Home
Butte County Grand Jury ... final report
To link to this object, paste this link in email, IM or document
To embed this object, paste this HTML in website
Butte County Grand Jury ... final report
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
|
|
Butte County
Grand Jury
2003- 2004
Final Report
Bidwell Bar Bridge
On the cover of the Butte County 2003- 04 Grand Jury Final Report is a photograph of the
Suspension Bridge at Bidwell Bar, taken March 18, 1922. Completed in December,
1855, it is the first suspension bridge in the western United States. The contractor who
built it, Jones and Murray, was paid $ 34,922 for the construction.
The towers were cast in Troy, New York, and shipped, along with the cables and other
parts, around Cape Horn to San Francisco. From there, the parts were transported by
river boat and wagon up to the town of Bidwell's Bar. After completion, it was the topic
of much conjecture among the miners as to whether it would hold up very long.
Following the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, the bridge was guarded by James A. Ford,
the caretaker of Curry Bidwell Bar Park. The bridge was considered strategic to the war
effort because it was the only access to the saw mills of Berry Creek and Brush Creek.
Mr. Ford and his family lived in the tollhouse from 1941 to 1943.
In 1977, the bridge and its tollhouse were dismantled, moved and reconstructed at their
present location, the Bidwell Canyon Recreation Unit at Lake Oroville, where both
structures have been carefully preserved and maintained by the California Department of
Parks and Recreation. Those miners would be amazed to see the Bidwell Bar Bridge still
standing 149 years later.
Information courtesy of the
Butte County Historical Society
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF BUTTE
One Court Street
Oroville, CA 95965- 3303
( 530) 538- 7611
July 9, 2004
2003- 2004
BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY
FINAL REPORT
The Grand Jury Final Report has been filed on this date pursuant to Penal Code
Section 933. A copy of the report is enclosed. Your attention is invited to the
following code section regarding the time requirements for comment to the report.
PENAL CODE SECTION 933
§ 933. Report of findings and recommendations; Comment by governing body of
agency and by mayor.
( a) Each grand jury shall submit to the presiding judge of the superior court a final report
of its findings and recommendations that pertain to county government matters during
the fiscal or calendar year. Final reports on any appropriate subject may be submitted
to the presiding judge of the superior court at any time during the term of service of a
grand jury. A final report may be submitted for comment to responsible officers,
agencies, or departments, including the county board of supervisors, when applicable,
upon finding of the presiding judge that the report is in compliance with this title. For
45 days after the end of the term, the foreperson and his or her designees shall, upon
reasonable notice, be available to clarify the recommendations of the report.
( b) One copy of each final report, together with responses thereto, found to be in
compliance with this title shall be placed on file with the county clerk and remain on
file in the office of the county clerk. The county clerk shall immediately forward a
true copy of the report and the responses to the State Archivist who shall retain that
report and all responses in perpetuity.
( c) No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of
any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public
agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and
recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body, and
every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has
responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the
presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of
supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the
control of that county officer or agency head and any agency or agencies which that
officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall
also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and
reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who
impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be
2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY
placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or
the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. One copy shall
be placed on file with the applicable grand jury final report by, and in the control of
the currently impaneled grand jury, where it shall be maintained for a minimum of
five years.
( d) As used in this section " agency" includes a department.
PENAL CODE SECTION 933.05
§ 933.05. Responses to grand jury reports
( a) For purposes of subdivision ( b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the
responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following:
( 1) The respondent agrees with the finding.
( 2) The respondent disagrees 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 therefor.
( b) For purposes of subdivision ( b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury
recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following
actions:
( 1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the
implemented action.
( 2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in
the future, with a timeframe for implementation.
( 3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope
and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be
prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being
investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when
applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of
publication of the grand jury report.
( 4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not
reasonable, with an explanation therefor.
( c) However, if a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or
personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer,
both the agency or department head and the board of supervisors shall respond if
requested by the grand jury, but the response of the board of supervisors shall address
only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision making
2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY
authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all
aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department.
( d) A grand jury may request a subject person or entity to come before the grand jury for
the purpose of reading and discussing the findings of the grand jury report that relates
to that person or entity in order to verify the accuracy of the findings prior to their
release.
( e) During an investigation, the grand jury shall meet with the subject of that
investigation regarding the investigation, unless the court, either on its own
determination or upon request of the foreperson of the grand jury, determines that
such a meeting would be detrimental.
( f) A grand jury shall provide to the affected agency a copy of the portion of the grand
jury report relating to that person or entity two working days prior to its public release
and after the approval of the presiding judge. No officer, agency, department, or
governing body of a public agency shall disclose any contents of the report prior to
the public release of the final report.
2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FOREPERSON’S LETTER TO THE PRESIDING JUDGE............................................. i
BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY MEMBERS.............................................................. ii
FINAL RESOLUTION................................................................................................... iii
GRAND JURY STATEMENT ........................................................................................ iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS................................................................................................. v
A BRIEF HISTORY AND OVERVIEW OF THE GRAND JURY................................. vi
BIGGS HIGH SCHOOL................................................................................................... 1
OROVILLE UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT........................................................... 3
LOMA VISTA SCHOOL.................................................................................................. 5
REGIONAL OCCUPATIONAL PROGRAM .................................................................. 6
BUTTE COUNTY LIBRARY SYSTEM.......................................................................... 7
BUTTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES ........................ 8
BUTTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF BEHAVIORAL HEALTH.............................. 10
BUTTE COUNTY JAIL ................................................................................................. 12
BUTTE COUNTY SHERIFF- CORONER’S OFFICE.................................................... 14
CHICO POLICE DEPARTMENT.................................................................................. 16
CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT.................................................................................... 18
CITY OF BIGGS ............................................................................................................ 21
CITY OF CHICO............................................................................................................ 23
CITY OF GRIDLEY....................................................................................................... 26
SOUTH FEATHER WATER AND POWER AGENCY ................................................ 28
BUTTE COUNTY AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT ................................ 30
BUTTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ............................................ 31
WATER AND RESOURCE CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT................................. 33
BUTTE COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION......................... 36
BUTTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS........................................... 38
BUTTE COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, BUILDING DIVISION.................. 39
COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY OF BUTTE COUNTY, INC. ................................ 41
BUTTE COUNTY CLERK- RECORDER ...................................................................... 43
INDIGENT DEFENSE SERVICES CONTRACT.......................................................... 47
BUTTE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION ....................................................................... 49
BUTTE COUNTY AUDITOR- CONTROLLER............................................................. 50
APPENDIX I: Summary Of Required Responses ........................................................... 52
APPENDIX II: Orientation and Training ........................................................................ 53
APPENDIX III: Offices, Departments, Boards, Commissions and Officials Visited,
Observed, Reviewed, Investigated, Interviewed or Consulted by the Grand Jury...... 54
APPENDIX IV: Comments Regarding Responses to the 2002- 03 Grand Jury Final
Report........................................................................................................................ 57
APPENDIX V: Conflict of Interest ................................................................................. 58
2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY
i
FOREPERSON’S LETTER TO THE PRESIDING JUDGE
The Honorable Barbara Roberts
Presiding Judge
Superior Court, County of Butte
One Court Street
Oroville, CA 95965
May 28, 2004
Judge Roberts:
On behalf of the 2003- 2004 Butte County Grand Jury, it is my honor and pleasure to
present the 2003- 2004 Grand Jury Final Report to you and to the residents of Butte
County.
This year’s Grand Jury was comprised of 19 individuals, each of whom brought to bear
their unique experience and knowledge to explore, learn, and investigate the various
functions of our county’s government. These jurors were dedicated to objectively
collecting and reviewing the facts and coming to fair and just conclusions. I would like
to recognize all my fellow jurors for the time and effort they put into this report.
The government of Butte County has significant economic challenges ahead, given the
economic condition of our state. This has been evident throughout our interviews and
investigations. It is our hope, as the Grand Jury, that our contribution of this report will
enlighten the county’s residents about the workings within our government.
The 26 reports that follow, along with the recommendations made, were reviewed and
approved by the 2003- 2004 Grand Jury.
My fellow jurors and I would like to thank all of the county, city, and district department
leaders, their staffs and employees for guiding us through their operations. Without this
support and insight, the report presented today would not have been possible. We would
like to extend our thanks to each of our employers and families who allowed the time for
us to serve on the 2003- 2004 Grand Jury.
Respectfully submitted,
Dale Nussdorfer II
Grand Jury Foreperson
2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY
ii
BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY MEMBERS
Dale Nussdorfer II Foreperson Chico
Glen Wood Foreperson Pro Tem Chico
Constance Picotte Recording Secretary Berry Creek
Joan Shelton Correspondence Secretary Chico
Timothy Colbie Sergeant- at- Arms Chico
Nick Appuglies Oroville
Arlyn Beneke Durham
Donald Chu Chico
Donald Doyle Magalia
Michael Dunkley Chico
Brian Frink Chico
Gerrie Gilkey Bangor
Kenneth Kopp Oroville
Helen Kutz Chico
Betty Linzy Chico
Philip Maxey Biggs
John Stapp Berry Creek
Dean Taber Magalia
Marjorie ( Jan) West Oroville
2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY
iii
FINAL RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Butte County Grand Jury has concluded the business of its term and has
reached certain conclusions, and
WHEREAS, the Butte County Grand Jury desires to disclose the substance of those
conclusions for the benefit of local government, its agencies and the citizens of Butte
County;
BE IT RESOLVED that the attached papers, commendations, findings and
recommendations are adopted as the Grand Jury Final Report and submitted to the
Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Butte, to be entered as a
public document pursuant to California Law.
The above Resolution PASSED AND ADOPTED by the 2003- 2004 Butte County Grand
Jury in Oroville on the 19th day of May 2004.
2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY
iv
GRAND JURY STATEMENT
The 2003- 2004 Butte County Grand Jury, impaneled on June 20, 2003, pledged itself to
conduct its business in an ethical manner, to be responsive to citizen complaints, to visit
and review offices and agencies, as mandated, to undertake to visit and review various
other agencies, to accomplish the goals it set for itself and, at the end of its term, to
render a comprehensive Final Report to the citizens and agencies of Butte County.
Further, the 2003- 2004 Butte County Grand Jury pledged itself to uphold the following
values throughout its term:
• Τo recognize its purpose and duties in accordance with the laws of the State of
California;
• To maintain the confidentiality and integrity of all Grand Jury proceedings;
• To recognize the importance of applying to all individuals the same objective
standards of conduct and responsibility;
• To respect every individual's right to privacy;
• To recognize that the Grand Jury functions lawfully as a legal entity and that no
single grand juror, when acting alone, has any power or authority to represent the
Grand Jury;
• To remain vigilant to detect and avoid any personal conflicts of interest that may arise
during the course of performing the business of the Grand Jury;
• To recognize the importance of relying on the opinions and expertise of others more
skilled in particular matters regarding the business of public office and government;
• To respect the discretionary policy- making or operational powers of public officials;
and
• To recognize the importance of maintaining accuracy and integrity in our activities,
and to keep our reports confined to matters within the scope and power of our
authority.
2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY
v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The 2003- 2004 Butte County Grand Jury sincerely appreciates, acknowledges and thanks
the following people and organizations for their support, guidance, and professional
assistance and orientation, and for helping to make this Final Report possible:
• Thomas W. Kelly, Judge of the Superior Court of California, Butte County, who
initially impaneled and presided over this Grand Jury;
• Barbara Roberts, Judge of the Superior Court of California, Butte County, who
presided over the conclusion of this Grand Jury;
• County Counsel Bruce Alpert and Assistant County Counsel David McClain;
• District Attorney Michael Ramsey;
• The staff of the Superior Court of California, County of Butte, including Sharol
Strickland, Court Executive Officer, and Andrea Nelson, Deputy Court Executive
Officer;
• Butte County Superior Court Bailiffs;
• Butte County Board of Supervisors: Curt Josiassen, Jane Dolan, Mary Anne
Houx, Robert Beeler, and Kim Yamaguchi;
• The Butte County Department heads, the county and district Superintendents of
Schools, and their staffs;
• Officers who guided members of the Grand Jury through the Butte County Jail
and the Juvenile Hall;
• All those who agreed to be interviewed during investigations and visits;
• California Grand Jury Association for the training seminars; and
• Our endlessly patient and understanding families and employers who supported us
while we performed this challenging public service.
2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY
A BRIEF HISTORY AND OVERVIEW OF THE GRAND JURY
What Is A Grand Jury?
The name of " grand jury" derives from the fact that the body usually has a greater
number of jurors than a trial ( petit) jury. The concept of the grand jury traces its roots to
classical Greece. Ancient Athenians employed an " accusatory body" much as the Saxons
of early Briton did. In fact, from 978 until 1016 one of the Saxon Dooms ( laws) required
an accusatory body of 12 for every 100 men. The accusing body was exhorted " not to
accuse an innocent man or spare a guilty one."
The modern European jury system began to evolve during the eleventh and twelfth
centuries. As early as 1066, during the Norman conquest of England, courts summoned
bodies of sworn citizens to investigate crimes that had come to their attention. Initially,
these early juries both accused and tried suspects, and since the members of the accusing
bodies were selected from small jurisdictions, they naturally presented accusations based
on their personal knowledge.
During the reign of Henry II ( 1154- 1189), juries were divided into two types - civil and
criminal - with the development of each influencing the other. The oath taken by these
jurors provided that they would faithfully carry out their duties, that they would aggrieve
no one through enmity nor give deference to anyone through love, and that they would
conceal those things that they had heard. By the year 1290, civil juries were given
authority to inquire about the conditions of bridges and highways and review the
practices and conditions in the jails.
The Massachusetts Bay Colony impaneled the first American grand jury in 1635 to
consider cases of murder, robbery and wife beating. By the end of the colonial period the
institution of the grand jury was firmly fixed in America's new and ever- evolving system
of government. Although the Constitution does not specifically mention grand juries, the
Fifth Amendment provides the guarantee that " No person shall be held to answer to a
capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on the presentment of indictment of a Grand
Jury….” Grand juries were used in our early history to protest governmental abuses, to
propose new laws and very often to determine who should face trial. Today, forty- two
states have some form of grand jury, and California is one of the states that still allow
prosecution to be initiated by either criminal grand jury indictment or by judicial
preliminary hearing.
Grand Jury System Today
The California State Constitution calls specifically for the use of grand juries in the
governance of the state, and in 1849 the California Legislature authorized grand juries in
each county. The Legislature passed laws in 1880 that required grand juries to review
and investigate the activities of county government, and in 1983 the State added
municipalities and districts to the purview of grand juries. Certain larger jurisdictions -
such as the Cities and Counties of San Francisco and Los Angeles - impanel separate
2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY
A BRIEF HISTORY AND OVERVIEW OF THE GRAND JURY
vii
criminal ( indictment) and civil ( watchdog) grand juries each year. Some counties
impanel a separate criminal grand jury only when needed. The Butte County Grand Jury
serves in both capacities. As constituted today, the Grand Jury is a part of the judicial
branch of government and is an arm of the Court. The Grand Jury does not have the
functions of either the legislative or administrative branches and it is not a police agency
or political group. It is an investigative body having as its objective the detection and
correction of flaws in government.
The primary civil function of the Grand Jury, and the most important reason for its
existence, is the examination of all aspects of County and City government, including
special districts and joint powers agencies, seeing that the public's monies are handled
judiciously and that all accounts are properly audited - in general, assuring honest,
efficient government in the best interest of the people.
The Grand Jury has three ways to exercise its powers:
• By reports and recommendations regarding county government, cities, special
districts, and joint powers agencies.
• By indictment, bringing charges against an individual for criminal offense.
• By civil accusation of an official or employee where the result, on conviction,
would be removal from office.
A large portion of the public wrongly believes that an individual, particularly a public
official, appearing before the Grand Jury suggests guilt of malfeasance, misfeasance, or
nonfeasance. It is the Constitutional responsibility of the Grand Jury to review the
conduct of government each year. This entails having public officials appear before the
Jury for the purpose of providing information relative to their departments or offices.
While it is a part of the judicial system, a Grand Jury is an entirely independent body.
The Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, the District Attorney, the County Counsel,
and the State Attorney General act as its advisors, but cannot prevent the actions of the
Jury except on issues of legality. The Grand Jury is not accountable to elected officials
or governmental employees.
Due to the confidential nature of a Grand Jury's work, most, if not all, must be conducted
in closed session. Members of a Grand Jury are sworn to secrecy, thus assuring all that
appear before it that their testimony will be handled in strict confidence. No one may be
present during the sessions of a Grand Jury except those specified by law, and the
minutes of its meetings may not be inspected by anyone, nor can its records be
subpoenaed.
The Grand Jury serves as an ombudsman for citizens of the county. The Grand Jury may
receive and investigate complaints by individuals regarding the actions and performances
of County or other public officials. Additionally, the California Penal Code specifies that
2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY
A BRIEF HISTORY AND OVERVIEW OF THE GRAND JURY
viii
the Grand Jury shall inquire into the conditions and management of the public prisons,
jails, and juvenile detention facilities within the county.
The members of the Grand Jury are collectively granted special powers and privileges to
aid them in carrying out their duties. The Grand Jury in its official capacity is permitted,
with limited exceptions, access to and the right to inspect government facilities, and to
review official books and records to which other citizens are denied access. The Grand
Jury may issue subpoenas as necessary. The Grand Jury findings and recommendations
are to be unbiased and impartial.
How Is The Jury Selected?
Each fiscal year the Butte County Superior Court summons a large number of qualified
citizens who have resided in the county for over a year and are at least 18 years of age.
The court makes it clear that service on the Grand Jury is voluntary. Potential jurors
should be reasonably intelligent, of good character, and must possess a working
command of the English language. From the pool of willing candidates, the Court makes
a good faith effort to select qualified men and women who are diverse in age and
socioeconomic, ethnic and educational backgrounds, and who represent the varied
geographic areas of the county.
Superior Court judges and staff interview the body of qualified and willing candidates
and choose 30 potential jurors. Nineteen members make up a full jury. At the discretion
of the Presiding Judge, as many as 10 members from the previous year's jury may
" holdover" or serve a second term. In order to constitute the full panel of 19, names are
drawn at random, and new jurors are added to the existing holdovers. Jurors serve for a
term of twelve months beginning in July. Over the course of the year and as necessary,
alternates are called in sequential order from the pool of remaining potential jurors.
How Does It Work?
The Presiding Judge appoints a foreperson to preside at meetings. The Grand Jury
organizes itself into officers and committees and determines which of the various
departments and functions of county, city and joint powers government it will review. It
also reviews compliance with the recommendations of previous Butte County Grand
Juries.
Inquiries on the part of the jury, letters and complaints from citizens, and dictates of the
State Penal Code collectively determine the jury's work. The Grand Jury aims to identify
policies in government that may need improvement. All actions of the jury - including
any communication from the public and all deliberations and votes are completely
confidential. The jury does publish a report of its significant findings and
recommendations.
2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY
A BRIEF HISTORY AND OVERVIEW OF THE GRAND JURY
ix
The jury's final report, however, typically reflects only a small part of the jury's actual
endeavors over the course of its term. State law requires specific and detailed responses
from departments upon which the jury renders findings and recommendations in its
reports. Elected officials have 60 days to respond; public agencies have 90 days. The
work of a Grand Jury is demanding. Most members can expect to invest approximately
500 hours of time over the course of their term, but the work can be both gratifying and
personally rewarding. Service on a jury leads one to a much improved understanding of
the organization and business of local government, and to the personal satisfaction of
having contributed to its improvement. The Grand Jury experience provides a unique and
valuable opportunity for community service.
2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY
( This page intentionally left blank)
Butte County
Grand Jury
2003- 2004
Final Report
2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY
1
BIGGS HIGH SCHOOL
Reason for Visit/ Investigation
Members of the Grand Jury were concerned about the low Academic Performance Index
( API) scores for 2003- 04 school year at Biggs High School as reported in the local media
in October, 2003.
Background
The Biggs Unified School District includes Biggs Elementary, Middle and High Schools
as well as Richvale Elementary School. The Biggs High School has a strong agricultural
involvement with the surrounding community. The school has a 40- acre walnut orchard
and a metal shop where the students, for extra income, create items for sale.
This school has been plagued by a high turnover of principals, more than 12 different
ones in the past 12 years. The current principal has been there for the past three years
and serves both the middle and high schools.
Investigation
Members of the Grand Jury interviewed the Superintendent of the Biggs Unified School
District on December 10, 2003 and the Biggs Middle/ High School Principal on January
13, 2004. Other appropriate witnesses were interviewed. A tour of the Biggs High
School was accomplished on January 13, 2004.
It was learned that staff members had administered the API tests who had never done it
before. The usual administrator was on leave at that time. The demographics were
incorrectly shown as a student body of 90% black whereas the actual student body is
primarily white with about 25% Hispanic. Also, since they scored 641 during 2002- 03,
they fully expected to score not less than 670 in the current school year. Something seems
very wrong about the score shown of only 579. The school has hired an expert to
examine all the pertinent data to determine if there were errors that caused the lower
score. Some answers should be forthcoming in May 2004.
Findings
1. The principal was enthusiastic and cooperative and rapport with the students was
obvious.
2. The campus was clean and activities observed in most of the classrooms were
inspiring. Most of the teachers exhibited great enthusiasm and involvement with the
students.
3. Of the 59 seniors who graduated in 2003, 39 received scholarships totaling $ 118,000
and it was reported that 75% of last years graduates planned to go on to complete
2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY
BIGGS HIGH SCHOOL
2
their education at two and four year colleges and/ or trade schools. Ninety- five percent
of the freshmen at Biggs High School graduate.
4. Computer proficiency is a requirement for graduation and computers are available for
the students in the lab and after school between 5: 00- 7: 00PM in the library.
5. One of the most impressive observations was the “ sustained silent reading” session
which occurs each day for one half hour during which every student reads silently
from a book at his/ her own reading level.
Recommendations
1. The 2003- 04 Grand Jury strongly recommends that the Biggs Unified School Board
offer all support possible to this principal and the superintendent in their continued
efforts to raise the quality of education at this school.
2. Re- evaluate the progress of improvement in the API scores for 2003- 04 when the
expert analysis is completed in May, 2004.
Responses Required ( Penal Code § 933 & 933.05)
Biggs Unified School Board
Superintendent of Biggs Unified School District
2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY
3
OROVILLE UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
Purpose of Visit/ Investigation
The Grand Jury received a report that high school students in Oroville were relying on
the public library to access computers for their homework needs. This raised the question
of whether computers are sufficiently available in the local schools so that those students
who lack computer access in their homes are not at a disadvantage in their homework
preparation.
Background/ Investigation
Oroville Union High School District includes Oroville High School which enrolls about
1125 students, Las Plumas High School which has 1575 students, 180 Challenge Charter
School students and Prospect High which teaches 22 students. Therefore, the vast
majority of high school students in the Oroville area are subject to the policies and
procedures of the Oroville Union High School District.
Members of the Grand Jury invited the superintendent of Oroville Union High School
District to meet with them on December 10, 2003. The superintendent informed them
that computers are available in the library computer lab at Las Plumas High School and
was comfortable that any Las Plumas student could access a computer when needed.
However, Oroville High’s library is undergoing remodeling and the computer lab is not
currently available. He reported that students using the county library computers were
probably from Oroville High and that is a temporary inconvenience, which will abate
with the completion of the remodeled library.
He further stated that computer skills were incorporated into the high school curriculum
but there is no computer proficiency requirement for graduation.
Advances in technology have elevated computer skills from an advantage to a necessity.
So much of the public sector and private industry heavily utilize computers that a lack of
comfort with their use seriously limits a young person entering the job market.
Functioning in college without computer literacy is impossible. High schools should
treat basic computer skills as a core subject and ensure graduates are proficient with this
tool.
Findings
1. Access to, and assistance with, computers was found to be insufficient to ensure
computer proficiency.
2. Oroville Union High School District has no computer proficiency requirement for
graduation.
2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY
OROVILLE UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
4
Recommendations
1. The district develop a computer proficiency requirement consistent with other
leading school districts.
2. The district provide improved access to, and assistance with, computers for
meeting proficiency requirements and performing school work.
Responses Required ( Penal Code § 933 & 933.05)
Superintendent of Oroville Union High School District
Oroville Union High School Board
Principal Oroville High School
2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY
5
LOMA VISTA SCHOOL
Reason for Visit/ Investigation
Members of the Grand Jury chose to visit Loma Vista School on September 24, 2003.
Background/ Investigation
Loma Vista School was transferred to the Chico Unified School District ( CUSD) from
the Butte County Office of Education in 2002. An estimated $ 812,856 was saved by
transferring to CUSD. This was one of the largest transfers in the state.
The site is owned by CUSD and serves seriously handicapped students aged 3 through
22. There are programs under the Loma Vista umbrella at 14 other Chico schools. There
are 26 teachers throughout the district who, together with 150 classroom aides, nurses,
psychologists and therapists, work with 288 students to help them learn to lead
productive and independent lives. Each student has an Individual Educational Plan,
designed annually and checked quarterly, to see that goals are reached. Specialized
equipment is designed to help children learn to stand and to walk. A machine “ puffs up”
Braille while another enlarges print for the visually handicapped. Transportation is
provided by CUSD to pick students up at their homes and return them at the end of the
day.
Students are referred to Loma Vista by doctors, parents, teachers and the Far Northern
Regional Center. Parents have the right to refuse enrollment of their children.
Findings
None
Commendation
Loma Vista is doing a commendable job serving the needs of severely handicapped
students of the Chico area. The facility was clean and morale of teachers and staff was
excellent.
Recommendations
None
Responses Required ( Penal code § 933 & 933.05)
None
2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY
6
REGIONAL OCCUPATIONAL PROGRAM
Reason for Visit/ Investigation
Members of the Grand Jury met with the director and assistant of the Regional
Occupational Program ( ROP) administration, and toured facilities located at 2491
Carmichael Drive in Chico, on October 6, 2003.
Background/ Investigation
The ROP is part of the Butte County Office of Education. The mission of ROP is to
provide quality job training, career counseling, and guidance which will provide adults
and high school students in Butte County with job skills, knowledge and attitudes leading
to success in their employment experiences. Classes in the following areas are offered to
high school students: agricultural and natural resources, business and marketing, health
services, consumer and public services and technologies. Adult classes are also offered
in a wide variety of occupations.
The above courses are offered at high schools in Chico, Durham, Paradise, Biggs,
Gridley and Oroville as well as at the ROP centers in Chico and Oroville. In the
academic year 2002- 03, 375 adults were enrolled, as were 899 high school students. State
funds account for almost all of ROP’s 2003- 04 budget of $ 1,967,432.
Conclusion
The Grand Jury was impressed with the overall operation of ROP, and the high morale
exhibited by both employees and students. ROP is a tremendous asset to educational
services for the community. It fills a significant need for occupationally- directed
education for high school age students and adults who wish to retrain for any number of
jobs needed in the community. ROP is deserving of strong support from the county.
Recommendations
None
Responses Required ( Penal Code § 933 & 933.05)
None
2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY
7
BUTTE COUNTY LIBRARY SYSTEM
Reason for Visit/ Investigation
The Grand Jury responded to a letter of concern about compliance by the Butte County
Libraries with the new federal regulations which prohibit minors from accessing
inappropriate material on the Internet.
Background/ Investigation
Members of the Grand Jury met with the director of the Butte County Library at the
Oroville Library on November 5, 2003.
The administrative office of the Butte County Library is located at 1820 Mitchell
Avenue, Oroville. There are six branch libraries in the system. They are located in the
cities of Biggs, Chico, Durham, Gridley, Oroville, and Paradise. Patrons sign up for a set
period of time. There are over 200 library volunteers in the county. Volunteers are
always needed. The bookmobile visits other locations in the county. Some of the
services and programs include story time, summer reading program, literacy services,
services for patrons, books by mail and book discussion. As a recipient of the Bill and
Melinda Gates Foundation Grant, computers have been placed in all the branches of the
library. There are 37 computers in the Butte County Library System.
Findings
1. There has not been a problem with inappropriate usage even though the
computers are not filtered at this time, because the computer monitors are visible
to library staff. Libraries have until July 2004 to comply with the federal
regulations concerning filters. County libraries plan to comply fully by this
deadline.
2. The limited availability of computers at local high schools has increased the need
for minors to use computers at the public libraries.
Commendation
The libraries are in excellent hands. The director has written and received many grants
and seems to have the whole library system in control.
Recommendation
None
Response required ( Penal Code § 933 & 933.05)
None
2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY
8
BUTTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES
Reason for Visit/ Investigation
The Grand Jury chose to visit the Butte County Department of Child Support Services.
Background
Members of the Grand Jury met with the Director of Child Support Services ( CSS) on
September 3, 2003. CSS offers a variety of free services to parents in order to help them
meet their responsibilities to their children. The department assists custodial parents in
locating the non- custodial parent and establishes court orders for paternity when
fatherhood is debated, which may include DNA testing. Once paternity has been
established and a child support order has been obtained, the department assists in the
enforcement of support orders in a number of ways, including wage assignments,
interception of state and federal income tax refunds, and driver’s license suspensions.
CSS assists parents in modifying their current child support order when appropriate. The
department is able to help parents with establishing paternity and support orders even
when the non- custodial parent lives out of state.
Findings
1. This department has an annual budget of approximately $ 8 million of which
approximately 66% is from federal funds and 34% is from state funds.
2. CSS employs 177 full- time personnel located in three buildings.
3. There are approximately 18,000 current cases.
4. Recipients are typically 75% public assistance and 25% non- public assistance.
5. The department’s performance is measured in part by the “ Federal Performance
Measure Report”.
Commendation
CSS offers valuable services free to Butte County parents, guardians and caretakers of
minor children. CSS is striving to become more efficient in obtaining fair and
appropriate child support orders and in the collection and distribution of the support
funds. The Grand Jury commends their efforts.
Recommendation
None
2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY
BUTTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES
9
Responses Required ( Penal Code § 933 & 933.05)
None
2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY
10
BUTTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF BEHAVIORAL HEALTH
Reason for Visit/ Investigation
The Grand Jury received a letter requesting an investigation of the management of the
Patients’ Rights office, Department of Behavioral Health ( DBH).
Background/ Investigation
Members of the Grand Jury met with the Director of the Butte County Department of
Behavioral Health, on January 28, 2004, and with the Ombudsman Coordinator for Butte
and other northern California counties on February 11, 2004.
Each of California’s 58 counties operates a public mental health system. This department
supplies administrative, youth, adult and community services. The DBH budget is $ 32
million and there are 385 full time employees. The Patients’ Rights office is part of DBH
Adult Services.
Findings
1. The Patients’ Rights office can help with a variety of issues, including complaints
about treatment, financial assistance, community awareness and more.
2. Patients’ Rights Advocates are trained at the State Office of Patients’ Rights and
the staff includes professionals and mental health consumers who have experience
in law and mental health.
3. Advocates represent a client’s interests as defined by the client. They assist adults
and minors and counsel at all types of mental health facilities
4. This letter of complaint is rare and at a future date we received material from the
Director of Behavioral Health updating the information concerning the complaint.
5. The Ombudsman program here is under the Area Agency on Aging and has 2.75
paid employees and 50 volunteers. They are all state certified.
6. The Ombudsman Director informed us that this type of complaint letter is
unusual.
2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY
BUTTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF BEHAVIORAL HEALTH
11
Conclusion
Both the Director of the Butte County Department of Behavioral Health and the
Ombudsman Coordinator felt that this complaint was unusual and that the problem has
been resolved.
Recommendation
None
Response Required ( Penal Code § 933 & 933.05)
None
2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY
12
BUTTE COUNTY JAIL
Reason for Visit/ Investigation
The Grand Jury is charged by the California Penal Code to review all detention facilities
in the county each year. The Grand Jury visited the Butte County Jail on September 4th,
and October 15th, 2003 to review procedures and inspect the facility.
Background/ Investigation
Overcrowding is a serious problem in the county jail system. The Butte County Jail has
operated under a consent decree ( Butte County Superior Court Case # 084429), which
controls staffing, population and housing conditions.
The Butte County Jail facilities, housing the male and female population, were built at
different times. The male population, being significantly larger, is housed in the newer
jail facility, which was completed in 1994, while the women are housed in the older 1963
facility. Inspections conducted by the Board of Corrections ( BOC) are subject to
standards based on the dates of construction. Thus the men’s facility is evaluated under
the 1994 Title 24 Standards, while the women’s facility is measured against the 1963
Standards.
The current BOC recommendations address upgrading and enhancing the women’s
facility. The cost of a complete renovation to upgrade this facility is considered
prohibitive. However, some upgrades including replacing the toilets and sinks, installing
toilets and drinking fountains in the two exercise yards, adding concrete to the two west
side exercise yards have been completed, thus bringing the women’s exercise yard up to a
usable condition. A roof, installed over a portion of the yard, allows use in a variety of
weather conditions.
Overcrowding continues to exist even with early- release programs, such as Sheriff’s
Work Alternative Program, Electronic Surveillance Program, Own Recognizance and
cite- and- release.
Findings
1. While some recent cosmetic improvements have been completed, the
women’s jail facility remains substandard.
2. Overcrowded conditions in both jails and lack of privacy in the women’s
facility are serious unsolved problems.
2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY
BUTTE COUNTY JAIL
13
3. During the Grand Jury’s two visits, all facilities inspected were clean.
Recommendations
1. Begin planning for future expansion of the jail.
2. Upgrade women’s facilities to current standards as soon as economically
feasible.
Responses Required ( Penal Code § 933 & 933.05)
Butte County Board of Supervisors
Butte County Sheriff
2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY
14
BUTTE COUNTY SHERIFF- CORONER’S OFFICE
Reason for Visit/ Investigation
With budget cuts looming over the county, often one of the first services cut is law
enforcement. The Grand Jury visited the Butte County Sheriff’s Office on September 4,
2003 and again on January 22, 2004.
Background/ Investigation
The Butte County Sheriff’s Office has a budget of $ 25.25 million. It is staffed by 111
sworn officers and 152 non- sworn full- time employees divided into three divisions.
The Service Division with a staff of 60 is responsible for evidence, civil division, records,
dispatch, accounting, information systems, court services, backgrounds and training.
The Operations Division with a staff of 99 has responsibilities including sub- stations,
patrol, designated area deputy, investigations and special enforcement unit, coroner,
Butte Interagency Narcotics Task Force and reserve deputy sheriff programs.
The Incarceration Division with a staff of 104 is responsible for providing custody and
care of individuals incarcerated at the county jail and for the administration of the various
work programs.
Previous Grand Juries have had adverse comments on the condition of the evidence
storage facility and the lack of adequate storage space.
Following the recent shooting deaths of two deputies from the Magalia substation the
need for improved backup became apparent.
The lack of adequate evidence facilities is still a problem. The California Peace Officers
Standards and Training Report had disclosed serious deficiencies in the storage and
retention of evidence due to the lack of adherence to policies and procedures. The sheriff
has taken steps to address these issues. In addition to enforcing policies and procedures
with regard to new evidence entering the facility, a process was put in place to review the
current evidence with the goal of purging evidence no longer required by the court.
Using the Sheriff’s Team of Active Retired Seniors volunteers, the Sheriff’s Office has
been able to review old case files and obtain the necessary court orders needed for
disposal of excess property.
A total of 450 guns and 14 vehicles have also been eliminated. All the marijuana plants
have been removed from the building. These changes have greatly reduced the volume
of evidence in storage. It is the Sheriff’s opinion that these is no need for a new evidence
facility, but rather the solution is in the removal of obsolete evidence currently being
housed within the facility.
2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY
BUTTE COUNTY SHERIFF- CORONER’S OFFICE
15
After the recent tragedies in the Magalia area, the Sheriff negotiated an agreement with
the California Highway Patrol ( CHP) to assign an officer to the Magalia area on a regular
basis. The Sheriff’s deputy and the CHP officer continue to handle their respective calls
for service independently, but now act as back up for one another on any calls where an
officer requires back- up support.
The 911 Call Center had previously experienced numerous vacancies, high employee
turnover and low morale. To address these issues, four additional dispatchers have been
hired. The Call Center has been relocated to a larger facility, with new ergonomically
correct workstations.
The computer software was prone to freezing at the busiest times, often leaving the patrol
officers in limbo. The computer software problems have been addressed. The
emergency call storage system is now operational.
Findings
1. While an aggressive program to review all evidence held in the storage facility
has been initiated, more work to remove and dispose of obsolete evidence remains
to be accomplished.
2. Combined with the corrections to the computer software and the new larger work
area, the personnel issues have been substantially improved.
Recommendations
1. Accelerate the procedure for the clean up of the evidence storage facilities.
Consider the hiring of temporary staff to assist in this process and address the
research and paperwork stemming from the review process.
2. Continue to monitor the working conditions in the 911 Call Center to verify that
the employee turnover issues have been addressed.
Responses Required ( Penal Code § 933 & 933.05)
Butte County Board of Supervisors
Butte County Sheriff
2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY
16
CHICO POLICE DEPARTMENT
Reason for Visit/ Investigation
Members of the Grand Jury selected Chico Police Department ( CPD) for review this year
to learn more about the department in general, with an in- depth review of the evidence
facility and dispatch center. The review also evaluated the effectiveness of the city’s
low- tolerance policy for the Halloween event.
Background/ Investigation
Members of the Grand Jury visited the CPD on October 2, 10, and 31, November 13,
2003, and January 8, 2004.
The CPD is composed of 85 sworn officers, 54 non- sworn support personnel for a total
staff of 139 employees. In addition, there are 12 reserve police officers.
CPD is responsible for law enforcement in the incorporated areas of the City of Chico. In
addition to the patrol officers, the department manages the public safety dispatchers,
school resource officers, community service officers, evidence maintenance and storage,
plus the support staff, reserve officers, and volunteers.
CPD is the lead agency for law enforcement of special events such as Halloween and St.
Patrick‘ s Day. In 2002, the City of Chico established a no- tolerance approach for dealing
with the downtown out of control crowds, public drunkenness, minors in possession of
controlled substances, open alcohol containers, violence and vandalism. To accomplish
this no- tolerance objective, a massive presence of law enforcement officers was
assembled in 2002, and again in 2003. In cooperation with the California State
University Chico, an advertising campaign was launched to discourage out- of- town
visitors.
CPD established a command center in downtown Chico for Halloween 2003. They
organized the deployment of officers from 31 agencies, including officers from other
counties and cities, volunteers, and mounted patrols for a total of 650 personnel. Sobriety
checkpoints were established by California Highway Patrol at several locations entering
into downtown. Dozens of mounted officers were deployed in the known trouble areas of
town. A special holding area was established to contain and process arrestees prior to
transporting them to Butte County Jail. A nurse was on hand at the processing area to
administer minor first aid and to draw blood when necessary.
At the time of the visit to the CPD 911/ Radio Communications Dispatch Center
( Dispatch), there were two- and- one- half open dispatch positions. Dispatchers are
required to work numerous overtime hours. The Dispatch Center is a small confined area
with non- ergonomically correct workstations.
2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY
CHICO POLICE DEPARTMENT
17
One Property Section Manager and clerical support manage evidence processing and
storage. The evidence facility has a secure intake area where officers drop off property
for processing. The intake area also contains small evidence storage, 911 tape storage
and office space. The majority of evidence is stored in a larger climate- controlled
building, which also contains freezers and refrigerators for temperature- sensitive items.
Large items, such as bicycles and cars, are stored in a fenced outdoor facility. The
evidence officer also manages recovered property that is sold at auction or destroyed, if
not claimed. Due to the volume of incoming evidence, the staff must continually work to
purge that which is no longer required by the court.
Findings
1. Due to the crowded conditions, non- ergonomic workstations, excessive overtime
hours, and lack of staff, there is a high level of employee stress in the dispatch
center.
2. CPD assumed responsibility to turn Halloween into a non- event in downtown
Chico. Due to a significant police presence at Halloween 2002, the 2003 event
was subdued. The crowds were smaller and more orderly. Management of the
staging and logistical needs for 650 personnel was handled in an exemplary
manner by CPD.
3. The evidence facility is well organized, clean, and efficiently managed.
Commendations
The level of commitment and enthusiasm demonstrated by CPD is impressive. Special
recognition is given to the Property Section for outstanding organization.
Recommendations
1. Halloween events continue to be treated with seriousness and considered a
potential problem for the security and prosperity of downtown Chico and the
community.
2. Serious consideration be given to expand, move, and update the dispatch center.
Responses ( Penal Code § 933 & 933.05)
Chico Police Department
Chico City Council
2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY
18
CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Reason for Visit/ Investigation
Members of the Grand Jury investigated the Chico Municipal Airport ( CMA) in response
to various media articles regarding airport services and land use issues.
Background/ Investigation
CMA is a significant economic resource for Butte County. The airport was dedicated in
1935, and is a modern integrated air facility capable of accommodating both commercial
and private aircraft. CMA has one full service Fixed Base Operator to provide such
services as refueling, plane servicing, and flight training. The airport is also home to the
California Department of Forestry's ( CDF) Air Attack Base.
The airport's main runway is 6,722 feet long. The air traffic control tower is open from 7
a. m. until 7 p. m., seven days a week. The tower and all other navigational aids are
maintained and operated by the Federal Aviation Administration ( FAA).
In December 2000, the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission formally adopted a
new comprehensive land use plan. The City of Chico and Butte County have 6 months to
bring their general and specific plans in conformance with the new land use plan or
perform an override of the plan.
The CMA Industrial Park is a fast growing business park used by many successful
domestic and international firms. The industrial park's industry includes manufacturing,
warehousing, and other production- related services, in addition to aviation- oriented
businesses. The industrial park employs approximately 1,200 persons.
Members of the Grand Jury interviewed the airport manager on December 5, 2003, to
gain knowledge of the airport operations and current airport issues. The airport manager
provided an overview of the airport organizational structure as well as an overview of the
Airport Master Plan. In our review we were briefed on the following: the CMA history,
organizational management, revenue, leases, industrial park, CDF Air Attack Base, land
use, environmental issues, and transportation safety.
Work has been completed on the Airport Master Plan that presents a definitive plan of
airport development, development costs and suggested programs for financing project
costs. The city is expecting that by summer 2004, following the completion of the
environmental review process, the Federal Regulatory Agency permits for airport
projects will be issued. This will allow critical airport projects to proceed including
expansion of the terminal, reconstruction of the parking apron and development of the
west side of the airport. When developed, the west- side property will be a prime location
for future industrial development because of its proximity to aviation services,
concentration of high- tech and export- oriented manufacturers and location within the
Foreign Trade Zone. There are approximately 186 acres of land that the city will request
2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY
CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
19
the FAA to release for commercial/ industrial development. The infrastructure
improvements at the airport include construction or extension of public streets,
construction of one bridge, sanitary sewer service, storm drainage facilities, domestic
water service and land acquisitions for right of way and to complete environmental
mitigation measures.
Commendations
The Grand Jury commends the airport manager for the development of the Airport
Master Plan and managing all aspects of the CMA operation in an efficient and effective
manner.
The Grand Jury would like to thank Congressman Wally Herger and his staff for
intervening, at the request of the Grand Jury, in resolving the airport facility lease dispute
with the General Services Administration.
Findings
1. The City of Chico has since completed the Airport Master Plan which was
adopted by the Chico City Council in February 2004, which includes the
extension of the runway and other infrastructure improvements.
2. Development of the west side of the airport is a priority economic development
activity for the City of Chico.
3. The City plans to re- submit a grant application to the Economic Development
Administration ( EDA) for funding to construct the " backbone" infrastructure
improvements to facilitate the development of the west side of the airport.
4. There is a lack of consistency between the 2000 Butte County Airport Land Use
Commission’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan ( CLUP), the Butte County General
Plan, and the North Chico Specific Plan.
5. Butte County currently has a Development Agreement that would develop 120
new homes under the airport traffic pattern.
Recommendations
1. Support the implementation of the Airport Master Plan to allow the critical
projects contained within the Master Plan to proceed including, but not limited to,
the runway expansion, expansion of the terminal, reconstruction of the parking
apron, and the development of the west side of the airport for
commercial/ industrial use.
2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY
CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
20
2. Make both the General Plan and North Chico Specific Plan consistent with the
2000 Airport Land Use Commission’s CLUP.
3. Return any modified development project back to the Butte County Airport Land
Use Commission for review to determine if modifications are still consistent with
CLUP.
Response Required ( Penal Code § 933 & 933.05)
Chico City Council
Chico Airport Manager
Butte County Board of Supervisors
2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY
21
CITY OF BIGGS
Reason for Visit/ Investigation
Members of the Grand Jury elected to visit the City of Biggs to gain insight into city
operations, functions and issues.
Background/ Investigation
The City of Biggs was incorporated in 1901. The City Council is a five member
governing board. The city's current population is 1,809.
On October 8, 2003, the Grand Jury met with the mayor and city manager. Biggs has
limited revenue to address many infrastructure problems. The roads are in disrepair and
there is need for a new water system. The city has a budget with no reserve account and
eighty percent of its residents are at or below the poverty level. The median home value
is significantly below the state average while the unemployment rate is above the state
average.
Due to revenue limits, Biggs has entered into agreements with the City of Gridley for
police and animal control services as well as operations and maintenance for their
electrical power. Fire services are provided under a contract with California Department
of Forestry ( CDF).
The city has applied for funding from the United States Department of Agriculture
( USDA). The water project will cost approximately $ 4.65 million. Part of the funding
from the USDA will be in the form of a grant award, with the balance being a loan. The
loan portion is structured to be a 40- year loan at 4.6% APR. The residents will be facing
a rate increase and the amount will be determined by the grant portion of the USDA
funding. CDF requires 50 pounds per square inch pressure in the water lines for fire
protection.
Findings
1. Producing the revenue for needed infrastructure improvements will be a major
challenge for the City of Biggs.
2. The city is looking for economic development opportunities to increase its tax
base and address its unemployment rate.
Recommendations
1. The City of Biggs continue efforts to secure grant funding.
2. The City of Biggs continue efforts in economic development activities.
2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY
CITY OF BIGGS
22
Response Required ( Penal Code § 933 & 933.05)
Biggs City Council
2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY
23
CITY OF CHICO
Reason for Visit/ Investigation
Members of the Grand Jury visited the City of Chico to gain insight into city operations
and follow- up on the progress of annexation issues raised in the 2002- 03 Grand Jury
report.
Background/ Investigation
The City of Chico was founded in 1860 by General John Bidwell, and became
incorporated on February 5, 1872, with a population of approximately 1,000 in an area of
6.6 square miles. Chico became a chartered city in 1923. By 2003, the population of the
incorporated area of the City of Chico had grown to 68,589. Chico is the home of
California State University, Chico ( CSUC), founded as the Chico Normal School in
1887. Bidwell Park, granted by Annie K. Bidwell to the city in 1905, is one of the largest
city public parks in the nation.
On February 12, 2004, members of the Grand Jury met with the Chico City Manager and
the Public Works Director. The City Manager provided a briefing on many issues
including the Chico Municipal Airport, annexation, fiscal planning, personnel
management, growth, traffic, law enforcement, the University, and other city issues.
In the year 2000, the California State Legislature passed the Cortese- Knox- Hertzberg
Local Government Reorganization Act that authorized provisions for annexation in the
city of unincorporated areas of less than 75 acres. This act will remain in effect until
January 1, 2007. The 2002- 03 Grand Jury recommended that the City of Chico exercise
the current unique opportunity provided by this act to annex all of the qualified
unincorporated areas within the Chico sphere of influence before the year 2007. Since
January 1, 2003, the City of Chico has completed 19 annexations, totaling over 260 acres.
Of these annexations, four have involved seven " islands of unincorporated territory."
These island annexations totaled 197 acres, representing 525 residences and 15
commercial/ office/ recreational uses.
The city has submitted applications to Butte Local Agency Formation Commission
( LAFCO), for four additional " island" annexations with a total area of over 100 acres and
350 residences. It is expected that these applications will be considered and approved by
LAFCO by July 2004. Four other " island" annexations are in the preliminary stages of
processing with completion expected before the end of 2004. These four annexations
will include over 550 residences on 105 acres. Depending on workload and other factors,
additional " island" annexations may be initiated this year.
The city is struggling to keep vital programs and services going despite reductions in
anticipated funding from the state. Over the years, cities agreed to allow the state and
counties to act as collection agencies for certain taxes that were imposed at the local level
in order to make the collection process more efficient and economical, and to avoid the
2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY
CITY OF CHICO
24
need for businesses to deal with several agencies. According to the City Manager,
however, it appears that after years of collecting local government revenues, the state
overlooked the fact that the revenues do not belong to the state, and began using the local
revenues for state purposes. Although the city has adjusted to the ongoing state drain, it
has not been without sacrifice to the Chico community.
From 1990- 91 through 2003- 04, that sacrifice eliminated $ 13,715,726 from Chico’s
general fund, the same fund that provides basic public services such as police, fire, park,
and public works. During this same period, the population of the city increased 60
percent, while the number of employees available to provide public safety and other
essential services increased by less than 20 percent. The city is again faced with the
difficult task of balancing the budget in light of these revenue reductions for 2004- 05 and
2005- 06.
The city has been working closely with CSUC for their mutual benefit. On the day of the
Grand Jury visit, the City Manager had met with the new CSUC President that morning
to address programs and projects that met their mutual needs. It is encouraging that the
city and the university are building lines of communication.
Commendation
The Grand Jury's review demonstrated the value of the City Manager's proactive and
efficient management of the complex issues facing the City of Chico. The City Manager
was quick to praise the city staff and the City Council for their hard work in providing
effective services, programs and projects to benefit the residents of the city.
Findings
1. The City of Chico is making significant progress in annexing unincorporated
islands.
2. The city is concerned about budget issues at the state level that impact local
funding. Money that is promised by the state and budgeted by the city is not
being made available. Budgetary uncertainties cause significant hardship in
conducting business.
3. The city is working closely with CSUC for their mutual benefit
Recommendations
1. The Grand Jury commends the city for their progress on annexation and
recommends it continue to pursue the opportunity provided by the Cortese- Knox-
Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act to annex all of the qualified
unincorporated areas within the Chico sphere of influence before the year 2007
when this act will expire.
2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY
CITY OF CHICO
25
2. The Grand Jury recommends the State of California cease the practice of
withholding revenue sources from the City of Chico to help ease the state's budget
problems.
3. The Grand Jury recommends that the city continue to work closely with CSUC
for their mutual benefit.
Responses Required ( Penal Code § 933 & 933.05)
Chico City Council
Requested Responses
President, California State University, Chico
Governor of California
California State Assemblyman, District 2
California State Assemblyman, District 3
California State Senator, District 4
2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY
26
CITY OF GRIDLEY
Reason for Visit/ Investigation
Members of the Grand Jury elected to visit the City of Gridley.
Background/ Investigation
The City of Gridley incorporated in 1905. It currently has a population of approximately
5,600 residents. The median resident age is 32.9 years. Gridley has a wide array of
services provided by city staff including the operation of their electricity, water, and
waste water collection and treatment. Gridley provides police, animal control and
electric service to Biggs.
On September 10, 2003, members of the Grand Jury met with the Mayor and City
Administrator for the City of Gridley. The city representatives presented an overview of
municipal services provided by city staff, services provided to others, and services
provided to Gridley by contract and existing franchises. The Grand Jury was provided
information on the facilities in the city and major projects currently in development. The
investigation included a discussion of current issues facing the community.
Gridley has the following major projects in progress:
• The development of an industrial park
• Heron Landing Subdivision - 292 homes ( pending annexation)
• Bains Subdivision - 43 homes ( awaiting final map)
• Eagle Meadows Subdivision - 121 homes ( reviewing final map)
• Highway 99 widening and highway beautification
• Bicycle study
The major issues Gridley is addressing include the following:
• Job creation ( the unemployment rate is 11- 16%)
• Urban/ agriculture conflicts
• Demand for housing
• Gang activity and drug traffic
• Ethanol industry potential
• Services for senior citizens
• Infrastructure improvements due to new housing developments.
Findings
None
Recommendations
None
2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY
CITY OF GRIDLEY
27
Responses Required ( Penal Code § 933 & 933.05)
None
2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY
28
SOUTH FEATHER WATER AND POWER AGENCY
Reason for Visit/ Investigation
Members of the Grand Jury reviewed the South Feather Water and Power Agency
( SFWPA), formerly called Oroville- Wyandotte Irrigation District ( OWID).
Background/ Investigation
Members of the Grand Jury met with the General Manager of South Feather Water and
Power Agency on September 3, 2003.
OWID was organized on November 17, 1919. In May 2003, the District’s Board of
Directors changed the District’s name to South Feather Water and Power Agency. This
agency provides domestic and irrigation water to portions of southeast Butte County that
are in proximity of the City of Oroville. California Water Service is the utility that
delivers water to the residents and businesses of Oroville. The primary service area of
SFWPA includes the communities of Kelly Ridge, Palermo, Bangor, Wyandotte and
points in between. While Wyandotte was a distinct and separate community in the early
20th century, it only has geographic identity to those who have been in the Oroville area
for some time. Therefore, neither “ Oroville” nor “ Wyandotte” help to identify the
agency’s large service area.
The SFWPA will continue to operate under California’s Irrigation Code but its primary
function is as a domestic water retailer and hydroelectric generation. Because the
SFWPA’s hydroelectric power is licensed under the authority of many state and federal
regulatory agencies, it is important to understand the agency’s source of water and
location of operation. The Feather River is the source of the agency’s water and the
name “ South Feather” denotes that the agency’s water rights and facilities are above, and
not part of, the state’s Lake Oroville project. This name also reflects the historical
heritage of the agency, recalling the South Feather Land and Water Company, which had
controlled the water before OWID assumed responsibility in 1919.
SFWPA owns and operates a hydroelectric project ( South Feather Power Project) on the
South Fork of the Feather River in accordance with a license issued in 1952 by the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The main benefits of this project are storage of
water for consumptive use, production of electricity, and recreational facilities. The
agency is involved at this time in the relicensing process of this project which began in
2003 and will be completed by March 31, 2009. Information will be available for all
those interested in following the relicensing process.
This agency’s 2003 budget had revenues of $ 4,933,348, operating and maintenance
expenses of $ 3,702,067, and an annual debt service of $ 894,930, leaving a 7%
contingency fee of $ 336,451. The agency is financially sound.
2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY
SOUTH FEATHER WATER AND POWER AGENCY
29
Commendation
The SFWPA mission is to deliver a dependable supply of safe, quality drinking water to
its domestic customers, and a dependable supply of water for agricultural users in an
economical, efficient and publicly responsible manner. It is also committed to providing
its employees a safe work environment and encouraging personal growth and attainment
of goals. The electricity generated by the project is renewable and environmentally
responsible. We commend the agency for efficient management.
Findings
None
Recommendation
None
Response required ( Penal Code § 933 & 933.5)
None
2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY
30
BUTTE COUNTY AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
Reason for Visit/ Investigation
The Butte County Air Quality Management District ( AQMD) had not been visited since
1997. Members of the Grand Jury met at the AQMD office in Chico on September 10,
2003.
Background
Butte County Air Quality Management District is the local air pollution control
regulatory authority and was established by state law in 1994 through the creation of a
seven member Governing Board comprised of elected officials. Previously, the air
quality district was a separate county department. At the present time, the governing
board includes all five Butte County Supervisors and two local city council members or
mayors. Butte County Air Management District has the primary responsibility for the
control of non- vehicular sources of air pollution.
Conclusion
The AQMD has been protecting and improving the air quality of Butte County by
adopting and enforcing regulations to achieve and maintain the State and Federal
Ambient Air Quality standards under the district’s jurisdiction and by prevention and
abatement of air pollution episodes which cause health risk or damage to property.
Members of the Grand Jury were impressed that the department was managed in a
diligent and professional manner.
Findings
None
Recommendation
None
Response required ( Penal Code § 933 & 933.5)
None
2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY
31
BUTTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Reason for Visit/ Investigation
Members of the Grand Jury reviewed the operational functions performed by the
Department of Agriculture’s two divisions: Agriculture and Weights & Measures.
Background/ Investigation
Members of the Grand Jury reviewed and discussed the Agricultural Department
responsibilities with the Butte County Agricultural Commissioner/ Director of Weights &
Measures, and reviewed the department’s budget on March 24, 2004.
All of the 58 California counties have an Agricultural Commissioner with a common
primary goal and purpose: “ To Promote and To Protect” agriculture. The number one
industry in Butte County is agriculture. The Agricultural Commissioner enforces the
laws and regulations of the California Food and Agricultural Code and the California
Code of Regulations. The commissioner is appointed to a four year term by the County
Board of Supervisors.
The county Agricultural Commissioner’s Department is the regulatory agency acting
under the jurisdiction and direction of the California Department of Food and Agriculture
( CDFA), and the Department of Pesticide Regulation. The department works in
cooperation with various other federal, state, regional, and local agencies.
The Agricultural Commissioner also serves as the Director of Weights & Measures
Department and supervises the contractual functions of Predatory Animal Control. The
County Weights & Measures Department is a regulatory agency performing under the
jurisdiction and direction of the CDFA ( including its Division of Measurement
Standards), and the Butte County Board of Supervisors. The department also works in
cooperation with various federal, state, regional, and local agencies.
The Agricultural Department’s final adopted 2003- 04 budget shows appropriations of
$ 1,658,987. Outside revenues are $ 785,700, and the net cost from the Butte County
General Fund is $ 873,287. The department is presently budgeted for a staff of 18
employees.
Conclusion
The agricultural programs include a variety of inspections, investigations and agricultural
industry services related to plant quarantine, plant detection, pesticide use, pest
management, noxious weed eradication, fruit and vegetable standardization, egg quality
control, seed certification and inspection, crop statistics, nursery inspection, apiary, and
the predatory animal control program.
2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY
BUTTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
32
The Weights & Measures Program provides for equitable commerce transactions within
the county. These services and responsibilities include device certification and
inspection; quantity control audits of items sold by weight, measures, or count; petroleum
product quality; device repairmen oversight; weigh master compliance and vapor
recovery inspections contracted with the Butte County Air Quality Management District.
Butte County is ranked in the top 20 California counties for total dollar revenue from
agriculture production.
Findings
None
Recommendation
None
Response Required ( Penal Code § 933 & 933.05)
None
2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY
33
WATER AND RESOURCE CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT
Reason for Visit/ Investigation
Members of the Grand Jury interviewed the director of the Water and Resource
Conservation Department ( WRCD) to understand the functions performed by the
department.
Background/ Investigation
Members of the Grand Jury heard a presentation from the director on October 8, 2003
and reviewed the WRCD budget.
Butte County established the WRCD in July 1999 to address county water issues and to
enforce Chapter 33 of the Butte County Groundwater Conservation Code.
The director reports to the Butte County Chief Administrative Officer ( CAO) and the
Butte County Water Commission. The department is presently budgeted for a staff of 5.5
employees.
This program is modeled after the Southern California Integrated Watershed Program. It
is similar in that it includes many water management efforts within Butte County’s
watershed. The primary difference is that this program is designed to improve water
management in the area of origin, rather than one primarily reliant on imported water. It
is of critical importance to manage water efficiently in areas of origin, so that agriculture
can be maintained, the environment enhanced, and third parties not adversely impacted.
Butte County is located in the heart of the northern portion of the solution area for the
CALFED Bay- Delta Program. All forks of the Feather River flow through the county
into Lake Oroville, and the main stem flows out of the county between Sutter and Yuba
Counties on its way to the Sacramento River. Part of Butte County’s western boundary is
formed by the Sacramento River, with important fish spawning tributaries, such as Butte
Creek and Big Chico Creek, flowing through the county. The county also provides some
of the most important wintering areas of the Pacific flyway in wildlife refuges and on
private farms.
Butte County’s agricultural economy, its environment, and its growing population form
an ideal location to integrate important water management activities. Watershed
management, flood management, urban and agricultural water management, and the
reliability of water supply statewide and within Butte County, are included in this
program.
To enhance and conserve water and related resources, the WRCD performs the following
functions:
1. Monitoring of the Butte Basin ground water levels and publishing an annual
report;
2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY
WATER AND RESOURCE CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT
34
2. Evaluating various ground water scenarios by using a Butte Basin Groundwater
model;
3. Managing Butte County’s State Water Project contract entitlement;
4. Providing financial and administrative support for the Butte County Resource
Conservation District and its coordination with various watershed groups;
5. Providing administrative support for the Butte County Water Commission; and,
6. Completing the Butte County Integrated Watershed and Resource Conservation
Plan.
Findings
1. The Butte County contract for the utilization of the full 27,500 acre- feet of water
entitlement must be resolved by 2004, which is the last year of the most recent
contract extension. Leveraging for flexibility in the negotiations with the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission relicensing of Oroville Dam, and the State Water
Resources Control Board in the use of the county’s water entitlement, may result
in increased income to the county.
2. The Butte Groundwater Model was developed under contract with the Butte Basin
Water Users Association. Butte County received an exclusive license to use the
1990 model for a three- year period terminating on December 31, 2003. The
department will evaluate whether it may be advisable to continue the license and
improve the model, or convert to another format. A possible format may be the
Integrated Ground and Surface Water ( IGSM II) which is similar in design, and is
widely used in the Central Valley and available at no cost other than loading in the
data. The model will be used to analyze the hydrologic effects of proposed
projects under Chapter 33 of the Butte County Code.
3. The department’s total 2003- 04 final adopted budget shows appropriations of
$ 1,356,857. Most of the revenues, $ 967,648, come from the California
Department of Water Resources, State Water Board and the U. S. Board of
Reclamation. The net cost budgeted from the County General Fund is $ 383,209.
4. Both the underground and watershed resources are the most valuable assets the
county has, and must be maintained to accommodate the agricultural economy,
environment and the increase in county population.
5. The programs and activities performed by the county’s WRCD are important
tools in managing the county’s water resources.
2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY
WATER AND RESOURCE CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT
35
Recommendation
1. WRCD aggressively seek revenues from grants and other outside sources to
augment county funding.
2. The county continue to support and monitor the WRCD.
Response Required ( Penal Code § 933 & 933.05)
Butte County Board of Supervisors
Butte County Chief Administrative Officer
Director of Water & Resource Conservation
2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY
36
BUTTE COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION
Reason for Visit/ Investigation
The Grand Jury received a letter from another county’s Grand Jury stating that it thought
its county’s Local Agency Formation Commission ( LAFCO) maintained a budget far in
excess of prudence, even though the counties, cities and districts that are mandated to
fund their LAFCOs are in severe budgetary constraints. The letter was sent to 17
northern California Grand Juries. The purpose of the letter was to determine whether this
condition exists in other counties’ LAFCOs. If so, perhaps a unified response from the
collective Grand Juries might prompt the State Legislature to amend the Cortese- Knox-
Hertzberg Act to provide better local control of the funding of LAFCO.
Background/ Investigation
Members of the Grand Jury met with the Executive Officer and the Principal Planner of
the Butte County LAFCO on February 4, 2004. A brief history of the formation of
LAFCOs in the State of California was provided. Initially, the Commission on
Metropolitan Area Problems was formed by Governor Edmond G. Brown, Sr. in 1959.
In 1963, the commission reorganized and emerged as 57 individual Local Agency
Formation Commissions ( LAFCO), one for each county except San Francisco County.
During the period 1963- 1985, the complexities of LAFCO statutes and three enabling
acts prompted a reform movement and the Consolidated LAFCO Act ( Cortese- Knox
Local Government Reorganization Act) became state law. In 1997, reorganization by the
California State Legislature took place and the Cortese- Knox- Hertzberg Act of 2000
clarified LAFCO and gave them greater independence. Now all 58 counties have
LAFCOs.
The purpose of LAFCO is to encourage the orderly formation of local government
agencies, preserve agricultural land resources, and discourage urban sprawl. It is
composed of seven commissioners, two of which are members of the Board of
Supervisors, two represent city councils, two represent special districts, with the
remaining member from the general public.
The 2003- 04 fiscal year budget of Butte County LAFCO is $ 583,664, which shows an
adjusted increase of $ 23,231 over the 2002- 03 budget.
Findings
While at first glance some increases appeared disproportionate to last year’s budget, it
was found that the overall adjustment brought the budget well within the necessary
constraints of the shortfalls of the cities, counties, and special districts that support
LAFCO.
2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY
BUTTE COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION
37
Recommendation
None
Response Required ( Penal Code § 933 & 933.05)
None
2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY
38
BUTTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Reason for Visit/ Investigation
Some Butte County department managers had complained that the cost for routine
vehicle maintenance was exorbitant compared to outside sources. Members of the Grand
Jury met with the Supervisor of Fleet Services on January 27, 2004, and investigated the
charges by obtaining a schedule of vehicle maintenance.
Background/ Investigation
Employees who drive county vehicles are required to complete a daily pre- operation
checklist covering the engine, interior and exterior of the vehicle. Any deficiency is
marked on the checklist and the vehicle is scheduled for repair.
The Department of Public Works fleet maintenance shop employs eleven mechanics who
service approximately 1,000 county vehicles. The hourly pay, including benefits and
overhead, of a county mechanic is approximately two- thirds ( 2/ 3) the cost of a
commercial mechanic. The equipment shop has service vehicles which travel county-wide
to give roadside service to county vehicles as needed.
Since most county vehicles are Fords, the shop uses the Ford Motor Company’s
suggested maintenance schedule. At 5,000 mile intervals, oil is changed and
transmission, brake, power steering, and engine coolant fluid levels are checked, filters
are changed and tires are checked for wear. At 15,000 and 30,000 miles, additional items
are checked and serviced. Sheriff’s vehicles receive more thorough service, especially
after high- speed chases.
The county equipment shop maintains vehicle records and performs services that are not
routinely done by private sector mechanics. Transmission and glass repair, tires, towing,
and smog certifications are contracted out to local businesses. The county is potentially
liable for accident or injury which may be caused by improperly maintained equipment.
Findings
The maintenance shop is making every effort to perform equipment maintenance in a
cost- effective manner commensurate with the needs of the county and the burden of
liability.
Recommendations
None
Responses Required ( Penal Code § 933 & 933.05)
None
2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY
39
BUTTE COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, BUILDING DIVISION
Reason for Visit/ Investigation
Members of the Grand Jury conducted an inquiry of the County Development Services
Building Division procedures to understand better the process, and address concerns that
the building permit process is too lengthy and unreasonable for Butte County builders
and developers.
Background/ Investigation
The Building Division is comprised of approximately 26 employees. The primary
responsibilities for this division are to review, process and approve new building plans
and specifications. The department also performs building inspections. The Code
Enforcement Officers are also included in this division. The Building Division processes
building permits from all of the unincorporated county areas.
Members of the Grand Jury met on September 2, and December 4, 2003, with several
employees of the Development Services Department including the Director, the Manager
of the Building Division, the Chief Building Inspector, and the Administrative Analyst.
Members also toured the Development Services Building. The Grand Jury members
inquired about the building permit application process and the time frame for a building
plan to be reviewed, approved and returned to the applicant.
Butte County is experiencing a building boom. No staff has been added to compensate
for the increased number of permit applications. Permit applications have increased from
2,019 in 2001 to 2,459 in 2003, a 21.8% increase. The major portion of the increase has
been for single family homes.
The Agricultural Department review is a recent addition to the process. This review looks
for the proximity of a new building to agricultural lands which may produce chemical
spray drift.
Findings
1. At the time of the initial interviews, the time frame from date of application to
permit approval was approximately 12 weeks.
2. In addition to plan check, several other county departments review building plans.
These include Planning, Land Development, Health Department, Agricultural
Department, as well as the California Division of Forestry
3. A building permit fee increase was being proposed and was subsequently
approved by the Board of Supervisors. Fees had not been increased in eleven
years.
2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY
BUTTE COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, BUILDING DIVISION
40
4. Because of the volume of permits, the division began outsourcing some plan
checks to an out- of- town firm in June 2003. As of February 26, 2004, 128 plans
had been outsourced.
5. The time frame involved to process a building permit, an average of 12 weeks, is
considered unacceptable. Butte County residents, builders, and developers should
be able to begin construction of a new project in a reasonable amount of time, not
hindered by the permit process.
6. The Building Division recognizes the process is too lengthy and is working to
reduce the time frame. Changes include the outsourcing of plans, re- organization
of the department to drive responsibility down to the various teams within the
organization, and successfully gaining approval for fee increases.
Recommendations:
1. The Building Division look for ways to respond more efficiently to building
booms, effectively utilizing all personnel during building spikes, and continually
look for ways to reduce the lengthy permit process.
2. The uses of the fee increase be monitored carefully to insure that the additional
dollars are used effectively to streamline the process.
3. All county departments involved in the permit review process set standards for
permit processing and set goals to achieve these standards.
Responses Required ( Penal Code § 933 & 933.05)
Butte County Board of Supervisors
Director, Butte County Development Services
2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY
41
COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY OF BUTTE COUNTY, INC.
Reason for Visit/ Investigation
The Grand Jury chose to visit the Community Action Agency of Butte County.
Background/ Investigation
Members of the Grand Jury met with the Executive Director of the Community Action
Agency ( CAA) on October 8, 2003.
This agency was established in 1967 and was originally governed by the Board of
Supervisors, but is now a non- profit corporation governed by a board of directors and has
diverse and multiple funding sources. In 1994, the department faced a debt of
approximately $ 300,000 which has since been retired under the management of the
present director and staff. CAA now has an approximate $ 10 million operating budget
supported by federal ( 65%), state ( 1%), local ( 16%) and private sources ( 18%).
The CAA is a non- profit agency dedicated to the promotion of self- sufficiency and the
alleviation of poverty. It offers many services including transportation, housing, home
weatherization, food and nutrition, education, childcare and other services. The food and
nutrition department handles senior nutrition, surplus food distribution and the summer
food program. Head Start is a free comprehensive program for children, prenatal through
age five, and their families. The housing and community development department
administers the home weatherization, housing rehabilitation, transitional shelter ( The
Esplanade House), community centers, utility assistance and special projects. The
Esplanade House is a unique facility providing shelter and essential services for homeless
families.
There are 230 employees and 2500 volunteers in this agency. This is the largest umbrella
for services in Butte County.
The mission of the CAA is the promotion of self- sufficiency among persons who are
economically and socially disadvantaged. CAA is dedicated to alleviating poverty and its
symptoms throughout five northern California counties, which include Butte County
( main service area), with limited services to Glenn, Colusa, Sierra and Plumas counties.
This effort includes the promotion of linkages between low- income individuals,
governmental agencies and private groups. This agency is committed to serving the
housing, human services, credit, employment and small business needs in our
communities.
2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY
COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY OF BUTTE COUNTY, INC.
42
Findings
1. This agency collaborates with agencies and community groups to develop
appropriate responses to community issues and maintains effective relationships
with a broad range of public and private sector officials and organizations.
Commendation
We commend the director, the employees and the volunteers of this agency for their
many contributions to the welfare of the needy.
Recommendation
None
Response required ( Penal Code § 933 & 933.5)
None
2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY
43
BUTTE COUNTY CLERK- RECORDER
Reason for Visit/ Investigation
Last year, the Grand Jury looked at the operations of the County Clerk- Recorder’s Office.
In their report, the Grand Jury found that touch- screen voting machines would yield a
significant improvement in services and cost control. The 2003- 2004 Grand Jury
members chose to look further into the question of election costs, and to expand that
investigation into cost to candidates, and cost to the county.
Background/ Investigation
As the nation and state endure another year of recession, these fiscal restrictions
obviously also impact Butte County. At the heart of democracy is the fair election of
government officials. But how to ensure fair elections in a restrictive budget
environment that demands greater efficiencies? How to elect officials representative of
the county? Is the cost of elections to both the county, and to candidates running for
public office, affecting the election process? As a first step in the assessment of the
impact of finances on elections in Butte County, the Grand Jury members collected data
relevant to the questions above.
Members of the Grand Jury interviewed the County Clerk- Recorder on August 27, 2003.
The Clerk- Recorder was asked to provide information relative to election costs to the
county and to candidates. This data was presented on December 8, 2003 at the offices of
the County Clerk- Recorder.
Findings
See tables in addendum for details.
Cost to Candidates
1. Following national and statewide trends, it costs a great deal to run for county
offices today. It also costs more to run for county office than many individual
candidates can personally afford. The mean cost to run for County Supervisor in
2000 was $ 37,108. Two years later, the mean cost was $ 45,816.
2. For the particularly influential positions of Sheriff- Coroner and Superior Court
Judge, the cost of candidacy is even steeper. Candidates running for the position
of Sheriff- Coroner spent an average of $ 63,250. Those running for judge spent an
average of $ 88,623.
Cost to County
1. Members of the Grand Jury were impressed with the efficiency and
professionalism of the County Clerk- Recorders Office.
2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY
BUTTE COUNTY CLERK- RECORDER
44
2. An interesting finding, though unintended, is that in spite of the increase in
population of Butte County during the period 1996- 2003, the number of registered
voters has actually declined. In 1996, 122,593 were registered to vote compared
to 115,492 in the most recent election of October 7, 2003.
3. Whereas costs to the county remained relatively stable during the period from
1996 to 2000, the cross- over voting permitted in the primary of March 5, 2002
caused the cost to be approximately doubled.
4. The use of touch- screen voting machines in the Chico Municipal Election of June
5, 2001, dramatically reduced costs.
Recommendations
1. The County Clerk- Recorder report to the Board of Supervisors, the data on cost of
elections broken down by county costs and candidate costs, after elections.
2. The Board of Supervisors support the efforts of the County Clerk- Recorder to
purchase and utilize touch- screen voting machines.
2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY
BUTTE COUNTY CLERK- RECORDER
45
ADDENDUM
Cost of Elections for Candidates
California Form 460 yielded information for the cost of elections to candidates running
for public office. Elections were both primary and general. Only the candidate costs for
contested elections were reviewed.
Office
Date
Election
Type
Expenditure
Range
Mean
Expenditure
Supervisor March 5, 2002 Primary $ 2711 - $ 124,964 $ 45,816
Supervisor March 7, 2000 Primary &
General
$ 4583 - $ 62,851 $ 37,108
District
Attorney
March 5, 2002 Primary $ 6090 - $ 9525 $ 7808
Assessor March 5, 2002 Primary $ 4170 - $ 12,500 $ 8335
Sheriff- Coroner March 5, 2002 Primary $ 40,500 - $ 86,000 $ 63,250
Judge March 7, 2000 Primary &
General
$ 52,045 - $ 166,444 $ 88,623
Note: Expenditures include supporting committee costs, as well as costs directly reported
by candidates. In cases where primary is the only noted election type, there was no
general election since the election of the primary winner was uncontested.
Cost of Elections to the County
Type of
Election
Date
# Registered
Voters( RV)
Total Cost Cost/ RV
Statewide
Special
October 7, 2003 115,492 $ 482,363 $ 4.18
Consolidated
General
November 5, 2002 113,988 $ 544,979 $ 4.78
Primary March 5, 2002 114,094 $ 765,424 $ 6.71
Chico Special June 5, 2001 31,463 $ 82,835 $ 2.63
Consolidated
General
November 7, 2000 113,576 $ 379,685 $ 3.34
Primary March 7, 2000 107,057 $ 448,502 $ 4.19
Consolidated
General
November 3, 1998 121,326 $ 412,766 $ 3.40
Primary June 2, 1998 118,696 $ 300,543 $ 2.53
Consolidated
General
November 5, 1996 122,593 $ 370,691 $ 3.02
Note: Primary election of March 5, 2002, was the first that permitted voting across party
lines. The Chico Special Municipal election employed touch- screen voting machines.
2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY
BUTTE COUNTY CLERK- RECORDER
46
Responses Required ( Penal Code § 933 & 933.05)
Butte County Board of Supervisors
County Clerk- Recorder
2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY
47
INDIGENT DEFENSE SERVICES CONTRACT
Reason for Visit/ Investigation
With the beginning of a new contract cycle for the provision of indigent defense services
in Butte County, Grand Jury members looked at the contracting process and the quality of
services provided by the incumbent holders of the contract, the Public Defender
Consortium.
Background/ Investigation
For the past 13 years, Butte County has privately contracted for the provision of legal
services for those deemed unable to afford such services. During the last year of the
previous contract, indigents were represented by 17 local attorneys, 10 investigators and
other contracted service providers.
Members of the Grand Jury met with a Deputy County Administrative Officer ( DCAO)
on October 13, 2003 who provided an overview of the process for assessment and
contracting for indigent services. The DCAO provided the following documents:
Analysis of Indigent Defense Services and Alternatives, May 5, 2003, a report by Hughes,
Perry and Associates, Managing Consultants/ Matrix Consulting Group; County of Butte,
Request for Proposals to Provide Indigent Defense Services, June 27, 2003; and contracts
with individual lawyers who are members of the Public Defenders Consortium.
The DCAO was also asked about the quality of services provided by the incumbent
holders of the contract. He cited the Matrix Consulting Group report, and explained the
historical culture and practices in the District Attorney’s office and the Butte County
judicial system.
Findings
1. As the table below indicates, the cost of indigent defense services has increased:
Expenditures 1998- 99 1999- 2000 2000- 01 2001- 02
Public Defender
Contract
$ 1,571,673 $ 1,722,780 $ 1,757,216 $ 1,913,850
Public Defender
Investigation
275,498 275,178 297,343 327,920
Public Defender
Other Expenditures
111,597 44,038 84,770 94,741
TOTALS $ 1,958,768 $ 2,041,996 $ 2,139,329 $ 2,336,511
2. During the review and contracting process, the Butte County Administrative
Office acted in the best interests of the community, the county government, and
those in need of defense services. This finding is based upon the evidence below:
2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY
INDIGENT DEFENSE SERVICES CONTRACT
48
a. Retention of services by an external consulting group demonstrated prudence,
and respect for the fiduciary responsibilities of government by the Butte
County Administration;
b. The Request for Proposals to Provide Indigent Defense Services represented
an open call for competitive bids from all interested parties;
c. As a result of the Matrix Consulting Group report, and the open Request for
Proposals, Butte County indigents will receive high quality representation at
appropriate cost to the public.
3. The historical culture of the District Attorney’s office, and the Butte County
judicial system is marked by certain practices that have been more or less
normalized. These practices may contribute to the high cost of indigent defense
services. They include the following:
a. The District Attorney’s office has a policy of not plea bargaining on the terms
of sentencing;
b. A vertical- court system whereby a case stays in one court, and is heard by one
judge throughout the various phases of that case.
Recommendations
1. Butte County Administrative Officer monitor the Public Defenders Consortium’s
response to recommendations as set forth in the Matrix Consulting Group report
of May 5, 2003, as appropriate.
2. The District Attorney’s policy of not plea bargaining on the terms of sentencing
be reviewed as per its cost effectiveness.
3. That the cost effectiveness of the vertical- court system policy be reviewed.
Responses Required ( Penal Code § 933 & 933.05)
Butte County Administrative Office
Butte County District Attorney
Butte County Board of Supervisors
2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY
49
BUTTE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
Reason for Visit/ Investigation
The Grand Jury was interested in the processes involved in contracting to build a solar-energy
installation. It will provide electrical power to the Administration Building, and
the East and West Jail Facilities, the three major electrical energy users in Butte County
government. Members of the Grand Jury interviewed the County Administrative Officer,
Facilities Manager, and Purchasing Agent on January 21, 2004.
Background/ Investigation
The County Administrator audited the energy usage of the county for 4.5 years, and
studied the options available. Solar energy was determined the best source because of its
simplicity, ease of maintenance and short payback time.
Three companies capable of satisfying county energy needs were asked by the County
Administrator to submit proposals for solar power. Two of the three proposals submitted
included co- generation based on natural gas. These were unacceptable. Only Sun Power
submitted a proposal based entirely on solar power.
The initial cost of the project is $ 8.4 million, of which $ 4.2 million will be paid by a
grant from the State of California. The remainder will be paid by savings from the
county’s utility bills and sale of excess energy to Pacific Gas and Electric Company. The
system is warrantied by the contractor, Sun Power, for 25 years, with an expected life of
40 years.
Construction is expected to begin in mid- February and be completed by the end of May,
2004. Sun Power will also provide a Solar Education Center to provide information
about solar power to the public.
Finding
The new solar energy system appears to be an asset to the county and a cost- cutting
measure to provide electrical power for some county facilities. Maintenance costs are
unknown at this time.
Recommendation
The County Administrator monitors maintenance costs.
Responses required ( Penal Code § 933 & 933.05)
Butte County Administrator
2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY
50
BUTTE COUNTY AUDITOR- CONTROLLER
Reason for Visit/ Investigation
With the proposed implementation of the Kronos Electronic Time Tracking System
( Kronos), members of the Grand Jury chose to review this project.
Background/ Investigation
Members of the Grand Jury met on September 18, 2003, to hear a presentation by Kronos
Corporation regarding the implementation of a new timekeeping system for county
employees and participated in a question- and- answer session.
Kronos provides for employee scheduling, time reporting, maintaining leave balances,
project accounting and labor analysis. Employees will be able to enter time information
by several methods: personal computer, palm device, telephone, using a kiosk- type input
station at the office, or a special time clock with a fingerprint requirement to prevent
fraudulent entries. Managers are required to review and approve entries. The system
reminds employees and managers to enter data. The system can be individualized to suit
needs of specific departments.
Initial investment for the software was $ 220,000 and maintenance has a reported cost of
$ 65,000 annually. In counties utilizing Kronos, the return on investment was reported to
be 250% over four years.
Findings
1. Kronos will eliminate the need for paper timecards and reduce payroll errors. It
will also reduce the time needed to prepare payroll from one week to a few hours.
Conclusion
It was reported that Kronos will be fully implemented in August 2004. Kronos should be
an asset to the county, providing accurate, up- to- date payroll and cost accounting
information to department heads and to the Auditor- Controller.
2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY
BUTTE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
51
Recommendation
None
Response Required ( Penal Code § 933 & 933.05)
None
2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY
52
APPENDIX I:
Summary Of Required Responses
Report Respondent
Biggs High School Biggs Unified School Board
Oroville Union High School District Superintendent of Oroville Union High
School District
Butte County Jail Butte County Board of Supervisors
Butte County Sheriff
Butte County Sheriff- Coroner’s
Office
Butte County Board of Supervisors
Butte County Sheriff- Coroner
Chico Police Department Chico Police Department
Chico City Council
Chico Municipal Airport Chico City Council Butte
County Board of Supervisors
City of Biggs Biggs City Council
City of Chico Chico City Council
Water And Resource Conservation
Department
Butte County Chief Administrative
Officer
Director of Water & Resource
Conservation
Butte County Development Services,
Building Division
Butte County Board of Supervisors
Butte County Development Services,
Building Division
Butte County Clerk- Recorder Butte County Board of Supervisors
Indigent Defense Services Contract Butte County Administrative Office
Butte County District Attorney
Butte County Board of Supervisors
Butte County Administration Butte County Administrator
2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY
53
APPENDIX II:
Orientation and Training
Butte County officials, department heads or representatives who spoke to the Grand Jury,
providing an overview of the functions of their offices and departments:
Robert Beeler Supervisor, District 1
Jane Dolan Supervisor, District 2
Mary Ann Houx Supervisor, District 3
Curt Josiassen Supervisor, District 4
Kim Yamaguchi Supervisor, District 5
************************
District Attorney
Chief Administrative Officer
Chief Probation Officer
County Counsel and Assistant County Counsel
Deputy Administrative Officer
************************
California Grand Jurors’ Association Training Seminar
Thirteen Grand Jury members attended the two- day seminar. This seminar is
designed to provide new grand jurors with the knowledge and skills for performing
their basic civil oversight functions.
2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY
54
APPENDIX III:
Offices, Departments, Boards, Commissions and Officials Visited, Observed,
Reviewed, Investigated, Interviewed or Consulted by the Grand Jury
Final Reports
Biggs High School
Superintendent of Biggs Unified School District
Principal Biggs High School
Oroville Union High School District
Superintendent
Loma Vista School
Principal
Regional Occupational Program
Director, Regional Occupational Program
Assistant Director, Regional Occupational Program
Butte County Library ( Oroville)
Director, Butte County Library
Butte County Department of Child Support Services
Director, Butte County Department of Child Support Services
Butte County Department of Behavioral Health
Director, Butte County Department of Behavioral Health
Ombudsman Coordinator, Long Term Care
Butte County Jail
Sheriff’s Captain
Butte County Jail Commander
Corrections Sergeant
Butte County Sheriff- Coroner’s Office
Butte County Sheriff- Coroner
Butte County Under Sheriff
Property Manager
Public Safety Communications Specialist
2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY
55
Chico Police Department
Chief of Police
Captain
Lieutenant
Property Section Manager
Community Service Officer
Chico Municipal Airport
City Administrator
Airport Manager
City of Biggs
Mayor
City Administrator- Finance Director
City of Chico
City Manager
Public Works Director
City of Gridley
Mayor
City Administrator
South Feather Water and Power Agency
General Manager
Butte County Air Quality Management District
Air Pollution Control Officer
Assistant Air Pollution Control Officer
Administrative Annalist
Senior Planner
Butte County Department of Agriculture
Agricultural Commissioner
Director of Weights and Measures
Water and Resource Conservation Department
Director
Butte County Local Agency Formation Commission ( LAFCO)
Executive Officer
Principal Planner
Butte County Department of Public Works
Director
Supervisor Fleet Services
2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY
56
Butte County Development Service Building Division
Director
Manager Building Inspection
Chief Building Inspector
Administrative Analyst
Community Action Agency of Butte County, Inc.
Executive Director
Butte County Clerk- Recorder
Butte County Clerk- Recorder
Indigent Defense Services Contract
Deputy County Administrative Officer
Butte County Administration
Butte County Chief Administrative Officer
Manager, Facilities Maintenance
Butte County Auditor- Controller
Butte County Auditor- Controller
Appendix IV,
Comments Regarding Responses to the 2002- 03 Grand Jury Final Report
Executive Director, Butte County Association of Governments ( BCAG)
Senior Planner, BCAG
Social Services Transportation Advisory Council
2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY
57
APPENDIX IV:
Comments Regarding Responses to the
2002- 03 Grand Jury Final Report
Effective January 1, 1997, state law requires that all agencies and public officers
promptly submit responses to Grand Jury final reports, and to address every finding and
recommendation pertaining to that agency or officer. ( Penal Code § 933.05, see
beginning pages of this Final Report for Penal Code excerpts.)
The 2003- 04 Grand Jury received and evaluated all responses requested in the 2002- 03
Grand Jury Final Report and determined that all responses met the basic requirements for
responding to the findings and recommendations.
The 2003- 04 Grand Jury has published the responses to the findings and
recommendations of the 2002- 03 Grand Jury Final Report and they are available for
public review online at the Butte County Clerk- Recorder’s Office Website ( http:// clerk-recorder.
buttecounty. net).
In addition, members of the Grand Jury met on February 11, 2004 with members of the
Social Services Transportation Advisory Council ( SSTAC) who explained the role of the
volunteer council members is to participate in providing written recommendations to the
Butte County Association of Governments ( BCAG) Board of Directors. These
recommendations are to be included in the Unmet Transit Needs Assessment. The Grand
Jury members also met with the executive director and senior planner of the BCAG on
March 4, 2004. BCAG explained that they do not have the authority over other
jurisdictions to affect changes to the current allotment of funds. BCAG provided revised
definitions of the terms “ unmet transit needs” and “ reasonable to meet”, as recommended
by the 2002- 03 Grand Jury.
The 2003- 04 Grand Jury wishes to thank those who responded to last year’s Final Report
and recognizes their contribution to the community and to the Grand Jury process. The
time and effort taken to review the 2002- 03 Grand Jury Final Report and to prepare and
submit responses to the presiding judge are greatly appreciated.
2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY
58
APPENDIX V:
Conflict of Interest
The Grand Jury recognizes that a conflict of interest may arise in the course of its
investigations. Individual Grand Jury members are required to abstain from participating
and voting on investigations in which they have such conflict. Reports in which a Grand
Juror abstained are: Butte County Department of Public Works, Butte County
Developmental Services Building Division, and Biggs High School.
Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.
Description
| Rating | |
| Title | Butte County Grand Jury... final report |
| Subject | Grand jury--California--Butte County.; Butte County (Calif.)--Politics and government. |
| Description | Description based on: 2003/2004.; Harvested from the web on 1/30/07 |
| Creator | California. Grand Jury (Butte County) |
| Publisher | Butte County Grand Jury] |
| Type | Text |
| Language | eng |
| Relation | http://worldcat.org/oclc/24258777/viewonline |
| Format-Extent | digital, PDF files. |
| Relation-Requires | System requirements: Adobe Acrobat Reader.; Mode of access: Internet. |
| Transcript | Butte County Grand Jury 2003- 2004 Final Report Bidwell Bar Bridge On the cover of the Butte County 2003- 04 Grand Jury Final Report is a photograph of the Suspension Bridge at Bidwell Bar, taken March 18, 1922. Completed in December, 1855, it is the first suspension bridge in the western United States. The contractor who built it, Jones and Murray, was paid $ 34,922 for the construction. The towers were cast in Troy, New York, and shipped, along with the cables and other parts, around Cape Horn to San Francisco. From there, the parts were transported by river boat and wagon up to the town of Bidwell's Bar. After completion, it was the topic of much conjecture among the miners as to whether it would hold up very long. Following the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, the bridge was guarded by James A. Ford, the caretaker of Curry Bidwell Bar Park. The bridge was considered strategic to the war effort because it was the only access to the saw mills of Berry Creek and Brush Creek. Mr. Ford and his family lived in the tollhouse from 1941 to 1943. In 1977, the bridge and its tollhouse were dismantled, moved and reconstructed at their present location, the Bidwell Canyon Recreation Unit at Lake Oroville, where both structures have been carefully preserved and maintained by the California Department of Parks and Recreation. Those miners would be amazed to see the Bidwell Bar Bridge still standing 149 years later. Information courtesy of the Butte County Historical Society SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF BUTTE One Court Street Oroville, CA 95965- 3303 ( 530) 538- 7611 July 9, 2004 2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT The Grand Jury Final Report has been filed on this date pursuant to Penal Code Section 933. A copy of the report is enclosed. Your attention is invited to the following code section regarding the time requirements for comment to the report. PENAL CODE SECTION 933 § 933. Report of findings and recommendations; Comment by governing body of agency and by mayor. ( a) Each grand jury shall submit to the presiding judge of the superior court a final report of its findings and recommendations that pertain to county government matters during the fiscal or calendar year. Final reports on any appropriate subject may be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court at any time during the term of service of a grand jury. A final report may be submitted for comment to responsible officers, agencies, or departments, including the county board of supervisors, when applicable, upon finding of the presiding judge that the report is in compliance with this title. For 45 days after the end of the term, the foreperson and his or her designees shall, upon reasonable notice, be available to clarify the recommendations of the report. ( b) One copy of each final report, together with responses thereto, found to be in compliance with this title shall be placed on file with the county clerk and remain on file in the office of the county clerk. The county clerk shall immediately forward a true copy of the report and the responses to the State Archivist who shall retain that report and all responses in perpetuity. ( c) No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body, and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head and any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be 2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. One copy shall be placed on file with the applicable grand jury final report by, and in the control of the currently impaneled grand jury, where it shall be maintained for a minimum of five years. ( d) As used in this section " agency" includes a department. PENAL CODE SECTION 933.05 § 933.05. Responses to grand jury reports ( a) For purposes of subdivision ( b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: ( 1) The respondent agrees with the finding. ( 2) The respondent disagrees 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 therefor. ( b) For purposes of subdivision ( b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: ( 1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. ( 2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. ( 3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. ( 4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. ( c) However, if a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the board of supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the board of supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision making 2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. ( d) A grand jury may request a subject person or entity to come before the grand jury for the purpose of reading and discussing the findings of the grand jury report that relates to that person or entity in order to verify the accuracy of the findings prior to their release. ( e) During an investigation, the grand jury shall meet with the subject of that investigation regarding the investigation, unless the court, either on its own determination or upon request of the foreperson of the grand jury, determines that such a meeting would be detrimental. ( f) A grand jury shall provide to the affected agency a copy of the portion of the grand jury report relating to that person or entity two working days prior to its public release and after the approval of the presiding judge. No officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency shall disclose any contents of the report prior to the public release of the final report. 2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREPERSON’S LETTER TO THE PRESIDING JUDGE............................................. i BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY MEMBERS.............................................................. ii FINAL RESOLUTION................................................................................................... iii GRAND JURY STATEMENT ........................................................................................ iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS................................................................................................. v A BRIEF HISTORY AND OVERVIEW OF THE GRAND JURY................................. vi BIGGS HIGH SCHOOL................................................................................................... 1 OROVILLE UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT........................................................... 3 LOMA VISTA SCHOOL.................................................................................................. 5 REGIONAL OCCUPATIONAL PROGRAM .................................................................. 6 BUTTE COUNTY LIBRARY SYSTEM.......................................................................... 7 BUTTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES ........................ 8 BUTTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF BEHAVIORAL HEALTH.............................. 10 BUTTE COUNTY JAIL ................................................................................................. 12 BUTTE COUNTY SHERIFF- CORONER’S OFFICE.................................................... 14 CHICO POLICE DEPARTMENT.................................................................................. 16 CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT.................................................................................... 18 CITY OF BIGGS ............................................................................................................ 21 CITY OF CHICO............................................................................................................ 23 CITY OF GRIDLEY....................................................................................................... 26 SOUTH FEATHER WATER AND POWER AGENCY ................................................ 28 BUTTE COUNTY AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT ................................ 30 BUTTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ............................................ 31 WATER AND RESOURCE CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT................................. 33 BUTTE COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION......................... 36 BUTTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS........................................... 38 BUTTE COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, BUILDING DIVISION.................. 39 COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY OF BUTTE COUNTY, INC. ................................ 41 BUTTE COUNTY CLERK- RECORDER ...................................................................... 43 INDIGENT DEFENSE SERVICES CONTRACT.......................................................... 47 BUTTE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION ....................................................................... 49 BUTTE COUNTY AUDITOR- CONTROLLER............................................................. 50 APPENDIX I: Summary Of Required Responses ........................................................... 52 APPENDIX II: Orientation and Training ........................................................................ 53 APPENDIX III: Offices, Departments, Boards, Commissions and Officials Visited, Observed, Reviewed, Investigated, Interviewed or Consulted by the Grand Jury...... 54 APPENDIX IV: Comments Regarding Responses to the 2002- 03 Grand Jury Final Report........................................................................................................................ 57 APPENDIX V: Conflict of Interest ................................................................................. 58 2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY i FOREPERSON’S LETTER TO THE PRESIDING JUDGE The Honorable Barbara Roberts Presiding Judge Superior Court, County of Butte One Court Street Oroville, CA 95965 May 28, 2004 Judge Roberts: On behalf of the 2003- 2004 Butte County Grand Jury, it is my honor and pleasure to present the 2003- 2004 Grand Jury Final Report to you and to the residents of Butte County. This year’s Grand Jury was comprised of 19 individuals, each of whom brought to bear their unique experience and knowledge to explore, learn, and investigate the various functions of our county’s government. These jurors were dedicated to objectively collecting and reviewing the facts and coming to fair and just conclusions. I would like to recognize all my fellow jurors for the time and effort they put into this report. The government of Butte County has significant economic challenges ahead, given the economic condition of our state. This has been evident throughout our interviews and investigations. It is our hope, as the Grand Jury, that our contribution of this report will enlighten the county’s residents about the workings within our government. The 26 reports that follow, along with the recommendations made, were reviewed and approved by the 2003- 2004 Grand Jury. My fellow jurors and I would like to thank all of the county, city, and district department leaders, their staffs and employees for guiding us through their operations. Without this support and insight, the report presented today would not have been possible. We would like to extend our thanks to each of our employers and families who allowed the time for us to serve on the 2003- 2004 Grand Jury. Respectfully submitted, Dale Nussdorfer II Grand Jury Foreperson 2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY ii BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY MEMBERS Dale Nussdorfer II Foreperson Chico Glen Wood Foreperson Pro Tem Chico Constance Picotte Recording Secretary Berry Creek Joan Shelton Correspondence Secretary Chico Timothy Colbie Sergeant- at- Arms Chico Nick Appuglies Oroville Arlyn Beneke Durham Donald Chu Chico Donald Doyle Magalia Michael Dunkley Chico Brian Frink Chico Gerrie Gilkey Bangor Kenneth Kopp Oroville Helen Kutz Chico Betty Linzy Chico Philip Maxey Biggs John Stapp Berry Creek Dean Taber Magalia Marjorie ( Jan) West Oroville 2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY iii FINAL RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Butte County Grand Jury has concluded the business of its term and has reached certain conclusions, and WHEREAS, the Butte County Grand Jury desires to disclose the substance of those conclusions for the benefit of local government, its agencies and the citizens of Butte County; BE IT RESOLVED that the attached papers, commendations, findings and recommendations are adopted as the Grand Jury Final Report and submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Butte, to be entered as a public document pursuant to California Law. The above Resolution PASSED AND ADOPTED by the 2003- 2004 Butte County Grand Jury in Oroville on the 19th day of May 2004. 2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY iv GRAND JURY STATEMENT The 2003- 2004 Butte County Grand Jury, impaneled on June 20, 2003, pledged itself to conduct its business in an ethical manner, to be responsive to citizen complaints, to visit and review offices and agencies, as mandated, to undertake to visit and review various other agencies, to accomplish the goals it set for itself and, at the end of its term, to render a comprehensive Final Report to the citizens and agencies of Butte County. Further, the 2003- 2004 Butte County Grand Jury pledged itself to uphold the following values throughout its term: • Τo recognize its purpose and duties in accordance with the laws of the State of California; • To maintain the confidentiality and integrity of all Grand Jury proceedings; • To recognize the importance of applying to all individuals the same objective standards of conduct and responsibility; • To respect every individual's right to privacy; • To recognize that the Grand Jury functions lawfully as a legal entity and that no single grand juror, when acting alone, has any power or authority to represent the Grand Jury; • To remain vigilant to detect and avoid any personal conflicts of interest that may arise during the course of performing the business of the Grand Jury; • To recognize the importance of relying on the opinions and expertise of others more skilled in particular matters regarding the business of public office and government; • To respect the discretionary policy- making or operational powers of public officials; and • To recognize the importance of maintaining accuracy and integrity in our activities, and to keep our reports confined to matters within the scope and power of our authority. 2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The 2003- 2004 Butte County Grand Jury sincerely appreciates, acknowledges and thanks the following people and organizations for their support, guidance, and professional assistance and orientation, and for helping to make this Final Report possible: • Thomas W. Kelly, Judge of the Superior Court of California, Butte County, who initially impaneled and presided over this Grand Jury; • Barbara Roberts, Judge of the Superior Court of California, Butte County, who presided over the conclusion of this Grand Jury; • County Counsel Bruce Alpert and Assistant County Counsel David McClain; • District Attorney Michael Ramsey; • The staff of the Superior Court of California, County of Butte, including Sharol Strickland, Court Executive Officer, and Andrea Nelson, Deputy Court Executive Officer; • Butte County Superior Court Bailiffs; • Butte County Board of Supervisors: Curt Josiassen, Jane Dolan, Mary Anne Houx, Robert Beeler, and Kim Yamaguchi; • The Butte County Department heads, the county and district Superintendents of Schools, and their staffs; • Officers who guided members of the Grand Jury through the Butte County Jail and the Juvenile Hall; • All those who agreed to be interviewed during investigations and visits; • California Grand Jury Association for the training seminars; and • Our endlessly patient and understanding families and employers who supported us while we performed this challenging public service. 2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY A BRIEF HISTORY AND OVERVIEW OF THE GRAND JURY What Is A Grand Jury? The name of " grand jury" derives from the fact that the body usually has a greater number of jurors than a trial ( petit) jury. The concept of the grand jury traces its roots to classical Greece. Ancient Athenians employed an " accusatory body" much as the Saxons of early Briton did. In fact, from 978 until 1016 one of the Saxon Dooms ( laws) required an accusatory body of 12 for every 100 men. The accusing body was exhorted " not to accuse an innocent man or spare a guilty one." The modern European jury system began to evolve during the eleventh and twelfth centuries. As early as 1066, during the Norman conquest of England, courts summoned bodies of sworn citizens to investigate crimes that had come to their attention. Initially, these early juries both accused and tried suspects, and since the members of the accusing bodies were selected from small jurisdictions, they naturally presented accusations based on their personal knowledge. During the reign of Henry II ( 1154- 1189), juries were divided into two types - civil and criminal - with the development of each influencing the other. The oath taken by these jurors provided that they would faithfully carry out their duties, that they would aggrieve no one through enmity nor give deference to anyone through love, and that they would conceal those things that they had heard. By the year 1290, civil juries were given authority to inquire about the conditions of bridges and highways and review the practices and conditions in the jails. The Massachusetts Bay Colony impaneled the first American grand jury in 1635 to consider cases of murder, robbery and wife beating. By the end of the colonial period the institution of the grand jury was firmly fixed in America's new and ever- evolving system of government. Although the Constitution does not specifically mention grand juries, the Fifth Amendment provides the guarantee that " No person shall be held to answer to a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on the presentment of indictment of a Grand Jury….” Grand juries were used in our early history to protest governmental abuses, to propose new laws and very often to determine who should face trial. Today, forty- two states have some form of grand jury, and California is one of the states that still allow prosecution to be initiated by either criminal grand jury indictment or by judicial preliminary hearing. Grand Jury System Today The California State Constitution calls specifically for the use of grand juries in the governance of the state, and in 1849 the California Legislature authorized grand juries in each county. The Legislature passed laws in 1880 that required grand juries to review and investigate the activities of county government, and in 1983 the State added municipalities and districts to the purview of grand juries. Certain larger jurisdictions - such as the Cities and Counties of San Francisco and Los Angeles - impanel separate 2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY A BRIEF HISTORY AND OVERVIEW OF THE GRAND JURY vii criminal ( indictment) and civil ( watchdog) grand juries each year. Some counties impanel a separate criminal grand jury only when needed. The Butte County Grand Jury serves in both capacities. As constituted today, the Grand Jury is a part of the judicial branch of government and is an arm of the Court. The Grand Jury does not have the functions of either the legislative or administrative branches and it is not a police agency or political group. It is an investigative body having as its objective the detection and correction of flaws in government. The primary civil function of the Grand Jury, and the most important reason for its existence, is the examination of all aspects of County and City government, including special districts and joint powers agencies, seeing that the public's monies are handled judiciously and that all accounts are properly audited - in general, assuring honest, efficient government in the best interest of the people. The Grand Jury has three ways to exercise its powers: • By reports and recommendations regarding county government, cities, special districts, and joint powers agencies. • By indictment, bringing charges against an individual for criminal offense. • By civil accusation of an official or employee where the result, on conviction, would be removal from office. A large portion of the public wrongly believes that an individual, particularly a public official, appearing before the Grand Jury suggests guilt of malfeasance, misfeasance, or nonfeasance. It is the Constitutional responsibility of the Grand Jury to review the conduct of government each year. This entails having public officials appear before the Jury for the purpose of providing information relative to their departments or offices. While it is a part of the judicial system, a Grand Jury is an entirely independent body. The Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, the District Attorney, the County Counsel, and the State Attorney General act as its advisors, but cannot prevent the actions of the Jury except on issues of legality. The Grand Jury is not accountable to elected officials or governmental employees. Due to the confidential nature of a Grand Jury's work, most, if not all, must be conducted in closed session. Members of a Grand Jury are sworn to secrecy, thus assuring all that appear before it that their testimony will be handled in strict confidence. No one may be present during the sessions of a Grand Jury except those specified by law, and the minutes of its meetings may not be inspected by anyone, nor can its records be subpoenaed. The Grand Jury serves as an ombudsman for citizens of the county. The Grand Jury may receive and investigate complaints by individuals regarding the actions and performances of County or other public officials. Additionally, the California Penal Code specifies that 2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY A BRIEF HISTORY AND OVERVIEW OF THE GRAND JURY viii the Grand Jury shall inquire into the conditions and management of the public prisons, jails, and juvenile detention facilities within the county. The members of the Grand Jury are collectively granted special powers and privileges to aid them in carrying out their duties. The Grand Jury in its official capacity is permitted, with limited exceptions, access to and the right to inspect government facilities, and to review official books and records to which other citizens are denied access. The Grand Jury may issue subpoenas as necessary. The Grand Jury findings and recommendations are to be unbiased and impartial. How Is The Jury Selected? Each fiscal year the Butte County Superior Court summons a large number of qualified citizens who have resided in the county for over a year and are at least 18 years of age. The court makes it clear that service on the Grand Jury is voluntary. Potential jurors should be reasonably intelligent, of good character, and must possess a working command of the English language. From the pool of willing candidates, the Court makes a good faith effort to select qualified men and women who are diverse in age and socioeconomic, ethnic and educational backgrounds, and who represent the varied geographic areas of the county. Superior Court judges and staff interview the body of qualified and willing candidates and choose 30 potential jurors. Nineteen members make up a full jury. At the discretion of the Presiding Judge, as many as 10 members from the previous year's jury may " holdover" or serve a second term. In order to constitute the full panel of 19, names are drawn at random, and new jurors are added to the existing holdovers. Jurors serve for a term of twelve months beginning in July. Over the course of the year and as necessary, alternates are called in sequential order from the pool of remaining potential jurors. How Does It Work? The Presiding Judge appoints a foreperson to preside at meetings. The Grand Jury organizes itself into officers and committees and determines which of the various departments and functions of county, city and joint powers government it will review. It also reviews compliance with the recommendations of previous Butte County Grand Juries. Inquiries on the part of the jury, letters and complaints from citizens, and dictates of the State Penal Code collectively determine the jury's work. The Grand Jury aims to identify policies in government that may need improvement. All actions of the jury - including any communication from the public and all deliberations and votes are completely confidential. The jury does publish a report of its significant findings and recommendations. 2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY A BRIEF HISTORY AND OVERVIEW OF THE GRAND JURY ix The jury's final report, however, typically reflects only a small part of the jury's actual endeavors over the course of its term. State law requires specific and detailed responses from departments upon which the jury renders findings and recommendations in its reports. Elected officials have 60 days to respond; public agencies have 90 days. The work of a Grand Jury is demanding. Most members can expect to invest approximately 500 hours of time over the course of their term, but the work can be both gratifying and personally rewarding. Service on a jury leads one to a much improved understanding of the organization and business of local government, and to the personal satisfaction of having contributed to its improvement. The Grand Jury experience provides a unique and valuable opportunity for community service. 2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY ( This page intentionally left blank) Butte County Grand Jury 2003- 2004 Final Report 2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY 1 BIGGS HIGH SCHOOL Reason for Visit/ Investigation Members of the Grand Jury were concerned about the low Academic Performance Index ( API) scores for 2003- 04 school year at Biggs High School as reported in the local media in October, 2003. Background The Biggs Unified School District includes Biggs Elementary, Middle and High Schools as well as Richvale Elementary School. The Biggs High School has a strong agricultural involvement with the surrounding community. The school has a 40- acre walnut orchard and a metal shop where the students, for extra income, create items for sale. This school has been plagued by a high turnover of principals, more than 12 different ones in the past 12 years. The current principal has been there for the past three years and serves both the middle and high schools. Investigation Members of the Grand Jury interviewed the Superintendent of the Biggs Unified School District on December 10, 2003 and the Biggs Middle/ High School Principal on January 13, 2004. Other appropriate witnesses were interviewed. A tour of the Biggs High School was accomplished on January 13, 2004. It was learned that staff members had administered the API tests who had never done it before. The usual administrator was on leave at that time. The demographics were incorrectly shown as a student body of 90% black whereas the actual student body is primarily white with about 25% Hispanic. Also, since they scored 641 during 2002- 03, they fully expected to score not less than 670 in the current school year. Something seems very wrong about the score shown of only 579. The school has hired an expert to examine all the pertinent data to determine if there were errors that caused the lower score. Some answers should be forthcoming in May 2004. Findings 1. The principal was enthusiastic and cooperative and rapport with the students was obvious. 2. The campus was clean and activities observed in most of the classrooms were inspiring. Most of the teachers exhibited great enthusiasm and involvement with the students. 3. Of the 59 seniors who graduated in 2003, 39 received scholarships totaling $ 118,000 and it was reported that 75% of last years graduates planned to go on to complete 2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY BIGGS HIGH SCHOOL 2 their education at two and four year colleges and/ or trade schools. Ninety- five percent of the freshmen at Biggs High School graduate. 4. Computer proficiency is a requirement for graduation and computers are available for the students in the lab and after school between 5: 00- 7: 00PM in the library. 5. One of the most impressive observations was the “ sustained silent reading” session which occurs each day for one half hour during which every student reads silently from a book at his/ her own reading level. Recommendations 1. The 2003- 04 Grand Jury strongly recommends that the Biggs Unified School Board offer all support possible to this principal and the superintendent in their continued efforts to raise the quality of education at this school. 2. Re- evaluate the progress of improvement in the API scores for 2003- 04 when the expert analysis is completed in May, 2004. Responses Required ( Penal Code § 933 & 933.05) Biggs Unified School Board Superintendent of Biggs Unified School District 2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY 3 OROVILLE UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT Purpose of Visit/ Investigation The Grand Jury received a report that high school students in Oroville were relying on the public library to access computers for their homework needs. This raised the question of whether computers are sufficiently available in the local schools so that those students who lack computer access in their homes are not at a disadvantage in their homework preparation. Background/ Investigation Oroville Union High School District includes Oroville High School which enrolls about 1125 students, Las Plumas High School which has 1575 students, 180 Challenge Charter School students and Prospect High which teaches 22 students. Therefore, the vast majority of high school students in the Oroville area are subject to the policies and procedures of the Oroville Union High School District. Members of the Grand Jury invited the superintendent of Oroville Union High School District to meet with them on December 10, 2003. The superintendent informed them that computers are available in the library computer lab at Las Plumas High School and was comfortable that any Las Plumas student could access a computer when needed. However, Oroville High’s library is undergoing remodeling and the computer lab is not currently available. He reported that students using the county library computers were probably from Oroville High and that is a temporary inconvenience, which will abate with the completion of the remodeled library. He further stated that computer skills were incorporated into the high school curriculum but there is no computer proficiency requirement for graduation. Advances in technology have elevated computer skills from an advantage to a necessity. So much of the public sector and private industry heavily utilize computers that a lack of comfort with their use seriously limits a young person entering the job market. Functioning in college without computer literacy is impossible. High schools should treat basic computer skills as a core subject and ensure graduates are proficient with this tool. Findings 1. Access to, and assistance with, computers was found to be insufficient to ensure computer proficiency. 2. Oroville Union High School District has no computer proficiency requirement for graduation. 2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY OROVILLE UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT 4 Recommendations 1. The district develop a computer proficiency requirement consistent with other leading school districts. 2. The district provide improved access to, and assistance with, computers for meeting proficiency requirements and performing school work. Responses Required ( Penal Code § 933 & 933.05) Superintendent of Oroville Union High School District Oroville Union High School Board Principal Oroville High School 2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY 5 LOMA VISTA SCHOOL Reason for Visit/ Investigation Members of the Grand Jury chose to visit Loma Vista School on September 24, 2003. Background/ Investigation Loma Vista School was transferred to the Chico Unified School District ( CUSD) from the Butte County Office of Education in 2002. An estimated $ 812,856 was saved by transferring to CUSD. This was one of the largest transfers in the state. The site is owned by CUSD and serves seriously handicapped students aged 3 through 22. There are programs under the Loma Vista umbrella at 14 other Chico schools. There are 26 teachers throughout the district who, together with 150 classroom aides, nurses, psychologists and therapists, work with 288 students to help them learn to lead productive and independent lives. Each student has an Individual Educational Plan, designed annually and checked quarterly, to see that goals are reached. Specialized equipment is designed to help children learn to stand and to walk. A machine “ puffs up” Braille while another enlarges print for the visually handicapped. Transportation is provided by CUSD to pick students up at their homes and return them at the end of the day. Students are referred to Loma Vista by doctors, parents, teachers and the Far Northern Regional Center. Parents have the right to refuse enrollment of their children. Findings None Commendation Loma Vista is doing a commendable job serving the needs of severely handicapped students of the Chico area. The facility was clean and morale of teachers and staff was excellent. Recommendations None Responses Required ( Penal code § 933 & 933.05) None 2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY 6 REGIONAL OCCUPATIONAL PROGRAM Reason for Visit/ Investigation Members of the Grand Jury met with the director and assistant of the Regional Occupational Program ( ROP) administration, and toured facilities located at 2491 Carmichael Drive in Chico, on October 6, 2003. Background/ Investigation The ROP is part of the Butte County Office of Education. The mission of ROP is to provide quality job training, career counseling, and guidance which will provide adults and high school students in Butte County with job skills, knowledge and attitudes leading to success in their employment experiences. Classes in the following areas are offered to high school students: agricultural and natural resources, business and marketing, health services, consumer and public services and technologies. Adult classes are also offered in a wide variety of occupations. The above courses are offered at high schools in Chico, Durham, Paradise, Biggs, Gridley and Oroville as well as at the ROP centers in Chico and Oroville. In the academic year 2002- 03, 375 adults were enrolled, as were 899 high school students. State funds account for almost all of ROP’s 2003- 04 budget of $ 1,967,432. Conclusion The Grand Jury was impressed with the overall operation of ROP, and the high morale exhibited by both employees and students. ROP is a tremendous asset to educational services for the community. It fills a significant need for occupationally- directed education for high school age students and adults who wish to retrain for any number of jobs needed in the community. ROP is deserving of strong support from the county. Recommendations None Responses Required ( Penal Code § 933 & 933.05) None 2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY 7 BUTTE COUNTY LIBRARY SYSTEM Reason for Visit/ Investigation The Grand Jury responded to a letter of concern about compliance by the Butte County Libraries with the new federal regulations which prohibit minors from accessing inappropriate material on the Internet. Background/ Investigation Members of the Grand Jury met with the director of the Butte County Library at the Oroville Library on November 5, 2003. The administrative office of the Butte County Library is located at 1820 Mitchell Avenue, Oroville. There are six branch libraries in the system. They are located in the cities of Biggs, Chico, Durham, Gridley, Oroville, and Paradise. Patrons sign up for a set period of time. There are over 200 library volunteers in the county. Volunteers are always needed. The bookmobile visits other locations in the county. Some of the services and programs include story time, summer reading program, literacy services, services for patrons, books by mail and book discussion. As a recipient of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Grant, computers have been placed in all the branches of the library. There are 37 computers in the Butte County Library System. Findings 1. There has not been a problem with inappropriate usage even though the computers are not filtered at this time, because the computer monitors are visible to library staff. Libraries have until July 2004 to comply with the federal regulations concerning filters. County libraries plan to comply fully by this deadline. 2. The limited availability of computers at local high schools has increased the need for minors to use computers at the public libraries. Commendation The libraries are in excellent hands. The director has written and received many grants and seems to have the whole library system in control. Recommendation None Response required ( Penal Code § 933 & 933.05) None 2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY 8 BUTTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES Reason for Visit/ Investigation The Grand Jury chose to visit the Butte County Department of Child Support Services. Background Members of the Grand Jury met with the Director of Child Support Services ( CSS) on September 3, 2003. CSS offers a variety of free services to parents in order to help them meet their responsibilities to their children. The department assists custodial parents in locating the non- custodial parent and establishes court orders for paternity when fatherhood is debated, which may include DNA testing. Once paternity has been established and a child support order has been obtained, the department assists in the enforcement of support orders in a number of ways, including wage assignments, interception of state and federal income tax refunds, and driver’s license suspensions. CSS assists parents in modifying their current child support order when appropriate. The department is able to help parents with establishing paternity and support orders even when the non- custodial parent lives out of state. Findings 1. This department has an annual budget of approximately $ 8 million of which approximately 66% is from federal funds and 34% is from state funds. 2. CSS employs 177 full- time personnel located in three buildings. 3. There are approximately 18,000 current cases. 4. Recipients are typically 75% public assistance and 25% non- public assistance. 5. The department’s performance is measured in part by the “ Federal Performance Measure Report”. Commendation CSS offers valuable services free to Butte County parents, guardians and caretakers of minor children. CSS is striving to become more efficient in obtaining fair and appropriate child support orders and in the collection and distribution of the support funds. The Grand Jury commends their efforts. Recommendation None 2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY BUTTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES 9 Responses Required ( Penal Code § 933 & 933.05) None 2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY 10 BUTTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF BEHAVIORAL HEALTH Reason for Visit/ Investigation The Grand Jury received a letter requesting an investigation of the management of the Patients’ Rights office, Department of Behavioral Health ( DBH). Background/ Investigation Members of the Grand Jury met with the Director of the Butte County Department of Behavioral Health, on January 28, 2004, and with the Ombudsman Coordinator for Butte and other northern California counties on February 11, 2004. Each of California’s 58 counties operates a public mental health system. This department supplies administrative, youth, adult and community services. The DBH budget is $ 32 million and there are 385 full time employees. The Patients’ Rights office is part of DBH Adult Services. Findings 1. The Patients’ Rights office can help with a variety of issues, including complaints about treatment, financial assistance, community awareness and more. 2. Patients’ Rights Advocates are trained at the State Office of Patients’ Rights and the staff includes professionals and mental health consumers who have experience in law and mental health. 3. Advocates represent a client’s interests as defined by the client. They assist adults and minors and counsel at all types of mental health facilities 4. This letter of complaint is rare and at a future date we received material from the Director of Behavioral Health updating the information concerning the complaint. 5. The Ombudsman program here is under the Area Agency on Aging and has 2.75 paid employees and 50 volunteers. They are all state certified. 6. The Ombudsman Director informed us that this type of complaint letter is unusual. 2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY BUTTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF BEHAVIORAL HEALTH 11 Conclusion Both the Director of the Butte County Department of Behavioral Health and the Ombudsman Coordinator felt that this complaint was unusual and that the problem has been resolved. Recommendation None Response Required ( Penal Code § 933 & 933.05) None 2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY 12 BUTTE COUNTY JAIL Reason for Visit/ Investigation The Grand Jury is charged by the California Penal Code to review all detention facilities in the county each year. The Grand Jury visited the Butte County Jail on September 4th, and October 15th, 2003 to review procedures and inspect the facility. Background/ Investigation Overcrowding is a serious problem in the county jail system. The Butte County Jail has operated under a consent decree ( Butte County Superior Court Case # 084429), which controls staffing, population and housing conditions. The Butte County Jail facilities, housing the male and female population, were built at different times. The male population, being significantly larger, is housed in the newer jail facility, which was completed in 1994, while the women are housed in the older 1963 facility. Inspections conducted by the Board of Corrections ( BOC) are subject to standards based on the dates of construction. Thus the men’s facility is evaluated under the 1994 Title 24 Standards, while the women’s facility is measured against the 1963 Standards. The current BOC recommendations address upgrading and enhancing the women’s facility. The cost of a complete renovation to upgrade this facility is considered prohibitive. However, some upgrades including replacing the toilets and sinks, installing toilets and drinking fountains in the two exercise yards, adding concrete to the two west side exercise yards have been completed, thus bringing the women’s exercise yard up to a usable condition. A roof, installed over a portion of the yard, allows use in a variety of weather conditions. Overcrowding continues to exist even with early- release programs, such as Sheriff’s Work Alternative Program, Electronic Surveillance Program, Own Recognizance and cite- and- release. Findings 1. While some recent cosmetic improvements have been completed, the women’s jail facility remains substandard. 2. Overcrowded conditions in both jails and lack of privacy in the women’s facility are serious unsolved problems. 2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY BUTTE COUNTY JAIL 13 3. During the Grand Jury’s two visits, all facilities inspected were clean. Recommendations 1. Begin planning for future expansion of the jail. 2. Upgrade women’s facilities to current standards as soon as economically feasible. Responses Required ( Penal Code § 933 & 933.05) Butte County Board of Supervisors Butte County Sheriff 2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY 14 BUTTE COUNTY SHERIFF- CORONER’S OFFICE Reason for Visit/ Investigation With budget cuts looming over the county, often one of the first services cut is law enforcement. The Grand Jury visited the Butte County Sheriff’s Office on September 4, 2003 and again on January 22, 2004. Background/ Investigation The Butte County Sheriff’s Office has a budget of $ 25.25 million. It is staffed by 111 sworn officers and 152 non- sworn full- time employees divided into three divisions. The Service Division with a staff of 60 is responsible for evidence, civil division, records, dispatch, accounting, information systems, court services, backgrounds and training. The Operations Division with a staff of 99 has responsibilities including sub- stations, patrol, designated area deputy, investigations and special enforcement unit, coroner, Butte Interagency Narcotics Task Force and reserve deputy sheriff programs. The Incarceration Division with a staff of 104 is responsible for providing custody and care of individuals incarcerated at the county jail and for the administration of the various work programs. Previous Grand Juries have had adverse comments on the condition of the evidence storage facility and the lack of adequate storage space. Following the recent shooting deaths of two deputies from the Magalia substation the need for improved backup became apparent. The lack of adequate evidence facilities is still a problem. The California Peace Officers Standards and Training Report had disclosed serious deficiencies in the storage and retention of evidence due to the lack of adherence to policies and procedures. The sheriff has taken steps to address these issues. In addition to enforcing policies and procedures with regard to new evidence entering the facility, a process was put in place to review the current evidence with the goal of purging evidence no longer required by the court. Using the Sheriff’s Team of Active Retired Seniors volunteers, the Sheriff’s Office has been able to review old case files and obtain the necessary court orders needed for disposal of excess property. A total of 450 guns and 14 vehicles have also been eliminated. All the marijuana plants have been removed from the building. These changes have greatly reduced the volume of evidence in storage. It is the Sheriff’s opinion that these is no need for a new evidence facility, but rather the solution is in the removal of obsolete evidence currently being housed within the facility. 2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY BUTTE COUNTY SHERIFF- CORONER’S OFFICE 15 After the recent tragedies in the Magalia area, the Sheriff negotiated an agreement with the California Highway Patrol ( CHP) to assign an officer to the Magalia area on a regular basis. The Sheriff’s deputy and the CHP officer continue to handle their respective calls for service independently, but now act as back up for one another on any calls where an officer requires back- up support. The 911 Call Center had previously experienced numerous vacancies, high employee turnover and low morale. To address these issues, four additional dispatchers have been hired. The Call Center has been relocated to a larger facility, with new ergonomically correct workstations. The computer software was prone to freezing at the busiest times, often leaving the patrol officers in limbo. The computer software problems have been addressed. The emergency call storage system is now operational. Findings 1. While an aggressive program to review all evidence held in the storage facility has been initiated, more work to remove and dispose of obsolete evidence remains to be accomplished. 2. Combined with the corrections to the computer software and the new larger work area, the personnel issues have been substantially improved. Recommendations 1. Accelerate the procedure for the clean up of the evidence storage facilities. Consider the hiring of temporary staff to assist in this process and address the research and paperwork stemming from the review process. 2. Continue to monitor the working conditions in the 911 Call Center to verify that the employee turnover issues have been addressed. Responses Required ( Penal Code § 933 & 933.05) Butte County Board of Supervisors Butte County Sheriff 2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY 16 CHICO POLICE DEPARTMENT Reason for Visit/ Investigation Members of the Grand Jury selected Chico Police Department ( CPD) for review this year to learn more about the department in general, with an in- depth review of the evidence facility and dispatch center. The review also evaluated the effectiveness of the city’s low- tolerance policy for the Halloween event. Background/ Investigation Members of the Grand Jury visited the CPD on October 2, 10, and 31, November 13, 2003, and January 8, 2004. The CPD is composed of 85 sworn officers, 54 non- sworn support personnel for a total staff of 139 employees. In addition, there are 12 reserve police officers. CPD is responsible for law enforcement in the incorporated areas of the City of Chico. In addition to the patrol officers, the department manages the public safety dispatchers, school resource officers, community service officers, evidence maintenance and storage, plus the support staff, reserve officers, and volunteers. CPD is the lead agency for law enforcement of special events such as Halloween and St. Patrick‘ s Day. In 2002, the City of Chico established a no- tolerance approach for dealing with the downtown out of control crowds, public drunkenness, minors in possession of controlled substances, open alcohol containers, violence and vandalism. To accomplish this no- tolerance objective, a massive presence of law enforcement officers was assembled in 2002, and again in 2003. In cooperation with the California State University Chico, an advertising campaign was launched to discourage out- of- town visitors. CPD established a command center in downtown Chico for Halloween 2003. They organized the deployment of officers from 31 agencies, including officers from other counties and cities, volunteers, and mounted patrols for a total of 650 personnel. Sobriety checkpoints were established by California Highway Patrol at several locations entering into downtown. Dozens of mounted officers were deployed in the known trouble areas of town. A special holding area was established to contain and process arrestees prior to transporting them to Butte County Jail. A nurse was on hand at the processing area to administer minor first aid and to draw blood when necessary. At the time of the visit to the CPD 911/ Radio Communications Dispatch Center ( Dispatch), there were two- and- one- half open dispatch positions. Dispatchers are required to work numerous overtime hours. The Dispatch Center is a small confined area with non- ergonomically correct workstations. 2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY CHICO POLICE DEPARTMENT 17 One Property Section Manager and clerical support manage evidence processing and storage. The evidence facility has a secure intake area where officers drop off property for processing. The intake area also contains small evidence storage, 911 tape storage and office space. The majority of evidence is stored in a larger climate- controlled building, which also contains freezers and refrigerators for temperature- sensitive items. Large items, such as bicycles and cars, are stored in a fenced outdoor facility. The evidence officer also manages recovered property that is sold at auction or destroyed, if not claimed. Due to the volume of incoming evidence, the staff must continually work to purge that which is no longer required by the court. Findings 1. Due to the crowded conditions, non- ergonomic workstations, excessive overtime hours, and lack of staff, there is a high level of employee stress in the dispatch center. 2. CPD assumed responsibility to turn Halloween into a non- event in downtown Chico. Due to a significant police presence at Halloween 2002, the 2003 event was subdued. The crowds were smaller and more orderly. Management of the staging and logistical needs for 650 personnel was handled in an exemplary manner by CPD. 3. The evidence facility is well organized, clean, and efficiently managed. Commendations The level of commitment and enthusiasm demonstrated by CPD is impressive. Special recognition is given to the Property Section for outstanding organization. Recommendations 1. Halloween events continue to be treated with seriousness and considered a potential problem for the security and prosperity of downtown Chico and the community. 2. Serious consideration be given to expand, move, and update the dispatch center. Responses ( Penal Code § 933 & 933.05) Chico Police Department Chico City Council 2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY 18 CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT Reason for Visit/ Investigation Members of the Grand Jury investigated the Chico Municipal Airport ( CMA) in response to various media articles regarding airport services and land use issues. Background/ Investigation CMA is a significant economic resource for Butte County. The airport was dedicated in 1935, and is a modern integrated air facility capable of accommodating both commercial and private aircraft. CMA has one full service Fixed Base Operator to provide such services as refueling, plane servicing, and flight training. The airport is also home to the California Department of Forestry's ( CDF) Air Attack Base. The airport's main runway is 6,722 feet long. The air traffic control tower is open from 7 a. m. until 7 p. m., seven days a week. The tower and all other navigational aids are maintained and operated by the Federal Aviation Administration ( FAA). In December 2000, the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission formally adopted a new comprehensive land use plan. The City of Chico and Butte County have 6 months to bring their general and specific plans in conformance with the new land use plan or perform an override of the plan. The CMA Industrial Park is a fast growing business park used by many successful domestic and international firms. The industrial park's industry includes manufacturing, warehousing, and other production- related services, in addition to aviation- oriented businesses. The industrial park employs approximately 1,200 persons. Members of the Grand Jury interviewed the airport manager on December 5, 2003, to gain knowledge of the airport operations and current airport issues. The airport manager provided an overview of the airport organizational structure as well as an overview of the Airport Master Plan. In our review we were briefed on the following: the CMA history, organizational management, revenue, leases, industrial park, CDF Air Attack Base, land use, environmental issues, and transportation safety. Work has been completed on the Airport Master Plan that presents a definitive plan of airport development, development costs and suggested programs for financing project costs. The city is expecting that by summer 2004, following the completion of the environmental review process, the Federal Regulatory Agency permits for airport projects will be issued. This will allow critical airport projects to proceed including expansion of the terminal, reconstruction of the parking apron and development of the west side of the airport. When developed, the west- side property will be a prime location for future industrial development because of its proximity to aviation services, concentration of high- tech and export- oriented manufacturers and location within the Foreign Trade Zone. There are approximately 186 acres of land that the city will request 2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT 19 the FAA to release for commercial/ industrial development. The infrastructure improvements at the airport include construction or extension of public streets, construction of one bridge, sanitary sewer service, storm drainage facilities, domestic water service and land acquisitions for right of way and to complete environmental mitigation measures. Commendations The Grand Jury commends the airport manager for the development of the Airport Master Plan and managing all aspects of the CMA operation in an efficient and effective manner. The Grand Jury would like to thank Congressman Wally Herger and his staff for intervening, at the request of the Grand Jury, in resolving the airport facility lease dispute with the General Services Administration. Findings 1. The City of Chico has since completed the Airport Master Plan which was adopted by the Chico City Council in February 2004, which includes the extension of the runway and other infrastructure improvements. 2. Development of the west side of the airport is a priority economic development activity for the City of Chico. 3. The City plans to re- submit a grant application to the Economic Development Administration ( EDA) for funding to construct the " backbone" infrastructure improvements to facilitate the development of the west side of the airport. 4. There is a lack of consistency between the 2000 Butte County Airport Land Use Commission’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan ( CLUP), the Butte County General Plan, and the North Chico Specific Plan. 5. Butte County currently has a Development Agreement that would develop 120 new homes under the airport traffic pattern. Recommendations 1. Support the implementation of the Airport Master Plan to allow the critical projects contained within the Master Plan to proceed including, but not limited to, the runway expansion, expansion of the terminal, reconstruction of the parking apron, and the development of the west side of the airport for commercial/ industrial use. 2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT 20 2. Make both the General Plan and North Chico Specific Plan consistent with the 2000 Airport Land Use Commission’s CLUP. 3. Return any modified development project back to the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission for review to determine if modifications are still consistent with CLUP. Response Required ( Penal Code § 933 & 933.05) Chico City Council Chico Airport Manager Butte County Board of Supervisors 2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY 21 CITY OF BIGGS Reason for Visit/ Investigation Members of the Grand Jury elected to visit the City of Biggs to gain insight into city operations, functions and issues. Background/ Investigation The City of Biggs was incorporated in 1901. The City Council is a five member governing board. The city's current population is 1,809. On October 8, 2003, the Grand Jury met with the mayor and city manager. Biggs has limited revenue to address many infrastructure problems. The roads are in disrepair and there is need for a new water system. The city has a budget with no reserve account and eighty percent of its residents are at or below the poverty level. The median home value is significantly below the state average while the unemployment rate is above the state average. Due to revenue limits, Biggs has entered into agreements with the City of Gridley for police and animal control services as well as operations and maintenance for their electrical power. Fire services are provided under a contract with California Department of Forestry ( CDF). The city has applied for funding from the United States Department of Agriculture ( USDA). The water project will cost approximately $ 4.65 million. Part of the funding from the USDA will be in the form of a grant award, with the balance being a loan. The loan portion is structured to be a 40- year loan at 4.6% APR. The residents will be facing a rate increase and the amount will be determined by the grant portion of the USDA funding. CDF requires 50 pounds per square inch pressure in the water lines for fire protection. Findings 1. Producing the revenue for needed infrastructure improvements will be a major challenge for the City of Biggs. 2. The city is looking for economic development opportunities to increase its tax base and address its unemployment rate. Recommendations 1. The City of Biggs continue efforts to secure grant funding. 2. The City of Biggs continue efforts in economic development activities. 2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY CITY OF BIGGS 22 Response Required ( Penal Code § 933 & 933.05) Biggs City Council 2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY 23 CITY OF CHICO Reason for Visit/ Investigation Members of the Grand Jury visited the City of Chico to gain insight into city operations and follow- up on the progress of annexation issues raised in the 2002- 03 Grand Jury report. Background/ Investigation The City of Chico was founded in 1860 by General John Bidwell, and became incorporated on February 5, 1872, with a population of approximately 1,000 in an area of 6.6 square miles. Chico became a chartered city in 1923. By 2003, the population of the incorporated area of the City of Chico had grown to 68,589. Chico is the home of California State University, Chico ( CSUC), founded as the Chico Normal School in 1887. Bidwell Park, granted by Annie K. Bidwell to the city in 1905, is one of the largest city public parks in the nation. On February 12, 2004, members of the Grand Jury met with the Chico City Manager and the Public Works Director. The City Manager provided a briefing on many issues including the Chico Municipal Airport, annexation, fiscal planning, personnel management, growth, traffic, law enforcement, the University, and other city issues. In the year 2000, the California State Legislature passed the Cortese- Knox- Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act that authorized provisions for annexation in the city of unincorporated areas of less than 75 acres. This act will remain in effect until January 1, 2007. The 2002- 03 Grand Jury recommended that the City of Chico exercise the current unique opportunity provided by this act to annex all of the qualified unincorporated areas within the Chico sphere of influence before the year 2007. Since January 1, 2003, the City of Chico has completed 19 annexations, totaling over 260 acres. Of these annexations, four have involved seven " islands of unincorporated territory." These island annexations totaled 197 acres, representing 525 residences and 15 commercial/ office/ recreational uses. The city has submitted applications to Butte Local Agency Formation Commission ( LAFCO), for four additional " island" annexations with a total area of over 100 acres and 350 residences. It is expected that these applications will be considered and approved by LAFCO by July 2004. Four other " island" annexations are in the preliminary stages of processing with completion expected before the end of 2004. These four annexations will include over 550 residences on 105 acres. Depending on workload and other factors, additional " island" annexations may be initiated this year. The city is struggling to keep vital programs and services going despite reductions in anticipated funding from the state. Over the years, cities agreed to allow the state and counties to act as collection agencies for certain taxes that were imposed at the local level in order to make the collection process more efficient and economical, and to avoid the 2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY CITY OF CHICO 24 need for businesses to deal with several agencies. According to the City Manager, however, it appears that after years of collecting local government revenues, the state overlooked the fact that the revenues do not belong to the state, and began using the local revenues for state purposes. Although the city has adjusted to the ongoing state drain, it has not been without sacrifice to the Chico community. From 1990- 91 through 2003- 04, that sacrifice eliminated $ 13,715,726 from Chico’s general fund, the same fund that provides basic public services such as police, fire, park, and public works. During this same period, the population of the city increased 60 percent, while the number of employees available to provide public safety and other essential services increased by less than 20 percent. The city is again faced with the difficult task of balancing the budget in light of these revenue reductions for 2004- 05 and 2005- 06. The city has been working closely with CSUC for their mutual benefit. On the day of the Grand Jury visit, the City Manager had met with the new CSUC President that morning to address programs and projects that met their mutual needs. It is encouraging that the city and the university are building lines of communication. Commendation The Grand Jury's review demonstrated the value of the City Manager's proactive and efficient management of the complex issues facing the City of Chico. The City Manager was quick to praise the city staff and the City Council for their hard work in providing effective services, programs and projects to benefit the residents of the city. Findings 1. The City of Chico is making significant progress in annexing unincorporated islands. 2. The city is concerned about budget issues at the state level that impact local funding. Money that is promised by the state and budgeted by the city is not being made available. Budgetary uncertainties cause significant hardship in conducting business. 3. The city is working closely with CSUC for their mutual benefit Recommendations 1. The Grand Jury commends the city for their progress on annexation and recommends it continue to pursue the opportunity provided by the Cortese- Knox- Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act to annex all of the qualified unincorporated areas within the Chico sphere of influence before the year 2007 when this act will expire. 2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY CITY OF CHICO 25 2. The Grand Jury recommends the State of California cease the practice of withholding revenue sources from the City of Chico to help ease the state's budget problems. 3. The Grand Jury recommends that the city continue to work closely with CSUC for their mutual benefit. Responses Required ( Penal Code § 933 & 933.05) Chico City Council Requested Responses President, California State University, Chico Governor of California California State Assemblyman, District 2 California State Assemblyman, District 3 California State Senator, District 4 2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY 26 CITY OF GRIDLEY Reason for Visit/ Investigation Members of the Grand Jury elected to visit the City of Gridley. Background/ Investigation The City of Gridley incorporated in 1905. It currently has a population of approximately 5,600 residents. The median resident age is 32.9 years. Gridley has a wide array of services provided by city staff including the operation of their electricity, water, and waste water collection and treatment. Gridley provides police, animal control and electric service to Biggs. On September 10, 2003, members of the Grand Jury met with the Mayor and City Administrator for the City of Gridley. The city representatives presented an overview of municipal services provided by city staff, services provided to others, and services provided to Gridley by contract and existing franchises. The Grand Jury was provided information on the facilities in the city and major projects currently in development. The investigation included a discussion of current issues facing the community. Gridley has the following major projects in progress: • The development of an industrial park • Heron Landing Subdivision - 292 homes ( pending annexation) • Bains Subdivision - 43 homes ( awaiting final map) • Eagle Meadows Subdivision - 121 homes ( reviewing final map) • Highway 99 widening and highway beautification • Bicycle study The major issues Gridley is addressing include the following: • Job creation ( the unemployment rate is 11- 16%) • Urban/ agriculture conflicts • Demand for housing • Gang activity and drug traffic • Ethanol industry potential • Services for senior citizens • Infrastructure improvements due to new housing developments. Findings None Recommendations None 2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY CITY OF GRIDLEY 27 Responses Required ( Penal Code § 933 & 933.05) None 2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY 28 SOUTH FEATHER WATER AND POWER AGENCY Reason for Visit/ Investigation Members of the Grand Jury reviewed the South Feather Water and Power Agency ( SFWPA), formerly called Oroville- Wyandotte Irrigation District ( OWID). Background/ Investigation Members of the Grand Jury met with the General Manager of South Feather Water and Power Agency on September 3, 2003. OWID was organized on November 17, 1919. In May 2003, the District’s Board of Directors changed the District’s name to South Feather Water and Power Agency. This agency provides domestic and irrigation water to portions of southeast Butte County that are in proximity of the City of Oroville. California Water Service is the utility that delivers water to the residents and businesses of Oroville. The primary service area of SFWPA includes the communities of Kelly Ridge, Palermo, Bangor, Wyandotte and points in between. While Wyandotte was a distinct and separate community in the early 20th century, it only has geographic identity to those who have been in the Oroville area for some time. Therefore, neither “ Oroville” nor “ Wyandotte” help to identify the agency’s large service area. The SFWPA will continue to operate under California’s Irrigation Code but its primary function is as a domestic water retailer and hydroelectric generation. Because the SFWPA’s hydroelectric power is licensed under the authority of many state and federal regulatory agencies, it is important to understand the agency’s source of water and location of operation. The Feather River is the source of the agency’s water and the name “ South Feather” denotes that the agency’s water rights and facilities are above, and not part of, the state’s Lake Oroville project. This name also reflects the historical heritage of the agency, recalling the South Feather Land and Water Company, which had controlled the water before OWID assumed responsibility in 1919. SFWPA owns and operates a hydroelectric project ( South Feather Power Project) on the South Fork of the Feather River in accordance with a license issued in 1952 by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The main benefits of this project are storage of water for consumptive use, production of electricity, and recreational facilities. The agency is involved at this time in the relicensing process of this project which began in 2003 and will be completed by March 31, 2009. Information will be available for all those interested in following the relicensing process. This agency’s 2003 budget had revenues of $ 4,933,348, operating and maintenance expenses of $ 3,702,067, and an annual debt service of $ 894,930, leaving a 7% contingency fee of $ 336,451. The agency is financially sound. 2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY SOUTH FEATHER WATER AND POWER AGENCY 29 Commendation The SFWPA mission is to deliver a dependable supply of safe, quality drinking water to its domestic customers, and a dependable supply of water for agricultural users in an economical, efficient and publicly responsible manner. It is also committed to providing its employees a safe work environment and encouraging personal growth and attainment of goals. The electricity generated by the project is renewable and environmentally responsible. We commend the agency for efficient management. Findings None Recommendation None Response required ( Penal Code § 933 & 933.5) None 2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY 30 BUTTE COUNTY AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT Reason for Visit/ Investigation The Butte County Air Quality Management District ( AQMD) had not been visited since 1997. Members of the Grand Jury met at the AQMD office in Chico on September 10, 2003. Background Butte County Air Quality Management District is the local air pollution control regulatory authority and was established by state law in 1994 through the creation of a seven member Governing Board comprised of elected officials. Previously, the air quality district was a separate county department. At the present time, the governing board includes all five Butte County Supervisors and two local city council members or mayors. Butte County Air Management District has the primary responsibility for the control of non- vehicular sources of air pollution. Conclusion The AQMD has been protecting and improving the air quality of Butte County by adopting and enforcing regulations to achieve and maintain the State and Federal Ambient Air Quality standards under the district’s jurisdiction and by prevention and abatement of air pollution episodes which cause health risk or damage to property. Members of the Grand Jury were impressed that the department was managed in a diligent and professional manner. Findings None Recommendation None Response required ( Penal Code § 933 & 933.5) None 2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY 31 BUTTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Reason for Visit/ Investigation Members of the Grand Jury reviewed the operational functions performed by the Department of Agriculture’s two divisions: Agriculture and Weights & Measures. Background/ Investigation Members of the Grand Jury reviewed and discussed the Agricultural Department responsibilities with the Butte County Agricultural Commissioner/ Director of Weights & Measures, and reviewed the department’s budget on March 24, 2004. All of the 58 California counties have an Agricultural Commissioner with a common primary goal and purpose: “ To Promote and To Protect” agriculture. The number one industry in Butte County is agriculture. The Agricultural Commissioner enforces the laws and regulations of the California Food and Agricultural Code and the California Code of Regulations. The commissioner is appointed to a four year term by the County Board of Supervisors. The county Agricultural Commissioner’s Department is the regulatory agency acting under the jurisdiction and direction of the California Department of Food and Agriculture ( CDFA), and the Department of Pesticide Regulation. The department works in cooperation with various other federal, state, regional, and local agencies. The Agricultural Commissioner also serves as the Director of Weights & Measures Department and supervises the contractual functions of Predatory Animal Control. The County Weights & Measures Department is a regulatory agency performing under the jurisdiction and direction of the CDFA ( including its Division of Measurement Standards), and the Butte County Board of Supervisors. The department also works in cooperation with various federal, state, regional, and local agencies. The Agricultural Department’s final adopted 2003- 04 budget shows appropriations of $ 1,658,987. Outside revenues are $ 785,700, and the net cost from the Butte County General Fund is $ 873,287. The department is presently budgeted for a staff of 18 employees. Conclusion The agricultural programs include a variety of inspections, investigations and agricultural industry services related to plant quarantine, plant detection, pesticide use, pest management, noxious weed eradication, fruit and vegetable standardization, egg quality control, seed certification and inspection, crop statistics, nursery inspection, apiary, and the predatory animal control program. 2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY BUTTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 32 The Weights & Measures Program provides for equitable commerce transactions within the county. These services and responsibilities include device certification and inspection; quantity control audits of items sold by weight, measures, or count; petroleum product quality; device repairmen oversight; weigh master compliance and vapor recovery inspections contracted with the Butte County Air Quality Management District. Butte County is ranked in the top 20 California counties for total dollar revenue from agriculture production. Findings None Recommendation None Response Required ( Penal Code § 933 & 933.05) None 2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY 33 WATER AND RESOURCE CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT Reason for Visit/ Investigation Members of the Grand Jury interviewed the director of the Water and Resource Conservation Department ( WRCD) to understand the functions performed by the department. Background/ Investigation Members of the Grand Jury heard a presentation from the director on October 8, 2003 and reviewed the WRCD budget. Butte County established the WRCD in July 1999 to address county water issues and to enforce Chapter 33 of the Butte County Groundwater Conservation Code. The director reports to the Butte County Chief Administrative Officer ( CAO) and the Butte County Water Commission. The department is presently budgeted for a staff of 5.5 employees. This program is modeled after the Southern California Integrated Watershed Program. It is similar in that it includes many water management efforts within Butte County’s watershed. The primary difference is that this program is designed to improve water management in the area of origin, rather than one primarily reliant on imported water. It is of critical importance to manage water efficiently in areas of origin, so that agriculture can be maintained, the environment enhanced, and third parties not adversely impacted. Butte County is located in the heart of the northern portion of the solution area for the CALFED Bay- Delta Program. All forks of the Feather River flow through the county into Lake Oroville, and the main stem flows out of the county between Sutter and Yuba Counties on its way to the Sacramento River. Part of Butte County’s western boundary is formed by the Sacramento River, with important fish spawning tributaries, such as Butte Creek and Big Chico Creek, flowing through the county. The county also provides some of the most important wintering areas of the Pacific flyway in wildlife refuges and on private farms. Butte County’s agricultural economy, its environment, and its growing population form an ideal location to integrate important water management activities. Watershed management, flood management, urban and agricultural water management, and the reliability of water supply statewide and within Butte County, are included in this program. To enhance and conserve water and related resources, the WRCD performs the following functions: 1. Monitoring of the Butte Basin ground water levels and publishing an annual report; 2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY WATER AND RESOURCE CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT 34 2. Evaluating various ground water scenarios by using a Butte Basin Groundwater model; 3. Managing Butte County’s State Water Project contract entitlement; 4. Providing financial and administrative support for the Butte County Resource Conservation District and its coordination with various watershed groups; 5. Providing administrative support for the Butte County Water Commission; and, 6. Completing the Butte County Integrated Watershed and Resource Conservation Plan. Findings 1. The Butte County contract for the utilization of the full 27,500 acre- feet of water entitlement must be resolved by 2004, which is the last year of the most recent contract extension. Leveraging for flexibility in the negotiations with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission relicensing of Oroville Dam, and the State Water Resources Control Board in the use of the county’s water entitlement, may result in increased income to the county. 2. The Butte Groundwater Model was developed under contract with the Butte Basin Water Users Association. Butte County received an exclusive license to use the 1990 model for a three- year period terminating on December 31, 2003. The department will evaluate whether it may be advisable to continue the license and improve the model, or convert to another format. A possible format may be the Integrated Ground and Surface Water ( IGSM II) which is similar in design, and is widely used in the Central Valley and available at no cost other than loading in the data. The model will be used to analyze the hydrologic effects of proposed projects under Chapter 33 of the Butte County Code. 3. The department’s total 2003- 04 final adopted budget shows appropriations of $ 1,356,857. Most of the revenues, $ 967,648, come from the California Department of Water Resources, State Water Board and the U. S. Board of Reclamation. The net cost budgeted from the County General Fund is $ 383,209. 4. Both the underground and watershed resources are the most valuable assets the county has, and must be maintained to accommodate the agricultural economy, environment and the increase in county population. 5. The programs and activities performed by the county’s WRCD are important tools in managing the county’s water resources. 2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY WATER AND RESOURCE CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT 35 Recommendation 1. WRCD aggressively seek revenues from grants and other outside sources to augment county funding. 2. The county continue to support and monitor the WRCD. Response Required ( Penal Code § 933 & 933.05) Butte County Board of Supervisors Butte County Chief Administrative Officer Director of Water & Resource Conservation 2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY 36 BUTTE COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION Reason for Visit/ Investigation The Grand Jury received a letter from another county’s Grand Jury stating that it thought its county’s Local Agency Formation Commission ( LAFCO) maintained a budget far in excess of prudence, even though the counties, cities and districts that are mandated to fund their LAFCOs are in severe budgetary constraints. The letter was sent to 17 northern California Grand Juries. The purpose of the letter was to determine whether this condition exists in other counties’ LAFCOs. If so, perhaps a unified response from the collective Grand Juries might prompt the State Legislature to amend the Cortese- Knox- Hertzberg Act to provide better local control of the funding of LAFCO. Background/ Investigation Members of the Grand Jury met with the Executive Officer and the Principal Planner of the Butte County LAFCO on February 4, 2004. A brief history of the formation of LAFCOs in the State of California was provided. Initially, the Commission on Metropolitan Area Problems was formed by Governor Edmond G. Brown, Sr. in 1959. In 1963, the commission reorganized and emerged as 57 individual Local Agency Formation Commissions ( LAFCO), one for each county except San Francisco County. During the period 1963- 1985, the complexities of LAFCO statutes and three enabling acts prompted a reform movement and the Consolidated LAFCO Act ( Cortese- Knox Local Government Reorganization Act) became state law. In 1997, reorganization by the California State Legislature took place and the Cortese- Knox- Hertzberg Act of 2000 clarified LAFCO and gave them greater independence. Now all 58 counties have LAFCOs. The purpose of LAFCO is to encourage the orderly formation of local government agencies, preserve agricultural land resources, and discourage urban sprawl. It is composed of seven commissioners, two of which are members of the Board of Supervisors, two represent city councils, two represent special districts, with the remaining member from the general public. The 2003- 04 fiscal year budget of Butte County LAFCO is $ 583,664, which shows an adjusted increase of $ 23,231 over the 2002- 03 budget. Findings While at first glance some increases appeared disproportionate to last year’s budget, it was found that the overall adjustment brought the budget well within the necessary constraints of the shortfalls of the cities, counties, and special districts that support LAFCO. 2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY BUTTE COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION 37 Recommendation None Response Required ( Penal Code § 933 & 933.05) None 2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY 38 BUTTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Reason for Visit/ Investigation Some Butte County department managers had complained that the cost for routine vehicle maintenance was exorbitant compared to outside sources. Members of the Grand Jury met with the Supervisor of Fleet Services on January 27, 2004, and investigated the charges by obtaining a schedule of vehicle maintenance. Background/ Investigation Employees who drive county vehicles are required to complete a daily pre- operation checklist covering the engine, interior and exterior of the vehicle. Any deficiency is marked on the checklist and the vehicle is scheduled for repair. The Department of Public Works fleet maintenance shop employs eleven mechanics who service approximately 1,000 county vehicles. The hourly pay, including benefits and overhead, of a county mechanic is approximately two- thirds ( 2/ 3) the cost of a commercial mechanic. The equipment shop has service vehicles which travel county-wide to give roadside service to county vehicles as needed. Since most county vehicles are Fords, the shop uses the Ford Motor Company’s suggested maintenance schedule. At 5,000 mile intervals, oil is changed and transmission, brake, power steering, and engine coolant fluid levels are checked, filters are changed and tires are checked for wear. At 15,000 and 30,000 miles, additional items are checked and serviced. Sheriff’s vehicles receive more thorough service, especially after high- speed chases. The county equipment shop maintains vehicle records and performs services that are not routinely done by private sector mechanics. Transmission and glass repair, tires, towing, and smog certifications are contracted out to local businesses. The county is potentially liable for accident or injury which may be caused by improperly maintained equipment. Findings The maintenance shop is making every effort to perform equipment maintenance in a cost- effective manner commensurate with the needs of the county and the burden of liability. Recommendations None Responses Required ( Penal Code § 933 & 933.05) None 2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY 39 BUTTE COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, BUILDING DIVISION Reason for Visit/ Investigation Members of the Grand Jury conducted an inquiry of the County Development Services Building Division procedures to understand better the process, and address concerns that the building permit process is too lengthy and unreasonable for Butte County builders and developers. Background/ Investigation The Building Division is comprised of approximately 26 employees. The primary responsibilities for this division are to review, process and approve new building plans and specifications. The department also performs building inspections. The Code Enforcement Officers are also included in this division. The Building Division processes building permits from all of the unincorporated county areas. Members of the Grand Jury met on September 2, and December 4, 2003, with several employees of the Development Services Department including the Director, the Manager of the Building Division, the Chief Building Inspector, and the Administrative Analyst. Members also toured the Development Services Building. The Grand Jury members inquired about the building permit application process and the time frame for a building plan to be reviewed, approved and returned to the applicant. Butte County is experiencing a building boom. No staff has been added to compensate for the increased number of permit applications. Permit applications have increased from 2,019 in 2001 to 2,459 in 2003, a 21.8% increase. The major portion of the increase has been for single family homes. The Agricultural Department review is a recent addition to the process. This review looks for the proximity of a new building to agricultural lands which may produce chemical spray drift. Findings 1. At the time of the initial interviews, the time frame from date of application to permit approval was approximately 12 weeks. 2. In addition to plan check, several other county departments review building plans. These include Planning, Land Development, Health Department, Agricultural Department, as well as the California Division of Forestry 3. A building permit fee increase was being proposed and was subsequently approved by the Board of Supervisors. Fees had not been increased in eleven years. 2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY BUTTE COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, BUILDING DIVISION 40 4. Because of the volume of permits, the division began outsourcing some plan checks to an out- of- town firm in June 2003. As of February 26, 2004, 128 plans had been outsourced. 5. The time frame involved to process a building permit, an average of 12 weeks, is considered unacceptable. Butte County residents, builders, and developers should be able to begin construction of a new project in a reasonable amount of time, not hindered by the permit process. 6. The Building Division recognizes the process is too lengthy and is working to reduce the time frame. Changes include the outsourcing of plans, re- organization of the department to drive responsibility down to the various teams within the organization, and successfully gaining approval for fee increases. Recommendations: 1. The Building Division look for ways to respond more efficiently to building booms, effectively utilizing all personnel during building spikes, and continually look for ways to reduce the lengthy permit process. 2. The uses of the fee increase be monitored carefully to insure that the additional dollars are used effectively to streamline the process. 3. All county departments involved in the permit review process set standards for permit processing and set goals to achieve these standards. Responses Required ( Penal Code § 933 & 933.05) Butte County Board of Supervisors Director, Butte County Development Services 2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY 41 COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY OF BUTTE COUNTY, INC. Reason for Visit/ Investigation The Grand Jury chose to visit the Community Action Agency of Butte County. Background/ Investigation Members of the Grand Jury met with the Executive Director of the Community Action Agency ( CAA) on October 8, 2003. This agency was established in 1967 and was originally governed by the Board of Supervisors, but is now a non- profit corporation governed by a board of directors and has diverse and multiple funding sources. In 1994, the department faced a debt of approximately $ 300,000 which has since been retired under the management of the present director and staff. CAA now has an approximate $ 10 million operating budget supported by federal ( 65%), state ( 1%), local ( 16%) and private sources ( 18%). The CAA is a non- profit agency dedicated to the promotion of self- sufficiency and the alleviation of poverty. It offers many services including transportation, housing, home weatherization, food and nutrition, education, childcare and other services. The food and nutrition department handles senior nutrition, surplus food distribution and the summer food program. Head Start is a free comprehensive program for children, prenatal through age five, and their families. The housing and community development department administers the home weatherization, housing rehabilitation, transitional shelter ( The Esplanade House), community centers, utility assistance and special projects. The Esplanade House is a unique facility providing shelter and essential services for homeless families. There are 230 employees and 2500 volunteers in this agency. This is the largest umbrella for services in Butte County. The mission of the CAA is the promotion of self- sufficiency among persons who are economically and socially disadvantaged. CAA is dedicated to alleviating poverty and its symptoms throughout five northern California counties, which include Butte County ( main service area), with limited services to Glenn, Colusa, Sierra and Plumas counties. This effort includes the promotion of linkages between low- income individuals, governmental agencies and private groups. This agency is committed to serving the housing, human services, credit, employment and small business needs in our communities. 2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY OF BUTTE COUNTY, INC. 42 Findings 1. This agency collaborates with agencies and community groups to develop appropriate responses to community issues and maintains effective relationships with a broad range of public and private sector officials and organizations. Commendation We commend the director, the employees and the volunteers of this agency for their many contributions to the welfare of the needy. Recommendation None Response required ( Penal Code § 933 & 933.5) None 2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY 43 BUTTE COUNTY CLERK- RECORDER Reason for Visit/ Investigation Last year, the Grand Jury looked at the operations of the County Clerk- Recorder’s Office. In their report, the Grand Jury found that touch- screen voting machines would yield a significant improvement in services and cost control. The 2003- 2004 Grand Jury members chose to look further into the question of election costs, and to expand that investigation into cost to candidates, and cost to the county. Background/ Investigation As the nation and state endure another year of recession, these fiscal restrictions obviously also impact Butte County. At the heart of democracy is the fair election of government officials. But how to ensure fair elections in a restrictive budget environment that demands greater efficiencies? How to elect officials representative of the county? Is the cost of elections to both the county, and to candidates running for public office, affecting the election process? As a first step in the assessment of the impact of finances on elections in Butte County, the Grand Jury members collected data relevant to the questions above. Members of the Grand Jury interviewed the County Clerk- Recorder on August 27, 2003. The Clerk- Recorder was asked to provide information relative to election costs to the county and to candidates. This data was presented on December 8, 2003 at the offices of the County Clerk- Recorder. Findings See tables in addendum for details. Cost to Candidates 1. Following national and statewide trends, it costs a great deal to run for county offices today. It also costs more to run for county office than many individual candidates can personally afford. The mean cost to run for County Supervisor in 2000 was $ 37,108. Two years later, the mean cost was $ 45,816. 2. For the particularly influential positions of Sheriff- Coroner and Superior Court Judge, the cost of candidacy is even steeper. Candidates running for the position of Sheriff- Coroner spent an average of $ 63,250. Those running for judge spent an average of $ 88,623. Cost to County 1. Members of the Grand Jury were impressed with the efficiency and professionalism of the County Clerk- Recorders Office. 2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY BUTTE COUNTY CLERK- RECORDER 44 2. An interesting finding, though unintended, is that in spite of the increase in population of Butte County during the period 1996- 2003, the number of registered voters has actually declined. In 1996, 122,593 were registered to vote compared to 115,492 in the most recent election of October 7, 2003. 3. Whereas costs to the county remained relatively stable during the period from 1996 to 2000, the cross- over voting permitted in the primary of March 5, 2002 caused the cost to be approximately doubled. 4. The use of touch- screen voting machines in the Chico Municipal Election of June 5, 2001, dramatically reduced costs. Recommendations 1. The County Clerk- Recorder report to the Board of Supervisors, the data on cost of elections broken down by county costs and candidate costs, after elections. 2. The Board of Supervisors support the efforts of the County Clerk- Recorder to purchase and utilize touch- screen voting machines. 2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY BUTTE COUNTY CLERK- RECORDER 45 ADDENDUM Cost of Elections for Candidates California Form 460 yielded information for the cost of elections to candidates running for public office. Elections were both primary and general. Only the candidate costs for contested elections were reviewed. Office Date Election Type Expenditure Range Mean Expenditure Supervisor March 5, 2002 Primary $ 2711 - $ 124,964 $ 45,816 Supervisor March 7, 2000 Primary & General $ 4583 - $ 62,851 $ 37,108 District Attorney March 5, 2002 Primary $ 6090 - $ 9525 $ 7808 Assessor March 5, 2002 Primary $ 4170 - $ 12,500 $ 8335 Sheriff- Coroner March 5, 2002 Primary $ 40,500 - $ 86,000 $ 63,250 Judge March 7, 2000 Primary & General $ 52,045 - $ 166,444 $ 88,623 Note: Expenditures include supporting committee costs, as well as costs directly reported by candidates. In cases where primary is the only noted election type, there was no general election since the election of the primary winner was uncontested. Cost of Elections to the County Type of Election Date # Registered Voters( RV) Total Cost Cost/ RV Statewide Special October 7, 2003 115,492 $ 482,363 $ 4.18 Consolidated General November 5, 2002 113,988 $ 544,979 $ 4.78 Primary March 5, 2002 114,094 $ 765,424 $ 6.71 Chico Special June 5, 2001 31,463 $ 82,835 $ 2.63 Consolidated General November 7, 2000 113,576 $ 379,685 $ 3.34 Primary March 7, 2000 107,057 $ 448,502 $ 4.19 Consolidated General November 3, 1998 121,326 $ 412,766 $ 3.40 Primary June 2, 1998 118,696 $ 300,543 $ 2.53 Consolidated General November 5, 1996 122,593 $ 370,691 $ 3.02 Note: Primary election of March 5, 2002, was the first that permitted voting across party lines. The Chico Special Municipal election employed touch- screen voting machines. 2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY BUTTE COUNTY CLERK- RECORDER 46 Responses Required ( Penal Code § 933 & 933.05) Butte County Board of Supervisors County Clerk- Recorder 2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY 47 INDIGENT DEFENSE SERVICES CONTRACT Reason for Visit/ Investigation With the beginning of a new contract cycle for the provision of indigent defense services in Butte County, Grand Jury members looked at the contracting process and the quality of services provided by the incumbent holders of the contract, the Public Defender Consortium. Background/ Investigation For the past 13 years, Butte County has privately contracted for the provision of legal services for those deemed unable to afford such services. During the last year of the previous contract, indigents were represented by 17 local attorneys, 10 investigators and other contracted service providers. Members of the Grand Jury met with a Deputy County Administrative Officer ( DCAO) on October 13, 2003 who provided an overview of the process for assessment and contracting for indigent services. The DCAO provided the following documents: Analysis of Indigent Defense Services and Alternatives, May 5, 2003, a report by Hughes, Perry and Associates, Managing Consultants/ Matrix Consulting Group; County of Butte, Request for Proposals to Provide Indigent Defense Services, June 27, 2003; and contracts with individual lawyers who are members of the Public Defenders Consortium. The DCAO was also asked about the quality of services provided by the incumbent holders of the contract. He cited the Matrix Consulting Group report, and explained the historical culture and practices in the District Attorney’s office and the Butte County judicial system. Findings 1. As the table below indicates, the cost of indigent defense services has increased: Expenditures 1998- 99 1999- 2000 2000- 01 2001- 02 Public Defender Contract $ 1,571,673 $ 1,722,780 $ 1,757,216 $ 1,913,850 Public Defender Investigation 275,498 275,178 297,343 327,920 Public Defender Other Expenditures 111,597 44,038 84,770 94,741 TOTALS $ 1,958,768 $ 2,041,996 $ 2,139,329 $ 2,336,511 2. During the review and contracting process, the Butte County Administrative Office acted in the best interests of the community, the county government, and those in need of defense services. This finding is based upon the evidence below: 2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY INDIGENT DEFENSE SERVICES CONTRACT 48 a. Retention of services by an external consulting group demonstrated prudence, and respect for the fiduciary responsibilities of government by the Butte County Administration; b. The Request for Proposals to Provide Indigent Defense Services represented an open call for competitive bids from all interested parties; c. As a result of the Matrix Consulting Group report, and the open Request for Proposals, Butte County indigents will receive high quality representation at appropriate cost to the public. 3. The historical culture of the District Attorney’s office, and the Butte County judicial system is marked by certain practices that have been more or less normalized. These practices may contribute to the high cost of indigent defense services. They include the following: a. The District Attorney’s office has a policy of not plea bargaining on the terms of sentencing; b. A vertical- court system whereby a case stays in one court, and is heard by one judge throughout the various phases of that case. Recommendations 1. Butte County Administrative Officer monitor the Public Defenders Consortium’s response to recommendations as set forth in the Matrix Consulting Group report of May 5, 2003, as appropriate. 2. The District Attorney’s policy of not plea bargaining on the terms of sentencing be reviewed as per its cost effectiveness. 3. That the cost effectiveness of the vertical- court system policy be reviewed. Responses Required ( Penal Code § 933 & 933.05) Butte County Administrative Office Butte County District Attorney Butte County Board of Supervisors 2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY 49 BUTTE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION Reason for Visit/ Investigation The Grand Jury was interested in the processes involved in contracting to build a solar-energy installation. It will provide electrical power to the Administration Building, and the East and West Jail Facilities, the three major electrical energy users in Butte County government. Members of the Grand Jury interviewed the County Administrative Officer, Facilities Manager, and Purchasing Agent on January 21, 2004. Background/ Investigation The County Administrator audited the energy usage of the county for 4.5 years, and studied the options available. Solar energy was determined the best source because of its simplicity, ease of maintenance and short payback time. Three companies capable of satisfying county energy needs were asked by the County Administrator to submit proposals for solar power. Two of the three proposals submitted included co- generation based on natural gas. These were unacceptable. Only Sun Power submitted a proposal based entirely on solar power. The initial cost of the project is $ 8.4 million, of which $ 4.2 million will be paid by a grant from the State of California. The remainder will be paid by savings from the county’s utility bills and sale of excess energy to Pacific Gas and Electric Company. The system is warrantied by the contractor, Sun Power, for 25 years, with an expected life of 40 years. Construction is expected to begin in mid- February and be completed by the end of May, 2004. Sun Power will also provide a Solar Education Center to provide information about solar power to the public. Finding The new solar energy system appears to be an asset to the county and a cost- cutting measure to provide electrical power for some county facilities. Maintenance costs are unknown at this time. Recommendation The County Administrator monitors maintenance costs. Responses required ( Penal Code § 933 & 933.05) Butte County Administrator 2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY 50 BUTTE COUNTY AUDITOR- CONTROLLER Reason for Visit/ Investigation With the proposed implementation of the Kronos Electronic Time Tracking System ( Kronos), members of the Grand Jury chose to review this project. Background/ Investigation Members of the Grand Jury met on September 18, 2003, to hear a presentation by Kronos Corporation regarding the implementation of a new timekeeping system for county employees and participated in a question- and- answer session. Kronos provides for employee scheduling, time reporting, maintaining leave balances, project accounting and labor analysis. Employees will be able to enter time information by several methods: personal computer, palm device, telephone, using a kiosk- type input station at the office, or a special time clock with a fingerprint requirement to prevent fraudulent entries. Managers are required to review and approve entries. The system reminds employees and managers to enter data. The system can be individualized to suit needs of specific departments. Initial investment for the software was $ 220,000 and maintenance has a reported cost of $ 65,000 annually. In counties utilizing Kronos, the return on investment was reported to be 250% over four years. Findings 1. Kronos will eliminate the need for paper timecards and reduce payroll errors. It will also reduce the time needed to prepare payroll from one week to a few hours. Conclusion It was reported that Kronos will be fully implemented in August 2004. Kronos should be an asset to the county, providing accurate, up- to- date payroll and cost accounting information to department heads and to the Auditor- Controller. 2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY BUTTE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION 51 Recommendation None Response Required ( Penal Code § 933 & 933.05) None 2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY 52 APPENDIX I: Summary Of Required Responses Report Respondent Biggs High School Biggs Unified School Board Oroville Union High School District Superintendent of Oroville Union High School District Butte County Jail Butte County Board of Supervisors Butte County Sheriff Butte County Sheriff- Coroner’s Office Butte County Board of Supervisors Butte County Sheriff- Coroner Chico Police Department Chico Police Department Chico City Council Chico Municipal Airport Chico City Council Butte County Board of Supervisors City of Biggs Biggs City Council City of Chico Chico City Council Water And Resource Conservation Department Butte County Chief Administrative Officer Director of Water & Resource Conservation Butte County Development Services, Building Division Butte County Board of Supervisors Butte County Development Services, Building Division Butte County Clerk- Recorder Butte County Board of Supervisors Indigent Defense Services Contract Butte County Administrative Office Butte County District Attorney Butte County Board of Supervisors Butte County Administration Butte County Administrator 2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY 53 APPENDIX II: Orientation and Training Butte County officials, department heads or representatives who spoke to the Grand Jury, providing an overview of the functions of their offices and departments: Robert Beeler Supervisor, District 1 Jane Dolan Supervisor, District 2 Mary Ann Houx Supervisor, District 3 Curt Josiassen Supervisor, District 4 Kim Yamaguchi Supervisor, District 5 ************************ District Attorney Chief Administrative Officer Chief Probation Officer County Counsel and Assistant County Counsel Deputy Administrative Officer ************************ California Grand Jurors’ Association Training Seminar Thirteen Grand Jury members attended the two- day seminar. This seminar is designed to provide new grand jurors with the knowledge and skills for performing their basic civil oversight functions. 2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY 54 APPENDIX III: Offices, Departments, Boards, Commissions and Officials Visited, Observed, Reviewed, Investigated, Interviewed or Consulted by the Grand Jury Final Reports Biggs High School Superintendent of Biggs Unified School District Principal Biggs High School Oroville Union High School District Superintendent Loma Vista School Principal Regional Occupational Program Director, Regional Occupational Program Assistant Director, Regional Occupational Program Butte County Library ( Oroville) Director, Butte County Library Butte County Department of Child Support Services Director, Butte County Department of Child Support Services Butte County Department of Behavioral Health Director, Butte County Department of Behavioral Health Ombudsman Coordinator, Long Term Care Butte County Jail Sheriff’s Captain Butte County Jail Commander Corrections Sergeant Butte County Sheriff- Coroner’s Office Butte County Sheriff- Coroner Butte County Under Sheriff Property Manager Public Safety Communications Specialist 2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY 55 Chico Police Department Chief of Police Captain Lieutenant Property Section Manager Community Service Officer Chico Municipal Airport City Administrator Airport Manager City of Biggs Mayor City Administrator- Finance Director City of Chico City Manager Public Works Director City of Gridley Mayor City Administrator South Feather Water and Power Agency General Manager Butte County Air Quality Management District Air Pollution Control Officer Assistant Air Pollution Control Officer Administrative Annalist Senior Planner Butte County Department of Agriculture Agricultural Commissioner Director of Weights and Measures Water and Resource Conservation Department Director Butte County Local Agency Formation Commission ( LAFCO) Executive Officer Principal Planner Butte County Department of Public Works Director Supervisor Fleet Services 2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY 56 Butte County Development Service Building Division Director Manager Building Inspection Chief Building Inspector Administrative Analyst Community Action Agency of Butte County, Inc. Executive Director Butte County Clerk- Recorder Butte County Clerk- Recorder Indigent Defense Services Contract Deputy County Administrative Officer Butte County Administration Butte County Chief Administrative Officer Manager, Facilities Maintenance Butte County Auditor- Controller Butte County Auditor- Controller Appendix IV, Comments Regarding Responses to the 2002- 03 Grand Jury Final Report Executive Director, Butte County Association of Governments ( BCAG) Senior Planner, BCAG Social Services Transportation Advisory Council 2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY 57 APPENDIX IV: Comments Regarding Responses to the 2002- 03 Grand Jury Final Report Effective January 1, 1997, state law requires that all agencies and public officers promptly submit responses to Grand Jury final reports, and to address every finding and recommendation pertaining to that agency or officer. ( Penal Code § 933.05, see beginning pages of this Final Report for Penal Code excerpts.) The 2003- 04 Grand Jury received and evaluated all responses requested in the 2002- 03 Grand Jury Final Report and determined that all responses met the basic requirements for responding to the findings and recommendations. The 2003- 04 Grand Jury has published the responses to the findings and recommendations of the 2002- 03 Grand Jury Final Report and they are available for public review online at the Butte County Clerk- Recorder’s Office Website ( http:// clerk-recorder. buttecounty. net). In addition, members of the Grand Jury met on February 11, 2004 with members of the Social Services Transportation Advisory Council ( SSTAC) who explained the role of the volunteer council members is to participate in providing written recommendations to the Butte County Association of Governments ( BCAG) Board of Directors. These recommendations are to be included in the Unmet Transit Needs Assessment. The Grand Jury members also met with the executive director and senior planner of the BCAG on March 4, 2004. BCAG explained that they do not have the authority over other jurisdictions to affect changes to the current allotment of funds. BCAG provided revised definitions of the terms “ unmet transit needs” and “ reasonable to meet”, as recommended by the 2002- 03 Grand Jury. The 2003- 04 Grand Jury wishes to thank those who responded to last year’s Final Report and recognizes their contribution to the community and to the Grand Jury process. The time and effort taken to review the 2002- 03 Grand Jury Final Report and to prepare and submit responses to the presiding judge are greatly appreciated. 2003- 2004 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY 58 APPENDIX V: Conflict of Interest The Grand Jury recognizes that a conflict of interest may arise in the course of its investigations. Individual Grand Jury members are required to abstain from participating and voting on investigations in which they have such conflict. Reports in which a Grand Juror abstained are: Butte County Department of Public Works, Butte County Developmental Services Building Division, and Biggs High School. |
| PDI.Date | 2004 |
| PDI.Date.Issued | 2004 |
| PDI.Title | Final Report. 2003-2004. |
| OCLC number | 24258777 |
Tags
Add tags for Butte County Grand Jury ... final report
Comments
Post a Comment for Butte County Grand Jury ... final report
Your rating was saved.
you wish to report:
Your comment:
Your Name:
|
|
...