📋
Extracted from Consolidated Report

This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.

Lake County Grand Jury • 2017-2018

Chaos After The Fires

52 pages
View PDF View Full Original

Findings 20 findings

F1 Page 65
Property owners who chose to have their debris removed by the State/CalRecycle were asked in October-November, 2015, to sign a Right of Entry (ROE) prepared by Lake County Environmental Health. This ROE included the explanation that the amount of insurance coverage provided by their policy for debris removal would pay for such costs to the limit defined by their policy, and that they would not be responsible for any additional money.
F2 Page 65
The language within the ROE was interpreted by many owners as saying that the debris removal was “free” to them when actually they would be responsible to reimburse the County for the ‘debris removal’ payments made to the property owners by their insurance company.
F3 Page 65
Lake County did not have in effect an executed contract with CalRecyle during or after the structural debris removal. Absent this contract specifying terms and conditions, the County had no means of: a) Requiring CalRecycle to provide documentation of its charges b) Assuring that CalRecycle responded to property owners’ emails questioning the charges. 64
F4 Page 66
Although federal monies were available for the County’s collection of insurance proceeds designated for debris removal – a minimum of $300,000 - and the County issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) and had initially intended to award the contract to a third party, the ultimate decision was made to pursue/collect the insurance proceeds using County administrative staff.
F5 Page 66
The staffing for this collection program has been inadequate since its inception both in number and in requisite experience and skills. Early on, only one part-time employee was assigned to the program. In August 2017, a full-time dedicated employee was assigned, with the help of an “intern” for the summer and the assistance of one or two other administrative staff who might answer the phones.
F6 Page 66
The County did not initially create a duty statement or scope of work for the person responsible for collecting insurance proceeds for debris removal. Only in December 2017, were procedures formally created by Administration.
F7 Page 66
Although the residential debris removal was completed by March 2016, CalRecycle did not submit its bills to the County until June 2017, and has never submitted any documentation to support the amount of the bills.
F8 Page 66
Of the approximately 1200 property owners who signed up for the State removal of their debris, the County initially had little information as to the amount of insurance available to the owners.
F9 Page 66
The County, under the impression that insurance funds would be available to homeowners for only two years after the fire, hurriedly arranged to distribute the so called “INVOICE” to property owners in July 2017, during public meetings and via certified mail.
F10 Page 66
The breakdown of costs on the “INVOICE” included figures not only for “debris removal,” but also for non-site-specific services, such as “lot fee” and “community cost,” for which no explanations were provided.
F11 Page 66
Some property owners received at the same time a second “INVOICE” for “tree removal,” in some instances when no trees - or seemingly healthy trees - were removed, thus compounding their upset. Once again, the figure for non-site-specific “monitoring costs” on the “INVOICE” was unexplained. 65
F12 Page 67
The ROE specified certified arborist’s reports and property photographs (before-and-after) hazardous tree removal that were submitted by the tree removal subcontractor are maintained in another department. These records are separate from the primary files created by Administration. Thus, these documents are not available to staff who are attempting to respond to owners’ inquiries.
F13 Page 67
Some owners who went to – or called - the administrative office to vent their frustration over the “INVOICE” felt ignored by the response to their inquiry or complaint. Callers rarely spoke with an employee. Instead, they were automatically re-routed to voicemail. This was at the direction of senior administration management.
F14 Page 67
Despite having been informed on several occasions that they were responsible to pay only the allotted insurance coverage for debris removal, many property owners were confused, anguished, and angered by their “INVOICE”, which they interpreted to be demanding payment for the full amount listed, which averaged approximately $100,000.
F15 Page 67
When owners, a number of whom were present during the debris removal, requested supporting documentation for the billed amounts, the County stated that it passed on the requests to CalRecyle, with no response.
F16 Page 67
Some owners whose rebuilding monies were distributed to them by their insurance carriers had not been informed that the debris removal coverage was included therein. They then spent the money without paying the debris-removal portion to the County. The County is slowly attempting to work out a repayment program for these owners.
F17 Page 67
Approaching three years after the Valley Fire, the County still does not have the proof of “no insurance” from all of the owners so indicating.
F18 Page 67
To-date, three letters with copies of the “INVOICE” have been send out to property owners who have not yet paid the County their insurance proceeds for debris removal. Several owners have reported they were threatened verbally with being sent to collections, despite administrative denial of anyone doing so. When the specific amount owed is unknown thereby excluding external collections, how the County will force owners to pay is unclear. 66
F19 Page 68
Property owners affected by the Clayton Fire, who have received insurance proceeds for debris removal that they want to pay to the County, now are unable to do so for lack of a dedicated database created to document/track such payments for the Clayton Fire.
F20 Page 68
Part of the reason for the delay in collecting insurance proceeds was linked to the prolonged delay in issuing building permits by The Department of Community Development, as insurers often retained rebuilding payments until a permit was issued.

Recommendations 15