📋
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.
⚠️ 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 9 findings
F1
Page 19
The Grand Jury found it impossible to track and compare the costs of Code Enforcement over the years as the data is not readily available. 2013-2014 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report 6
F2
Page 20
The shortage of manpower in the Community Development Department has caused delays in performing Code Enforcement duties in spite of revised and simplified procedures.
F3
Page 20
Marijuana ordinance enforcement is the responsibility of the Sheriff’s Department. During 2013, Code Enforcement in cooperation with the Sheriff’s Office was called between two and three times a month to inspect and tag indoor marijuana grow houses. Delays occur when it is necessary to coordinate the schedules of law enforcement and the Code Enforcement personnel.
F4
Page 20
California Health and Safety Code Section: §11469 states that, “Law enforcement is the principal objective of forfeiture.” The monies obtained by asset forfeiture of marijuana abatements is currently shared between the state, the District Attorney, and the law enforcement agencies involved in the abatement per California Health and Safety Code Section: §11489. This section of the code is specific in the ways the money can be utilized: It is for law enforcement agencies, which precludes using it to fund the code enforcement support of marijuana abatement activities.
F5
Page 20
There is a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the District Attorney and Sheriff’s Office detailing the distribution of seized and forfeited property.
F6
Page 20
Lake County Sheriff’s Policy 606 clearly defines the handling of asset forfeiture cases.
F7
Page 20
The Committee verified that the Sheriff’s Office is organized and efficient in its handling and processing of asset forfeiture monies in a timely manner.
F8
Page 20
The District Attorney’s Policy Manual does not address asset forfeiture.
F9
Page 20
The Board of Supervisors (BOS) is waiving permit fees as an enticement to increasing jobs in Lake County. There is no evidence that waiving permit fees is a factor in the decision of individuals or companies regarding initiating a project in Lake County.
Recommendations 6
-
R1Page 20The BOS and County Administration consider re-establishing a separate Code Enforcement Division so a true cost/benefit relationship can be tracked.
-
R2Page 20County Administration provide budget adjustments to fund a Community Development Technician.
-
R3Page 20The BOS reconsider the practice of waiving permit fees on developments.
-
R4Page 20The BOS initiate a study of permit fees in surrounding counties with the objective of realigning the permit fee structure to be competitive
-
R5Page 20Future fees should take into consideration inflation measurements such as the Consumer Price Index (See End Notes).
-
R6Page 20The District Attorney add an Asset Forfeiture policy and procedure to the District Attorney’s Policy and Procedural Manual. 2013-2014 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report 7 Request for Responses Pursuant to Penal Code 933.05 the Grand Jury requests responses as follows: • District Attorney (60 days) • County Administration via the Board of Supervisors (90 days) • Community Development Director via the Board of Supervisors (90 days) • Board of Supervisors (90 days) Appendices Memo from Community Development Director End Notes A Consumer Price Index (CPI) measures changes in the price level of a market basket of consumer goods and services purchased by households. A CPI can be used to index (i.e., adjust for the effect of inflation) the real value of wages, salaries, pensions, for regulating prices. 2013-2014 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report 8 2013-2014 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report 9 Government Services Committee 2013-2014 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report 10 The Government Services Committee conducted oversights of the following department and found no significant issues at this time: City of Lakeport