Trinity County Grand Jury

2022-2023

4 reports

Findings & Recommendations 8 findings
F1: Abatements" efficiently with its existing resources and program structure, assisting residents with vehicles they wish to abate themselves. Response. Agree
F2: The AVA Program is not able to complete all reports of Abandon vehicles on roads and highways with its existing resources and program structure due to the limitations of its budget. Response. Agree
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: The BOS should do a cost/benefit analysis of using additional General Funds to pay for grant writing for other departments, specifically General Services and Solid Waste by October 1, 2023 (F2, F5, F6, F7). Response. Will not implement at this time. The real issue is not about the grant writing or grant application process. The real issue is grants associated with AVA require some level of a county general funds match and staff time to administer the grant.
F3: The current AVA Program is only able to respond to reports and cannot locate Abandon vehicles daily to prevent the buildup of the Public Nuisance Vehicles (PVNs). Response. Agree DAN FRASIER HEIDI CARPENTER-HARRIS LIAM GOGAN JILL COX RIC LEUTWYLER DISTRICT 5 DISTRICT 4 DISTRICT 2 DISTRICT 3 DISTRICT 1 ~ 0
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: The BOS should revisit the financial and personnel structure of the AVA Service Authority in Trinity County to include other departments to assist in locating and tagging Abandoned vehicle to assist the Abatement Officer by October 1, 2023 (F3). Response. Requires further analysis. The AVA County staff will evaluate use of other department resources in determining and locating Abandoned vehicle owners. The analysis will be included in the first overall program evaluation and be completed by January 2024.
F4: Due to the AVA Program's self-funding capability without using General Funds, there is currently no routine annual evaluation of the AVA Program by the BOS or "oversight" by any board or community stakeholders.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: The BOS should examine the AVA Programs in Butte and Lake Counties to consider a future revision of the AVA Service Authority to include an "AVA Board" made up of community stakeholders by October 1, 2023 (F4). - E l. Response. Will implement in the future. The BOS will establish a committee. On an as needed basis, the committee will review the AVA program, assist the AVA county staff and provide direction to the CAO. The committee and BOS appointment will be completed by January 2024.
F5: In the past five fiscal years, the AVA Program's revenues from the State DMV fees have been insufficient to cover all the AVA Program expenses. Response. Agree.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: The BOS should do a cost/benefit analysis of using additional General Funds to pay for grant writing for other departments, specifically General Services and Solid Waste by October 1, 2023 (F2, F5, F6, F7). Response. Will not implement at this time. The real issue is not about the grant writing or grant application process. The real issue is grants associated with AVA require some level of a county general funds match and staff time to administer the grant.
F6: The Clean California grant is available to supplement the AVA Program but Trinity County has no funding for the request and administration of this grant opportunity.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: The BOS should do a cost/benefit analysis of using additional General Funds to pay for grant writing for other departments, specifically General Services and Solid Waste by October 1, 2023 (F2, F5, F6, F7). Response. Will not implement at this time. The real issue is not about the grant writing or grant application process. The real issue is grants associated with AVA require some level of a county general funds match and staff time to administer the grant.
F7: Over time, the cost to abate an Abandoned vehicle increases and the scrap value decreases, leading to a PNV that is left in place for lack of funds. Response. Agree.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: The BOS should do a cost/benefit analysis of using additional General Funds to pay for grant writing for other departments, specifically General Services and Solid Waste by October 1, 2023 (F2, F5, F6, F7). Response. Will not implement at this time. The real issue is not about the grant writing or grant application process. The real issue is grants associated with AVA require some level of a county general funds match and staff time to administer the grant.
F8: There is a lack of information available in the media (newspaper, social media) or on the County website for Trinity County residents to report an AV or legally abate an AV on their property. □I (we) disagree wholly or partially with the Findings numbered: (attach a statement specifying any portions of the Findings that are disputed; include an explanation of the reasons therefore.)
Related Recommendations (2)
R4: The BOS should do a cost/benefit analysis of a Public Relations Campaign (press release, social media posts, ad campaign) to highlight Private Abatement options for Trinity County residents and how to report an Abandoned vehicle on public roadways by October 1, 2023 (F8). Response. Will implement in the future. The County web page already outlines how to access the AVA program functions and how to obtain a Private Abatement certificate. The county is in the process of evaluating different platforms to improve the ability to highlight private abatement options for county residents and should have improved methods by January 2024.
R5: The BOS should instruct the Information Technology and General Services departments to update the County website to include a downloadable "Report an Abandoned Vehicle" form, and "I Want To ... " menu option to assist the public in navigating to the AVA Program page, a set of FAQs, a list of businesses to assist with private abatements, and all relevant program information by October 1, 2023 (F8). Response. The county is in the process of evaluating different platforms to improve the ability to highlight private abatement options for county residents and should have improved methods by January 2024. A . . . . . . . . . . . . Report Date: December 16, 2022 Response by: Supervisor Jill Cox and submitted to Trinity County Board of Supervisors for review and correction/adoption on February 22, 2023. Date Due: March 20, 2023 To: Michael B. Harper, Judge of Trinity Superior Court
Findings & Recommendations 2 findings
F1: Private rooms and a portable 'office on wheels' seem to be available at Trinity Hospital for Behavioral Health staff to use in the care and placement of crisis patients, however these resources are not being utilized and it is unclear why.
Page 6
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: Trinity Hospital ER staff make it known to Behavioral Health staff that they have a private room with 'office on wheels' available when appropriate, on a regular basis.
F2: Trinity County Behavioral Health and Trinity Hospital are dependent on each others cooperation to ensure the needs of crisis patients are being met. It appears that there is a lack of cooperation or miscommunications on the responsibilities of each partner.
Page 6
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: Prioritize the implementation of the memorandum or understanding (MOU) that is pending between Trinity Hospital and Trinity County for crisis patient processing.
Findings & Recommendations 8 findings
F1: The AVA Program can complete “Private Abatements” efficiently with its existing resources and program structure, assisting residents with vehicles they wish to abate themselves.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5: The BOS should instruct the Information Technology and General Services departments to update the County website to include a downloadable “Report an Abandoned Vehicle” form, an “I Want To...” menu option to assist the public in navigating to the AVA Program page, a set of FAQs, a list of businesses to assist with private abatements, and all relevant program information by October 1, 2023 (F8). COMMENDATION C1. The General Services staff and its AVA Program should be commended by the BOS for their effective use of limited resources and their ability to adapt to lack of staff (F1, F2). 17
F2: The AVA Program is not able to complete all reports of AVs on roads and highways with its existing resources and program structure due to the limitations of its budget.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3: The BOS should do a cost/benefit analysis of using additional General Funds to pay for grant writing for other departments, specifically General Services and Solid Waste by October 1, 2023 (F2, F5, F6, F7).
R5: The BOS should instruct the Information Technology and General Services departments to update the County website to include a downloadable “Report an Abandoned Vehicle” form, an “I Want To...” menu option to assist the public in navigating to the AVA Program page, a set of FAQs, a list of businesses to assist with private abatements, and all relevant program information by October 1, 2023 (F8). COMMENDATION C1. The General Services staff and its AVA Program should be commended by the BOS for their effective use of limited resources and their ability to adapt to lack of staff (F1, F2). 17
F3: The current AVA Program is only able to respond to reports and cannot locate AVs daily to prevent the buildup of the PNVs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: The BOS should revisit the financial and personnel structure of the AVA Service Authority in TC to include other departments to assist in locating and tagging AVs to assist the Abatement Officer by October 1, 2023 (F3).
F4: Due to the AVA Program’s self-funding capability without using General Funds, there is currently no routine annual evaluation of the AVA Program by the BOS or “oversight” by any board or community stakeholders.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: The BOS should examine the AVA Programs in Butte and Lake Counties to consider a future revision of the AVA Service Authority to include an “AVA Board” made up of community stakeholders by October 1, 2023 (F4).
F5: In the past five fiscal years, the AVA Program’s revenues from the State DMV fees have been insufficient to cover all the AVA Program expenses. 16
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: The BOS should do a cost/benefit analysis of using additional General Funds to pay for grant writing for other departments, specifically General Services and Solid Waste by October 1, 2023 (F2, F5, F6, F7).
F6: The Clean California grant is available to supplement the AVA Program, but TC has no funding for the request and administration of this grant opportunity.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: The BOS should do a cost/benefit analysis of using additional General Funds to pay for grant writing for other departments, specifically General Services and Solid Waste by October 1, 2023 (F2, F5, F6, F7).
F7: Over time, the cost to abate an AV increases and the scrap value decreases, leading to a PNV that is left in place for lack of funds.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: The BOS should do a cost/benefit analysis of using additional General Funds to pay for grant writing for other departments, specifically General Services and Solid Waste by October 1, 2023 (F2, F5, F6, F7).
F8: There is a lack of information available in the media (newspaper, social media) or on the County website for TC residents to report an AV or legally abate an AV on their property.
Related Recommendations (2)
R4: The BOS should do a cost/benefit analysis of a Public Relations Campaign (press release, social media posts, ad campaign) to highlight Private Abatement options for TC residents and how to report an AV on public roadways by October 1, 2023 (F8).
R5: The BOS should instruct the Information Technology and General Services departments to update the County website to include a downloadable “Report an Abandoned Vehicle” form, an “I Want To...” menu option to assist the public in navigating to the AVA Program page, a set of FAQs, a list of businesses to assist with private abatements, and all relevant program information by October 1, 2023 (F8). COMMENDATION C1. The General Services staff and its AVA Program should be commended by the BOS for their effective use of limited resources and their ability to adapt to lack of staff (F1, F2). 17
Findings & Recommendations 9 findings
F1: A series of County ordinances enacted to regulate CCLs from 2016 through 2021 consistently failed to comply with CEQA requirements to identify and mitigate for the full range of environmental impacts associated with commercial cannabis cultivation. The BOS during that period relied on the current County Counsel for legal guidance.
F2: Failure of the County to properly address CEQA resulted in a lawsuit filed by concerned County residents (TAA) seeking to compel compliance. After an initial settlement in which the County paid $95,000 in the litigant’s attorney fees in 2019, the County failed to honor terms of the settlement and ultimately was ordered to pay an additional $339,185 in costs and attorney fees in 2021. The current County Counsel provided legal guidance to the BOS throughout this period.
F3: As part of the 2021 Court Order in the TAA case, the County was ordered to desist from issuing or reissuing any CCL until CEQA compliance is achieved. Numerous Trinity County farmers found themselves unable to operate legally through no fault of their own, and several filed legal action against the County. In addition, numerous cannabis abatement cases against farmers who continued to operate without licenses were filed by the County. These cases, both by the County and against the County, have and continue to represent significant additional legal costs to the County.
F4: From FY2016-17 through FY2021-22, the County paid approximately $4.5 million in legal costs. This total includes $435,185 in settlements and award to litigants, $94,641 paid to the Special Counsel retained for the TAA case, and nearly $4 million paid directly to County Counsel.
F5: During the period considered herein (2016-2022), the BOS and County Counsel displayed a tendency to conduct public business in secret. The BOS failed to consistently report decisions and actions taken in closed session as stipulated in State and County statutes, and County Counsel consistently invoked attorney-client privilege to conceal information ranging from services billed to the opinion of Special Counsel regarding the disposition of the TAA case.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: We recommend that the BOS abide by State and County policy regarding transparency. While the Government Code recognizes the need to keep certain sensitive information confidential, the Brown Act makes it clear that secrecy is not intended to be the default mode of doing public business. Likewise, we recommend invoking attorney-client privilege selectively rather than as a blanket mechanism for the BOS and Counsel to avoid accountability.
F6: The 2016-2017 Grand Jury also found that the BOS failed to provide meaningful or accurate reports regarding business conducted in closed session. In particular, the 2016-2017 Grand Jury found that the BOS reported that closed sessions for personnel evaluations of County Counsel were held 11 times in the span of one year. Both the BOS and County Counsel responded to that finding with a flat denial, which we find to be demonstrably false.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: We recommend that the BOS abide by State and County policy regarding transparency. While the Government Code recognizes the need to keep certain sensitive information confidential, the Brown Act makes it clear that secrecy is not intended to be the default mode of doing public business. Likewise, we recommend invoking attorney-client privilege selectively rather than as a blanket mechanism for the BOS and Counsel to avoid accountability.
F7: County Counsel advised the BOS to reject a potential $30,000 settlement with TAA in 2021, ultimately resulting in a Court order for the County to pay TAA more than 10 times as much. In doing so, County Counsel stifled information casting doubt on County Counsel’s advice and assumed full responsibility for the TAA case.
F8: County Counsel has been operating under the same contract for more than seven years, whereas State Government Code and County policy state that the term of County Counsel is four years.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: If the County determines that County Counsel must be retained through a contract similar to the current contract with Prentice|Long, we recommend that such contracts be valid for a limited term, such as four years, and that bids from competing legal firms be solicited at the end of each term.
F9: The contract under which County Counsel currently operates consists of base fees for assisting with certain County business, but also stipulates that County Counsel will bill for any litigation services at a rate of $200 per hour. This contractual structure appears to incentivize legal actions that promote litigation, or at least could discourage actions that avoid unnecessary litigation.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2: We recommend considering establishing County Counsel as a full-time salaried employee of the County. Cases of litigation that arise beyond the capacity of County Counsel would then be managed through separate contracts with private attorneys. This business model would help to separate actions that lead to or discourage litigation from the financial reward of prosecuting litigation, thereby removing the appearance of a conflict of interest.
R3: If the County determines that retaining a contractor to serve as County Counsel is necessary, consider restructuring the contract to remove the appearance of a conflict of interest by decoupling ordinary County business from litigation. This could perhaps be done with two separate contracts with competing legal firms.

* 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.