Trinity County 2022-2023 - California Grand Jury Reports

July 18, 2023 — Trinity County Board of Supervisors*

5 pages 8 findings 5 recommendations

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)

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)

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)

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

December 20, 2022 — Civil Grand Jury 2022 Trinity County, California Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Report Release Date: ______

23 pages 8 findings 5 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

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)

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)

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)

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)

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).

December 16, 2022 — 2022 Trinity County Civil Grand Jury Report County Counsel Review (jur 2022-001)

14 pages 9 findings 4 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

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)

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.

December 06, 2022 — Board of Supervisors*

4 pages 3 findings 3 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 3 findings

F1: of the 2022 Grand Jury: In October 2019, the BOS voted 3-2 to dissolve the Ad Hoc Cannabis Committee (formed in 2016). However, the Board Chair stated, "there's no change now thought." (The BOS Chair has authority over ad hoc committees). In October 2019, the two board members stepped down from the Ad Hoc Committee on . Cannabis Retail, turning that work over to the Planning Department. In December 2019, BOS dissolved the Cannabis Ad Hoc Committee. Rather than . forming a standing committee, it assigned the work to the Planning Department. The BOS formed a Cannabis Cultivation Ad Hoc Committee in November 2021. At the April 19, 2022 BOS meeting questions were raised whether the current Cannabis . Ad Hoc Committee is acting more like a standing committee. The BOS supports creation of ad hoc committees as needed to augment the Planning Department's efforts due to staffing shortages. On April 29, 2022, the BOS appointed an interim deputy director for the Planning . Department. Additionally, the Cannabis Division hired its first dedicated Director March 1, 2022. The 2022 Grand Jury determined that the response from the BOS: While they were timely in their response, as of this report, the Board has not opted to create the recommended standing committee. DAN FRASIER LIAM GOGAN JEREMY BROWN KEITH GROVES JILL COX DISTRICT 5 DISTRICT 4 DISTRICT 1 DISTRICT 2 DISTRICT 3 Though in agreement with the recommendation, the BOS offered no evidence that it . would implement it. The BOS did not meet the criteria required by PC 933.05(b)(3) or include a time frame or an indication that it will pursue this issue. See Appendix B. Response: Disagree. There seems to be a misunderstanding of the role and tasks of an Ad Hoc. The thought that a Cannabis Ad Hoc over sees all things Cannabis is false, each Ad Hoc was and is tasked with certain duties of oversight. We've had the "retail cannabis Ad Hoc", "ordinance Cannabis Ad Hoc", "medical cannabis Ad Hoc", "Cannabis implementation Ad Hoc" (twice) and others. The Grand Jury also failed to include the whole history. The work started around 2005 with Cannabis "1.0" also in that time period there was an appointed standing committee, even though it was well meaning and interesting, it ended in utter failure. Then the task was turned over to the planning commission to start investigations and write ordinances, two of which reached the board with only the Medical ordinance passing. Later the Planning Commission was tasked with writing new commercial Cannabis ordinances, this stalled out and collapsed. This is the point when the BOS stepped in and formed an Ad Hoc over seeing ordinances, taking 100's of hours of public and private testimony, then passing these on to the planning department for dozens more public hearings. These ordinances were then presented to the board for even more public hearing before passing.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The 2022 Grand Jury recommends that the BOS respond per PC 933.05 on this issue and future issues. Response: Recommendation has been implemented. With finding 1, the board did not vote to disband ad-hocs, or they would have disbanded; the board as a whole has the ability to override the chair. The vote was to accept the grand jury recommendation, see 10/19 board minutes. Why did the board not implement a standing committee in 2019? The board did look at this option and concluded that standing committees are inherently unwieldy and unsuccessful, we have many examples in the county where these committees were formed, with the issue going into a black hole never to return. When the Grand Jury considered this option, they didn't seem to be clear on the county's responsibility in the cannabis regulation system that the voters and the state set up. The county's responsibility pertains to Regulating Land-use. The board concluded at the time that a standing committee was only designed to result in slowing or stopping our transfer from an illegal market to a legal market. The board decided that the most expedient and transparent way to move forward was keeping Ad Hoc's as our primary structure, which receive 100's of hour of public testimony. So, the view of the board changed to "will not be implemented because it's not warranted or is not reasonable". The board is unclear of what process needs to happen in the future to relay changes to the Grand Jury but will follow those rules. Though this has been very slow, painful and filled with many landmines, Trinity now sits on the cusp of being in the top 2 counties when the Bureau of Cannabis Control does away with "Provisional licenses" on 7/1/23.

F2: of the 2022 Grand Jury: According to the Planning Department Cannabis Division, a variable nuisance fine structure has not been developed. The 2022 Grand Jury determined that the response from the BOS to Finding 2: This response was not timely and did not meet other criteria required by PC 933.05(b)(3). See Appendix B. The response provided a vague and incomplete explanation and did not address direction . to the Planning Department to analyze and provide recommendations to the BOS for adopting a variable nuisance fine structure and did not meet criteria required by PC 933.05(b)(3). See Appendix B. Response: Disagree. The county did enact a variable Cannabis nuance fine system. Ordinance 1352 Chapter 8.90.080 on 08/18/2020 for Cannabis violations. First offense up 1,000 dollars, second offense up to 2,500 dollars and third offense up to 5,000 dollars. Also, the planning director has discretion to set any amount less than the maximum amount.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The 2022 Grand Jury recommends that the BOS respond per PC 933.05 on this issue and future issues. Response: Recommendation has been implemented. The Board is of the opinion that our response to the 2018/2019 Grand Jury Report RE: Cannabis Ordinance Development and Complaint Process and was submitted in compliance with Penal Code 933.05. The Board will continue to respond in compliance with Penal Code 933.05

F3: of the 2022 Grand Jury: According to the Planning Department, the County does not contract for aerial surveillance. They do use other resources as available such as: www.trinitycounty.org/Trinity-County-Parcel-Viewer, Google Earth Pro, county, state, and federal coordination efforts. The BOS response was not timely and did not meet other criteria required by PC . 933.05(b)(3) including an explanation, scope, parameters, and time frame not to exceed six months. See Appendix B. Response: Disagree. The county followed its response recommendation by doing its due diligence. The planning department and the sheriff's department looked at this very closely during the COVID time era. In the planning director's opinion, it ended up being too expensive, (more than available grants) and limited in its flexibility. Sheriff Saxon also had concerns about the effectiveness and the county's ability to staff the program due to the counties chronic labor issues. The board may look at this down the road but for now this idea has been shelved.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: The 2022 Grand Jury recommends that the BOS respond per PC 933.05 on this issue and future issues. Response: Recommendation has been implemented. The Board is of the opinion that our response to the 2018/2019 Grand Jury Report RE: Cannabis Ordinance Development and Complaint Process and was submitted in compliance with Penal Code 933.05. The Board will continue to respond in compliance with Penal Code 933.05 Note: Many of these misunderstandings could be mitigated if the Grand Jury took a deeper dive and interviewed the long-standing participants of this program. This program has had a lot of turnover in the past 20 years, and a lot of information gets lost over time.

2022 Trinity County Civil Grand Jury Continuity Committee Compliance Report (cor 2022-001)

11 pages 3 findings 3 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 3 findings

F1: of the 2022 Grand Jury: Although BOS did not implement the recommendation for a larger room for observation of ballot counting, the Clerk/Recorder/Assessor rearranged the current room (which is the election office in the Courthouse) to allow a better line of sight from a large window in a large hallway. Two grand jurors interviewed the County Clerk/Recorder/Assessor in the office where they count votes, and she explained the process as required by California Elections Code §15104(d)(1)(2)(3). Moving to a larger room would require transfer of all computer hardware and add another security issue for ballots. The Clerk/Recorder/Assessor noted there was rarely more than one observer at a time during the counting process in the past 2 years. The 2022 Grand Jury finds the response to be timely and appropriate. For the June 7, 2022, Primary, four jurors observed the counting process and found it to be professional, secure, and accessible. View of June 10, 2022, Vote Counting through Observation Window

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: “The 2019/2020 Grand Jury recommends that the Trinity County Board of Supervisors allocate a larger room or enough space to accommodate election observers.” Response 1 (from Clerk/Recorder/Assessor): “Partially Disagree. The Elections Office where the Vote-By-Mail (VBM) ballots are processed is approximately 21’ x 16’ with an observation window that is 6’ x 4’. This observation window allows observers sufficiently close access to enable them to observe whether the individuals handling the ballots are following procedures. I 2 have rearranged the office to offer a better line of sight to the desk where VBM ballots are processed.”

F2: of the 2022 Grand Jury: The Trinity County Elections Office complies with applicable California Elections Code which is satisfactory for local needs. The 2022 Grand Jury finds the response to be timely and appropriate; and determined there was no need for further investigation of this issue and commends the Elections Office for its work to maintain integrity of the Trinity County voting process. Road Maintenance Issues

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: “Trinity County Clerk/Recorder/Assessor shall develop a policy to accommodate vote-by-mail observers.” 3 Response 2 (from BOS): “Recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted as California Elections Code §15104(d)(1)(2)(3) defines the procedures for County Elections Officials.” (See Appendix C)

F3: of the 2022 Grand Jury: • The complaint process is in place for the five access points: online, www.trinitycounty.org/DOT-Problem-Report , by phone, email, in person, and written. Each complaint is sent to appropriate staff for action. A spreadsheet tracks each complaint and how it is resolved. When appropriate, the Trinity County Department of Transportation administrator of this process informs the person(s) who filed the complaint of its resolution. • The Department of Transportation advertised for the Assistant Director position in November 2019 but was unsuccessful in filling the position. In 2019 and 2021, TCDOT again attempted to fill the position on a temporary basis to handle some special issues but had no applicants. The new Director of Transportation will consider filling that position. The 2022 Grand Jury determined that responses were timely and appropriate; and commends Trinity County Department of Transportation for its proactive responsiveness and work to meet transportation needs in Trinity County. Cannabis Ordinance Development and Complaint Response

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: “The 2019/2020 Grand Jury recommended that the Trinity County Department of Transportation develop a comprehensive complaint procedure that provides for online, phone, email, in person and written complaints. This procedure shall include Trinity County Road Department’s responses to the complaint and an in-house tracking process for each complaint. This procedure shall be implemented and communicated to the public no later than December 2019.” Response 3 (from BOS): “Agree and disagree. Recommendation has not been implemented but will be in the future. Trinity County Department of Transportation (TCDOT) now accepts complaints by five access points. TCDOT has implemented a web page to report a problem and uses social media (Twitter) to deliver updates and conditions. The “Report a Problem” web page is an excellent start. Tracking and resolution is the next step in this process and the BOS will request CAO present the recommended strategy by March 2020. Per my interview with the Director of Transportation, the Director currently is the point of contact for communicating with the public, responsible for long-term planning, budgeting, and project implementation. This obligation needs to be shared; the BOS will give direction to the CAO to implement a TCDOT Assistant Director position.”

* 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.