Yuba County 1996-1997 - California Grand Jury Reports

F1: Criminal Investigator. The Yuba County District Attorney has demonstrated sound budgetary skills by reducing

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R1: A few hours prior to the levee break, the on-site personnel could not contact the RD784 office via their hand held radios. A person had to drive to the office to notify them the levee (boils) were getting beyond control.

F2: the general fund monies that are required by his department 1996/97 YUBA COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT The District Attorney is responsible for all administrative aspects and duties such as,

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R2: Before the break in the Bear River (north) levee was repaired, another rainstorm hit the area. Water from the Bear River poured through the break and re-flooded the area from the river to Country Club Road (approximately 5 miles).

F3: preparing the budget, procuring grants, supervising and overseeing his department and staff.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R3: On January 2nd, day of the levee break, the Yuba River flow rate at Marysville was not known. The river gage was operating erroneously during the peak flows.

F4: On January 2nd, day of the levee break, the (combined) Feather River flow rate was not known. There is no river flow gage below the confluence in the Arboga nor Shanghai Bend areas.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)

R4: On January 2nd, day of the levee break, the (combined) Feather River flow rate was not known. There is no river flow gage below the confluence in the Arboga nor Shanghai Bend areas.

R4E: 19 29 20 24 20 (50 30 26 30 Park Bar Daguerre Point uba Goldfields Bridge Boundary. h 31 35 36 T 16 N T 15 N LEGEND BLM Public Land 3 Corps Acquired Fee (subject to 3rd partysurface rights) ROAD Corps Acquired Fee Corps Acquired HAMMONTON SAMPTVILLE Easement 1996/97 YUBA COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT YUBA COUNTY Office of Emergency Services REQUEST TO 1997/98 GRAND JURY FOR CONTINUATION OF THIS INVESTIGATION 1996/97 YUBA COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Office of Emergency Services Reason for Investigation: Penal Code, Chapter 3, Article 2, Section 925, states in part: "The Grand Jury shall investigate functions of the County on some selective basis each year." Background: In December of 1996, the four political sub-groups in Yuba and Sutter counties (Marysville, Yuba County, Yuba City, and Sutter County) recognized the threat to those communities associated with the heavy rainfall and rising levels of the Yuba and Feather Rivers. These four jurisdiction agreed to evacuate their residents when the Feather River reached a "flood stage" of 77.5 feet. The four jurisdiction agreed to a plan that would co-ordinate the evacuations to preclude residents from areas traveling through adjoining areas and overloading evacuation routes. This joint evacuation would also have the added benefit of preventing friends and relatives from one area relocating to an adjoining area where the danger level was just as high. On December 31, 1996, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Yuba met in a special session. At that meeting, the Director of the Office of Emergency Services, Mr. Kelly Purdom, requested that the Board issue a proclamation a local emergency and request the concurrence of the Governor of the State of California (reference: minutes of Yuba County Board of Supervisors, book 53, ). The Board of Supervisors continued to meet to discuss the necessity of evacuation of the residents in the threatened areas. Eventually, the river reached the predetermined point and the other three agencies began the mandatory evacuation. Yuba County Board of Supervisors made the decision not to evacuate based on information that the levees were stable, the weather was improving and that the rivers were receding. As Murphy's law would predict, the one area not evacuated was the location of the eventual levee failure. Scope: To examine the operation, preparedness, and the effectiveness of the county disaster plan. This investigation will include the Incident Command Structure (ICS), the role of the Yuba County Board of Supervisors, and the Office of Emergency Services (OES). Procedure: The investigation was conducted and all documents were received by no less than two members of the Grand Jury per Penal Code §916. 1996/97 YUBA COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT The members of the Grand Jury conducted interviews with the Sheriff and deputy sheriffs of Yuba County, and with the Director of OES. The members of the Grand Jury researched the following documents: Minutes of the Board of Supervisors meetings. Yuba County Grand Jury Report of 1991/92. Memo from County Counsel D. Montgomery to Yuba County Board of Supervisors, dated February 12, 1997. SB 1841 (State of California Senate Bill), chapter 1069, Disaster Preparedness. Comments: To complete this investigation the following questions must be answered: What are the roles of OES, Board of Supervisors, Law Enforcement and other agencies during a state of "Declared Emergency? Was the ICS implemented during the Yuba County Floods of 1997? • Did the ICS work well? Was adequate training provided to all personnel about their role during an state of emergency? This Grand Jury Because of time constraints, this investigation was not completed. respectfully requests the incoming 1997/98 Grand Jury to consider pursuing this investigation. All pertinent information obtained by the 1996/97 Grand Jury will be made available. 1996/97 YUBA COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Director of Personnel/Risk Management RESPONSE REQUIRED ON FINDINGS Board of Supervisors on Findings 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. • Auditor/Controller on Findings 3, 4, and 5. • RESPONSE REQUIRED ON RECOMMENDATIONS Board of Supervisors on Recommendations 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5... • Auditor/Controller on Recommendations 3, 4 and 5. • 1996/97 YUBA COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Director of Personnel/ Risk Management Reason for Investigation: A citizen's complaint prompted the members of the Grand Jury to conduct a specific 1. investigation of the Director of Personnel / Risk Management regarding the inappropriate issuance of County funds. The 1995/96 Grand Jury was unable to complete their investigation and recommended that 2. the 1996/97 Grand Jury continue on it's term. Background: The Yuba County Director of Personnel/Risk Management is appointed by and serves at the pleasure of the Yuba County Board of Supervisors. His duties, among others, include health care, life, worker's compensation and other insurance needs. The Yuba County Auditor/Controller is elected by the county voters and reports to the electorate of Yuba County. His duties, among others, include management of county funds, maintenance of accounting records and oversight of fiscal operations within all county departments. Scope: This investigation was originally limited to the series of events leading to the issuance (and return) of Yuba County funds to an insurance broker. The scope was expanded to include the policies and procedures of the Auditor/Controller's office that allowed this situation to occur. Procedure: All interviews were conducted and documents were obtained by no less than 2 members of the Grand Jury per PC §916. 1. Interviews were conducted with the insurance broker that received and returned the funds, the Yuba County director that authorized the payment, the County Administrator, two members of the Yuba County Board of Supervisors, and employees of the Auditor/Controller's office. 2. The committee reviewed county ordinances, media reports, bank records and testimony taken during the previous Grand Jury investigation. 1996/97 YUBA COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Discussion: In December of 1995, Yuba County paid an insurance broker the sum of $35,000.00 for services that were not covered by any contract or service agreement. The payment was made by the Auditor/Controller's office at the direction of the Director of Personnel/Risk Management. This payment was made to compensate the broker for time spent soliciting information in an attempt to secure insurance for Yuba County. When the county elected to place it's business with a carrier that would not pay a broker commission, the Director of Personnel/Risk Management instructed the broker to invoice the county for his time spent. The Director of Personnel/Risk Management instructed the Auditor/Controller to pay the invoice. This payment violated at least one county ordinance (2.50.040)* and the entire episode demands the answers to many questions: * states in part, "...shall be advertised and go out for competitive bids" 1. Was the request for services provided by the insurance broker advertised and awarded to the lowest bidder? 2. Was there a contract or service agreement in place that spelled out the rights, responsibilities, rate of pay or any terms for payment of the insurance broker? Why did the Auditor/Controller's office issue a check without adequate backup such as a 3. contract? Are requests for payment made to the Auditor/Controller routinely paid without any 4. supporting documents? 5. Did the Yuba County Board of Supervisors take appropriate action when they learned of the situation? These questions were addressed by the Yuba County Grand Jury investigation with the following results: There was no written agreement between Yuba County and the insurance broker. In March of 1994, the broker began working on a new health care package with the understanding that he would be compensated for his work by receiving a commission from the health carrier selected. The broker had provided this type of service, with this form of payment, to Yuba County a number of times over the last ten years. The practice of allowing a broker to place the county's insurance and then receive a commission is in itself a poor practice. For instance, the broker could recommend a particular carrier not because it provides the best rates or coverage, but because it pays the highest commissions. In this case, the county elected to meet it's insurance needs by joining the Health Care Alliance. Since the Alliance would not pay commissions, this meant that the broker would not be compensated for any time spent prior to this selection. Under the previous ongoing arrangement the broker was only paid (by commission) after he had placed the insurance. In this case he did not place the insurance and consequently was not entitled to any 1996/97 YUBA COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT compensation. The instruction to the Auditor/Controller's office to pay the broker came in the form of an invoice, approved for payment by the Director of Personnel/Risk Management. He personally signed the invoice, added the appropriate codes to indicate the account that the payment was to be made from and forwarded it to the Auditor/Controller. According to testimony, an employee in the Auditor/Controller's office originally questioned the payment, the Director of Personnel/Risk Management spoke directly to the Auditor/Controller and reaffirmed that the invoice should be paid. This again, with no supporting documents such as a contract or even some evidence that the number of hours being billed or the rate ($175.00 per hour) were correct. After the public disclosure of the payment, the Yuba County Board of Supervisors met in closed session to discuss possible disciplinary action of employees involved in this situation. To date there has been no public disclosure of the Board's position nor recommendations about how the situation could have been better managed. When Supervisor Hal Stocker was asked why no action was taken, his response was: "the money was returned so we considered it handled." When Supervisor Al Amaro was asked what steps had been taken by the Board of Supervisors to prevent this type of inappropriate expenditure in the future, he responded: "we (Board of Supervisors) have talked to the parties involved." The County Counsel has assured the Grand Jury that no statute, ordinance or county policy was violated by this episode. Yet, the Board of Supervisors have not enacted any measure that addresses the improper expenditure of county funds. They were also satisfied when these funds were returned, with no investigation of records to ascertain if similar expenditures had occurred in the past.

F5: For the levees below the confluence, the Yuba River should be of more concern than the Feather River. The flow rate of the Feather River can be controlled by Oroville Dam. Two forks of the Yuba River are not controlled. 1996/97 YUBA COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R5: For the levees below the confluence, the Yuba River should be of more concern than the Feather River. The flow rate of the Feather River can be controlled by Oroville Dam. Two forks of the Yuba River are not controlled. 1996/97 YUBA COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT

F6: The Agency performed a study for increasing the flood reserve in Bullards Bar Dam from 170,000 ac-ft to 483,000 ac-ft. Conclusion was that the Bullards Bar Dam can not control the Yuba River.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R6: The Agency performed a study for increasing the flood reserve in Bullards Bar Dam from 170,000 ac-ft to 483,000 ac-ft. Conclusion was that the Bullards Bar Dam can not control the Yuba River.

F7: A new dam on the Yuba River is a viable solution to the flood control of the Yuba River. The new Parks Bar Dam is estimated to cost $530M, and if funded by revenue bonds - will be of no cost to the taxpayers of Yuba County.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R7: A new dam on the Yuba River is a viable solution to the flood control of the Yuba River. The new Parks Bar Dam is estimated to cost $530M, and if funded by revenue bonds - will be of no cost to the taxpayers of Yuba County.

F8: There are no slurry walls proposed for the area between Island Road (West Linda area) and the Star Bend area, a distance of approximately 10 miles.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R8: There are no slurry walls proposed for the area between Island Road (West Linda area) and the Star Bend area, a distance of approximately 10 miles. Recommendations:

F9: Loma Rica Elementary School.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R9: Loma Rica Elementary School.

F10: Browns Valley Elementary School.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R10: Browns Valley Elementary School.

F11: Marysville High School.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R11: Marysville High School.

F12: Lindhurst High School. 1996/97 YUBA COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT YUBA COUNTY Public Access to Yuba River RESPONSE REQUIRED ON FINDINGS Board of Supervisors on Findings 1, 2 and 3. • RESPONSE REQUIRED ON RECOMMENDATIONS Board of Supervisors on Recommendation 1, 2, 3 and 4. 1996/97 YUBA COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Public Access to Yuba River Reason for Investigation:

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R12: Lindhurst High School. 1996/97 YUBA COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT YUBA COUNTY Public Access to Yuba River RESPONSE REQUIRED ON FINDINGS Board of Supervisors on Findings 1, 2 and 3. • RESPONSE REQUIRED ON RECOMMENDATIONS Board of Supervisors on Recommendation 1, 2, 3 and 4. 1996/97 YUBA COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Public Access to Yuba River Reason for Investigation: