Gran Jurado del Condado de Trinity

2002-2003

2 informes

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 14 hallazgos
F1: The naming of private roads is a top priority in order to get the mapping/addressing system complete and working. Many of the roads in Trinity County are not officially named. Roads within the county serving two or more properties must have an official road name. The county has a process and criteria for the naming of roads. Citizens needing to name a private road should contact the Planning Department for more information. If a road has an official name and intersects with a county road, the county will provide a street name sign, post and bracket to be installed by the local Fire Department. The county is currently in the process of assigning addresses to all parcels within the county. Upon completion of this process, the county will send a notice to all property owners and request verification of the address information provided.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R1: a) The county must continue to place a high priority on the naming and mapping of all roads within the county. b) The Planning Department must communicate with the property owners of unnamed private roads and provide the process and criteria for naming them. c) The Grand Jury also encourages the Planning Department to continue providing the road signs, posts, and post brackets. d) Residents with private roads that intersect with private roads should contact the Planning Department for information for signing their roads. e) The county needs to complete the current addressing and notify the owners of record of the new addresses. They must also request verification as to the correctness of the address information.
R1B: There should be an information center within the county for all medical information from various departments that are concerned with health and safety. CONCLUSION: The Grand Jury wishes to thank Dr. Krouse for his time, courtesy, and friendly cooperation. His willingness to serve the county in this capacity is a great service to the community. 2002-2003 TRINITY COUNTY GRAND JURY PUBLIC HEALTH NURSING INVESTIGATION #2: METHOD OF INVESTIGATION: The Health and Human Services Committee went to the Public Health Nursing office and interviewed the Public Health Nursing Supervisor, Elise Osvold-Doppelhauer. Operation of the office was observed. Several clients of Public Health Nursing known to members of this committee were informally asked about their experiences with the department.
F2: When an emergency call comes into the Sheriff's Office, there is a place on the E-911 computer screen to automatically display the caller’s listed name, area code, telephone number and street address. This is helpful when a caller is unable to give their address. The Sheriff's Office Dispatcher can see the address and send appropriate help. Currently most of this vital information is not displayed on the E-911 screen. Several tests were done using the phone numbers of three Development & Environmental Committee members representing Lewiston (SBC/Pac Bell Telephone Company), Rush Creek and Burnt Ranch (Verizon Telephone Company) areas. Although the correct phone numbers were displayed, none of the addresses were correct. The displayed addresses included 1) no data found, 2) an incorrect street name with zero as the street number and 3) a correct street name with an incorrect street number.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2: a) The E-911 Coordinator must establish primary contacts with each of the telephone companies (Verizon, SBC/Pac Bell and TDS) and work collaboratively in order to provide the correct phone number, address and listed name to the Dispatcher. b) The E-911 Coordinator must set a target date by which county customers with existing phone number, address and listed name are correctly displayed when E-911 calls come into the Sheriff’s Office.
F2A: This finding describes the process, time lines, and procedures of the County’s participation in the employee retirement funds, the financial obligations of the Taxable Pension Obligation Bond (see part A ) and the Over/(Under) Funded liabilities of CalPERS (see part B ). The BOS authorized in August 1993 that all County employees switch from the John Hancock retirement fund to CalPERS. When this occurred, the County guaranteed by the issuance of a Certificate of Participation with CalPERS that, first, all employees would be enrolled in CalPERS, secondly, the County would guarantee the retirement of all employees and, thirdly, the County would obligate itself to keep its contribution(s) to CalPERS within guidelines. The addition of all County employees to CalPERS, by the BOS, resulted in successive years of differences between the ‘Projected Net Assets Available For BenefitsColumn “A” below’ and the ‘Projected Pension Benefit Obligationscolumn “B” below’ which might result in an ‘Over/(Under) Funded Projected Benefit Obligationse column “D” below’. The County contributes funds to CalPERS who immediately deposits those funds into its overall investment accounts. Notwithstanding the monthly County contributions to CalPERS, its changing investment value also varies day-to-day, and therefore the value of the County’s portion also changes value. Each year CalPERS estimates the County’s participation value (see column “A” below) as well as the actuarial value of the County’s benefit obligations (see column “B” below), which results in the amount of projected Over/(Under) Funded liability (see column “D” below. Column “A” represents the projected value of the funds the County contributes each pay period and any additional funds as invested in CalPERS and as projected to be available for employee benefits. Column “B” represents the projected value of the County’s Benefit Obligations as projected to be available for employee benefits. Column “C” represents Percentage Funded Column “D” represents the Over/(Under) Funded amounts The addition of ALL County employees to CalPERS, the declining value of the County’s participation value relative to its benefit obligations and the ever-increasing Under Funded Liability brought about certain subsequent activities. The Committee was informed that if there were any Under Funded Liability obligations then a ‘smoothing formula’ would be put into effect so that the County’s monthly contribution would be increased in order to keep the Under Funded liability to as close to zero as practicable. The County continued its yearly funding contribution obligations until 1998 when the BOS authorized a bond to be issued (see chart ) in the principal amount of $9.14 million to equalize the difference between Assets Available for Benefits (see column “A” above) and Projected Pension Benefit Obligations (see column “B” above). The resultant net bond amount of $8,773,390, after subtracting issuance costs, was deposited with CalPERS who immediately added the funds to its investment portfolio in the County’s behalf. The total payback of principal and interest over the 20-year period of the bond will be $17,710,767. The Grand Jury noted that in fiscal year 2017 a bond payment of approximately $1.4 million is due and payable by the County. This bond amount is more than twice the amount due in fiscal year 2003. CONCLUSION #2A: The BOS authorized the bonds in the amount of $9.14 million to be added to the funding of CalPERS in one step in lieu of many small steps instead of relying on the ‘smoothing formula’. The funds, which the County pays to CalPERS, are immediately added to the CalPERS investment portfolio, which fluctuates with the commercial investment market. The County should be proactive in evaluating CalPERS’ future. The 1998 BOS authorized the long-term bond, which cannot be changed over time with a 20-year fixed payout feature, whose funds are then entered into a variable investment. The Committee has received information indicating the CalPERS investments themselves could diminish. The County would then be required to add more funds to prevent under funding. The County, due to the fluctuating investment market, should evaluate its financial responsibilities monthly. The County should not simply rely on additional bond funding to alleviate any potential problem. FINDING # 2B: The Committee evaluated the years (1993-2001) wherein all County employees were enrolled in CalPERS and then compared the results of the ‘smoothing’ formula (see CalPERS Actuarial Information table above). The Committee noted that an immediate under funded liability occurred (1993) which built up to a high of $8.6 million in 1996 and decreased to $5.865 million (1997) or a $2.7 million reduction in one-year. The BOS authorized a $9.14 million bond, which over funded the CalPERS account by $3.849 million and it still remains over funded as of 2001. The Committee noted that the County is obligated to pay off the bond (see chart ) while at the same time the County has over funded its CalPERS requirements. CONCLUSION #2B: The Committee recognized that the $9.14 million bond over a payoff period of 20 years would cost the County $17.71 million including principal, interest, and cost of issuance. The County was not required to over fund its contribution account and therefore did not need to pass such a large bond, or possibly other means of funding could have been implemented which would have eliminated the need for a bond altogether. The Grand Jury recognizes the complexity and ever changing potential political and budgetary forces competing for County tax funds. The Committee also recognizes that IF ALL procedures were met on a ‘year-to-year’ basis regarding the amount of funds given to CalPERS to meet County requirements, there still is the uncertain investment market forces which can change its funding obligations dramatically. Considering the ever changing forces which affect the CalPERS investments and hence the County’s share thereof (some of which are in the millions of dollars per yeartables listed above) the BOS should monitor the accounts closely.
F2B: I do not have enough information to agree or disagree. It was not the intent of the county to "overfund" PERS when issuing the bonds. They were issued for the amount that PERS calculated as an un-funded liability, at the time of issuance. As mentioned in the report, the over-funding shown in subsequent years demonstrates how, changing market conditions, long delays in PERS actuarial calculations, as well as other factors can change over or under funding in a given year.
F3: When an E-911 call comes into the Sheriff's Office from TDS phone customers or from Trinity Village, the switching center's telephone number appears on the E-911 screen instead of the caller’s telephone number. The screen thus displays a useless phone number, no street name, no street number and no listed name. This requires the caller to provide the emergency information.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R3: a) The Grand Jury recommends that the BOS encourage TDS and the Trinity Village provider to update their switching service to provide the E-911 caller’s phone number, address and name. b) The E-911 Coordinator needs to be persistent in his efforts to have TDS and the Trinity Village provider update their switching service to provide the E-911 caller’s phone number, address and listed name. c) TDS phone subscribers and Trinity Village residents need to request an updated system that will provide E-911 caller information.
R3a: The Board of Supervisors agrees with this finding and will encourage TDS and the Trinity Village provider to upgrade their switching service to provide the E-91 1 caller's phone number, address and name.
F4: The county has changed addressing systems several times over the years. This has caused a major delay in completion of the addressing system. Currently there is an ordinance in place, which defines the uniform addressing system for Trinity County.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R4: a) The Grand Jury recommends that the GIS Committee implement the existing county ordinance for the uniform addressing system. b) The BOS must establish a meaningful date for completion of the county wide addressing project.
R4b: The Board of Supervisors has every expectation to have an address for every parcel by the end of the 2003-2004 fiscal year.
F5: When an emergency call comes into the Sheriff's Office, the Dispatcher receives the call on the E-911 system and then contacts the appropriate emergency service agencies via a radio system/console. The equipment currently in use needs to be replaced as it is no longer reliable and as of June 30, 2003 is no longer under warranty.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R5: This recommendation has been implemented. Return to Report Report[ E-911 Emergency System Committee[ Development & Environment Committee Type[ Response From[ John Jelicich, Planning Director TO: The Honorable Anthony C. Edwards, Presiding Judge of the Superior Court FROM: John Jelicich, Planning Director SUBJECT: Response to Recommendations of 2002-2003 Grand Jury, Development & Environmental Committee Report E-911 Emergency System DATE: July 21, 2003 The Grand Jury Development & Environmental Committee has requested a written response to their final report on the E-911 Emergency System. In my capacity as Planning Director, my response to Finding 1 and Recommendations la,lb and lc, as requested by the Committee is as follows:
F6: There is currently no system of support to provide continuing maintenance or financial support for the yearly operational expenses of this essential communications system. (FIRE/EMS Repeater System).
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R6: The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors must allocate revenues to this VITAL system as has been allocated to the other county communications systems funded in the past.
F7: Almost all of the vehicles used by the volunteers are at least second-hand. Spare parts are sometimes difficult or impossible to find, thus making necessary repairs expensive.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7: The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors needs to establish a stable source of funding such as a County Fire/EMS Fund to help the volunteer departments replace these old vehicles on a regular basis.
F8: There is a possibility of a local Redding Hospital cutting back on services (Helicopter etc.) or closing. Losing one helicopter would reduce air response from Redding by one half to Trinity County. This would require Trinity County Life Support to make more Redding transports which could cut down on possible ambulance coverage in Trinity County.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R8: The Grand Jury refers this to the Board of Supervisors for study by a special ad hoc committee to focus on solving this problem. 3
F9: Trinity County Life Support and many Volunteer Fire Departments may not survive due to the rising costs of Workers’ Compensation Insurance and Liability Insurance.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R9: The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors find a method to provide Workers Compensation and Liability Insurance to Trinity County Life Support and the Volunteer Fire Departments
F10: Rural/Urban Interface will continue to present challenges on how to provide fire and rescue services to Trinity County. People will continue to build and live in remote areas. They will demand and expect more services and will want regulations that will control volunteers activity. This will result in more to do with less to do it. This can only be done by an increase in the Tax Base for some of the departments; Ad Valorem Tax is only available to a few departments.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R10: The Grand Jury refers this to the Board of Supervisors for study by a special ad hoc committee to focus on solving this problem.
F11: Trinity County Life Support might not be able to function as it currently does if Trinity Hospital were to close. The majority of the volunteer fire departments are dependent on Trinity County Life Support to transport patients. They provide very good required medical training.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R11: The Board of Supervisors needs to continue to support Trinity County Life Support with their needs.
F12: There are only 4 departments having transport ability to Trinity Hospital now. Coverage of the county would be difficult if the Hospital were to close? (Southern Trinity Area Rescue would continue to transport to the coast as they currently are doing). 4
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R12: The Grand Jury strongly recommends that the Board of Supervisors do everything in their power to retain the hospital. CONCLUSIONS: HOMELAND SECURITY IS DEPENDENT ON THE VOLUNTEER FIRE AND RESCUE ORGANIZATIONS FOR FIRST RESPONSE. 1. The Grand Jury wishes to thank all of the Pre-Hospital Care Personnel who were interviewed and especially their honesty and openness. 2. The entire system is dependent on the volunteers to provide leadership to both their own organization and their communities. 3. One of the keys to the success of these efforts rests upon having a stable source of funding for Fire and Rescue Services. The average tends to be 90% Medical Calls and 10% fires. A general rule of thumb is that the Fire and Rescue Services will be about equal to the Law Enforcement Services. The Board of Supervisors needs to establish a County Fire/EMS Fund as allowed by California’s Health and Safety Code Section 1797.98. This fund would receive income from fines or assessments on vehicle moving violations and other certain criminal offenses. All Trinity County Fire and EMS agencies could benefit from this as the County does not have to draw the money from their General Fund. 4. Many issues will arise during the process of obtaining funding for these services. There is a VERY STRONG NEED for the Volunteers to be represented continually at the County Level by a person with vast experience in volunteer work, who also possesses the skills to obtain various sources of funding for these services. In addition to the person’s own department duties they would also meet with County, Regional, and perhaps State Government Representatives as an Equal Partner in achieving a solution to the issues that will come up dealing with funding of these services. Grant Funding would possibly be able to fund this position. Under Penal Code 933, the following entities are required to respond to the listed
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 3 hallazgos
F1: Evidence collected indicates that Supervisor Reiss entered a local business and went to the counter where a Citizens Signature Petition was sitting in plain view on a clipboard. He picked up the petition and scanned the signatures to see whether he could recognize any names. He forcefully returned the clipboard to the counter, causing it to slide off the counter in the direction of a customer and onto the floor. One customer was so startled by the Supervisor's actions that she asked if the owners wanted her to call 911 for help. Mr. Reiss then went to the back of the business and in an angry voice addressed the owner with profanity saying "You're an asshole for putting this petition in the store". The storeowner tried to explain that a place was provided where all citizens, whether he agreed with their positions or not, could post protests of local government actions. The Supervisor was then heard to say that he would never do business in that establishment again. The Grand Jury heard other testimony that Mr. Reiss had called a District 5 business owner, at night, and on her daughter's home telephone to query her as to why she had the petition in her business. Following the call, this business owner had the petition removed from her store. Supervisor Reiss' activities were intimidating and unbecoming of a public official.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: The Board of Supervisors should adopt a standard of ethics and conduct for all current and future members of the Board.
F2: The California Elections Codes are stringent and strictly enforced during an election period; e.g. the preparation for voting, voting and the counting of votes. They are much less defined and stringent during other periods such as during campaigns and petitions. Mr. Reiss' activities occurred during a petition period.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2: The Board of Supervisors should obtain training on the California Elections Codes to educate themselves about activities that are permitted during election periods and petition periods.
F3: During evidence collection it became apparent that new Board of Supervisor members receive little or no training to help prepare them for the demands of the office.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3: The Board of Supervisors should develop job description information, including handbooks, for newly elected members to help them absorb and understand the pressures and issues they will face. The Board should also pursue whatever training is available and of value to help new members be successful and meet requirements of the Elections Code and Brown Act. CONCLUSION: The Board of Supervisors should recognize that even though a supervisor is elected from a district, each supervisor represents all citizens of Trinity County. The position is one of respect and should be carried out in a like manner at all times. RESPONSES REQUIRED: Under Penal Code 933, the following entities are required to respond to the listed

* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.