📋

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.

Plumas County Grand Jury • 2007-2008

Plumas County Jail Reason For Investigation The Plumas County Grand Jury is required to annually inspect any jail

Published: October 03, 2007 25 pages

View PDF View Full Original

⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.

⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.

Findings 8 findings

F1 Page 36

- Plumas LAFCo Cost Structure The current operational costs of Plumas LAFCo substantially exceed the funding provided by Plumas County and the City of Portola. The fee schedule developed to fund the resulting gap is substantially higher than that of other county LAFCos surveyed. Application fees for LAFCo proceedings are to some degree a function of county growth rates and real estate activity. If that source of fee revenue declines, Plumas LAFCo will increasingly rely on fees charged to special districts for Municipal Service Reviews and Sphere of Influence studies to meet its budget deficit. These fee payments come from special district general funds. This places an undue financial burden on special districts.

F2 Page 36

- Plumas LAFCo - Relationships with Constituent Agencies Grand Jury interviews and observations indicate that the current Executive Officer, in over six years on the job, has failed to establish a positive liaison and rapport with officials of the City of Portola and many of the special districts within Plumas County. The establishment of a positive relationship with the county, city and special district personnel is a critical part of the intent of the LAFCO legislation and is a key component of the Executive Officer’s employment contract. 36

F3 Page 37

- Plumas LAFCo - Financial Audit LAFCO legislation contains no requirement for annual financial statements of actual operating results to be submitted to State or County authorities. This lack of a mandated financial oversight potentially exposes the taxpayers, the Commission and the LAFCo staff to unnecessary concerns and risk.

F4 Page 37

- Special Districts and Plumas LAFCo Each year, the Executive Officer of Plumas LAFCo, as required by the CKH legislation, has provided, to each special district board in the county, a copy of the proposed preliminary and final proposed budget for Plumas LAFCo for the coming fiscal year. This provides an opportunity for the special districts to make their concerns and comments known. On May 12, 2008, the regular publicly noticed meeting of the Commission was held to consider adoption of the 2008-9 Plumas LAFCo budget. The public attendance at that meeting included just one board member from one of the approximately 55 special districts in the county. 37

F5 Page 43

On June 30, 2007 there was a 22-railcar derailment that released toxic chemicals and residents were ordered to evacuate. The Emergency Command Center was not activated nor was the Plumas County Emergency Operations Plan implemented. As a result, post evacuation care was not provided as required by the Plumas County Emergency Operations Plan. 43

F6 Page 44

The Director of Emergency Services has not sought reimbursement from the state and federal governments for Hazardous Spills, Fire Fighting efforts by the Special District responders, or for the Claremont Dynamite incident in Quincy.

F7 Page 44

The Director of Emergency Services has left the grant seeking process to individual departments.

F8 Page 44

The new communication system at the Sheriff’s Office is truly state of the art. The system is hooked up to all agencies in California so that help can be requested 44 quickly. The Communication Center is fully staffed with eight operators. They have two people on duty 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Currently they are working on: • The reverse 911 system • Voting receivers that will select the strongest receiver signal automatically • Wireless broadband communications

Recommendations 9

R1
Page 36

- Plumas LAFCo Cost Structure It is recommended that the Commission, independent of the Executive Officer, review alternative approaches to the operation of Plumas LAFCo to reduce the operating costs to a level that can be funded without significant reliance on application and other fees. Government Code Section 56380 states that, “the commission may choose to contract with any public agency or private party for personnel and facilities.” Since the problem of properly funding LAFCo is not limited to Plumas County, it is suggested that the Commission take the initiative to contact other rural counties to determine the feasibility of jointly contracting with a provider to operate several county LAFCos in a geographically manageable area.
R2
Page 37

- Plumas LAFCo - Relationships with Constituent Agencies The Commissioners should immediately establish a schedule to meet with officials of the City of Portola and with board members of a representative cross-section of the special services districts in Plumas County, without the presence of the Executive Officer, to listen to candid feedback regarding their relationship with Plumas LAFCo and the Executive Officer. Based upon this feedback, the Commissioners should determine whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the relationship between Plumas LAFCo and its constituents can be satisfactorily mended under the present Executive Officer. If so, a specific plan of action to resolve the matter should be undertaken and should become a key part of the Executive Officer’s performance evaluation going forward. If not, the Commission should take appropriate action to resolve the issue.
R3
Page 37

-Plumas LAFCo Financial Audit It is recommended that the Commissioners publish a Request for Proposal to be sent to Certified Public Accounting firms in Northern California to initiate steps to obtain an independent financial audit.
R4
Page 38

Special Districts and Plumas LAFCo While it is recognized that the board members of the special districts are primarily volunteers and have numerous commitments for their time, it is imperative that the various districts, perhaps through the Plumas Special Districts Association, make the effort to better understand the purposes, powers, limitations and mission of Plumas LAFCo as they affect the ability of the districts to effectively and efficiently deliver services to their constituents. The Plumas County Special Districts Association and the Boards of the individual Special Districts in Plumas County need to become much more pro-active with Plumas LAFCo, whether, or not, they decide to join and appoint 2 Commissioners.
R5
Page 44

In the event of future occurrences, the Office of Emergency Services should activate the Emergency Command Center and implement the Plumas County Emergency Operations Plan. A reception and care site should be activated to provide evacuees with information on the incident and directions to temporary housing. The Director of Emergency Services should contact the displaced county residents to mitigate their evacuation expenses and to keep them apprised of the current situation concerning the cleanup of the site and when it is safe to return to their residences.
R6
Page 44

The Director of Emergency Services should seek reimbursement through the State and Federal Governments and follow the procedures set forth in the document that was adopted by the Plumas County Board of Supervisors on September 13, 2005 by Resolution No. 05-7200.
R7
Page 44

The Director should also be responsible for the coordination of grant writing activities for the different departments to insure that all needs are being addressed.
R95-96
Page 51

X Guardian Treasurer/Tax Collector 98-99 Veteran's Services 95-96 X Key F/U Follow up Inc. Incomplete 51
R98-99

X X X X X X X X Juvenile Hall

Conclusions 6

CL1 Page 47

Chapter V – The elimination of all community residents’ names and comments opposing the establishment of a drug and alcohol rehabilitation facility “was a form of viewpoint discrimination...”
CL2 Page 47

Chapter VII – The BOS deprived “the public of information which the members knew or had reason to know the public was entitled to receive.” Response With regard to the complaint filed against the BOS, The Plumas County Grand Jury finds no violation of the provisions of Chapter V of the Ralph M. Brown Act as indicated in the complaint. Based on what was presented to the Grand Jury there is nothing to substantiate the necessity for recommending pursuit of criminal penalties as outlined in Chapter VII of the Ralph M. Brown Act. Complaint No. 07/08-5 Nature of Complaint The complainant alleged improper conduct and the unlawful seizure of property by Plumas County Animal Control Officers. Response The Grand Jury investigation revealed that under California Penal Code Section 597.1 (a)(b) the officers acted within the scope of their duties as defined by law. Complaint No. 07/08-6 Nature of Complaint The complainant alleged that the Eastern Plumas Health Care Board of Directors illegally ceded its power to one person, namely the CEO. The complainant also alleged irregularities with regard to the CEO’s disability claims. The complainant 47 also alleged that past Grand Juries were denied access to the CEO’s personnel files. Response The Grand Jury interviewed the complainant and consulted the District Attorney. The District Attorney had also received the complaint and had forwarded the allegations within this complaint to the Office of the State Attorney General for an opinion. No response has been received as of the writing of this report. Complaint No. 07/08-7 Nature of Complaint The complainant alleged negligence on the part of Union Pacific Railroad with regard to a derailment in the Feather River Canyon that affected the complainant’s property and business. Response The Grand Jury has no jurisdiction over private companies. Complaint No. 07/08-8 Nature of Complaint The complainant alleged that the Quincy Fire District has failed to keep the public informed regarding the use of funds generated by “measure A” on the July, 2006 ballot. Response The complaint was received too late for this year’s Grand Jury to accomplish a proper investigation. The complainant should re-file the complaint with the 2008- 2009 Grand Jury. Complaint No. 07/08-9 Nature of Complaint The complainant alleged a violation of his constitutional rights by Officials of Plumas County. Response This complaint does not fall under the jurisdiction of this Grand Jury. 48 Complaint No. 07/08-10 Nature of Complaint The complainant alleged confusion involved with the relocation of a county sponsored program. Response This complaint was received too late in the year for this Grand Jury to conduct a proper investigation. The complainant should re-file the complaint with the 2008- 2009 Grand Jury. 49 PLUMAS COUNTY GRAND JURY HISTORY OF INVESTIGATIONS Department, Agency, Earlier 2000- 2001- 2002- 2003- 2004- 2005- 2006- 2007- Program Years 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Administrator/CAO 95-96 X Agriculture Commissioner Airport Operations Alcohol and Drug 95-96 Inc. Animal Services 95-96 X X X F/U X 95- Assessor 96,98-99 Auditor/Controller X Board Of Supervisors X X X X Building and Planning Services X X Clerk/Recorder Inc. Community Services Districts X County Counsel District Attorney 98-99 X Facility Services 99-00 X X Fair X X Farm Advisor Feather River College Inc. X Fire Departments X X X F/U Health Dept./Env. Health Hospital Districts X Housing and Comm. Development Human Resources 99-00 X Information Technology 99-00 Jail 98-99 X X X X X X X X Juvenile Hall X X Library 98-99 Local Agency Formation Comm. (LAFCo) X 95- Mental Health 96,99-00 Museum 98-99 Nutrition Program 95-96 Office of Emergency Services (OES) X Plumas Corporation X 50 Department, Agency, Earlier 2000- 2001- 2002- 2003- 2004- 2005- 2006- 2007- Program Years 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Flood Control and Water X X Conservation Public Health Agency X Plumas Unified School X X X District Cemetery Districts Probation 98-99 X X Public Works 98-99 X Recreation Districts 95-96 Sheriff/Coroner 98-99 X X X Social Services/Public 95-96 X Guardian Treasurer/Tax Collector 98-99 Veteran's Services 95-96 X Key F/U Follow up Inc. Incomplete 51
CL3 Page 30

The jail facility of Plumas County is old, outmoded and unsafe for both inmates and jail staff. The Board of Supervisors should immediately start the process of developing plans and funding sources for a new jail. The staffing of the jail has been determined by the State of California to be inadequate to operate the facility. This places tremendous liability on Plumas County, the Sheriff and the Board of Supervisors if an incident occurs that causes the injury or death of an inmate or Correctional Officer because of inadequate staffing. 30
CL4 Page 31

PLUMAS LOCAL AREA FORMATION COMMISSION (LAFCO) Reason for Investigation Plumas LAFCo has not been investigated previously by the Grand Jury since becoming an independent commission in 2001. Also, since the governing legislation does not require LAFCOs to file annual financial statements, or to obtain outside audits, an independent review of Plumas LAFCo records was considered appropriate. In addition, the Grand Jury was aware of some resistance to the fees being charged to special service districts and the City of Portola by Plumas LAFCo. Given these facts, the 2007-2008 Plumas County Grand Jury voted to undertake this investigation. Procedure In conducting this investigation of Plumas LAFCo the Grand Jury employed the three key investigatory methods of observation, research, and interviews. A diligent effort was made to cross check information obtained from various sources. Grand Jury members observed Commission meetings and Special District meetings. The Grand Jury obtained and reviewed bookkeeping records maintained by the County Auditor/Controller’s Office. Budget records, Commission memoranda, the Plumas LAFCo Policy & Procedures Manual, and several municipal service reviews were requested and received from the Executive Officer. The Grand Jury also obtained numerous documents from various public Internet sources including the California Government Code, other county LAFCo websites and the California LAFCo Association web-site. Interviews were scheduled and completed with the following individuals:  Plumas LAFCo Executive Officer  Plumas LAFCo Commissioner representing the City of Portola  Several officers/directors of Plumas County special districts  President of the Plumas County Special Districts Association  City Manager of the City of Portola  Plumas County Auditor/Controller 31
CL5 Page 36

The current operational costs of Plumas LAFCo substantially exceed the funding provided by Plumas County and the City of Portola. Grand Jury interviews and observations indicate that the current Executive Officer, in over six years on the job, has failed to establish a positive liaison and rapport with officials of the City of Portola and many of the special districts within Plumas County. LAFCO legislation contains no requirement for annual financial statements of actual operating results to be submitted to State or County authorities. Each year, the Executive Officer of Plumas LAFCo, as required by the CKH legislation, has provided, to each special district board in the county, a copy of the proposed preliminary and final proposed budget for Plumas LAFCo for the coming fiscal year. This provides an opportunity for the special districts to make their concerns and comments known. The Commissioners and Executive Officer of Plumas LAFCo, The Plumas County Board of Supervisors, the Plumas Special Districts Association, the boards of the Plumas County special services districts and the officials of the City of Portola have an obligation to the citizens of Plumas County to work together to find the most cost effective way to enable Plumas County LAFCo to deliver the services mandated by the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000. 38
CL6 Page 39

THE PLUMAS COUNTY OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES (OES) Reason for Investigation Since the events that occurred on September 11, 2001, the Federal Government and the State of California have enacted new laws and procedures to protect the public safety and property, to provide an organizational structure to guide emergency responders, and to provide for reimbursement to local responding agencies. The 2007-2008 Plumas County Grand Jury decided to inquire into Plumas OES as a result of these changes and in light of recent events in Plumas County that have been featured in the local news papers. We were aware of concerns with the processes and procedures being employed by the Plumas County OES. In addition, the Plumas County Grand Jury has not previously examined the Office of Emergency Services. Procedure We used three important investigatory methods to obtain our results; observations, research, and interviews. Observations were conducted at Quincy Fire Department/HAZMAT, Peninsula Fire Department, Plumas County Sheriffs Department Communications Center, and the railroad spill site at Storrie. Documents reviewed included Plumas County Emergency Operations Plan; Plumas County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan; Plumas County Hazardous Materials Response Plan; and California OES website. The Grand Jury interviewed: 1 Director of the Office of Emergency Services, 2 Assistant Director of the Office of Emergency Services, 3 Chief of the Quincy Fire Department 4 Director of Plumas County HAZMAT, 5 The Director of Environmental Health 6 Communications Specialists with the Sheriff’s Department 7 Plumas County Risk Management Director 8 County Auditor 9 Local Citizens 39