have been brought back to the City Council and the public before modifying the HOME Grant application. A resolution is something that is resolved, a firmness of resolve or a formal expression of opinion, will, or intent voted by an official body or assembled group. HOME Grant Funds The City of Jackson has asked for funding through the HOME Program. HOME is the largest Federal block grant to State & local governments designed exclusively to create affordable housing for low-income households. Facts: • The Kennedy Meadows development is to be built with HOME Grant funding. • The original proposed development was described as “78 affordable units” of which 21 were to be “very low income” units. • On September 23, 2002, the Resolution 2002-34 application for the HOME Grant for a 78-Unit Rental New Construction Project was passed and adopted by the Jackson City Council. • In October 2002, the developer changed the proposed development, reducing the number of affordable units to 56 and increasing the number of “very low income” units to 23. • Reduction of density from 78 to 56 affordable units was determined to be a minor change by the City Attorney and was handled as an administrative adjustment. • Acting within his jurisdiction, the Mayor signed the revised resolution for the HOME Grant application. Due to the change being an administrative adjustment, no public approval or vote of the Council was needed. Findings: • The City Council of Jackson acted within its jurisdiction in applying for the HOME Grant.
• R13

  Page 53
  • None 1st Referendum Petition: HOME Grant Application Article 34 “Public Housing Project Law” (Vote of the People) A referendum is the principle or practice of submitting to popular vote a measure passed upon or proposed by a legislative body or by popular initiative. Facts: • Concerned citizens and Seniors Against Governmental Abuse (SAGA) submitted a petition to the City Council against Resolution 2003-03 protesting the City’s resolution to fund the Kennedy Meadows development. • The petition against the resolution was certified on February 14, 2003. • Once a petition is certified, the City Council must either repeal the resolution or submit it as a referendum petition for a vote of the people according to the elections code. • The referendum petition against Resolution 2003-03 for the application of the HOME Grant was to be placed on the November 2004 ballot. • The Kennedy Meadows project developer filed suit against the City of Jackson to block the referendum. • The litigation went to the Amador County Superior Court as to whether an affordable housing project is subject to a California Constitution, Article 34 (vote of the people). • The Article 34 “Public Housing Project Law” (vote of the people) applies to the builders of a project. The City of Jackson is not the developer or builder of the Kennedy Meadows project. • The judge found that the agreement was not subject to referendum in any form and issued an order removing the measure from the ballot. • The judge’s decision was appealed to the 3rd District Court of Appeals. • A March 2004 ruling from the 3rd District Court of Appeals validated the lower court’s findings. Findings: • The City of Jackson chose to place the referendum petition on the ballot rather than repeal the resolution. • The Article 34 “Public Housing Project Law” applies to the developer of a project.
• R14

  Page 54
  • None Planning/Zoning Ministerial Projects "Ministerial" describes a governmental decision involving little or no personal judgment by the public official as to the wisdom or manner of carrying out the project. The public official merely applies the law to the facts as presented but uses no special discretion or judgment in reaching a decision. Ministerial Vs. Discretionary Projects • Discretionary projects are subject to environmental review per CEQA • Ministerial approvals/actions are statutorily exempt from CEQA and cannot be appealed to the City • Where a project involves an approval that contains elements of both a ministerial action and a discretionary action, the project will be deemed to be discretionary and will be subject to the requirements of CEQA. In general, ministerial projects are exempt from CEQA. Ministerial projects are those which are judged according to a set of definitive standards or criteria, do not involve substantial judgment and do not require a public hearing, such as building permits, sewage disposal and well permits, and road encroachment permits. In contrast, discretionary projects, such as subdivisions, zone changes, use permits, or general plan amendments, which lack a well defined set of standards, involve considerable judgment in making the decision, and require a public hearing, are subject to CEQA. Citizens alleged that the environmental issues were not addressed and the zoning was invalid. Facts: • The Planning Commission established a site plan review committee. The objective of the site plan review committee was to determine if the Kennedy Meadows project was to be subject to the conditions of the California Environment Quality Act (CEQA). • The Kennedy Meadows project was zoned for proper usage. • The site review committee determined this project had no marked impact or adverse effect on the environment, and thus qualified it for a negative declaration. • The Planning Commission approved the site plan and CEQA mitigated negative declaration for the Kennedy Meadows project and adopted Resolution No. 2002-10 (site review findings) on December 16, 2002. • The Kennedy Meadows project conforms to zoning requirements and is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation. Findings: • The HOME Grant and the level of controversy necessitated that the Planning Commission establish a site plan review committee to study the Kennedy Meadows project. • The Planning Commission acted within its jurisdiction in approving the environmental and zoning issues.
• R15

  Page 55
  • None 2nd Referendum Petition: The California Environment Quality Act (CEQA)/Site Plan Citizens alleged the City of Jackson acted inappropriately in approving the negative declaration. Facts: • Site Plan and CEQA determinations are made on a case-by-case basis. • CEQA determinations are not a matter of general legislative policy. • Only legislative acts are subject to referendum. • Land use approvals are adjudicatory/administrative decisions, not legislative. • Based on the CEQA/Site Plan, a second referendum petition by Seniors Against Government Abuse (SAGA) was filed to overturn the approval of the Kennedy Meadows project despite the City Attorney’s advice. • The City Attorney determined that the second referendum petition did not meet the standards for placement on a ballot as it was not a legislative act. (California Health and Safety Code Section 37001 et seq.) • SAGA circulated the petition and filed a lawsuit challenging the project. • A judge determined the challenge was invalid and the case was dismissed. Findings: • SAGA knew in advance that the referendum petition did not meet the legal standards for placement on the ballot. • The actions taken by the City Council met the applicable legal standards. Recommendations: • None Emergency Agenda Concern It was alleged that the emergency placement of the agenda item was done with the specific intent to avoid public criticism, input, and opposition. According to the Brown Act, “The body may discuss an item which was not previously placed upon an agenda at a regular meeting, when the body determines that there is a need for immediate action which cannot reasonably wait for the next regularly scheduled meeting. However, the Act specifies that in order to take advantage of this agenda exception, the need for immediate action must have come to the attention of the local “agency“ after the agenda had already been posted.” Facts: • The deadline for filing the HOME Grant application with the California State Department of Housing was January 15, 2003. • The City Manager received the returned Home Grant application on December 24, 2002. • The next City Council meeting was January 13, 2003. • The HOME Grant program did not clearly specify the language that could be placed in the resolution. The City Council stated it did not initially have sufficient information to make the required changes. Findings: • The emergency agenda item (HOME Grant Fund application) was received with sufficient time to place it on the regular agenda. • The City Council was aware that the HOME Grant fund application was controversial and the public wanted the chance to express their concerns. Recommendations: • The City Administration should place time sensitive items on the agenda as soon as possible to avoid the use of their emergency agenda authority for controversial issues. Open Competitive Bidding - Administrative Subcontractors Facts: • An administrative subcontractor assists the City in all areas of general administration of the HOME Grant Program. • The City mailed Request for Proposals (RFP) to three firms on the list of Administrative Subcontractors approved by the State Department of Housing and Community Development. • Only one firm responded to the request for a proposal. • The approved Administrative Contractor’s
• R16

  Page 65
  • None Contamination Possibilities Facts: • Well No. 6R is located on a sloping terrain downhill from a residence with a corral. The residence, located outside of the District, has a leach field for septic disposal. • The Director for Environmental Health in Amador County has stated that this property in question is not within RPPUD boundaries. • Leach residue leaks on occasion from the property into a seasonal stream which leads to the Well No. 6R site. • A well was dug within the last year for this residence. • This residence was previously on the water line to receive water from RPPUD. • According to Amador County Health Code Chapter 14.12, septic systems must be a minimum of 100 feet from a public water source. • According to RPPUD Ordinance 02-004, septic systems may not be installed within 1,000 feet of an existing sewer line. • A sewer line runs within 250 feet of one of the residences suspected of contamination. • Cosumnes River flows near Well No. 6R and was tested by the State and found to be contaminated with microbiological organisms. • A duck pond with standing water is located approximately 100 feet from Well No. 6. Findings: • Cosumnes River may be one cause of the contamination of Wells 6 and 6R. • Nearby septic systems (even though they meet county code requirements of being more than 100 feet from the well), horse stables located uphill from the wells, and a local duck pond may contribute to the contamination of Wells No. 6 and 6R. • Customers of River Pines Public Utility District are applying for permits to dig wells and install septic systems. Recommendations: • Install an effective water filtration system on Well No. 6R. • Annex nearby residences to the sewer line, complying with River Pines Public Utility District Ordinance 02-004. • Seek grants to develop a new well system in a viable location. • Enforce Amador County and River Pines Public Utility District codes and ordinances. State Regional Department of Health Facts: • According to the California Water Law book, Part 12 Chapter 4 California Safe Drinking Water Act, Article 1.116270(a), “Every citizen of California has the right to pure and safe drinking water.” And Article 11670(e) states, “It is the further intent of the Legislature to establish a drinking water regulatory program…to provide for the orderly and efficient delivery of safe drinking water within the state.” • The State Regional Department of Health (SRDH) has issued a “Boil Water Order” for the past several years due to contaminated water from Well No. 6R. • The RPPUD procured a grant from the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) project for $370,000. • The SRF project for RPPUD subsidized a new water filtration treatment system for Well No. 6R, which would make the water potable. • The filtration treatment system complies with current State standards. • Bids for the SRF project treatment system for RPPUD were received by the SRDH. • The SRF project treatment system was put on hold in 2003 by the SRDH due to new 2005 regulatory guidelines for water purification. • A new filtration system was accepted by the Department of Health Services as an approved alternative to the earlier proposed filtration system. • A demonstration study to compare the effectiveness of the two filtration systems was scheduled for November 2003 and cancelled. • The manufacturers assure that the results of the demonstration study would verify that both filters are capable of satisfying State water quality requirements for 2005. • The Grand Jury has not yet received notification from RPPUD that this demonstration occurred. • When RPPUD receives a state approved filtration system, the project will commence. Findings: • The “Boil Water Order” will stand in River Pines Public Utility District until the Regional Department of Health authorizes a filtration system. • RPPUD has applied for a grant under Proposition 50 for a new well to be drilled across the street and up the hill from Well No. 6R as well as to deepen Well No. 2. Recommendations: • Pursue options with the State to get an approved filtration system on Well No. 6. • Comply with the California Safe Drinking Water Act.
• R17

  Page 85
  • None October 1, 2002 Rate Increase Findings: • The Board of Supervisors, County Administrative Agency, and the County Counsel’s Office were willing to grant the increase requested without an audit until it was pointed out that the County had a right to request the audit from ADS to justify the proposed tipping fee increases. o Response by Department Head: Agree o Response by Board of Supervisors: Disagree. Both the County Administrator and County Counsel’s office had noted there was insufficient information available for them to analyze the proposed rate increase. Based upon this information, the Board of Supervisors approved the rate increase as conditional upon completion of an in depth fiscal analysis conducted by a waste management specialist. • The County has not received financial records from ADS in over seven years, which makes it hard to determine if the current figures justify the increase because there is nothing to compare. It would be assumed when ADS was a small independent corporation it would not have the large overhead Waste Connections has. The Waste Services Industry tends to be a heavily leveraged (large debt) industry. o Response by Department Head: Agree o Response by Board of Supervisors: Agree • ADS has not kept separate financial records for the landfill, the MRF and its solid waste hauler franchise. o Response by Department Head: Agree o Response by Board of Supervisors: Agree • Raising the landfill tipping fees makes the landfill more attractive to a potential buyer. o Response by Department Head: Agree o Response by Board of Supervisors: Disagree. It is impossible to predict the impact of increase tipping fees at this time. For example, if tipping fees are too high this may act as an incentive for haulers to seek to use alternative less expensive facilities. Recommendations: • Request the annual balance sheets and income statements on landfill and MRF operations as required by the contracts with ADS so there can be a comparison of operation revenues and expenses on a year to year basis. o Response by Department Head: The PWA agrees with the recommendation. o The county’s consultant, Intelliwaste, Inc., reviewed the audits and presented the County with a written report dated July 1, 2003. The consultant also presented this report to the Board of Supervisors at the July 22, 2003 meeting. The consultant provided an example of the format that should be followed in the future. o Response by Board of Supervisors: This recommendation will be implemented and the Board will direct the Public Works Agency to request this information annually. Options for the Amador County Sanitary Landfill County Sells the Buena Vista Landfill Findings: • The County would lose authority over the landfill and a new owner could allow dumping of anything into the landfill. It would be illegal for an operator to dump anything in the landfill that was not in the solid waste facility permit granted by the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB). o Response by Department Head: Agree o Response by Board of Supervisors: Disagree. The county can place limitations on allowable used through land use procedures. • The County states it would put conditions on the sale of the landfill to mitigate citizen concerns regarding the environment, traffic and operation of the landfill. Considering the County has not held ADS to the terms of their contract to operate the landfill and MRF, the likelihood of the County to hold a buyer of the landfill to a sales agreement is questionable. o Response by Department Head: Agree o Response by Board of Supervisors: Disagree. Any conditions on the sale would be contractual requirements and thus enforceable by the County. • The County would sell the landfill “As Is” which would mean the new owner would take the liability of the existing phases of the landfill but this would lower the price for the landfill. o Response by Department Head: Agree o Response by Board of Supervisors: It is premature to agree with this finding. It is not currently known if the facility will be sold or what specifications will be included in a sales contract. • Ultimately there is a legal concern as to whether the county can ever rid itself of past ownership liability since it is always a potentially responsible party for site clean up as reported by Intelliwaste Inc. to the Board of Supervisors. Even if the county can negotiate away its liability as an owner/operator it would still be liable as a generator of waste. Corporations can go bankrupt and taxing entities, such as the county, are seen as financial deep pockets in litigation. o Response by Department Head: Agree o Response by Board of Supervisors: It is premature to agree with this finding. It is not currently known if the facility will be sold or what specifications will be included in a sales contract. • There are waste management companies interested in the possible purchase of the landfill. o Response by Department Head: Agree o Response by Board of Supervisors: Agree • Franchise haulers would not be required to use the landfill if it were purchased. o Response by Department Head: Agree. o Response by Board of Supervisors: It is premature to agree with this finding. It is not currently known if the facility will be sold or what specifications will be included in a sales contract. Recommendations: • The County retains ownership of the landfill. o Response by Department Head: The PWA (Public Works Agency) partially disagrees with the statement that the County retain ownership of the Landfill. It is premature to conclude on the options. The DEIR (Draft Environmental Impact Report) document has been made public and will discuss the options available. The public and the Board of Supervisors now have the information from which the Board can make a decision after receiving public comments. o Response by Board of Supervisors: It is premature to consider this recommendation. The Board is conducting an environmental and financial analysis and review. Only after the public has had an opportunity to review and comment will the Board begin to review and potentially select a preferred alternative. County Keeps the Landfill Findings: • It takes 200 tons per day of waste for a landfill operation to reach an economy of scale (operate efficiently). o Response by Department Head: Agree o Response by Board of Supervisors: Disagree. The Board has not reviewed any analyses which support the above finding. • County continues to have control over the landfill, which benefits environmental concerns for the area. o Response by Department Head: Agree o Response by Board of Supervisors: Disagree. There are many methods by which the county can regulate land use other than through direct management. • The landfill under county control provides reasonable waste disposal to citizens of the county. Tax dollars used to meet landfill expenses provide a benefit to all Amador County citizens. If the landfill is sold there is a good chance the cost to dispose of garbage by Amador County citizens would increase. o Response by Department Head: Agree o Response by Board of Supervisors: Disagree. Recent transactions with nearby Kiefer Landfill indicate that a variety of factors affect rates and in fact it is quite possible that rates would decrease if the facility were sold or operated as a regional facility. • As prices go up illegal dumping through out the county becomes a greater problem. o Response by Department Head: Agree o Response by Board of Supervisors: Agree • The County would be responsible for the cost of permitting, regulatory liaison, environmental monitoring, closure and post closure costs as they are now. o Response by Department Head: Agree o Response by Board of Supervisors: It is premature to agree with this finding. It is not currently known who would be responsible for future expansion should the County retain ownership. • The Amador County Board of Supervisors has chosen not to fund this option. o Response by Department Head: Agree o Response by Board of Supervisors: Disagree. The County is reviewing multiple options as part of the environmental and financial review process currently underway. Recommendations: • Construct phase 4 to a capacity of at least 850,000 tons and use as a regional landfill taking in at least 250 tons per day of waste. o Response by Department Head: To make any recommendations prior to reviewing the DEIR would be premature. The DEIR will have an extended review and comment period ending the middle of October after which the Board of Supervisors can make a decision on one of the options. o Response by Board of Supervisors: It is premature to consider this recommendation. The Board is conducting an environmental and financial analysis and review. Only after the public has had an opportunity to review and comment will the Board begin to review and potentially select a preferred alternative. • Use a bond issue to finance construction if funds are not available. o Response by Department Head: To make any recommendations prior to reviewing the DEIR would be premature. The DEIR will have an extended review and comment period ending the middle of October after which the Board of Supervisors can make a decision on one of the options. o Response by Board of Supervisors: It is premature to consider this recommendation. The Board is conducting an environmental and financial analysis and review. Only after the public has had an opportunity to review and comment will the Board begin to review and potentially select a preferred alternative. • Two examples of how tipping fees could be used to pay for construction, salary and benefits for a Waste Management Director, closure costs and operational expenses. The per ton breakdown at an average of 250 tons per day based on a 358 day year would be: Using a bond issue: ADS $15.75 Retirement of Bonds at six-year amortization ($2.8 million @ 4%) $5.87 Capping and closing phase 4 (Estimate of $1.6 million) $1.88 Operating Expenses (Based on average cost of $668,713.81 last 10 years) $7.47 Salary and Benefits for Waste Management Director $0.89 State Franchise Tax Board Fee $1.34 Total County Tipping Fee $17.45 Total Landfill Tipping Fee $33.20 Life of the landfill remaining after six years assuming a life of 9.5 years with a capacity of 850,000 tons would be 3.5 years or 42 months. 42 months times 7,458 tons equals 313,236 tons. 313,236 tons times $5.87 equals $1,838,695 towards the next cell requiring less financing. Using funds available: ADS $15.75 Payback on $2.8 million over six years to general fund $5.21 Capping and closing phase 4 (Estimate of $1.6 million) $1.88 Operating Expenses (Based on average cost of $668,713.81 over the last 10 years) $7.47 Salary and Benefits for Waste Management Director ($80,000.00) $.89 State Franchise Tax Board Fee $1.34 Total County Tipping Fee $16.79 Total Landfill Tipping Fee $32.54 Life of the landfill remaining after six years assuming a life of 9.5 years with a capacity of 850,000 tons would be 3.5 years or 42 months times 7,458 tons equals 313,236 tons. 313,236 tons times $5.21 equals $1,631.960 towards the next cell requiring less financing. o Response by Department Head: To make recommendations prior to reviewing the DEIR would be premature. The DEIR will have an extended review and comment period ending the middle of October after which the Board of Supervisors can make a decision on one of the options. o Response by Board of Supervisors: It is premature to consider this recommendation. The Board is conducting an environmental and financial analysis and review. Only after the public has had an opportunity to review and comment will the Board begin to review and potentially select a preferred alternative. Close the Landfill and Haul Waste out of County Findings: • It is unknown if hauling waste out of the county would increase costs to Amador County citizens. Out of county tipping fees and the cost to haul the waste to the disposal site would determine costs. o Response by Department Head: Agree o Response by Board of Supervisors: Agree • The MRF is used to sort waste into recyclables and for disposal into the landfill. Not all waste received at the gate goes into the landfill. The MRF was required to help the county meet requirements of AB 939 for diversion of waste from landfills. Under the contract for the operations on the landfill, ADS has exclusive rights to sell any salvageable items. o Response by Department Head: Agree o Response by Board of Supervisors: Agree • If the county closed the landfill the MRF would be used as a transfer station. o Response by Department Head: Agree o Response by Board of Supervisors: Agree • This will be the option if the Board of Supervisors does not act soon. It is the default option. o Response by Department Head: Agree o Response by Board of Supervisors: Agree
• R18

  Page 90
  • Not recommended Allow ADS to Expand the Landfill Findings: • ADS would get all necessary permits and address all outstanding issues such as completing the revised closure plan, completing the permitting of all disposal activities and the expansion of the landfill. o Response by Department Head: Agree o Response by Board of Supervisors: It is premature to agree with this finding. Final responsibilities could only be determined through a negotiation process should the Board at some future point choose this option. • ADS would fund the majority of the costs of the permits. o Response by Department Head: Agree o Response by Board of Supervisors: It is premature to agree with this finding. Final responsibilities could only be determined through a negotiation process should the Board at some future point choose this option. • ADS would limit out of county waste to fifteen truckloads per day and would prevent the trucks from traveling through Ione. o Response by Department Head: Agree o Response by Board of Supervisors: It is premature to agree with this finding. Final contract specifications would be determined through a negotiation process should the Board at some future point choose this option. • By allowing ADS to continue operations this would permit the landfill to remain in operation. o Response by Department Head: Agree o Response by Board of Supervisors: Agree • Once a landfill closes it is very hard to resume operations because of state agencies and regulations. o Response by Department Head: Agree o Response by Board of Supervisors: Disagree. Recent conversations with the California Integrated Waste Management Agency indicate that other facilities have reopened after closure. • Under this proposal the county would have a difficult time covering costs for meeting post closure monitoring. o Response by Department Head: Agree o Response by Board of Supervisors: It is premature to agree with this finding. Final closure responsibilities would be determined through a negotiation process should the Board at some future point choose this option. Recommendations: • The next best option behind the county constructing the next phase is to allow ADS to fund and construct phase 4. This will allow the landfill to continue to operate. Time is running out on the ability to keep the landfill open and operating under current permits. o Response by Department Head: The PWA disagrees with the recommendation at this time, since the DEIR is now in hand and discusses the options available to the Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors can make a better informed decision on what option is best to pursue, based on more information given in the DEIR and public comments. o Response by Board of Supervisors: It is premature to consider this recommendation. The Board is conducting an environmental and financial analysis and review. Only after the public has had an opportunity to review and comment will the Board begin to review and potentially select a preferred alternative. • Set aside funds to construct the next phase, phase 5. o Response by Department Head: The PWA disagrees with the recommendation at this time, since the DEIR is now in had and discusses the options available to the Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors can make a better informed decision on what option is best to pursue, based on more information given in the DEIR and public comments. o Response by Board of Supervisors: It is premature to consider this recommendation. The Board is conducting an environmental and financial analysis and review. Only after the public has had an opportunity to review and comment will the Board begin to review and potentially select a preferred alternative. Comments by the 2003-2004 Grand Jury: The agency’s responses were timely in accordance with Penal Code 933 and complied with the requirements of Penal Code 933.05. Amador County Detention Center Follow Up Report Introduction The Grand Jury is mandated to review all prisons and jails within Amador County as required by California Penal Code Section 919(b). Administration Findings: • The administrative offices are well organized. As a result, the materials we requested were located in a very timely manner. o Response by the Sheriff: Agree o Response by Board of Supervisors: This is not a budget related issue and thus does not require a Board of Supervisors response. • To make it more conducive for the Captain to meet with personnel or conduct interviews his office should be enlarged. o Response by the Sheriff: Agree o Response by Board of Supervisors: Agree • The Captain needs assistance in handling administrative duties. o Response by the Sheriff: Agree o Response by Board of Supervisors: While the Board of Supervisors agrees that additional staffing can assist with administrative issues, the budget situation does not currently allow for the creation of new positions. Recommendations: • Increase the size of the Captain’s office when the expansion of the jail occurs. o Response by the Sheriff: The Grand Jury recommends an increase in the size of the Captain’s office when the expansion of the jail occurs. This precise recommendation will not be implemented. Expanding the current Captain’s office during the jail expansion is not practical within the structure of the building, without absorbing area from other rooms that serve a critical purpose. However, when the administrative wing expansion is complete it is planned to move the jail Captain to a different larger office. The completion of construction is estimated to occur by June of 2004. o Response by Board of Supervisors: This recommendation will be addressed through expansion of the Sheriff’s office administrative offices. • Hire a Correctional Manager, holding a position between a Senior Correctional Officer and a Captain, to alleviate some of the Captain’s responsibilities. o Response by the Sheriff: The Grand Jury recommends the hiring of a Correctional Manager, holding position between a Senior Correctional Officer and a Captain, to alleviate some of the Captain’s responsibilities. The Sheriff requested such a position in the 2001/2002 fiscal year budget. The Board of Supervisors did not fund the requested position. The Board of Supervisors required the departments to submit a no growth budget and a fifteen-percent cut budget for fiscal year 2003/2004. Adding a new position such as Correctional Manager was not an option for the Sheriff, within the budgetary guidelines from the Board of Supervisors. The preliminary budget from the Board of Supervisors actually proposes a net loss of two Correctional Officers in the jail. The Sheriff will continue to request the Board of Supervisors fund such a position in the future year budgets. However, until the economy and the county budget move in a more positive direction, it is unlikely that the Board of Supervisors will fund the request. o Response by Board of Supervisors: This recommendation will not be implemented. Sixteen positions were eliminated as part of the 03-04 Preliminary Budget. There simply is not sufficient funding to add additional positions at this time. Operations
• R19

  Page 94
  • Request that the Board of Supervisors revisit the budget to ascertain if adjustments can be made, which would allow for hiring needed personnel. o Response by the Sheriff: The recommendation has been implemented. Currently the preliminary County budget calls for cutting two Correctional Officers positions from the jail. The Board of Supervisors required the departments to submit a no growth budget and a fifteen-percent cut budget for fiscal year 2003/2004. Adding new positions was not an option for the Sheriff, within the budgetary guidelines from the Board of Supervisors. The Sheriff and the Board of Supervisors Budget Committee are to meet again in early September, 2003, to review the adopted preliminary budget before it goes to final budget hearings. The Sheriff has requested additional staffing in the Jail for the last several years. The Sheriff will continue to do so until the need is met. However, the Sheriff does not have the authority to allocate additional funds or positions. o Response by Board of Supervisors: This recommendation will be considered by the Administrative Committee, which will be conducting a special budget hearing in early September to assess public safety impacts from the 03-04 preliminary budget. Inmate Housing Findings: • The increased population in Amador County and the surrounding areas may be responsible for the overcrowding situation in the jail. o Response by the Sheriff: Agree, however the Sheriff does not think that an increase in population in Amador County and the surrounding areas is the sole cause of the overcrowding situation in the jail. o Response by Board of Supervisors: The Board disagrees with this finding. There are many issues unrelated to population growth, such as casino related crimes, which affect the jail population. • With increase in inmates there is also an increase in visitors. o Response by the Sheriff: Agree o Response by Board of Supervisors: This is not a budget related issue and thus does not require a Board of Supervisor’s response. • A home monitoring system could alleviate some of the overcrowding. o Response by the sheriff: Agree o Response by Board of Supervisors: Agree Recommendations: • Establish a start date to begin construction of the jail addition. o Response by the Sheriff: The Grand Jury recommends that a start date be established for the commencement of construction of the jail addition. The Sheriff is powerless to do that. Only the Board of Supervisors has the authority to allocate the funding and sign a construction contract with a contractor. Therefore, the recommendation that the Sheriff establish a start date for the construction is unreasonable and will not be implemented by the Sheriff. However, it is the Sheriff’s understanding that the Board of Supervisors awarded the construction bid to a contractor in August of 2003. The contract between the contractor and the County is on the Board of Supervisor’s agenda for August 26, 2003. The contract gives the contractor less than thirty days to start construction after the contract is signed. Completion of the project is estimated to occur before June of 2004. o Response by Board of Supervisors: This recommendation will be implemented upon execution of the construction contract, which is expected to occur in early September. • Implement an electronic home monitoring system for eligible inmates, who meet the criteria, which will reduce jail overcrowding. o Response by the Sheriff: The recommendation to implement a home electronic monitoring system has been implemented. This program was budgeted in the fiscal year 2002/2003 budgets. The program would have been implemented much sooner. However, it took several months to get the District Attorney, Public Defender and Superior Court to agree on how the program would work. A home electronic monitoring system has been implemented and is operational as of June 2003. o Response by Board of Supervisors: This recommendation has been implemented. Food Services Findings: • Inmate meals are adequate and nutritionally sound. o Response by the Sheriff: Agree o Response by Board of Supervisors: Agree • The meal storage room and the reheating room are currently very crowded. o Response by the Sheriff: The Sheriff agrees with the findings. However, the facts are not entirely correct. Inmates are served three (3) meals a day. All three (3) meals have a hot entrée. The minimum standards for jail operation in California only require that two (2) of the meals are hot. However, we exceed the minimum and serve three (3) “hot” meals per day. o Response by Board of Supervisors: The Board of Supervisors agrees that the current facility is inadequate. This issue will be addressed as part of the jail renovation project.
• R20

  Page 96
  • Complete the remodel of the re-therm (reheating of food to the appropriate temperature) area and kitchen. o Response by the Sheriff: The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be in the future. Refer to the construction time line for the Jail addition and remodel articulated above. o Response by Board of Supervisors: This recommendation will be implemented with the Sheriff’s Office construction project scheduled to begin in late 03. Inmate Services
• R21

  Page 96
  • Attempt further negotiations with the orthopedic physician in Amador County. o Response by the Sheriff: The recommendation has been implemented. The orthopedic surgeon that the County had attempted to work with has closed his practice and is no longer practicing medicine in Amador County. However, there is another orthopedic surgeon in the County now. The Sheriff and California Forensic Medical Group have begun conversations with the second orthopedic surgeon relative to his treating inmates. o Response by Board of Supervisors: The Board of Supervisors supports the Sheriff’s response. Comments by the 2003-2004 Grand Jury: The agencies’ responses were timely in accordance with Penal Code 933 and complied with the requirements of Penal Code 933.05. Preston Youth Correctional Facility Follow Up Report Introduction: Penal Code Section 919(b) mandates that the Grand Jury annually review all prisons and jails within the County. The only findings that resulted in a recommendation were concerning the main kitchen. Demographics Findings: • The California Youth Authority (CYA) population is declining due to legislative mandates requiring the state to charge counties for CYA commitments. • Counties are keeping juvenile offenders in juvenile halls or county camps. As an example, Fresno County Probation Department, Fresno County had 219 commitments to the CYA at a cost of $109,676 in 1995/1996 fiscal year. The cost increased to $3.8 million in fiscal year 1999/2000 for 110 new commitments to the CYA. • Several CYA Institutions will be closed in the near future. At this time it is undetermined if Preston will be closed. • Preston Youth Facility (PYCF) has provided community service and economic stability to Ione and Amador County for over one hundred years. o No responses were given.
• R22

  Page 99
  • None Treatment Programs: Findings: • The wards were living in a safe, secure and clean environment. • Staff appeared interested and cared about the ward’s progress in their treatment goals. • Wards interviewed were able to discuss program goals and their growth in these specialized programs. • The administrators, supervisors, counselors, custody staff, and other personnel have a good working relationship with each other and were very informative. The facility is managed in a professional and yet personable manner, with safety and security of staff and the wards the main concern. • The programs observed afford a ward the realistic opportunity to gain the personal skills and, the basic vocational skills to make a life change and become a productive citizen if he so desires. o No responses were given.
• R23

  Page 99
  • None Educational and Vocational Programs: Findings: • The school at PYCF is very much like any school in California. • It is hard to compare year to year results from tests such as the STAR (Standardized Testing and Reporting) test and the High School Exit Examinations because the school does not have the same students each year. o No responses were given.
• R24

  Page 100
  • None Main Kitchen Findings: • The kitchen was clean and well maintained. • The floors are tile and often wet from food preparation, cleaning and mopping. A special soap is used on the floor, which eats the grease to prevent build up. • Where the floors were wet, no “caution wet floor” signs were displayed. o No Responses were given.
• R25

  Page 100
  • Place “caution wet floor” signs around any floors that are wet. o Response by the Preston Youth Correctional Facility: We agree with the finding. The recommendation has been implemented. Specifically, yellow caution cones are being used where the floors are wet. Comment by the 2003-2004 Grand Jury: The Preston Youth Correctional Facility’s response was received by the 2003-2004 Grand Jury on August 5, 2003, from the Superintendent. The agency’s response was timely in accordance with Penal Code 933.or(c). However, the responses were not in compliance with the requirements of California Penal Code 933.05(a) wherein the responding entity shall respond in agreement or disagreement wholly or in part with the findings. Amador County Unified School District Follow Up Report Introduction The 2002-2003 Grand Jury elected to review and evaluate the Amador County School District (ACUSD) pursuant to Penal Code 933.5 in the areas of transportation department and vertical communication between the various departments and the administration including the school board. ACUSD BOARD OF TRUSTEES Providing Leadership Findings: • Trustees were generally aware of the long history of problems with the bus fleet, but did not look out for the interests of parents and children by initiating any corrective action. They did virtually nothing this time until the CHP and DA personally confronted them with the maintenance problems. • The Trustees’ expressions of surprise do not ring true, given they did nothing to correct the widely reported problems with the buses, which led the CHP to fail the bus terminal and red-tag the busses in 2002. o Response from Amador County Unified School District (ACUSD): DISAGREE: The Board/District took several corrective actions within the 12 months prior to CHP/DA ‘confrontation’, including o Contacting the State Fiscal Crisis Management and Assistance Team (FCMAT) in February 2002; subsequently, FCMAT did a thorough review of transportation (APRIL 2002); most of the recommendations were implemented in the next six months. o Purchased eight new busses, bringing down the average age of a ‘regular route’ bus from 17.7 years to 5.3 years by November 2002. o Added mechanic hours, restructured administration to ensure increased oversight of repairs. o Added a new bus facility to the November 2002 bond measure, which passed. o Created a citizens’ transportation oversight committee to review service and practices. • By failing to maintain a safe bus fleet, the district runs a high risk of children being seriously injured, and exposes itself to substantial risk of liability for expensive claims. o No response from ACUSD • The Board has neglected bus and maintenance staffs—salaries have not kept up, working conditions are difficult; as a result, retention of bus drivers is difficult. o Response from ACUSD: AGREE / PARTIALLY DISAGREE: Bus drivers and maintenance staffs are part of a bargaining unit that represents 24 different job descriptions. An October 2002 study showed that bus drivers ranked 6th in salary among 20 recognized, ‘comparable’ districts in the state (based on size and district make-up, mutually agreed to by union and district. Recommendations: • The Board of Trustees should follow its own policy of providing leadership to insure that the bus fleet is safe for children and the motoring public, and to reduce the risk of financial liability for the district. o Response by ACUSD: The Board has done so, as evidenced, in part, by August 2003 terminal/bus CHP inspection. • The Trustees should each work cooperatively with the Superintendent to “adopt” an operational area of the district, so that each Trustee develops on-going awareness of a part of the district’s functions. This would include regular site visits, discussions with staff, review of records, and condition of equipment and supplies. o Response by ACUSD: Trustees will identify areas for 2003-2004 by end of September 2003 and may choose to so identify. Finding exceeds scope of Grand Jury power and jurisdiction. Trustees are responsible for entire operation of school district, not individual fiefdoms. Comment by the 2003-2004 Grand Jury: The 2003-2004 Grand Jury acknowledges the response by ACUSD. Grand Juries are granted the power to investigate the books and records of any special-purpose assessing or taxing district and may investigate upon the method or system of performing the duties of such district Pursuant to Penal Code 933.5 Working with the Superintendent Findings: • There is a consensus among these current and former Board members that effective working relationships with Superintendents have a history of difficulty in Amador County. o Response by ACUSD: AGREE • The current Superintendent enjoys more support from the Board than did his recent predecessors. o Response by ACUSD: AGREE • The Trustees have a passive attitude in working with the Superintendent, allowing him/her control of information, hiring, budgets, and union relations. o Response by ACUSD: DISAGREE. Trustees are involved in major hiring processes, have own representative in budget advisory meetings, participate in union-related meetings. • The frequent turnover of Superintendents adversely affects his/her ability to establish effective working relationships with Trustees. o Response by ACUSD: AGREE Recommendations: • The Trustees should be more assertive in requiring staff to keep them informed of important issues. o Response by ACUSD: Information is regularly shared with trustees regarding curriculum, personnel, budget, either through sending their own representative to such meetings or through discussions at twice-monthly meetings and workshops. Beginning in August 2003 there will be more ‘director reports’ scheduled as part of board meetings. • The Trustees should require accountability from the Superintendent. o Response by ACUSD: Trustees, in addition to meeting with the Superintendent at regular meetings and on committees, receive updates on school-related matters at least once a week. Superintendent is evaluated annually by Trustees. • The Trustees should follow established procedures to provide direction to the Superintendent. o Response by ACUSD: Trustees currently follow established procedures to provide direction to the Superintendent. Ensuring Accountability Findings: • Favoritism undermines effective accountability, because friends cannot be expected to formally supervise each other, demand performance standards be met, or take appropriate disciplinary action. o Response by ACUSD: DISAGREE, based on lack of evidence that “friends cannot be expected to formally supervise each other”. • Although the former Director of Transportation did not possess the proper qualifications for the job, the Trustees approved upgrading the position to Executive Director of Transportation and Maintenance, with added duties and a sizable pay increase. o Response by ACUSD: No response, based on 1968 case law and the fact that any action involving the positions did not take place in 2002-2003. * For case law, see end of report • There is no evidence of the Trustees having done anything to ensure effective personnel accountability. o Response by ACUSD: No response, based on case law and A.G. (Attorney General) opinion. (Comment: In 2002-2003 Trustees took a number of actions regarding personnel. However, the District is concerned regarding a few grand jury members’ actions in this area, including a grand jury member’s comments in a public meeting. Recommendations: • The Trustees should follow the standards, guidelines and procedures laid out in the Amador County Public School Board Handbook. o Response by ACUSD: Board will review duties/ responsibilities, revise as needed, Board Handbook by April 2004. • The Board of Trustees should require performance standards, annual evaluations, and accountability to ensure that all staff are meeting job expectations. o Response by ACUSD: 90% of staff evaluations are covered specifically (who/when/how) in one of four employee contracts that are negotiated formally. • Create full time bus driving positions for those that want them to increase job performance and satisfaction. This could be financed through the elimination of middle management positions in the transportation department. o Response by ACUSD: NO RESPONSE/case law, Attorney General * For case law, see end of report. Administration and Supervision Findings: • The ACUSD Superintendent is responsible for maintaining policy and procedures. o Response by ACUSD: AGREE. However, per Board Handbook, the Board sets policy, the superintendent recommends procedures to carry out those policies and is responsible from making sure the policies are followed /implemented. • Some jobs are filled in the district without regard to the qualifications for the position either as stated in the job description or as mandated by the requirements of the work. o Response by ACUSD: None, per case law. If, for some reason, a top candidate does not meet all of the qualifications for a particular job description – and there are no other candidates who do so – the job is either ‘re-advertised’ or the Board is informed of such lack of qualifications. If the position involves a specific credential, the District is also required to inform the state and does so annually, if necessary. * For case law, see end of report • There is no documented evidence the former Executive Director of Maintenance, Operations and Transportation met the requirements for that position based on education, training or experience. o Response by ACUSD: The determination that this person did/did not meet requirements was not done in 2002/2003. Any records to that decision would not be available to grand jury. • There is no documented evidence that managerial positions receive written performance evaluations on a regular basis. o Response by ACUSD: Disagree. Every managerial position is evaluated at least once every other year. • Any personnel evaluation done cannot be used for discipline in the absence of a Progressive Discipline Policy. o Response by ACUSD: Disagree. For certificated county and district employees, other than administration, discipline procedures are covered in a contract agreement and, thus, can not be part of policy. For classified employees, a discipline policy is in place. For most management positions, classified or certificated, staff serves at the pleasure of the Board and evaluations, as well as other information, may then be used in any discipline matters. • The Superintendent failed to adequately monitor the performance of the Executive Director of Maintenance, Operations and Transportation to ensure compliance with established policy and procedures. o Response by ACUSD: None, due to case law. * For case law, see end of report. • The failure to address the inadequacies in established procedures and to revise them led to the crisis in the transportation department and its shutdown. o Response by ACUSD: Disagree. CHP cited several factors, going back several years, in the matter of the transportation crisis, from the age of the busses to a string of ‘satisfactory’ inspections that created a false sense of security. Since two of the above findings dealt with a particular administrative position and there is no mention of evaluations involving other transportation employee positions, the conclusion might be that this is the source of the transportation problem – and there would not be agreement on that conclusion. Recommendations: • The Personnel Director should develop an accurate, up to date job description for all positions. o Response by ACUSD: Almost 50% of all district/county job descriptions have been revised and updated in the last 18 months. With a new Personnel Director hired in September 2003, the complete update would not take place until August 2004. • The successful applicant for any position should meet the mandated qualifications for the job as set out in the job description. o Response by ACUSD: Done. Positions typically have mandated/required qualifications and desired qualifications. It is expected that the successful applicant meets all mandated qualifications with the above mentioned exception in a few cases involving teacher credentials to teach specific subject areas. In those cases, the state is notified and a waiver is requested. • All employees within the ACUSD should be reviewed through evaluations, including management. o Response by ACUSD: Done • ACUSD Personnel Director should inform the ACUSD Board of the failure by Department Heads to conduct evaluations. o Response by ACUSD: Will be done in June 2004 and regularly, thereafter. • The ACUSD Superintendent working in concert with the Personnel Director should identify any personnel problems and bring them to the attention of the Board of Trustees. o Response by ACUSD: This is currently being done in Closed Session on a regular basis. • Once informed of a problem the Board should direct the Superintendent to take the necessary actions to correct the situation. o Response by ACUSD: This is currently being done in Closed Session on a regular basis. • Managers and Supervisors should receive performance evaluations a minimum of once a year. • The Superintendent should more closely monitor subordinate employee performance to ensure compliance with established policy and procedures. o Response by ACUSD: This is currently being done. Transportation Department Findings: • Supervision of employees is essential at all levels of the department for maximum efficiency and effectiveness. o Response by ACUSD: AGREE • The lack of supervision has led to buses not being maintained; paperwork not being filled out nor properly filed and the inability to correct the deficiencies. o Response by ACUSD: AGREE • The maintenance facility physical plant is below standard and in poor condition for providing proper maintenance. o Response by ACUSD: AGREE • There are an inadequate number of bus drivers (26) and qualified mechanics (3). o Response by ACUSD: PARTIALLY DISAGREE. The numbers cited should be more than sufficient for the routes currently being operated. • There is little paperwork to show that the bus drivers routinely performed their required daily safety inspections on their bus or completed the checklist prior to departure. • Mechanics spend time in the field making repairs. o Response by ACUSD: AGREE • Replacing older school buses with newer school buses would result in improved safety, fuel cost savings and lower maintenance. o Response by ACUSD: AGREE • Buses manufactured after 1987 are safer for passengers in the event of an accident. o Response by ACUSD: AGREE • There is incomplete documentation verifying that periodic vehicle inspections, maintenance and service, and repairs have been completed as required by policy and mandated by state law. o Response by ACUSD: DISAGREE. Current documentation covers all of the above and is up-to-date. Recommendations: • Increase the number of mechanics and bus drivers employed in order to be able to properly operate and maintain the bus fleet. Create full time bus driving positions for those that want them to increase job performance and satisfaction. This could be accomplished by eliminating middle management positions. o Response by ACUSD: There are only two management positions in transportation, both seen as critical: director and shop coordinator. Creating full-time positions is a notable goal, as is adding additional mechanics (a position was added last year). However, transportation expenses – and the encroachment on the general fund – make this very difficult. The District is looking at ways to find funding for the above. • Improve maintenance record keeping and documentation. o Response by ACUSD: Done, as evidenced by August 2003 CHP terminal inspection. • Develop a purchase plan and budget to allow for a new maintenance facility. This may be accomplished with the appropriation of funds from the Bond money. o Response by ACUSD: Plan is being developed, budget is set. Drawings for a new facility are almost complete and the location will be determined shortly. Work is expected to begin, summer 2004. • Set up a schedule for bus purchases and use the available lottery money to purchase new or late model used buses on a regular basis. o Response by ACUSD: Schedule established (September 2003) • Retire buses in the fleet that do not conform to the Federal Safety Standards. o Response by ACUSD: Part of above schedule. • Implement a computerized system that tracks when vehicle inspections are due, what maintenance and repairs are scheduled, and identifies when the items are completed. o Response by ACUSD: Will be completed by February 2003. • Design and implement a tracking system within the Transportation Department to ensure timely completion and filing of mandated documentation. o Response by ACUSD: Will be completed by February 2003. Comment by the 2003-2004 Grand Jury: An interview with the current Transportation Director and her staff on January 27, 2004, at the bus facilities covered many of the prior problems of the Transportation Department. The efforts and progress of the Transportation Department are listed as follows: (cid:57) The current program shows evidence of an inspection checklist which is filled out daily by the bus mechanics. It includes service schedules being conducted by mileage, make, model, and year of vehicle. (cid:57) A computerized tracking system can configure any type of service for each vehicle and modify it according to need. (cid:57) In-service training hours, driver files, and working hours are kept current. A mandatory safety meeting is held monthly. (cid:57) An organizational chart was made. Accountability is supervised by the Transportation Director and Fleet Manager. (cid:57) Transportation Department re-organization has resulted in a more fluid work environment and individuals are held accountable for the requirements of their job. (cid:57) Presently, there are three spare buses; the oldest is a 1977 model. All buses currently in use were said to be in compliance with California safety standards. (cid:57) Mechanics are present at the bus terminal from eight a.m. until six p.m. (cid:57) The Jackson Yard/Facility and Sutter Creek Yard/Facility have been cleaned and re- organized. (cid:57) Three additional school routes were added to meet the needs of the community. (cid:57) Procedures, policies, documentation, and programs are being modified or created to keep the department in compliance with all state and federal laws/regulations. (cid:57) Future plans include: continued monthly meetings to discuss issues and seek resolutions to problems, setting up a vehicle replacement schedule, establishing a School Bus Safety Program to educate Kindergarten through second grade students on safe riding practices, and offering a wide variety of workshops on safety issues. The Grand Jury is impressed with the efforts and progress the Transportation Department has displayed in reaching compliance and addressing the Jury’s concerns. Safety Policy Findings: • Failure to have an Illness and Injury Prevention Program exposes the district to financial liability in the form of fines and penalties. o Response by ACUSD: AGREE Recommendations: • The Director of Personnel, in consultation with the Superintendent and approved by the Board of Trustees, should immediately develop and implement a district-wide Illness and Injury Prevention Program as mandated by law. o Response by ACUSD: DISAGREE. The District has had a program in place (previous revision, 3/5/2002) and is currently doing another revision with assistance from Tuolumne JPA consultants (written document to be completed by 9/17/03, followed by training and implementation. • A safety manager should be designated to implement and oversee the Illness and Injury Prevention Program. o Response by ACUSD: AGREE. The current IIPP already designates the District Safety Officer by name and position and the responsibilities. MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT Findings: • Six of Nine schools visited were properly following the work order policy. o Response by ACUSD: AGREE? It would be helpful to know which six (or three) are being identified. • The other three were sending all three copies of the work order to the Maintenance Office. They were not keeping a copy for their records. o Response by ACUSD: SEE ABOVE • Failure to follow the work order procedure makes it impossible to determine if necessary maintenance has been done. o Response by ACUSD: AGREE Recommendations: • District policy should be revised to show tracking of work orders and to provide follow up. It should also clarify the policy to include which color-coded copy goes where when submitting a work order. o Response by ACUSD: New system has been implemented. • Create a uniform record keeping system for work orders for each school. There should be no variations between school sites in the record keeping process. o Response by ACUSD: There are binders at each site for work orders. Work orders are also logged by site into the Maintenance Department computer system. • Train school personnel in how to use the work order system. o Response by ACUSD: Director or designee will conduct trainings, including those at secretaries meetings and principal meetings, by November 1. Comment by the 2003-2004 Grand Jury: During interviews with the School Superintendent on January 30, 2004, and the Maintenance Director on January 20, 2004, it was confirmed that the record keeping system is regularly updated and personnel trainings were routinely conducted. Loss Prevention Survey Findings: • The director has failed year after year to correct on going violations of state regulations. o Response by ACUSD: PARTIALLY DISAGREE, (there have been four different directors in last six years; a fifth director has just started in the position). • The violations found in the January 2003 Loss Prevention Survey were similar in nature as the ones in November 1999. It appears the school district is using the Loss Prevention Survey to do their inspections for safety and liability just as the transportation department was using the CHP inspections on the buses for their vehicle maintenance. o Response by ACUSD: AGREE, although not certain about the analogy or comparison with CHP bus inspections stated in this finding. • There is no direction in the Maintenance Department. The department has no preventative maintenance plan. o Response by ACUSD: It is beyond the scope of the Loss Prevention Survey to analyze the administrative structure of the Maintenance Department. However, there is agreement that there is no preventative maintenance plan for maintenance-related tools and equipment. • The lack of proper record keeping makes it impossible to know what work has been completed. o Response by ACUSD: AGREE • In the absence of proper supervision and record keeping conditions deteriorate and pose a risk or serious injury to all who come to a facility. o Response by ACUSD: AGREE that the absence of proper supervision could pose a risk of injury. Recommendations: • Assign district personnel to inspect the fire extinguishers in the school district on a monthly basis as required by law. o Response by ACUSD: Done • Revise maintenance policy to insure that there is follow up on work orders submitted and safety violations noted. o Response by ACUSD: New system has been implemented over the summer. • Hire a new Maintenance department head as soon as possible and insure that the new supervisor improves communication between the department and the school sites and the department and the District office. o Response by ACUSD: Done. Preventative Maintenance Findings: • The district has no Preventative Maintenance program. o Response by ACUSD: AGREE • At Ione Elementary school rooms 1, 6, 7, and 8 were noted in the 2000 Loss Prevention Survey and had not been corrected. Room 1 at Plymouth Elementary School was noted in the 2000 Loss Prevention Survey and had not been corrected. o Response by ACUSD: AGREE • The 2002-2003 Grand Jury observed there was evidence of major roof leaks, stained ceiling tiles and signs of mold and mildew growth in rooms 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 13 and the kindergarten room at the Ione Elementary school. These problems were observed in rooms 1, 2, 4, 8, and in the secretary’s office at the Plymouth Elementary School. These observations were made in early March of 2003. o Response by ACUSD: AGREE. • The absence of a preventative maintenance program has allowed conditions to deteriorate that pose a risk of serious injury to those who use or visit the facility. o Response by ACUSD: AGREE • The non-custodial maintenance operation is very understaffed. o Response by ACUSD: DISAGREE. Past staffing surveys with other districts indicate that the District has similar staffing ratios by comparison. Recommendations: • Replace ceiling tiles that have mold and mildew growth immediately. o Response by ACUSD: Plymouth done this summer. Ione will be inspected; necessary replacements will be done by December 1. • Repair roof leaks and repaint the stained area so new leaks can be identified. o Response by ACUSD: Half of Plymouth’s roofing was repaired in 2002-2003; remaining areas will be completed by November 1. Facilities Director will inspect and take action at Ione Elementary by March 1. • Use bond money to make needed repairs in order to avoid serious injury and financial liability. • Develop and implement a preventative maintenance program. o Response by ACUSD: Will be in place by March 1. • Hire additional maintenance staff. o Response by ACUSD: At this time the District is not in any financial position to add positions or hours. Maintenance staffing levels are consistent with comparable districts. Comment by the 2003-2004 Grand Jury: The Grand Jury visited Plymouth Elementary School, Sutter Creek Elementary, and Amador High School on January 20, 2004. It was confirmed that at Plymouth Elementary a new energy efficient roof had been installed, and in classrooms 1-8 there was new lighting. New tiles on the ceiling and motion sensors were in each classroom. The walls had been repainted, and additional outlets have been installed. A rebate from PG&E will help defray the cost of the new roof. Lower utility bills due to the energy efficient roof will off-set the initial cost of the roof. At Sutter Creek Elementary School, the bathrooms have been refurbished. New water fountains and exterior lighting have been placed throughout the school. The electrical circuitry has been upgraded. SUMMARY by ACUSD The District and Board appreciate the efforts put in by the 2002-2003 Grand Jury. The additional study done by the Grand Jury in regard to Disaster Preparedness was also greatly appreciated. Clearly, there are disagreements that we have regarding where the Grand Jury went in certain areas. Some of the same concerns were expressed in the previous year. Ironically, one of the things the District asked to have investigated in 2001-2002 – the operations in funding of a charter school located in Amador County, under the auspices of the San Juan Unified School District – would be within the parameters noted in “Calaveras vs. Leach”. On the other hand, it is the District/Board’s belief that in a number of instances the Grand Jury has ventured into areas that are either unauthorized or unwarranted, according to case law. Despite this, the Board has attempted to respond in any case to the Grand Jury’s findings or recommendations, though it was not obligated to do so in several instances. If the Grand Jury does have cause to believe that school district officials are guilty of a crime or of misconduct in office, then this would be within its parameters. However, if it is not prepared to go down that path, it should not attempt to act as a supervising administrative agency other than to examine the books and records permitted by law. * CASE LAW as listed by the ACUSD in their response to the 2002-2003 Grand Jury Report. In “Board of Trustees of Calaveras Unified School District vs. Russell Leach” (1968) it was determined that grand juries had some limits in their investigative powers. These limits still stand as case law. The following are some of the critical findings of that case. The California grand jury is endowed with broad powers as an inquisitorial and judicial body, but it is enjoined to exercise those powers with mature discretion. It is not to engage in “fishing expeditions’, that is, initiate investigations not specifically enjoined upon it without probable cause, nor is it to attempt to act as a supervising administrative agency controlling the discretionary activities of public officers. School districts are agencies of the state for the local operation of the state school system, and their board members are state officers. A grand jury investigation outside of certain parameters (financial affairs which affect the assessing and taxing powers of the district or possible public offenses and misconduct of employees) constitutes an unauthorized and unwarranted interference with the affairs of a school board, as well as a breach of confidence under which school personnel files are established and maintained. A grand jury may at any time examine the books and records of any special purpose assessing or taxing district located wholly or partly in the county. The grand jury is not permitted to investigate a school district unless the object of the investigation is authorized by Government Code sections 917 and 919. In 1995 State Attorney General Daniel Lundgren reinforced the above in Opinion 95- 113 when he opined that procedural considerations are to be carefully distinguished from substantive concerns on whether a grand jury may investigate and report upon the substance of a school district’s decisions. This jurisdiction is limited to considering certain procedures and not the “merit, wisdom or expediency of substantive policy determination”. The... responses attempt to cover all of the findings and recommendations, even those that do not seem to fall under the grand jury domain. In a few such matters, such as Personnel decisions and matters, the District will refer to the above case law. Comment by the 2003-2004 Grand Jury: The agency’s responses were timely in accordance with Penal Code 933 and complied with the requirements of Penal Code 933.05. The Grand Jury recognizes both the need for more improvements and the vast progress that the Amador County Unified School District has already made in such a short amount of time. City of Plymouth Follow Up Report Introduction The 2002-2003 Grand Jury elected to review and evaluate the City of Plymouth pursuant to Penal Code 925(a) which grants the Grand Jury investigatory powers to examine the book and records of an incorporated city located in the county and report upon the operations, accounts and records of the officers, departments, functions and the method or system of performing the duties of any such city. City Council Findings: • Historically, there was no single person at the top of a chain of command, responsible for administering city government activities. • It was the consensus of the city employees and officials interviewed that the Vice Mayor routinely demanded that priority be given to her directions to employees. • Receiving direction from various council members caused confusion and created a difficult work environment for city employees. • City Council members and city employees who were questioned about the new City Administrator position welcomed the appointment. • The City Council reorganized in early 2003. Each member now has a responsibility for a particular area of city operations, which is intended to improve council knowledge about the city and to enable members to coordinate more effectively with fellow council members and the city administrator. • The new City Administrator is on contract only to the City of Plymouth and is not a full-time city employee. As of May 1, 2003, no ordinance had been enacted to provide for the City Administrator to be a city employee. o Response from the City of Plymouth: Response to Findings was not submitted. Recommendations: • City Council members should give directions to city employees only in the event of an emergency. o Response by the City of Plymouth: The City Council no longer gives direction to city employees except when there is an emergency and the City Administrator can’t be reached. • City Council members should conduct city business through the City Administrator. o Response by the City of Plymouth: The City Administrator is in contact with the city on a daily basis even though he is only contracted for three days a week. • The City Administrator should prepare an organizational chart of all city departments and all positions, by title, and distribute a copy to each city employee. o Response by the City of Plymouth: An organizational chart was prepared and adopted by the City Council (copy enclosed). The City Administrator holds regular weekly meetings with employees to discuss any concerns that they may have and if any problems are brought up they are dealt with by the Administrator. • The City Administrator should assure that each employee’s job description is updated, connecting that position to the next two levels of supervision and assure that each employee receives a copy of his/her chain of command. o Response by the City of Plymouth: The City Administrator has reviewed the job descriptions of the employees and has discussed with employees their responsibilities and duties. • The City Council should hold a public hearing, followed by a regular meeting to decide whether the citizens would be better served by continuing to contract for a City Administrator, or by enacting the necessary ordinance to make the position a formal part of the city’s government structure. o Response by the City of Plymouth: The City Council directed City Attorney to prepare the necessary documents to amend the city’s municipal code to adopt a City Manager form of government and declare the powers and duties of the City Administrator. Ordinance 2003-05 and Ordinance 2003-06 were introduced at a regular meeting held on the 8th of May, 2003 and second reading and adoption was held on the 12th day of June 2003 (copies enclosed). Organization Findings: • The City Clerk required more space and privacy so that interruptions by matters that could be handled by other employees will not occur. • The other city employees also need more room for themselves and their equipment. o Response by the City of Plymouth: Disagree partially with Findings. Recommendations: • A portion of the large meeting room should be partitioned off allowing the City Clerk and City Administrator the work area and privacy they require. o Response by the City of Plymouth: Recommendations have been implemented partially. The City Council recognizes the office space problem and has moved one office position out of the Clerk’s office and relocated to the water plant. The desk for planning is used one day a week for a contract planner and is then available for use by the City Administrator the balance of the time. The City Administrator is looking into the possibility of relocating the Sheriff’s substation into another portion of the City Hall to allow the City Clerk and City Administrator to move into that office. • A section of the partitioned area should be set aside for books, documents, etc., required for daily reference. o Response by the City of Plymouth: A partition is going to be purchased and placed in front of the City Clerk’s desk to block public view, and once the second clerk returns to work the cross training will begin. • The City Clerk should delegate more responsibility and provide cross training in office procedures to other employees. o Response by the City of Plymouth: City Clerk has been directed by the City Administrator to delegate work to the other clerk. Comment by the 2003-2004 Grand Jury: Although the City of Plymouth responded to the Grand Jury’s recommendations pursuant to Penal Code 933.05(b) and submitted the report within the legal timeframe pursuant to Penal Code 933(c), the responses to the findings, as required by Penal Code 933.05(a), were absent from their report. Notwithstanding, with the limited resources of the City of Plymouth, they have acknowledged and implemented actions based on the 2002-2003 Grand Jury’s recommendations. The Office of Emergency Services and County-Wide Disaster Preparedness Follow Up Report Introduction: The 2002-2003 Grand Jury has chosen to examine the Office of Emergency Services and other agencies responsible for disaster preparedness in Amador County, pursuant to Penal Code section 925(a).
• R26

  Page 117
  • The County should continue to acquire needed equipment and provide the required training for personnel in order to form a DECON team. o Response by the Sheriff: This recommendation has been implemented. Through various federal grants the Amador County Office of Emergency Services has and will continue to acquire necessary equipment and training for a DECON Team. This is an on-going process.
• R27

  Page 117
  • Move the EOC to larger quarters. Establishing an adequate Emergency Operation Center should have the highest priority for the Board of Supervisors. o Response from the Sheriff: The Sheriff does not have the budgetary authority to implement this recommendation. This issue has been reported in the past in previous Grand Jury reports. A larger EOC would allow personnel to function more efficiently. However, given the current budget situation, the County of Amador is facing the possibility of lying off employees and discontinuing some services. The Sheriff believes building an appropriate sized and equipped EOC is important. The Sheriff does not currently have sufficient funding allocated to proceed with such a project. The Board of Supervisors must provide the funding for such a capitol improvement project. o When the Office of Emergency Service came under the Sheriff’s Office there was no funding to provide an adequate facility and there is still no available funding at the county level. We continue to utilize our squad room. We have proposed to remodel a portion of the old hospital and have requested funding through Congressman Ose’s office. Additionally, the State of California Office of Emergency Services recently conducted an evaluation of emergency operation centers statewide as an assessment for future grant funding. Amador County Operational Area Organization – Amador Disaster Council The Operational Area Organization’s mission is to develop and maintain the capability to respond to and recover from emergencies and disasters Findings: • The quarterly Meeting is also part of the Disaster Council’s semi-annual required meeting. o Response from the Sheriff: The Sheriff agrees with the findings. • Attendance by city representatives to the quarterly meetings has been sporadic. A representative of one city has not attended the past four meetings; another city representative had attended only one of the past four meetings. o Response from the Sheriff: The Sheriff agrees with the findings. Recommendations: • Combine the Operational Area Organization and the Disaster Council into one board. o Response by the Sheriff: The Sheriff agrees with the recommendation, but lacks the direct authority to dictate such a consolidation. The Sheriff has endeavored to implement this recommendation by making such a proposal to both entities. During a meeting held on April 20, 2000 the Operational Area members present voted to consolidate the two organizations into the Disaster Council Joint Powers Authority. It is unknown why a Joint Powers Authority was formed. However, at this time, we believe it is unnecessary. We are working on the termination of the JPA and re-organizing as a disaster council. • The cities and special districts should become more involved in the proceedings of the Amador Operational Area Organization. o Response by the Sheriff: The Sheriff agrees with the recommendation. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is unreasonable. The Amador County Office of Emergency Services has no authority to command them to attend. However, the Sheriff agrees that the cities and special districts should become more involved in the proceedings. All of the cities and special districts are notified of the meetings and encouraged to participate. • The cities should have a designated representative who will regularly attend the quarterly meetings. o Response by the Sheriff: The Sheriff agrees with the recommendation. The Sheriff will not implement the recommendation because it is unreasonable. The California Government Code commands that cities select members to sit on various commissions, committees, joint powers authorities, etc. Members were selected to sit on the Disaster Council; however, they often do not attend meetings. Again, the Amador County Office of Emergency Services has no authority to command them to attend. However, every effort is made to encourage them to do so. Findings: • The OES has had a countywide disaster training exercise the past two years. • The exercises have been attended by countywide agencies, utilities and volunteer organizations that would respond to emergencies and disasters. • The disaster exercises are well organized and are providing the various groups the necessary training to respond to emergencies or disasters. • The exercises provide training for emergency personnel using the “Standardized Emergency Management System” (SEMS) with the use of the “Incident Command System” (ICS). • The Amador Operational Area Organization does an effective job of promoting public awareness in disaster preparedness. o Response from the Sheriff: The Sheriff agrees with the finding. Findings: • The OES website has extensive information on disaster preparedness. o Response from the Sheriff: The Sheriff agrees with the findings. Recommendations: • Continue to increase public awareness and encourage the cities and special districts to promote and encourage disaster preparedness. o Response from the Sheriff: The Sheriff agrees with the finding. The Sheriff believes one of the important parts of disaster preparedness is education and public awareness. We take every opportunity available to increase public awareness. • Increase the outreach programs to make the public aware of the information that is available for disaster preparedness. o Response from the Sheriff: The Sheriff agrees with the finding. The recommendation has been implemented. As stated above, we take every opportunity available to increase public awareness. • Host public forums on homeland security and emergency plans. o Response from the Sheriff: The Sheriff disagrees with the recommendation. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. While the Sheriff agrees that a public forum would provide a tremendous opportunity to educate the public on disaster preparedness, he is doubtful that the event would be well attended. Public forums presented in Amador County on other subjects have been poorly attended in the past. Public education and awareness on homeland security and emergency plans has been and will continue to be integrated into disaster preparedness venues of all kinds. Findings: • The OES is working to improve response to potential emergencies, disasters and acts of terrorism. • OES conducts the annual county-wide disaster exercises. • OES uses opportunities to participate in other exercises, such as the annual Statewide Medical and Health Disaster Exercise. o Response from the Sheriff: The Sheriff agrees with the findings. Annual Countywide Disaster Exercise The County OES annually plans, coordinates and conducts a county wide large-scale disaster exercise that that involves a multi-agency response. Findings: • One hundred and ten participants from 20 county departments and 34 other government and private agencies participated in the exercise. o Response by the Sheriff: The Sheriff agrees with the findings. • The after-exercise critiques by participants stated that the exercise was informative and provide necessary training to respond to an emergency. o Response by the Sheriff: The Sheriff agrees with the findings. • Most attendees had positive comments about the training exercise. o Response by the Sheriff: The Sheriff agrees with the findings. • The tabletop exercise was held at the American Legion Hall because the EOC is too small to accommodate the participants of the exercise. o Response by the Sheriff: The Sheriff agrees with the findings.
• R28

  Page 120
  • An adequate facility for the EOC should be found. o Response by the Sheriff: The Sheriff agrees with the finding. See the earlier response to this recommendation.
• R29

  Page 120
  • Use separate tables for the various groups to facilitate planning discussions. o Response by the Sheriff: The Sheriff agrees with the recommendation. The recommendation will be implemented in future exercises to the extent it is appropriate. This issue was pointed out in our after action report. This seems to be a balancing act. By keeping the groups together, communication is easier in terms of easy access, but can create more noise. Separating the different groups reduces the noise, but hampers ease of communication. In the recent Bio- terrorism exercise we moved the groups to separate rooms, which made management of the group conversation easy. Communication between groups was compromised. Findings: • Some of the participants were confused about the stages of the exercise scenario. o Response by the Sheriff: The Sheriff agrees with the findings. • Several Agency representatives did not attend the pre-exercise meeting. o Response by the Sheriff: The Sheriff agrees with the findings. • Some participants were not familiar with the County EOC organization or the SEMS method of response o Response by the Sheriff: The Sheriff agrees with the findings. Recommendations: • The pre-exercise plan needs to be reviewed as a group prior to the exercise to ensure that all participants are familiar with the exercise plan. o Response by the Sheriff: The Sheriff agrees with the finding. This recommendation has been implemented. This was noted in the after action report. The OES Coordinator reviewed the exercise with the group at the recent Bio-Terrorism exercise. • The date of the pre-exercise meeting should be held closer to the date of the exercise. o Response by the Sheriff: The Sheriff agrees with the recommendation. To the extent practical, the recommendation will be implemented in future exercises. While having the meeting closer to the date of the exercise may assist in keeping some issues fresher in the minds of the participants, it may be detrimental to participants in terms of having sufficient time to prepare for the exercise. Also, scheduling of the facility to hold the exercise may also play a role in the date the exercise was held. These are all issues that we recognized in our after action report. • All participants should attend the pre-exercise meeting. o Response by the Sheriff: The Sheriff disagrees with the recommendation. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is unreasonable. The Amador County Office of Emergency Services can only ask for participation and give sufficient time for participants to schedule their attendance. We have no authority to command their participation. Additionally, expecting 100% attendance is not realistic. Even in actual emergencies you can never expect everyone to show up due to illnesses, vacations, etc. • The OES Coordinator should make a short presentation on SEMS prior to the beginning of the exercise. o Response by the Sheriff: The Sheriff agrees with the recommendation. This recommendation was implemented before the recommendation was made. This was also noted in the after action report. The OES Coordinator does make such a presentation as a reminder of the SEMS protocols when it is appropriate. 2002 Statewide Medical and Health Disaster (“Dirty Bomb”) Exercise On November 14, 2002 the State of California Emergency Medical Services Authority conducted the 2002 Statewide Medical and Health Disaster (“Dirty Bomb”) Exercise.
• R30

  Page 122
  • The County should continue to acquire the necessary equipment and provide the training needed to form a DECON team. o Response from the Sheriff: This recommendation has been implemented. The Office of Emergency Services continues to pursue funding to purchase equipment and fund training that is ongoing. Members of the Amador County Operational Area Organization The following cities and districts, which are participants of the Amador County Operational Area Organization (Joint Powers Agreement, were separately investigated as to their emergency and disaster preparedness. Amador County Unified School District: On February 4, 2003 members of the Grand Jury visited the Amador County Unified School District (ACUSD) to discuss and view emergency evacuation documents in the event of an emergency or disaster. Jackson Junior High School Findings: • The school office is very small and busy. o Response by ACUSD: AGREE • Principal quickly able to locate emergency plan o Response by ACUSD: AGREE • A SEMS lists and evacuation map is posted in each classroom o Response by ACUSD: AGREE • Evacuation drills are conducted each month o No response given. • No material related to emergency planning was visible. o Response by ACUSD: AGREE • Plan was not always kept on site as it was being worked on at home. o Response by ACUSD: AGREE • The evacuation map was very light and difficult to read. o Response by ACUSD: AGREE • In the principal’s absence there is no person in command. o Response by ACUSD: AGREE Recommendations: • Material relating to emergency planning to be clearly visible in office. o Response by ACUSD: Done • Emergency plan remains in designated place in the school. o Response by ACUSD: Done • Replace evacuation maps with clear, legible evacuation maps. o Response by ACUSD: 9-25-2003 • Designate an alternate to be in command in principal’s absence. o Response by ACUSD: Done o Response from the Sheriff: In as much as the findings and recommendations in this section of the Grand Jury Report concern another county department or agency, the Sheriff does not feel it appropriate to respond. However, the Amador County Office of Emergency Services has neither the authority to command the school district’s compliance nor the financial resources available to assist them in this endeavor. Comment by 2003-2004 Grand Jury: The 2003-2004 Grand Jury visited Jackson Jr. High on January 20, 2004, and found that the school satisfied the Grand Jury’s recommendations pending the posting of a clear and legible evacuation map in the school office. Ione Elementary Findings: • The County disaster plan and evacuation plan were clearly visible in the Principal’s office. o Response by ACUSD: AGREE • Each classroom is equipped with a box containing a description of the SEMS procedure and instructions. o Response by ACUSD: AGREE • Red and green cards are used to assist students in following directions. o Response by ACUSD: AGREE • EnGenius phones are used for those yard duty and in the office. o Response by ACUSD: AGREE • The EnGenius Phone system is a 2-way radio integrated with a very long-range cordless phone system. o Response by ACUSD: AGREE • There is a listing for all emergency phone numbers, utility shut off valves and the location of fire extinguishers and fire alarms posted in each classroom. o Response by ACUSD: AGREE • Evacuation instructions, maps and instructions for “lock down” are posted in each classroom. o Response by ACUSD: AGREE • The classroom box has a “buddy” chart indicating who is in charge for each room, a roll list showing students in their usual groupings and badges for teachers and aides to wear identifying who is in charge of student release, evacuation and damage assessment. o Response by ACUSD: AGREE • The Ione Elementary School has planned and is prepared for emergencies and evacuation. o Response by ACUSD: AGREE Recommendations: • None Plymouth Elementary School Findings: • The District handbook was easily accessed in the Principal’s office. o Response by ACUSD: AGREE • Drills are conducted monthly. o Response by ACUSD: AGREE • Bells are used to convey an emergency. o Response by ACUSD: AGREE • A designated teacher is in charge in the Principal’s absence. o Response by ACUSD: AGREE • There is no intercom system to communicate between the office and the yard. o Response by ACUSD: AGREE Recommendations: • An intercom system should be installed or an EnGenius phone system should be obtained. o Response from the Sheriff: In as much as the findings and recommendations in this section of the Grand Jury Report concern another county department or agency, the Sheriff does not feel it appropriate to respond. However, the Amador County Office of Emergency Services has neither the authority to command the school district’s compliance nor the financial resources available to assist them in this endeavor. Comment by the 2003-2004 Grand Jury: Plymouth Elementary School was visited on January 20, 2004 and at that point there was still no intercom system or EnGenius phone system in place. Jackson Elementary School Findings: • A clear map of the evacuation plan was visible in the Principal’s office and in several other locations in the school. • Emergency numbers were posted both outside and inside the Principal’s office. • The EnGenius phone system is used. • Drills are conducted twice a month. • Red and green directional cards are used. • A “buddy” system similar to that at Ione Elementary School is in place. • During a drill all students have to be accounted for. • During a drill if a student is missing, an instructional aide stays with the class while the teacher looks for the student. • The Principal and staff have a good understanding of the SEMS. o Response by ACUSD: AGREEMENT with all findings. Recommendations: • None Ione Junior High School Findings: • The bulletin board in the main office did not have a visible evacuation plan. • A printed binder and detailed maps and description of evacuation procedures are located in every classroom. • Drills are performed every month. • There is a new phone system that includes an inter-com and voice mail. There is instant access to all rooms. • In the absence of the Principal, the campus supervisor or another teacher is in charge. • In the event of an actual emergency, all office records and medical records of the students would be carried with teachers and staff to safe locations. • The emergency evacuation plan was not displayed. o Response by ACUSD: AGREEMENT with all findings. Recommendations: • Material relating to emergency planning should be clearly visible in the school office. o Response by ACUSD: Done in the school office. o Response from the Sheriff: In as much as the findings and recommendations in this section of the Grand Jury Report concern another county department or agency, the Sheriff does not feel it appropriate to respond. However, the Amador County Office of Emergency Services has neither the authority to command the school district’s compliance nor the financial resources available to assist them in this endeavor. Sutter Creek Elementary/Primary Schools Findings: • The evacuation and safety procedures are in the classrooms and the Principals office. • The Principal and the teachers are assigned certain classrooms for evacuation and safety in both the primary school and the elementary school. • Both schools regularly conduct safety drills. • Teachers and Principal meet once a week for safety issues. o Response by ACUSD: AGREEMENT with all findings. Recommendations: • None Comment by the 2003-2004 Grand Jury: The recommendations presented to the Amador County School District were satisfied except for the immediate means of communication between the office and the teachers within their classrooms at Plymouth Elementary School The Grand Jury visited Amador High School in response to a citizen’s complaint that evacuation plans were not being followed. Although maps were clearly visible in the classrooms, a quick survey of students revealed that evacuation drills have not been conducted in at least two years. Those freshmen and sophomores surveyed had not experienced any evacuation drills while attending Amador High School. Seniors remembered having one such drill during their freshmen year. Several teachers were also surveyed and could not recall when the last time an evacuation drill had been conducted, except that it had been several years. The Grand Jury is concerned for the safety of all students. An emergency at Amador High School would be compounded by the students’ lack of understanding of proper procedure in case of such an event. According to the California Education Codes Section 32000-32004 wherein it states “Every person and public officer managing, controlling, or in charge of any public, private, or parochial school…shall cause the fire alarm signal to be sounded not less than twice yearly at the secondary level.” (Section 32001) According to Education Codes Section 35295-35297 “It is necessary for all public or private elementary and high schools to develop school disaster plans and specifically an earthquake emergency procedure system so that students and staff will act instinctively and correctly when an earthquake disaster strikes.” It is the understanding of this Grand Jury that the earthquake emergency procedure is also amended to include an Intruder Alert lock-down procedure in which doors and windows of all classrooms are shut and locked. Upon receiving this news, the School District Superintendent has taken steps to correct the matter. Leadership meetings and memorandums have addressed fire drill safety, citing (5 CCR550) in which “Principals shall hold fire drills at least once a month in all elementary and middle schools and at least twice each year in all high schools.” The Superintendent has also inquired into special needs students’ assistance programs in case of emergencies. The Grand Jury appreciates the timely responses by the Superintendent concerning the safety of the students. The Grand Jury acknowledges the Superintendent’s responses comply with the requirements of the California Penal Code 933.05 for timeliness and structure. Cities of Amador County Disaster Preparedness Introduction: The 2002-2003 Grand Jury elected to review and evaluate the various cities pursuant to Penal Code 925(a) which grants the Grand Jury investigatory powers to examine the book and records of an incorporated city located in the county and report upon the operations, accounts and records of the officers, departments, functions and the method or system of performing the duties of any such city. City of Jackson
• R31

  Page 127
  • Organize the emergency operation plan into individual plans for various emergencies. o Response by the City of Jackson: The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented within the next six months. The City has received cooperation from the County OES Coordinator for plan development and use of a consultant to assist with this project. o Response from the Sheriff: In as much as the findings and recommendations in this section of the Grand Jury Report concern another county department or agency, the Sheriff does not feel it appropriate to respond. However, the Amador County Office of Emergency Services has neither the authority to command the city’s compliance nor the financial resources available to assist them in this endeavor. Comment by the 2003-2004 Grand Jury: As of November 2003, the Jackson City Chief of Police possessed an updated City Emergency Operation Plan and noted that the plan will continue to be updated as needed.
• R32

  Page 127
  • None o Response by the City of Jackson: n/a
• R33

  Page 128
  • Complete the various site layout plans of each school. o Response by the City of Jackson: The recommendation has been implemented. All school site layouts are complete and the information is included in the “beat book” in each patrol car. In addition, similar information has been obtained for the major mobile home parks and apartment complexes within the City. o Response from the Sheriff: In as much as the findings and recommendations in this section of the Grand Jury Report concern another county department or agency, the Sheriff does not feel it appropriate to respond. However, the Amador County Office of Emergency Services has neither the authority to command the city’s compliance nor the financial resources available to assist them in this endeavor.
• R34

  Page 128
  • Train all city employees in disaster procedures. o Response by the City of Jackson: Other department personnel who will be involved with emergency responses will be trained in the SEMS/ICS protocol as training becomes available locally. o Response from the Sheriff: In as much as the findings and recommendations in this section of the Grand Jury Report concern another county department or agency, the Sheriff does not feel it appropriate to respond. However, the Amador County Office of Emergency Services has neither the authority to command the city’s compliance nor the financial resources available to assist them in this endeavor.
• R35

  Page 128
  • None o Response by the City of Jackson: n/a
• R36

  Page 129
  • None o Response by the City of Jackson: n/a
• R37

  Page 131
  • A City representative should regularly attend the Amador Operational Area Organization quarterly meetings. o No response from the City of Ione o Response from the Sheriff: In as much as the findings and recommendations in this section of the Grand Jury Report concern another county department or agency, the Sheriff does not feel it appropriate to respond. However, the Amador County Office of Emergency Services has neither the authority to command the city’s compliance nor the financial resources available to assist them in this endeavor. Comment by the 2003-2004 Grand Jury: The Ione City Council is in violation of Penal Code 933.05 by not responding to the 2002-2003 Grand Jury Report. City of Amador City: The Grand Jury did not interview a representative from the City of Amador City for this report.
• R38

  Page 135
  • None Water System Findings: • The river as a source of water is limited to the flow (15cfs) of the river. • The water is available from the river usually between the months of December to May. This period of time may be longer or shorter depending on the length of the rainy season. o No Response given by River Pines PUD
• R39

  Page 135
  • The District needs to develop a reliable alternate source of potable water that meets the requirements for safe drinking water. o Response from RPPUD: Now that the State Revolving Fund (SRF) grant has been funded and the bids have been submitted, it is our hope that the filtration project on Well 6R will be completed sometime this fall. This will allow us to have a source of water that will not require a Boil Water Order. o The District is collaborating with the Central Sierra Resource Conservation and Development Council in a second phase grant application which will address watershed impacts and water quality. The main goal of this grant is to address identified “areas of concern” which are surface water quality issues related to land use activities, storm water runoff, discharge from mines, timber management practices, agriculture, urbanization, elevated temperature caused by water management practices and waste discharge. o Our goals and anticipated outcomes include improved water supply reliability, water quality, and ecosystem quality. o We will utilize the grant funds for monitoring and assessment, problem evaluation, strategy development and implementation. Another crucial element for grant expenditures is the coordination efforts with a variety of public, private and special interest groups to achieve our above mentioned goals.
• R40

  Page 136
  • Modify river water treatment plant “Slow Sand Filter System” to minimize the out of service time. o Response from RPPUD: With the new filtration system on Well 6R, the District will be in a position to rely on this well for most of the community’s drinking water. However, a grant proposal has been submitted to add an additional chamber to the Slow Sand Filter which will allow for the system to operate while service is being performed.
• R41

  Page 136
  • The District should obtain a portable standby generator that could be used at the river treatment plant and at the well sites. o Response from RPPUD: This District is in possession of a portable generator that is used at various well sites when power is down. We also have an agreement with the Amador Water Agency to assist us with their equipment should the need arise.
• R42

  Page 137
  • The District needs to increase the storage facilities for treated water. o Response from RPPUD: National Grant Services is actively pursing this. At this time there is no funding available for this project.
• R43

  Page 137
  • The District should replace old and inadequate lines. o Response from RPPUD: At this time all lines meet the state guideline for water. We are however submitting a grant proposal under Prop 50 to study the problem and develop a plan for gradual replacement of the total system. Sewer Collection and Treatment Facilities
• R44

  Page 137
  • Retrofit the sewer lift stations with a phone dialup or radio alert system to warn operators of a station failure. o Response from RPPUD: The District has installed alarms at the lift stations to notify us of any problems. Findings: • The treatment plant is operating within guidelines and regulations of the State Regional Quality Control Board. • Weed control within the treatment plant is accomplished with two goats. o No Response given by River Pines PUD Recommendations: • None. o Response from RPPUD: We have hopefully addressed this report in its entirely. Since this is our first response I hope that we are in compliance to the rules and regulations required in this document. Should, however, you have any questions please do not hesitate to call on us for clarification; our phone number is listed on our letterhead. Comment by the 2003-2004 Grand Jury: The River Pines Public Utility District’s responses were received by the 2003-2004 Grand Jury on October 8, 2003, from the Board Chairperson. The responses were timely according to Penal Code 933.05(c) however, the responses were not in compliance with the requirements of California Penal Code 933.05(a) wherein the responding entity shall respond in agreement or disagreement wholly or in part with the findings. The RPPUD was contacted, and through subsequent interviews, it was found that the grants for Well No. 6R have been funded. The filtration project was placed on hold due to the fact that although the filtration system would solve the current filtration problems, it will be out of compliance in the year 2005 along with the water systems of the rest of the state. The Stockton Division of the Department of Health Services (DHS) determined that it would prefer to allow a Boil Water Order to continue until future appropriate filtration systems are available. These new filtration systems, which are capable of achieving at least 2.0 logs of Cryptosporidium removal , are in development and were to be presented in November 2003. Until the Stockton Division of the DHS approves a filtration system befitting the River Pines Public Utility District, the Boil Water Order will continue. The Stockton District has announced that if the RPPUD Board or the citizens of River Pines have questions regarding the suspension of the installation of the filtration system or the SRF project, they should call Dave Remick at the Stockton Division of the DHS at (209) 948-3878. Grand Jury Citizen Complaint Form To: Date:_____________ Amador County Grand Jury P.O. Box 249 Jackson CA 95642 Read other side of page before filling out this form 1. This compliant is against: Name, Title:_________________________________________________________________ Organization:________________________________________________________________ Address:____________________________________________________________________ Phone:_____________________________________________________________________ 2. My complaint against the above is: 3. Before filling out this form I have contacted: 4. Complainant: Name:______________________________________________________________________ Address:____________________________________________________________________ Phone: ____________________________________________________________________ 5. I request the following action: ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ The information in this form is true, correct, and complete to the best of my knowledge. __________________________________________________________ (Signature) All communications to the Grand jury are confidential Grand Jury Citizen Complaint Form Citizen Complaints: The Grand Jury is empowered to investigate complaints from citizens, civic groups, government employees, and others, about the workings of local governments, prisons/jails, some private non-profit organizations, certain schools and school districts, and other organizations, and the conduct of their officers and employees. The Grand Jury is the guardian of public trust in local government and the proper use of public funds. Confidentiality: In all its proceedings and investigations the Grand Jury is sworn to maintain complete secrecy. The members of the Grand Jury apply the same objective standard of conduct ad responsibility to all persons and entities, and are not influenced by sentiment, conjecture, sympathy, public feelings, passion, or prejudice. Complaint Process: The Grand Jury investigates complaints presented to it in any form, but is desirous that this form is used whenever possible. Please identify the specific problem and describe the circumstances. Present your complaint with all available evidence and submit copies of all available documents. The Grand Jury will acknowledge receipt of your complaint. Mail this complaint form to: Amador County Grand Jury P.O. Box 249 Jackson CA 95642 Instructions for completing form: 1. This complaint is against: Give as much information as possible to locate the person or organization. 2. My complaint against the above is: Describe the problem in your own words. Be concise, provide dates, times, and names of individuals involved. Cite specific instances as opposed to broad statements. Attach photographs, correspondence, or documentation that supports the complaint. If a longer explanation is necessary attach extra sheets and show the number on the last line of the first sheet (i.e. 2 additional sheets attached.) 3. Before filling out this form I have contacted: Attempt to correct the problem before contacting the Grand Jury and explain what you have done in that regard so that we do not repeat the same steps you have taken. 4. Complainant: Please tell us how we may contact you for further information, if necessary. Your confidentiality will be rigorously protected. 5. I request the following action: The Grand Jury will acknowledge receipt of your complaint and may advise you whether or not an investigation will be undertaken. If the Grand Jury feels your issue is not within its jurisdiction we will so advise you. Grand Jury Glossary To increase the public’s awareness of the codes, regulations, and laws that permeate the Grand Jury’s functions, the 2003-2004 Grand Jury has assembled the following excerpts from law books and legislation acts. The Brown Act: Throughout California’s history, local legislative bodies have played a vital role in bringing participatory democracy to the citizens of the state. Local legislative bodies, such as boards, councils and commissions, are created in recognition of the fact that several minds are better that one, and that through debate and discussion, the best ideas will emerge. The law which guarantees the public’s right to attend and participate in meetings of local legislative bodies is commonly known as the “Brown Act.” The Brown Act is contained in Section 54950 of the Government Code. The Brown Act Preamble states, “Public commissions, boards, councils and other legislative bodies of local government agencies exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business. The people do not yield their sovereignty to the bodies that serve them. The people insist on remaining informed to retain control over the legislative bodies they have created. Brown Act Violations: Serial Meetings: The issue of serial meetings stands at the vortex of two significant public policies: first, the constitutional right of citizens to address grievances and communicate with their elected representatives; and second, the Act’s policy favoring public deliberation by multi-member boards, commissions and councils. The purpose of the serial meeting prohibition is not to prevent citizens from communicating with their elected representatives, but rather to prevent public bodies from circumventing the requirement for open and public deliberation of issues. The Act expressly prohibits serial meetings that are conducted through direct communications, personal intermediaries or technological devices for the purpose of developing a concurrence as to action to be taken. Typically, a serial meeting is a series of communications, each of which involves less than a quorum of the legislative body, but which taken as a whole involves a majority of the body’s members. The statutory definition also applies to situations in which technological devices are used to connect people at the same time who are in different locations. California Code of Regulations: The California Code of Regulations (CCR) are regulations that have been formally adopted by state agencies, reviewed and approved by the Office of Administrative Law, and filed with the Secretary of State. The CCR consists of 28 titles and contains the regulations of approximately 200 regulatory agencies. A regulation is a rule adopted by a state regulatory agency to implement, interpret, or make specific the law enforced or administered by it, or to govern its procedure. Legally adopted regulations filed with the Secretary of State have the force of law. California Codes: Welfare and Institutions Code Sections 5150-5151 5150. When any person, as a result of mental disorder, is a danger to others, or to himself or herself, or gravely disabled, a peace officer, member of the attending staff, as defined by regulation, of an evaluation facility designated by the county, designated members of a mobile crisis team provided by Section 5651.7, or other professional person designated by the county may, upon probable cause, take, or cause to be taken, the person into custody and place him or her in a facility designated by the county and approved by the State Department of Mental Health as a facility for 72-hour treatment and evaluation. 5150.1. No peace officer seeking to transport, or having transported, a person to a designated facility for assessment under Section 5150, shall be instructed by mental health personnel to take the person to, or keep the person at, a jail solely because of the unavailability of an acute bed, nor shall the peace officer be forbidden to transport the person directly to the designated facility. No mental health employee from any county, state, city, or any private agency providing Short-Doyle psychiatric emergency services shall interfere with a peace officer performing duties under Section 5150 by preventing the peace officer from entering a designated facility with the person to be assessed, nor shall any employee of such an agency require the peace officer to remove the person without assessment as a condition of allowing the peace officer to depart. "Peace officer" for the purposes of this section also means a jailer seeking to transport or transporting a person in custody to a designated facility for assessment consistent with Section 4011.6 or 4011.8 of the Penal Code and Section 5150. 5150.2. In each county whenever a peace officer has transported a person to a designated facility for assessment under Section 5150, that officer shall be detained no longer than the time necessary to complete documentation of the factual basis of the detention under Section 5150 and a safe and orderly transfer of physical custody of the person. The documentation shall include detailed information regarding the factual circumstances and observations constituting probable cause for the peace officer to believe that the individual required psychiatric evaluation under the standards of Section 5105. Each county shall establish disposition procedures and guidelines with local law enforcement agencies as necessary to relate to persons not admitted for evaluation and treatment and who decline alternative mental health services and to relate to the safe and orderly transfer of physical custody of persons under Section 5150, including those who have a criminal detention pending. 5151. If the facility for 72-hour treatment and evaluation admits the person, it may detain him or her for evaluation and treatment for a period not to exceed 72 hours. Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays may be excluded from the 72-hour period if the Department of Mental Health certifies for each facility that evaluation and treatment services cannot reasonably be made available on those days. The certification by the department is subject to renewal every two years. The department shall adopt regulations defining criteria for determining whether a facility can reasonably be expected to make evaluation and treatment services available on Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays. Prior to admitting a person to the facility for 72-hour treatment and evaluation pursuant to Section 5150, the professional person in charge of the facility or his or her designee shall assess the individual in person to determine the appropriateness of the involuntary detention. If in the judgment of the professional person in charge of the facility providing evaluation and treatment, or his or her designee, the person can be properly served without being detained, he or she shall be provided evaluation, crisis intervention, or other inpatient or outpatient services on a voluntary basis. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to prevent a peace officer from delivering individuals to a designated facility for assessment under Section 5150. Furthermore, the preadmission assessment requirement of this section shall not be interpreted to require peace officers to perform any additional duties other than those specified in Sections 5150.1 and 5150.2. California Codes: Welfare and Institutions Code Sections 5170-5170.1 5170. When any person is a danger to others, or to himself, or gravely disabled as a result of inebriation, a peace officer, member of the attending staff, as defined by regulation, of an evaluation facility designated by the county, or other person designated by the county may, upon reasonable cause, take, or cause to be taken, the person into civil protective custody and place him in a facility designated by the county and approved by the State Department of Alcohol and Drug Abuse as a facility for 72-hour treatment and evaluation of inebriates. 5170.1. A 72-hour treatment and evaluation facility shall include one or more of the following: (1) A screening, evaluation, and referral facility which may be accomplished by a mobile crisis unit, first aid station or ambulatory detoxification unit; (2) A detoxification facility for alcoholic and acutely intoxicated persons. (3) An alcohol recovery house. California Constitution - Article 34 Public Housing Project Law (Vote of the People): Section 1. No low rent housing project shall hereafter be developed, constructed, or acquired in any manner by any state public body until, a majority of the qualified electors of the city, town or county, as the case may be, in which it is proposed to develop, construct, or acquire the same, voting upon such issue, approve such project by voting in favor thereof at an election to be held for that purpose, or at any general or special election. For the purposes of this Article the term "low rent housing project" shall mean any development composed of urban or rural dwellings, apartments or other living accommodations for persons of low income, financed in whole or in part by the Federal Government or a state public body or to which the Federal Government or a state public body extends assistance by supplying all or part of the labor, by guaranteeing the payment of liens, or otherwise. For the purposes of this Article only there shall be excluded from the term "low rent housing project" any such project where there shall be in existence on the effective date hereof, a contract for financial assistance between any state public body and the Federal Government in respect to such project. For the purposes of this Article only "persons of low income" shall mean persons or families who lack the amount of income which is necessary (as determined by the state public body developing, constructing, or acquiring the housing project) to enable them, without financial assistance, to live in decent, safe and sanitary dwellings, without overcrowding. For the purposes of this Article the term "state public body" shall mean this State, or any city, city and county, county, district, authority, agency, or any other subdivision or public body of this State. For the purposes of this Article the term "Federal Government" shall mean the United States of America, or any agency or instrumentality, corporate or otherwise, of the United States of America. California Environment Quality Act (CEQA): The basic goal of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is to develop and maintain a high-quality environment now and in the future. While the specific goals of CEQA are for California's public agencies to: 1) Identify the significant environmental effects of their actions; and, either 2) Avoid those significant environmental effects, where feasible; or 3) Mitigate those significant environmental effects, where feasible. CEQA applies to "projects" proposed to be undertaken or requiring approval by State and local government agencies. "Projects" are activities which have the potential to have a physical impact on the environment and may include the enactment of zoning ordinances, the issuance of conditional use permits and the approval of tentative subdivision maps. Where a project requires approvals from more than one public agency, CEQA requires ones of these public agencies to serve as the "lead agency." A "lead agency" must complete the environmental review process required by CEQA. The most basic steps of the environmental review process are: 1) Determine if the activity is a "project" subject to CEQA; 2) determine if the "project" is exempt from CEQA; 3) Perform an Initial Study to identify the environmental impacts of the project and determine whether the identified impacts are "significant". Based on its findings of "significance", the lead agency prepares one of the following environmental review documents: • Negative Declaration if it finds no "significant" impacts; • Mitigated Negative Declaration if it finds "significant" impacts but revises the project to avoid or mitigate those significant impacts; • Environmental Impact Report (EIR) if it finds "significant" impacts. While there is no ironclad definition of "significance", the State CEQA Guidelines provides criteria to lead agencies in determining whether a project may have significant effects in Article 5. The purpose of an EIR is to provide State and local agencies and the general public with detailed information on the potentially significant environmental effects which a proposed project is likely to have and to list ways which the significant environmental effects may be minimized and indicate alternatives to the project. Source: http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/ California Penal Code Section 925: The grand jury shall investigate and report on the operations, accounts, and records of the officers, departments, or functions of the county including those operations, accounts, and records of any special legislative district or other district in the county created pursuant to state law for which the officers of the county are serving in their ex officio capacity as officers of the districts. The investigations may be conducted on some selective basis each year, but the grand jury shall not duplicate any examination of financial statements which has been performed by or for the board of supervisors pursuant to Section 25250 of the Government Code; this provision shall not be construed to limit the power of the grand jury to investigate and report on the operations, accounts, and records of the officers, departments, or functions of the county. The grand jury may enter into a joint contract with the board of supervisors to employ the services of an expert as provided for in Section 926. California Penal Code Section 925(a): The grand jury may at any time examine the books and records of any incorporated city or joint powers agency located in the county. In addition to any other investigatory powers granted by this chapter, the grand jury may investigate and report upon the operations, accounts, and records of the officers, departments, functions, and the method or system of recommendations as it may deem proper and fit. The grand jury may investigate and report upon the needs of all joint powers agencies in the county, including the abolition or creation of agencies and the equipment of, or the method or system of performing the duties of, the several agencies. It shall cause a copy of any such report to be transmitted to the governing body of any affected agency. California Penal Code Section 928: Every grand jury may investigate and report upon the needs of all county officers in the county, including the abolition or creation of offices and the equipment for, or the method or system of performing the duties of, the several offices. Such investigation and report shall be conducted selectively each year. The grand jury shall cause a copy of such report to be transmitted to each member of the board of supervisors of the county. California Penal Code Section 933 (b): One copy of each final report, together with the responses thereto, found to be in compliance with this title shall be placed on file with the county clerk and remain on file in the office of the county clerk. The county clerk shall immediately forward a true copy of the report and the responses to the State Archivist who shall retain that report and all responses in perpetuity. California Penal Code Section 933.05: (a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The Respondent agrees with the finding. (2) The Respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame from implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. (c) However, if a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a County agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision-making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. (d) A Grand Jury may request a subject person or entity to come before the Grand Jury for the purpose of reading and discussing the findings of the Grand Jury report that relates to that person or entity in order to verify the accuracy of the findings prior to their release. California Penal Code Section 933.5: A grand jury may at any time examine the books and records of any special-purpose assessing or taxing district located wholly or partly in the county or the local agency formation commission in the county, and, in addition to any other investigatory powers granted by this chapter, may investigate and report upon the method or system of performing the duties of such district or commission. California Penal Code Section 933.6: A grand jury may at any time examine the books and records of any nonprofit corporation established by or operated on behalf of a public entity the books and records of which it is authorized by law to examine, and, in addition to any other investigatory powers granted by this chapter, may investigate and report upon the method or system of performing the duties of such nonprofit corporation. 3rd District Court of Appeals: The California Courts of Appeal were established by constitutional amendment in 1904. The Third Appellate District is one of the three original courts of appeal established by constitutional amendment in 1904. Its jurisdiction stretches over 23 counties: Alpine, Amador, Butte, Calaveras, Colusa, El Dorado, Glenn, Lassen, Modoc, Mono, Nevada, Placer, Plumas, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou, Sutter, Tehama, Trinity, Yolo and Yuba. The role of the California Courts of Appeal is to review the appealable orders or judgments form a superior court. Issues brought to a Court of Appeal for review commonly include claims such as an incorrect ruling on admissibility of evidence, incorrect application of a law or regulation, unconstitutionality of a law or regulation, improper jury instructions, and insufficient evidence to support the verdict. Source: A Visitors’ Guide to the California Courts of Appeal, www.courtinfo.ca.gov. Superior Court Facility Supplement Introduction The 2003-2004 Grand Jury elected to review and evaluate the proposed location of the new court facilities mandated for Amador County pursuant to California Penal Code 925(a). Background The Courthouse complex at 108 Court Street in Jackson was originally constructed in 1862 and is owned by Amador County. Due to the legal requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) the facility is out of compliance. The costs to bring this facility into compliance to meet the ADA requirements are prohibitive. The Courthouse is an unreinforced masonry structure and does not meet the current seismic safety standards. Senate Bill 1732 mandates that all counties of California deed their Court facilities (buildings and parking lots) to the State at no charge. The State cannot accept the existing facilities due to the ADA and other structural problems; therefore, new facilities must be provided. Method of Evaluation Members of the Grand Jury conducted interviews, reviewed documents, and toured facilities. Persons Interviewed County Supervisor County Administrative Officer Under-Sheriff Superior Court Administrator Deputy Director for the General Services Administration Documents Reviewed Layout for renovation of the Begovich Building to serve as the new Court of Amador County. Facts: • The State of California requires Amador County to provide a three courtroom facility of at least 20,000 square feet of floor space. • The new court facility must be finished by 2007 in order to keep the County maintenance costs capped. • A plan to remodel the old hospital building at 810 Court Street to accommodate a new court complex was considered. • The old hospital building site is located next to the Sheriff’s Office, County Detention Facility and the Amador County District Attorney’s offices. • The old hospital building was determined to be hazardous due to seismic structural problems. • The old hospital building was rejected by the State as unsuitable for the court complex. • A recent “space needs” study indicates that additional space of 27,000 to 32,000 square feet is needed to accommodate future growth for the County buildings. • The existing Begovich Building is 20,000 square feet in size and would meet the minimum needs of the courts. • The existing Begovich Building is located across Argonaut Lane from the Argonaut High School, the State Preschool facilities, and a special needs school. • The old hospital building is being demolished in order to clear the site for new construction. • Seventeen additional acres are available for purchase at the current County Administration site to allow for necessary expansion. • To meet the State court needs and provide new space for the County Administration, the current County plan is to build a new County Administration Building at the old hospital site and remodel the existing Begovich Building for the Superior Court Building. Findings: • The County Administration Building (Begovich Building) at 500 Argonaut Lane is too small for the County’s current needs. • It is more cost effective to remodel and add space to the existing County Administration Offices on Argonaut Lane in order to meet the current and future space needs rather than build a new facility. • To meet the 2007 financial incentives, it is favorable to build one court complex rather than renovate the Begovich Building for court use and build a new Administration Center at the old hospital site. • The conversion of the old County Administration facilities for the courts use introduces a criminal element into the neighborhood adjacent to the high school and the State Preschool. • It is advantageous to locate the new court facility next to the County Detention Facility and District Attorney’s offices for security and convenience. Recommendations: • Build a new court building at the old hospital site at 810 Court Street • Remodel and expand the Begovich Building to accommodate the growing needs of the County Administration.