2003- 2004 Grand Jury Final Report i

Table of Contents

Introduction

Functions of the Civil Grand Jury……………………………………………… iii

Judge’s Letter to the Grand Jury………………………………...……………… v

Grand Jury’s Letter to the Judge…………………………………...………….. vii

2003- 2004 Grand Jurors……………………………………………...………… ix

Acknowledgements………………………………………………..…………… xi

Notice to Respondents

Notice to Respondents………………………………………………...………. xiii

2003- 2004 Grand Jury Reports

Criminal Justice

Amador County Law Enforcement………………………………………...…… 1

Crisis Mental Health Cases Involving the 5150 and 5170 Welfare and Institutions Codes………………………………….…………………….…. 9

Pine Grove Youth Authority………………………………………………....... 13

Amador County Detention Facility……………………………………………. 17

Preston Youth Correctional Facility…………………………………………… 19

Mule Creek State Prison……………………………………………………….. 23

City/ County Government

City of Plymouth………………………………………………….…………… 29

Kennedy Meadows……………………………………………….……………. 37

Special Districts

Arroyo Ditch…………………………………………………………………… 45

River Pines Public Utility District…………………………………...………… 49

Citizens Complaints

Introduction……………………………………………………….…………… 55

2003- 2004 Citizen Complaints………………………………………………… 57

Follow Up

Introduction……………………………………………………………………. 63

Responses to 2002- 2003 Grand Jury Reports…………………………………. 65

Appendix

Citizen Complaint form………………………………………………………. 125

Grand Jury Glossary………………………………………………………... 127 2003- 2004 Grand Jury Final Report ii

2003- 2004 Grand Jury Final Report iii

Function of the Grand Jury

The Grand Jury, as mandated by the California Constitution, is part of the Judicial Branch and an arm of the Court. The Civil Grand Jury has two responsibilities: to act as a civil watchdog conducting investigations and to answer citizen complaints.

The Grand Jury investigates city and county government, as well as special districts, to ensure the interests of Amador County citizens are being served. County government procedures, methods and systems are reviewed and evaluated to determine if more efficient and economical programs might be employed.

The Grand Jury issues final reports on county government operations. The reports describe problems encountered and make recommendations for solutions. The County board of Supervisors and/ or the affected agencies or districts must comment on these recommendations.

The Grand Jury is also authorized to:

• Inspect and audit county books, ensuring that public funds are properly and legally accounted for.

• Investigate and report on the performances of special districts or commissions.

• Evaluate conditions of jails and detention centers within the county.

• Investigate charges of willful misconduct by public officials or employees.

• Investigate and report on “ questionable business practices” of such agencies.

As part of the civil function, the Grand Jury receives letters from citizens alleging mistreatment by officials, suspicions of misconduct or government inefficiencies. While keeping the complaints confidential, they are acknowledged and investigated for their validity. If needed, a recommendation for corrective action can be made under the Grand Jury’s jurisdiction.

2003- 2004 Grand Jury Final Report iv

2003- 2004 Grand Jury Final Report v

2003- 2004 Grand Jury Final Report vi

2003- 2004 Grand Jury Final Report vii

2003- 2004 Grand Jury Final Report viii

2003- 2004 Grand Jury Final Report ix

2003- 2004 Amador County Grand Jury

Edna Tulle Baker

Ingrid Barnes

Darlene Bingham

Iris Brayton

Annette Conway

Bernard Corner

David Cranfield

Dave Herspring

Timothy Jelsch

Robert Knudson

Lina Marohl

Jessie M. McBride

Theresa McClurkin- Evans

Betty Miller

Helen Stanley

Edith Sutherland

Sally Upchurch- Hopkins

Eva Lee Wuoltee

* Several members were unable to finish their term.

2003- 2004 Grand Jury Final Report x

2003- 2004 Grand Jury Final Report xi

Acknowledgments

The tasks performed by the 2003- 2004 Grand Jury could not have been completed without the help and support of numerous individuals throughout the county. We wish to thank the following individuals for their assistance and support: Judge David Richmond, Peggy Crain and Kristine Price; John Hahn, County Counsel; Todd Riebe, District Attorney; Vernon Pierson, Chief Assistant District Attorney, and John D’Agostini, District Attorney Investigator.

The Grand Jury would also like to thank the County Board of Supervisors for their assistance on numerous occasions as well as the County Administrator Patrick Blacklock for patiently answering our many questions. Sheriff Mike Prizmich and Under- Sheriff Karl Knobelauch were most helpful in providing information needed by the Grand Jury members.

The Amador County Unified School District was friendly and very cooperative in facilitating the Grand Jury’s follow up to the previous Grand Jury report. We would like to thank Mike Carey, Superintendent of Amador County Unified School District; Dale Muchmore, Director of Transportation; and Matt Sherwood, Director of Facilities and Operations for their help.

The Grand Jury was assisted in securing meeting facilities by Jon Hopkins, Deputy Director of General Services Administration; Trevor Mottishaw from the General Services Administration; Carolyn Scalabrino, Administrative Secretary of the Department of Agriculture/ Weights and Measures; and Sherri Elliott, Office Manager, Amador County Fair.

Finally, we would like to extend our gratitude to the Amador County Sesquicentennial Committee for graciously allowing us the use of their logo. 2003- 2004 Grand Jury Final Report xii

2003- 2004 Grand Jury Final Report xiii

Notice to Respondents

Response Requirements:

Effective January 1, 1997, there was an extensive change in the law affecting respondents and responses to Grand Jury findings and recommendations. The legal requirements are contained in California Penal Code, Section 933.05. Each Respondent should become familiar with these legal requirements and, if in doubt, should consult legal counsel before responding.

How to Respond to Findings:

For the assistance of all Respondents, Penal Code Section 933.05 is summarized as follows:

The responding person or entity must respond in one of two ( 2) ways:

• That you agree with the finding.

• That you disagree wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons for the disagreement.

How to Report Action in Response to Recommendations:

Recommendations by the Grand Jury require action. The responding person or entity must report action on all recommendations in one of four ( 4) ways:

• The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary of the implemented action.

• The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation.

• The recommendation requires further analysis. If a person or entity reports in this manner, the law requires a detailed explanation of the analysis or study and timeframe not to exceed six months. In this event, the analysis or study must be submitted to the officer, director or governing body of the agency being investigated.

• The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore.

2003- 2004 Grand Jury Final Report xiv

2003- 2004 Grand Jury Final Report 1

Amador County Law Enforcement

Introduction

The 2003- 2004 Grand Jury elected to review law enforcement in Amador County pursuant to California Penal Code 925( a).

Background

The Grand Jury recognizes the local police agencies’ role in promoting civic pride and providing unique identities to the cities of Amador County. However, budget constraints, prior Grand Juries’ interest and current concerns led the 2003- 2004 Grand Jury to consider combining city and county law enforcement agencies into one county- wide organization. This will eliminate the duplication of services and better manage public funds.

Currently, police departments account for the greatest portion of the budget for those cities that maintain a police force ( Jackson, Ione, and Sutter Creek). Plymouth and Amador City, along with the unincorporated areas of Amador County, utilize the Sheriff’s Office for their law enforcement needs. The Sheriff’s Office has begun shifting costs previously absorbed by its department to the individual cities. This further burdens the cities’ already dwindling financial resources. The 2004- 2005 State Budget is further reducing funds for local government.

The following report summarizes the various police functions which, if combined, could represent significant savings to the cities that currently maintain individual police forces.

Method of Evaluation

The Grand Jury conducted interviews, reviewed documents, attended Board of Supervisors meetings, and City Council meetings of Jackson, Ione, and Sutter Creek.

Persons Interviewed

District Attorney

Sheriff

Under- Sheriff

City Managers

Chiefs of Police of Jackson, Ione, and Sutter Creek

Police Officers

Retired peace officers from other jurisdictions

Mayors of Jackson, Ione, and Sutter Creek

City Council members from Jackson, Ione, and Sutter Creek.

Merchants

Citizens

Documents Reviewed

City and county budgets

City and county organizational charts

Board of Supervisors meeting minutes

City Council meeting minutes

Previous Grand Jury reports and notes

Web sites for Amador County and the cities of Jackson, Ione, and Sutter Creek 2003- 2004 Grand Jury Final Report 2

Statistics and Demographics

See accompanying chart

Crime Investigations

Fact:

• Police Chiefs of Jackson, Ione, and Sutter Creek report a relatively low crime rate in the County.

• Some city police officers lack experience in crime investigations.

Findings:

• Inconsistencies in crime investigations hinder the prosecution process.

• It is necessary for the County District Attorney’s office to utilize its own investigators.

Recommendations

• Coordinate/ share investigative personnel to capitalize on the expertise of the more experienced staff county- wide.

• Staff with more experience in crime investigations should train and mentor the staff with less experience.

Sheriff Dispatch

Facts:

• During normal business hours Monday through Friday, citizens of Jackson, Ione, and Sutter Creek can call their own police departments directly. After hours, all calls to the various police departments are automatically routed to Sheriff Dispatch.

• When Sheriff Dispatch sends a city police officer on a call, they additionally send a Sheriff’s deputy as backup because cities frequently have only one police officer on duty.

Finding:

• A duplication of services exists.

Recommendations:

• For all non- emergency requests for law enforcement services call the Amador County Sheriff’s Office.

• Utilize 911 for all emergency calls.

Narcotics Officers

Fact:

• The Narcotics Task Force consists of two deputies from the Sheriff’s Office and one Ione police officer.

Finding:

• There is inconsistent city participation in the Narcotics Task Force.

2003- 2004 Grand Jury Final Report 3

Recommendations:

• Increase the number of qualified officers assigned to the Narcotics Task Force.

• Sutter Creek and Jackson should participate equitably in the Narcotics Task Force.

• Train existing officers for additional Narcotics Task Force coverage for the County.

Shared Services

Fact:

• Crime investigations, dispatching services, the Narcotics Task Force, and the School Resource Officer are law enforcement functions that are currently shared and consolidated on a county level.

Finding:

• Shared services are beneficial to all county residents.

Recommendation:

• Combine local police departments with the County Sheriff to utilize shared services efficiently.

Vehicle Maintenance

Facts:

• The cities contract with different garages for the maintenance and repair of law enforcement vehicles.

• The County Corporation Yard has the appropriate staff and facilities to service additional law enforcement vehicles.

Finding:

• Potential cost savings are available by using the County Corporation Yard for the purpose of law enforcement vehicle maintenance and repair.

Recommendation:

• Standardize the maintenance and repair of law enforcement vehicles by using the County Corporation Yard.

Fuel

Facts:

• Sutter Creek and Jackson purchase fuel from the County.

• Ione purchases fuel from a private source.

Finding:

• The price paid for fuel varies.

Recommendation:

• Contracts should be made for fuel purchases through the County Corporation Yard.

2003- 2004 Grand Jury Final Report 4

Equipment/ Vehicle Purchase

Facts:

• Equipment such as light bars, computers, push bumpers, cages, plastic back seats, and vehicles are procured individually by each city.

• Researching, locating, and purchasing of equipment and vehicles are done by each city individually.

Findings:

• Purchasing power would be enhanced by buying equipment in bulk and vehicles at fleet prices.

• Equipment and vehicle purchases are duplicated by each city.

Recommendations:

• Evaluate equipment and vehicular needs on a county- wide basis.

• Centralize equipment and vehicular purchases to take advantage of bulk and fleet pricing.

• Purchase necessary equipment and vehicles according to the County’s needs.

Law Enforcement Motor Pool

Facts:

• No more than two officers are on duty at any given time in each city.

• Each city has 6- 12 law enforcement vehicles available.

Findings:

• The number of law enforcement vehicles available to each city exceeds its need.

• Combining law enforcement into one county- wide agency would reduce the number of excess vehicles.

• Eliminating excess law enforcement vehicles would reduce maintenance and fuel costs.

Recommendations:

• Establish a law enforcement motor pool based on county- wide needs.

• Evaluate law enforcement vehicle needs on a county- wide basis and make appropriate vehicular reductions in each city.

Grant Applications

Facts:

• Grants are an integral part of county and city law enforcement funding.

• The County and each city apply for law enforcement grants individually.

Finding:

• Cities and the County are in competition for law enforcement grants.

2003- 2004 Grand Jury Final Report 5

Recommendations:

• Cities and the County need to work cooperatively to apply for law enforcement grants.

• Designate one qualified person to apply for law enforcement grants for Amador County.

• Share law enforcement grant proceeds equitably.

Training

Facts:

• The State of California mandates recurrent training for police officers and deputies.

• Specialized training is available to police officers and deputies.

Findings:

• Local police coverage is impacted when officers and deputies attend training.

• Coverage for absences due to training is paid on overtime or other compensatory basis.

• Reserve officers are not readily available to fill absences created by training.

Recommendation:

• Organize the law enforcement training schedule on a county- wide basis so adequate and cost- effective police coverage always exists.

Promotions

Fact:

• Law enforcement promotional opportunities within the cities are limited.

Finding:

• The relatively small size of each city’s law enforcement department limits promotional opportunities.

Recommendation:

• Combine law enforcement agencies to provide greater promotional opportunities at the County level.

City Police Office Hours

Fact:

• City police stations are closed evenings, weekends and holidays.

Finding:

• Access to city police offices by either walk- in or telephone is not always available.

• Access to the Sheriff’s Office during evenings, weekends, and holidays is available.

Recommendations:

• Utilize the Sheriff’s Office for police access.

2003- 2004 Grand Jury Final Report 6

City Manager/ Police Chief

Fact:

• The dual roles of City Manager and Police Chief in Ione and Sutter Creek are filled by one individual in each city.

Finding:

• A potential conflict of interest exists when the responsibilities and accountabilities of the Chief of Police and the City Manager are filled by the same individual, for example, police intervention with other local government officials.

Recommendation:

• Retain City Managers and consolidate supervisory law enforcement personnel under the Sheriff’s Office.

Administration

Facts:

• Each of the 3 cities employs its own Police Chief.

• Two Lieutenants and 2 Sergeants are staffed within the 3 cities.

• Each city has a police clerical staff.

Findings:

• A duplication of administrative law enforcement personnel exists.

• Staffing is redundant.

• Clerical duties are duplicated.

Recommendations:

• Shift police supervisory positions ( Chiefs, Lieutenants, and Sergeants) to the Sheriff’s Office.

• Retain police patrol in the cities.

• Shift the city police clerical duties to the Sheriff’s Office.

Budgets

Facts:

• The combined police department budget of the three cities is $ 2.1 million.

• In 1997, the City of Plymouth saved approximately $ 75,000 by eliminating its police department and contracting with the Sheriff.

Findings:

• The police budget is the largest item in each of the three cities’ budgets.

• A substantial savings is available by utilizing the Sheriff for all law enforcement duties within the County.

2003- 2004 Grand Jury Final Report 7

Recommendation:

• Consolidate local police departments into one law enforcement agency administered by the County Sheriff.

Conclusion:

Numerous superfluous costs are incurred by the cities within Amador County as a result of a duplication of law enforcement services. By consolidating some or all police functions, substantial savings are available to each city. The amount of savings available is contingent upon the degree to which each city chooses to participate in a cooperative, county- wide law enforcement effort. Unique civic identity could be maintained and regional pride enhanced, by the establishment of an economically and managerially sound law enforcement agency for the County of Amador.

Response Required: In accordance with Penal Code 933.05, a response is required by the City of Jackson, the City of Ione, the City of Sutter Creek, the Chief of Police of Jackson, the Chief of Police of Ione, the Chief of Police of Sutter Creek, the Sheriff, the Under- Sheriff, the City Manager of Jackson, and General Services Administration.

2003- 2004 Grand Jury Final Report 8

Comparison Chart of Law Enforcement Statistics in the Incorporated Cities of Amador County: March 2004

Jackson

Ione

Sutter Creek

Amador City

Plymouth

Administration

1 Chief

1 Chief/ City Manager

1

Chief/ City Manager

Sheriff

Sheriff

Sworn Officers

7

4

6 and

1 Part- time

Equivalent of ½ Sheriff

Equivalent of 1 ½

Sheriffs

Additional Coverage

2

Sergeants

1 Lieutenant

1 Lieutenant

N/ A

N/ A

Support Staff

1 Community Service Officer,

1 Clerk

1 Part- time Clerk

1 School Resource Officer, 1 Part- time Clerk

Sheriff

Sheriff

Vehicles

12

7

6

Equivalent usage of ½

Equivalent usage of 1 ½

Population

Source: Amador Chamber of Commerce 2000 Census

3984

2743

( Not including 4407 detainees)

2319

200

986

Population to Police Ratio

398: 1

663: 1

256: 1

400: 1

657: 1

Annual Police Budget in $’ s

1.077 Million

509 Thousand

536 Thousand

105 Thousand

162 Thousand

• Population of unincorporated areas: ~ 20,656

• Population of Amador County: ~ 30,888 ( Incorporated and unincorporated, excluding Mule Creek State Prison and the Preston Youth Correctional Facility)

• Population of Mule Creek State Prison and Preston Youth Correctional Facility: ~ 4407

• Sheriff’s budget: $ 6 Million 2003- 2004 Grand Jury Final Report 9

Crisis Mental Health Cases Involving the 5150 and 5170 Welfare and Institutions Codes

Introduction

Pursuant to California Penal Code 925( a), the 2003- 2004 Grand Jury elected to examine the procedures involved with the monitoring of persons, categorized according to California State Welfare and Institutions Code Sections 5150 and 5170, who are temporarily under the supervision of local law enforcement or mental health professionals.

Background

Welfare and Institutions Code Sections 5150 and 5170 delineate the policies and procedures by which an impaired individual, considered to be a danger to him/ herself, a danger to others, or gravely disabled, may be taken into custody and placed into a facility for treatment and evaluation.

Due to the potential for violent behavior when a 5150 or 5170 designated person is transported to Sutter Amador Hospital, the hospital requires that the accompanying law enforcement officer or a mental health caseworker remain with the patient until he/ she is no longer considered a danger to self or others or can be transported to a mental health facility. The Grand Jury’s concern is that county and city personnel and resources are being inefficiently utilized. More equitable and productive options for monitoring impaired individuals while they are at Sutter Amador Hospital may exist.

Method of Evaluation

Members of the Grand Jury conducted interviews and reviewed documents.

Persons Interviewed

Sheriff of Amador County

Under- Sheriff of Amador County

Ione Chief of Police

Jackson Chief of Police

Sutter Creek Chief of Police

American Legion Ambulance Manager

Sutter Amador Hospital Director

Sutter Amador Hospital Critical Care Manager

California Highway Patrol

Amador County Mental Health Directors

Documents Reviewed

Welfare and Institutions Code Sections 5150; 5150.05; 5150.1; 5150.2; 5150.3; 5150.4

Welfare and Institutions Code Sections 5170; 5170.3; 5170.5, 5170.7

Facts:

• An average of one 5150 or 5170 designated ( impaired) person is taken to Sutter Amador Hospital per day.

• Approximately 10% of the impaired persons taken to the hospital are considered to be a violent danger to themselves or others.

• When a person is deemed to be violent or a danger to him/ herself or others, the hospital requires that someone capable of restraining the impaired individual remain 2003- 2004 Grand Jury Final Report 10

with him/ her until he/ she has sobered up, calmed down, or can be transported to a mental health facility.

• The law enforcement officer who transports the category 5150 or 5170 person to Sutter Amador Hospital may be required by the hospital to stay with the impaired individual and is not allowed to return to his/ her primary law enforcement duties until the impaired person has met the requirements for dismissal.

• Welfare and Institution Section 5150.2 states: “ In each county whenever a peace officer has transported a person to a designated facility for assessment under Section 5150, that officer shall be detained no longer than the time necessary to complete documentation of the factual basis of the detention under Section 5150 and a safe and orderly transfer of physical custody of the person.”

• At times, a single law enforcement officer is scheduled to be on duty in his/ her city or area. The law enforcement agency must compensate for the services of an additional officer at overtime rates of pay or other compensatory arrangements.

• Amador County Mental Health intermittently sends a caseworker to Sutter Amador Hospital to accompany a 5150 or 5170 designated person until he/ she meets the criteria for dismissal.

Findings:

• A local law enforcement officer may be removed from his/ her civic duties for up to 12 hours while tending to a 5150 or 5170 case at the Sutter Amador Hospital.

• Only 10% of the 5150 or 5170 cases brought to Sutter Amador Hospital for treatment and evaluation are deemed truly “ violent”.

• It is unwarranted to remove the peace officer from his/ her regular duties in order to remain with the impaired individual for up to 12 hours.

• When Amador County Mental Health sends a caseworker to accompany a 5150 or 5170 person at the Sutter Amador Hospital, the caseworker is removed from other duties.

• The agencies involved agree that a qualified person should stay with a 5150 or 5170 individual while he/ she is at the Sutter Amador Hospital.

• The agencies involved are not in agreement as to the distinct responsibilities of each agency in regards to monitoring and tending a category 5150 or 5170 individual while he/ she is at Sutter Amador Hospital.

• The criteria for what constitutes “ potential for violent behavior” varies.

Recommendations:

• The Amador County Sheriff’s Office should form a committee consisting of members from the Amador County Sheriff’s Office, law enforcement representatives from the cities of Ione, Jackson, and Sutter Creek; California Highway Patrol, Sutter Amador Hospital, American Legion Ambulance Service, and Amador County Mental Health — to establish an agreement of agencies’ responsibilities to oversee 5150 or 5170 designated individuals while he/ she is at Sutter Amador Hospital.

• Establish a fund to pay qualified people ( retired law enforcement officers, firemen, jailers, prison guards, etc.) to monitor the 5150 or 5170 person while he/ she is in the Sutter Amador Hospital. 2003- 2004 Grand Jury Final Report 11

• Explore options that would allow qualified volunteers to serve as monitors for the impaired individuals as they await treatment and evaluation from the Amador County Mental Health at Sutter Amador Hospital.

• The Sheriff’s Office should oversee the 5150/ 5170 coordination efforts; Sheriff Dispatch makes the necessary phone calls for coverage at the hospital.

Response Required:

A response to this report is required by the Amador County Sheriff, Ione Police Department, Sutter Creek Police Department, Jackson City Police Department, and Amador County Mental Health pursuant to California Penal Code 933.05.

2003- 2004 Grand Jury Final Report 12

2003- 2004 Grand Jury Final Report 13

California Youth Authority

Pine Grove Youth Conservation Camp

Introduction

California Penal Code Section 919( b) requires the Grand Jury to review all prisons and jails within the county on an annual basis. The Grand Jury visited Pine Grove Youth Conservation Camp on October 8, 2003.

Background

The Pine Grove Youth Conservation Camp ( PGYCC) was originally built as a Civilian Conservation Camp ( CCC) during the Depression of the 1930’ s. In 1946 the California Youth Authority ( CYA) assumed stewardship of the camp in joint cooperation with the California Department of Forestry ( CDF). PGYCC was the first Youth Conservation Camp to operate jointly with CDF.

Method of Evaluation

The PGYCC staff gave the Grand Jury a presentation and a tour of the Camp. The Grand Jury also conducted interviews, reviewed documents and participated in a question and answer session.

Persons Interviewed

Camp Superintendent

Assistant Camp Superintendent

CDF Division Chief

Management Services Technician

Parole Agent

Ward

Documents Reviewed

PGYCC Programs Memorandum

Master Project List

Staff Newsletter

CYA Today Newsletter

Camp Program Assignment and Procedures Policy

Facts:

• PGYCC operates on an annual budget of $ 2.2 million. CDF has a separate budget to operate their programs at PGYCC.

• PGYCC has a staff of 32 which includes 17 peace officers, 10 administrative officers and five part- time employees.

• The Camp houses up to 80 wards. Currently, 69 wards ranging in age from 18- 24 are assigned to the camp.

• The average stay at the camp is 8- 10 months. Wards are eligible for the camp program based on their ability and willingness to attend rigorous training and to fight fires.

• Wards adjudicated of arson, sex offenses, or considered escape risks are not selected for the fire camp program.

• Wards are paid $ 1.10 to $ 5.00 per day for project work in the camp or in the surrounding communities. 2003- 2004 Grand Jury Final Report 14

• In addition to maintaining the camp, wards are dispatched in crews of 12- 14 to work at public or non- profit county agencies.

• Projects include weed abatement of county roads, grounds maintenance at cemeteries, historical landmarks and public buildings. Additionally, wards cut fire trails, provide snow removal service, and distribute food.

• Work crews are dispatched with fire fighting equipment in the event the PGYCC crews are needed by CDF to fight fires.

• PGYCC crews assigned to fire fighting duties are paid $ 1.00 per hour.

• Each work crew is supervised by a CYA peace officer.

• PGYCC wards worked over 154,000 man- hours in the fiscal year 2002- 2003. Over 50,000 man- hours were spent fighting fires; the remaining 104,000 were dedicated to community projects and camp maintenance.

• After each day’s work assignments and evening meal, wards must attend evening school.

• Wards have the opportunity to earn either a General Education Development ( GED) certificate or a high school diploma. Community college classes are also available.

• Wards also attend counseling sessions pertaining to substance abuse and gang activities.

• Classes on anger management and parenting skills are also available to assist in the transition for release into society.

• The camp provided approximately 2,700 boughs that were displayed throughout Amador, Calaveras and El Dorado Counties during the holiday season.

• Wages earned by wards are held in an account until they are discharged or paroled from CYA. The wages can also be used to purchase toiletries, snacks and other personal items from the camp store.

• The camp derives revenue from the sale of picnic tables, clocks, silk screening, and profits from the camp store. This revenue is deposited into the Ward Benefit Fund to support recreation activities, cable television, movies, etc.

• The camp recreation field can be used as a landing zone for medical evacuation.

• A procedure is in place to notify neighboring residents in the event a ward leaves the facility without authorization.

Findings:

• PGYCC staff is dedicated to the success of the wards, the community and the mission of the camp.

• The camp provides valuable services to local cities and towns, rural areas, and non- profit agencies within the county.

• The camp clock shop and silkscreen shops were closed due to low ward population.

• The facilities and surrounding grounds were clean, well kept, and orderly.

• The food in the dining hall was well prepared and plentiful. Up to 800 meals per day can be served in the dining hall in an emergency, if required.

• The staff and ward interviewed were courteous and knowledgeable.

• The emphasis of the camp is to provide wards with employment skills and to develop good work ethics.

• PGYCC is a positive asset to Amador County.

2003- 2004 Grand Jury Final Report 15

Recommendation:

None

Response Required:

None 2003- 2004 Grand Jury Final Report 16

2003- 2004 Grand Jury Final Report 17

Amador County Detention Center

Introduction

Under the provisions of California Penal Code Section 919( b), the Grand Jury is required to review all prisons and jails within the county on an annual basis. The Grand Jury visited the Amador County Detention Center on December 15, 2003.

Background

The Amador County Sheriff is directly responsible for the Amador County Detention Center ( Jail). The day to day responsibility of the jail lies with the Jail Commander ( Captain). The jail serves as the only detention site in the county for both pre- trial and sentenced male and female inmates. Correctional Officers are on duty 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Officers are responsible for the care, custody and control of the inmates. Officers transport inmates to and from court, other detention centers and medical facilities, and supervise work details. Officers deliver meals and commissary items to the jail.

Method of Evaluation

Members of the Grand Jury were given a presentation, provided documents, participated in a question and answer session, conducted interviews and toured the jail.

Persons Interviewed

Captain

Under- Sheriff

Control Center Officer

Nurse

Documents Reviewed

Jackson Volunteer Fire Department, Jail Fire Clearance.

California Board of Corrections, 2002- 2004 Biennial Inspection

Amador County Health Department, Jail Inspection

Inmate grievance forms

Facts:

• The jail expansion project is under construction. The expansion project will add an additional sobering cell, a larger kitchen, a shower, a restroom, administrative space and a larger laundromat.

• Capacity of the jail is 76 inmates ( 65 male and 11 female).

• When capacity is exceeded, cots are doubled up in cells to provide sleeping space. The sobering cell may also be used, if available.

• 28% of the inmates are serving time from a previous sentence. The remainder are awaiting court dates or sentencing.

• On December 15, 2003, the jail staff consisted of 28 employees consisting of one Captain, six Correctional Sergeants, 19 Correctional Officers, and two part- time food courier officers.

• There are five vacant full- time Officers positions. The Captain is attempting to fill one male and four female vacancies.

• The starting wage is $ 13.45 per hour. The only internal promotional opportunity is to Correctional Sergeant. 2003- 2004 Grand Jury Final Report 18

• With the exception of the part time Officers, all full- time Officers work 4 ten- hour shifts per week with 3 days off per week. Shifts and days off are rotated every 3 months.

• The California Forensic Medical Group ( CFMG) provides medical services to the jail.

• A nurse is on site each morning, Monday through Friday and is on call at other times.

• A doctor is available at the jail each Thursday afternoon and is on call as well. If immediate medical attention is required, Officers will accompany the injured or ill inmate to Sutter Amador Hospital using the jail transport van or ambulance, as circumstances require.

• Upon initial booking into the jail, an Officer interviews the detainee to determine any medical problems. The nurse then reviews the medical information and determines if follow up care is required.

• Inmate meals are purchased frozen from Stanislaus County, transported to the jail and kept in freezers until served. Meals are heated in the kitchen and transported to the inmates in insulated containers. Inmates receive 3 meals a day.

Findings:

• The jail is over- crowded. Expansion of the jail does not include added bed space. Jail population on December 15, 2003, was 86 inmates which is 10 inmates over capacity. Average daily population for the year was 80.

• Ten- hour shifts for the Officers within a 24- hour period can lead to inefficiencies, especially during shift overlap, sick leave pay and overtime pay. Eight- hour shifts would increase per- shift staffing of Officers without an increase in personnel. This would be a cost benefit through reduced overtime, holiday, and sick leave payment at 8 hours versus 10 hours per day.

• The 10- hour shift is considered a perk by some.

• Salary is an issue in recruitment and retention of Officers.

• The infirmary is small, tidy and stocked to handle non- emergency situations. Controls are in place to insure items stocked in the infirmary are accounted for.

• The kitchen is small. The meals were exposed to the weather during delivery to the cells.

• The Captain’s office was too small.

• The construction, presently underway, will alleviate the administrative over- crowding.

• The new construction will not alleviate the inmate over- crowding.

Recommendations:

• In anticipation of Amador County’s expanding inmate population, additional jail cells should be constructed. Converting the recreation yard into bed space and making the roof a recreation yard is worthy of consideration.

• While it is recognized that the 10- hour shift is a perk to recruit and retain personnel, jail Administration should consider the increased productivity that can be gained by developing 8- hour shifts for Officers.

Response Required

The Amador County Board of Supervisors and the County Sheriff are required to respond to this report in accordance with California Penal Code 933.05. 2003- 2004 Grand Jury Final Report 19

Preston Youth Correctional Facility

Introduction:

Under the provisions of California Penal Code Section 919( b), the Grand Jury is required to annually review all prisons and jails within the county. The 2003- 2004 Grand Jury visited the Preston Youth Correctional Facility ( PYCF) on January 7, 2004.

Background:

The Preston Youth Correctional Facility houses, treats and trains juvenile offenders committed to the California Youth Authority ( CYA) from juvenile and criminal courts within the State.

PYCF opened in the 1890’ s in what is now the State Historical Landmark “ Preston Castle”. While the original “ castle” structure is closed, additional buildings have been constructed over the years on the 160 acre campus. These buildings are used as living units, kitchen and dining area, administration, recreation, infirmary, religion, education and plant/ equipment/ grounds maintenance shops.

Method of Evaluation;

The Grand Jury was given a presentation, including a question and answer session, and was given a tour of the facility.

Persons Interviewed:

Assistant Superintendent

Principal

Librarian

Teachers

Correctional Counselor

Dental Staff

Food Service Manager

Wards

Documents Reviewed:

None

Demographics and Financial:

Facts:

• PYCF houses wards between the ages of 14 and 22. With special exceptions, wards up to age 25 are permitted to remain in the facility.

• The average age of a ward on January 7, 2004, was 18.2 years old.

• The ward population at PYCF on January 7, 2004, was 528.

• The ward population at PYCF is under capacity, resulting in the closing of some living units.

• The 2003- 2004 budget is $ 34.2 million.

• As a result of a closure of another youth facility on January 12, 2004, PYCF became the Northern California Reception Center for CYA wards.

2003- 2004 Grand Jury Final Report 20

• Since 1997, counties have been paying a percentage of the cost to house their youthful offenders in CYA facilities. The cost to each county is based on the severity of the crime committed by the juvenile offenders. The cost is calculated on a sliding scale basis. Basically, the less severe the crime, the more the counties must pay to house their wards in the CYA.

• The rate of recidivism is 49.7%.

Findings:

• Preston Youth Correctional Facility’s population has declined in recent years as counties elect to reduce expenditures by housing a greater proportion of wards in their own county programs or juvenile facilities instead of transferring them to CYA institutions.

• A financial incentive exists — due to a sliding scale system — for counties to house wards adjudicated for less severe crimes in their own county facilities and send only the more serious offenders to the CYA.

• As a reception center, PYCF evaluates each ward’s rehabilitation needs and transfers them to an appropriate facility. Some of the wards will be retained if PYCF meets the ward’s program and housing needs.

• Some PYCF correctional staff members will be displaced as more senior members from other facilities elect to exercise their seniority under the collective bargaining agreements. This is due to the closure of other CYA facilities.

• Approximately 70% of PYCF employees live in Amador County.

Recommendations:

• None

Educational Opportunities:

Facts:

• Wards have the opportunity to obtain their California High School Proficiency Exam ( CHSPE), or General Educational Development ( GED) certificate from PYCF.

• The PYCF high school program is accredited by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges.

• Vocational training is offered in auto shop, masonry, print, janitorial, culinary, and fire camp.

• College correspondence courses are available at no charge to the ward, except for books.

Findings:

• During 2003, 20 wards earned their high school diploma and 35 earned their GED.

• Wards are given an action plan upon entering PYCF in order to qualify for parole. The plan includes progress in education, counseling, work, and the ward’s willingness to cooperate with staff, counselors and peers.

Recommendations:

• None

2003- 2004 Grand Jury Final Report 21

Housing:

Facts:

• The majority of the wards are housed in open bay dormitories. Bunks are stacked one to three high depending on population. Each dormitory has a day- room with a television and an activity area.

• PYCF does not segregate rival gangs in different dormitories. Violent or potentially violent wards are kept in individual lock- down cells 23 hours a day.

• Wards with special needs, such as those with mental health issues and sex offenders are housed in single- bed rooms for closer monitoring.

Findings:

• Gangs are split up among available dormitories as evenly as possible. Staff intervention, counseling and a Gang Coordinator have alleviated major confrontations at the facility. This is unique to PYCF when compared to other facilities that segregate rival gangs. This is a noteworthy accomplishment.

• The Grand Jury was unable to review the lock down cells, as the facility was busy processing new wards.

• The housing units visited were clean and organized.

Recommendations:

• None

Physical, Religious, Mental and Medical Health:

Facts:

• Intramural sports, seasonal sports and physical education classes are available and encouraged.

• Religious services of various denominations are provided.

• The staff consists of one doctor and seven nurses on a full- time basis. Two part- time dentists are on staff.

• There is an infirmary on the grounds. Sick call is provided five days a week. Emergency medical care is available after hours.

• Psychiatric, psychological and casework specialists are available for wards with mental health needs. Specialized counseling for sex offenders, substance abusers, and violent offenders is available.

Findings:

• Facilities for sports and physical education are on the grounds. There are numerous basketball courts, a large football/ soccer field with an oval track and a gymnasium.

• The infirmary was clean and sanitary.

• Preventative dental care is not provided at the infirmary.

Recommendations:

• None

2003- 2004 Grand Jury Final Report 22

Nutrition:

Facts:

• Wards are provided a hot breakfast, sack ( cold) lunch and a hot dinner daily. Most wards eat breakfast and dinner in the dining rooms. Wards in lock down units have their meals delivered to their individual cells.

• Special dietary meals can be prepared to meet religious or medical needs.

• Meals meet the dietary requirements set forth by the California Board of Corrections.

Findings:

• The kitchen is neat, clean and of orderly appearance.

• Wards involved in the preparation of meals and janitorial activities in the kitchen are supervised by Correctional Officers and dining room staff.

• A structured method of entering the dining facility, receiving and eating the meal, and exiting the dining area is in place.

• The wards interviewed were satisfied with the meals.

Recommendations:

• None

Response Required:

None 2003- 2004 Grand Jury Final Report 23

Mule Creek State Prison

Introduction

Pursuant to California Penal Code 919( b), it is mandatory that the Grand Jury review all prisons and jails in the county annually. The Grand Jury visited Mule Creek State Prison ( MCSP) on September 15, 2003, and again on November 24, 2003.

Method of Evaluation

The Grand Jury conducted individual and group interviews, reviewed documents, and visited various sites and facilities within the prison.

Persons Interviewed

Warden Health Services Personnel

Associate Warden Medical Personnel

Facility Captain Correctional Officers

Administrative Assistants Counselors

Cooking Supervisor Inmates

Documents Reviewed

MCSP Mission Statement ( dated 10/ 03)

Local Hire Update ( dated 9/ 03)

About Prison Industry Authority ( dated 1/ 04)

California Department of Corrections Facts ( dated 10/ 02)

CDC Inmate Costs Report ( dated 10/ 02)

MCSP Institution Profile ( dated 10/ 02)

Western Association of Schools and Colleges, Focus on Learning Report ( dated 3/ 01)

Institutional Profile

MCSP, opened in 1987, is a high- medium custody institution with a minimum custody support unit. The property covers 866 acres.

Annual budget ( million $’ s) 79.5 Design bed capacity 1,700

Total staff 950 Total Inmate Count 3,614

Custody staff 618 Percent of design capacity 213%

Support services staff 332

Inmate statistical data by ethnicity:

White ~ 42%

Hispanic ~ 31%

Black ~ 20%

Other ~ 8%

Approximately 1,150 men are serving life sentences and 115 are serving life without possibility of parole. The remainder will be eligible for parole with time- served credits for good behavior.

2003- 2004 Grand Jury Final Report 24

Design

Sixty- five acres are divided into 3 semi- autonomous facilities, known as yards A, B, and C. Each yard is composed of 5 housing units and a gymnasium. The gymnasiums have been converted into dormitory style housing to ease overcrowding. The separate yards serve to maximize effective management of the prison’s large and diverse population by controlling movement, isolating disruptive incidents, and accommodating sensitive- need inmates. Comprehensive services in each yard ( medical and dental clinics, recreation area, chapel, work and educational facilities, canteen, law library, visiting area, clothing exchange, and administrative offices) allow for inmates’ needs to be met while optimizing security. A five acre minimum security facility is located outside of the double perimeter fences that surround the main facility.

Security and Contraband Reduction

Facts:

• Staff have their fingerprints on file in a computerized system called the Identex System. It records a history of when they enter and exit the institution. Its use is mandatory and accounts for every staff member inside the perimeter within 30- 60 minutes.

• The Identex System was discontinued on January 1, 2004.

• Visitors are required to show photo identification cards, go through a metal detector, and are monitored and filmed. The passing or exchange of any object between inmate and visitor is prohibited.

• ID cards are manually inspected to insure authenticity.

• Vendors, contractors, and volunteers undergo background checks and are issued gate passes.

• Visitors are not allowed to bring in packages.

• Items may be purchased from a contracted vendor company and are inspected by an officer prior to delivery to an inmate.

• In- coming mail is inspected before delivery to inmates.

• Inmates undergo an unclothed body search after receiving outside visitors.

• Staff may bring in lunch totes or bags. The allowable size of the bag is a contractual issue, and the bag is subject to inspection.

Findings:

• Elimination of the Identex System is due to budget cuts and the high cost of maintenance. Staff accountability will be impacted.

• During the Grand Jury tour, the staff was very conscientious and paid close attention to security protocol.

• Implementation of a vendor system to purchase items for an inmate has minimized the opportunity to introduce contraband.

• Civil rights laws prohibit placing cameras in the visiting room bathrooms to observe the extraction of smuggled drugs from body cavities, etc.

• The routine use of dogs to detect narcotics is not cost effective. 2003- 2004 Grand Jury Final Report 25

• Numerous methods exist for illicit drugs to enter the facility, i. e. swallowing a substance in a small balloon and defecating it later, adhering illegal substances to a postage stamp, or coating correspondences with an illegal substance.

• The inmate minimum- security work force, operating outside the secure perimeter, is a potential source for introducing contraband.

• Preventing drugs from entering MCSP is an on- going challenge.

• Precautions are in place to prevent ( minimize) the introduction of drugs and other contraband into the institution.

Grievances

Facts:

• Inmate grievances are submitted in accordance with the California Department of Corrections 602 Grievance Procedure. The form must be completed and signed by the inmate.

• An Appeals Coordinator handles grievances, which are logged and tracked by number if the grievance is pursued by an inmate past the informal level.

• The Administration states that if a grievance response is overdue, the supervisor would be notified and be held accountable.

• Levels of appeal include: Informal, 1st Level, 2nd Level, the Director of the Department of Corrections and/ or a complaint filed with the Grand Jury.

• Management uses grievance information as a tool to analyze problem areas.

Findings:

• Procedures exist to respond to inmate grievances.

• Mandated time- frames to respond to grievances are in place.

• Accountability in addressing grievances is a priority.

Education

Facts:

• The high school program at MCSP is accredited through the Western Association of Schools and Colleges ( WASC) and has been granted a six year accreditation.

• 20 budgeted academic positions exist, 18 are filled.

• 15 budgeted vocational positions exist, 14 are filled. After January 1, 2004, the number of vocational positions will be reduced by 5 due to budget concerns.

• Academic programs include general education, Adult Basic Education, English as a Second Language, and Pre- Release.

• Vocational programs include air conditioning and refrigeration, auto mechanics, building maintenance, computer technology, dry cleaning, electrical maintenance, electronics, graphic arts, landscape gardening, meat cutting, mechanical drawing, mill and cabinet, pre- vocational training, and small engine repair.

• The Prison Industry Authority ( PIA) programs are self- supporting and do not receive appropriations from the Legislature. Meat processing, coffee roasting, textiles, silk screening, and digital mapping are currently offered. 2003- 2004 Grand Jury Final Report 26

• A new self- study “ Bridging Program” is available to help inmates transition into programs within the prison and provides an opportunity to earn good- time credit toward parole.

• Community work crews were eliminated on January 1, 2004, due to budget constraints.

Findings:

• Educational opportunities include both academic and vocational programs.

• Inmates were observed to be actively engaged in their vocational programs and displayed dedication to their tasks. They consider it a privilege to participate, and they appreciate the opportunity to be productive.

• Students involved in academic endeavors were highly motivated and eager to discuss their studies and accomplishments. A sense of personal pride and self- improvement was evident.

• PIA programs are immune to budget cuts because their revenue is derived from the sale of their products and services to governmental agencies, thus making them an attractive career training alternative to declining vocational education programs.

• Budget cuts will adversely affect both vocational and educational programs and the community work crews.

Medical Health

Facts:

• Inmates receive a physical examination and mental health screening at the reception center before they are transferred to MCSP.

• Inmates with a pre- existing communicable disease are sent directly to California Medical Facility ( CMF). Inmates that contract a communicable or infectious disease while at MCSP are transferred to CMF.

• Inmates are not tested for Sexually Transmitted Diseases ( STDs), except upon request.

• Inmates are tested for HIV, hepatitis and other communicable diseases on a “ need- to- know” basis.

• Annual TB testing is required for all inmates, staff, and volunteers.

• When sexual abuse is reported, the victim is given medical treatment. The incident will be investigated and reported to the District Attorney’s Office if warranted.

• Inmates with prior sexual allegations or predatory behavior and potential victims are housed separately, on single cell status.

• Medical services provided at MCSP’s Correctional Treatment Center are regulated by Title 22 in the California Code of Regulations.

• Health services staff include physicians, nurses, pharmacists, dentists, technicians, and support staff.

• Specialty clinics include optometry, dentistry, podiatry, orthopedic, physical medicine, and physical therapy. These services are contracted through outside medical providers.

Findings:

• Medical personnel are staffed to serve the needs of the inmate population. 2003- 2004 Grand Jury Final Report 27

• Inmates are tested for HIV, hepatitis, and other communicable diseases when a staff member is assaulted or obvious symptoms necessitate a verification test.

• Treatment of sexual abuse cases requires the cooperation of the victim, who is sometimes hesitant to reveal the abuse.

• Procedures are in place to identify and treat health concerns.

Food Preparation

Facts:

• Food preparation workers undergo food- handling training and must obtain food handler clearance before they begin their work detail.

• Food handlers who have a cold, flu, or other adverse health symptoms are excused from their work assignment and returned to their housing unit.

• Food for the entire prison is prepared in one central location.

• Health and safety rules that apply to the community ( restaurants, hotels, schools, etc.) apply within the prison.

Findings:

• Training and procedures are in place to minimize the possibility of food contamination.

• Workers do not know where particular food trays are destined; therefore, the potential to contaminate food destined for a particular yard is minimized.

Conclusion: Although the 2003- 2004 Grand Jury had several concerns while touring Mule Creek State Prison, all were related to budget constraints. It is the conclusion of this year’s Grand Jury that State- mandated budget cuts preclude MCSP from implementing any recommendations we may have had. During our interviews and tours, the Administration was very forthright and informative about the impacts and consequences that financial limitations, departmental policy, and budget cuts have had, and will continue to have on programs, services, and infrastructure. The Grand Jury acknowledges the following concerns: over- crowding, maintaining the Identex System, promoting educational and vocational programs, and supporting community work crews. It is our hope that the conditions will be rectified and the programs reinstated when budget constraints are lifted. We conclude that a sincere and concerted effort is being made by the Administration and staff of Mule Creek State Prison to utilize current resources to fulfill their commitments to public safety and inmate welfare.

Response Required:

None 2003- 2004 Grand Jury Final Report 28

2003- 2004 Grand Jury Final Report 29

City of Plymouth

Introduction

Considerable attention has focused on the City of Plymouth due to a proposed casino to be built partly within the City limits. A group representing itself to be the Ione Band of Miwok Indians has made this proposal and sought city services to support this project. The City Council has endorsed this proposal and executed a Municipal Services Agreement ( MSA) for infrastructure services necessary for the casino project. Citizens objected to the City Council’s support of the casino and have filed numerous complaints with the Grand Jury. Pursuant to California Penal Code 925( a), the 2003- 2004 Grand Jury elected to investigate the City of Plymouth concerning these complaints and other areas of concern.

Method of Evaluation

The Grand Jury conducted interviews, reviewed documents, attended City Council meetings and Bureau of Indian Affairs ( BIA) scoping sessions, and toured city facilities.

Persons Interviewed

City Council members

Mayor

Former Mayors

City Manager

City employees

Area citizens in and around Plymouth

City of Plymouth’s counsel

City Planner

Members of the Amador County Board of Supervisors

Documents Reviewed

City Council agendas

City Council meeting minutes

Municipal Services Agreement ( MSA)

City correspondence

Brown Act

California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA) website

Political Reform Act ( FPPA)

City/ County agreements

City of Plymouth Budget

Actions by the City Council

Since the spring of 2003, the Plymouth City Council has pursued an agreement with the group identifying itself as the Ione Band of Miwok Indians. This agreement would provide various municipal services for a proposed casino and hotel. Numerous interested parties have provided information relevant to this agreement. An Amador County representative revealed a pivotal issue: the California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA) had not been established nor addressed prior to the City entering into an agreement to provide services. These services necessitate expanding existing facilities or building new service facilities to meet the casino’s needs and required a CEQA study prior to commencing the work.

2003- 2004 Grand Jury Final Report 30

Facts:

• Public information related to the proposed casino was not used in developing the MSA.

• The Amador County Sheriff’s Office, who provides police protection to Plymouth, was not consulted regarding anticipated police needs the casino would require.

• Amador Unified School District was not consulted regarding additional educational needs to accommodate the children of casino employees who would reside in Amador County.

• The City Council was advised of a need for CEQA provisions related to the proposed casino.

• The City Planner advised that the conceptual plan for the casino was not ready for a CEQA study.

• The County of Amador advised the Plymouth City Council of a potential lawsuit to stop the MSA until the CEQA requirements were known.

• The City Council elected to proceed with the MSA.

• Once the MSA had been approved, Amador County filed a lawsuit to stop the MSA until the CEQA work was completed.

• As a result of the Council’s position on the casino project, citizens have successfully obtained sufficient signatures to place a recall of three City Council members on the May ballot.

• The MSA was available for public review three days prior to the special meeting called to consider it for passage.

• No changes were made to the draft MSA document regardless of numerous protests from the public concerning the adequacy of the many provisions.

Findings:

• The City acted without a completed California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA) report.

• The hasty approval of the Municipal Services Agreement ( MSA) precluded an opportunity to complete a CEQA study prior to passing the MSA.

• Provisions have not been made to satisfy CEQA requirements.

• The City Council was aware that CEQA requirements must be satisfied, but acted without regard to this future expense.

• The City’s actions have caused undue expense to the citizens of Amador County by forcing legal action by the County to ensure compliance of a CEQA study.

• In spite of numerous attempts by the public to provide pertinent information, the City Council disregarded this information by drafting the MSA.

• The upcoming recall election of those council members in favor of this agreement is a reason for the hasty passage of the MSA.

• The City has not adequately studied the potential impacts on City services such as law enforcement and educational needs.

Recommendations:

• Rescind the Municipal Services Agreement ( MSA) until the California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA) requirements have been properly studied and a plan to fulfill the environmental requirements has been established. 2003- 2004 Grand Jury Final Report 31

• Reimburse Amador County for its legal expenses regarding the litigations to stop the MSA.

• Open a dialog with the Sheriff’s Office to assess the needs of law enforcement.

• Consult with the Amador County Unified School District to address the educational needs generated by this project.

• Reopen the MSA to include the costs anticipated by the Sheriff’s Office, Amador County Unified School District.

Brown Act Violations: Private Meetings

Background

The Brown Act prohibits meetings between council members, when a quorum exists that are outside the public forum. A violation of the Brown Act could result in a consensus being reached between council members ( without proper citizen participation) concerning a matter before the council. A complaint was prompted when members of the public observed Plymouth City Council members conversing prior to the City Council meeting of September 11, 2003, wherein a vote was taken regarding the City’s support for the proposed casino.

Facts:

• A City Council meeting convened on September 11, 2003, to vote for or reject support of the proposed casino project in Plymouth.

• The City Council was one member short of a full five- member council.

• The City Council conducted an advisory vote and the citizens cast their ballots.

• As the votes were being tallied, two members of the City Council were seen in conversation.

• A third City Council member was ineligible to vote due to a conflict of interest.

• With one member short and one member unable to vote, a majority consisted of two votes.

• The two City Council members who were seen conversing prior to the meeting voted in support of the casino project.

• The City Council convened the public meeting and read the results of the advisory vote which opposed the casino project.

• Without further discussion, it was moved and seconded to approve the casino project.

• The Brown Act prohibits private discussions related to a matter before a governing body.

• No one heard the context of the conversation between the two City Council members in attendance.

• The two City Council members made short speeches after the vote citing reasons for their support of the proposed casino project.

Findings:

• No one heard the context of the conversation between the two City Council members.

• It is speculation to suggest that the two City Council members were discussing voting options.

• A Brown Act violation accusation can not be substantiated.

2003- 2004 Grand Jury Final Report 32

Recommendation:

• All comments and discussions related to matters before the City Council should be made in an open public forum.

Letter of Support

On September 11, 2003, the City of Plymouth held its regularly scheduled meeting. At this meeting the ballots were counted to indicate the support or lack of support for the casino project. Although the project lacked community support, the following actions were taken by the City Council:

Facts:

• A council member moved that a letter of support be drafted for the casino project in spite of the overwhelming public rejection of the casino project.

• The motion to send a letter of support of the casino to the Governor was seconded and passed.

• The letter was sent on September 15, 2003 to the Tribal Chair with copies to the City Planner, a City Attorney, the Tribal Attorney and the financial backer of the proposed casino, but not to the Governor.

• Since this action did not conform to the motion made on September 11, 2003, an attorney representing a private citizen requested that this error be corrected or the City would face legal action.

• A special meeting was held on October 16, 2003. After a closed session to discuss the potential legal action, the Council reconvened the public meeting. The Council moved that City Resolution 2003- 19 be adopted outlining the City’s support and that the Governor be notified.

• Resolution 2003- 19 in support of the casino project passed on a 3- 1 vote.

• The Grand Jury requested confirmation that Resolution 2003- 19 was sent to the Governor. The City has been unable to produce this confirmation.

Findings:

• The City acted without authority in writing a letter of support to the Tribal Chair, not to the Governor. The letter of support was intended for the Governor.

• The City did not rescind the motion of September 11th, but passed a new motion in support of the casino project.

• The Grand Jury has not received evidence that a letter has been sent to the Governor in support of the casino project.

Recommendation:

• The City Council should establish a tracking system to verify that directives of the City Council are completed.

Serial Meetings:

The Brown Act prohibits council members from privately discussing issues that would be taken up before the official council. When council meetings are attended by less than a quorum ( in this case, two members constitute less than a quorum), no violation exists. However, if subsequent to the initial meeting a third council member ( thus creating a quorum) is influenced by either of the two members in the original meeting, it becomes a “ serial 2003- 2004 Grand Jury Final Report 33

meeting”. In order to determine if a violation of the Brown Act has occurred in regards to a serial meeting, two questions must be addressed. First, did the actions of the City Council actually qualify as a serial meeting? Second, did these meetings result in a concurrence related to the passage of the proposed agreement? If both answers are affirmative, then a Brown Act violation has transpired.

Facts:

• A fifth Council member was appointed by a vote of the Council to fill the vacant City Council seat.

• The fifth Council member appointed is the Mayor’s father who was previously a member of the City Council.

• The Mayor authorized the drafting of a Municipal Services Agreement ( MSA).

• Private meetings were held to draft the MSA.

• The Mayor as well as two other Council members attended the MSA draft meetings.

• Only one of the other two members was in attendance at any single meeting, thus a rotation of this second Council member’s attendance occurred.

• Other people were in attendance at the MSA draft meetings to provide technical assistance.

• The public was barred from attending the MSA draft meetings.

• A vote of three to one was rendered in favor of the MSA.

• The three City Council members ( the Mayor and two other members) who attended the private MSA draft meetings voted in favor of the MSA.

• The single dissenting City Council member initiated the sole discussion about the advantages and disadvantages of the MSA.

• The three Council members who rotated attendance at the MSA draft meetings made no public comments at the special public meeting held to confirm the MSA.

Findings:

• A quorum of City Council members rotated its attendance at private MSA draft meetings, which constituted one component of a serial meeting.

• The Mayor and one member who attended the MSA draft meetings voted in favor of the City’s support for the Tribe’s casino proposal.

• The other favorable vote came from the Mayor’s father.

• The City Council had previously voted in support of the casino proposal; therefore, the support for the MSA reflected that support.

• Inconclusive evidence exists to substantiate the concern the serial meeting resulted in the favorable vote on the MSA.

• The dissenting vote on the MSA came from the Council member that did not attend the MSA draft meetings and previously voted against the casino proposal.

Recommendations:

• Open negotiating meetings to citizen observers.

• Designate a single City Council member to attend negotiation meetings.

• Institute workshop style meetings to allow public participation.

2003- 2004 Grand Jury Final Report 34

Political Reform Act ( PRA) Violation

Background

The Fair Political Practices Commission ( FPPC) was created by the Political Reform Act of 1974, a ballot initiative passed by California voters. The Act sets ethics rules for State and local government officials that impose strict limits on decisions or votes that affect the official’s interests. The California Code of Regulations is referred to as the CCR.

CCR Government Code Section 87105( a) refers to a public official, who, having a financial interest in a decision, must do all of the following:

o Publicly identify the financial interest that gives rise to a conflict or potential conflict of interest,

o Recuse oneself from discussing and voting on the matter,

o Leave the room until after the discussion, vote, and other dispositions of the matter is concluded unless the matter has been placed on the portion of the agenda reserved for uncontested matters,

o The public official may speak on the issue during the time that the general public speaks on the issue.

Facts:

• One Plymouth City Council member owns property adjacent to the proposed casino

• PRA defines a conflict of interest as the holding of real property within 500 feet of a proposed development.

• Council members having a conflict of interest are barred from participating or voting on the casino issue.

• On two separate occasions, when the casino was being discussed, the Council member with the conflict of interest identified himself and then spoke in protest.

• The identified Council member was seen in the back of the room and did not leave the room immediately.

• In a subsequent meeting, the identified Council member requested that the City Council minutes state that he left the room when he did not.

Findings:

• The manner in which the Council member with a conflict of interest disqualified himself from the proceedings was improper.

• The Council member with a conflict of interest made a speech which was intended to influence the other Council members.

• The Mayor did not take action after the infraction had been brought to the Council’s attention.

Recommendation:

• Provide training on the Political Reform Act ( PRA) to all members of the City Council.

• Refer the conflict of interest matter to the Fair Political Practices Commission.

Water Rate Increase

2003- 2004 Grand Jury Final Report 35

Facts:

• In April 2003, the City determined that providing water service was costing more than the monthly fee collected for the service.

• The rate during that time was $ 2.30 per 100 cubic feet of water.

• The City formed an Ad Hoc Committee to review and make recommendations to the City for determining an appropriate rate increase.

• The City had adopted a budget of $ 240,000 for the year for water services.

• The Ad Hoc Committee proposed four different rate structures, but the adopted $ 3.10 per cubic feet was not one of them.

• The City alleged that this rate increase was supported by the Ad Hoc Committee.

• The City adopted a $ 3.10 rate increase over the objections of the Ad Hoc Committee.

• The AD Hoc Committee’s recommendation was an immediate temporary increase to $ 2.94 per 100 cubic feet of water for a period of 60 days until further decisions could be made.

Finding:

• The City failed to follow recommendations of its Ad Hoc Committee.

Recommendations:

• Place the water rate issue on an up- coming City Council agenda.

• Allow the Ad Hoc Committee spokesperson to restate the issues regarding the water rate increase.

• Provide the actual costs for water service in the City and adjust the rate as necessary.

Maintenance of Municipal Facilities

Background

The City of Plymouth provides water and sewer services to residents of Plymouth. Sewer and water fees are charged for this service. In exchange, the City agrees to provide potable water and sewer disposal that meet environmental regulations. It is implied that routine maintenance will be done to insure that these facilities remain in operable condition.

Facts:

• Leaks account for as much as 37% loss of water in the system.

• Dead end water lines are not flushed routinely.

• Sewer cleaning has not been completed or scheduled.

• No program exists to replace faulty water meters.

• Repair work has not been scheduled or completed that was identified in the Long Term Waste Water Management Plan dated September 2002.

Findings:

• Leakage from the system constitutes a loss of revenue.

• The City operates the water and sewage systems but does not anticipate maintenance needs.

• The City maintenance crew is on a reactive schedule and only fixes broken or malfunctioning facilities.

• The City does not provide routine maintenance on the water or sewer systems. 2003- 2004 Grand Jury Final Report 36

• Some maintenance is beyond the capabilities of the City maintenance crew.

• The City has not maintained the required maintenance and repair log for the water system.

Recommendations:

• Prioritize, schedule, and complete identified maintenance and repair work on the water and sewer systems.

• Obtain cost estimates for the requisite work.

• Request bids for the work that cannot be performed by the City’s crew.

• Establish a program to accomplish the necessary maintenance and repair work.

• Establish and maintain a tracking system on water and sewer system maintenance and repairs.

Conclusion:

Although the public has made numerous attempts, the City Council has consistently ignored the wishes of the public regarding the casino proposal. The Brown Act, states in part… “ In enacting this chapter, the Legislature finds and declares that the public commissions, boards and councils and the other public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business. It is the intent of the law that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly.

The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.”

Plymouth City Council has acted without regard to this basic tenant.

Response Required:

A response to this report is required by the City of Plymouth and the District Attorney pursuant to California Penal Code 933.05. 2003- 2004 Grand Jury Final Report 37

Kennedy Meadows Affordable Housing Project

Introduction

In response to several citizens’ complaints, the 2003- 2004 Grand Jury elected to review and evaluate the manner in which the City of Jackson addressed the proposed development known as Kennedy Meadows, pursuant to California Penal Code 925( a).

These complaints alleged Brown Act violations and conflicts of interest violations under the Political Reform Act. The City Council’s actions related to the adoption of grant applications and Planning Department actions were additional areas of concern.

Background

As the population of Amador County continues to grow, so does the need for affordable housing. A low cost housing development to be located on New York Ranch Road in the City of Jackson has been proposed. This development requires a grant from the State of California and would be administered through the City of Jackson. The development required City Council approval. Controversy surrounds the State’s mandate to provide affordable housing and, simultaneously, maintain a quality of life that the residents of the region have established and wish to preserve.

Method of Evaluation

The Grand Jury conducted interviews, reviewed documents, attended City Council meetings, City Planning Commission meetings, sought legal advice, and visited the proposed building site.

Persons Interviewed

Citizens

County Counsel

Jackson City Manager

Mayor of Jackson

Jackson City Planner

Jackson Planning Commission members

City Council members

Documents Reviewed

The Brown Act

The California Environment Quality Act ( CEQA)

California Constitution Article 34 Public Housing Project Law

Final Regional Housing Needs Allocation Plan

General Plan – Land Designations

City of Jackson General Plan Housing Element Revision

City Resolution No. 2002- 34 and Resolution No. 2003- 03

Planning Commission Resolution No. 2002- 10

Certified Petitions

Various memorandums, letters, meeting notes and electronic mail, to and from the Mayor,

City Council, Seniors Against Governmental Abuse ( SAGA), citizens and attorneys

News articles from the Ledger Dispatch 2003- 2004 Grand Jury Final Report 38

Brown Act Concern

A complaint was filed against the City of Jackson alleging a serial meeting violation of the Brown Act.

The Brown Act prohibits meetings between council members, when a quorum exists outside the public forum. A violation of the Brown Act could result in a consensus being reached between council members ( without proper citizen participation) concerning a matter before the Council.

Facts:

• Two City Council members visited and videotaped the site of another development built by the proposed developers of Kennedy Meadows.

• The videotape was made available to the other Council members.

• A third Council member viewed the videotape prior to voting on the project.

Findings:

• Council members may view the site of a project, together or individually, as long as there is no commitment to a certain vote.

• Council members may discuss and/ or view a related videotape as long as there is no commitment to a certain vote.

• A serial meeting violation of the Brown Act did not occur.

Recommendation:

• None

Conflict of Interest

Facts:

• The real estate firm that had a financial connection to the Kennedy Meadow development employed the Mayor of Jackson in a position as a real estate agent.

• The Mayor was not the agent involved in the real estate transaction of this project.

• The Jackson City Attorney rendered the opinion that no disqualifying conflict existed.

• The conflict was then brought to the Fair Political Practices Commission ( FPPC).

• The FPPC ruled there was no conflict of interest violation.

Findings:

• Public discussions and responses regarding this project became very personal and heated.

• Although a Council member may not be in a conflict of interest position, the appearance of a conflict may cause added public concern and speculation.

Recommendation:

• Responses to public discussions should be handled with diplomacy and in a professional manner.

• Public officials should conduct themselves in a manner that is above reproach.

2003- 2004 Grand Jury Final Report 39

Resolution Actions ( Application for HOME Grant Funds)

Citizens alleged that the reduction of the number of units originally proposed should have been brought back to the City Council and the public before modifying the HOME Grant application.

A resolution is something that is resolved, a firmness of resolve or a formal expression of opinion, will, or intent voted by an official body or assembled group.

HOME Grant Funds

The City of Jackson has asked for funding through the HOME Program. HOME is the largest Federal block grant to State & local governments designed exclusively to create affordable housing for low- income households.

Facts:

• The Kennedy Meadows development is to be built with HOME Grant funding.

• The original proposed development was described as “ 78 affordable units” of which 21 were to be “ very low income” units.

• On September 23, 2002, the Resolution 2002- 34 application for the HOME Grant for a 78- Unit Rental New Construction Project was passed and adopted by the Jackson City Council.

• In October 2002, the developer changed the proposed development, reducing the number of affordable units to 56 and increasing the number of “ very low income” units to 23.

• Reduction of density from 78 to 56 affordable units was determined to be a minor change by the City Attorney and was handled as an administrative adjustment.

• Acting within his jurisdiction, the Mayor signed the revised resolution for the HOME Grant application. Due to the change being an administrative adjustment, no public approval or vote of the Council was needed.

Findings:

• The City Council of Jackson acted within its jurisdiction in applying for the HOME Grant.

Recommendation:

• None

1st Referendum Petition: HOME Grant Application

Article 34 “ Public Housing Project Law” ( Vote of the People)

A referendum is the principle or practice of submitting to popular vote a measure passed upon or proposed by a legislative body or by popular initiative.

Facts:

• Concerned citizens and Seniors Against Governmental Abuse ( SAGA) submitted a petition to the City Council against Resolution 2003- 03 protesting the City’s resolution to fund the Kennedy Meadows development.

• The petition against the resolution was certified on February 14, 2003. 2003- 2004 Grand Jury Final Report 40

• Once a petition is certified, the City Council must either repeal the resolution or submit it as a referendum petition for a vote of the people according to the elections code.

• The referendum petition against Resolution 2003- 03 for the application of the HOME Grant was to be placed on the November 2004 ballot.

• The Kennedy Meadows project developer filed suit against the City of Jackson to block the referendum.

• The litigation went to the Amador County Superior Court as to whether an affordable housing project is subject to a California Constitution, Article 34 ( vote of the people).

• The Article 34 “ Public Housing Project Law” ( vote of the people) applies to the builders of a project. The City of Jackson is not the developer or builder of the Kennedy Meadows project.

• The judge found that the agreement was not subject to referendum in any form and issued an order removing the measure from the ballot.

• The judge’s decision was appealed to the 3rd District Court of Appeals.

• A March 2004 ruling from the 3rd District Court of Appeals validated the lower court’s findings.

Findings:

• The City of Jackson chose to place the referendum petition on the ballot rather than repeal the resolution.

• The Article 34 “ Public Housing Project Law” applies to the developer of a project.

Recommendation:

• None

Planning/ Zoning

Ministerial Projects

" Ministerial" describes a governmental decision involving little or no personal judgment by the public official as to the wisdom or manner of carrying out the project. The public official merely applies the law to the facts as presented but uses no special discretion or judgment in reaching a decision.

Ministerial Vs. Discretionary Projects

• Discretionary projects are subject to environmental review per CEQA

• Ministerial approvals/ actions are statutorily exempt from CEQA and cannot be appealed to the City

• Where a project involves an approval that contains elements of both a ministerial action and a discretionary action, the project will be deemed to be discretionary and will be subject to the requirements of CEQA.

In general, ministerial projects are exempt from CEQA. Ministerial projects are those which are judged according to a set of definitive standards or criteria, do not involve substantial judgment and do not require a public hearing, such as building permits, sewage disposal and well permits, and road encroachment permits. In contrast, discretionary projects, such as subdivisions, zone changes, use permits, or general plan amendments, which lack a well 2003- 2004 Grand Jury Final Report 41

defined set of standards, involve considerable judgment in making the decision, and require a public hearing, are subject to CEQA.

Citizens alleged that the environmental issues were not addressed and the zoning was invalid.

Facts:

• The Planning Commission established a site plan review committee. The objective of the site plan review committee was to determine if the Kennedy Meadows project was to be subject to the conditions of the California Environment Quality Act ( CEQA).

• The Kennedy Meadows project was zoned for proper usage.

• The site review committee determined this project had no marked impact or adverse effect on the environment, and thus qualified it for a negative declaration.

• The Planning Commission approved the site plan and CEQA mitigated negative declaration for the Kennedy Meadows project and adopted Resolution No. 2002- 10 ( site review findings) on December 16, 2002.

• The Kennedy Meadows project conforms to zoning requirements and is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation.

Findings:

• The HOME Grant and the level of controversy necessitated that the Planning Commission establish a site plan review committee to study the Kennedy Meadows project.

• The Planning Commission acted within its jurisdiction in approving the environmental and zoning issues.

Recommendation:

• None

2nd Referendum Petition: The California Environment Quality Act ( CEQA)/ Site Plan

Citizens alleged the City of Jackson acted inappropriately in approving the negative declaration.

Facts:

• Site Plan and CEQA determinations are made on a case- by- case basis.

• CEQA determinations are not a matter of general legislative policy.

• Only legislative acts are subject to referendum.

• Land use approvals are adjudicatory/ administrative decisions, not legislative.

• Based on the CEQA/ Site Plan, a second referendum petition by Seniors Against Government Abuse ( SAGA) was filed to overturn the approval of the Kennedy Meadows project despite the City Attorney’s advice.

• The City Attorney determined that the second referendum petition did not meet the standards for placement on a ballot as it was not a legislative act. ( California Health and Safety Code Section 37001 et seq.)

• SAGA circulated the petition and filed a lawsuit challenging the project.

• A judge determined the challenge was invalid and the case was dismissed.

2003- 2004 Grand Jury Final Report 42

Findings:

• SAGA knew in advance that the referendum petition did not meet the legal standards for placement on the ballot.

• The actions taken by the City Council met the applicable legal standards.

Recommendations:

• None

Emergency Agenda Concern

It was alleged that the emergency placement of the agenda item was done with the specific intent to avoid public criticism, input, and opposition.

According to the Brown Act, “ The body may discuss an item which was not previously placed upon an agenda at a regular meeting, when the body determines that there is a need for immediate action which cannot reasonably wait for the next regularly scheduled meeting. However, the Act specifies that in order to take advantage of this agenda exception, the need for immediate action must have come to the attention of the local “ agency“ after the agenda had already been posted.”

Facts:

• The deadline for filing the HOME Grant application with the California State Department of Housing was January 15, 2003.

• The City Manager received the returned Home Grant application on December 24, 2002.

• The next City Council meeting was January 13, 2003.

• The HOME Grant program did not clearly specify the language that could be placed in the resolution. The City Council stated it did not initially have sufficient information to make the required changes.

Findings:

• The emergency agenda item ( HOME Grant Fund application) was received with sufficient time to place it on the regular agenda.

• The City Council was aware that the HOME Grant fund application was controversial and the public wanted the chance to express their concerns.

Recommendations:

• The City Administration should place time sensitive items on the agenda as soon as possible to avoid the use of their emergency agenda authority for controversial issues.

Open Competitive Bidding - Administrative Subcontractors

Facts:

• An administrative subcontractor assists the City in all areas of general administration of the HOME Grant Program.

• The City mailed Request for Proposals ( RFP) to three firms on the list of Administrative Subcontractors approved by the State Department of Housing and Community Development.

• Only one firm responded to the request for a proposal. 2003- 2004 Grand Jury Final Report 43

• The approved Administrative Contractor’s references were checked and verified.

• The responding firm was approved as the Administrative Subcontractor for the City’s HOME Grant.

Findings:

• The City did not verify that the chosen firms were interested in providing a bid for the general administration of the HOME Grant Program.

Recommendations:

• The City should verify that identified firms are interested in submitting a bid.

• Mail Requests for Proposals ( RFP) only to those firms who wish to participate.

Conclusion:

The need for low cost housing remains high. The State mandates that low cost housing be sought or State funds can be withheld from cities and counties. It is prudent to select the best low cost housing options available. The City of Jackson has made fiscally reasonable conclusions concerning the quality of this proposal and has acted responsibly in this matter.

Response Required: In accordance with California Penal Code 933.05, the Jackson City Council is required to respond.

2003- 2004 Grand Jury Final Report 44

2003- 2004 Grand Jury Final Report 45

Arroyo Ditch

Introduction

The Grand Jury received a citizen’s complaint regarding the City of Plymouth’s alleged disregard for the water rights and mismanagement of the Arroyo Ditch. The 2003- 2004 Grand Jury elected to review and evaluate the operation of the Arroyo Ditch pursuant to California Penal Code 925( a).

Background

The Arroyo Ditch, a 17 mile long open conveyance system, was built by miners over 100 years ago to supply water to the gold mines and the growing population of the region. Arroyo Ditch takes water from the Middle Fork of the Cosumnes River by means of an intake dam. The Ditch runs in a southwesterly direction through a flume across Spanish Creek to Green Gulch Reservoir. Out of the reservoir, it intersects the South Fork of the Cosumnes River, and continues through the town of Plymouth and down to Forest Home.

Amador County purchased the Arroyo Ditch Company ( with all rights, title, interest, reservoirs, and other appurtenances in El Dorado and Amador Counties) from Henry and Mary Garibaldi in 1962. In 1989, Amador County deeded it to the City of Plymouth via a Quitclaim Deed.

The water rights that govern the Arroyo Ditch are known as appropriative “ pre- 1914” water rights. They were established prior to 1914, the year the Water Commission Act and subsequent regulations and statutory procedures became effective.

The key to acquiring and maintaining pre- 1914 water rights was simply beneficial use; no permits, applications or filings were necessary. The amount of water used ( appropriated) for beneficial purposes ( domestic, agricultural, mining, commercial, etc.) was the sole defining requirement which established a pre- 1914 appropriative water right.

To maintain and protect the water right, the appropriator must continue to use the water for beneficial purposes. Records need to be kept as to the date of the appropriation and the quantity continually used. The appropriators are required to file statements of water diversion and use with the California Water Board. Supplemental statements should be filed at three- year intervals. If the water is not used for an extended period of time, or is used in a quantity less than the initial appropriation, the appropriative right may be lost or the quantity of the right reduced.

Method of Evaluation

Members of the Grand Jury conducted interviews, reviewed documents, and toured sites.

Persons Interviewed

Director of Public Works, Amador County

Manager, Amador Water Agency

Former Member, Amador Water Agency Board of Directors

Plymouth citizens

Former Plymouth City Council members

Plymouth City Engineer 2003- 2004 Grand Jury Final Report 46

City of Plymouth maintenance worker

Water Treatment plant operators

Documents Examined

1962 Deed to the County

1989 Quitclaim Deed to the City of Plymouth

1990 Water Needs Report Update for Amador Water Agency and County of Amador

1990 Mountain Counties Water Management Studies, Department of Water Resources

Central District

1990 Study of Water Supply for the City of Plymouth. David C. Willer, Water and Power

Consultant

A Reconnaissance Report on the Proposed Middle Fork Pump Lift Station for the City of

Plymouth and Amador Water Agency, David C. Willer, March 1998

Water Rights background information

Department of Health Services documents

Amador Water Agency documents

City of Plymouth budget and documents

Facts:

• According to the Quitclaim Deed Attachment II Contract for Conveyance of Arroyo Ditch dated August 25, 1989, which transferred ownership of Arroyo Ditch from the County of Amador to the City of Plymouth:

o “ Plymouth shall accept the conveyance by quitclaim deed of said Ditch in its present physical condition and in an “ AS IS” condition, knowing that said Ditch is in need of repair, improvement, and maintenance, and knowing, further that said water rights which are a part of said Ditch have not been adjudicated or otherwise authoritatively quantified.”

o “ Plymouth shall own, operate, maintain, repair and use said Ditch as one of the principal water supplies for said City.”

o “ Plymouth will use its best efforts to maintain and operate said Ditch in a manner consistent with sound management and operation policies.”

o “ It shall be the objective of the parties that Plymouth shall cause a flow of one ( 1) cubic foot per second through the recorder at the pumphouse in Plymouth providing water is available at the source, meaning from either or both the South Fork or the Middle Fork of the Cosumnes, and barring major catastrophes and/ or appropriate times of upstream diversion for maintenance purposes, repair purposes, or improvement purposes.”

o “ Plymouth shall defend the Ditch including said water rights in any administrative or judicial attack thereon… and shall maximize water usage with the objective of obtaining a use consistent with the maximum water right attributable to said Ditch.”

o “ Plymouth shall provide from said Ditch water to current legal users within and without the limits of said City at reasonable rates to be determined by the City Council of the City of Plymouth.”

• Water usage is to be in a manner consistent with pre- 1914 water rights.

• The 2003- 2004 Plymouth Budget does not specifically designate funds to be utilized on the Ditch. 2003- 2004 Grand Jury Final Report 47

• A meter to measure water flow exists at the treatment plant; however, no consistent written records of water flow in the Ditch have been maintained.

• As of February 2, 2004, water enters the Ditch from Indian Creek and runs for about 2 miles. It is not being pumped up to the treatment plant.

• On February 2, 2004, a “ blow- out” occurred which caused water to escape from the Ditch and re- enter the river, rendering the majority of the Ditch unusable.

• Prescriptive easement rights ( rights that are sanctioned or authorized by long- standing custom or usage) allow access to the Ditch for maintenance and repair.

• As of February 2, 2004, the City employed one full- time and one part- time maintenance worker whose duties include, among other responsibilities, Ditch maintenance.

• Water in the Arroyo Ditch must be used according to the pre- 1914 water rights, or the rights are subject to loss and/ or forfeiture.

Findings:

• The Middle Fork of the Cosumnes River does not dry up ( except in years of extreme drought), so the potential exists for water to “ always” be in the Ditch. The South Fork is usually dry by summer.

• Water ran in the Ditch last year ( 2003), and was treated.

• The City is not currently utilizing Ditch water for domestic use. The water level is too low to activate the pumps to transport the water uphill to the treatment plant.

• Wells are being utilized as the primary source of domestic water; hence, there is no urgency to repair the Ditch.

• Water in the Ditch could be used beneficially for agricultural purposes.

• Maneuvering equipment to areas in need of repair is often complicated by steep terrain, slippery slopes, and prescriptive easements becoming obscured from property development.

• Lack of maintenance on the Ditch resulted in prescriptive easements not being routinely utilized.

• Access to the Ditch is getting increasingly difficult. Some prescriptive easements have become blocked by property owners planting vineyards and building new homes. The prescriptive easements are subject to loss if they are not routinely utilized and defended.

• Once prescriptive easements are lost, they are difficult to re- establish. Legal representation is often necessary; legal fees are expensive and dissuade Plymouth from actively pursuing re- establishment of the prescriptive easements.

• Gopher holes affect the integrity of the Ditch causing chronic leaks, blow- outs and water loss. Constant maintenance is necessary to avoid excessive damage.

• Due to deferred maintenance, current repairs on the Ditch will require a work crew. Once the Ditch is restored, at least 2 full- time maintenance workers, working exclusively on the Ditch, will be required to maintain it.

• Plymouth has tried to upkeep the Ditch. In addition to efforts by City workers through the years, the Conservation Corp and various prison work- crews have been enlisted to assist with Ditch maintenance. The prison work- crews are no longer utilized due to State budget cuts. 2003- 2004 Grand Jury Final Report 48

• In good faith efforts to maintain Arroyo Ditch, Plymouth, Amador County, and the Amador Water Agency have invested money. Grants monies have also been accrued for the Ditch.

• Language in the Quitclaim Deed is nebulous and makes issues of compliance open to debate and controversy. Phrases such as “ best effort”, “ it is the objective”, “ reasonable time” are difficult to substantiate and quantify.

• Regardless of interpretation, Plymouth’s attempts to fulfill its responsibility in regards to Arroyo Ditch have proven inadequate. The consensus of those interviewed is that the Ditch is in “ shoddy” shape. The City lacks the financial resources, manpower, equipment, technical and engineering expertise to properly manage this valuable resource.

• The current City Administration inherited a legacy of complications surrounding the Arroyo Ditch. Ambivalence about the historical importance of the Ditch as an invaluable asset, and the requisite maintenance, may be due more to frustration than neglect.

• The Administration and citizens of Plymouth have become complacent about protecting the valuable pre- 1914 water rights of Arroyo Ditch.

Recommendations:

• The City of Plymouth should contact the Amador Water Agency and the County of Amador, if appropriate, to negotiate and convey all of the rights, title, and interests in the Arroyo Ditch system, including the water rights and the funds designated for maintenance, to the Amador Water Agency.

• The County of Amador should defend and protect all water rights in Amador County.

Response Required: In accordance with California Penal Code 933.05, the City of Plymouth, Amador Water Agency, and the Amador County Board of Supervisors are required to respond.

2003- 2004 Grand Jury Final Report 49

River Pines Public Utility District

Introduction

In response to several citizens’ complaints regarding a lack of potable water, the 2003- 2004 Grand Jury elected to review the River Pines Public Utility District pursuant to California Penal Code 925( a).

Background

The River Pines Public Utility District ( RPPUD) is a water and sewer district located in north central Amador County. The RPPUD provides water and the collection and treatment of sewer effluent for River Pines. RPPUD has a small customer base consisting of approximately 200 customers. For several years, RPPUD has been on a “ Boil Water Order” mandated by the State Regional Department of Health ( SRDH).

Method of Evaluation

Members of the Grand Jury conducted interviews, reviewed documents and visited various sites.

Persons Interviewed

Chairman of the River Pines Public Utility District Board of Directors

River Pines Public Utility District Plant and Facilities Operator

River Pines Public Utility District Office Manager

River Pines Public Utility District Accountant

State Regional Department of Health Director

Department of Environmental Health Amador County Director

Water and Waste Water Professionals

Citizens

Documents Examined

Reports required by State and County Agencies

Financial Records and Statements

County Health Codes

River Pines Public Utility District Health Codes

2001 California Plumbing Code

2004 California Safe Drinking Water Act

Documents from the State Regional Department of Health

Sites Visited

State Regional Department of Health- Stockton

Department of Environmental Health Amador County

River Pines Public Utility District Office

Cosumnes River Water Treatment Plant

Wells No. 2 & No. 6R

Private bookkeeping service

2003- 2004 Grand Jury Final Report 50

Water Sources and Treatment Systems

Facts:

• The RPPUD has three sources of water at the present time: the Cosumnes River, Well No. 2, and Well No. 6R.

• The Cosumnes River Water Treatment Plant uses a “ Slow Sand Filtering System” to filter out the microscopic particles from the river water. The filtered water is then chlorinated and ready for domestic use.

• The Cosumnes River water is not always used due to low flow rates during certain times of the year. When the flow of the river drops below 15 cubic feet per second ( cfs), the RPPUD is required to cease drawing water from the river.

• Well No. 2, located next to the Town Hall, produces 25 gallons per minute. The well production is not sufficient to satisfy the entire District’s water needs. This well also is out of use at times due to a quick drawdown rate and slow recovery time.

• Well No. 6R is used as a supplementary source of water but does not comply with the State standard for microbiological contamination.

• The water from Well No 6R is pumped up to two storage tanks on the side of the canyon. Gravity pressure is used for the distribution system.

• The level of microbiological contaminates rise and fall throughout the year.

• A chlorination system is in place.

• Sampling of water occurs prior to chlorination.

• RPPUD sought and obtained a Drinking Water State Revolving Fund ( DWSRF) grant from the State Regional Department of Health ( SRDH) to install a treatment system on Well No. 6R.

• This treatment system would filter and disinfect the water and eliminate the bacteriological hazard.

• The SRDH has not permitted RPPUD to install the new treatment system due to what it considers a lack of Technical, Managerial, and Financial ( TMF) capacity within the District.

• The SRDH has determined that Amador Water Agency ( AWA) has the resources to impart TMF capacity to the River Pines domestic water system.

• The SRDH has stated that it expects RPPUD to enter into a contract with AWA concerning the provisions of TMF.

Findings:

• The Cosumnes River water treatment plant and Well No. 2 cannot provide sufficient water to meet the District’s needs.

• Well No. 6R is used as the supplementary water source for RPPUD.

• The levels of bacteria in Well No. 6R can raise to unacceptable levels during wet periods, mandating the standing “ Boil Water Order”.

• Though funds are available, the State Regional Department of Health ( SRDH) has not authorized a new filtration system to be installed on Well No. 6R.

• The SRDH mandates that any district receiving Drinking Water State Revolving Fund monies from the State be Technical, Managerial, and Financial ( TMF) capable. The TMF mandates that River Pines, as a public utility district, must have a Water Treatment Operator 2. 2003- 2004 Grand Jury Final Report 51

• RPPUD has a contract with a local Water Treatment Operator 4 with a Distribution 2 and Waste Water 2 license to take care of its needs. This person exceeds the necessary qualifications.

Recommendations:

• Fit Well No. 6R with a treatment system that will filter and disinfect the water pumped.

• Locate and drill a new well on a site that will give RPPUD a new continuous source of good water.

History of Wells Number 6 & 6R

Facts:

• In 1997, Well No. 6 was found to contain fecal bacteria and was condemned.

• Water consultants believed that a well drilled on the south side of State Route 16 near the Cosumnes River would provide an adequate supply of water.

• Due to land disputes, the new well was not located on this site.

• The water consultants indicated that a site located on the north side of State Route 16, where the District has its slow sand filter, would not yield a sufficient amount of water.

• In the year 2000, Well No. 6R was dug approximately 30 feet away from Well No. 6.

• Well No. 6R was dug deeper than Well No. 6 with an annular seal in an attempt to eliminate the contamination that condemned Well No. 6.

Findings:

• Well No. 6R was not drilled where the water experts had suggested.

• Drilling Well No. 6R thirty feet away from contaminated and condemned Well No. 6 did not solve the water problems.

Recommendation:

• None

Contamination Possibilities

Facts:

• Well No. 6R is located on a sloping terrain downhill from a residence with a corral. The residence, located outside of the District, has a leach field for septic disposal.

• The Director for Environmental Health in Amador County has stated that this property in question is not within RPPUD boundaries.

• Leach residue leaks on occasion from the property into a seasonal stream which leads to the Well No. 6R site.

• A well was dug within the last year for this residence.

• This residence was previously on the water line to receive water from RPPUD.

• According to Amador County Health Code Chapter 14.12, septic systems must be a minimum of 100 feet from a public water source.

• According to RPPUD Ordinance 02- 004, septic systems may not be installed within 1,000 feet of an existing sewer line. 2003- 2004 Grand Jury Final Report 52

• A sewer line runs within 250 feet of one of the residences suspected of contamination.

• Cosumnes River flows near Well No. 6R and was tested by the State and found to be contaminated with microbiological organisms.

• A duck pond with standing water is located approximately 100 feet from Well No. 6.

Findings:

• Cosumnes River may be one cause of the contamination of Wells 6 and 6R.

• Nearby septic systems ( even though they meet county code requirements of being more than 100 feet from the well), horse stables located uphill from the wells, and a local duck pond may contribute to the contamination of Wells No. 6 and 6R.

• Customers of River Pines Public Utility District are applying for permits to dig wells and install septic systems.

Recommendations:

• Install an effective water filtration system on Well No. 6R.

• Annex nearby residences to the sewer line, complying with River Pines Public Utility District Ordinance 02- 004.

• Seek grants to develop a new well system in a viable location.

• Enforce Amador County and River Pines Public Utility District codes and ordinances.

State Regional Department of Health

Facts:

• According to the California Water Law book, Part 12 Chapter 4 California Safe Drinking Water Act, Article 1.116270( a), “ Every citizen of California has the right to pure and safe drinking water.” And Article 11670( e) states, “ It is the further intent of the Legislature to establish a drinking water regulatory program… to provide for the orderly and efficient delivery of safe drinking water within the state.”

• The State Regional Department of Health ( SRDH) has issued a “ Boil Water Order” for the past several years due to contaminated water from Well No. 6R.

• The RPPUD procured a grant from the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund ( SRF) project for $ 370,000.

• The SRF project for RPPUD subsidized a new water filtration treatment system for Well No. 6R, which would make the water potable.

• The filtration treatment system complies with current State standards.

• Bids for the SRF project treatment system for RPPUD were received by the SRDH.

• The SRF project treatment system was put on hold in 2003 by the SRDH due to new 2005 regulatory guidelines for water purification.

• A new filtration system was accepted by the Department of Health Services as an approved alternative to the earlier proposed filtration system.

• A demonstration study to compare the effectiveness of the two filtration systems was scheduled for November 2003 and cancelled.

• The manufacturers assure that the results of the demonstration study would verify that both filters are capable of satisfying State water quality requirements for 2005.

• The Grand Jury has not yet received notification from RPPUD that this demonstration occurred.

• When RPPUD receives a state approved filtration system, the project will commence. 2003- 2004 Grand Jury Final Report 53

Findings:

• The “ Boil Water Order” will stand in River Pines Public Utility District until the Regional Department of Health authorizes a filtration system.

• RPPUD has applied for a grant under Proposition 50 for a new well to be drilled across the street and up the hill from Well No. 6R as well as to deepen Well No. 2.

Recommendations:

• Pursue options with the State to get an approved filtration system on Well No. 6.

• Comply with the California Safe Drinking Water Act.

Response Required:

A response to this report is required by River Pines Public Utility District and the Amador County Environmental Health Director pursuant to California Penal Code 933.05.

2003- 2004 Grand Jury Final Report 54

2003- 2004 Grand Jury Final Report 55

Introduction

Throughout its term, the Grand Jury receives complaints filed by citizens. Serious consideration is given to each complaint. Responding to a citizen complaint may prompt the Grand Jury to conduct a full investigation of the subject matter of the complaint. A copy of the complaint form is located in the Appendix.

Due to legal or discretionary reasons, the Grand Jury may not necessarily investigate every complaint it receives. The Penal Code prohibits the Grand Jury from investigating a complaint if any of the following conditions apply to the subject of the complaint:

• It is currently under litigation

• It involves agencies not located within the county

• It involves privately- held companies

• It is a dispute between private parties

• It involves fiscal or administrative operation of the Superior Court

The Grand Jury considers several discretionary factors when deciding whether to investigate a complaint:

• Do the facts warrant an investigation?

• Is there sufficient time to conduct a proper investigation?

• Has the matter been investigated by a previous Grand Jury?

Following is a list of the Citizen Complaints received and any actions taken. 2003- 2004 Grand Jury Final Report 56

2003- 2004 Grand Jury Final Report 57

Complaints Received by the 2003- 2004 Amador County Grand Jury

Complaint

Date Received

Details

03- 04/ 001

03- 04/ 002

03- 04/ 003

03- 04/ 004

03- 04/ 005

03- 04/ 006

03- 04/ 007

07- 24- 2003

08- 08- 2003

08- 03- 2003

08- 08- 2003

Previous suspense file

09- 01- 2003

09- 01- 2003

A citizen requested the Grand Jury investigate the actions of the Amador County District Attorney and Amador Sheriff’s Office regarding a domestic violence dispute. The Grand Jury has no jurisdiction due to this matter being before the courts.

An inmate at the Amador County Detention Facility alleged improper medical treatment and unjust telephone charges. The matter was investigated and it was determined that not enough evidence existed to substantiate further investigation.

A citizen expressed concern regarding the actions of the Jackson City Council and a proposed low income housing development. This complaint is addressed in the 2003- 2004 Final Grand Jury Report.

A complaint was received regarding the actions of the Amador Fire Protection District on the elimination of paid firefighter positions. The Grand Jury has no jurisdiction due to the matter being before the courts.

A citizen requested the Grand Jury investigate the actions of the Amador Fire Protection District ( AFPD) Board of Directors. Due to the efforts of the AFPD to create a county wide Amador Fire Protection Authority under a Joint Powers Agency ( JPA) contract, the 2003- 2004 Grand Jury has declined to investigate this matter further.

An inmate at the Amador County Detention Facility alleged poor medical treatment. The Grand Jury could not completely investigate this matter due to limited access to medical records and the inmate’s release prior to granting permission for review of the inmate’s medical records.

An inmate at the Amador County Detention Facility alleged improper treatment by Police Officers and proper procedures not being followed. The Grand Jury investigated this matter and determined that based on the actions of the inmate, proper treatment and appropriate reporting procedures were followed.

2003- 2004 Grand Jury Final Report 58

Complaint

Date Received

Details

03- 04/ 008

03- 04/ 009

03- 04/ 010

03- 04/ 011

03- 04/ 012

03- 04/ 013

03- 04/ 014

09- 03- 2003

09- 10- 2003

09- 10- 2003

09- 27- 2003

10- 04- 2003

10- 04- 2003

10- 05- 2003

A parent of a citizen expressed concern regarding the actions of the Amador County District Attorney’s office. The Grand Jury attempted to investigate this matter. Due to potential conflicts of interest with the District Attorney’s office, this complaint was forwarded for review to the California Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General.

A concerned citizen complained about the actions of Jackson City Council members regarding a proposed low income housing development. This complaint is addressed in the 2003- 2004 Final Grand Jury Report.

A citizen complaint was received alleging mismanagement of the Amador County Landfill in regards to regulatory issues, contractual obligations and financial impacts to the county. The Grand Jury investigated this complaint and due to current Amador County activity concerning the landfill and last year’s extensive report, the 2003- 2004 Grand Jury declined to pursue this issue.

A citizen alleged misrepresentation by the Plymouth City Council regarding support of the proposed Indian casino.

This complaint is addressed in the 2003- 2004 Final Grand Jury Report.

An inmate at Amador County Detention Facility alleged unreasonable treatment from officers while being transported to court. This matter was investigated by the Grand Jury and none of the allegations could be substantiated.

A citizen alleged mismanagement of the operations of the Arroyo Ditch by the City of Plymouth. This matter is addressed in the 2003- 2004 Final Grand Jury Report.

A citizen requested the Grand Jury investigate the actions of a Plymouth City Council member in alleged Brown Act violations. This matter is addressed in the 2003- 2004 Final Grand Jury Report.

2003- 2004 Grand Jury Final Report 59

Complaint

Date Received

Details

03- 04/ 015

03- 04/ 016

03- 04/ 017

03- 04/ 018

03- 04/ 019

03- 04/ 020

03- 04/ 021

10- 05- 2003

10- 05- 2003

10- 05- 2003

10- 05- 2003

10- 05- 2003

11- 07- 2003

11- 29- 2003

A citizen complained of the actions of the Plymouth City Council regarding the alleged unjustified water rate increase. This matter is addressed in the 2003- 2004 Final Grand Jury Report.

A citizen requested that the Grand Jury investigate alleged Political Reform Act violations of Plymouth City Council members. This matter is addressed in the 2003- 2004 Final Grand Jury Report.

A citizen complained regarding the actions of the Plymouth City Council in non- enforcement of the Brown Act. This matter is addressed in the 2003- 2004 Final Grand Jury Report.

A citizen’s complaint was received regarding the actions of a Plymouth City Council member’s alleged conflict of interest. This matter is addressed in the 2003- 2004 Final Grand Jury Report.

A citizen alleged misuse of public funds by the Plymouth City Council in the administration of a survey in which final results were ignored. This matter is addressed in the 2003- 2004 Final Grand Jury Report.

An inmate at Mule Creek State Prison alleged officers violated privacy acts. The Grand Jury investigated the complaint and found the complaint to be without merit.

A citizen complained of the inadequate recording of closed warrants, by the Amador County Traffic Division resulting in the citizen being arrested unjustly. The Grand Jury cannot investigate State agencies because the Court system is under the jurisdiction of the State of California. The complaint was forwarded to the California Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General. The Amador County Courts have initiated procedural changes to eliminate situations such as this from recurring.

2003- 2004 Grand Jury Final Report 60

Complaint

Date Received

Details

03- 04/ 022

03- 04/ 023

03- 04/ 024

03- 04/ 025

03- 04/ 026

11- 29- 2003

03- 15- 2004

03- 15- 2004

04- 15- 2004

04- 21- 2004

A citizen complained of the Plymouth City Council’s actions regarding the format of public meetings that limit public comment. This matter is addressed in the 2003- 2004 Final Grand Jury Report.

An inmate at the Amador County Detention Facility alleged unjustified interrogation of family members by the Amador County District Attorney’s office. The Grand Jury has no jurisdiction due to the matter being before the courts.

A citizen alleged mismanagement of donations at the Food Bank. The allegations involve private funds; therefore, the Grand Jury has no jurisdiction over the matter.

A citizen complained against the actions of the Amador County Animal Control and the Amador County District Attorney’s office resulting in the loss of personal property by the citizen. Based upon the date of receipt of the complaint and time constraints of the 2003- 2004 Grand Jury, the complaint has been placed in the suspense file and will be referred to the 2004- 2005 Grand Jury.

A citizen complained that the City of Plymouth did not follow equal opportunity employment laws in filling the Public Works Supervisor position. The complaint alleged illegal hiring practices. Based upon the date of receipt of the complaint and time constraints of the 2003- 2004 Grand Jury, the complaint has been placed in the suspense file and will be referred to the 2004- 2005 Grand Jury.

2003- 2004 Grand Jury Final Report 61

Complaints Received from the Suspense File from the

2002- 2003 Amador County Grand Jury

Complaint

Date Received

Details

02- 03/ 013

02- 03/ 014

02- 02/ 015

02- 03/ 017

02- 03/ 018

02- 12- 2003

02- 12- 2003

02- 19- 2003

03- 24- 2003

04- 23- 2003

A citizen requested the Grand Jury investigate the contract between the Amador County Water Agency and the Pine Acres Public Utility District. The Grand Jury investigated the contract and the complainant’s counsel validated the contract as being legal and binding.

An anonymous complaint alleged preferential treatment and misuse of Proposition 10 Grant funds by the Amador County Health Department management. The Grand Jury investigated this matter however, since proper financial jurisdiction could not be established the investigation was terminated.

A citizen requested the Grand Jury investigate an Ione City Council member receiving perks and misusing his/ her position in the community. The matter was investigated and no evidence of malfeasance was determined.

A citizen requested the Grand Jury to investigate the possibility that an inappropriate candidate would be selected as the Jackson Chief of Police. The Grand Jury investigated the processes used in the selection process for the Chief of Police for the City of Jackson. It was determined that proper selection procedures were followed.

A citizen alleges the actions of the Jackson City Building Inspector/ Plans Examiner resulted in the citizen being sued.

The Grand Jury reviewed documents and conducted several interviews on this complaint to determine that there was insufficient evidence to support the allegation.

2003- 2004 Grand Jury Final Report 62

2003- 2004 Grand Jury Final Report 63

Introduction

Grand Jury Follow- up

Each year’s Grand Jury follows up on agency and public official responses to the previous year’s Grand Jury Findings and Recommendations.

As required by the Penal Code section 933.05, a Public Agency must give a response within 90 days and address it to the presiding judge of the Superior Court. An Elective Officer or Agency Head must respond within 60 days to the presiding judge of the Superior Court and provide an informational copy to the Board of Supervisors.

All respondents are given the criteria to follow in responding to all Grand Jury findings and recommendations. For the convenience of the reader, the responses have been matched up with the facts and findings from the previous year’s report to which they refer. Other than that, the responses, which appear below, are exactly as they were received from the responding parties and have not been edited in any way.

2003- 2004 Grand Jury Final Report 64

2003- 2004 Grand Jury Final Report 65

Amador County Airport – Westover Field

Follow Up Report

Introduction:

The 2002- 2003 Grand Jury elected to review Amador County Airport pursuant to Penal Code 933.5.

Findings:

• A large amount of debris and junk is located near hangar # 6.

o Response by GSA Director: Agree

o Response by Board of Supervisors: Agree

• The mobile home located behind hangar # 6 is owned by and is the residence of the Tenant.

o Response by GSA Director: Agree

o Response by Board of Supervisors: Agree

Recommendations:

• The Airport Manager and a representative of the county should regularly inspect the airport as required in the concessionaire contract with Amador County.

o Response by GSA Director: The Airport Manager and I plan to begin regular inspections of the airport.

o Response by Board of Supervisors: This recommendation will be implemented.

Comment by the 2003- 2004 Grand Jury: One inspection was completed prior to our visit on December 10, 2003, and another planned after the first of the year. The GSA Director and Airport Manager are in the process of developing inspection guidelines.

• All unauthorized trailers, machinery, vehicles and debris should be removed from the airport property.

o Response by GSA Director: The Airport Manager and I plan to remove unauthorized vehicles and debris from the airport property.

o Response by Board of Supervisors: This recommendation will be implemented upon development of appropriate policies governing allowable uses within the boundaries of the airport. The Airport Committee has begun addressing this issue.

Comment by the 2003- 2004 Grand Jury: As of December 10, 2003, the unauthorized mobile home, machinery, vehicles and debris have not been removed. Some of these are the property of the Sheriff and cannot be removed until construction is completed at the Sheriff’s office and county yard. However, the tenant occupying hangar # 6 has not removed any of the items. A memorandum of agreement was written allowing the tenant to occupy one mobile home, while two are on airport property.

2003- 2004 Grand Jury Final Report 66

• GSA should develop a policy for the parking of unattended vehicles ( also known as “ airport cars”) on airport property.

o Response by GSA Director: We are requesting information from other airports regarding their policies for unattended parked cars on airport property and plan to implement our own policy and possible fee schedule.

o Response by Board of Supervisors: This recommendation will be implemented upon development of appropriate policies governing allowable vehicle use within the boundaries of the airport. The Airport Committee has begun addressing this issue.

Fin