MONO ( OIJNTY

FInaRl eport

2001.2002

Building, Planning & & vironment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 21

Parks. R ecreatio& n PublicW orks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 41

TABLE OF CONTENTS

COMMITTEE REPORTS

19

PRODUCTION

C. D. Ritter

Cindy Silverman

INT RODUCTION

1

2

2

J

4

5

6

7

8

9

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

10

11

12

13

14

RE:

2001- 2002 Grand Jury

15

that

with

the

Title

l' certify

17

18 County Clerk

19

20

21

22

23

24

this -~~- day of July, 2002.

26 of

27

28

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MONO

GENERAL ORDER

2001- 2002 Mono County Grand Jury Final

Four of the California Penal Code and

accept and file the final report as a

Report

direct

to public

Superior Court

3

.4'

The Honorable Edward Forstenzer

presiding Judge of the

Mono County Superior Court

P. O. Box 1037

MaImnoth Lakes, CA 93546

Dear Judge Forstenzer:

Enclosed is the Final

Jury.

In reaching the findings and conclusions set forth in the

attached Final Report, the grand jury has attempted to be

fair, objective and constructive.

The grand jury's mandate could not

without the help of numerous loyees

various county and Town departments.

like to thank these pers for

cooperation.

I personally thank the grand jury members for their hard work

and spirit of cooperation. Also, special recognition and

thanks go to secretaries Tammy Davis and Ceal Gargan. Their

role was important to the process of order and spirit of

cooperation.

Finally, although C. D.

from working most of

year- end functions.

handled

Dennis'

Respectfully,

~ J~ Foreman

Grand Jury

TOE GRAND . JURY

£ ounty of Mono

State of £ alifornia

June 20, 2002

Report of the 2001- 02 Mono County Grand

have been fulfilled

and officials of the

The grand jury would

ons their assistance and

Ritter's tragic accident prevented her

the year, she was able to complete the

During the year her clerical tasks were

by Cindy Silverman from Court Executive

organization. Thank you, Cindy.

2001- 02

5

6

1' HE PURPOSE OF A CIVIL GRAND JURY

The primary purpose of a civil grand jury is to selVe as an investigatory body

watching over county and city governments and special legislative districts. In contrast,

criminal grandj uries can0 0 conveneda s neededt o investigates pecific criminal matters. A

civil grandj ury initiatesi nvestigationsa nd inquiriesi n order to ensuret hat governmenti s

not only honest, efficient and effective, but also conducted in the best interest of county

residents. T he duties, p owers, responsibilitiesq, ualificationsa nd the selectionp rocesso f a

grand jury are set forth in California Penal Code Section 888 et seq.

The Mono County civil grandj ury reviews and evaluatesp rocedures, m ethodsa nd

systems used by county and town de~ ents to determine: ( a) whether such systems,

proceduresa nd methodsc omply with the statedo bjectiveso f the deJ: XU'tmenthtse mselves;

and ( b) if departmenot perationsc an 00 madem oree fficient and effective.

Ole of the primary incentives for grand jury investigations is citizen complaints

regardingp erceivedp roblemso r issuesw ithin the various governmentaal gencies. I n order

for the grand jury to be truly effective. the citizens of the county must get involved.

The members of the grand jury are chosen from citizens throughout Mono County.

Juror selectioni s baSedu pon recommendationasn d a willingness to serve at least a one-year

tenn beginningJ uly 1. The tenn limit is two consecutivey ears. Lawfully, the grand

jwy acts only as an entity. No individual grand juror, octing alone, has any power or

authority. Meetings of the grand jury are not open to the public, and jurors are sworn to

secrecy during their tenn. By law, all matters discussed before the grand jwy and votes

taken are to be kept confidential until the Final Report is compiled and published.

The end resulto f inquiries and investigationsb y the gmndj ury is the Final Report

issued at the end of its tenD. The committee reports published in the Final Report are

prepared by each of the standing or special committees. Onre approved by ccmmittee

members, ead1 report is then reviewed, edited and ultimately approved by the entire gmnd

jury. The FInal Report must be approved by d1e presiding judge of the Mono County

Superior Court

7

8

GRAND JURORS & ADVISORS

PeteAn'anm

Lee Vining

Frank Axford

Coleville

Dan Berner

Mammoth Lakes

Peggie Chew

Mammoth Lakes

Tammy Davis

Mammoth Lakes

John Elliott

Coleville

Jerry Dunlap

Manunoth Lakes

Presiding Judge of the Superior Court Edward Forstenzer

District Attorney George Booth

Court Executive Officer Bob Dennis

County Counsel Marshall Rudolph

Deputy CountyC ounselsC hristianaD arlington & StaceyS imon

AdministrativeA ssistanmC . D. Ritter & Cindy SilveInlan

ACTIVE JURORS

Ciff Sharp

Walker

Dennis Erdman

Mammoth Lakes

Ceal Gargan

Benton

Tim Taylor

Mammoth lAkes

SamWalker

Mammoth Lakes

Boyd Lemmon

Mammoth Lakes

Jeff Mills

Bridgeport

Rick Mitchell

Jr.

Marcy Ziegler

Chalfant Valley MammothL akes

Joyce Rowan

Crowley Lake

RESIGNED/ RECUSED JURORS

Susan Moss

Mammoth Lakes

Walter R~ ntha1

Mammoth Lakes

OFFICERS

Foreman Cliff Sharp

Foreman Pro Tem Sam Walker

SecretarieCs ealG argan& Tammy Davis

ADVISORS

9

10

ADMINI STRA TI ON

Rick Mitchell, Chair

Pete Arrants . Dan Berner. John Elliott. Dennis Erdman . Ken Willingham Jr.

AUDrr & FINANCE

Sam Walker, Chair

Pete Arrants. Boyd Lemmon. Jeff Mills. Ken Willingham Jr.

BUD.. DING, PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

Pete Arrants, Chair

Dan Berner. Jeff Mills. Rick Mitchell. Timothy Taylor. Sam Walker

Marcy

Frank Axford. Tammy Davis. Ceal

PARKS, RECREA nON & PUBLIC WORKS

TimothyT aylor. C hair

Peggie Chew . Bo~ Lemmon. Ken Willingham Jr. -~

GRAND JURY COMMI'rrEES

EDUCATION

Joyce Rowan, Chair

Dan Berner. - John Elliott. Dennis Erdman

EXECUTIVE

Cliff Sharp. Chair

Tammy Davis. Ceal Gargan. Sam Walker

GRAND jURY HANDBOOK

All Jurors

BEALm & HUMAN SERVICES

Peggie Chew, Chair

Ceal Gargan . Marcy Ziegler.

LAW & romCE

leT, Chair . Rick Mitchell. Joyce Rowan

MAMMOTH LAKES, TOWN OF

Tammy Davis, Chair

Ken Willingham Jr.

11

12

One of the grand jury's most important functions is responding to citizen complaints.

Any arear esidentw ho h$ knowledgeo f deficiencieso r improprieties in local government

- Mono County, d1e Town of Mammoth Lakes, or Special Districts - can file a formal

complaint with d1e grand jury. If the complaint falls within d1e purview of d1e grand jury,

an investigationw ill be initiatedb y oneo f its standingc ommitteesR. esultso f all ammittee

investigationsa re presentedt o the entire grnnd jury for concWTenceI. f d1ec omplaint is

outside d1e ~ d jury's purview, it may be fOlWarded to County Counsel, a Superior

Court Judge or d1e District Attorney.

Any citizen who wants to file a legitimate oomplaint for consideration by the grand

jury should submit a dated and signed letter to: Mono County Grand Jury, P. O. Box 1037,

Mammoth Lakes, CA 93546.

This year, the grandj ury ooncludedo ne investigationh eld over from last year's grand

jury, referred one caIyY- over complaint to d1e District Attorney for legal advice, and

considered 16 new citizen complaints. Shown below are d1e complaints received. The

resultso f thesei nvestigationsc anb e found in the individual standingc ommittee reJX> rts.

# 01- 01, # 01- 02, # 01- 03, # 01- 04:

These complaints were receivoo from the same complainant,

incarcerationa nd sentencingR. efen- edto Law andJ usticec ommittee.

# 01- 05:

A letter contending possible unethical procedures taking place in the Mono County

RoadD epartment RefelTooto Parks, R ecreationa nd Public Works committee.

# 01- 06:

Requestt o look into the emergencys tatuso f Mono County and what it plans

the evento f a disaster. R efeITectol Law andJ usticec ommittee.

# 01- 07:

Carry- over complaint

improperly handled matter

Justice committee.

101- 08:

Request to investigate appointmento fill a vacancy on the Mammoth

WaterD istrict's boardo f directors. R efeITedto Administration committee.

101- 09:

Verbal complaint in regard to the Mono County Arts Council received by a juror was

deemed serious enough by the entire grand jury to begin an investigation. RefelTed to A1Xtit

and Finance committee.

101.10:

Carry- over complaint (# 00- 12) regaIding possible conflict of interest between

employeea nd SouthernM ono HealthcareD istrict Referredt o AdministJationc ommittee.

CInZEN COMPLAINTS

disputing her

to do in

(# 00- 29) contending Mono County Sheriff's DeIllrtment

and violated complainant's civil rights. Refened to Law and

Community

13

101- 11:

Complaint alleging unethical behavior by a grand juror. RefelTed

Judge and District Attorney.

# 01- 12:

Requestf or an investigationo f possiblem isuseo f public funds by the Mamm~

UnifiedS chooDl istrict. R eferredto Audit andF inancec ommittee.

# 01- 13:

Complaint indicating possible cover- up of a Hantavirus case. RefeITed to Heald! and

Human Services committee.

101- 14:

Request for a review

RefelTOOto Health and H.

# 01- 15:

Inquiry in regard to hiring practices by

Audit and Finance committee.

# 01- 16:

Complaint alleging violation of rights by Mammoth Lakes Poli~ De~ ent with

regard to reading of the Miranda rights and an'eSt procedure. RefenM to Law and Justi~

committee.

# 01- 17:

Complaint regarding the library system

Disuict. RefeITedto Educationo ommittee.

' OI- IS:

Complaint alleging possible conflict of interest within the Mammoth

District's 1x> ardo f trusteesR. efelTedto District Attorney for guidance.

to Superior Court

of the contract betweenMammodl H~ pita1 and Blue Cross.

omanS elVicesc ommittee.

the Town of MammothLakes. Ref efiOO to

and the Eastern SielTa Unified School

Unified School

14

COMM TTEE REPORTS

IS

16

ADMINISTRATION COMW'l~ l'EE

Rick Mitcheu, Chair

Pete An- ants . Dan Berner. John Eliott. Dennis Erdman . Ken Willingham Jr.

BACKGROUND

The Administnltion committee studies the organization, efficiency of operation and

any other similar matters that affect county government, town government, and/ or special

districts, and provides an observer to attend regular and special meetings of the Bmrd of

Supervisorsw ho will report to the grandj ury all significantt rdnsactions.

FINDINGS

1. Committeem embersa ttendedn umerousm eetingso f the Boord of Supervisors.

They reported that meetings were lengthy at times, but allowed for the public to comment to

~ fullest Public comment was actively sought as a rule. Business was conducted in a

moo professionaml anner, a nd posteda gendati mes werea dheredt o completely.

2. At its meetings dJe Administration committee interviewed the County

Adminisuative Officer; discussed revenue and finance issues at leng~ explored areas for

increased cooperation between the Town of Mammoth Lakes and Mono County; and

moved toward developmenot f a county Health and Human ServicesA gency that would

combinet he current somewhatf ragmenteds ystem.

3. Inquiries into a possible conflict of interest in regaro to filling a vacancy on the

boord of directors of the Mammoth Community Water District determined that a written

MCWD procedure in place was followed at the time of appointment, and that fInancial

benefit to the existing boordm emberss eemedu nlikely.

4. The various governmentaal genciesr eviewedn eedt o establisha systemw hereby

cost benefits could be realized from cooperative and expert capital improvement

purchasing. V ariousa genciesp urchases imilar costly itemsa nd appeart o rely chiefly on in-house

advice and expertise. While tailored function is important, greater communication

and joint purchasing could realize cost savings.

S. The planning, design and construction oversight fa- fixed facilio~ needed now

and in the near future appear to be dealt widt on an agency- specific basis. Widt the

tremendouss umso f capitali nvolved in one- omeo nly projectsf or the agencies, t he sharing

of a resourcet hat might include expertisec ould prove coste fficient

RECOMMENDAn ON

As had been ~ mmended by a previous grand jury. the County has developed a

new position and hired a Human Servi~ Manager. Providing general personnel oversight

and the assigned task of updating the Personnel Policies and Procedures manual should

improve employer/ employee relations.

17

18

AUDIT & FINANCE COM: MI'. Y.' EE

Sam Walker, Chair

Pete Anants. Boyd Lemmon. JetTMills. Ken Willingham Jr.

STAT EMENT

The Audit and Financec ommitteec onductedtw o inquiriest his year. The first was the

result of two letters of concern regarding ~ financial operation of the Mono County Arts

Council. The second inquiry, which related to the use of bond funds for Mammdh Unified

School District's capital improvementsw, as assignedt o an txl hoc committeec ombining

members of the Audit and Finance committee and the Education committee. The results of

this inquiry are detailed on p. 23, in the Education committee's report

BACKGROUND

Questionsr egarding the financial operationa nd managemenot f the Mono County

Arts Council were received in writing and through personal interviews. County Counsel

issued an opinion regarding the grand jury's jurisdiction. The allegations were turned over

to the District Attorney's office, which conductedin terviewsa nd issueda report.

FINDINGS

The Mono County Arts Councilc ontractedfo r an audit, which was ampleted June 1,

2002. Committeem emoorsc onductedin terviews and reviewedt he two reports. The areas

of concern were:

a) Handling of an employeete nninationb y the director;

b) Cash handling from events;

c) Use of Arts Council creditc ard for peI'SOI1eax1p enses;

d) Appropriatenessa nd legality of controctsa mong ~ Arts Council, the Executive

Director and the Felici Trio;

e) Methodsa nd fonn of financialr e} X> rtingb y the staff to its bc: 8rdo f directors; a nd

f) Sale of artwork and the relationship ootween the Arts Council and the Executive

Director's businessE, astsideG allery.

CONCLUSIONS

1. The < Xmmitteefo und no evidenceo f misappropriationo r misuse of funds. There

were, however, numerous examples of poor judgment and inexperienced financial

managemenbt y the Executive Director. as well as financial oversight by the ~ of

directors.

19

2. As with many volunteer boards, there often does not exist ~ necessary

experiencein managementT his experiencem ust CX: Imfero m the peoplec hargedt o operate

the organizationo r from other sources, s ucha s consultantso r ~ rvice providers.

3. The Exocutive Directa' indicated he had lime experience running an organization

such as the Mono County Arts Council, yet the bcmrd of directors took no don to fill this

void

4. Knowing what one does not know is an important" assel

RECOMMENnDOAN S

1. The Arts Council has a history of mishandling employee relations. It should

appoint a cxxnrninee k> beccme familiar with Iaba' law and employee relations. All

organizations need training and knowledge in this area. If this experience does not exist on

the board or with the director, then consultants should be considered. Odter organizations

cx governmental entities in Mammoth oould be useful here.

2. AU financial transactions wid1in d1e organization, whether issuing checks or

de~ iting cash, should be handled by a third party. Contracting with a bookkeeping

servi~ could also be more ~ effective than handling these functions in- house.

3. Personal use of Arts Council credit cards should be specifically prohibited. The

boord of directors, with the help of its financial advisors, ought to devel~ " Policies and

Prtx: eduresf" o r all fInanciabl ' an8iM:: tioos.

4. Employment contracts entered into by the Arts Council need to be reviewed not

only for their suh5tanceb ut also for legality. The ~ yment method in the cootract with the

Executive Directa- clearly violates IRS regulatioos.

S. Financialr eportingt o the boo. rdo f directorsn eedst o be completea nd consistent

These reports were found to have little cootinuity.

6. Ann's- length transactions and avoiding the appearance of a conflict of in~ t

should be included in " Policies and Procedures."

COMMENDA nONS

At the writing of this report ~ Executive Directa' and the boord of directors had

already started addressing many of ~ issues. All l: 8rties cooperated openly widt the

ammittee.

20

BUILDING, PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMI'lYl'EE

Pete Arrants, Chair

Dan Berner. Jeff Mills. Rick Mitchell. Tim Taylor. Sam W~ ker

BACKGROUND

The Building. Planning and Environment ammittee received one letter of complaint

during this temt. passed on from the previous grand jury. regarding the method of handling

building pemtits.

FINDINGS

The complaint was discussed by the entire grand jury. No action was taken ~~~

the complaint was received unsigned; therefore there was no one to reply to.

RECOMMEND A nONS

A written complaint must be signed by ~ person who files the complaint

21

22

BACKGROUND

The grand jury, in looking into the questions raised, acknowledges that planning and

construction of multimillion- dollar capital projects is a complex business. The case of

MammothU nified School District ( MUSD ) is further complicatedb y the myriad statel aws,

codes and regulations that govern public school construction.

The report that follows is intended to reflect on the design, development and

constructionp rocess, a nd to offer commentsa nd suggestionsf or possible improvementi n

future projects. It is importantf or the schoold istrict to learnf rom its experiencesa nd share

that knowledgew ith other public- sectoar genciesc ontemplatingla rge capital projects.

The grand jury interviewed more than a dozen people involved in the development

and execution of MUSD's Facilities Master Plan. All individuals were candid and forthright

in providing infonnation for this report. This report is provided as a learning experience.

The grandj ury reCognizesth at the situation is being looked at with 20/ 20 hindsighl The

report is not intended to place blame or cause any i~ dividuals to believe ~ actions were

improper or poorly executed. Rather, ~ focus IS on how future projects could be

strengthenedb y changesin approacho r emphasis.

Question 11 :

Did MUSD's useo f proceedsfr om ~ 1998S chool Bond violate electionl aw?

Answer:

No.

Questio1n2 :

Was MUSD's

managed?

use of proceedsfr om the 1998 School Bond electionp roperly

Discussion-"

In ~ r 1997, a group known as the District SteeringC ommitteew: as fofDled by

MUSD to review and comment on the capital facility planning and programs needed within

MUSD to ~ t the district's long- term goals. The gool of the steering canmiuee meetings

was to be " a report prepared by the team to the Boord of Education that consists of a review

and recommendationfo r approvalo f the FacilitiesM asterP lan." The plan was to " provide a

financing plan that delivers resources in an efficient manner to ensure its successful

iimmpplreomveenmtaetniot" ns,. and establish a framework and foundation for future facilities

The committeec onsistedo f public members, r epresentativefsr om ead1s chool in the

district and members of the MUSD bcBrd of trustees and administrative staff. Through the

fall and winter of 1997- 98, this group met to detennine the needs of die district from a

capitalp roject planningp erspectivea nd to developa FacilitiesM asterP lan.

EDUCAnON COMMI'lYl'EE

Joyce Rowan, Chair

Dan Berner. John Elliott. DennisErdman

Steering Committee Meetings - I

23

Oct. 22, 1997: The steering ccmmittee reviewed numerous handouts and re} X) rts

provided by staff and, after reflecting on California Basic Educational Dam System

projections and community construction, agreed that the district should fall tllck into 3%

projected growth as in past years.

Oct. 29, 1997: The meeting summary prepared by district staff states, " Budget needs

are approximately $ 18.4 million. State funding through applications woUld taaI $ 5.15

million. L< x: aI funding through 1x> nd would require approximately $ 14.0 million."

NrD Architects Inc. also provided a summary of d1e < Xl 29 meeting resUlts: " NrD

reviewed d1ep lan conceptsb eing considered, a nd commenmw ere made by the committee.

The concepts are based on two major principles that were validated by the canmittee - t1x;

strong desire to have all grade levels and d1e district office on d1e same contiguous site, and

~ t efficiency." The NrD summary notes that with respect to d1e district offices, " No

objections to on- sire with other three facilities. . . proximity to students very desirable by

Peggy [ Wozniak]. . . ." The results of this meeting seem to indicate the district offices

would be locatedi n the building that CUlTentIyh ouses the middle school, once dle new

middle school was finished.

Nov. 12. 1997: The project list was first on the agenda. It showed the timing for

future projects as follows: December 1997, b< Brd approval of Facilities Master Plan; April

1998, lcal bond; Fall 1999, new SielTa High School; Fall 2000- 05, high school

rehab/ modificationF; all 2000- 01, elementaJys chool rehab; F all 2001, new middle school;

Fall 2001- 02, district maintenance/ operation/ transportatiaond; Fall 2008, new elementaIY

school.

The goo) of the meeting was to establish a Strategy to prioritize, finance and build

these projects in a timely manner. Note dmt this list did not mention the district

administrative office. .

The meeting notes from NrD Architects contain a budget summary showing a t( Dl

need of $ 18.5 million, state funding of $ 5.15 million and a oond capacity of $ 14.0 million.

Dec. 3, 1997: The committee discussed the Facilities Master Plan's proposed project

list, which described the location of Siena High School on the South Gateway property

site, across from the high school, east of the town offices. Under " District Operations," the

listing read, " Upon completion of middle school, use some of the existing middle school

relocatablec lassroomsa s district, maintenancea nd technologyo ffices."

The proj~ list called for the timing of the new middle school to be fall 2001- 02 at a

budgeto f $ 8 million. New district/ maintenance/ transportatiowna s listed for the same time

at $ 750,000. The new Siena High School was scheduled for fall 1999 widt a budget of

$ 710,000.

The steeringc ommitteem eetingsr esultOOin a proposal for the district to go to the

voters for support for a bond measure ( Measure S) that would finance the needed

improvements described in the Facilities Master Plan. The MUSD bc8rd of trustees

proposeda ballot initiative for a speciale lection April 14, 1998, asking the 1< x= aeIle :: tOlate

to approve an extension of the present school tax on property widlin d: Ie district. The

extension added 12 years, and through passage of Measure S, the district oould borrow

approximately $ 14.1 millioo needed for new capital projects and improvements to existing

schools. The additional borrowing was to be augmented by funds frani various state of

California sources. Acoording to the argument in favor of the initiative in the voter

information pantphlet, the matching funds from the state would be approximately $ 1.3

million.

24

Bond Election

A campaign ccmmittee was fonned, and MUSD hired a consulting fmn experienced

in helping districm " sell" the bond m~ ure to the community. Throughout the spring of

1998, the committee met and mooe phone calls to seek support for the bond election. The

result of the election was approval from 88% of the voters ( 66% was requirOO).

As a result of strong endorsemenftr om voters. the district moved forward with the

planningp rocesst o designt hen eededfa cilities. NrD Architectsw as hired to pr~ plans

for the new middle school. A number of improvement projects for existing faciliti~ was

alsoa pproved. a nd NTD was to provide plansa nd specificationsf or thesep rojectsa s well.

South Gateway Site

The school district entered into negotiations to ~ uire land across from the high

school. known as the South Gateway site. from the Mamrn~ Lakes Foundation. This site

had been identified as a possible location for Sien- a High School. Ql tviay 19. 1999. the

19- acre ~ l was purchased. and approximately three acres was resold to the Mono

County Office of Education. The MCOE was also planning a new classroom faa1ity for

county studentsa nd to provide s~ ce for administratives taff. NrD Architects was engaged

by the County to design this facility.

Steering Committee Meetings - II

July 22. 1998: Qt the agenda for this meeting was " Location of District Office."

Notes from the meeting state. " Middle school staff and arcl1itect are on schedule with

design of plans. . . . A decision was mooe to locate the district office within the Sien- a High

School for the following reasons: a ) The superintendenits the principal of d1es chool; b)

The high school staff needsa dministrativea nd clericals upportt hat it does not now have; c)

Not locating the district office in d1e existing middle school portables allows more

classrooms ~ for growth at both the comprehensiveh igh school and the middle school;

and d) C~ t effectiveness.

From these meeting notes. it appears that the decision to combine the Sien- a High

School and the district office into one facility was made after the bond election.

Oct. 1. 1998: The committee was given updates on the various projects. The plans for

middle school were reviewed. and it was stated that classroom design was next on the

architect'ss chedule. T he report on Sien- aH igh School focusedo n the land acquisition and

funding issues with d1e state. The meeting notes also stated. " Plans for d1e high school

[ SieITa High School] and the district office are continuing to be discussed. There is no final

design as yet. "

Nov. 19. 1998: The arcl1itecpt resentedp reliminary plans for the middle school and

took comments from the committee. Discussion of SieITa High School and the district

office was directed primarily toward the land transaction and preliminary site work. The

meeting summary noted. " The plans for the oombined Sien- a High School and district

office building need to be completed as soon as ~ ible. This will be placed as a priority."

Jan. 11. 1.999: The ammittee reviewed the plans. schedule and budget for various

projects on the Facilities Master Plan. The budget handout projected the middle school

costs at $ 8 million. Sien- a High School and district office were shown as different line

items. $ 744.000 and $ 700.000. respectively. The spatial programming handout showed

the total building area for the middle school to be 56.620 sq. ft. With a budget of $ 8

million. cost would equal $ 141/ sq. ft. ~ rding to NTD Architects.

2S

April 5, 1999: During this meetingd 1ea rchitectp resenteds chematicp lans for Sierra

High School and the middle school and provided a program and schedule for the projects.

Therew as considerabled iscussiono n possiblef uture locationsf or the footmII field, as the

middle school will occupy the present stadium site.

Oct. 28, 1999: The architect gave updates on middle school design progress, which

was largely complete, and Sien- a High School/ District Office design and schedule. The

musdnewsc ontainedt he following updateo n both facilities:

" The plans and architecturadl rawings for the District Office and SielTaH igh School

( MUSD's continuation high school) are in their final phase of completion and will be

submitted to d1e Division of d1e State An:: hitect for approval. This process takes several

months, but building should begin in the spring once the snow is gone. .

" The design phase of d1e middle school is nearly complete. As with Sien- a High

School, the next step is to complete d1e architectural drawings for submission to the S1ate

next year."

Aug. 31. 2lXXJA: t the Facility Committeem eeting, t he steeringc ommitteew as given

a new budget handout that showed constI1lction cost estimates for all projects:

Sien- a High School

Construction ~ t estimate

Site work tXd overage

~ ation to midpoint of construction

TarAL CONSTRUcrION COSTS

Soft costs ( 22%)

Tar AL PROJECT COST

Mammoth Middle School

Construction cost estimate

Soft costs ( 22%)

TarAL PROJECT COST

This was the first time the committee had been told that ooth project budgets needed

significant revision from the figures provided by NrD Architects in 1999. The schematic

plans for the middle school also showed a change in square footage: the school was now

about 40,000 sq. ft. The revised ~ t was $ 298/ sq. ft., double the earlier budget figure. A

budget worksheet handed out showed that combined funding sources would t{ DI

$ 21,900,960, aoout $ 250,000 more than the oombined Facilities Master Aan project total.

APmubolnicgS tchheosoe lfC uondnisntgru scotuiornce. sw as an estimated$ 6,003,9.60 from the state's Offi~ of

A budgeta nd schedulew orksheetd atedN ovember 2CXXs> h owed the revised figures

mentioned in the previous paragraph. The middle school schedule showed bid April 2001

and completion September 2002. Sien- a High School/ District Offi~ was to bid January

2001, with completionD ecember2 001. The bids submittedi n June 2( XX) w ere rejectOOa s

too high. The NrD Architectse stimatedc onstI'\ lction~ t at $ 2,282,261. In January 1999,

the tcDl for the combined facility was $ 1,444,000. By November 2000, the estimated

combined cost had risen by $ 832,261, a 58% increase from the original estimate.

Project Budget Revisions

$ 2,128,482

66,< XX>

87,779

2,282,261

502,097

2,784,358

9,787,636

2,153,279

11,940,915

26

Ol June 3D, 2000, only one bid was submitted for SieITa High School/ District Offi~

in d1e amount of $ 2,932,700, well in excess of NfD Architects' ~ t estimate. The

differen~ between d1e estimate and d1e bid was $ 650,439, a 28% increase. The district

rejected d1e bid, and decided to ~ jointly widl the Mono County Offi~ of Education to

proceed with site prep1ration for both buildings. A site ~ tion contract was issued to

Ledcor Construction for $ 754,729. MUSD and the Mono County Offi~ of Education were

to sharet he ~ t of site preJ: al'atioDT. h ea rchitecwt asi nstructedto look. f or wayst o reduce

~ ts of Sien- a High School/ District Office and provide a revised set of plans for rebidding.

Revised bids were received Feb. 28, 2001. The oontractor ~ lected was Broward

Construction, who was also the successful bidder for the Mono County Offi~ of

Education facility adjacent to d1e Sien- a High SchoollDistrict Office site. The ( X) I1tract

signed by MUSD with Broward Construction on March 5; 2001, callm for ~ facility to

be delivered at a fixed price of $ 2,084,000. The completion date agreed upon was Jan. 31,

2002.

Construction of Sien- a High School/ District Office pI~ ed throughout 2001 and

into 2002. The district movedi nto the facilities March 1, 2002. MUSD reportedt he "( X) Sto

date" for the ~ ject as of March 2002 as $ 2,477,271, excluding ~ t of ~ land. This

figure includes $ 2,107,751 to Broward Construction and $ 369,520 to Ledcor. ~ J8IlCY

of Sien- aH igh School/ DistrictO ffice pI~ ed occuJ: 8DCoYf the new middle school by at.

least a year. The size of the building is 5,000 sq. ft., and ~ ~ t was $ 495/ sq. ft. Current

enrollment of Sien- a High School is 29 studen~. '

The architectural plans for the middle school were approved Aug. I, 2001, by the

De~ ent of State Architect. The project was advertised, and bids for the middle school

were receivooS ept 18,2001. AD bids exceededt he estimateo f cost pI- eparedb y NrD

Architects. The lowest bid was $ 13,882,000, which was $ 4,094,364 more dIaD the

architect's ~ t estimate of $ 9,787,636 in November 2000. The lowest bid exceeded the

architect's ~ t estimate by 42%. After due consideration, d1e bc: erd of trustees rejected aU

bids < Xt 1,2001, and sent d1e project mck to staff and architect for further analysis and

recommendations.

In July 2001, SuperintendenPt eggy Womiak reJX> rtetdo the steering ccmmitteet hat

a problem existed with d1e funds expected from the state's Office of Public School

Construction. T he $ 6 millioo would not be fordloomingb ecauses tatef unds were tioo up in

a battle with ~ Los Angeles Unified School District This would mean a shortfall on the

order of $ 2 millioo to $ 3 millioo in funds to build the middle school. Furthermore, d1ere

was no money to oontinue with other projects on the Facilities Master Plan list The district

was evaluating several " work around" plans to see what oould be done to get the project

moving once more.

Throughout fall and early winter 1991, the superintendenmt et with numerousl XU'ties

to resolve ~ funding shortfall. QJe fruitful solution emerged. a lease/ 1easemck.

arrangemenwt ith a developmentc ompmy d1atw ould work with the district to deliver ~

project and provide funding for the shortfall if needed. The developer, Regent Development

Partners LLC, agreed to ~ as MUSD' s agent in securing a contractor and baving dJe

facility built The district entered into a oontrdct with Regent for a construction budget of

$ 11,751,155, a figure anived at after the developer reviewed the plans and recommended

areas where costs oould be saved. The district, developer and arclritect presumably agreed

on these changes, which had been inCO! por~ into the oontract's Approved Plans and

Specifications. The bc: erd of trustees approved the contrdct widt Regent Feb. 25, 2002.

The contract calls for oompletion of dIe middle ..: hool by June 3D, 2003.

27

Sierra High School/ District Office

Mammoth Middle School

During summer 2001, MUSD decideAi to seek a solution for relocating the footOOlI

field, as it would ~ me necessary whenever middle school construction began. The best

location was detennineAi to be nor1heast of its original location, behind the play fields of ~

elementary school. Work commenced on this project in July 2001. The ard1itect for ~

footOOlI field relocation was NTD, and the contractor was K& H Smith, who submitted a

bid of $ 564,579. Mammoth Mountain provided a significant contribution in terms of

earthwork, valueAi at more than $ 200,000. Completion of the footOOlI field is scheAiuled for

summer 2002. The steering committee never discussed the footOOlI field relocation work.

CONCLUSIONS

1. The funds spent by MUSD on construction of Sien- a High SchoollDistrict Office

appear to fall within the scope of items listed on ~ ballot measure submitted to vo~ rs

April 14, 1998. Although the measured oesn ot specIfically statet hat MUSD was planning

to build a District Office, the classrooms provided at Sien- a High School were clearly J: mrt

of the description listed in the text of the measure. The actions of the district and the logic

of locating the superintendentw, ho acts as principal of Sien- aH igh School, in the same

structure are reasonable.

2. The documents reviewed show that the decision to combine SielTa High School

and the District Office was based on sound reasoning. It appears, however, that this change

in srope of the project C3USead m ajor imi: BCot n the budget

a. Construction on Sien- aH igh School/ DistrictO ffice begane ven though costs

for the project had climbed significantly from. the original budget It appears

that either little effort was mOOteo bring the costs back into line, or the effort

was ineffective.

b. Splitting up the earthwork and building construction did not reduce overall

costs. There was no fonnal value engineering review of the project during

design process dJat would have identified the areas where costs could have

been reduced.

c. The project was an award- winning design. Even taking into account a difficult

site, the ~ t for building construction appears very high.

d. The final ~ t of tile projecto n a dollar- per- square- foobt asis is higher than it

needed to be for the intended use.

3. The community was justified in its unhappiness concerning d1e timelin~ of the

middle school construction. A review of the records revealed that MUSD gave high

priority to Sierra High School/ District Office. The architect then gave it high priority, and

the design was finished ahead of the middle school.

a. Part of the reason for d1e shift of priority was the overcrowded conditions of

Sierra High School, which had been moved into a portable office on the MHS

campus.

b. It should be noted that d1e middle school is a larger project and involved more

staff review and comment time than Sierra High School/ District Office. If

MUSD had set the middle school as the highest priority, given the fact that it

impacts significantly more students, there would not have been community

discontent Community- wide support for the new middle school is the reason

the bond issue passed with such a wide margin.

c. The district did not communicatea dequatelyt o the public the decisions and

reasons for putting Sierra High School/ District Office first place in line.

28

Football Field Relocation

4. The ardritect was working on multiple projectsf a- MUSD. In OOditionto Sierra

High School/ District Office, NrD was working on m< xlernization details for MHS,

portablec lassroomsf or the elementaJsyc hool.. r elocationo f the footOOlfli eld, d. esigno f ~

middle school and a master plan for ~ enbre campus. NrD was also ardritect fa b

MalO County OOice of Education and preparing plans fa that f~ ty on ~ South

Gateway site. It is possible that handling aU these projects at once beaune a oontributing

factor in the schedules lippageo f the middle schoolp roject.

s. Consb" Uctioonf ~ new footOOlfIi eld proceededu nder pressuret o clear tIx: site

for the antici~ ted starto f oonsb" UCtiofonr the middle school.

a. The school boord members did not have a clear idea of the overall project

~ ts fa this facility.

b. There was pressure from parents and staff to continue d1e footmll program

unintemlpted, which neressitated moving forward quickly with oonstruction.

c. Interviews with the board of trustees reveal that there was little discussion

about alternatives to ~ field relocation, and a total project ~ estimate fcr

field relcx.- atiowna s never~ nted to ~ board.

FlNDINGS

1. Constructioo of a new school in a relatively small district does not happen very

often. MUSD does not employ a professional project manager to oversee the various

projects listed in the Facilities Master Aan.

2. The budget summary of all Facilities ~ Aan proj~ ts listed through 2~

totals well over $ 20 million. It is unrealistic to expect existing disbict staff to have

sufficient time in d1eir daily schedules, or expertise in design, CX> I1traclat w and

construction, to keep track of capital projects of this order of magnitude.

3. Overseeing this level of design and construction takes one or more full- time

project managemenpt rofessiona1( sw) i th experiencein the work being done.

REC OMMFl'" DATION S

1. The district should considert aking immediatea ctioo to < XXTectht is sittJationa nd

secure professional construction management services for current and future capital

projects.

2. Larger districts have on- staff projm management professionals, and MUSD

should consider contracting these services from another district or from the private s~ tor.

3. A projm managesrh ouldh aven o fiduciaryi nteresitn ~ projm othert hant hat

of the district.

29

FINDINGS

1. A number of other public agencies in Mammoth Lakes and Mono County are

poised to engage in majoc expansion of their facilities. They will be spending the public's

money.

2. Val~ engineering of public projects can yield valuable ~ savings when

exerciseda t the con- ectp oint during developmenot f plans and specifications. N onnally, a

fannal value engineering analysis takes place when a project is at the 10% to 20% design

point This is prior to final decisionso n elementss ucha s the structural system, HV AC

system, exterior cladding, and other individual building components that make up the

majority of the project cost

3. It does not appear that MUSD had a foIma1 value engineering ( VB) review done

on the projects designed by NTD. Architects sometimes tell their clients that they perform

ongoing value engineering during the design phase of the project While this may be tlUe, a

formal VE review brings construction, m aintenancea nd operationsp eople to the design

table where they look for ~ best " life cycle" ~ for various components of the job. Any

VE review that does not involve these partici~ ts is not a thorough VE review.

4. Design/ build contracts are becoming more prevalent in the public sector today.

One of d1e reasons that design/ build has shown positive results is that builders and

architects work as a team from the very beginning. This assures that d1e building design

will not only meett he owner's requirementsb, ut that constructabilitya nd mnterial selection

are considered from the outsel

RECOMMENDA nONS

1. In order for the public to get good value for the money spent, it will be necessary

for thesea genciest o have effective capital project managemenmt easures. T hese include

knowledgeable design professionals to pr~ d1e plans, peer review of d1e plans,

. programs to include community input on d1e project, sound financial mechanisms,

constructionm anagemenet xperts, and experiencedp roject managersw ho can keep plans

on track.

2. Not to be overlookedi s the importanceo f thoroughf ront- end environmentalw ork

on the projectsa nd proper follow- through on mitigationm easuresa nd other areasi dentified

in the environmental review process. These agencies should begin planning as early as

possible. They must allow sufficient time in the design stage for thorough review and

feedback. C utting time in the designp ortion of the project scheduleis false economy.

3. The public agenciesc ontemplatingm aja: capitalp rojectss hould seek to cooperate

in constl1lcting joint facilities wherever possible. Larger projects generally enjoy an

economy of scale that will lower overall ~ t per square foot.

4. High school and colleged evelopmenct ould possibly serve other public purposes

such as recreation, performing arts, community meetings and library functions.

~.

30

S. Mammoth Lakes needs to consider all future facilities

serving both local and visitor needs without duplication of facilities.

COM: MENDA nONS

1. The Mammoth Unified School District is commended for utiliDng a steering

ccmmittee in development of its Facilities Master Plan. The district held a number of

community workshops to give the public opportunity to comment on the proposed projects.

Other public agencieso ught to keep the public fully informed as their JX'Ojectms ove

forward.

2. The district is also commendedfo r its efforts to securet he best possible rating for

the bonds. This resulted in lower financing costs and allowed more money to be spent on

facilities.

FINDINGS

1. Public agenciesn eedm asterp lans to help in charti~ gt heir capital facility needs.

2. Masterp lan documentsn eedp eriodicr eview and updating.

3. For school districts, the census of students is one of the key data points in

determiningf uture facility needo r currente xpansionr equirements.

4. The initial student population projections used in developing the draft Facilities

Master Aan ( 3% growth) are not proving to be accurate. The district's latest study on

developer impact fees shows a current projection closer to a 1% growth rate for dle next

decade. Although the difference may seem small, the enor compounded over a number of

years leads to false results and inaccurate ronclusions.

5. In the case of the MUSD Facilities Master Plan, a fonnal master plan document

was never published after the series of meetings of the steering rommittee.

6. The infonnation developed during the steering ammittee meetings remains in dle

form of meeting notes and exhibits prepared by NTD Architects.

7. Public agenciess hould I: 8Yc losea ttentiont o projectb udgetsi n approvalo f capital

projects. T hered oesn ot appeart o be a depth of understandinga mong the memberso f dle

MUSD booId concerning the growth and upward movement of estimated project ~

during the designd evelopmenst tagea nd later the bid- and- awards tageo f its projects.

RECOMMENDA nONS

1. The board of trustees is advised to revisit the underlying assumptions used in

developing the Facilities Master Plan from time to time to be sure the district stays on track.

31

from the standpoinot f

2. The district's new superintendenwt ill need to cull from steering ammittee

meetingd ocumentsa nd discussionsw ith the boardo f trusteest he future plans for MUSD.

3 . A final Facilities Master Plan document, reviewed and approved by the board,

would be much simpler and more definitive.

4. The district is advised to assemblet he disparate reports fl: Ol11t he steering

committee, planning consultants, financial experts, demographic studies and curriculum

needsi nto a comprehensiveF acilities MasterA an that will serve as the district's guiding

document for future capital and project planning.

s. ~ h project should be evaluatedin comparisonto ~ total project list and against

the engineer's or architect's estimate for the project.

6. When costs rise, the reasons for the rise need . to be clearly understood, and

alternativesfo r reducingc ostso ught to be discussed. T he final ~ t of a completedp roject

should not comea s a surprisea nd shouldn ot exceedth e initial budget without good ~ n

and adequatee xplanation.

,.

~

32

BACKGROUND

The Executive committee conducted

compiled somer ecommendationfso r the next grandj wy.

FINDINGS

No findings.

RECOMMENDA nONS

1. Mono County should consider implementation of technology and networking

throughout its offices.

2. Mono County should provide initial and follow- up training on its greatest assets:

each and every employee.

3. IntelViewing die new Health and Human SelVices administrator should be a

priority, as well as reviewinga dministrativep oliciesa nd departmenpt olicies.

4. The incoming grand jury should retain as many hold- over jurors as possible from

the outgoing grand jury and send them to the California Grand Jurors Association training.

5. The incomingg randju ry shouldf orm txl hoc committeebsa sedo n geographic

location.

6. The incoming grand jury should review the utde Hoover Commission Report on

speciald istricts. The report is availablea t www. lhc. ca. gov undert he title " SpecialD istricts:

Relics of the Pasto r Resourcesfo r the Futurer'

7. The incomingg randj ury should review the SacramentoC ounty Grand Jury RelX> rt

at www. sacgrandjury. org

I

EXECUTIVE COMMI'jYj'EE

Cliff Sharp, Chair

Tammy Davis. Ceal Gargan. Sam : Walker

numerous discussionsduring this teIm and

33

34

HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES COMMI'lTl'EE

BACKGROUND

The Healtha nd HumanS ervicesc ommitteer eceivedt wo letterso f complaintd uring

this tenD:

1. The first lettero f complaint( # 01- 13) r equesteda n investigationo f a Hantavirusc ase

allegedt o haveh appeneda t a hotel in Lee Vining. The letter indicateda possiblec over- up

in what could be a public health issue, as the owners were allegedly friends with Dr. Jack

Bertman, the Mono County Health Officer.

2. The secondl ettero f complaint( 101- 14) r equesteda review of the contractb etween

Mammoth Hospital and Blue Cross, as well as the h~ pital's contracts widt various l<: x= al

physicians and its billing and collection pmctices when billing ~ tients on behalf of dt~

physicians.

HNDINGS

1. The investigationr evealedth att hereh asn everb eena caseo f Hantavirusa t the hotel

in question. T he ccmmitteein terviewedD r. Bertmana t lengtha nd spoket o memberso f the

Mono County Health Departmentw, ho confirmedt his statement

2. The information given to Blue Cross patients, " Clues About Blues," explained the

billing JX) licies of both Mammoth Hospital and Blue Cross. Although the guide was

designed to clarify the billing and claims by the hospital, it was very confusing.

The committee interviewed CEO Gary Myers and CFO Jim Smith in the presence of

David Baumwohl, the hospital's attorney. As a result of this meeting, the following

explanationw as given aboutb illing practicesM: ammothH ospital has a contractw ith some

physicians, w ho aree ssentiallye mployeeso f the hospital. Any professionals ervicest hese

physicians provide are billed by the hospital. Because the hospital bills Blue Cross, the

form required for claims is a " Facility Hospital ContrdCt Form," as the services are

considered perfamed at a hospital facility. It is this form that makes the difference in ~

member's rate.

all physicians who work at Mammoth HQ § pital are under contract. These

I1Sa re consideredin dependenat ndd o their own billing.

RECOMMEND A nONS

Upon recommendatiobny the Health and Human Servicesc ommittee, C EO Myers

rewrote an infonnation sheet clarifying billing and Blue Cr~ s claims.

Peggie Chew, Chair

CeaI Gargan . Marcy Ziegler

35

36

LA W & JUSnCE COM: MI" lWl'EE

Marcynegler, Chair

Frank Axford. Tammy Davis. Ceal Gargan. Rick Mitchell. Joyce Rowan

BACKGROUND

The Law and Justice canmittee ~ ivoo and investigated three letteIS of complaint

during this tenn. Upon completiono f thesein vestigations, a s well as severalm eetingsa nd

facility visits with law enforcement officials, this committee is compelloo 10 make the

following statement In this committee's opinion there still remains ongoing dissension at

the administrativel evel betweent he MammothL akes Police DelBJ1menat nd the Mono

County Sheriff's Department

Mono County law enforcement agencies should continue 10 strive for mutual

cooperation. Furthennore, they should focus on their common mission rather than their

differences. D epu1menot fficials shouldw ork togethero n a collaborativeb asis, putting the

needs of the citizens of Mono County and the town of Mammoth Lakes fiISt, making sure

that their staffs always have clear communicationa nd undeIStandingo f expectationsi n

performing their duties.

It is apparent hat lack of a centrdlizedd ispatchi s a continuing sourceo f initation for

the Mono County Sheriff's Depu1menat nd the Mammoth Lakes Police De~ ent, fire

de~ ents and Emergency Medical Services. There should be a continued effort by all

agenciesto resolvet his issue. .

CfI1ZEN COMPLAINTS

COMPLAINTS # 01- 01, 01- 02, 01- 03:

a. Complaintsd isputedc omplainant'sin carcerationa nd sentencing.

b. A report alleged dJat Mono County Sheriff's Dep1I" tment used unauthorized

personnel to supervise inmates.

FINDINGS:

a. Complaint was not properly within the jurisdiction of grand jury.

b. The jail incident was reviewed with the Sheriff's Department. The supervising

person in question is, in fact, authorized.

RECOl\ InvfENDTAI ONS:

a. Complainanwt as advisedt o seekl egal counsel.

b. None

COMPLAINr # 01- 07: Complaint ooncemeda search

Lake by a Mono County sheriff's deputy.

2.

ANDINGS: After meeting with the Sheriff's De~ ent and reviewing the

incident, i t was found that the ~ wasr esolvedto thes atisfactiono f all parties.

RECO~ DATION: None

of property in Crowley

37

COMPLAINr # 01- 16: Complainanta llegOOv iolations of rights by Mamm~

Lakes Police Depu'tment with regaro to reading of Miranda rights and an'esting

procedures.

3.

FINDINGS: Upon meeting widt d1e Mrro and reviewing d1e incident report, it

was detenninedt hat all proceduresw ere adheredt o in proper order.

RECO~ A nONS:

LA W ENFORCEMENT FACILITIES VISITATION

The Law and Justice

facilities:

Oct. 17, 2001: Meeting with Sheriff Dan Paranick at the Mono County Sheriff's

DeJ8ftment

March 20, 2002: Meeting with Chief Mike Donnelly at the Mammoth Lakes Police

DeJ: lU1menat nd a tour of the office and detention facility. It was clear that OOditional SpI. ce

is desperately needed for all operations. including processing. storage. holding cells and

lockers. A new facility is planned for the future.

AprU 17, 2002: Tour of office and detention facility at the Mono County Sheriff's

DeJm'tmenitn Bridgeport. At this time the facility has adequates ~ for all operations, but

within the next 10 years there will be a need for expansion. It was noted that an additional

food service worker is needed

COMMENDA nON

The Law and Justicec cmmitteee xpressesit s gmtitude to the Mono County Sheriff's

DeJBI'tmenat nd the Mammoth Lakes Police DeJmtment for their prompt and efficimt

responsesto all inquiries.

None

C( mJnineec onducted several visits to l<: x= alla w enforcement

38

TOWN OF MAMMOTH

ST ATEME NT

The Town of MammothL akesc cmmitteer eceivedn o letters of complaint during this

tenn. The Town's financial report was reviewed by three jurors.

FINDINGS

No findings.

RECOMMENDA nONS

No recommendations.

LAKES CO: M: Mflwl'EE

Tammy Davis. Chair

Ken Willingham Jr.

39

40

PARKS, RE'CREATION

Timothy Taylor. Chair

Peggie Chew. Boyd Lemmon. Ken Willingham Jr.

BACKGROUND

The Parks. Recreationa nd Public Works canmittee ~ ved a single foI'Dlalw ritten

letter of complaint (# 01- 05) alleging unethical hiring practices within the Mono County

Public Works De~ ent

F1NDINGS

Upon investigationb y the grandj ury, all allegationss etf orth in the letter of complaint

were withdrawn by the complainant No further action was taken.

RECOMMENDA nONS

No recommendations.

& PUBLIC WORKS COMMI'l. l'~ E

41

42