City of Anderson Destined for Growth City of Anderson

Commendations 38

• CM1
  Construction of a pre-chlorination facility
• CM2
  Installation of automated controls for the filtration system
• CM3
  Improvements to the backwash pond
• CM4
  Installation of an intertie with the City of Redding water system and a new booster pump station The first three improvements were mandated by the State Department of Health Services. The non- mandated intertie and booster pump station would allow the District to tie into the City of Redding water system in case of emergency. The need for a booster pump station was presented to the community by the District as an emergency fire suppression aid. Some community members expressed their belief at public meetings of the Board and to the Grand Jury during interviews that the pump station was included primarily to provide water delivery for the benefit of the future real estate developers, but would be paid for by all current rate payers. The four item project cost was to be approximately $2.4 million. On January 31, 2007, a public hearing was held to present the proposed plan to the public before enacting the rate increase. At that meeting, a modified plan was presented by the District Board to include only the three mandated projects and excluded the controversial intertie and pump station. The new plan decreased the overall cost from $2.4 million to $2.061 million. The posted agenda for that meeting, however, did not reflect that the modified plan would be presented; therefore, members of the public did not have adequate time to prepare an informed response to the new proposal. Some complaints centered around alleged violations of the requirements of Proposition 218 which was an initiative measure approved by California voters on November 5, 1996. This proposition added language to the state constitution designed to restrict the ability of local governments, including special districts such as SCSD, to raise or add “property-related” assessments and fees. In July 2006, the California State Supreme Court (Bighorn-Desert View Water agency v. Beringon), ruled that metered charges for water are regulated by Proposition 218. Fees for water cannot be increased without a 45 day notice to all property owners and a public hearing. If, during the required 45 day period, a majority of property owners submit a protest of the proposed fee increase, the measure is subject to a community vote. The Grand Jury received a complaint that some real estate developers are being improperly exempted from a requirement to secure new water allotments (from ACID or U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, for example), as required in SCSD Ordinance 1-05, adopted August 9, 2005. Once a developer locates an available allotment of water, the District negotiates a contract with the water source provider for that allotment. This ordinance exempts any development to which a “Will Serve” letter was issued by the District prior to enactment of the ordinance. A “Will Serve” letter is authorized and issued by the board of directors which obligates the District to provide water to one or more parcels located within the District. SCSD retains a local firm as its consulting engineer, and this same engineering firm also represents at least two real estate developers with projects in the District. SCSD recognizes that this is a conflict of interest and requires the engineering firm to maintain an internal “ethical wall” to preclude any impropriety. The “ethical wall” is designed to prevent direct, substantive communication within the engineering firm between the individual working for SCSD and the engineers working with the developers on projects within the District. Findings and Recommendations Response required from the SCSD Board of Directors (SCSD Board Documentation) Findings #1: The Grand Jury found that the four-item project The Board acknowledges the four-item project was changed prior to the public hearing on January was reduced to a three-item project subsequent 31, 2007 to include only the three mandated items. to the agenda being posted, and therefore, the Therefore, the agenda description was inaccurate. agenda description was inaccurate in that regard. Adequate time was not given prior to the public The main decision under discussion, however, hearing for citizens to become aware of the changes was whether to raise rates to fund the and prepare an informed response. improvement project; this is what the Board voted on, not the specific project items. The project had undergone continuous refinement (and continues to be refined) through its open review and discussion with the public and the District’s engineer. Between the time of the agenda’s publication, and the public hearing, the one non-mandated project item was eliminated, due to public concern for the item’s cost and necessity. A minority of Board members believes the inaccuracy of the agenda amounts to “harmless error,” as the public was informed that four project items were subject to discussion. The announcement at the hearing’s outset that the non-mandated item was being eliminated from the project did not hinder informed discussion on the three remaining project items, nor hinder informed discussion on the reasons for, and ramifications or, removing the forth project item. Finding #2: The Grand Jury found that a citizen of the The Board agrees with finding. The citizen’s community developed a second plan which was alternative plan was openly reviewed and presented at the Board meeting of April 19, 2007 discussed with the public and the Director’s requesting a Peer Review/Value Added engineer. Elements of the citizen’s plan have Engineering Plan for the original design of the been incorporated into District’s plan, and with improvement project. The Board agreed to spend the understanding of the citizen who advanced the additional funds to have this plan reviewed by the alternative plan, the “peer review” funds an independent engineering firm. have now been directed toward the refined project. Finding #3: This Grand Jury found no improprieties in the The Board agrees with the finding. application of Ordinance 1-05, as some real estate developers received “Will Serve” letters from the District prior to the enactment of the ordinance. It should be noted that all developments occurring after the enactment of Ordinance 1-05 are required to secure water allotments. Finding #4: The Grand Jury found that there is an appearance The Board is aware and concerned that an of impropriety regarding the SCSD using the same appearance of impropriety exists on the engineering firm as some of the new developers. occasions the engineering firm PACE Civil is An “ethical wall” does not eliminate the retained by a developer with a matter before the appearance of impropriety. Board, as Tom Warnock, a principal engineer with PACE, is District’s engineering consultant. On these occasions, the District has required that a PACEE engineer other than Tom Warnock be the engineer of record for the developer. There are a limited number of engineering firms in the area that qualify to perform the District’s work, and do not cause a conflict of interest with a sitting board member. PACE has done fine work for the District, which cannot prevent a developer from retaining the same engineering firm. PACE has advised the Board that both California State Law and the American Society of Civil Engineers Code of Ethics allow engineers to provide professional services to two or more clients on a project, or related projects, as long as the engineer discloses the relationship in writing to all parties, and all parties consent. Such disclosure and consent occurs between PACE, the Board, and the developer(s) as required. Finding #5: The State of California has mandated Ethics and The Board agrees with this finding. Public Service Law and Principles (AB 1234) training. The training is required of, among other public officials, all members of special district boards and must have been completed before January 1, 2007. The Grand Jury found that there is incomplete documentation showing that the training was attended by all board members. Finding #6: The Grand Jury found a significant lack of The Board disagrees with this finding. The communication and distrust existing between the improvement project, state loan, and rate SCSD Board and its customers regarding the rate increases were fully disclosed and discussed at increase and the state loan. For example, the Board many (lightly attended) monthly Board did not make a clear distinction between the state- meetings. An informational mailing of mandated improvements and non-mandated “Questions and Answers” describing the project improvements listed in the loan application, and did and its funding was sent to all customers before not clearly distinguish the commercial versus the public hearing. Further, a public residential rates. informational meeting was held with representatives of the Department of Health Services, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the District’s engineer, at which time the nature of the improvements and funding were explained, and questions from the public answered. The state-mandated and non- mandated improvements were made clear to the public, whose disapproval of the non-mandated item led, in part, to its removal from the project. The Board openly discussed the need for differentiation between commercial and residential rate increases, which is still under review. The distrust of the Board appears to be harbored by a few vocal customers, who have affected others through activities including the dissemination of flyers and petitions containing misleading and inaccurate information. Finding #7: The Grand Jury compared audio tapes of past The Board acknowledges there may occasionally Board meetings to the draft and final minutes of have been significant differences between the those same Board meetings and found significant words recorded at the Board meetings, the draft differences. It was discovered that on several minutes, and the final minutes. The Board occasions, draft minutes prepared by the meetings usually last at least three hours and administrative assistant were presented to one or yield extremely lengthy verbiage, which is then more of the Board members prior to the next Board transcribed into a summary by a District meeting for “edit.” The “edits” were submitted employee, and then reviewed by Board members back to the assistant, some by e-mail, and new draft a month after the words were spoken. This minutes were prepared for the next meeting. At the process provides fertile ground for next Board meeting, minutes were formally voted misinterpretation and inaccuracy by the on by the Board. The Grand Jury concluded that the transcriber, as well as revisionism by the speaker prior “edits” were not fully disclosed or discussed based on subjective recall. In an effort to by all Board members for an informed review and streamline the laborious process of summarizing, vote at the next meeting. The “edits” significantly reviewing and ratifying the verbatim minutes, changed the substance of what was actually the Board experimented its s members discussed at the meeting and some items were previewing the minutes via e-mail. To the extent added that were not on the tapes. Board members made substantive deletions, additions, or changes to their spoken words For example, on May 18, 2006, in the public during the process of reviewing the minutes, discussion portion of the Board meeting, the such actions were inappropriate. The District and Board members were asked if they were aware Board are currently exploring more streamlined that the water rates cannot be raised for future and transparent methods for recording, development according to Proposition 218. The transcribing, editing and adopting the minutes. answer from the Board was, “Yes, the developers, when they come in, pay development costs.” The draft minutes, after having been edited by e-mail, showed the response to that question as: “Director … stated that it was the Board’s understanding that monthly rates could be raised under Proposition 218, to provide funds for system improvements, as long as a public hearing was conducted and a vote-by-mail ballot was circulated.” The edited draft minutes were approved at the June 15, 2006 Board meeting with no reference or discussion regarding this change. There are other examples of significant changes in context in other Board minutes. Finding #8: The Grand Jury could not determine whether the The Board is aware of the requirements of SCSD Board followed the requirements of Proposition 218, including providing public Proposition 218 when increasing water rates. notice of hearings related to proposed water rate Posted notices of the public hearing were not dated increases. The Board agrees that posted notices and therefore the 45 day notice and comment of such public hearings must be dated, and that period requirement could not be verified. the public must be informed of their right to Additionally, the SCSD Board did not clearly protest, and the process. To the extent these explain the protest process in notices or at the requirements were not followed, the notice and public hearing, thereby leaving the public hearing processes should be repeated (another uninformed of their rights under Proposition 218. hearing is planned for early December 2007). Finding #9: The Grand Jury found that the central cause of The Board agrees with this finding. The Grand community discontent was due to the relative size Jury found that customers are upset about a of the water rate increase. Because rates have not sharp increase in their monthly water bill, been increased for at least 10 years, adequate particularly after a decade of receiving the same, money has not been added to reserve funds to cover modest will. The District had not substantially future improvements. raised water rates for the past 10 years (a small increase was instituted about 2 years age), resulting in minimal funds having been generated and reserved for future system upgrades. The current Board inherited the situation, as well as the brunt of community discontent caused by the Board’s having to make an overdue correction in water rates. Finding #10: The Grand Jury found that SCSD Board members To the extent Board members did not did not consistently follow recusal requirements for consistently follow recusal requirements for a perceived conflict of interest. Two members of perceived conflicts of interest upon learning the Board began to recuse themselves from some their company was associated with a Board discussions of a particular development development project subject to Board project in the District, but had not done so during a consideration, such action was inappropriate. As number of previous Board discussions of that same far as customer’s concern that several Board issue. Only once did they fully leave the room members were also members of an informal when those agenda items were considered. “council” that seeks to preserve a Federal land parcel for public use, the Board acknowledged that a perceived conflict of interest would result, and disclosure by the affected members would be necessary, it the Board was ever required to take action on the parcel. Finding #11: The Grand Jury observed that the posted agenda for See Response to Finding #1 the January 31, 2007 Public Hearing did not accurately reflect the items to be considered at the meeting.
• CM5
  Station 10, Cassel, 11 volunteers, 63 incidents
• CM6
  Station 11, Hat Creek, 10 volunteers, 53 incidents
• CM7
  Station 12, Old Station, 7 volunteers, 61incidents
• CM8
  Station 13, Soldier Mountain, 10 volunteers, 29 incidents
• CM9
  Station 20, Shingletown, 14 volunteers, 438 incidents
• CM10
  Station 30, Oak Run, 6 volunteers, 54 incidents
• CM11
  Station 31, Whitmore, 14 volunteers, 69 incidents
• CM12
  Station 32, Palo Cedro, 23 volunteers, 338 incidents
• CM13
  Station 33, Bella Vista, 17 volunteers, 231 incidents
• CM14
  Station 50, Igo-Ono, 8 volunteers, 101 incidents
• CM15
  Station 52, Centerville, 12 volunteers, 118 incidents
• CM16
  Station 53, Keswick, 9 volunteers, 118 incidents
• CM17
  Station 54, Lakehead, 9 volunteers, 311 incidents
• CM18
  Station 55, West Valley, 14 volunteers, 116 incidents
• CM19
  Station 59, French Gulch, 5 volunteers, 72 incidents
• CM20
  Station 66, Platina, 4 volunteers, 19 incidents
• CM21
  Station 70, Big Bend, 6 volunteers, 39 incidents
• CM22
  Station 71, Montgomery Creek, 10 volunteers, 15 incidents
• CM23
  Station 72, Jones Valley, 18 volunteers, 196 incidents Today’s VFC fire fighters must be prepared to respond to many diverse situations such as traffic accidents, medical emergencies, water craft incidents and the handling of hazardous materials, in addition to the traditional duties of fire fighting. The number of incidences that the VFCs are responding to have increased dramatically over the past 10 years. Shasta County Fire Department 10 Year Incident Summary 14000 12620 13031 12813 13146 12202 10950 12000 10433 10583 8944 9365 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 In the past, each fire district or volunteer fire company established its own emergency response policies, procedures, and training requirements. Today there are state laws and local ordinances in place that require all fire fighters to complete rigorous training and certification. Beginning fire fighters must complete 160 hours of training before being qualified to respond to an incident. As an example, the training needed to reach Fire Control III status, which is required to enter a burning structure, might take over one year to complete. All fire fighters must regularly participate in refresher training and recertification activities. To summarize the 2006 SCFD training, 58 classes were offered, 3,572 sessions with 17,217 student contact hours – 4,000 hours of which were specifically for emergency medical services training. All SCFD training is tracked by a county-wide data base maintained by SCFD. Fire fighters performing prehospital emergency care must qualify under the state Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) requirements and gain certification from Northern California Emergency Medical Services (NORCAL-EMS), an oversight agency for emergency medical services in Shasta County. Medical emergencies and non-fire related calls constitute a majority of VFC incident responses. SHASTA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT INCIDENTS, BY TYPE Medicals 74% 7% 2% 5% Wildland Fires 7% 5% 7% Structure Fires 5% Other Fires 7% 74% Fire Menance Standby 2% Other/Public Assists 5% The Redding Interagency Command Center provides emergency dispatching to all the fire entities in Shasta County with the exception of the City of Redding. The center is staffed 24 hours a day. Another primary task of the Command Center is the mobilization of County, Fire District and City resources for the State Office of Emergency Services (OES) for major rescue and fire disasters, utilizing various interagency agreements both within and outside Shasta County. The Command Center serves as a back- up facility for SHASCOM and the California Northern Region Interagency Dispatch Center for CAL FIRE. Responses Required: Shasta County Board of Supervisors as to Findings 1 and 3 and Recommendations 1 through 3 Invited Responses: SCFD Warden/CAL FIRE Unit Chief as to Findings 1, 3 and 4 and Recommendations 1 through 3 Shasta County Counsel as to Recommendation 2 Commendations: The Grand Jury is very impressed with the enormous responsibility and time commitment undertaken by the men and women volunteer firefighters of SCFD. Their selfless service to the communities that they serve is literally priceless. They are our true heroes! We applaud and thank you. The Grand Jury commends the efforts of the SCFD management in improving the conditions of the VFCs in regard to new equipment, maintenance, training opportunities, improved budget management techniques, and standardizing policy and procedures for operating policies within each VFC. This creates harmony among the fire fighters when working with each other and other VFCs as well as other fire agencies. It clarifies communication and reduces accidents. Method of Inquiry: The Grand Jury interviewed:
• CM24
  SCFD Warden/CAL FIRE Unit Chief
• CM25
  Three VFC Fire Chiefs
• CM26
  One VFC Assistant Fire Chief/Paramedic
• CM27
  NOR-CAL EMS Chief Executive Officer
• CM28
  CAL FIRE/SCFD Division Chief
• CM29
  CAL FIRE/SCFD Battalion Chief
• CM30
  Shasta County Sheriffs Office, Captain The Grand Jury reviewed the following documents:
• CM31
  CDF/Shasta County Fire Department, Policies and Procedures Manual, Revised May 2006.
• CM32
  Shasta County Fire Department, Candidate Self-Paced Training Manual, August 2006
• CM33
  Shasta County Fire Department 2006 Annual Report
• CM34
  Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) Municipal Services Review,
• CM35
  May 2003 (latest version)
• CM36
  VFC Chief’s Reports for 2006
• CM37
  State of California Standard Agreement between the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection and Shasta County, July 1, 2005 – June 30, 2007.
• CM38
  Shasta County Fire Department Master Plan, 2007 Attended one monthly Shasta County Chiefs meeting Attended one Five Year Fire Plan approval meeting Findings and Recommendations Agency Response (Unedited) Findings #1: Responses from the Shasta County Board of Supervisors: (SC Board of Supervisors The Shasta County Fire Department and the Documentation) California Department of Forestry and Fire The Board of Supervisors concurs with the Protection in Shasta and Trinity Counties benefit finding. from sharing the resources of both agencies such as management, personnel and equipment. Invited Responses SCFD Warden/CAL FIRE Unit Chief: (SCFD Documentation) The Shasta County Fire Department concurs with the finding. Finding #2: Responses from the Shasta County Board of Supervisors: (SC Board of Supervisors VFCs have lost much of their direct control of the Documentation) operational funds that are provided by the county. The Board of Supervisors concurs with the SCFD has reduced the individual VFC operational finding. Additionally, this has created some budget and (in turn) pays directly for their rent, efficiencies associated with economies of scale. utilities, fuel and maintenance. The SCFD annually allots $3,000 to each VFC for discretionary Response for Shasta County Fire expenditures. This system aids VFCs by Department: (SCFD Documentation) eliminating some of the routine business activities The Shasta County Fire Department concurs and was welcomed by the VFC chiefs interviewed. with the finding. This created efficiencies and economics of scale, reduced administrative duties for the VFC and also created better accountability of the public’s monies. Finding #3: Responses from the Shasta County Board of Supervisors: (SC Board of Supervisors A number of the VFCs have formed non-profit Documentation) 501(c) (3) corporations to provide tax exempt The Board of Supervisors concurs with the status for fund-raising activities. This places the finding. management of these funds under the direction of the corporation’s board of directors and removes Invited Responses SCFD Warden/CAL FIRE any appearances of impropriety on the part of fire Unit Chief: (SCFD Documentation) personnel. A non-profit corporation has the added The Shasta County Fire Department concurs advantage of being able to apply for grants. While with the finding. Shasta County Fire Department this is an advantage for the specific VFC, it can is currently working on a re-write of the 1987 also result in acquiring equipment that may not be agreement between the County and the the best overall selection for the SCFD. Volunteer Fire Companies. When completed the Additionally, because title of some assets are re-write will address the issues listed within #3 vested with the VFC or the corporation instead of of the findings. the County, liability, maintenance, and improvement issues have arisen regarding the ownership of the equipment and facilities. According to SCFD Master Plan 2007, “SCFD continues to work with County Counsel in determining the appropriateness of expending public monies on non-County owned facilities and/or equipment.” Finding #4: Invited Responses SCFD Warden/CAL FIRE Many VFCs experience difficulty in maintaining a Unit Chief: (SCFD Documentation) full contingent of volunteers. According to the The Shasta County Fire Department concurs SCFD Master Plan 2007, “SCFD is authorized a with the finding. Effective July 1, 2007 Shasta total of 385 volunteers,” but as of September 2006, County Fire Department had 220 volunteers, an had only 182 volunteers. The decline in the increase of 38 volunteers since September 2006. numbers of active volunteers can be attributed Shasta County Fire Department continues to largely to the very significant time commitment for implement procedures that improve recruitment initial and continuing training, and for time spent in and retention for our volunteers. service to the community. Moreover, most volunteers have employment which prevents them from responding during their working hours thereby creating lapses in coverage.