📋
Extraído del Informe Consolidado

Esta investigación fue publicada originalmente como parte de un informe consolidado más amplio que contiene múltiples investigaciones. Consulte el PDF consolidado para ver el documento completo.

Shasta County Grand Jury • 2017-2018

Green Rush…Up in Smoke?

Published: June 28, 2018 102 pages
View PDF View Full Original

Findings 12 findings

F1 Page 20
All mandated responders submitted responses as requested, most within the timeframe specified in Penal Code § 933(c), which allots 90 days for governing bodies to respond and 60 days for elected officials.
F2 Page 20
Although Redding City Council’s original responses to the Unfunded Pension Liabilities report were deemed noncompliant with Penal Code § 933(c) and § 933.05(b), it later submitted revised responses that were in compliance.
F3 Page 20
Four of the 16 invited responders also submitted responses although they were not required to do so. COMMENDATIONS The Grand Jury commends: C1. The City Managers of Anderson, Redding and Shasta Lake for their thoughtful and timely responses to the Unfunded Pension Liabilities report. All were invited responders and not required to submit responses. C2. The Shasta Lake Fire Protection District Fire Chief for his thoughtful and timely responses to the Shasta Lake Fire Protection District report. He was an invited responder and not required to submit responses. C3. The Cities of Anderson, Redding and Shasta Lake City Councils and the Shasta County Board of Supervisors for scheduling approval of their respective responses during a regular session portion of their meetings, allowing open discussion of those responses and public comment. When there is a perception of a conflict of interest involving a member of the Grand Jury, that member has been required to recuse from any aspect of the investigation involving such a conflict and from voting on the acceptance of or rejection of that report. No member of the Grand Jury recused from this report. Reports issued by the Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code § 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Grand Jury. Released January 24, 2018 12 Protecting Those Who Protect Us – Money Well Spent Shasta County Law Enforcement Vehicle Recalls and Maintenance SUMMARY Several news articles and televised news reports regarding safety recalls of the Patrol vehicle prompted the 2017-2018 Shasta County Grand Jury to open an investigation to determine how Shasta County agencies have responded to recent carbon monoxide recalls of law enforcement vehicles. The Shasta County Grand Jury reviewed vehicle records from the Shasta County Sheriff’s Office and the police departments of Redding and Anderson from 2011 through 2017. The Shasta County Grand Jury found that the patrol vehicles driven by officers in Shasta County are maintained using specific and comprehensive policies and procedures. During the course of the investigation, the Shasta County Grand Jury broadened the focus to include vehicle maintenance policies, procedures and records of all Shasta County law enforcement agencies. The Shasta County Grand Jury found that none of the recalled vehicles experienced carbon monoxide leaks. Furthermore, each agency has comprehensive policies and procedures in place for vehicle repairs and maintenance. BACKGROUND After reviewing several recent news articles and televised news reports regarding safety recalls of the Ford Explorer Police Interceptor model (patrol vehicle), the 2017-2018 Shasta County Grand Jury (Grand Jury) opened an investigation to determine whether Shasta County law enforcement vehicle recalls were handled in accordance with the recall directive. A 2017 single- vehicle accident involving a Sheriff’s Office Patrol vehicle also contributed to the Grand Jury’s interest in an investigation. In 2016 and 2017, the Ford Motor Company issued recalls for 1.3 million Ford Explorers for carbon monoxide leaks. These recalls included all Police Interceptor models from 2011 through 2017. Ford received nearly 400,000 complaints of exhaust fumes in these vehicles. The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) noted that, despite the lack of conclusive and documented linkage between injury reports and carbon monoxide poisoning, carbon monoxide levels “…may be elevated in certain driving scenarios.” METHODOLOGY The Grand Jury reviewed:  National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) website: https://www.nhtsa.gov  National Highway Transportation Safety Administration recall notices 2011-2017  May 12, 2017 accident report prepared by the California Highway Patrol (MAIT report) 13  Center for Auto Safety 2017 recall notices  Notices distributed by the Ford Motor Company 2016-2017  Motor Trend Magazine, June 2016  ABC13 Eyewitness News: http://www.13abc.com/home/headlines/Several-auto-recalls-issued-Monday morning379619791.html http://abc13.com/automotive/ford-issues-4-recalls-affecting-14m-vehicles/85110/. Anderson Police Department:  Policies and Procedures of Vehicle Inspection  Vehicle check list form  Photo of grease board for reporting vehicle repairs  Vehicle rotation policy  Reserve vehicle policy  Replacement of damaged vehicles policy  New vehicle budget 2015  Fleet Manager records 2016-2017  Vehicle incident reports 2014-2017. Redding Police Department:  Repair order request form  Listing of patrol vehicles 2006 - 2017  Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) Patrol Vehicle Operations Bulletin (POST.BTB. 2003-01, October 2015)  Police Fleet Vehicle Operations Emergency Vehicle Operation Policy (F-19.7 General Order revised 3/22/17)  Traffic Collision Investigation Policy (F-43.15 General Order revised 10/24/16)  Vehicle incident reports 2014-2017. Shasta County Sheriff’s Office:  Patrol Vehicle Operations Procedures  Vehicle Service Request Form  Patrol Vehicle listing 2014-2017  Vehicle incident reports 2014-2017  Vehicle Safety Recall Notices  Accident Reports Parts 1 and 2  Traffic Collision Report, May 2017  Multidisciplinary Accident Investigation Team (MAIT) Report May 2017  Vehicle incident reports 2014-2017. The Grand Jury interviewed personnel from:  Anderson Fleet Management  Anderson Police Department  Redding Fleet Management  Redding Police Department  Shasta County Fleet Management  Shasta County Sheriff’s Office. DISCUSSION The Grand Jury determined that Shasta County law enforcement agencies use only one type of Ford vehicle under recall, the Ford Explorer Police Interceptor model (patrol vehicle). Those agencies included the Anderson Police Department (APD), the Redding Police Department (RPD), and the Shasta County Sheriff’s Office (SCSO). Documents received from those entities indicated that 38 vehicles had been affected by the recalls. This report focuses on the carbon monoxide issues of the patrol vehicles. Vehicle Repair and Maintenance: Policies and Procedures Although the names of policies, forms, and documentation are different, the processes are similar for all agencies. Before the start of each patrol shift, officers and deputies are responsible for checking their assigned vehicles using a checklist. If there is a maintenance concern that may affect safety, the vehicle is immediately taken out of service and a substitute patrol vehicle is assigned. Records show that the vast majority of repaired vehicles are returned to service within one working day. Recalled Vehicles Recalled vehicles are removed from service and taken to an authorized repair station. This procedure is followed even if the agency did not experience the problem for which the recall was issued. No carbon monoxide leaks were found in any of the vehicles examined. After-Market Modifications According to Ford Motor Company reports, the after-market installation of police equipment made by some companies across the United States was the cause of the carbon monoxide issues in patrol vehicles. Sometimes this occurred when holes were drilled in the chassis. These holes, if not properly sealed, allowed carbon monoxide to enter the cabin of the vehicle. The Grand Jury noted that all after-market modifications of the patrol vehicles used by APD, RPD, and SCSO were installed by a contracted installer of after-market equipment. None of the Shasta County agency law enforcement vehicles modified by the contracted company experienced any carbon monoxide leaks. After-market modifications were properly completed as indicated by the lack of leaks found during the recall inspection process. Collision Reports On May 12, 2017, a single-vehicle accident involving a SCSO patrol vehicle occurred on Highway 273 south of Redding. The Multidisciplinary Accident Investigation Team (MAIT) investigated the accident. MAIT consists of specially trained personnel of the California Highway Patrol and includes a representative of Caltrans. The investigation determined the accident was not due to carbon monoxide poisoning. FINDINGS
F4 Page 42
The percentage of the Shasta County Jail budget provided from the Shasta County General Fund has steadily declined over the last seven years while the Shasta County Jail’s operating costs have risen. This has resulted in increased reliance on unsustainable sources of funding.
F5 Page 42
While revenue from Proposition 172 fluctuates, the amount allocated to the Shasta County Jail by the Shasta County Auditor-Controller has varied little over the last ten years, making this funding source relatively stable and predictable.
F6 Page 42
AB 109 has provided funding to the Shasta County Jail since 2011, however this funding is not a stable or predictable source due to projected budgetary decreases of 25% in the next two years.
F7 Page 42
Out-of-county beds increase Shasta County’s incarceration capacity and do so at a lower cost than adding jail beds to the Shasta County Jail. Because of restrictions, it is a limited option that cannot be relied upon for contributing significantly to Shasta County inmate capacity.
F8 Page 42
The Shasta County Board of Supervisors has not publicly accepted assessment data that forecasts current and future capacity needs at the Jail. Without knowing that capacity, it is 34 impossible for the Shasta County Board of Supervisors to accurately develop capital cost and operating budgets for jail expansions.
F9 Page 43
The Shasta County Board of Supervisors has not developed a short or long-term plan to match Shasta County Jail capacity needs with identified operational funding sources, despite multiple assessments showing a critical jail bed shortage in Shasta County.
F10 Page 43
In 2012 and 2017, California State funds were available for expansion of the Shasta County Jail but were rejected due to the Shasta County Board of Supervisor’s inability to fund operational costs of an expanded facility. This continues to leave Shasta County without adequate Jail capacity.
F11 Page 61
The cash received from cannabis-related businesses loses its identity when the City commingles it with the cash receipts from other sources such as utility payments. If the Federal Government asserts its authority regarding cannabis being federally illegal, the City of Shasta Lake could face severe financial consequences.
F12 Page 61
The City of Shasta Lake’s cannabis business permits require a sampling station in all manufacturing and cultivation facilities for testing discharge to wastewater. There are no procedures in place to require the City to conduct frequent and random testing to ensure viability of the wastewater treatment system. Should a business release harmful substances into the system, the City would have difficulty locating the source of the release and hold those responsible accountable.

Recommendations 17

Commendations 2

Comments 1

No Responses Found 2

Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.

Shasta County Auditor-Controller Elected County Office
Shasta County Board of Supervisors Elected County Office