Siskiyou County Grand Jury
2018-2019
From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (17)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
The new facility has very limited public parking.
F2:
The new facility is located in an area of limited expansion with very little room for future growth. The city had the opportunity to purchase the property to the south of the facility but declined to do so.
F3:
After a long, tedious planning and construction process, the new YrekaPolice Station is a dramatic and much needed upgrade from the old station. This is a new and efficient facility that not only has boosted staff morale, but will greatly improve the safety and security of the citizens of Yreka.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
At a minimum, the parking area at the front of the facility and along Davis Street should be marked and reserved for police department visitors, similar to the way parking was restricted at the old facility.
R2:
The City of Yreka should consider purchasing the adjoining property before it is developed. The owners of the undeveloped property to the south of the facility should be contacted. This property needs to be part of the city’s long term plan.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
CSSP plans at some schools are substandard and have not been reviewed annually.
F2:
Some schools that have their CSSP posted on a website have disclosed information that could assist criminal activity.
F3:
During the Grand Jury’s investigation it was discovered that at least one of the schools surveyed was not conducting required monthly fire drills.
F4:
County schools currently do not have a uniform alert system for notifying parents in an emergency. The Superintendent of Schools is currently assessing an “all call” system similar to the County's Code Red system.
F5:
ALICE training and drills have been conducted at some schools to prepare for a potential emergency situation.
F6:
Education Code §32282(G) procedures for safe ingress and egress for pupils, parents, and employees were implemented at some schools within the county.
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Superintendent of Schools should ensure that all schools in Siskiyou County are in compliance with Education Code §32282 and have all schools’ CSSP on file.
R2:
Schools need to review their websites and remove information that might aid criminal activity.
R3:
The Superintendent of Schools or designee should follow up with each school or school district regularly to ensure their drills are being conducted. In turn, the Superintendent of Schools or designee could require the Administrator or governing board of each school district to file a report with their office showing the dates and times of fire drills or any other emergency drills that are being conducted.
R4:
The Superintendent of Schools should continue an assessment of the “on call” system, such as the county’s Code Red system, with a goal of implementation by January 1, 2020.
R5:
More frequent ALICE Training for school staff is advised as well as increased parent awareness. Consider including a safety procedure element such as a brochure or pamphlet in parent teacher conferences so that everyone knows what to do.
R6:
Consider designating all schools as a closed campus to minimize the potential for criminal activity.
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
Progress is being made on implementing and updating the training programs, policy and procedures manual, and organizational chart to make the running of Montague more efficient.
F2:
During the investigation, no issues of nepotism or cronyism were discovered.
F3:
There is a local temporary kennel to house abandoned animals awaiting openings at private shelters. This appears to be an adequate solution.
F4:
Vacancies in the City Council and lack of applicants have necessitated appointments in lieu of elections which is allowed by law under certain circumstances.
F5:
Interviews indicated that proper training is being implemented with city employees.
F6:
We believe Montague City Council and its departments could benefit from improved communication skills.
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Continue working on updating the training programs, policy and procedures manual, and organizational chart to make the running of Montague more efficient. Add training for improvement of communication skills.
R2:
When working with co-workers, keep personal issues separate from city business and always maintain a professional work environment.
R3:
Continue to establish a relationship with outside agencies to provide a shelter for stray animals. Increase fees (or other penalties) to decrease the number of stray and abandoned animals.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
for Finding number 1. Recommendations are delineated in the same manner, i.e., R1 for
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Educational and social opportunities should be continued and expanded.
F2:
Youth are monitored from a centrally operated control room with oversight over the entire facility.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Steps should be taken to raise public awareness of the DRC and the work being done on their behalf. These may include posts to social media, submissions to local newspapers, public service announcements and other informational avenues. Response (Board of Supervisors) The Board agrees with the findings and recommendations. The County appreciates the time and effort the Grand Jury put into the Day Reporting Center Investigation. The Board agrees and recognizes that the Day Reporting Center serves an important role in the justice system and that it has demonstrated many benefits to local communities. The staff are to be commended for their service and commitment to the program. GAP FIRE Summary: The Grand Jury’s goal with the writing of this report was to bring public awareness to the citizens of Siskiyou County about the increase wildfire danger, why fire intensity may be increasing and what procedures are currently in place to address those fires. The Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors was requested to respond. The Siskiyou County Sheriff’s Department was invited to respond.
F3:
Educational opportunities are excellent and well managed to insure juveniles are given every opportunity to improve themselves. Response (Siskiyou County Probation Department) We would like to thank the Grand Jury for their time and appreciate all of the feedback they provided. This is a time of transition for the CBYCC. We have fully transitioned from a detention facility to a Juvenile Day Reporting Center. There have been many challenges that we have worked through to establish the program. We are now at the point where we are working on the following: 1. Growing and expanding programs to meet the needs of the youth in our county. This requires constant program evaluation and willingness to change what isn’t working. We are also expanding opportunities to assist youth in finding employment and learning key life skills. 2. Beginning to identify and work towards relocating the program for the new jail project. It is imperative to the department that we maintain the program to continue to serve the youth of Siskiyou County and help them become successful adults. We are using detention at Tehama County as a last resort for youth, instead we are proactively using programs and partnerships with the schools to address youth before they are fully in the system as delinquent youth. 3. Meeting the needs of the youth detained in Tehama. Those that are detained pose additional staffing challenges such as transportation, officer safety (those detained have been high level and charged with violent felony crimes) and ensuring that they have no interaction with the program youth. Most recently transportation has become problematic due to multiple road closures with weather and the Delta fire. Overall, CBYCC staff has worked diligently and positively to overcome these challenges and are prepared to address more of the unexpected issues that may arise. DAY REPORTING CENTER Summary: To provide awareness to the citizens of Siskiyou County, of the functions, resources and services provided by the Day Reporting Center. The Siskiyou County Sheriff’s Office was requested to respond. The Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors was invited to respond. *To date, no Response has been received from the Siskiyou County Sheriff’s Office.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Unable to find out if the investigation into the cause of the Gap Fire is ongoing, we recommend the BOS open its own investigation to find out if there may be a case for negligence or intent. Response (Board of Supervisors) The Board does not agree with R3. The County does not have the authority to open an investigation where Forest Service jurisdiction is considered. We are aware that the investigation is ongoing and that the cause for the fire has not been determined at this time.
F4:
USFS states that “evacuations remained in place from August 27 until 5:30 September 7, 2016. Some local residents claim they were not notified until the next night when the fire was burning into the community and the Sheriff’s department was dispatched to facilitate evacuations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
It is still not exactly clear what the methods and timelines were for evacuation notification. What is clear is that Horse Creek residents were not given ample time to evacuate. We recommend the BOS review County-wide evacuation procedures and communications protocols including the Code Red system and implement an effective plan for timely notices. Response (Board of Supervisors) The Board partially agrees. The County should routinely review its evacuation procedures to ensure procedure and communication protocols are in order. It is imperative that evacuation decisions provide as much time as possible to warn and allow residents to evacuate, the Sheriff’s Office and Siskiyou Office of Emergency Service communicate continually during an emergency event to coordinate evacuation actions and decisions. The Office of Emergency Services, local cities, law enforcement entities, and others have all done extensive campaigns to encourage residents to sign up for Code Red, which provides evacuation notices and alerts. Code Red has become a valuable tool in communicating with the public.
F5:
The intensity and rapid spread of this wildfire created a traffic jam on the Horse Creek Bar Road between responding fire crews and citizens evacuating.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
We recommend the BOS review coordination and communication procedures between the Siskiyou County Sheriff and all fire agencies, including CALFIRE and USFS, for traffic control. Response (Board of Supervisors) The Board partially agrees. The Sheriff is an elected official who routinely coordinates with incident commanders during emergencies. The Board will encourage the Sheriff to discuss the issue at a public board meeting.
F6:
There is significant Federal, State and County legislation designed to address the prevention and suppression of wildfires.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
We recommend the BOS do research into all the relevant legislation in order to bring more resources and funding into our County for fuel treatment and fire suppression. Response (Board of Supervisors) The Board partially agrees. State CCI funding is available to local non-profit operations aimed at addressing healthy forests projects. The County Fire Warden encourages and supports local non-profit groups, such as Fire Safe Councils, to apply for and utilize these funding opportunities. Recently, the Klamath National Forest received a large grant to complete the Craggy Vegetation Project, supported by the Board of Supervisors. Additionally, the County Fire Warden and volunteer fire entities take advantage of various grant opportunities to enhance fire suppression efforts. The Fire Safe Council of Siskiyou County has monthly meetings that are attended by local Fire Safe Councils, the County Fire Warden, CALFIRE, and the Forest Service. During these meetings there are discussions about grant funding, current and planned projects, training, current fire season status and staffing. At these meetings the Fire Safe councils are encouraged to plan projects with their local CALFIRE and/or Forest Service personnel to build cooperative fire prevention and fuel reduction projects that meet the needs of the community as well as the fire service. Lastly, in Fiscal year 2017/2018 the General County Fire received several donations including a Fire Engine, a Type 1 Fire Engine and a Flat Rack Truck; with a total estimated value of $54,270.
F7:
In spite of the legislation mentioned in F6, not enough is actually being done and two federal bills that should help prevent future wildfires, H.R.2613 and H.R.2862 have been sitting in committee for 9 months.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
We have attempted to find out why H.R.2613 and H.R.2862 are tied up in committee but have had no response from either our Representative or Senator. We recommend the BOS contact them to determine what can be done to get this vital legislation enacted. Response (Board of Supervisors) The Board partially agrees. County staff contacted Congressman Doug LaMalfa’s office who informed us that these bills have not had any success since their introduction in 2017. However, Congressman LaMalfa’s office continues to support and work on bills that allow for increased active forest management and resiliency to wildfire, and Congressman LaMalfa recently met with Secretary of Interior Ryan Zinke, and Secretary of Agriculture, Sonny Perdue during their visit to northern California to tour the Carr fire destruction and discuss forest health and wildfire issues facing California.
F8:
Most professional foresters agree that “Active forest management is the most important tool in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and lowering the threat and severity of wildfires…” (Stewart 2010).
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
Active forest management is necessary to the health and welfare of our citizens and the forest itself. If H.R.2613 can be encouraged through active involvement of our BOS, perhaps a clear path forward in how we can approach the responsible management of our County’s natural resources can be obtained. Response (Board of Supervisors) The Board agrees. The Board will continue to actively support this type of legislation.
F9:
There are 22 local Fire Safe Councils in Siskiyou County tasked with fire prevention (fire- safeing) on private property and, while most are very active, there is a lack of funding and coordination.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
The 22 local Fire Safe Councils in Siskiyou County are the only resource we have to assist private property owners in making their homes more safe from wildfire. Most of these local Councils act independently to acquire funding, buy equipment and hire workers to perform this vital task. We recommend the BOS involve the County in the Fire Safe Council of Siskiyou County with the goal of bringing all local FSCs under one organization for the purpose of efficiency. i.e.: sharing of equipment, workers and other resources, bringing paperwork, reporting, grant writing and fund raising under one roof and ensuring all local FSC’s receive their fair share of such. Response (Board of Supervisors) The Board does not agree. While the Board agrees that coordination of information and sharing of resources is important, Fire Safe Councils are not within the jurisdiction of the County. The County Fire Warden will continue to encourage Fire Safe Councils to coordinate and share resource whenever possible. DEADWOOD CONSERVATION CAMP Summary: In accordance with State of California Penal Code 919(b), “the Grand Jury shall inquire into the condition and management of the public prisons within the county.” This conservation camp falls within the jurisdiction of a public prison. The Grand Jury inspected the camp as directed. Responses were requested from the California Department of Corrections, CALFIRE, Siskiyou County Sheriff’s Department, and Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors. *To date, no Response has been received from the Siskiyou County Sheriff’s Office.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
As a result of AB109, the jail has been operating beyond design capacity for 52 many years and the jail cannot be modified to increase capacity. The need to release prisoners, to make room for higher risk ones, places an unacceptable risk to the citizens of Siskiyou County and the facility staff working there. A larger, modern and better equipped jail is desperately needed. The county’s application for state funding ($20 million from AB900) was awarded but the county is required to contribute the remaining funds (approximately $2 to $4 million). Funding is currently under consideration by the BOS. If such additional funding is provided by the county, the plan is to modify the existing Charlie Byrd Juvenile Correctional Center with an estimated date for completion in 2023.
F2:
The potential for the county to participate in the Deadwood Conservation Camp program could possibly save the county money. While this may have an impact with the Day Reporting Center operation, the advantages of entering into a contract with Deadwood should be investigated. The need to investigate participation in the Deadwood Program becomes greater, considering the overcrowded condition of the current jail, the estimated completion time for a new jail facility, and subsequent release of inmates to make room for higher risk prisoners. Although leadership within the county has implemented programs such as the DRC, jail overcrowding remains a significant issue. It appears that other options such as the Deadwood Program, have remained undeveloped.
F3:
Access to the Day Reporting Center for inmates without reliable contact information means the Center may not be able to reach a prisoner when necessary. A primary objective of the DRC is to prevent a re-occurrence of an offense. The lack of inmate contact information can contribute to a failure to achieve that goal. The DRC is being utilized to accommodate inmates who cannot be placed into the jail due to overcrowding. Some of them become homeless after release from jail. The DRC does not have an adequate system to contact homeless inmates participating in the DRC program There is a possible threat to public safety if the DRC cannot contact a released inmate due to lack of contact information.
F4:
Individuals released from central booking who live outside of Yreka, with no way to return home within Siskiyou County, is still an unresolved issue. From years past, prior to release, jail staff attempts to arrange for transportation. A better program to insure public safety is not defined. The example given of a homeless individual picked up in Weed was arrested and released five times in one night underscores the problem.
Additional Recommendations
13
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Every effort should be taken to replace the jail with a new expandable facility that is capable of meeting the needs of the county now and into the future. The old jail was forced to be replaced by court action which resulted in the inadequate facility now in use. Unless something is done to produce a new jail to meet the needs of Siskiyou County, public safety will remain vulnerable. An approved and detailed plan to replace the jail by the BOS should be announced with required funding as soon as possible before state funding expires.
R2:
The Deadwood Conservation Camp Program should be investigated to determine if it has merit and is feasible for Siskiyou County. If only one bed is opened and available with savings to the county, it would be worth it!
R3:
Access to the Day Reporting Center for inmates should only be granted if reliable contact information is available and maintained.
R4:
Siskiyou County residents released from jail should be assisted with transportation back to their home or community. For example, public transportation could 54 be used if a bus stop were available or the arresting officer from another community could be required to return the released inmate to their community. This may help alleviate the burden placed on the City of Yreka. If an individual is arrested in an outlying community for an offense not resulting in retention in the jail, a system to issue a citation and notice to appear should be considered to eliminate the need to transport the individual to the jail for booking.
R5:
Release of Request for Proposals June 5, 2020 Approved by Department of Finance
R6:
Release of RFP by County June 8, 2020
R7:
Proposals Due to County July 31, 2020
R8:
Design Build Award by County September 15, 2020 (Board of Supervisors meeting) Bond item must be approved at the SPWB meeting the month prior to the scheduled PMIB Meeting
R9:
Bond Item Approved (SPWB) October 9, 2020
R10:
Design Build Award Approved by Department of Finance November 20, 2020 [Driven by PMIB meeting on: November 18, 2020, 2 days past meeting to allow for funding to occur.] (Please note: this is the date used for the Start of Construction, not the NTP.)
R11:
Notice to Proceed November 23, 2020
R12:
Construction Completion May 17, 2022
R13:
Occupancy August 1, 2022 56
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
The Grand Jury found that Charlie Byrd Youth Corrections Center is well managed and operating efficiently. The staff is well trained, the center is clean and properly maintained. By transporting youth to the Tehama County Juvenile Hall, the cost per youth is lower than full-time on-site housing.
F2:
Youth are monitored from a centrally operated control room with oversight over the entire facility.
F3:
Educational opportunities are excellent and well managed to insure juveniles are given every opportunity to improve themselves. Response (Siskiyou County Probation Department) We would like to thank the Grand Jury for their time and appreciate all of the feedback they provided. This is a time of transition for the CBYCC. We have fully transitioned from a detention facility to a Juvenile Day Reporting Center. There have been many challenges that we have worked through to establish the program. We are now at the point where we are working on the following: 1. Growing and expanding programs to meet the needs of the youth in our county. This requires constant program evaluation and willingness to change what isn’t working. We are also expanding opportunities to assist youth in finding employment and learning key life skills. 2. Beginning to identify and work towards relocating the program for the new jail project. It is imperative to the department that we maintain the program to continue to serve the youth of Siskiyou County and help them become successful adults. We are using detention at Tehama County as a last resort for youth, instead we are proactively using programs and partnerships with the schools to address youth before they are fully in the system as delinquent youth. 3. Meeting the needs of the youth detained in Tehama. Those that are detained pose additional staffing challenges such as transportation, officer safety (those detained have been high level and charged with violent felony crimes) and ensuring that they have no interaction with the program youth. Most recently transportation has become problematic due to multiple road closures with weather and the Delta fire. Overall, CBYCC staff has worked diligently and positively to overcome these challenges and are prepared to address more of the unexpected issues that may arise. DAY REPORTING CENTER Summary: To provide awareness to the citizens of Siskiyou County, of the functions, resources and services provided by the Day Reporting Center. The Siskiyou County Sheriff’s Office was requested to respond. The Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors were invited to respond. *To date, no Response has been received from the Siskiyou County Sheriff’s Office to this 2017-2018 report.
F4:
Deadwood could place more emphasis on training inmates to handle the responsibilities of life outside of prison.
F5:
The intensity and rapid spread of this wildfire created a traffic jam on the Horse Creek Bar Road between responding fire crews and citizens evacuating. R5: We recommend the BOS review coordination and communication procedures between the Siskiyou County Sheriff and all fire agencies, including CALFIRE and USFS, for traffic control. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board partially agrees. The Sheriff is an elected official who routinely coordinates with incident commanders during emergencies. The Board will encourage the Sheriff to discuss the issue at a public board meeting.
F6:
There is significant Federal, State and County legislation designed to address the prevention and suppression of wildfires.
F8:
Most professional foresters agree that “Active forest management is the most important tool in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and lowering the threat and severity of wildfires…” (Stewart 2010).
F9:
There are 22 local Fire Safe Councils in Siskiyou County tasked with fire prevention (firesafeing) on private property and, while most are very active, there is a lack of funding and coordination.
Additional Recommendations
13
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Educational and social opportunities should be continued and expanded.
R2:
Steps should be taken to raise public awareness of the DRC and the work being done on their behalf. These may include posts to social media, submissions to local newspapers, public service announcements and other informational avenues. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with the findings and recommendations. The County appreciates the time and effort the Grand Jury put into the Day Reporting Center Investigation. The Board agrees and recognizes that the Day Reporting Center serves an important role in the justice system and that it has demonstrated many benefits to local communities. The staff are to be commended for their service and commitment to the program. GAP FIRE Summary: The Grand Jury’s goal with the writing of this report was to bring public awareness to the citizens of Siskiyou County about the increase wildfire danger, why fire intensity may be increasing and what procedures are currently in place to address those fires. The Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors was requested to respond. The Siskiyou County Sheriff’s Department was invited to respond. 7
R3:
Unable to find out if the investigation into the cause of the Gap Fire is ongoing, we recommend the BOS open its own investigation to find out if there may be a case for negligence or intent. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board does not agree with R3. The County does not have the authority to open an investigation where Forest Service jurisdiction is considered. We are aware that the investigation is ongoing and that the cause for the fire has not been determined at this time. F4: USFS states that “evacuations remained in place from August 27 until 5:30 September 7, 2016. Some local residents claim they were not notified until the next night when the fire was burning into the community and the Sheriff’s department was dispatched to facilitate evacuations.
R4:
It is still not exactly clear what the methods and timelines were for evacuation notification. What is clear is that Horse Creek residents were not given ample time to evacuate. We recommend the BOS review County- wide evacuation procedures and communications protocols including the Code Red system and implement an effective plan for timely notices. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board partially agrees. The County should routinely review its evacuation procedures to ensure procedure and communication protocols are in order. It is imperative that evacuation decisions provide as much time as possible to warn and allow residents to evacuate, the Sheriff’s Office and Siskiyou Office of Emergency Service communicate continually during an emergency event to coordinate evacuation actions and decisions. The Office of Emergency Services, local cities, law enforcement entities, and others have all done extensive campaigns to encourage residents to sign up for Code Red, which provides evacuation notices and alerts. Code Red has become a valuable tool in communicating with the public.
R5:
School Board members, at a minimum, should have individual voice mailboxes set up through the school. Board members should continue to maintain their individual e-mail addresses.
R6:
We recommend the BOS do research into all the relevant legislation in order to bring more resources and funding into our County for fuel treatment and fire suppression. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board partially agrees. State CCI funding is available to local non-profit operations aimed at addressing healthy forests projects. The County Fire Warden encourages and supports local non-profit groups, such as Fire Safe Councils, to apply for and utilize these funding opportunities. Recently, the Klamath National Forest received a large grant to complete the Craggy Vegetation Project, supported by the Board of Supervisors. Additionally, the County Fire Warden and 9 volunteer fire entities take advantage of various grant opportunities to enhance fire suppression efforts. The Fire Safe Council of Siskiyou County has monthly meetings that are attended by local Fire Safe Councils, the County Fire Warden, CALFIRE, and the Forest Service. During these meetings there are discussions about grant funding, current and planned projects, training, current fire season status and staffing. At these meetings the Fire Safe councils are encouraged to plan projects with their local CALFIRE and/or Forest Service personnel to build cooperative fire prevention and fuel reduction projects that meet the needs of the community as well as the fire service. Lastly, in Fiscal year 2017/2018 the General County Fire received several donations including a Fire Engine, a Type 1 Fire Engine and a Flat Rack Truck; with a total estimated value of $54,270. F7: In spite of the legislation mentioned in F6, not enough is actually being done and two federal bills that should help prevent future wildfires, H.R.2613 and H.R.2862 have been sitting in committee for 9 months. R7: We have attempted to find out why H.R.2613 and H.R.2862 are tied up in committee but have had no response from either our Representative or Senator. We recommend the BOS contact them to determine what can be done to get this vital legislation enacted. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board partially agrees. County staff contacted Congressman Doug LaMalfa’s office who informed us that these bills have not had any success since their introduction in 2017. However, Congressman LaMalfa’s office continues to support and work on bills that allow for increased active forest management and resiliency to wildfire, and Congressman LaMalfa recently met with Secretary of Interior Ryan Zinke, and Secretary of Agriculture, Sonny Perdue during their visit to northern California to tour the Carr fire destruction and discuss forest health and wildfire issues facing California.
R7:
The County should make full use of escalating fees if for no other reason than to assess their effectiveness. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees. Although Recommendation 7 uses the term “fees”, the Board interprets Recommendation 7 to refer to administrative 18 fines based on the paragraphs that proceed the recommendation. While the Board agrees that escalating fines can be an effective tool in obtaining compliance in cases where violators are unwilling to voluntarily abate code violations; here, Planning Department staff, in recognition of the complexities of the underlying disagreement with JH Ranch over the limitations of its 1993 zoning approval, and based upon the applicant’s expressed desire to come into conformance, are attempting to address code compliance issues through a voluntary amendment to JH Ranch’s Planned Development District zoning or development plan. However, the Board supports use of administrative fines as a code compliance tool when appropriate. In July 2018, the Board took action to amend the County Code to simplify and streamline the code enforcement process, decrease the time for violators to abate violations, establish a framework for maximizing the corrective effect of fines on violators and authorize use of hearing officers to hear and decide administrative code enforcement matters.
R8:
Active forest management is necessary to the health and welfare of our citizens and the forest itself. If H.R.2613 can be encouraged through active involvement of our BOS, perhaps a clear path forward in how we can approach the responsible management of our County’s natural resources can be obtained. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees. The Board will continue to actively support this type of legislation.
R9:
The 22 local Fire Safe Councils in Siskiyou County are the only resource we have to assist private property owners in making their homes more safe from wildfire. Most of these local Councils act independently to acquire funding, buy equipment and hire workers to perform this vital task. We recommend the BOS involve the County in the Fire Safe Council of Siskiyou County with the goal of bringing all local FSCs under one organization for the purpose of efficiency. i.e.: sharing of equipment, workers and other resources, bringing paperwork, reporting, grant writing and fund raising under one roof and ensuring all local FSC’s receive their fair share of such. Response (Board of Supervisors) The Board does not agree. While the Board agrees that coordination of information and sharing of resources is important, Fire Safe Councils are not within the jurisdiction of the County. The County Fire Warden will continue to encourage Fire Safe Councils to coordinate and share resource whenever possible. DEADWOOD CONSERVATION CAMP Summary: In accordance with State of California Penal Code 919(b), “the Grand Jury shall inquire into the condition and management of the public prisons within the county.” This conservation camp falls within the jurisdiction of a public prison. The Grand Jury inspected the camp as directed. Responses were requested from the California Department of Corrections, CALFIRE, Siskiyou County Sheriff’s Department, and Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors. *To date, no Response has been received from the Siskiyou County Sheriff’s Office to this 2017-2018 report.
R10:
Design Build Award Approved by Department of Finance November 20, 2020 [Driven by PMIB meeting on: November 18, 2020, 2 days past meeting to allow for funding to occur.] (Please note: this is the date used for the Start of Construction, not the NTP.)
R11:
Notice to Proceed November 23, 2020
R12:
Construction Completion May 17, 2022
R13:
Occupancy August 1, 2022 56
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
The new facility has very limited public parking.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
At a minimum, the parking area at the front of the facility and along Davis Street should be marked and reserved for police department visitors, similar to the way parking was restricted at the old facility.
F2:
The new facility is located in an area of limited expansion with very little room for future growth. The city had the opportunity to purchase the property to the south of the facility but declined to do so.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The City of Yreka should consider purchasing the adjoining property before it is developed. The owners of the undeveloped property to the south of the facility should be contacted. This property needs to be part of the city’s long term plan.
F3:
After a long, tedious planning and construction process, the new Yreka Police Station is a dramatic and much needed upgrade from the old station. This is a new and efficient facility that not only has boosted staff morale, but will greatly improve the safety and security of the citizens of Yreka.
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
The average coit of houiing an inmate placed in a county jail hai been reported to average over $70 per day. In Siikiyou County, the coit per inmate ii approaching $139 per day in a facility that ii flled to capacity. The coit charged to a county under contract with Deadwood Coniervaton Camp ii $10 per day. The reaion for thii diference ii the reiult of CALFIRE involvement for wildfre operatoni which ofiet the coit. Currently there are 7 vacanciei at the Deadwood Camp.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
AB109 hai placed an enormoui burden on local county jaili throughout California and eipecially in Siikiyou County. The CDC ihould take the lead to encourage contract partcipaton with countei for eligible inmatei into coniervaton programi iuch ai Deadwood. A contract with Deadwood would create additonal fexibility for county jail placement even though it may be rarely utlized.
F2:
Deadwood ii well run and providei outitanding iervice to Siikiyou County and the State of California. The camp ii in an excellent locaton to meet emergency wildfre reiponiei along with coniervaton and other community iupport. The team concept between the CDC and CALFIRE ii evident and the ieamleii operaton of itaf and the inmate fre crewi ii excellent.
F3:
The park-like ietng at Deadwood ii in reality a ready-to-go CALFIRE itaging area for regular fre crewi, well placed to provide rapid iupport ai needed. There ii plenty of ipace for heavy equipment to be pre-poiitoned ai needed and there ii iufcient area for expaniion. Everything ii there for command and control, fuel, maintenance, recreaton, houiing, etc.
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
CSSP plans at some schools are substandard and have not been reviewed annually.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Superintendent of Schools should ensure that all schools in Siskiyou County are in compliance with Education Code §32282 and have all schools’ CSSP on file.
F2:
Some schools that have their CSSP posted on a website have disclosed information that could assist criminal activity.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Schools need to review their websites and remove information that might aid criminal activity.
F3:
During the Grand Jury’s investigation it was discovered that at least one of the schools surveyed was not conducting required monthly fire drills.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Superintendent of Schools or designee should follow up with each school or school district regularly to ensure their drills are being conducted. In turn, the Superintendent of Schools or designee could require the Administrator or governing board of each school district to file a report with their office showing the dates and times of fire drills or any other emergency drills that are being conducted.
F4:
County schools currently do not have a uniform alert system for notifying parents in an emergency. The Superintendent of Schools is currently assessing an “all call” system similar to the County's Code Red system.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Superintendent of Schools should continue an assessment of the “on call” system, such as the county’s Code Red system, with a goal of implementation by January 1, 2020.
F5:
ALICE training and drills have been conducted at some schools to prepare for a potential emergency situation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
More frequent ALICE Training for school staff is advised as well as increased parent awareness. Consider including a safety procedure element such as a brochure or pamphlet in parent teacher conferences so that everyone knows what to do.
F6:
Education Code §32282(G) procedures for safe ingress and egress for pupils, parents, and employees were implemented at some schools within the county.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Consider designating all schools as a closed campus to minimize the potential for criminal activity.
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
The width and breadth of programs offered by the DRC is impressive and the cost of operations is modest, especially when compared to keeping inmates in the jail. With woodworking, gardening, animal husbandry, bicycle restoration, and education, the center offers something for everyone.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The County should continue to support the programs of the DRC.
F2:
The public could be more aware of the programs being offered. Non-profit groups could have more information about services offered through the DRC.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Steps should be taken to raise public awareness of the DRC and the work being done on their behalf. These may include posts to social media, submissions to local newspapers, public service announcements and other informational avenues.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
The Grand Jury found that Charlie Byrd Youth Corrections Center is well managed and operating efficiently. The staff is well trained, the center is clean and properly maintained. By transporting youth to the Tehama County Juvenile Hall, the cost per youth is lower than full-time on-site housing.
F2:
Youth are monitored from a centrally operated control room with oversight over the entire facility.
F3:
Educational opportunities are excellent and well managed to insure juveniles are given every opportunity to improve themselves.
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
The existing jail does not meet the needs of the county and affects law enforcement’s ability to enforce laws and maintain safety. The need to expand capacity beyond the physical limitations of the current jail facility cannot be overstated. Inspections and visits dating back many years have identified similar deficiencies in jail operations directly related to design versus adjusted capacity. It is evident that a larger, better, and more expandable jail facility is desperately needed. The only practical solution currently on the table to deal with this problem is the proposed conversion of the Juvenile Center to an adult detention facility.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Siskiyou County Civil Grand Jury recommends the proposed juvenile center conversion be further explored, developed, and implemented if practical.
F2:
Medical doctors on site (the jail currently has two) do not currently perform body cavity searches on site. This creates additional costs for transportation and hospital fees.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Pursuant to California Penal Code §4030 et seq., on-site qualified medical personnel should perform body cavity searches at the jail facility.
F3:
An arrestee processed at the County jail is often released onto the streets regardless of where they were arrested in the county. This places a burden on the arrestee, who has no way to return to their home. Local resources must then be utilized to accommodate those who live in other areas.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Siskiyou County residents released from jail should be assisted in being returned back to their community, to alleviate the burden on the City of Yreka. This could be accomplished by contacting individual or public transportation. Using vouchers and placing a designated bus stop at the jail location could simplify arrangements. Ways to assist those living outside the county should be explored in a manner that does not place an additional cost burden on the County.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
Exemption Status: Questions have been raised about the tax exemptions JH Ranch receives. JH Ranch’s properties have a religion based “welfare” exemption from Siskiyou County property taxes. An organization may claim a welfare exemption in California by obtaining a federal 501(c)3 status and providing additional documentation to the county including a description of their qualifying activity. JH Ranch states that it is a faith-based organization. The County Assessor, Treasurer and Counsel’s offices have verified JH Ranch’s qualifications for the welfare exemption. Although it took a number of attempts, JH Ranch eventually provided the required Irrevocable Dedication Clause and the necessary language in their statements to qualify both their developed and their adjoining empty parcels. (An Irrevocable Dedication Clause states that the property is irrevocably dedicated to purposes qualifying for the exemption.) For an empty parcel a statement is required, in essence, to state that they use the land for activities associated with their primary qualifying purpose – in this case spiritual walks and/or solitude. The Grand Jury found that the County has done a thorough job of verifying JH Ranch’s welfare exemption status.
F2:
Fiscal Impact Property and sales taxes are important sources of discretionary revenue for the County and are crucial in addressing local priorities. (The “Economic Contribution” section below uses financial information submitted by JH Ranch which combines the Scott River Lodge and Ranch operations so the tax totals stated here must also be combined.) Property Taxes For tax year 2017-18 JH Ranch’s French Creek exempted holdings have an assessed value of $7,726,274. The Scott River Lodge has an assessed value of $3,855,972. The combined exempted value is $11,582,000. This is the third largest welfare exemption in Siskiyou County after Fairchild Medical Center in Yreka and Mercy Medical Center in Mt. Shasta. The property tax loss to the County due to the JH Ranch tax exemptions is about $115,820. JH Ranch pays approximately $3,700 in other property taxes such as parcel taxes. Net loss to the County due to JH Ranch tax exemptions is about $112,000 annually. The proposed Plan Amendment currently being considered by the Planning Department does not appear to have any property tax consequences as the additional seven parcels are already tax exempt. JH Ranch is also exempt from paying the transient occupancy tax (paid by entities that provide lodging such as motels). It pays no federal or state income taxes and is not required to obtain a business license. Sales Taxes Sales taxes collected within a county by the state can be sent directly to the county (1.00%) and cities (0% – 0.5%) or indirectly through sales tax funds returned to local governments for specific purposes and programs. These state redirected taxes can amount to an additional 2.25%. The sales tax calculated here assumes the maximum combined rate of 3.25% (given Siskiyou’s 7.25% county rate for JH Ranch’s location). Some goods are taxed at different rates or are excise based (gas for example) which requires a different estimation approach and is accounted for here. Not all tax rate changes coincide with the calendar year, but the assumption here is that they do. Therefore, a maximum tax payment is estimated. The portion of sales and excise taxes contributed by JH Ranch to local government is estimated to be $6,900 on taxable purchases of $209,000.
F3:
Economic Contribution: Questions have been raised about JH Ranch’s economic contribution to the community. JH Ranch provided summary financial data for 2017 to allow the GJ to make a brief description of the economic impact on the Siskiyou County economy. (The GJ was limited in its ability to verify JH Ranch provided data.) The financial data provided combined both the Ranch and the Scott Valley Lodge activities; this description will also combine those two operations. These contributions include local payroll and locally purchased goods and services. Some additional fiscal and financial contribution can be attributed to expenditures that remain local for additional spending cycles (sometimes called “multiplier effects”) but these effects often diminish rapidly. The estimation of net economic impact is complex and beyond the scope of this report. JH Ranch reported a payroll of $865,450 which included 17 full time and 18 seasonal employees. They reported $349,450 spent on local services and an additional $416,350 on the purchase of goods (both taxable and non-taxable). Most of JH Ranch’s employees are housed on site and in the summer are fed on site which may affect the local economic impact of employee compensation. The portion of expenditures that remains local is likely to be larger than in other counties due to the number of independent local vendors. It may be reduced by the county’s proximity to Oregon - a tax-free state - if use taxes are not collected. JH Ranch makes local charitable donations (food and college scholarships) of about $9,000 per year.
F4:
Local Impacts: There is no doubt that the growing JH Ranch operation has had negative impacts to residents in the area in terms of traffic volume, noise and road safety. JH Ranch has made some efforts to minimize the impacts but the size and nature of the operation limits what it can realistically do. At the start of each 2-week session JH Ranch brings guests in from out of state by flying them to Sacramento and then driving them to the guest ranch in three chartered busses arriving at night. They depart the same way, also leaving at night. During their stay they take excursions for off-site activities. There are commercial deliveries, the daily traffic of JH Ranch employees, and ongoing construction related traffic. The impact is felt by everyone along the route. On a county road that is used by pedestrians, bicyclists, and equestrians French Creek Road can become crowded and at times hazardous. Noise levels from on-site music and activities have also been a local concern. In 1980 the greater Scott Valley community developed a set of guidelines for future development in their area. The Scott Valley Plan was adopted into County Code in 1980 – before JH Ranch began guest ranch operations but after the original campground was well established. The Plan states as one of its goals that “all uses of the land shall occur in a manner that is compatible with other existing and planned land uses”. The language may not be specific enough to preclude a guest ranch but it could easily be argued that JH Ranch’s size exceeds the spirit of the document. The County does not currently have a noise ordinance.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Recommendations: Increased congestion and loss of what all of us consider an earned right to the quiet enjoyment of our local environment is a statewide phenomenon. It is not likely to decrease in the foreseeable future. That does not mean that nothing can be done about it. There are likely few legal remedies which mean that personal responsibility will play an important part. Everyone that uses these roads must attempt to mitigate their impact by obeying speed limits and slowing down further when sharing the road with a horse or pedestrian. The County should adopt an enforceable noise ordinance as has been done in many other California counties. The County Road Department should install additional speed limit and “Share the Road” signs on French Creek Road. The occasional visit by law enforcement might also help. JH Ranch should find ways to further reduce noise and traffic levels.
F5:
Staffing: Employee turnover has been an issue in the Community Development Department as a whole and has had a particularly large impact in the Planning Department. The problem is most noticeable among department heads and skilled positions where it is common for employees to leave after just a year or two of service. These positions often remain vacant for months. This turnover has caused a loss in morale and productivity for many years. It can take a number of months for a planner to come up to speed on existing projects which causes both existing and new applications to get delayed. There are members of the community who have waited years for their applications to be processed and have grown frustrated by having to work with so many different Planning and CDD directors in Siskiyou County. At the time of this report’s submission the County has been without a Community Development Director and senior planner for many months. It also has no building inspectors – both having left for pay related reasons. The prospects for finding replacements for these positions appear bleak. This is due in large part to labor market conditions for community development professionals. Following the economic downturn from 2008 to 2013 many professionals left the field, or retired, leaving a general supply shortage. At this point the compensation offered in Siskiyou County cannot compete with most other counties. The County’s recruitment efforts appear to be reasonable. They include postings on many government job websites, publication in the Sacramento area, and the use of private recruiters. Siskiyou County has always attempted to fill positions through promotion from within. This has many benefits including drawing new employees from the larger labor pool that exists for entry level positions but also has some drawbacks.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Recommendations: The GJ recommends that the pay and benefits packages for these positions be reviewed and made more competitive. While understanding that promotion from within is an effective solution in many situations, there must be a balanced approach when filling skilled positions such as those in the planning field. It is important that knowledge gained from experience in other settings and from formal professional training and education be a part of the mix.
F6:
Fees for Service Fees for services provided by the Planning Department to applicants are very low in comparison to most other counties in the state and fall far short of the true cost of providing major services to applicants. The Department estimates the costs for some major services run ten times what the fixed fee recovers. For example, the cost of doing a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review can exceed $10,000 and the flat fee that the County charges is about $1,000. This has been a policy that the Board of Supervisors (BOS) strongly supports despite periodic requests from the Community Development Department for increased fees. Their rationale is that recovering the cost of these services would discourage business development and in turn reduce future tax revenue generation. It is reported that this also stems from their general belief that “less government is better”. In a Grand Jury survey of the ten California counties closest to Siskiyou (Del Norte, Modoc, Humboldt, Trinity, Shasta, Lassen, Mendocino, Tehama, Plumas, Butte), all but Trinity incorporate some form of full cost recovery into their fee schedule. Many of these counties have similar economic characteristics to Siskiyou. Siskiyou County’s largest cities - Yreka and Mt. Shasta - also implement full cost recovery for similar major services. An additional benefit of a material commitment to the application and review process would possibly be that applicants would take the process more seriously – a notable lacking in some of the efforts put forth.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Recommendations: It makes market sense that service fees could deter development by adding to its cost. It would have the most impact on those organizations that have the least available resources. However, there is a valid concern that general taxpayer subsidies for private development are not appropriate when applied in this indiscriminant form and when more equitable and efficient methods of encouraging development are available. These alternatives include economic development corporations, Small Business Administration loans, and the various organizations that support non-profits through grant funding. The additional revenue that full cost recovery could generate would be rather small – estimated by the Planning Department to be around $100,000 per year. However, given the difficulty with budget limitations that this county is currently experiencing it would seem reasonable that the County take another look at their current policies. From an accounting and public transparency perspective it is always helpful for expenses to match up with revenue. The County should do its own survey of cost recovery methods used by other California county planning departments – including their analysis of development impacts - and adopt policies that are in line with California standard practices. If there is evidence of adverse impacts to development by these fees then the County should consider offering other types of inducement targeting the smaller businesses and organizations most affected. Once again, targeted inducements have greater transparency and efficiency. The survey should be made public and any decisions concerning County policy should be discussed in a public venue. The GJ requests that the survey and public discussion take place by December 1, 2018. It should also be noted that while the principle of “less government” is useful to keep in mind, it is only applicable after the full responsibilities of government are executed.
F7:
Code Enforcement Over the years there have been numerous letters written by the County to JH Ranch or its attorneys demanding that they comply with code and occupancy requirements. (One of these letters was written by the Director of Community Development at the request of the 2008 GJ report.) The letters have often threatened legal action. To date there has never been any citation or legal action taken by the County in response to a non-compliance issue at JH Ranch. There are various reasons for this. Like most counties, the preferred method to resolve code violations is to issue a “Notice of Violation” and ask that the owner fix the problem. Most violations are corrected within a stated time limit. If the violation is not resolved, then the County has the option to issue an administrative or criminal citation. In Siskiyou County it can take 3-6 months to issue a citation. The County does not often resort to either type due to the time and effort involved and their limited effectiveness in getting compliance. With a maximum fine of $100 recovered from the owner (when it is prosecuted as an infraction) there simply isn’t much of an incentive for the property owner to comply. The issuance of a citation, and its prosecution as an infraction, does not compel an owner to correct a violation – it only compels the owner to pay the fine. Although escalating fees are an option included in the County Code, that option is rarely pursued. The County would argue that using the Department’s limited resources to achieve compliance from those willing to comply is far better than trying to get compliance from those willing to ignore the law and suffer the consequences. Another issue raised by the Community Development Department is described as a “don’t ask permission, ask forgiveness” attitude that illustrates the numbers game that is played by many property owners. There are so few code enforcement officers in such a large county that the “numbers” are on the property owner’s side. This same expression was used by JH Ranch to describe their approach during prior years.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
Recommendations: The County should make full use of escalating fees if for no other reason than to assess their effectiveness.
F8:
Moving Forward The recent changes in JH Ranch’s management and their efforts to resolve outstanding permits and code violations are positive signs as is the County’s intentions to get a new Plan Amendment in place. A tentative agreement on how CALFIRE’s 4290 road requirements might be met and JH Ranch’s stated intentions to begin the engineering work on that project are also steps forward. Overall, this may present the best opportunity in many years for the County and JH Ranch to get a plan amendment completed and bring some degree of closure to the Scott Valley community.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
Recommendations: Provided that all sides in this issue are willing to compromise in the spirit of community, the GJ recommends that a PDPA based on JH Ranch’s March 2018 proposal be completed subject to the following conditions and recommendations: JJHH RRaanncchh must respect the rural nature of the community they live in. Your neighbors chose this location for the same reason you did. JH Ranch has stated that, even if the PDPA currently under consideration is approved, it may seek further expansion in the future through rezoning. In exchange for the County’s acceptance of the 53 person occupancy expansion in the PDPA, JH Ranch should pledge publicly that it will not seek any future expansion of its operations in the vicinity of French Creek. JH Ranch must complete the 4290 modifications as required by CALFIRE or as preempted by the County. This is a life and death issue. NTheeig ahnbtoi-rJHs Ranch signage should be removed. It degrades the rural experience and community tone in ways similar to traffic noise. At this point they do not serve any valuable purpose. CThoeu notcyc upancy limits stated in the March 2016 PDPA proposal should be adopted with the following provisions: 1. That it specify clearly the maximum number of guests and the maximum number of employees that can be housed within the planned development to prevent shifting of employees into adjacent housing in order to increase the guest count over time. This must be legally enforceable. 2. That it specify the number of “transition nights” (2) in which the occupancy is allowed to grow beyond the base level. 3. That it specify any seasonality or program descriptors for which occupancy limits apply. 4. It should not allow outdoor concerts or similar special events. It is the premise of the Ranch that it operates as a spiritual and contemplative environment. That is part of the self-declared basis of its religious welfare exemption. To deprive others in the area of a similar quiet enjoyment of their neighborhood would be inappropriate. 5. Given the sizable annual tax break JH Ranch receives from the County, the County should not accept financial responsibility for any of the 4290 road improvements.
F9:
Stalemate There is still a potential for indefinite delay on this. The incentives for each side are not entirely clear. Although CALFIRE may insist that 4290 requirements are met, in the end they have no authority to compel JH Ranch to do so. CALFIRE’s main leverage comes from their possible refusal to sign off on any plan amendment the County approves. This would place the liability risks resulting from a fire squarely on the County. It is unlikely the County would assume those risks. There is the possibility that the County could legally modify the CALFIRE requirements and bypass the necessity for CALFIRE approval but that has never been done in this county and it is unknown (by the GJ) to what extent that has been attempted in other counties. It is also unknown what affect that would have on liability issues. The public record has shown that the County is either unable or unwilling to test its ability to enforce occupancy limits at JH Ranch. This could be due to possible ambiguities in the 1993 plan amendment or it could be because of the difficulty of enforcing occupancy in general. (It is not feasible to walk in and perform a head count.) JH Ranch is a business. This is made clear in their March 2016 PDPA proposal when they state that their current operations are the “minimum sustainable business model for JH Ranch”. If they are running a sustainable business then what incentive would they have to change the status quo unless there are business consequences to non-compliance? This is particularly evident if they can avoid the cost of completing the 4290 road modifications and the effort of completing a new Plan Amendment by simply doing nothing. It is possible that JH Ranch would have some liability exposure to wildfires given their awareness that such risks exist and CALFIRE’s demand that access problems be fixed. It is also possible that their desire to maintain good community relations - which is a good business decision, as well - will play a role. JH Ranch’s recent efforts to work with the County and its cooperation with this investigation should be encouraging. REQUESTS FOR RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal Code section 933.05(f), the Siskiyou County Civil Grand Jury requests response from the Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors as follows: R4 – R8. The County Administrative Office is requested to respond to R5. Reports issued by the Civil Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code section 929 requires that reports of the Civil Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides such information Note: The Siskiyou County Civil Grand Jury would like to thank JH Ranch and all the entities and individuals who cooperated with this investigation.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
All board members are related to each other and live on the same property.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
While it is not illegal for board members to be related, voters within the Delphic School District boundaries who find this objectionable should strive to elect new board members.
F2:
Boundaries of Delphic School District are very small (about seven square miles). 58 of the 60 enrolled students live outside of the district boundaries.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Parents and the School Board should explore ways to increase boundaries or negotiate with another district to possibly merge districts.
F3:
School Board members are all on the same election cycle.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The District and the Siskiyou County Clerk’s office need to work together to address the staggering of elections for board seats.
F4:
It appears that the School Board did not act upon information shared by parents and staff concerning allegations of employees behaving in an inappropriate manner towards students and/or adults. F5: School Board members list the school phone number in lieu of individual contact information. The school takes messages and passes them on to the correct board member. F6: The School Board knowingly violated the Brown Act in regard to closed session. RECOMMENDATIONS R1: While it is not illegal for board members to be related, voters within the Delphic School District boundaries who find this objectionable should strive to elect new board members. R2: Parents and the School Board should explore ways to increase boundaries or negotiate with another district to possibly merge districts. R3: The District and the Siskiyou County Clerk’s office need to work together to address the staggering of elections for board seats. R4: The School Board needs to act immediately upon any and all concerns brought to their attention concerning student and/or staff safety and well-being. In accordance with the Brown Act regarding confidentiality in closed session, the Board should find a way to inform concerned parties that their complaints have been addressed. R5: School Board members, at a minimum, should have individual voice mailboxes set up through the school. Board members should continue to maintain their individual e-mail addresses. R6: All School Board members must attend the next scheduled Small School District Board training session re: The Brown Act. REQUEST FOR RESPONSES: Pursuant to Penal Code section 933.05, the Siskiyou County Civil Grand Jury requests responses from Delphic Elementary School Board to all of the above recommendations and the Siskiyou County Clerk is requested to respond to F3 and R3. Reports issued by the Civil Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code section 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.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The School Board needs to act immediately upon any and all concerns brought to their attention concerning student and/or staff safety and well-being. In accordance with the Brown Act regarding confidentiality in closed session, the Board should find a way to inform concerned parties that their complaints have been addressed.
F5:
School Board members list the school phone number in lieu of individual contact information. The school takes messages and passes them on to the correct board member.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
School Board members, at a minimum, should have individual voice mailboxes set up through the school. Board members should continue to maintain their individual e-mail addresses.
F6:
The School Board knowingly violated the Brown Act in regard to closed session.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
All School Board members must attend the next scheduled Small School District Board training session re: The Brown Act. REQUEST FOR RESPONSES: Pursuant to Penal Code section 933.05, the Siskiyou County Civil Grand Jury requests responses from Delphic Elementary School Board to all of the above recommendations and the Siskiyou County Clerk is requested to respond to F3 and R3. Reports issued by the Civil Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code section 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.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
Deadwood is well run and provides an important service to the state at reasonable cost. The respect shown between Department of Corrections officers and CALFIRE officers was evident. The inmates do a beautiful job maintaining the grounds and the facility and the food provided in the dining area is outstanding.
F2:
The cost of housing an inmate placed in a county jail facility has been reported to average $70 per day. The cost per inmate in Siskiyou County is approaching $135 per day in a facility that is filled to capacity. The cost charged to a county jail by contract to the Deadwood Conservation Camp is $10 per day. The reason for this difference is the result of CALFIRE involvement for wildfire operations which offsets the cost. Currently there are 19 vacancies at the Deadwood Camp. Siskiyou County does not currently utilize Deadwood as an extension to the County Jail. Very few jail inmates would likely be eligible for incarceration at Deadwood, due to the nature of their sentences; however, each inmate that could be sent to Deadwood means another jail bed available for another inmate.
F3:
There are no onsite medical facilities at the camp. Fire teams are well trained in emergency medical treatment and normally take care of minor injuries. Those requiring additional care are transported to advanced medical facilities as needed.
F4:
Deadwood could place more emphasis on training inmates to handle the responsibilities of life outside of prison.
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Keep up the good work.
R2:
Steps should be taken to fill vacancies whenever they occur. The fact that Deadwood resides in Siskiyou County should encourage coordination between county and state law enforcement agencies to reduce costs and provide services to the community.
R3:
Deadwood staff should look into ways to better equip inmates to handle life on the outside. The Siskiyou County Day Reporting Center in nearby Yreka makes this type of training a priority.
R4:
The size of the staff and inmate population should require a dedicated onsite medical facility or station to deal with injuries that do not require evacuation to an advanced care center.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
The Gap fre started near the top of Johnny O’Neia Ridge in the Seiad Creek watershed at 6pm on August 27, 2016 and spread quickay into the Horse Creek watershed and into the community of Horse Creek where it destroyed nine homes. The rapid expansion of the fre was due to heavy fuea aoading, record aevea ERCs and intense downsaope winds.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Aathough nothing can be done about “intense downsaope winds., the issue of “record aevea ERCs. due to heavy fuea aoading can and shouad be addressed. The Siskiyou County the Board of Supervisors (BOS) is the representatve voice for the citzens of Siskiyou Countys we therefore recommend the BOS take a proactve roae in putting pressure on any and aaa aegisaaton at the Federaa and State aevea that addresses fre preventon in our County.
F2:
Fire crews were prevented from accessing the fre from Horse Creek due to a dangerous downfaaa on forest road 47N77, requiring them to move to Seiad Creek Road.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
As the Grand Jury is unabae to infuence State and Federaa agencies, we recommend the BOS impaore the USFS and CALFIRE to keep aaa access roads caear of faaaen trees and other hazards.
F3:
The exact cause of the Gap fre remains unknown but is atributed to human actvity as the weather was caear.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Unabae to fnd out if the investgaton into the cause of the Gap Fire is ongoing, we recommend the BOS open its own investgaton to fnd out if there may be a case for negaigence or intent.
F4:
USFS states that “evacuatons remained in paace from August 27 unta 5:30 September 7, 2016. Some aocaa residents caaim they were not notfed unta the next night when the fre was burning into the community and the Sherif’s department was dispatched to faciaitate evacuatons.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
It is staa not exactay caear what the methods and tmeaines were for evacuaton notfcaton. What is caear is that Horse Creek residents were not given ampae tme to evacuate. We recommend the BOS review Countyewide evacuaton procedures and communicatons protocoas incauding the Code Red system and impaement an efectve paan for tmeay notces.
F5:
The intensity and rapid spread of this wiadfre created a traoc jam on the Horse Creek Bar Road between responding fre crews and citzens evacuatng.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
We recommend the BOS review coordinaton and communicaton procedures between the Siskiyou County Sherif and aaa fre agencies, incauding CALFIRE and USFS, for traoc controa.
F6:
There is signifcant Federaa, State and County aegisaaton designed to address the preventon and suppression of wiadfres.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
We recommend the BOS do research into aaa the reaevant aegisaaton in order to bring more resources and funding into our County for fuea treatment and fre suppression.
F7:
In spite of the aegisaaton mentoned in F6, not enough is actuaaay being done and two federaa biaas that shouad heap prevent future wiadfres, H.R.2613 and H.R.2862 have been sitting in commitee for 9 months.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
We have atempted to fnd out why H.R.2613 and H.R.2862 are ted up in commitee but have had no response from either our Representatve or Senator. We recommend the BOS contact them to determine what can be done to get this vitaa aegisaaton enacted.
F8:
Most professionaa foresters agree that “Actve forest management is the most important tooa in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and aowering the threat and severity of wiadfress. (Stewart 2010).
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
Actve forest management is necessary to the heaath and weafare of our citzens and the forest itseaf. If H.R.2613 can be encouraged through actve invoavement of our BOS, perhaps a caear path forward in how we can approach the responsibae management of our County’s naturaa resources can be obtained.
F9:
There are 22 aocaa Fire Safe Councias in Siskiyou County tasked with fre preventon (freesafeing) on private property and, whiae most are very actve, there is a aack of funding and coordinaton.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
The 22 aocaa Fire Safe Councias in Siskiyou County are the onay resource we have to assist private property owners in making their homes more safe from wiadfre. Most of these aocaa Councias act independentay to acquire funding, buy equipment and hire workers to perform this vitaa task. We recommend the BOS invoave the County in the Fire Safe Councia of Siskiyou County with the goaa of bringing aaa aocaa FSCs under one organizaton for the purpose of eociency. i.e.: sharing of equipment, workers and other resources, bringing paperwork, reportng, grant writng and fund raising under one roof and ensuring aaa aocaa FSC’s receive their fair share of such.
Additional documents
Documents found alongside this year's reports — not grand jury reports or responses.