Shasta County Grand Jury
2017-2018
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
Shasta County Jail capacity began declining after Crystal Creek Work Camp closed in 1992, despite continued need for capacity. Assembly Bill 109, Proposition 47 and inadequate increases in Shasta County revenues have only exacerbated a long-term capacity deficit at the Shasta County Jail.
F2:
Compared to five similarly-sized counties in California, Shasta County’s ratio of jail beds to population is the lowest, indicating the need for additional Shasta County Jail bed capacity.
F3:
A comparison of Shasta County’s Jail capacity prior to Assembly Bill 109 and current Jail capacity shows that Shasta County has fewer jail beds but a higher number of offenders’ This indicates the need for additional Jail beds.
F4:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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.
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
By September 30, 2018, the Shasta County Board of Supervisors, based on available or newly solicited information, agree on needed capacity at the Shasta County Jail both now and in five, 10, 15 and 20 years. These capacity needs should be reviewed and updated annually based on new legislation or other pertinent changes.
R2:
By March 31, 2019, the Shasta County Board of Supervisors adopt a 10-year funding plan for Shasta County Jail capacity expansion including capital and operational costs. This plan should be reviewed annually at a public meeting.
R3:
By March 31, 2019, the Shasta County Board of Supervisors identify on-going new sources of revenue to meet current and projected Jail capacity needs.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
12 findings
F1:
The City of Shasta Lake has not planned for an increase in law enforcement services that may be required because of an increase in cannabis-related businesses. Without such planning, law enforcement and the City of Shasta Lake will be reacting rather than being prepared as additional cannabis-related businesses become operational within the City limits.
F2:
Since the passage of Proposition 64, code enforcement has been in a state of flux, leaving the citizens of the City of Shasta Lake with little recourse regarding cannabis complaints, except for civil litigation.
F3:
The City of Shasta Lake is not following generally accepted cash management standards, such as those set forth by the California Auditors Association. Mismanagement of cash could lead to serious accounting errors or criminal activity.
F4:
The City of Shasta Lake’s procedures for transporting cash deposits to the bank is unsafe and may place employees at risk.
F5:
A secondary access road in the Shasta Gateway Industrial Park is required by the Uniform Fire Code, which the City of Shasta Lake has adopted. The City is out of compliance and has ignored the Fire Marshall’s mandate, resulting in possible hazardous conditions in case of an emergency. 52
F6:
The Shasta Lake Fire Protection District and its predecessor (prior to 1992) have not done all they can within its legal purview to ensure that the secondary access road be built, resulting in possible hazardous conditions in case of an emergency
F7:
The City of Shasta Lake’s on-line ethics training is insufficient to deal with possible ethics violations raised by the rapidly expanding cannabis industry. City employees do not have clear direction on how to deal with unethical or criminal situations.
F8:
The City of Shasta Lake’s current infrastructure is not adequate to handle the sudden proposed build-out of the Shasta Gateway Industrial Park. Unless the City planners collect and evaluate accurate data, they may not be able to provide needed electricity, water, and/or sewer services to the City of Shasta Lake.
F9:
There is currently one half-time position assigned to code enforcement. This is insufficient to handle cannabis-related code administration. Adequate training has not been provided regarding these codes. This may allow misinterpretation of City codes and ordinances, by cannabis businesses resulting in violations.
F10:
The City has not planned for infrastructure needs and has been reacting to issues as they arise. The City did not research and gather the information needed to effectively plan for issuing permits for this new industry. This has resulted in confusion to permit applicants, resulting in delays in building.
F11:
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:
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.
Additional Recommendations
11
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
By September 30, 2018, the City of Shasta Lake City Council, Shasta County Sheriff’s Office and other stakeholders begin planning sessions to discuss future law enforcement needs of cannabis-related businesses within the City.
R2:
By November 30, 2018, the City of Shasta Lake City Council determine how to address cannabis-related code enforcement. This should include written procedures delineating when a law enforcement presence is needed during a code enforcement response. 53
R3:
By September 30, 2018, the City of Shasta Lake City Council direct the City Manager to write a policy that clearly details the handling of cash payments. The policy should be presented to the City Council in a public forum by November 30, 2018. The policy should require all funds from different sources maintain fiscal integrity and separate accounting. The City of Shasta Lake City Council should contact other cities and states who have expertise in successfully handling cannabis payments in order to ensure best practices are being followed.
R4:
Within one week of the publishing of this report, the City of Shasta Lake City Council institute a safe method of transporting cash deposits, such as entering into a contract with an armored car service for the secure transportation of cash Funds for this expense can come from permits, fees, and taxes from Measure A.
R5:
By December 31, 2018, the City of Shasta Lake City Council approve the construction of the required secondary access road in the Shasta Gateway Industrial Park. The funding options may include performance bonds, grants, assessments, and fees/tax increases.
R6:
By August 31, 2018, the City of Shasta Lake City Council direct the City Manager to notify all current permit holders and applicants that no further plot splits or building can continue or commence until the Shasta Lake Fire Protection District authorizes further activities in the Shasta Gateway Industrial Park.
R7:
By December 31, 2018, the Shasta Lake Fire Protection District Board explore all legal avenues to require the City of Shasta Lake to meet its legal obligation to complete the secondary access road in the Shasta Gateway Industrial Park.
R8:
By September 30, 2018, the City of Shasta Lake City Council direct the City Manager to write and implement procedures clearly stating the legal, civil, and administrative consequences of violating City policies regarding ethical conduct, such as employee theft, influence peddling, and/or special permitting exceptions for friends or associates. City employees and City officials should be trained annually on these procedures. The Grand Jury recommends these procedures be updated annually, include what steps employees should follow if actual criminal or ethical violations occur or are suspected, and detail the protections afforded to whistleblowers.
R9:
By August 30, 2018, the City of Shasta Lake City Council direct the City Manager to inform all permit holders and applicants in the Shasta Gateway Industrial Park that no further development will be allowed or approved until all required data and surveys have been submitted by businesses to and approved by the involved City infrastructure departments.
R10:
By December 31, 2018, the City of Shasta Lake City Council shall direct the City Manager to determine code enforcement needs and begin the hiring and training in cannabis specific code enforcement process for staff. As stated in Measure A, this money should come from cannabis-related permit fees and taxes. 54
R11:
By August 30, 2018, the City of Shasta Lake City Council direct the City Manager to create and approve written procedures to require City staff to conduct sampling at the discharge stations of the wastewater for each cannabis-related manufacturing or cultivation facility. Random inspections should occur weekly for the first year after initiation of the businesses’ production activities, in order to show consistency that harmful discharges are not occurring. These random inspections should continue afterward on a monthly basis. Staff services could be paid from Measure A fees.