Trinity County 2015-2016 - California Grand Jury Reports

December 02, 2016 — NO Response Received Here is the County Policy on Responses Policy Statement #3-90(p) / Responses to Final Report

3 pages 6 findings

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 6 findings

F1: Upon receipt of a final or interim report as provided in Section 933 of the Penal Code, the County Clerk will distribute copies to the members of the Board of Supervisors, the County Administrative Officer, and all affected departments. The Clerk shall establish a timetable for response to the report to comply with the 90-day limitation for the Board of Supervisors and the 60-day limitation for Elective Officers and appointed Department Heads.

Page 1

F2: The County Administrator shall be responsible for the preparation of the response to the recommendations and findings of the Grand Jury.

Page 1

F3: Comments shall be due from affected department heads within 30 days. Upon receipt, the Clerk shall immediately forward copies to the County Administrative officer, Grand Jury and the Superior Court Judge.

Page 1

F4: The County Administrative Officer will review all departmental responses for adequacy and completeness and may comment on the responses but shall not alter them.

Page 1

F5: The County Administrator, in coordination with members of the Board of Supervisors, shall prepare a final draft response which shall be scheduled on the Board agenda for discussion and approval in adequate time to meet the 90 day time frame required by Penal Code Section 933.

Page 1

F6: Upon adoption by the Board, the Clerk will file the original and furnish copies of the response, together with all departmental responses, to the Superior Court Judge, the Grand Jury and others specifically requesting copies. The response shall reflect substantially the following: 1. As to each finding, whether the responding department agrees with or disputes the finding. If the finding is disputed, an explanation of the dispute should be provided.

Page 1

December 02, 2016 — NO Response Received Here is the County Policy on Responses Policy Statement #3-90(p) / Responses to Final Report

3 pages 6 findings

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 6 findings

Page 1

F2: The County Administrator shall be responsible for the preparation of the response to the recommendations and findings of the Grand Jury.

Page 1

F4: The County Administrative Officer will review all departmental responses for adequacy and completeness and may comment on the responses but shall not alter them.

Page 1

September 01, 2016 — Sea. Weaverville Community Services District*

3 pages 5 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Additional Recommendations 5

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: All Water Providers should examine their minutes, resolutions, bylaws, charters, enabling legislation, and statutes to determine what authority they have, if any, to sell or otherwise provide water to any person or property that is not within the boundaries served by the provider. If these practices do not comply, Water Providers should take immediate steps to change their practices to reflect this Recommendation. Response #1: As a Water Provider, we are faced with challenges on a daily and seasonal basis. We are continually challenged with changes in laws and regulations on a wide variety of issues including water rights. We must also be aware of supply and regulation issues caused by droughts such as the Governor's emergency regulations of 2015 and 2016 restricting the District's management of our own resources. The District is well aware of our Water Rights and obligations to our District residents. However, at the request of the Jury, we will conduct a review of our authorities pertaining to supplying water within and beyond our District boundaries.

R2: All Water Providers should meet with County officers and elected officials to examine and resolve the conflicting customs and practices described in this report regarding sale and transportation of bulk water for agricultural purposes. Response #2 Special Districts are specifically designed to run independently from other agencies in order to ensure efficient and prudent attention to the main goal of that District. Each water provider has unique characteristics as to business structure, water supplies, and regulations among many other variables. Overall management of practices by all systems would defeat the purpose of this successful structure. The success of any public water system requires a great amount of attention to the local characteristics, which cannot be achieved efficiently at such a broad level. The Districts would warn that what might seem like a reasonable restriction to one purveyor, could be a devastating blow to another, causing a collapse of the once successful public water system. Any attempt to provide oversight shall be extremely broad in nature and afford each system the ability to continue operations fitting to their circumstances.

R5: The Grand Jury recommends that the Trinity County Board of Supervisors and all Water Providers in the Trinity County take prompt action to establish goals that include sustainability and recognize water sustainability as a specific goal. Response #5 As a community water supplier, the implication of a lack of concern for water sustainability could be taken offensively. Needless to say, water sustainability is the utmost concern for all water systems. Our District strives to ensure sustainability for water supply today and in the future by balancing current demands with ecological needs. To date, we have never allowed our agencies to fully deplete our supplies during changes in land use at the County level, enactment of new state laws, and application of new propositions as well as severe droughts current and past. Our District has water shortage policies in place to deal with these challenging times and are prepared to implement them when necessary. The District is willing to educate parties on how our operations have evolved over the decades while maintaining this vital resource.

R6: The Grand Jury Recommends that the Trinity County Board of Supervisors and all Water Providers and all stakeholders assign a high priority to and participate in conducting a county wide study of carrying capacity. The study should also consider additional public and private water storage opportunities. Response #6 The District would be willing to participate in the portion of a county wide study that pertains to water availability within the District boundary. Care must be taken to avoid expending District funds studying portions of the County that will not relate to District activity. Such activities would be a misappropriation of District funds.

R8: All the Water Providers should examine their minutes, resolutions, bylaws, charters, enabling legislation and statutes regarding open meeting and public records. If they do not comply they should take immediate steps to change their practices. Response #8 We thank the Jury for this recommendation and will take appropriate action in conjunction with the previous Response #1.

September 01, 2016 — Sea. Weaverville Community Services District*

3 pages 5 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Additional Recommendations 5

Not linked to specific findings.

July 18, 2016 — Office of the Sheriff Trinity County*

7 pages 25 findings

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 25 findings

F1: & R1 Response 1 A thorough review will be conducted so that our policies and procedures better fit our department and staffing levels.

F2: & R2 Response 2 Same response as Response 1 Audits/Oversight

F3: & R3 Since receiving this report several unannounced inspections have been conducted and will continue for the duration of my administration. It should be noted that there have been no incidents pointing to or brought to my attention regarding the mishandling of any piece of evidence under our current operating system.

F4: & R4 Response 4 An audit will be conducted as soon as practical. Unfortunately current staffing levels make this task difficult to schedule. It should be noted that there have been no incidents pointing to or brought to my attention regarding the mishandling of any piece of evidence under our current operating system.

F5: & R5 Response 5 A thorough review will be conducted so that our policies and procedures better fit our department and staffing levels. Annual audits could be scheduled in the future. One consideration always has to be what public safety services will suffer to reassign staff to conduct these audits. It should be noted that there have been no incidents pointing to or brought to my attention regarding the mishandling of any piece of evidence under our current operating system.

F6: & R6 Response A thorough review will be conducted so that our policies and procedures better fit our department and staffing levels. Since receiving this report several unannounced inspections have been conducted and will continue for the foreseeable future. It has become apparent that the Grand Jury has failed to evaluate the current workload of the Sheriff, Undersheriff and other department staff members when considering their findings and recommendations. Maybe if the Grand Jury had evaluated staffing levels vs. workload they might have been surprised at the work we accomplish with so few staff members. It should be noted that there have been no incidents pointing to or brought to my attention regarding the mishandling of any piece of evidence under our current operating system. Staffing

F7: & R7 Response 7 Our current Evidence Manager is a retired TCSO Sergeant. He was trained by the previous Evidence Technician who retired approximately 6 years ago. In past budget requests I have requested that the Trinity County Board of Supervisors provide the funds to hire and train a full- time Evidence Technician but my requests have been denied. For Fiscal Year 2016-2017 I am again making the request for a full-time Evidence Technician. Though the Grand Jury Report states that there is an allocation for a full-time Evidence Technician without the funding I am unable to fill the position. It should be noted that there have been no incidents pointing to or brought to my attention regarding the mishandling of any piece of evidence under our current operating system. AND DESCRIPTION OF THE PARTY OF THE PARTY OF THE PARTY OF THE PARTY OF THE PARTY OF THE PARTY OF THE PARTY OF THE PARTY OF THE PARTY OF THE PARTY OF THE PARTY OF THE PARTY OF THE PARTY OF THE PARTY OF THE PARTY OF THE PART Training

F8: is incorrect. The previous Undersheriff assisted with the evidence room management for several years. He relinquished those duties to our current Evidence Manager upon hiring. A thorough review will be conducted so that our policies and procedures better fit our department and staffing levels. Since receiving this report several unannounced inspections have been conducted and will continue for the duration of my administration. It should be noted that there have been no incidents pointing to or brought to my attention regarding the mishandling of any piece of evidence under our current operating system.

F9: is incorrect. We have sent several department members to asset forfeiture training provided by the State of California and Federal Government. The checks and balances for asset forfeiture are quite thorough. The District Attorney reviews all state asset forfeiture cases. The U.S. Attorney's Office reviews all federal cases.

F10: & R10 Response It is my hope that the Trinity County Board of Supervisors will fund this much needed position for Fiscal Year 1016-2017. It should be noted that there have been no incidents pointing to or brought to my attention regarding the mishandling of any piece of evidence under our current operating system.

F11: & R11 Response Though the Grand Jury Report indicates that the Undersheriff has not completed CAPE and POST related evidence courses he has been collecting, processing, storing and disposing of evidence for over twenty years. There has never been a case where his collecting, processing, storing and disposing of evidence has ever been called into question by the department or state or federal courts. A thorough review will be conducted so that our policies and procedures better fit our department and staffing levels. Maybe if the Grand Jury had evaluated staffing levels vs. workload they might have been surprised at the work we accomplish with so few staff members. It should be noted that there have been no incidents pointing to or brought to my attention regarding the mishandling of any piece of evidence under our current operating system.

F12: & R12 Response Evidence collection, processing, storage and disposal for front line staff has changed little over the past couple of decades. On the other hand forensic evidence collection is now classified as a science which requires countless hours of ongoing training to stay current. When a case requires this type of evidence collection Sheriffs' Office staff have been directed to secure the scene and request that the California Department of Justice Crime Lab (CDOJCL) respond to the location so the scene is processed with the latest scientific techniques. The CDOJCL has specific personnel trained exclusively in the collection and processing of latent fingerprints. Though our staff is trained in basic fingerprinting techniques it is impractical with our current staffing levels to have someone this highly trained.

F13: & R13 Response All staff that will or may be handling narcotics are trained in the handling and processing of narcotics. It should be noted that there have been no incidents pointing to or brought to my attention regarding the mishandling of any piece of evidence, including narcotics, under our current operating system. Facilities/Storage

F14: & R14 Response The Grand Jury Report fails to identify what type of biological evidence they are referring to. Some wet evidence requires drying while others require refrigeration. Without the Grand Jury specifically identifying which they are referring too it is impossible for me to respond to this finding. It should be noted that there have been no incidents pointing to or brought to my attention regarding the mishandling of any piece of evidence under our current operating system.

F15: & R15 Response Space for storing evidence is very limited in our outdated and antiquated facility. We store biological evidence of all types in scientifically accepted methods and to the best of our ability. Again, the Grand Jury Report fails to provide specific information making it difficult to respond to this finding. One remedy will be found in the construction of the new jail facility. Our Administrative Offices, Detective and Patrol Divisions will remain at our current location, 101 Memorial Drive in Weaverville. With the inmates relocated to the new facility the old jail will provide the much needed space and temperature controlled environment we need for processing and storing evidence. It should be noted that there have been no incidents pointing to or brought to my attention regarding the mishandling of any piece of evidence under our current operating system.

F16: &R16 Response Unfortunately our current facility does not provide the space to allocate a separate room for narcotics. The current facility is alarmed and only one person has access to the locked storage area where narcotics are stored. Again, the new jail facility would aid in our current storage problems as mentioned in previous responses. It should be noted that there have been no incidents pointing to or brought to my attention regarding the mishandling of any piece of evidence, including narcotics, under our current operating system.

F17: & R17 Response Per state statute we are only required to collect and maintain a small amount of marijuana in evidence. Though I am always concerned with the health and safety of my staff, issues of mold have not been brought to my attention. I will investigate and monitor this issue but with our limited storage options we have little choice but to continue storing this evidence in its current location. The Grand Jury Report recommendation for this issue failed to advise the Trinity County Board of Supervisors that they would need to allocate funds to meet these requirements. In next year's budget I can request that the Board of Supervisors allocate funds to build a state of art evidence storage and processing facility.

F18: & R18 Response The Grand Jury Report recommendation for this issue failed to advise the Trinity County Board of Supervisors that they would need to allocate funds to meet these requirements. In next year's budget I can request that the Board of Supervisors allocate funds to build a state of art evidence storage and processing facility.

F19: & R19 Response Prescription medications are destroyed with excess jail medications and takes place on an ongoing basis. A thorough review will be conducted so that our policies and procedures better fit our department and staffing levels.

F20: & R20 Response Our Detective Division has never been responsible for the storage of drug paraphernalia. A thorough review will be conducted so that our policies and procedures better fit our department and staffing levels. It should be noted that there have been no incidents pointing to or brought to . . . . my attention regarding the mishandling of any piece of evidence under our current operating system.

F21: & R21 Response Firearms scheduled to be destroyed are stored in a separate area within the gun storage area. The Grand Jury Report failed to describe any hazard with our current storage method.

F22: & R22 Response Ammunition is removed from all firearms and the firearms are secured in locked cabinets. The ammunition is stored in separate location. Unfortunately with the limited storage space it is impractical to obtain and place a fireproof locker in our current facility. The Grand Jury Report

F23: & R23 Response A thorough review will be conducted so that our policies and procedures better fit our department and staffing levels. It should be noted that there have been no incidents pointing to or brought to my attention regarding the mishandling of any piece of evidence, including narcotics, under our current operating system.

F24: & R24 Response Plans do exist to utilize the old jail facility and move all evidence storage and processing to this new location once inmates are moved to the new jail location.

F25: & R25 Response The Trinity County Sheriffs' Office is constantly comparing numerous ammunition vendor price lists to insure that we are getting the most value for our dollars. The arrangement with Old West Gun and Loan Inc. is just one way we procure our ammunition. ٠, Sincerely, ...

July 18, 2016 — Office of the Sheriff Trinity County*

5 pages 14 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Additional Recommendations 14

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: Beginning with FY 2015-16, per State Law, the Sheriff must submit annual budget reports detailing expenditures of the inmate welfare fund. Response 1 The FY2015-16 annual budget reports detailing the inmate welfare fund expenditures is currently in progress.

R2: The Sheriff should include a justification to the Board of Supervisors for the expenditures of IMWT funds that are left to his discretion - such as mattresses, food carts and clothing. While items should be documented along with the annual budget as discretionary expenses. Response 2 Currently the outside IMWT checking account is a separate account from the Trinity County accounting system, therefore it is not part of the existing budget process. The possibility of making this accounting part of the Counties accounting system was discussed during our initial FY2016-17 budget meeting. I'm sure there will be further discussion about this in the near future. .

R3: COMMISSARY The Business Manager should develop and implement a new efficient and inmate accounting system. Response 3 Due to short staffing and a constant increase in workload due to ever increasing deadlines it would be impossible for the sole financial position in the Sheriff's Office to "develop and implement a new efficient commissary and inmate fund accounting system". The current commissary system used in the Jail is the Eagle system and was the industry standard for quite some time. Unfortunately do to the extreme expense of any of the newer systems currently in use by other agencies the Trinity County Sheriff's Office has not been able to upgrade to any of the newer Jail management systems.

R4: POLICY/PROCEDURES An annual financial audit and time study of the Inmate Welfare Fund should be completed. Response 4 The Inmate Welfare Fund is reconciled on a monthly bases and the records are emailed to both the County Auditor's office and the Treasurer's office monthly for review. In addition, the County Auditor conducts annual surprise audits on our outside checking accounts.

R5: The Business Manager should consider combining the existing accounts related to the Inmate Welfare Fund, The IMWT and Trinity County IMW accounts, to streamline IWF accounting. Response 5 The combining of the existing outside checking account for the Inmate Welfare Fund and the Trinity County IMW account was discussed during our initial FY2016-17 budget meeting. I'm sure there will be further discussion about this in the near future.

R6: The Sheriff should consider developing committees, comprised of department staff, to investigate, research, develop and report out on methods to improve department policies and procedures. Response 6 The Sheriff's Office Administration wished the staff existed to develop committees' to investigate, research, develop and report on methods to improve department efficiencies. Unfortunately current staffing levels make this impossible. The current policy and procedure manual in use through Lexipol is an industry standard used by law enforcement agencies and correctional facilities.

R7: The Sheriff, or Undersheriff, as head and chief deputy of the department respectively, should take a lead role in developing, overseeing and assigning staff to committees to pursue cost saving and efficiency improving policies and procedures. Response 7 See Response 6.

R8: Because improvements in departmental policies and procedures directly relates to the cost efficiency and effectiveness of the department, the Sheriff should allocate funds for the purpose of developing committees to improve Department policies and procedures. Response 8 The Sheriff's Office budget is currently insufficient to keep staffing levels at a minimum standard for officer safety and community safety. With safety being the Sheriff's Office primary objective it is imperative that we use all available funds to improve this vital aspect of operations prior to allocating any funds for the purpose of developing committees to improve Department policies and procedures.

R9: In conjunction with the ongoing development of plans to improve for the new jail facility, the Sheriff and his staff should develop plans to improve efficiency of the commissary and the expenditure of the IMWT for the benefit of the inmates. This could include space for GED test taking, a library, meeting rooms for club activities and television viewing which IMWT could subsequently help support financially. Response 9 It is the goal of the Sheriff's Office to develop a new jail facility that is as efficient as possible in all aspects for incarceration including the commissary process. There is program space planned for the new facility that could include GED testing, a library, etc. Historically the IMWT profits have not been consistently significant enough to sustain ongoing programs financially. The new jail project will come with its own financial challenges. Providing the most current and up to date programs and services will be our goal moving forward.

R10: The Business Manager should review and/or update the current contract with Swanson Services Corporation to verify compliance. Other vendors should be researched and contracts pursued if deemed an improvement over the existing contract. Response 10 The Business Manager has confirmed that a current contract does not exist between Swanson Services Corporation and the Trinity County Jail. One other vendor has been researched in the past, Keefe Group: Keefe Commissary Services. It is my understanding that Trinity Services Group and Swanson Services Corporation have merged into one company now and that the Keefe Group will also be merging into Trinity Services Group in the near future. With the merger of these three commissary service companies into one company, it is unclear if there are any other vendors to research at this time.

R11: EXPENDITURES/ACCOUNT/MANAGEMENT The IMW funds should be used to eliminate any cost overruns in the IMWT to avoid impacting Departmental budgets - currently averaging $566.49 per year. Response 11 Currently the outside IMWT checking account is a separate account from the Trinity County accounting system and County IMW funds, therefore it is not part of the existing budget process. The possibility of making this accounting part of the Counties accounting system was discussed during our initial FY2016-17 budget meeting. I'm sure there will be further discussion about this in the near future.

R12: The Board of Supervisors should conduct yearly visits of the jail facility and inspect corrections procedures and policies - including commissary practices and inmate welfare. Response 12 The Sheriff and his staff welcome the possibility of annual visits to the jail facility by the Board of Supervisors to discuss policies, procedures, staffing challenges, and goals and objectives. TRAINING

R13: Efforts to provide staff training should continue. Response 13 Efforts to provide the required staff training will be continued.

R14: The Sheriff should assure that all employees are familiar with departmental policies, updates to policies and that employees have a means to locate policies - either in hard copy or digital form. Response 14 The department policies and procedures are available to all staff members via an online platform as well as by a hard copy manual that is kept in the dispatch center where it can be easily updated and is accessible to all staff members. 3 1 1 Sincerely, Bruce Haney, SheriffP.O. Box 1228 101 Memorial Drive Weaverville, CA 96093 Cc: Margaret Long, Interim County Administrative Officer .

July 15, 2016 — Jur2015-2016-002 The Inmate Welfare Fund

11 pages 15 findings 14 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 15 findings

F1: At the April 7th, 2015 Board of Supervisors meeting the Sheriff reported on the past five years of expenditures from the IMWT, not annually as required by penal code. This potentially qualifies as misfeasance on the part of the Sheriff.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: Beginning with FY2015-16, per State law, the Sheriff must submit annual budget reports detailing expenditures of the inmate welfare fund.

F2: The Sherriff is in charge of a number of departmental budgets but was unaware that the IWF budget is required by law to be annually reported to the BOS. The Sheriff failed to direct department staff accordingly. Commissary

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The Sheriff should include a justification to the Board of Supervisors for the expenditures of IMWT funds that are left to his discretion – such as mattresses, food carts and clothing. While these items can be considered legitimate expenditures of IMWT monies, their approval should be documented along with the annual budget as discretionary expenses. Commissary

F3: The current IWF financial services system, such as the processing of commissary orders, is outdated and inefficient requiring significant staff time to maintain.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: The Business Manager should develop and implement a new efficient commissary and inmate fund accounting system. Policy/procedures

F4: The commissary markup is inconsistent between various commissary items. Policy/procedures

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: An annual financial audit and time study of the Inmate Welfare Fund should be completed.

F5: County Policy does not reflect state law requiring the Department to report an annual budget to the B.O.S.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: The Business Manager should consider combining the existing accounts related to the Inmate Welfare Fund, the IMWT and Trinity County IMW accounts, to streamline IWF accounting.

F6: Department employees do not have time to update, refine or overhaul current policies and procedures in order to maximize department procedure efficiency. However, some Department employees have taken the initiative to develop, refine and implement a few specific procedures that improve the efficiency and effectiveness of departmental processes.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: The Sheriff should consider developing committees, comprised of department staff, to investigate, research, develop and report out on methods to improve department policies and procedures.

F7: While early in the plans development process for the new jail facility, there are currently no specific plans for modifying the IMWT and commissary procedures in the new facility. Contract

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: The Sheriff, or undersheriff, as head and chief deputy of the department respectively, should take a lead role in developing, overseeing and assigning staff to committees to pursue cost saving and efficiency improving policies and procedures.

F8: While utilizing the service for all commissary orders, it is unclear whether a contract currently exists with Swanson Services Corporation.

Related Recommendations (1)

R8: Because improvements in departmental policies and procedures directly relates to the cost efficiency and effectiveness of the Department, the Sheriff should allocate funds for the purpose of developing committees to improve Department policies and procedures.

F9: There are currently plans to explore the use of a new vendor to simplify the IMWT and commissary procedures. However, staff time is limited to research and develop this potential vendor option. Expenditures/account/management

Related Recommendations (1)

R9: In conjunction with the ongoing development of plans for the new jail facility, the Sheriff and his staff should develop plans to improve the efficiency of the commissary and the expenditure of the IMWT for the benefit of inmates. This could include space for GED test taking, a library, meeting rooms for club activities and television viewing which IMWT could subsequently help support financially. Contract

F10: Two separate accounts are used for Inmate Welfare Fund revenues and expenditures; the IMWT account and the Trinity County IMW account.

Related Recommendations (1)

F11: In 2014, IMWT monies totaling $6,199 were used to purchase a custom made heated food cart for the commissary. In FY 12/13 mattresses ($2,010.19) and inmate clothing ($1,868.62) were purchased with IMWT funds.

Related Recommendations (1)

R11: The IMW funds should be used to eliminate any cost overruns in the IMWT to avoid impacting Departmental budgets - currently averaging $566.49 per year.

F12: A total of $102,420 has been transferred from the IMWT account to the Trinity County IMW account. 64% of the IMW account procured from the IMWT (commissary funds) was used for staff time while 35% has been spent on inmate support and care supplies.

Related Recommendations (1)

R12: The Board of Supervisors should conduct yearly visits of the jail facility and inspect corrections procedures and policies – including commissary practices and inmate welfare. Training

F13: B.O.S. visits to jail facilities are rare. Training

Related Recommendations (1)

R13: Efforts to provide staff training should continue.

F14: While financial services staff is competent and professional, training for department financial services staff is infrequent.

Related Recommendations (1)

R14: The Sheriff should assure that all employees are familiar with departmental policies, updates to policies and that employees have a means to locate policies – either in hard copy or digital form.

F15: Department staff is not fully aware of County policies, at times without a hard copy on hand or specific knowledge of how to look up policies online.

June 30, 2016 — Sdr 2015-2016-001 Final Report Approved 06/30/2016

15 pages 13 findings 10 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 13 findings

F1: Recent changes in California water law mandates managing water as a long-term sustainable resource.

F2: The County needs a cross-discipline study of carrying capacity in Trinity County that projects what population and agricultural activities the water and other resources in Trinity County are capable of supporting.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: The Grand Jury recommends that the Trinity County Board of Supervisors and all Water Providers and all stakeholders assign a high priority to and participate in conducting a county-wide study of carrying capacity. The study should also consider additional public and private water storage opportunities.

F3: Water Providers of all types within Trinity County need to sufficiently educate water users about their responsibilities for sharing water resources, potential limitations on water use, and the advantages of making sure, through sustainability, that water will be available in the future for their own use.

F4: Most governmental entities in Trinity County — departments, and other agencies — have yet to adopt sustainability provisions in their mission statements, goals, and programs, or to coordinate those efforts with other government entities.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: The Grand Jury recommends that the Trinity County Board of Supervisors and all Water Providers in Trinity County take prompt action to establish goals that include sustainability and recognize water sustainability as a specific goal.

F5: Trinity County has not participated significantly in preparations for sustainable water management, including failure to regulate grading.

Related Recommendations (3)

R3: The Trinity County Board of Supervisors should immediately review its resolutions, ordinances, and practices, as well as State law, regarding regulating, managing, and permitting wells. If they do not comply, they should take immediate steps to change their practices.

R4: The Trinity County Board of Supervisors should examine and act on ways to protect its watersheds and aquifers from unauthorized or damaging incursions.

R10: The Board of Supervisors should promptly adopt a grading ordinance.

F6: Residential water is most important. Any agricultural or other use that interferes with residential use must be well and carefully regulated.

F7: Policies of Water Providers and the County conflict. Transport of water out of District boundaries has opened up agriculture in areas, and to an extent, not anticipated or desired by County policies.

Related Recommendations (2)

F8: Some Water Providers are reluctant to provide information and disclosure of public records as required by the Brown Act.

Related Recommendations (1)

R8: All the Water Providers should examine their minutes, resolutions, bylaws, charters, enabling legislation, and statutes regarding open meeting and public records. If they do not comply, they should take immediate steps to change their practices.

F9: Water quality tests of drinking water are recognized as an expense. Most Water Provider organizations do only the State required tests. Individual owners do not have such requirements and are likely not to do any tests except at property transfer.

Related Recommendations (1)

R9: Regular testing of well water quality and quantity should be done. An incentive program would help.

F10: Water was plentiful during the last century. Water in saturated soil beneath the surface of the earth could be easily pumped for use and its availability fostered urban and agricultural growth. Riparian (land adjacent to rivers or other bodies of water) demands did not overwhelm streams. As demand for water increased, effective management became critical to protecting the future availability and quality of the supply.

F11: Excessive sediment loads to creeks and the river can negatively impact salmon and steelhead populations. For Trinity County there is concern about Coho and other Salmon or Steelhead of becoming legally endangered, as that can cause serious economic repercussions. Even just one species, such as Coho, on the endangered list would seriously impact any recreational or commercial fishing.

F12: The Grand Jury has found no evidence that the County has been managing water resources for sustainability; that is, satisfying current needs without compromising the future.

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: The Grand Jury recommends that the Trinity County Board of Supervisors acknowledge the real issues of water sustainability in Trinity County and establish, fund and support a GSA or similar entity and related laws and enforcement.

F13: The County and Water Providers have not met in a meaningful and productive way.

June 02, 2016 — Cor2015-2016-001 Money, Money Nowhere…. the Bucks Stop Here!! Approved 06/02/2016

12 pages 7 findings 7 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 7 findings

F1: The Loan Grants accounting spreadsheet is unorganized, poorly documented and in great need of management oversight.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The County should do an immediate audit of the CDBG portfolio accounting, as well as the Housing Rehab loan portfolios. The Grant Department should take advantage of online accounting spreadsheets.

F2: There is NO servicing of the loans in the CDBG portfolio other than the posting of payments, mailing out Certificates of Occupancy and Payment Coupon Books. There are no default notifications or collection efforts on the part of the County, resulting in the write off of much needed money for support services.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The County must immediately begin servicing these loans and bringing them up to date by sending out notices of late payments due, opening up communication with borrowers and, if need be, beginning foreclosure as stipulated in loan agreements. Income received would more than cover administrative costs. It should be mandatory to report the status of these loans monthly to the BOS.

F3: The HRLC has no clear method to make loan decisions.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: A check list or risk assessment policy should be created to ensure the equitable decision making for future loans or amendments. Both HUD and CDBG websites, as well as written procedure manuals, must be used as required by the programs.

F4: The HRLC has violated the Brown Act by holding email/phone call meetings as well as conference call meetings.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: Both the BOS and general public should review the documentation and refer violations to the District Attorney for prosecution, if warranted.

F5: The BOS and the HRLC failed to provide the required special “Public Meetings” regarding grant funds.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: Going forward, the BOS shall ensure transparency of all County business and adhere to Federal and State laws to avoid possible prosecution.

F6: The HRLC meeting minutes indicate new Committee members should be installed with each new open Grant. Current members have been in place for at least the past ten (10) years.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: With the exception of the County Auditor and a rotating member of the BOS, current committee members should be removed immediately and replacements found among private citizens sought via an advertisement in the Trinity Journal.

F7: Due to its inability to properly service the outstanding loans, the Grant Department has suspended applications for new housing/business programs since 2010.

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: The BOS should make re-establishment and reorganization of the Grant Department a priority. They must budget appropriately to attract and retain qualified employees with lending, collections and grant writing experience. Additionally, in order to encourage local citizens to apply, if otherwise qualified applicants lack a particular skill, training should be provided to ensure the Department complies with state and federal lending laws, as well as HUD requirements.

May 26, 2016 — Jur2015-2016-001 Evidence Policies & Procedures Final Report Approved 05/26/2016

14 pages 25 findings 25 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 25 findings

F1: There are conflicting policies and procedures in the two Lexipol template manuals - Custody and Policy - used by the Sheriff’s Department.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: A thorough review and comparison of the Policy and Custody Manuals should be conducted to eliminate conflicting policies and procedures. The Lexipol LLC contracted service should be utilized to facilitate this review and maintain consistency in the future.

F2: Not all divisions are following the policies and procedures with respect to evidence. 9

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: A complete audit of all evidence procedures should be performed to reveal and resolve any conflictions between how differ divisions within the Department process/store evidence and the Department’s written policies. Audits/Oversight

F3: Per the Department’s Policy Manual 801.8(b), unannounced inspections should be directed by the Sheriff. No inspection has been so directed in the tenure of the current Sheriff, or within the tenure of the existing Evidence Technician.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: The Sheriff should implement this policy immediately and adhere to in the future.

F4: There has not been an in-house audit of the evidence room in at least seven years. POST suggests a quarterly review (POST 5.1).

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: An audit should be conducted immediately of all evidence held by the Department. Thereafter audits should be conducted on a regular schedule.

F5: As directed by the Department’s Policy Manual 801.8(c), and as suggested by POST Guideline 5.1 - 5.3, no annual audit by the Division Commander (as appointed by the sheriff) not routinely/directly connected to evidence control has occurred.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: The Sheriff shall adhere to the Department’s own policy manual and ensure that the annual audit is performed.

F6: As the head of the Department, the Sheriff has not initiated sufficient oversight of the evidence and property policies and procedures in the Department. Specifically, the Sheriff has not directed the Undersheriff to conduct audits of the division, he has not initiated random inspections per POST guidelines, he has not directed his staff to receive appropriate training and he does not have an up-to-date awareness of evidence procedures/polices.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: The Sheriff, as head of the Department, shall review the policies and procedures and perform his responsibilities as written. The Sheriff shall verify that all Department divisions under his management aware of all necessary policies and procedures related to their position. This procedure review will include all directives issued by the Sheriff related to evidence collection that are not codified in Department policy manuals. Staffing

F7: The Evidence Technician is a retired officer who works part-time, 2 to 3 days per week. The Evidence Technician is detail oriented, experienced and conscientious, but lacks formal training and certification appropriate for the position

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: The Evidence Technician position has the allocation for a full-time position. It is recommended that this position transition to full-time and that the current Evidence Technician receives the training and certification required in the handling, processing, storage and disposition of evidence. Training

F8: The Evidence Technician has been the sole technician for the past seven years with little oversight. The Grand Jury believes the Undersheriff is the immediate supervisor of the Evidence Technician. While the Undersheriff is relatively new to the position, he does not appear to have direct, up-to-date knowledge of current policy and proper evidentiary procedure. 10

Related Recommendations (1)

R8: The supervisor of the Evidence Technician and the evidence/property room shall be immediately clarified and the policy manual shall be updated with the correct chain of command.

F9: A Forfeiture Reviewer has not been appointed by the sheriff and has not attended a Department-approved course on asset forfeiture per Policy Manual Code 606.6. Apparently the Undersheriff is currently acting as both Evidence Technician supervisor and Forfeiture Reviewer.

Related Recommendations (1)

R9: The Sheriff shall appoint a forfeiture reviewer and he or she shall attend a Department approved training course on asset forfeiture per Policy Manual Code 606.6.

F10: The Evidence Technician has not been certified by the California Association of Property and Evidence (CAPE) or the Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST) in evidence and property processing/storage and disposal. The only training he has received is basic training in the academy or on-the-job training.

Related Recommendations (1)

R10: The Evidence Technician shall be certified by the CAPE or POST trained in evidence and property management.

F11: The Undersheriff has not been trained in evidence collecting/processing/storage/disposal other than that taught in basic training at the academy or on-the-job training.

Related Recommendations (1)

R11: The appointed supervisor of the Evidence Technician and property room shall be trained in evidence collecting/processing/storage and disposal.

F12: Deputies do not have ongoing training requirements for fingerprinting and evidence collection. The result is the potential for inconsistent collection and processing of evidence/property between individual deputies. It is up to the deputies’ discretion whether to collect fingerprint or other evidence based on their understanding of evidentiary value.

Related Recommendations (1)

R12: The deputies shall receive ongoing training on the implementation of required procedures and practices in the collection of fingerprints.

F13: Ongoing training of deputies in the collection of narcotics evidence processing and updates in procedure is limited to the assistance of other senior staff/supervisors.

Related Recommendations (1)

R13: All deputies shall have proper training in the collection and processing of narcotics, both for the preservation and integrity of evidence and for the health hazards caused by such materials. Facilities/Storage

F14: Drying of wet biological evidentiary samples does not always occur within POST guidelines: place “evidence in an impermeable and nonporous container and place the container in a refrigerator that maintains a temperature of 2°–8°C (approximately 35°– 46°F) and is located away from direct sunlight until it can be air dried or until it can be submitted to the lab” (Guideline 4.7). Wet biological evidence has been hung in the main storage facility to air dry.

Related Recommendations (1)

R14: The Department shall implement a process that complies with the POST guideline as written above to ensure the preservation and integrity of biological evidence.

F15: Long-term storage of biological evidence is not in temperature controlled conditions as suggested in POST Guideline 4.7 and NIJ Biological Evidence Preservation Handbook. While space is limited for biological evidence, in this climate the long-term 11 storage of biological evidence in a partially ventilated Conex container is not within the “room temperature” range – generally accepted to be 70°F. The resulting conditions within the container could result in complaints to OSHA and subsequent OSHA inspections and fines.

Related Recommendations (1)

R15: Biological evidence storage shall be reviewed and made to comply with the suggested POST Guideline 4.7 and the NIJ Biological Evidence Preservation Handbook to protect the Department from possible fines and inspections from OSHA.

F16: Storage of Narcotics does not meet POST Guidelines. Narcotics and/or controlled substances should be stored separately from other evidence and property in a secure, card- key accessed, alarmed storage location equipped with video surveillance. Access to this storage facility should be limited to specified/authorized personnel (guideline 4.4). Agencies should be aware that due to the potential health hazards associated with the storage of narcotics/controlled substances, as well as hazardous/biohazardous material, complaints to OSHA could result in OSHA inspections and fines.

Related Recommendations (1)

R16: The storage of narcotics shall be updated to meet POST Guidelines to protect the health of its officers from health issues caused by narcotics and controlled substances and other hazardous/biohazardous materials, as well as to avoid OSHA inspections and fines

F17: Storage of Marijuana does not meet Health Code standards. Prior to packaging, Green, wet, or fresh plant material is dried within a Conex container with minimal ventilation, leading to mold growth and unhealthy conditions (potential Health and Safety Code and OSHA violation). The Conex storage facility does not meet POST guidelines 3.1 with respect to High-Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) filters suggested for use in the venting of narcotics storage areas.

Related Recommendations (1)

R17: A secured, well-ventilated area should be provided for drying plant material (Guideline 4.4). Review and provide the required ventilation and HEPA filters for the storage of marijuana per POST guidelines 3.1- protecting the Department against potential OSHA violations (consult OSHA as necessary) of the Health and Safety Code.

F18: The main storage facility does not meet POST guidelines 3.2, 3.4 and 3.5 with respect to: a. A service counter or window should be provided for internal transactions. A separate, secure counter or area for public interaction should be provided. b. Individual, locked storage compartments inside the temporary refrigeration unit c. A separate area should be provided for the processing and storage of evidentiary vehicles. The vehicles should be protected from the elements for evidentiary purposes. d. The storage and handling of evidence containing blood (POST 3.5)

Related Recommendations (1)

R18: Review and update the storage facility/property room to meet POST guidelines 3.2, 3.4 and 3.5.

F19: The storage and disposal of some controlled substances, such as prescription medication and steroids (schedule III), is not codified in the Policy Manual.

Related Recommendations (1)

R19: Update the Policy Manual to include specific procedures and policies for the handling and storage of controlled substances, such as prescription medications and steroids. 12

F20: Storage of paraphernalia does not meet POST standards (as defined in Health and Safety §11364) or County Policy 801.6.7. – The Detective Division is not currently responsible for the storage of all paraphernalia, such as marijuana pipes.

Related Recommendations (1)

R20: A review of POST standards (as defined in Health and Safety §11364) or County Policy 801.6.7 shall be conducted and corrections made for the storage of all paraphernalia, such as marijuana pipes.

F21: Firearms stored for destruction, specifically those used in the commission of suicide, are not stored in an orderly manner.

Related Recommendations (1)

R21: Firearms that are stored for destruction shall be stored in an orderly manner.

F22: Ammunition is stored en masse in a box on the floor and does not meet POST Guidelines 4.2: Ammunition must be removed from firearms and stored separately in a fireproof locker.

Related Recommendations (1)

R22: A review of POST Guidelines 4.2 shall be conducted and proper storage lockers shall be provided for the storage of ammunition.

F23: Narcotics and dangerous drugs shall not be “packaged” with other property. The use of the narcotics storage container commonly places narcotics and other evidentiary items together in bins.

Related Recommendations (1)

R23: The detectives division shall store evidence as outline in the Department policy manual. Only narcotics and dangerous drugs shall be stored in the narcotics container. Any other evidence shall be stored in the Evidence Property building as outlined in the Department policy manual.

F24: No specific plans currently exist for upgrading the evidence/property storage facility

Related Recommendations (1)

R24: To the degree possible, the Department should develop plans to update the evidence/storage facility in conjunction with the development of plans for the new jail facility. Purging/Disposal

F25: The disposition of firearms has not been reviewed by managerial staff for some time. The current disposition of firearms is limited to an arrangement with Olde West Gun and Loan Inc in Redding, California for store credits used by the Department to procure ammunition.

Related Recommendations (1)

R25: A review of the disposition of firearms shall be conducted to include the research and comparisons of other potential options to be sure the county is getting the best value available.

* 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.