Planning and Public Works Committee 9. HVLCSD’s water quality ranks 3.0 on a scale of 1 – 10 as shown in Table 2

R1

Remove County reference to Central Services as that function no longer exists. (F1, F3) Request for Responses: Pursuant to Penal Code 933.05 the Grand Jury requests responses as follows:  County Administrative Officer via Board of Supervisors (90 days) Government Services Committee District Attorney Seek Justice and Prosecute Vigorously Summary: Allowing a month for the new District Attorney (DA) to settle in, the Government Services Committee met with the DA for his assessment of the many issues facing the DA and the citizens of the County of Lake. Background: At the time of this interview, the DA had been in office for just one month. Goals that the DA has set are to become familiar with the responsibilities of this office, implement changes where necessary, establish written policies and procedures bring the traditional ‘overcharging’ of suspects closer to reality, and to fulfill the mission … “Seek Justice and Prosecute Vigorously”. This DA sees the department as one that represents all the people of the county. Procedure: The Government Services Committee (committee) of the Lake County Civil Grand Jury interviewed the new DA. Discussion and Facts: Through interview, the following information was conveyed to the committee: 1. No written Policies and Procedures Manual exists for the Office of the District Attorney. Government Services Committee 2. The Brady Law and Policies was established in 2007 and requires a high level of integrity and honesty from law enforcement. The DA stated he will enforce the Brady Law and Policies. 3. Understanding that there may be an influx of newly-released, unsupervised offenders to Lake County, the DA is aware of the projections of increased crime, yet stated that the future is difficult for anyone to predict. 4. The DA has served on undercover task forces and has spent a good deal of time in family law before entering his current position. 5. Analyzing the projected reduction in law enforcement funds from the State of California, the DA stated that less money means less enforcement which means fewer cases can be prosecuted. This will reduce monies spent by the department. Layoffs in the DA’s office may become necessary. 6. The result of a reduction in funds from the state is just now surfacing in Lake County. One State-approved grant was only half funded. It is now dubious whether the remaining half of the funds will be forthcoming, even though commitments based on the full grant have been made. 7. The DA places the highest priority on prosecuting crimes of violence, especially when children or elders are involved. 8. The DA has initiated a procedure of accepting pleas in more cases in order to minimize the cost of court trial and to use time and money more efficiently. 9. The DA expects the services that are currently in place in the Victim Witness Program, a Division of the District Attorney Department, to continue.

R5

Future Grand Juries perform routine oversights on JPAs operating within Lake County, to determine that the JPAs’ annual audits are being monitored by the Auditor-Controller-Clerk and is within the letter and spirit of the law (F1, F3, F4)

R1

Remove County reference to Central Services as that function no longer exists. (F1, F3) Request for Responses: Pursuant to Penal Code 933.05 the Grand Jury requests responses as follows:  County Administrative Officer via Board of Supervisors (90 days) Government Services Committee District Attorney Seek Justice and Prosecute Vigorously Summary: Allowing a month for the new District Attorney (DA) to settle in, the Government Services Committee met with the DA for his assessment of the many issues facing the DA and the citizens of the County of Lake. Background: At the time of this interview, the DA had been in office for just one month. Goals that the DA has set are to become familiar with the responsibilities of this office, implement changes where necessary, establish written policies and procedures bring the traditional ‘overcharging’ of suspects closer to reality, and to fulfill the mission … “Seek Justice and Prosecute Vigorously”. This DA sees the department as one that represents all the people of the county. Procedure: The Government Services Committee (committee) of the Lake County Civil Grand Jury interviewed the new DA. Discussion and Facts: Through interview, the following information was conveyed to the committee: 1. No written Policies and Procedures Manual exists for the Office of the District Attorney. Government Services Committee 2. The Brady Law and Policies was established in 2007 and requires a high level of integrity and honesty from law enforcement. The DA stated he will enforce the Brady Law and Policies. 3. Understanding that there may be an influx of newly-released, unsupervised offenders to Lake County, the DA is aware of the projections of increased crime, yet stated that the future is difficult for anyone to predict. 4. The DA has served on undercover task forces and has spent a good deal of time in family law before entering his current position. 5. Analyzing the projected reduction in law enforcement funds from the State of California, the DA stated that less money means less enforcement which means fewer cases can be prosecuted. This will reduce monies spent by the department. Layoffs in the DA’s office may become necessary. 6. The result of a reduction in funds from the state is just now surfacing in Lake County. One State-approved grant was only half funded. It is now dubious whether the remaining half of the funds will be forthcoming, even though commitments based on the full grant have been made. 7. The DA places the highest priority on prosecuting crimes of violence, especially when children or elders are involved. 8. The DA has initiated a procedure of accepting pleas in more cases in order to minimize the cost of court trial and to use time and money more efficiently. 9. The DA expects the services that are currently in place in the Victim Witness Program, a Division of the District Attorney Department, to continue.

R5

Future Grand Juries perform routine oversights on JPAs operating within Lake County, to determine that the JPAs’ annual audits are being monitored by the Auditor-Controller-Clerk and is within the letter and spirit of the law (F1, F3, F4)

R6

Conduct annual oversight of the Auditor-Controller-Clerk with regard to monitoring filed JPAs. (F3, F4) Request for Responses: Pursuant to Penal Code 933.05 the Grand Jury requests responses as follows:  Board of Supervisors (90 days)  District Attorney (60 days)  County Counsel via Board of Supervisors (90 days)  County Auditor-Controller (60 days)  Clearlake City Council (90 days)  Lakeport City Council (90 days) Ad-Hoc Committee Mold in My Home: Does Anybody Care? Summary: There is no public agency in Lake County that evaluates mold growth issues in buildings. Background: The Grand Jury received a complaint regarding mold growing in a privately owned building. Because this was a private dispute, the Grand Jury denied the complaint. However, the larger issue of mold inspection spurred the Jury to investigate the question of who in Lake County government is responsible for mold, health and safety issues. Procedure: Telephone calls by the Grand Jury were made to the Environmental Health Division of the Public Health Department, the Building Inspection Division of the Community Development Department, and the Air Quality Management District. Documents located on the Internet were reviewed including the text of the Toxic Mold Protection Act of 2001, Health & Safety Code Sections 25100 et seq., and Implementation of the Toxic Mold Protection Act of 2001, a report to the California legislature dated April 2005. Discussion and Facts: The public is now, more than ever, aware of mold infestations. Citizens look to government for many services, but here in Lake County, governmental agencies advise citizens to contact private companies to treat mold issues. According to the Report to the California Legislature prepared by the California Department of Health Services (DHS), the Toxic Mold Protection Act of 2001 was enacted to address concerns regarding health effects from exposure to indoor molds and provide guidelines or standards for the safe and effective removal of molds from buildings. DHS was directed to determine the feasibility of identifying permissible exposure limits (PELs) for indoor molds. The DHS staff determined after considerable research, that sound science- based PELs for indoor molds could not be established.  On the County website, the Code Enforcement Division of Community Development Department page, there is a chart indicating the agency to contact about “Mold inside habitable dwellings” is Building and Safety. There is also a telephone number under the Environmental Health heading for “Mold”. (See attached)  When called, Lake County Building and Safety Division informs the caller that it does not have anything to do with evaluating mold. Ad-Hoc Committee  The 1-800 phone number listed on the County of Lake web site under Environmental Health connects to the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s automated indoor air quality hotline.  According to the DHS, damp buildings or occupied rooms within buildings that have visible fungal growth are unsanitary and a potential health risk.  County agencies direct the public to seek private companies’ advice on mold issues. Findings:

R5

Future Grand Juries perform routine oversights on JPAs operating within Lake County, to determine that the JPAs’ annual audits are being monitored by the Auditor-Controller-Clerk and is within the letter and spirit of the law (F1, F3, F4)

R6

Conduct annual oversight of the Auditor-Controller-Clerk with regard to monitoring filed JPAs. (F3, F4) Request for Responses: Pursuant to Penal Code 933.05 the Grand Jury requests responses as follows:  Board of Supervisors (90 days)  District Attorney (60 days)  County Counsel via Board of Supervisors (90 days)  County Auditor-Controller (60 days)  Clearlake City Council (90 days)  Lakeport City Council (90 days) Ad-Hoc Committee Mold in My Home: Does Anybody Care? Summary: There is no public agency in Lake County that evaluates mold growth issues in buildings. Background: The Grand Jury received a complaint regarding mold growing in a privately owned building. Because this was a private dispute, the Grand Jury denied the complaint. However, the larger issue of mold inspection spurred the Jury to investigate the question of who in Lake County government is responsible for mold, health and safety issues. Procedure: Telephone calls by the Grand Jury were made to the Environmental Health Division of the Public Health Department, the Building Inspection Division of the Community Development Department, and the Air Quality Management District. Documents located on the Internet were reviewed including the text of the Toxic Mold Protection Act of 2001, Health & Safety Code Sections 25100 et seq., and Implementation of the Toxic Mold Protection Act of 2001, a report to the California legislature dated April 2005. Discussion and Facts: The public is now, more than ever, aware of mold infestations. Citizens look to government for many services, but here in Lake County, governmental agencies advise citizens to contact private companies to treat mold issues. According to the Report to the California Legislature prepared by the California Department of Health Services (DHS), the Toxic Mold Protection Act of 2001 was enacted to address concerns regarding health effects from exposure to indoor molds and provide guidelines or standards for the safe and effective removal of molds from buildings. DHS was directed to determine the feasibility of identifying permissible exposure limits (PELs) for indoor molds. The DHS staff determined after considerable research, that sound science- based PELs for indoor molds could not be established.  On the County website, the Code Enforcement Division of Community Development Department page, there is a chart indicating the agency to contact about “Mold inside habitable dwellings” is Building and Safety. There is also a telephone number under the Environmental Health heading for “Mold”. (See attached)  When called, Lake County Building and Safety Division informs the caller that it does not have anything to do with evaluating mold. Ad-Hoc Committee  The 1-800 phone number listed on the County of Lake web site under Environmental Health connects to the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s automated indoor air quality hotline.  According to the DHS, damp buildings or occupied rooms within buildings that have visible fungal growth are unsanitary and a potential health risk.  County agencies direct the public to seek private companies’ advice on mold issues. Findings:

R2

Schedule meetings at regular intervals. (F5)

R3

Formal, professional-styled minutes be prepared and times of meetings be better published to satisfy the intent of the Brown Act. (F6)

R7

Correct plumbing regarding the open urinal grate. (F8) Request for Responses: Pursuant to Penal Code 933.05 the Grand Jury requests responses as follows:  County Sheriff (60 days)  Public Health Department via Board of Supervisors (90 days)  Board of Supervisors (90 days) Public Safety Committee Public Services Committee Public Services Committee Table of Contents  Oversights City Of Clearlake Animal Control 137 A Great Idea, if not a Desperate One East Lake/West Lake 143 Resource Conservation Districts (RCD) Lake County Animal Care and Control Oversight 147 We’re not asking for perfection, just a step in the right direction. Lake County Public Service Department Oversight 157 Question: How many hats can a department head wear? Public Services Committee Public Services Committee City Of Clearlake Animal Control A Great Idea, if not a Desperate One Summary: Saving money during a depressed economic time is akin to grabbing the brass ring, but saving money by not doing a complete job is lacking in fiscal maturity. Substituting County Animal Control with a city run animal shelter saves money, but leaves the City of Clearlake in a reduced state of animal control service. The City of Clearlake began an uphill journey toward a lofty goal. The timeline needed to develop this fledgling service to its full potential of self-reliance was not well planned. Background: The history of the City of Clearlake Animal Control (CCAC) is short. CCAC was brought into being in November of 2009. The concept of a city-run Animal Control was adopted by the City Council as a massive cost saving measure during a crunch time as an afterthought within an already approved budget. With reductions in City funding, the saving of over $100,000 per year was a very enticing idea. The results as shown on the chart attached to this report show a great savings, and it also shows a substantial reduction in performance. The current services offered by the City of Clearlake are mostly dog-oriented. Larger or exotic animals are handled by the County. Cats, most especially feral cats, are generally ignored. The largest problem in both Clearlake and all of Lake County is the feral cat explosion. Reductions in service will not solve this problem. The original concept of an animal control facility in the City of Clearlake was a “seat of the pants” plan to balance the budget. The plan’s long term goal is for a modern, independent animal control facility dedicated to humane treatment of animals and equal to any city or county of its size. Procedure: Interviews were conducted by the Public Services Committee at the Clearlake Animal Control office located in the Clearlake City Hall and at the City Animal Control facility at the city maintenance yard on Old Hwy 53. Several documents were requested, received and reviewed to produce facts in this report. Many County documents were also reviewed for the comparison of facts. Discussion and Facts: 1. The Public Services Committee first toured the Clearlake shelter on September 13, 2010 and observed six dog pens and 20 cat cages with one dog pen unusable. Animal population at that time was four dogs and three cats. The facility currently has one paid staff person and one part-time volunteer to assist with shelter duties. 2. During the Public Services Committee’s second tour of the shelter on Public Services Committee December 2, 2010, it was learned that Clearlake Animal Control picked up 406 dogs and cats for the calendar year-to-date. 91 were transferred to the Lake County Animal Care and Control (LCACC) facility at an initial charge of $71 per animal paid for by the City of Clearlake, and 315 were sent to foster homes or other rescue shelters. 3. The current City of Clearlake Animal Control shelter shares a corrugated metal building with city equipment at the city maintenance yards on Old Hwy 53 in the City of Clearlake. 4. Several cages for dogs and cats are arranged on a cement floor for ease of cleaning. A cleaning disinfectant used is called Kennelsol and is effective against most animal diseases. The pens are cleaned and sanitized daily by pressure hose. 5. The exercise area is blacktop to facilitate cleaning and disinfecting. The exercise area is also cleaned and sanitized to prevent the spread of diseases. 6. Plans have been approved for a new floor under the cages that will be elevated and sloped to provide for better drainage and cleanliness. Although Clearlake’s Department of Public Works had planned on completion of this elevated floor improvement by winter of 2010, no work was started as of December 2, 2010. 7. A study done by Stanford University’s Department of Environmental Health concluded that feral cats pose no health threat to humans. Feral cats also pose no threat to bird or other wild life populations. Feral cats’ diets generally consist of garbage, carrion and vegetation. 8. Animal rescue groups are heavily involved in assisting with picking up and spaying and neutering feral cats when requested. One local rescue group makes cages available with a $10 returnable deposit. 9. Working in conjunction with this local animal rescue group, the CCAC Shelter has 27 foster homes available to house cats or dogs until they are adopted or sent to other placement shelters. 10. During the fiscal year ended June 30, 2009, LCACC picked up 1,502 assorted animals in the City of Clearlake. In a similar time period, January 2010 to November 2010, Clearlake Animal Control picked up 406 assorted animals. This represents a drop in animal services to the City of Clearlake of 73%. 11. Plans for a new and modern animal control facility to greatly improve and expand animal control service have been submitted by Clearlake Animal Control for budget approval. 12. Clearlake Animal Control activity has included the issuance of 730 animal licenses from November 2009 to November 2010. January 2010 to November 2010 statistics include: 45 animal bite citations issued with 10 additional cases investigated for possible animal bites, 91 notices of Public Services Committee violation issued for possible animal neglect which resulted in 59 citations being issued, and 109 reports written regarding overall daily activities. 13. Committee research of documentation shows that spaying and neutering occur much less frequently than euthanasia. Lake County’s euthanasia rate is higher than nearby counties’, the State’s, and the Nation’s. Several populous counties in the state have begun to look into and institute Trap/Neuter/Release programs. The results of these programs have been shown to reduce feral cat populations and reduce euthanasia overall. 14. The current average cost of spaying or neutering a dog or cat in Lake County is $116. In Sonoma County, the average is $92; in Napa County, it is $62.50. The following examples illustrate how the cost of euthanasia of animals can escalate beyond the cost of spaying and neutering, which is a static figure less than the cost of euthanasia: Example (a): “Fido” is taken from CCAC to the Lake County Animal Shelter as a stray. At the time of arrival, the shelter charges the City of Clearlake $43 for the intake, which includes one initial day of care. The dog is then held for two additional days (required by law) at a cost of $9 a day. After that, if the shelter has not adopted the dog out, it will euthanize the animal at a cost of $33. This totals $94 for the impoundment and euthanasia of the animal that CCAC pays to LCACC. Example (b): If an animal bites a human and needs to be held for ten days in bite quarantine (required by law), Lake County Animal Care and Control (LCACC) will charge $43 at the time of transfer for intake and one day of care. The animal must be held for nine additional days at a cost of $9 per day. In addition, the shelter charges a quarantine fee of $50. If the animal is euthanized after being held for a ten day holding period, an additional charge of $33 is required. This totals $207 for the impoundment and euthanasia of the animal paid by the City of Clearlake. Example (c): If an animal is impounded because of a violation and the owner is identified, it must be held for ten days (required by law). LCACC will charge $43 at the time of the transfer for the intake and one day of care. The animal will then be held for nine more days at a cost of $9 per day. If after ten days the animal is not redeemed by its owner and it is determined to be unadoptable, it will then be euthanized at a cost of $33. This totals $157 the City of Clearlake pays for the impoundment and euthanasia of the animal. Public Services Committee 15. Because of the costs cited by CCAC, very few cats are included in Clearlake Animal Control services. 16. The attached