Shasta County Grand Jury
2017-2018
Quick View
Full Details →
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.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
12 findings
F1:
All mandated responders submitted responses as requested, most within the timeframe specified in Penal Code § 933(c), which allots 90 days for governing bodies to respond and 60 days for elected officials.
F2:
Although Redding City Council’s original responses to the Unfunded Pension Liabilities report were deemed noncompliant with Penal Code § 933(c) and § 933.05(b), it later submitted revised responses that were in compliance.
F3:
Four of the 16 invited responders also submitted responses although they were not required to do so. COMMENDATIONS The Grand Jury commends: C1. The City Managers of Anderson, Redding and Shasta Lake for their thoughtful and timely responses to the Unfunded Pension Liabilities report. All were invited responders and not required to submit responses. C2. The Shasta Lake Fire Protection District Fire Chief for his thoughtful and timely responses to the Shasta Lake Fire Protection District report. He was an invited responder and not required to submit responses. C3. The Cities of Anderson, Redding and Shasta Lake City Councils and the Shasta County Board of Supervisors for scheduling approval of their respective responses during a regular session portion of their meetings, allowing open discussion of those responses and public comment. When there is a perception of a conflict of interest involving a member of the Grand Jury, that member has been required to recuse from any aspect of the investigation involving such a conflict and from voting on the acceptance of or rejection of that report. No member of the Grand Jury recused from this report. Reports issued by the Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code § 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Grand Jury. Released January 24, 2018 12 Protecting Those Who Protect Us – Money Well Spent Shasta County Law Enforcement Vehicle Recalls and Maintenance SUMMARY Several news articles and televised news reports regarding safety recalls of the Patrol vehicle prompted the 2017-2018 Shasta County Grand Jury to open an investigation to determine how Shasta County agencies have responded to recent carbon monoxide recalls of law enforcement vehicles. The Shasta County Grand Jury reviewed vehicle records from the Shasta County Sheriff’s Office and the police departments of Redding and Anderson from 2011 through 2017. The Shasta County Grand Jury found that the patrol vehicles driven by officers in Shasta County are maintained using specific and comprehensive policies and procedures. During the course of the investigation, the Shasta County Grand Jury broadened the focus to include vehicle maintenance policies, procedures and records of all Shasta County law enforcement agencies. The Shasta County Grand Jury found that none of the recalled vehicles experienced carbon monoxide leaks. Furthermore, each agency has comprehensive policies and procedures in place for vehicle repairs and maintenance. BACKGROUND After reviewing several recent news articles and televised news reports regarding safety recalls of the Ford Explorer Police Interceptor model (patrol vehicle), the 2017-2018 Shasta County Grand Jury (Grand Jury) opened an investigation to determine whether Shasta County law enforcement vehicle recalls were handled in accordance with the recall directive. A 2017 single- vehicle accident involving a Sheriff’s Office Patrol vehicle also contributed to the Grand Jury’s interest in an investigation. In 2016 and 2017, the Ford Motor Company issued recalls for 1.3 million Ford Explorers for carbon monoxide leaks. These recalls included all Police Interceptor models from 2011 through 2017. Ford received nearly 400,000 complaints of exhaust fumes in these vehicles. The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) noted that, despite the lack of conclusive and documented linkage between injury reports and carbon monoxide poisoning, carbon monoxide levels “…may be elevated in certain driving scenarios.” METHODOLOGY The Grand Jury reviewed: National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) website: https://www.nhtsa.gov National Highway Transportation Safety Administration recall notices 2011-2017 May 12, 2017 accident report prepared by the California Highway Patrol (MAIT report) 13 Center for Auto Safety 2017 recall notices Notices distributed by the Ford Motor Company 2016-2017 Motor Trend Magazine, June 2016 ABC13 Eyewitness News: http://www.13abc.com/home/headlines/Several-auto-recalls-issued-Monday morning379619791.html http://abc13.com/automotive/ford-issues-4-recalls-affecting-14m-vehicles/85110/. Anderson Police Department: Policies and Procedures of Vehicle Inspection Vehicle check list form Photo of grease board for reporting vehicle repairs Vehicle rotation policy Reserve vehicle policy Replacement of damaged vehicles policy New vehicle budget 2015 Fleet Manager records 2016-2017 Vehicle incident reports 2014-2017. Redding Police Department: Repair order request form Listing of patrol vehicles 2006 - 2017 Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) Patrol Vehicle Operations Bulletin (POST.BTB. 2003-01, October 2015) Police Fleet Vehicle Operations Emergency Vehicle Operation Policy (F-19.7 General Order revised 3/22/17) Traffic Collision Investigation Policy (F-43.15 General Order revised 10/24/16) Vehicle incident reports 2014-2017. Shasta County Sheriff’s Office: Patrol Vehicle Operations Procedures Vehicle Service Request Form Patrol Vehicle listing 2014-2017 Vehicle incident reports 2014-2017 Vehicle Safety Recall Notices Accident Reports Parts 1 and 2 Traffic Collision Report, May 2017 Multidisciplinary Accident Investigation Team (MAIT) Report May 2017 Vehicle incident reports 2014-2017. The Grand Jury interviewed personnel from: Anderson Fleet Management Anderson Police Department Redding Fleet Management Redding Police Department Shasta County Fleet Management Shasta County Sheriff’s Office. DISCUSSION The Grand Jury determined that Shasta County law enforcement agencies use only one type of Ford vehicle under recall, the Ford Explorer Police Interceptor model (patrol vehicle). Those agencies included the Anderson Police Department (APD), the Redding Police Department (RPD), and the Shasta County Sheriff’s Office (SCSO). Documents received from those entities indicated that 38 vehicles had been affected by the recalls. This report focuses on the carbon monoxide issues of the patrol vehicles. Vehicle Repair and Maintenance: Policies and Procedures Although the names of policies, forms, and documentation are different, the processes are similar for all agencies. Before the start of each patrol shift, officers and deputies are responsible for checking their assigned vehicles using a checklist. If there is a maintenance concern that may affect safety, the vehicle is immediately taken out of service and a substitute patrol vehicle is assigned. Records show that the vast majority of repaired vehicles are returned to service within one working day. Recalled Vehicles Recalled vehicles are removed from service and taken to an authorized repair station. This procedure is followed even if the agency did not experience the problem for which the recall was issued. No carbon monoxide leaks were found in any of the vehicles examined. After-Market Modifications According to Ford Motor Company reports, the after-market installation of police equipment made by some companies across the United States was the cause of the carbon monoxide issues in patrol vehicles. Sometimes this occurred when holes were drilled in the chassis. These holes, if not properly sealed, allowed carbon monoxide to enter the cabin of the vehicle. The Grand Jury noted that all after-market modifications of the patrol vehicles used by APD, RPD, and SCSO were installed by a contracted installer of after-market equipment. None of the Shasta County agency law enforcement vehicles modified by the contracted company experienced any carbon monoxide leaks. After-market modifications were properly completed as indicated by the lack of leaks found during the recall inspection process. Collision Reports On May 12, 2017, a single-vehicle accident involving a SCSO patrol vehicle occurred on Highway 273 south of Redding. The Multidisciplinary Accident Investigation Team (MAIT) investigated the accident. MAIT consists of specially trained personnel of the California Highway Patrol and includes a representative of Caltrans. The investigation determined the accident was not due to carbon monoxide poisoning. FINDINGS
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.
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
17
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
By October 31, 2017, the Shasta County Shasta County Board The recommendation has YES Board of Supervisors, with the Shasta County of Supervisors been implemented. Auditor-Controller, and the Cities of Redding, The recommendation NO1 Anderson, and Shasta Lake City Councils requires further analysis. each look for ways to increase their Redding City Council The recommendation will not contributions to CalPERS over the next twelve be implemented because the YES2 years with minimal loss of key services. timeline is unreasonable. Options could include reducing their current Anderson City The recommendation will be amortization schedules and exploring debt YES Council considered. refinancing opportunities. Shasta Lake The recommendation will be YES City Council considered. Shasta County The recommendation has YES Auditor-Controller already been implemented.
R2:
By October 31, 2017, the Shasta County Shasta County Board The recommendation has YES Board of Supervisors, with the Shasta County of Supervisors been implemented. Auditor-Controller, and the Cities of Redding, The recommendation NO1 Anderson, and Shasta Lake City Councils requires further analysis. each look for ways to increase their revenues Redding City Council The recommendation will not or reduce other expenditures, with minimal be implemented because the YES2 loss of key services, as CalPERS timeline is unreasonable. contributions increase. Anderson City The recommendation has YES Council been implemented. Shasta Lake The recommendation has YES City Council been implemented. Shasta County The recommendation has YES Auditor-Controller already been implemented.
R3:
By December 31, 2017, the City of The recommendation NO3 Redding City Council establish a five-year requires further analysis. financial plan to increase its funded ratio for Redding City Council The recommendation will not its CalPERS Safety Plan from 64.5% to 70%, be implemented because the YES2 and for its Miscellaneous Plan from 70% to timeline is unreasonable. 75%, with minimal loss of key services. 1. Originally non-compliant – no timeframe provided as specified by Penal Code § 933.05 (b). 2. Revised response deemed compliant. 3. Originally non-compliant – not within the timeframe as specified by Penal Code § 933.05 (b). STILLWATER BUSINESS PARK THE 2016-2017 SHASTA COUNTY PENAL CODE RESPONDENT RESPONSES GRAND JURY RECOMMENDED: COMPLIANT?
R4:
By December 31, 2017, the Redding City Council establish a formal procedure for The recommendation Redding City Council YES comprehensively evaluating the viability of the requires further analysis. Stillwater Business Park project.
R5:
By September 30, 2017, the Redding City Council establish a policy directing funds received The recommendation will from any future parcel sales be utilized only for Redding City Council YES not be implemented. Stillwater Business Park debt repayment or infrastructure.
R6:
By September 30, 2017, the Redding City Council establish a formal, documented procedure for comprehensively evaluating potential Stillwater The recommendation Redding City Council YES Business Park sales using criteria such as financial requires further analysis. viability, estimated wage rates, and number of jobs to be created.
R7:
By September 30, 2017, the Redding City Council appoint an existing City staff member to manage the Stillwater Business Park Project. This person would be responsible for routine evaluation The recommendation will of Stillwater, including supervising marketing Redding City Council YES not be implemented. coordination, sales negotiations, and fiscal accountability. Further, this City staff member will report on a quarterly basis to the City Council on these Stillwater Business Park evaluations. SHASTA COUNTY SERVICE AREAS – ELK TRAIL WATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT THE 2016-2017 SHASTA COUNTY PENAL CODE RESPONDENT RESPONSES GRAND JURY RECOMMENDED: COMPLIANT?
R8:
By September 30, 2017, the Water Agency Board of Directors direct staff to immediately The recommendation will reimburse Jones Valley Water Fund – 0377 all Shasta County Water not be implemented monies paid to Keswick CSA under Shasta County Agency Board of because it is not YES Water Agency Resolution No: 2008-01, Resolution Directors warranted or not of Intent to Transfer Water from County Service reasonable. Area #25 – Keswick Water to County Service Area #6 – Jones Valley Water.
R9:
By September 30, 2017, the Board of The recommendation will Supervisors direct Public Works staff to open the not be implemented lines of communication with the Rural Communities Shasta County Board because it is not YES Assistance Corporation and report back to the of Supervisors warranted or not Board of Supervisors on the Corporation’s reasonable. response.
R10:
By September 30, 2017, the Board of The recommendation will Supervisors direct Public Works staff to work with not be implemented Shasta County Board the Jones Valley CSA CAB to establish a mutually because it is not YES of Supervisors agreed upon CAB meeting schedule warranted or not reasonable.
R11:
By September 30, 2017, the Board of The recommendation will Supervisors direct staff to determine and report not be implemented Shasta County Board back what specific legal authority exists to allow because it is not YES of Supervisors Public Works to charge CSAs for time spent on a warranted or not Grand Jury investigation. reasonable.
R12:
By September 30, 2017, the Board of Supervisors direct staff to provide a public report The recommendation will outlining legal justification for the charges under not be implemented Shasta County Board Project Number 111029 “CSA #6 Jones Valley because it is not YES of Supervisors Grand Jury Investigation” by December 31, 2017, warranted or not or to refund Jones Valley CSA any and all charges reasonable. under this project title.
R13:
By September 30, 2017, the Board of Supervisors direct staff to conduct an investigation The recommendation will to determine how much each CSA has been not be implemented charged for Public Works staff time spent on any Shasta County Board because it is not YES Grand Jury investigation. By December 31, 2017, of Supervisors warranted or not staff publicly report on their findings and the legal reasonable. justification for the charges, or refund the amounts charged.
R14:
By September 30, 2017, the Board of Supervisors direct Public Works staff to ensure and Shasta County Board The recommendation has YES report back that they are in compliance with of Supervisors been implemented. California Proposition 218. Table continues on next page. SHASTA COUNTY SERVICE AREAS – ELK TRAIL WATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (CONTINUED) THE 2016-2017 SHASTA COUNTY PENAL CODE RESPONDENT RESPONSES GRAND JURY RECOMMENDED: COMPLIANT?
R15:
By September 30, 2017, the Board of Supervisors direct Public Works staff to ensure and Shasta County Board The recommendation has YES report back that they are in compliance with Shasta of Supervisors been implemented. County Code 13.12.120.
R16:
By September 30, 2017, the Board of The recommendation will Supervisors direct County Administrative staff to not be implemented either publicly report the legal justification for Shasta County Board because it is not YES charging the CSAs, or create and present a policy of Supervisors warranted or not ensuring CSAs are not charged for Public Works reasonable. staff time spent on any Grand Jury investigations.
R17:
By September 30, 2017, the Board of The recommendation has Shasta County Board Supervisors direct Public Works staff to comply with already been YES of Supervisors Grand Jury confidentiality agreements. implemented. SHASTA COUNTY JOINT AUDIT COMMITTEE THE 2016-2017 SHASTA COUNTY PENAL CODE RESPONDENT RESPONSES GRAND JURY RECOMMENDED: COMPLIANT?
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
12 findings
F1:
All mandated responders submitted responses as requested, most within the timeframe specified in Penal Code § 933(c), which allots 90 days for governing bodies to respond and 60 days for elected officials.
F2:
Although Redding City Council’s original responses to the Unfunded Pension Liabilities report were deemed noncompliant with Penal Code § 933(c) and § 933.05(b), it later submitted revised responses that were in compliance.
F3:
Four of the 16 invited responders also submitted responses although they were not required to do so. COMMENDATIONS The Grand Jury commends: C1. The City Managers of Anderson, Redding and Shasta Lake for their thoughtful and timely responses to the Unfunded Pension Liabilities report. All were invited responders and not required to submit responses. C2. The Shasta Lake Fire Protection District Fire Chief for his thoughtful and timely responses to the Shasta Lake Fire Protection District report. He was an invited responder and not required to submit responses. C3. The Cities of Anderson, Redding and Shasta Lake City Councils and the Shasta County Board of Supervisors for scheduling approval of their respective responses during a regular session portion of their meetings, allowing open discussion of those responses and public comment. When there is a perception of a conflict of interest involving a member of the Grand Jury, that member has been required to recuse from any aspect of the investigation involving such a conflict and from voting on the acceptance of or rejection of that report. No member of the Grand Jury recused from this report. Reports issued by the Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code § 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Grand Jury. Released January 24, 2018 12 Protecting Those Who Protect Us – Money Well Spent Shasta County Law Enforcement Vehicle Recalls and Maintenance SUMMARY Several news articles and televised news reports regarding safety recalls of the Patrol vehicle prompted the 2017-2018 Shasta County Grand Jury to open an investigation to determine how Shasta County agencies have responded to recent carbon monoxide recalls of law enforcement vehicles. The Shasta County Grand Jury reviewed vehicle records from the Shasta County Sheriff’s Office and the police departments of Redding and Anderson from 2011 through 2017. The Shasta County Grand Jury found that the patrol vehicles driven by officers in Shasta County are maintained using specific and comprehensive policies and procedures. During the course of the investigation, the Shasta County Grand Jury broadened the focus to include vehicle maintenance policies, procedures and records of all Shasta County law enforcement agencies. The Shasta County Grand Jury found that none of the recalled vehicles experienced carbon monoxide leaks. Furthermore, each agency has comprehensive policies and procedures in place for vehicle repairs and maintenance. BACKGROUND After reviewing several recent news articles and televised news reports regarding safety recalls of the Ford Explorer Police Interceptor model (patrol vehicle), the 2017-2018 Shasta County Grand Jury (Grand Jury) opened an investigation to determine whether Shasta County law enforcement vehicle recalls were handled in accordance with the recall directive. A 2017 single- vehicle accident involving a Sheriff’s Office Patrol vehicle also contributed to the Grand Jury’s interest in an investigation. In 2016 and 2017, the Ford Motor Company issued recalls for 1.3 million Ford Explorers for carbon monoxide leaks. These recalls included all Police Interceptor models from 2011 through 2017. Ford received nearly 400,000 complaints of exhaust fumes in these vehicles. The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) noted that, despite the lack of conclusive and documented linkage between injury reports and carbon monoxide poisoning, carbon monoxide levels “…may be elevated in certain driving scenarios.” METHODOLOGY The Grand Jury reviewed: National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) website: https://www.nhtsa.gov National Highway Transportation Safety Administration recall notices 2011-2017 May 12, 2017 accident report prepared by the California Highway Patrol (MAIT report) 13 Center for Auto Safety 2017 recall notices Notices distributed by the Ford Motor Company 2016-2017 Motor Trend Magazine, June 2016 ABC13 Eyewitness News: http://www.13abc.com/home/headlines/Several-auto-recalls-issued-Monday morning379619791.html http://abc13.com/automotive/ford-issues-4-recalls-affecting-14m-vehicles/85110/. Anderson Police Department: Policies and Procedures of Vehicle Inspection Vehicle check list form Photo of grease board for reporting vehicle repairs Vehicle rotation policy Reserve vehicle policy Replacement of damaged vehicles policy New vehicle budget 2015 Fleet Manager records 2016-2017 Vehicle incident reports 2014-2017. Redding Police Department: Repair order request form Listing of patrol vehicles 2006 - 2017 Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) Patrol Vehicle Operations Bulletin (POST.BTB. 2003-01, October 2015) Police Fleet Vehicle Operations Emergency Vehicle Operation Policy (F-19.7 General Order revised 3/22/17) Traffic Collision Investigation Policy (F-43.15 General Order revised 10/24/16) Vehicle incident reports 2014-2017. Shasta County Sheriff’s Office: Patrol Vehicle Operations Procedures Vehicle Service Request Form Patrol Vehicle listing 2014-2017 Vehicle incident reports 2014-2017 Vehicle Safety Recall Notices Accident Reports Parts 1 and 2 Traffic Collision Report, May 2017 Multidisciplinary Accident Investigation Team (MAIT) Report May 2017 Vehicle incident reports 2014-2017. The Grand Jury interviewed personnel from: Anderson Fleet Management Anderson Police Department Redding Fleet Management Redding Police Department Shasta County Fleet Management Shasta County Sheriff’s Office. DISCUSSION The Grand Jury determined that Shasta County law enforcement agencies use only one type of Ford vehicle under recall, the Ford Explorer Police Interceptor model (patrol vehicle). Those agencies included the Anderson Police Department (APD), the Redding Police Department (RPD), and the Shasta County Sheriff’s Office (SCSO). Documents received from those entities indicated that 38 vehicles had been affected by the recalls. This report focuses on the carbon monoxide issues of the patrol vehicles. Vehicle Repair and Maintenance: Policies and Procedures Although the names of policies, forms, and documentation are different, the processes are similar for all agencies. Before the start of each patrol shift, officers and deputies are responsible for checking their assigned vehicles using a checklist. If there is a maintenance concern that may affect safety, the vehicle is immediately taken out of service and a substitute patrol vehicle is assigned. Records show that the vast majority of repaired vehicles are returned to service within one working day. Recalled Vehicles Recalled vehicles are removed from service and taken to an authorized repair station. This procedure is followed even if the agency did not experience the problem for which the recall was issued. No carbon monoxide leaks were found in any of the vehicles examined. After-Market Modifications According to Ford Motor Company reports, the after-market installation of police equipment made by some companies across the United States was the cause of the carbon monoxide issues in patrol vehicles. Sometimes this occurred when holes were drilled in the chassis. These holes, if not properly sealed, allowed carbon monoxide to enter the cabin of the vehicle. The Grand Jury noted that all after-market modifications of the patrol vehicles used by APD, RPD, and SCSO were installed by a contracted installer of after-market equipment. None of the Shasta County agency law enforcement vehicles modified by the contracted company experienced any carbon monoxide leaks. After-market modifications were properly completed as indicated by the lack of leaks found during the recall inspection process. Collision Reports On May 12, 2017, a single-vehicle accident involving a SCSO patrol vehicle occurred on Highway 273 south of Redding. The Multidisciplinary Accident Investigation Team (MAIT) investigated the accident. MAIT consists of specially trained personnel of the California Highway Patrol and includes a representative of Caltrans. The investigation determined the accident was not due to carbon monoxide poisoning. FINDINGS
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.
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
17
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
By October 31, 2017, the Shasta County Shasta County Board The recommendation has YES Board of Supervisors, with the Shasta County of Supervisors been implemented. Auditor-Controller, and the Cities of Redding, The recommendation NO1 Anderson, and Shasta Lake City Councils requires further analysis. each look for ways to increase their Redding City Council The recommendation will not contributions to CalPERS over the next twelve be implemented because the YES2 years with minimal loss of key services. timeline is unreasonable. Options could include reducing their current Anderson City The recommendation will be amortization schedules and exploring debt YES Council considered. refinancing opportunities. Shasta Lake The recommendation will be YES City Council considered. Shasta County The recommendation has YES Auditor-Controller already been implemented.
R2:
By October 31, 2017, the Shasta County Shasta County Board The recommendation has YES Board of Supervisors, with the Shasta County of Supervisors been implemented. Auditor-Controller, and the Cities of Redding, The recommendation NO1 Anderson, and Shasta Lake City Councils requires further analysis. each look for ways to increase their revenues Redding City Council The recommendation will not or reduce other expenditures, with minimal be implemented because the YES2 loss of key services, as CalPERS timeline is unreasonable. contributions increase. Anderson City The recommendation has YES Council been implemented. Shasta Lake The recommendation has YES City Council been implemented. Shasta County The recommendation has YES Auditor-Controller already been implemented.
R3:
By December 31, 2017, the City of The recommendation NO3 Redding City Council establish a five-year requires further analysis. financial plan to increase its funded ratio for Redding City Council The recommendation will not its CalPERS Safety Plan from 64.5% to 70%, be implemented because the YES2 and for its Miscellaneous Plan from 70% to timeline is unreasonable. 75%, with minimal loss of key services. 1. Originally non-compliant – no timeframe provided as specified by Penal Code § 933.05 (b). 2. Revised response deemed compliant. 3. Originally non-compliant – not within the timeframe as specified by Penal Code § 933.05 (b). STILLWATER BUSINESS PARK THE 2016-2017 SHASTA COUNTY PENAL CODE RESPONDENT RESPONSES GRAND JURY RECOMMENDED: COMPLIANT?
R4:
By December 31, 2017, the Redding City Council establish a formal procedure for The recommendation Redding City Council YES comprehensively evaluating the viability of the requires further analysis. Stillwater Business Park project.
R5:
By September 30, 2017, the Redding City Council establish a policy directing funds received The recommendation will from any future parcel sales be utilized only for Redding City Council YES not be implemented. Stillwater Business Park debt repayment or infrastructure.
R6:
By September 30, 2017, the Redding City Council establish a formal, documented procedure for comprehensively evaluating potential Stillwater The recommendation Redding City Council YES Business Park sales using criteria such as financial requires further analysis. viability, estimated wage rates, and number of jobs to be created.
R7:
By September 30, 2017, the Redding City Council appoint an existing City staff member to manage the Stillwater Business Park Project. This person would be responsible for routine evaluation The recommendation will of Stillwater, including supervising marketing Redding City Council YES not be implemented. coordination, sales negotiations, and fiscal accountability. Further, this City staff member will report on a quarterly basis to the City Council on these Stillwater Business Park evaluations. SHASTA COUNTY SERVICE AREAS – ELK TRAIL WATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT THE 2016-2017 SHASTA COUNTY PENAL CODE RESPONDENT RESPONSES GRAND JURY RECOMMENDED: COMPLIANT?
R8:
By September 30, 2017, the Water Agency Board of Directors direct staff to immediately The recommendation will reimburse Jones Valley Water Fund – 0377 all Shasta County Water not be implemented monies paid to Keswick CSA under Shasta County Agency Board of because it is not YES Water Agency Resolution No: 2008-01, Resolution Directors warranted or not of Intent to Transfer Water from County Service reasonable. Area #25 – Keswick Water to County Service Area #6 – Jones Valley Water.
R9:
By September 30, 2017, the Board of The recommendation will Supervisors direct Public Works staff to open the not be implemented lines of communication with the Rural Communities Shasta County Board because it is not YES Assistance Corporation and report back to the of Supervisors warranted or not Board of Supervisors on the Corporation’s reasonable. response.
R10:
By September 30, 2017, the Board of The recommendation will Supervisors direct Public Works staff to work with not be implemented Shasta County Board the Jones Valley CSA CAB to establish a mutually because it is not YES of Supervisors agreed upon CAB meeting schedule warranted or not reasonable.
R11:
By September 30, 2017, the Board of The recommendation will Supervisors direct staff to determine and report not be implemented Shasta County Board back what specific legal authority exists to allow because it is not YES of Supervisors Public Works to charge CSAs for time spent on a warranted or not Grand Jury investigation. reasonable.
R12:
By September 30, 2017, the Board of Supervisors direct staff to provide a public report The recommendation will outlining legal justification for the charges under not be implemented Shasta County Board Project Number 111029 “CSA #6 Jones Valley because it is not YES of Supervisors Grand Jury Investigation” by December 31, 2017, warranted or not or to refund Jones Valley CSA any and all charges reasonable. under this project title.
R13:
By September 30, 2017, the Board of Supervisors direct staff to conduct an investigation The recommendation will to determine how much each CSA has been not be implemented charged for Public Works staff time spent on any Shasta County Board because it is not YES Grand Jury investigation. By December 31, 2017, of Supervisors warranted or not staff publicly report on their findings and the legal reasonable. justification for the charges, or refund the amounts charged.
R14:
By September 30, 2017, the Board of Supervisors direct Public Works staff to ensure and Shasta County Board The recommendation has YES report back that they are in compliance with of Supervisors been implemented. California Proposition 218. Table continues on next page. SHASTA COUNTY SERVICE AREAS – ELK TRAIL WATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (CONTINUED) THE 2016-2017 SHASTA COUNTY PENAL CODE RESPONDENT RESPONSES GRAND JURY RECOMMENDED: COMPLIANT?
R15:
By September 30, 2017, the Board of Supervisors direct Public Works staff to ensure and Shasta County Board The recommendation has YES report back that they are in compliance with Shasta of Supervisors been implemented. County Code 13.12.120.
R16:
By September 30, 2017, the Board of The recommendation will Supervisors direct County Administrative staff to not be implemented either publicly report the legal justification for Shasta County Board because it is not YES charging the CSAs, or create and present a policy of Supervisors warranted or not ensuring CSAs are not charged for Public Works reasonable. staff time spent on any Grand Jury investigations.
R17:
By September 30, 2017, the Board of The recommendation has Shasta County Board Supervisors direct Public Works staff to comply with already been YES of Supervisors Grand Jury confidentiality agreements. implemented. SHASTA COUNTY JOINT AUDIT COMMITTEE THE 2016-2017 SHASTA COUNTY PENAL CODE RESPONDENT RESPONSES GRAND JURY RECOMMENDED: COMPLIANT?
Findings & Recommendations
12 findings
F1:
All mandated responders submitted responses as requested, most within the timeframe specified in Penal Code § 933(c), which allots 90 days for governing bodies to respond and 60 days for elected officials.
F2:
Although Redding City Council’s original responses to the Unfunded Pension Liabilities report were deemed noncompliant with Penal Code § 933(c) and § 933.05(b), it later submitted revised responses that were in compliance.
F3:
Four of the 16 invited responders also submitted responses although they were not required to do so. COMMENDATIONS The Grand Jury commends: C1. The City Managers of Anderson, Redding and Shasta Lake for their thoughtful and timely responses to the Unfunded Pension Liabilities report. All were invited responders and not required to submit responses. C2. The Shasta Lake Fire Protection District Fire Chief for his thoughtful and timely responses to the Shasta Lake Fire Protection District report. He was an invited responder and not required to submit responses. C3. The Cities of Anderson, Redding and Shasta Lake City Councils and the Shasta County Board of Supervisors for scheduling approval of their respective responses during a regular session portion of their meetings, allowing open discussion of those responses and public comment. When there is a perception of a conflict of interest involving a member of the Grand Jury, that member has been required to recuse from any aspect of the investigation involving such a conflict and from voting on the acceptance of or rejection of that report. No member of the Grand Jury recused from this report. Reports issued by the Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code § 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Grand Jury. Released January 24, 2018 12 Protecting Those Who Protect Us – Money Well Spent Shasta County Law Enforcement Vehicle Recalls and Maintenance SUMMARY Several news articles and televised news reports regarding safety recalls of the Patrol vehicle prompted the 2017-2018 Shasta County Grand Jury to open an investigation to determine how Shasta County agencies have responded to recent carbon monoxide recalls of law enforcement vehicles. The Shasta County Grand Jury reviewed vehicle records from the Shasta County Sheriff’s Office and the police departments of Redding and Anderson from 2011 through 2017. The Shasta County Grand Jury found that the patrol vehicles driven by officers in Shasta County are maintained using specific and comprehensive policies and procedures. During the course of the investigation, the Shasta County Grand Jury broadened the focus to include vehicle maintenance policies, procedures and records of all Shasta County law enforcement agencies. The Shasta County Grand Jury found that none of the recalled vehicles experienced carbon monoxide leaks. Furthermore, each agency has comprehensive policies and procedures in place for vehicle repairs and maintenance. BACKGROUND After reviewing several recent news articles and televised news reports regarding safety recalls of the Ford Explorer Police Interceptor model (patrol vehicle), the 2017-2018 Shasta County Grand Jury (Grand Jury) opened an investigation to determine whether Shasta County law enforcement vehicle recalls were handled in accordance with the recall directive. A 2017 single- vehicle accident involving a Sheriff’s Office Patrol vehicle also contributed to the Grand Jury’s interest in an investigation. In 2016 and 2017, the Ford Motor Company issued recalls for 1.3 million Ford Explorers for carbon monoxide leaks. These recalls included all Police Interceptor models from 2011 through 2017. Ford received nearly 400,000 complaints of exhaust fumes in these vehicles. The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) noted that, despite the lack of conclusive and documented linkage between injury reports and carbon monoxide poisoning, carbon monoxide levels “…may be elevated in certain driving scenarios.” METHODOLOGY The Grand Jury reviewed: National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) website: https://www.nhtsa.gov National Highway Transportation Safety Administration recall notices 2011-2017 May 12, 2017 accident report prepared by the California Highway Patrol (MAIT report) 13 Center for Auto Safety 2017 recall notices Notices distributed by the Ford Motor Company 2016-2017 Motor Trend Magazine, June 2016 ABC13 Eyewitness News: http://www.13abc.com/home/headlines/Several-auto-recalls-issued-Monday morning379619791.html http://abc13.com/automotive/ford-issues-4-recalls-affecting-14m-vehicles/85110/. Anderson Police Department: Policies and Procedures of Vehicle Inspection Vehicle check list form Photo of grease board for reporting vehicle repairs Vehicle rotation policy Reserve vehicle policy Replacement of damaged vehicles policy New vehicle budget 2015 Fleet Manager records 2016-2017 Vehicle incident reports 2014-2017. Redding Police Department: Repair order request form Listing of patrol vehicles 2006 - 2017 Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) Patrol Vehicle Operations Bulletin (POST.BTB. 2003-01, October 2015) Police Fleet Vehicle Operations Emergency Vehicle Operation Policy (F-19.7 General Order revised 3/22/17) Traffic Collision Investigation Policy (F-43.15 General Order revised 10/24/16) Vehicle incident reports 2014-2017. Shasta County Sheriff’s Office: Patrol Vehicle Operations Procedures Vehicle Service Request Form Patrol Vehicle listing 2014-2017 Vehicle incident reports 2014-2017 Vehicle Safety Recall Notices Accident Reports Parts 1 and 2 Traffic Collision Report, May 2017 Multidisciplinary Accident Investigation Team (MAIT) Report May 2017 Vehicle incident reports 2014-2017. The Grand Jury interviewed personnel from: Anderson Fleet Management Anderson Police Department Redding Fleet Management Redding Police Department Shasta County Fleet Management Shasta County Sheriff’s Office. DISCUSSION The Grand Jury determined that Shasta County law enforcement agencies use only one type of Ford vehicle under recall, the Ford Explorer Police Interceptor model (patrol vehicle). Those agencies included the Anderson Police Department (APD), the Redding Police Department (RPD), and the Shasta County Sheriff’s Office (SCSO). Documents received from those entities indicated that 38 vehicles had been affected by the recalls. This report focuses on the carbon monoxide issues of the patrol vehicles. Vehicle Repair and Maintenance: Policies and Procedures Although the names of policies, forms, and documentation are different, the processes are similar for all agencies. Before the start of each patrol shift, officers and deputies are responsible for checking their assigned vehicles using a checklist. If there is a maintenance concern that may affect safety, the vehicle is immediately taken out of service and a substitute patrol vehicle is assigned. Records show that the vast majority of repaired vehicles are returned to service within one working day. Recalled Vehicles Recalled vehicles are removed from service and taken to an authorized repair station. This procedure is followed even if the agency did not experience the problem for which the recall was issued. No carbon monoxide leaks were found in any of the vehicles examined. After-Market Modifications According to Ford Motor Company reports, the after-market installation of police equipment made by some companies across the United States was the cause of the carbon monoxide issues in patrol vehicles. Sometimes this occurred when holes were drilled in the chassis. These holes, if not properly sealed, allowed carbon monoxide to enter the cabin of the vehicle. The Grand Jury noted that all after-market modifications of the patrol vehicles used by APD, RPD, and SCSO were installed by a contracted installer of after-market equipment. None of the Shasta County agency law enforcement vehicles modified by the contracted company experienced any carbon monoxide leaks. After-market modifications were properly completed as indicated by the lack of leaks found during the recall inspection process. Collision Reports On May 12, 2017, a single-vehicle accident involving a SCSO patrol vehicle occurred on Highway 273 south of Redding. The Multidisciplinary Accident Investigation Team (MAIT) investigated the accident. MAIT consists of specially trained personnel of the California Highway Patrol and includes a representative of Caltrans. The investigation determined the accident was not due to carbon monoxide poisoning. FINDINGS
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.
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
17
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
By October 31, 2017, the Shasta County Shasta County Board The recommendation has YES Board of Supervisors, with the Shasta County of Supervisors been implemented. Auditor-Controller, and the Cities of Redding, The recommendation NO1 Anderson, and Shasta Lake City Councils requires further analysis. each look for ways to increase their Redding City Council The recommendation will not contributions to CalPERS over the next twelve be implemented because the YES2 years with minimal loss of key services. timeline is unreasonable. Options could include reducing their current Anderson City The recommendation will be amortization schedules and exploring debt YES Council considered. refinancing opportunities. Shasta Lake The recommendation will be YES City Council considered. Shasta County The recommendation has YES Auditor-Controller already been implemented.
R2:
By October 31, 2017, the Shasta County Shasta County Board The recommendation has YES Board of Supervisors, with the Shasta County of Supervisors been implemented. Auditor-Controller, and the Cities of Redding, The recommendation NO1 Anderson, and Shasta Lake City Councils requires further analysis. each look for ways to increase their revenues Redding City Council The recommendation will not or reduce other expenditures, with minimal be implemented because the YES2 loss of key services, as CalPERS timeline is unreasonable. contributions increase. Anderson City The recommendation has YES Council been implemented. Shasta Lake The recommendation has YES City Council been implemented. Shasta County The recommendation has YES Auditor-Controller already been implemented.
R3:
By December 31, 2017, the City of The recommendation NO3 Redding City Council establish a five-year requires further analysis. financial plan to increase its funded ratio for Redding City Council The recommendation will not its CalPERS Safety Plan from 64.5% to 70%, be implemented because the YES2 and for its Miscellaneous Plan from 70% to timeline is unreasonable. 75%, with minimal loss of key services. 1. Originally non-compliant – no timeframe provided as specified by Penal Code § 933.05 (b). 2. Revised response deemed compliant. 3. Originally non-compliant – not within the timeframe as specified by Penal Code § 933.05 (b). STILLWATER BUSINESS PARK THE 2016-2017 SHASTA COUNTY PENAL CODE RESPONDENT RESPONSES GRAND JURY RECOMMENDED: COMPLIANT?
R4:
By December 31, 2017, the Redding City Council establish a formal procedure for The recommendation Redding City Council YES comprehensively evaluating the viability of the requires further analysis. Stillwater Business Park project.
R5:
By September 30, 2017, the Redding City Council establish a policy directing funds received The recommendation will from any future parcel sales be utilized only for Redding City Council YES not be implemented. Stillwater Business Park debt repayment or infrastructure.
R6:
By September 30, 2017, the Redding City Council establish a formal, documented procedure for comprehensively evaluating potential Stillwater The recommendation Redding City Council YES Business Park sales using criteria such as financial requires further analysis. viability, estimated wage rates, and number of jobs to be created.
R7:
By September 30, 2017, the Redding City Council appoint an existing City staff member to manage the Stillwater Business Park Project. This person would be responsible for routine evaluation The recommendation will of Stillwater, including supervising marketing Redding City Council YES not be implemented. coordination, sales negotiations, and fiscal accountability. Further, this City staff member will report on a quarterly basis to the City Council on these Stillwater Business Park evaluations. SHASTA COUNTY SERVICE AREAS – ELK TRAIL WATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT THE 2016-2017 SHASTA COUNTY PENAL CODE RESPONDENT RESPONSES GRAND JURY RECOMMENDED: COMPLIANT?
R8:
By September 30, 2017, the Water Agency Board of Directors direct staff to immediately The recommendation will reimburse Jones Valley Water Fund – 0377 all Shasta County Water not be implemented monies paid to Keswick CSA under Shasta County Agency Board of because it is not YES Water Agency Resolution No: 2008-01, Resolution Directors warranted or not of Intent to Transfer Water from County Service reasonable. Area #25 – Keswick Water to County Service Area #6 – Jones Valley Water.
R9:
By September 30, 2017, the Board of The recommendation will Supervisors direct Public Works staff to open the not be implemented lines of communication with the Rural Communities Shasta County Board because it is not YES Assistance Corporation and report back to the of Supervisors warranted or not Board of Supervisors on the Corporation’s reasonable. response.
R10:
By September 30, 2017, the Board of The recommendation will Supervisors direct Public Works staff to work with not be implemented Shasta County Board the Jones Valley CSA CAB to establish a mutually because it is not YES of Supervisors agreed upon CAB meeting schedule warranted or not reasonable.
R11:
By September 30, 2017, the Board of The recommendation will Supervisors direct staff to determine and report not be implemented Shasta County Board back what specific legal authority exists to allow because it is not YES of Supervisors Public Works to charge CSAs for time spent on a warranted or not Grand Jury investigation. reasonable.
R12:
By September 30, 2017, the Board of Supervisors direct staff to provide a public report The recommendation will outlining legal justification for the charges under not be implemented Shasta County Board Project Number 111029 “CSA #6 Jones Valley because it is not YES of Supervisors Grand Jury Investigation” by December 31, 2017, warranted or not or to refund Jones Valley CSA any and all charges reasonable. under this project title.
R13:
By September 30, 2017, the Board of Supervisors direct staff to conduct an investigation The recommendation will to determine how much each CSA has been not be implemented charged for Public Works staff time spent on any Shasta County Board because it is not YES Grand Jury investigation. By December 31, 2017, of Supervisors warranted or not staff publicly report on their findings and the legal reasonable. justification for the charges, or refund the amounts charged.
R14:
By September 30, 2017, the Board of Supervisors direct Public Works staff to ensure and Shasta County Board The recommendation has YES report back that they are in compliance with of Supervisors been implemented. California Proposition 218. Table continues on next page. SHASTA COUNTY SERVICE AREAS – ELK TRAIL WATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (CONTINUED) THE 2016-2017 SHASTA COUNTY PENAL CODE RESPONDENT RESPONSES GRAND JURY RECOMMENDED: COMPLIANT?
R15:
By September 30, 2017, the Board of Supervisors direct Public Works staff to ensure and Shasta County Board The recommendation has YES report back that they are in compliance with Shasta of Supervisors been implemented. County Code 13.12.120.
R16:
By September 30, 2017, the Board of The recommendation will Supervisors direct County Administrative staff to not be implemented either publicly report the legal justification for Shasta County Board because it is not YES charging the CSAs, or create and present a policy of Supervisors warranted or not ensuring CSAs are not charged for Public Works reasonable. staff time spent on any Grand Jury investigations.
R17:
By September 30, 2017, the Board of The recommendation has Shasta County Board Supervisors direct Public Works staff to comply with already been YES of Supervisors Grand Jury confidentiality agreements. implemented. SHASTA COUNTY JOINT AUDIT COMMITTEE THE 2016-2017 SHASTA COUNTY PENAL CODE RESPONDENT RESPONSES GRAND JURY RECOMMENDED: COMPLIANT?