SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF BUTTE

One Court Street

Oroville, CA 95965- 3303

( 530) 538- 7611

June 20, 2003

2002- 2003

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 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 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.

2002- 2003 Butte County Grand Jury

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Foreperson’s Letter to the Presiding Judge…………………………………………………….

Grand Jury Members………..………………………….…...………………………………….

Final Resolution…………………...……………………………………………………………

Grand Jury Statement…………………………………………………………………………..

Acknowledgments……………………………………………………………………..……….

A Brief History and Overview of the Grand Jury ………………………………………..……

Final Reports

Grand Jury Special Reports

Responses to the Grand Jury Final Report ………………………………………..…….….

Grand Jury Support ………………………………………………………………….…..….

Audit/ Finance & Administration

Butte County Auditor- Controller ………………...………………………………….……..

Butte County Financial and Revenue Computer System ..…………………………………

Butte County Purchasing Policies and Procedures …..…………………………………….

CalWORKS— Compliance Requirements …………………………..……………………..

City Government

City of Chico Halloween Report ..………………………………………………….………

City of Chico Islands of Unincorporated Communities ..……………………….…………

County Offices

Charges for Candidate Statements ………………………………………………………….

County Clerk- Recorder’s Office ……………………………………………………...……

Voting Machines ……………………………………………………………………………

Districts & Commissions

Butte County Fire Department Upper Ridge Fire Protection ……………………………..

Butte County Mosquito Abatement Districts ……………………………………………...

Special District Election Process …………………………………………………………..

West Nile Virus Task Force .……………………………………………………...……….

Emergency Services & Law Enforcement

Butte County Jail Women’s Facility ………………………….………………………...….

Butte County Juvenile Hall …………….…………………….……………………………..

El Medio Fire Protection District …….…………………………………………………….

i

ii

iii

iv

v

vi

13

68

14

18

21

26

34

38

42

45

50

55

57

63

67

71

2002- 2003 Butte County Grand Jury

TABLE OF CONTENTS

( Continued)

Health Education & Social Services

Butte County Department of Behavioral Health

Youth Services and Special Education ……………………………………………………

Butte County Office of Education Table Mountain School …………..……………………

Public Works

Butte County Transportation System— Distribution of Funds ………….……………….....

Butte Regional Permanent Household Hazardous Waste ...………………………………..

Department of Public Works- Fleet Services…....…………………………………….…….

Neal Road Landfill …………………………………………………………………………

Department of Public Works— Road Maintenance Division …………..………………….

77

79

85

95

98

101

103

Appendices

Appendix I

Summary of Requested Respondents to the

2002- 2003 Grand Jury Final Report ……………………………………………………….

Appendix II

Orientation and Training …………………………………………………………………..

Appendix III

Offices, Departments, Boards, Commissions and Officials

Visited, Observed, Reviewed, Investigated,

Interviewed or Consulted by the Grand Jury ………………………………………………

Appendix IV

Communicating with the Grand Jury ………………………………………………………

Appendix V

Comments to Responses of the

2001- 2002 Grand Jury Final Report ……………………………………………………….

106

109

110

113

115

2002- 2003 Butte County Grand Jury

TABLE OF CONTENTS

( Continued)

Responses to the 2001- 2002 Butte County

Grand Jury Final Report

Index ………………………………..……………………………………………………..

116

RESPONSES TO THE 2001- 2002 GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT MAY BE

FOUND ON THE WEB http:// clerk- recorder. buttecounty. net AND IN BOUND

COPIES OF THE 2002- 2003 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT

ON PERMANENT FILE IN THE BUTTE COUNTY LIBRARIES.

BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY

P. O. Box 110

Oroville, CA 95965

June 5, 2003

i

The Honorable Thomas W. Kelly

Presiding Judge

Superior Court, County of Butte

One Court Street

Oroville, CA 95965

Dear Judge Kelly:

On behalf of the 2002- 2003 Butte County Grand Jury, it is my honor and pleasure to

present the 2002- 2003 Grand Jury Final Report to you and to the residents of Butte

County.

Almost immediately after the Grand Jury was sworn in on June 28, 2003, Jury members

participated in trainings, established their rules of procedures, and selected committees.

The full Grand Jury convened almost twice a month. Each of the committees met as

often as necessary to follow through on their assigned investigative duties. Each of the

County Departments, as well as the Board of Supervisors, spoke to the full Grand Jury—

providing the Jury with an overview of their roles in county government. In the process

of numerous investigations, some members of the Jury met with city and county

government officials.

The 2002- 2003 year was exceptional in that, due to member resignations for personal

reasons, nine alternates were called to serve on the Grand Jury. Members who were part

of the 2002- 2003 Grand Jury contributed significantly to this report. I wish to thank all

Jurors for their individual contributions and diligent efforts in the preparation of this

Final Report.

The reports contained herein and all recommendations made were reviewed and

concurred upon by the 2002- 2003 Grand Jury. We hope that each report helps to build

bridges of understanding related to city and county government.

We would like to thank the many city, county, and district department directors and their

staff for being so helpful, always accommodating us and our requests. It has been this

cooperation that made this report possible. Our appreciation is also extended to our

families, friends, and employers who made a sacrifice of our time with them, so we could

accomplish this public service.

Sincerely,

Michael Ann Rossi

Foreperson

2002- 2003 Butte County Grand Jury

2002- 2003

BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY MEMBERS

ii

Michael Ann Rossi Foreperson Oroville

Darlene Hollmann Foreperson Pro Tem Chico

Liz Reynolds Recording Secretary Oroville

Joan Bassler Corresponding Secretary Chico

Michael Coward Sergeant- at- Arms Oroville

* * * * *

Charleen Bevan Oroville

John Briggs Chico

Robert Cardwell Chico

Carolyn DeHart Chico

Donald Doyle Magalia

Lorene Eagleson Magalia

Helen Gubbels Chico

Fred Lesan Biggs

Judy Stotts Chico

Joan Pontius Oroville

Pam Ragan Gridley

Nona Steinheimer Chico

Ardeen Taylor Chico

Fred Thurman, Junior Gridley

“ Government is a trust, and the officers of the government are trustees; and both

the trust and the trustees are created for the benefit for the people.”

Henry Clay in Speech, Ashland, Kentucky, March 1829

2002- 2003

BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY

FINAL REPORT

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 2002- 2003 Butte County Grand

Jury in Oroville on the 15th day of May 2003.

“ The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort

and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.”

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

2002- 2003 Butte County Grand Jury Final Report

iv

GRAND JURY STATEMENT

The 2002- 2003 Butte County Grand Jury, impaneled on June 28, 2002, 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 2002- 2003 Butte County Grand Jury pledged itself to uphold the following

values throughout its term:

• to 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.

2002- 2003 Butte County Grand Jury Final Report

v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The 2002- 2003 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

presided over 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 twenty- one Butte County Department Heads, the Superintendent of Schools, and

their staffs;

• Officers who guided members of the Grand Jury through the Butte County Jail and

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.

Clerk- Recorder/ Registrar and the staff of the County Recorder's office

make Grand Jury Final Reports available on their web site:

http:// clerk- recorder. buttecounty. net

2002- 2003 Butte County Grand Jury Final Report

vi

A BRIEF HISTORY AND OVERVIEW OF THE GRAND JURY

( with appreciation to various other grand juries

for much of the following information)

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

2002- 2003 Butte County Grand Jury Final Report

vii

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

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

2002- 2003 Butte County Grand Jury Final Report

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 socio-economic,

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.

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

2002- 2003 Butte County Grand Jury Final Report

ix

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.

2002- 2003

Final Report

Honey Run Covered Bridge

Butte County

Grand Jury

2002- 2003 Butte County Grand Jury

RESPONSES TO GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT

1

Reason For Visit/ Investigation

It is the responsibility of the current Grand Jury to review all responses that were required

in the Grand Jury Final Report of the preceding Grand Jury.

Background

Each year, the Grand Jury completes its term by publishing the Grand Jury Final Report.

The final report contains various reports on a wide range of topics related to the

operations of governments, districts, and commissions within Butte County. Members of

the Grand Jury not only investigate citizen complaints but also visit and review the

operations of selected Butte County Departments, selected cities within Butte County,

and/ or various independent districts and commissions. The Grand Jury's findings are

stated in reports included in the Grand Jury Final Report.

The Grand Jury frequently makes recommendations for further action. If a

recommendation is made, the report requires responses from the individuals the Grand

Jury deems appropriate. The Grand Jury conducts its investigation and prepares its final

report with the understanding that it will receive a separate response from each individual

listed. Butte County's Grand Juries have found that it is beneficial to hear from several

levels of an organization. Although it is necessary to hear from those who can provide

funding and set policy, it has also been advantageous to hear from the person directly

responsible for implementing the recommendation. The Grand Jury carefully and

deliberately selects the required respondents.

Responses are due in the office of the Presiding Judge of Butte County Superior Court

within 90 days of the publication date of the Grand Jury Final Report.

Butte County has several department heads, such as the District Attorney, the Auditor-

Controller, and the Sheriff, whom the voters elect for four- year terms. Although the

Board of Supervisors provides funding for these departments, the department head is

answerable to the voters, not the Board of Supervisors. Butte County also has appointed

department heads, such as the County Administrative Officer ( CAO), Behavioral Health

Department Director, and the Public Works Department Director, who are appointed by

and answerable to the Board of Supervisors.

Investigation

The Board of Supervisors responded timely to the 2001- 2002 Grand Jury Final Report,

not only on behalf of itself, but they also responded on behalf of those appointed

department heads from whom a response was required. Elected department heads, the

Town of Paradise, and Butte College also responded timely. Because of a procedure

2002- 2003 Butte County Grand Jury

RESPONSES TO GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT

2

change recommended by the CAO, the Grand Jury did not receive the required separate

response from most of the appointed department heads from which a response was

required.

The CAO assisted in the preparation of the response from the Board of Supervisors to the

2001- 2002 Grand Jury Final Report. The procedures followed by the CAO, who began

employment in Butte County on April 22, 2002, were from past experience in another

county.

Members of the Grand Jury had discussions with the Superior Court Presiding Judge,

County Counsel, and the CAO. It was agreed that the standing procedures and

expectations of Butte County Grand Juries would be followed. An extension of time was

given to the selected appointed department heads to provide separate responses to the

2001- 2002 Grand Jury Final Report. All responses were made within the extension

period.

Findings

1. It is agreed that Butte County Grand Juries and the various governing bodies in

Butte County will do the following:

a) The Butte County Grand Jury will write a Final Report of its findings. When

a recommendation is made, the Grand Jury will require responses from

whomever it deems appropriate.

b) The Butte County Board of Supervisors, elected department heads, appointed

department heads, and any other required individuals will submit a separate

written response within 90 days from the date the Final Report is published.

c) The subsequent Butte County Grand Jury will review the required responses

for completeness and timeliness.

Recommendation

None

Responses Required ( Penal Code § 933 & 933.05)

None required.

2002- 2003 Butte County Grand Jury

GRAND JURY SUPPORT

3

Reason For Visit/ Investigation

For many years Butte County Grand Juries have been concerned that the lack of a secure

office and the necessary equipment, including a computer, has had a negative impact on

security and efficiency of the Grand Jury. The 2002- 2003 Grand Jury decided to explore

possible solutions.

Background

Selected Grand Jury members agree to serve one year. It is possible, with the approval of

the Presiding Judge, for a limited number of members to carryover for a second year. The

full Grand Jury meets at least once a month, but usually several times a month. Each

Grand Jury member serves on several committees. When a public complaint received by

the Grand Jury is determined to be within its review authority, it is assigned to a

committee for investigation. The committee then reports back to the entire Grand Jury as

to its findings. The Grand Jury's mandated investigation functions are also performed by

the committees, who then report their findings to the full Grand Jury. The findings may

be published in the Grand Jury Final Report. The reports are now published in local

newspapers to provide greater public awareness and access to their findings. Except

when required by a court, Grand Jurors are prohibited from disclosing any evidence

presented to the Grand Jury, how any Grand Juror has voted, or anything a Grand Juror

has said regarding a matter before them.

Butte County, with the approval of the Board of Supervisors, provides the financial

support of the Grand Jury. The Grand Jury budget request anticipates the expenditure of

funds for communications, per diem and mileage of grand jurors and potential witnesses,

office supplies, outside legal counsel and other professional services, and publication

costs of the Grand Jury Final Report. Activities of the Grand Jury cannot be limited or

curtailed by budget deficiencies.

The Grand Jury is assigned a room in the Courthouse where the full Grand Jury meetings

are held. Use of the room must be scheduled in advance, and the room is only available

during normal business hours. Committees must also find and schedule space

for meetings. The Grand Jury has not been provided an office, desks, adequate storage

space, or the use of computers and printers. Ordinary office supplies are not volunteered

readily and although the County has a procedure for the reimbursement of Grand Jury

members for out- of- pocket expenses, the procedure is never adequately explained to the

Grand Jury. Members are obligated to use their own office equipment and supplies. This

lack of support does not promote Grand Jury efficiency.

2002- 2003 Butte County Grand Jury

GRAND JURY SUPPORT

4

Investigation

The room provided for the full Grand Jury meetings is adjacent to the regular jury

holding room, where any witnesses called before the Grand Jury must wait. In addition

to the possibility of discussions being heard through the door, at times, other jury panels

were escorted through the room to other court areas, and court employees have tried to

use the room as a short cut to the main hall. Members of the Grand Jury often hold full-time

jobs and/ or have extensive volunteer responsibilities. To accommodate the

schedules of its members the 2002- 2003 Grand Jury chose to have some evening and

Saturday meetings. The meeting room in the courthouse was not available other than

during normal business hours. Butte County Human Resources Department generously

provided the use of the training room in the Administration Building to accommodate

after- hours and Saturday Grand Jury meetings.

Butte County provides the use of conference rooms at various locations throughout the

County. Committees must schedule the use of a room, often weeks in advance, thereby

discouraging emergency impromptu meetings. The alternative is to hold a committee

meeting in the home of one of its members. The fact that the Grand Jury has a sworn

obligation not to disclose any business conducted at its meetings almost requires that the

host live alone. Witnesses could not, under any circumstance, be interviewed in a private

home.

A major security issue is the lack of adequate accessible storage space. The Grand Jury

has a file cabinet in the Oroville Courthouse file- room where space limits its use to

archive material. The lack of storage for the Grand Jury records requires members to

take material home for safekeeping. Currently, a member has kept even the highly

sensitive Grand Jury correspondence at home.

Another way to insure security and efficiency is for the Grand Jury to have at least a

dedicated laptop computer and dedicated desktop computer. A laptop computer is not

only needed for its mobility, but for its versatility in the editing process since a laptop can

be used in conjunction with a projector system. A desktop computer will give secure

storage for the minutes of Grand Jury meetings and for the reports for the Grand Jury

Final Report. It should not be a requirement to serve on the Grand Jury that a member

owns a personal computer. A request for computers is not a recent request. The 1998-

1999 Grand Jury Final Report included a recommendation that among other items a

computer be made available to the Grand Jury. Every subsequent Grand Jury has asked

for the use of a computer. Other county Grand Juries have also had the challenge of

obtaining a computer. Several years ago, Humboldt County, in desperation, held a " bake

sale" to earn the funds.

Members of the 2002- 2003 Grand Jury have actively searched for a way to obtain a

computer, an office, and the necessary furniture. Funds for equipment are not in the

budget. Although everyone the members checked with was sympathetic, no one

appeared to know of a possible solution. In April, a member of the Grand Jury noticed an

2002- 2003 Butte County Grand Jury

GRAND JURY SUPPORT

5

ad in the newspaper that Butte County was to conduct a surplus equipment sale.

Members of the Grand Jury interviewed a staff member in the Purchasing Department

and were informed that prior to a sale of surplus equipment, county departments have

first choice of available equipment. The Grand Jury's needs could be met with used

equipment.

Numerous groups and individuals also use all the meeting rooms available to the Grand

Jury. Therefore, setting up office space in a corner of a meeting room is not an option. If

the Grand Jury was provided desks, file cabinets, a shredder, and a desktop computer

with a printer, there would not be any secure place to put them. It is important for Grand

Jury security and efficiency that a locked, easily accessible room be provided.

Findings

1. The Grand Jury does not have a room to use as an office for its exclusive use.

2. The Grand Jury does not have adequate accessible secure storage.

3. The Grand Jury does not have the use of a dedicated laptop computer, a dedicated

desktop computer, or a printer for its exclusive use.

4. Prior to a sale of county surplus equipment, county departments have first choice

of available equipment.

Recommendation

1. The Grand Jury Secretary be issued a dedicated laptop computer to be used

exclusively for Grand Jury business.

2. Desks, file cabinets, shredder, printer, and dedicated computer( s) to be used

exclusively for Grand Jury business be obtained to meet the Grand Jury's needs.

3. Butte County provide secure accessible office space for the Grand Jury.

Responses Required ( Penal Code § 933 & 933.05)

Butte County Board of Supervisors

2002- 2003 Butte County Grand Jury

BUTTE COUNTY AUDITOR- CONTROLLER

6

Reason For Visit/ Investigation

The 2002- 2003 Grand Jury conducted the mandated review of the Independent Auditor's

Report for the year ended June 30, 2002 and the Butte County Final Budget for the fiscal

year 2002- 2003.

Background

Bartig, Basler & Ray, CPA, Inc. of Roseville, California conducted the independent audit

for Butte County. The independent auditor prepares two reports. The General Purpose

Audit Report includes an analysis of the County financial statements of assets, liabilities,

equity, changes in fund balances, revenues, other credits and expenditures. In addition, a

Single Audit Report is prepared on expenditures of federal awards. The Single Audit

Report is forwarded to various federal government agencies in lieu of each agency

conducting an independent audit.

Reference copies of the Butte County Final Budget are made available as public record

documents at the Butte County libraries. The independent auditor reports may be

reviewed at the Auditor- Controller's office in Oroville.

Investigation

The independent auditor concluded that there was a reasonable basis for rendering an

unqualified opinion that Butte County's financial statements for the fiscal year ending

June 30, 2002 are fairly presented in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting

Principles. The Single Audit Report concluded that Butte County is in compliance with

Government Auditing Standards. The independent auditor also submits a " Management

Letter" for each audit report where improvements necessary to prevent future problems

are discussed. The independent auditor's recommendations are discussed in the previous

Grand Jury’s reports titled " CalWORKS— Compliance Requirements" and " Butte County

Financial and Revenue Computer System".

Butte County entered into a three- year contract for independent auditing services. Butte

County prefers to contract with a Certified Public Accountant ( CPA) firm that can send a

relatively large team to conduct the audit over several weeks. This is the third year of

Bartig, Basler & Ray, CPA, Inc.' s three- year contract. Requests for bids are sent out to

qualified firms in March. The County Auditor- Controller will submit a recommendation

for a new contract to the Board of Supervisors after requesting bids from qualified CPA

firms and discussing the selection with members of the Grand Jury.

According to the contract, the final audit reports are due by December 31st of each year.

In the contract's first year the firm submitted the reports in early December 2000. In the

2002- 2003 Butte County Grand Jury

BUTTE COUNTY AUDITOR- CONTROLLER

7

second year the reports were not received until mid- February 2002. For the year ending

June 30, 2002, the third contract year, the General Purpose Audit Report was received

timely, but the Single Audit Report was not received until February 2003.

Many California counties have an Audit Committee consisting of three to five members

that include the Auditor- Controller, the Chief Administrative Officer representing the

Board of Supervisors and one to three other qualified individuals, as deemed appropriate.

The purpose of an audit committee includes being instrumental in selecting and/ or

changing the CPA, being the liaison between the County and the CPA firm, and making

any necessary follow- ups.

The 2001- 2002 Butte County Grand Jury recommended that the Board of Supervisors

establish an Audit Committee. The Board and the Auditor- Controller, in separate

responses to the Grand Jury Final Report, responded positively to the recommendation.

When members of the 2002- 2003 Grand Jury interviewed the County Auditor- Controller

and the County Administrative Officer, both indicated support. However, at the time of

the interviews the establishment of an Audit Committee had not been initiated.

Findings

1. The independent auditor, Bartig, Basler & Ray, CPA, Inc., did not submit the

Single Audit Report due December 31, 2002 timely. However, the auditor did

submit the General Purpose Audit Report timely.

2. The 2001- 2002 Butte County Grand Jury recommended the establishment of an

Audit Committee. Neither the Board of Supervisors, County Auditor- Controller

nor the County Administrative Officer has initiated the establishment of an Audit

Committee.

Recommendations

1. The Board of Supervisors immediately establish an Audit Committee to include

the County Auditor- Controller, the Chief Administrative Officer and three other

qualified individuals.

Responses Required ( Penal Code § 933 & 933.05)

Butte County Board of Supervisors

Butte County Chief Administrative Officer

Butte County Auditor- Controller

2002- 2003 Butte County Grand Jury

BUTTE COUNTY FINANCIAL AND REVENUE COMPUTER SYSTEM

8

Reason For Visit/ Investigation

Members of the Grand Jury visited the offices of the Auditor- Controller and the Chief

Administrative Officer ( CAO). In both offices, the conversion to a new and updated

financial computer software product was discussed. All Butte County departments are

affected. One challenge is meeting departments’ software needs. Another challenge is

the departments adapting to the capabilities and limitations of the software. Members of

the Grand Jury decided that more information was needed.

Background

Since 1987, Butte County has used Pentamation as the source for its accounting and

financial management software. Pentamation originally designed software for the

financial needs of school districts which are still its primary customer. Currently, several

California county and city governments also use Pentamation software. The Pentamation

software that has been used by Butte County is Government Resource Series ( GRS). The

operational, administrative, and managerial responsibilities for the software system reside

in the Auditor's office. The coordination and training in the use of GRS for the County

departments have been the responsibility of either the staff in the Auditor's office or

Pentamation with oversight by the Auditor.

Butte County has a license with Pentamation that would insure updates for software used

by the Auditor's Office. The license did not include a Treasurer's module. Pentamation

has developed new software known as Open Series Financial and Revenue System ( Open

Series). The company has stated that, in the future, only the Open Series will receive

updates, and GRS will not be supported. The Auditor was concerned that when

Pentamation converted to the Open Series, the Treasurer's vital revenue information

would no longer be available to the Auditor's system.

In March 2001, based upon a recommendation from the Auditor, the Board of

Supervisors approved a contract with Pentamation to purchase the Open Series and to

make the conversion from GRS. The contract included the development of software that

would integrate a Treasurer's module with the system used by the Auditor. Butte County

began using the Open Series for accounting, financial reports, and revenue on July 1,

2002.

The Open Series is a new system, not an update of GRS. The features and capabilities of

the two systems are not identical nor are they compatible. It appears that many GRS

features are not available in the same manner in Open Series.

The CAO, from the viewpoint of a number of departments, had identified significant

problems in converting from GRS to Open Series. The CAO was also concerned that

Open Series has modules, such as Budgeting and Purchasing, that the County has not yet

2002- 2003 Butte County Grand Jury

BUTTE COUNTY FINANCIAL AND REVENUE COMPUTER SYSTEM

9

utilized. Earlier this year, with Board of Supervisor approval, the CAO contracted with a

computer consultant for an evaluation of the acquisition, installation, and use of Open

Series system. The consultant's final report was submitted in March 2003.

Investigation

At the present time, Butte County departments have no provision for submitting

transactions electronically to the Auditor's office. Departments prepare the necessary

paper documents, the copies are sent to the Auditor's office, and then the data is manually

entered into the Auditor's computerized accounting system. Concurrently, departments

enter the same data into separate internal computer systems.

When members of the Grand Jury visited the Sheriff's' office, they were shown a process

that still uses typewriters. The Sheriff's office uses numerous Field Purchase Orders

( FPO) for purchases under $ 2,500. In order to submit the invoice for payment, staff

prepares FPO forms that have four copies— each copy a different color. The Auditor's

office requires the use of a different color for different uses. The Sheriff's office has

chosen to type FPOs using preprinted four- part carbon forms furnished by General

Services. The alternative would be to create the FPO form on its computer system.

However, the Sheriff's office does not consider printing four copies— each copy a

different color-- for the hundreds of FPO forms prepared each month an improvement.

The FPOs are then delivered to the Auditor's office for manual data entry by the Auditor's

staff.

The Human Resources Department informed members of the Grand Jury of a similar

situation. Human Resources is responsible for making updates to the payroll system such

as adjustments in an employee's pay. All of the updates are made on the Human

Resources Department’s computer system. Copies are printed, then are delivered to the

Auditor's office for manual data entry by the Auditor's staff.

Without the capability of submitting transactions electronically to the Auditor's office

many departments resorted to running some form of dual system. This ultimately

increases cost, time, and potential for error due to the input of the same data into dual

systems.

The independent Certified Public Accountant ( CPA) brought out a similar concern in a

management letter attached to his current outside audit report. The CPA discussed with

the Auditor the possibility of automating the year- end closing process so that it is not so

labor intensive. The CPA and the County Auditor explored the possibilities of modifying

the computer software so that departments could easily prepare claims and other required

reports. The CPA suggested that discussions be held with departments to determine the

software needs to improve the year- end closing process.

2002- 2003 Butte County Grand Jury

BUTTE COUNTY FINANCIAL AND REVENUE COMPUTER SYSTEM

10

Butte County and its departments generate reports for the purpose of submitting data for

internal and external use. The external reports go to entities such as the Justice

Department and other federal and state government agencies for the purpose of providing

information required for funding such as grants or special projects.

The consultant hired by the CAO stated that Pentamation, in developing Open Series,

made assumptions regarding county functionality and reporting requirements that

resulted in programmatic problems. Also, according to the consultant's report, Butte

County departments were not provided adequate opportunity to review Open Series

features. Over time, Butte County has developed special reports using GRS features.

These features are no longer available in the same manner using Open Series. It is

unclear whether these problems can be solved with a complete training program or will

need updated software.

The current system does not allow a department to access another department's data.

Often departments have grants and other funding from outside the general revenue.

Grants, for example, require specialized reporting. At times, departments have grants or

funding that is shared. It is imperative for these departments to have the capabilities to

view that shared data.

Butte County does not have an Accounting Policies and Procedures Manual to guide

departments in preparing and processing financial transactions. The Auditor's staff will

send a countywide E- mail when a procedure change is made. The staff will also E- mail

an answer to questions from individuals. The implementation of the Open Series would

be an opportune time to create an Accounting Policies and Procedures Manual. The

manual would reinforce on- going accounting procedures, alleviate inconsistencies, and

standardize policies.

The lack of historical data on the Open Series system is another issue. The CAO and

other departments find that this inhibits the comparative and analytical processes

necessary for providing budgeting information and for the correct reporting to federal and

state agencies. The historical data is available on the GRS system that the departments

can continue to access. Although accessing GRS would be inconvenient, the Auditor

made the financial decision not to purchase the additional software necessary to transfer

the GRS data to the Open Series. The reasons were not only the cost of this special

software but the labor intensive transfer of historical data.

Some departments commented to the outside consultant that necessary reports from the

Auditor's office are received late or the timing is unreliable. For example, the Grand Jury

has had difficulty monitoring Grand Jury expenses because of the timeliness and the

completeness of the reports received:

2002- 2003 Butte County Grand Jury

BUTTE COUNTY FINANCIAL AND REVENUE COMPUTER SYSTEM

11

• Although the Auditor has informed the Grand Jury that they should receive the

Monthly Expenditure Audit Trail by the fifth working day of the month, it has

never been received before mid- month.

• The Grand Jury did not begin receiving a monthly Expenditure Status Report until

January 2003.

• A correction for erroneous charges allocated to the Grand Jury was submitted by

the CAO's office to the Auditor's office in early March, but the correction did not

appear on the March or the April expenditure reports.

The consultant's report made several recommendations regarding management of the

implementation of Open Series. These recommendations include:

• The CAO, reporting directly to the Board of Supervisors, should exercise direct

control and responsibility for the implementation of Open Series.

• The CAO should engage a Project Manager to assume responsibility for

overseeing the completion of the Open Series conversion project and for the

implementation of other recommendations.

• An Executive Level Oversight Committee, appointed by the Board of

Supervisors, be convened to obtain updates periodically, to provide policy level

direction, and to monitor performance and progress.

• A County Open Series Users Group with departmental representation should be

initiated and meetings held monthly.

• The Open Series Users Group would be facilitated by the Project Manager and

would provide a forum for dissemination of plans, for problem resolutions, and

for users to articulate new and on- going issues and concerns.

Insufficient information was provided in the consultant report as to how the Open Series

Users Group, Project Manager, and Executive Level Oversight Committee would

function.

The Auditor stated that during the start- up phase of the Open Series system, a Steering

Committee was established to review and take input. The consultant's report proposed a

more centralized approach of project management to move toward full expansion of the

system on an enterprise- wide basis.

The purpose of this report is to give an overview of some challenges Butte County is

facing as the County continues to increase the utilization and expand the capabilities of

financial and revenue computer systems. The hope of this Grand Jury is that future

Grand Juries will investigate and report on the progress made. Areas a Grand Jury might

consider are the following:

• Development of an Accounting Policies and Procedures Manual.

2002- 2003 Butte County Grand Jury

BUTTE COUNTY FINANCIAL AND REVENUE COMPUTER SYSTEM

12

• Effectiveness of the reporting of timekeeping information electronically to the

Auditor's office.

• Development of procedures that will enable all transactions to be transmitted

electronically to the Auditor's office.

• Effectiveness of the new Open Series Users Group, Project Manager, and

Executive Level Oversight Committee.

• Development and implementation of the Purchasing module.

• Development and implementation of the Budget module.

Findings

1. Butte County does not have an Accounting Policies and Procedures Manual.

2. At the present time, Butte County departments have no provision for submitting

transactions electronically to the Auditor's office.

3. Departments prepare the needed documents, then copies are delivered to the

Auditor's office for manual data entry by the Auditor's staff.

4. Butte County has converted its financial and revenue accounting from

Pentamation's Government Resource Series ( GRS) software to Pentamation's

Open Series Financial and Revenue System ( Open Series) software.

5. Butte County departments developed special reports using GRS features that are

not available using Open Series.

6. The full capabilities of Open Series have not been implemented such as a

Purchasing module and a Budgeting module.

7. The Chief Administrative Officer ( CAO) contracted with a computer consultant

for an evaluation of the acquisition, installation, and use of the Open Series

system. The consultant's final report was submitted in March 2003.

8. According to the consultant's report, Butte County departments were not provided

adequate opportunity to review Open Series features before implementation.

9. A proposal has been made to utilize a centralized approach of project

management for the full implementation of the Open Series system project. A

Project Manager would be engaged by the CAO and would be overseen by an

Executive Level Oversight Committee.

10. A proposal has been made to initiate a County Open Series Users Group with

departmental representation that would be facilitated by the Project Manager and

2002- 2003 Butte County Grand Jury

BUTTE COUNTY FINANCIAL AND REVENUE COMPUTER SYSTEM

13

would provide a forum for dissemination of plans, for problem resolutions, for

training development, and for users to articulate new and on- going issues and

concerns.

11. Insufficient information was provided in the consultant report as to how the Open

Series Users Group, Project Manager, and Executive Level Oversight Committee

would function.

Recommendations

1. The Auditor- Controller and County Departments work with the Information

Technology Support Division to implement a system that will enable the

transmission of data to the Auditor's office electronically.

2. The County Administrative Officer ( CAO) and the Auditor utilize the full

capabilities of Open Series Financial and Revenue System ( Open Series).

3. The Auditor, with the approval of the Board of Supervisors, develop an

Accounting Policies and Procedures Manual.

4. The Board of Supervisors establish an Open Series Users Group, with

departmental representation, to give Departments the opportunity to provide a

forum for dissemination of plans, for problem resolutions, for training

development, and for users to articulate new and on- going issues and concerns.

5. The CAO define the duties, responsibilities, and operating procedures of the Open

Series Users Group.

6. The CAO define the duties, responsibilities, and operating procedures of the

Project Manager and Executive Level Oversight Committee for the support of

Open Series Users Group.

Responses Required ( Penal Code § 933 & 933.05)

Butte County Board of Supervisors

Butte County Chief Administrative Officer

Butte County Auditor- Controller

2002- 2003 Butte County Grand Jury

BUTTE COUNTY PURCHASING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

14

Reason for Visit/ Investigation

One of the responsibilities of the Grand Jury is to visit as many County offices as

possible during the Grand Jury’s term. Members of the Grand Jury visited the Chief

Administrative Officer and as a result of that interview decided to interview the General

Services Officer and to review purchasing policies and procedures.

Background

Purchasing Services Division is under the jurisdiction of the Chief Administrative Officer

( CAO) and is responsible for the purchase of supplies, equipment, and services for the

County. Procedures are designated by ordinance, Board of Supervisors’ policy, or the

Purchasing Policy Manual. Departments may make purchases under specified guidelines.

Investigation

Members of the Grand Jury met with the General Services Officer to discuss Butte

County’s Purchasing Services Division and Butte County’s purchasing policies and

procedures.

The General Services Officer supervises the Purchasing Services Division which consists

of four people: the Purchasing Services Manager, two buyers, and one administrative

support person.

Purchasing Services Division’s responsibilities include purchases over $ 2,500, contracts

for building and remodeling, contracts for services, and administration of the American

Express corporate cards and gas credit card systems.

Proposed Contracts/ Property Division

The CAO has submitted a proposal for the 2003/ 2004 Budget to allow the formation of a

new Contracts/ Property Division to centralize contract and property management duties.

The proposal would add three new positions: a Contracts Manager, a Property Manager,

and an administrative support position.

Currently, departments are delegated the authority for preparing contracts and leasing

space. Purchasing Services Division is available to assist in preparing contracts.

Benefits of the new division would include standardized contracts, savings on negotiating

lease agreements, and the advantage of the specialized knowledge of employees that

work full- time on contracts and property management.

2002- 2003 Butte County Grand Jury

BUTTE COUNTY PURCHASING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

15

Purchasing Policy Manual

The Purchasing Policy Manual contains the County’s policies and procedures for

purchases of supplies, equipment, and services.

The General Services Officer has revised the Purchasing Policy Manual. The revised

manual is a Contracts/ Purchasing Policy and Procedure Manual. The revised manual

has been sent to the CAO, next will go to all departments for comment, and then to the

Board of Supervisors for approval. Any future updates to the manual will also be

approved by the Board. The General Services Officer will schedule training on the new

manual, and each department will determine which staff members will receive this

training.

Currently, the Purchasing Policy Manual is available to all Butte County employees on

the County’s internal computer network. The on- line manual can be searched for key

words and phrases making it easy to locate specific information. When approved, an on-line

version of the Contracts/ Purchasing Policy and Procedure Manual will replace the

existing on- line Purchasing Policy Manual. Almost all forms can be accessed and

printed from the on- line manual. In some cases, the forms can be attached to E- mails and

sent over the internal computer network to Purchasing Services Division for processing.

Purchase Procedures

Butte County is a member of the National Association of Counties. Through membership

in this association, the County takes advantage of volume purchase pricing and obtains

the discounts of a larger organization. Butte County has decentralized receiving of

purchases. Therefore, purchases are delivered directly to the departments. Purchase of

supplies as needed and direct delivery greatly reduces warehouse space and storage space

in individual departments. Currently, warehouse space is only needed for jail clothing

and batteries.

Departments are authorized to make individual purchases of materials and services up to

$ 2,500 using a Field Purchase Order ( FPO) if, in the opinion of the department head, the

direct purchases are in the best interest of the County. For example, the County has

negotiated a discount with Office Depot and allows departments to exercise FPO

authority to purchase supplies directly. Office Depot makes deliveries daily, also saving

storage space.

For purchases over $ 2,500, departments work closely with Purchasing Services Division

to prepare a Purchase Requisition ( PR) to initiate the purchasing process. Departments

must have sufficient funds allocated in their budget for the desired purchases. Purchasing

Services Division completes a Purchase Order ( PO) when it buys an item for a

department.

2002- 2003 Butte County Grand Jury

BUTTE COUNTY PURCHASING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

16

For purchases of fixed assets over $ 5,000, approval from the Board of Supervisors is

required, and departments must have funds allocated in their budget for the specific fixed

asset.

The table below summarizes by purchase limits, the approvals required, and type of form

needed.

Purchase Limits Approvals Required Type of Form

Less than $ 2,500 Department Heads Field Purchase Order ( FPO)

Greater than $ 2,500 Purchasing Services Division

Sufficient funds in Budget

Departments submit Purchase

Requisition ( PR)

Purchasing Services Division

prepares Purchase Order ( PO)

Fixed Assets Greater

than $ 5,000

Board of Supervisors

Specific item in Budget

Departments submit Purchase

Requisition ( PR); Purchasing

Services Division prepares

Purchase Order ( PO)

Contracts

The Purchasing Services Division prepares a variety of contracts including those for

supplies, materials, equipment, and professional services and also administers certain

contracts, such as the construction of the new Juvenile Hall.

An example of a type of contract prepared by Purchasing Services Division is a

remodeling contract. The following table summarizes by contract amount, the approval

authority, and contract process for a remodeling contract.

Contract Amount Approval Authority Contract Process

Up to $ 25,000 General Services Officer

Purchasing Services Manager

Small Projects Agreement

Up to $ 100,000 Delegated to CAO Request for Quotations

Over $ 100,000 Board of Supervisors Formal Invitation for Bids

Credit Cards

The Purchasing Services Division administers the American Express corporate cards and

gas company credit cards. Each of these cards has advantages for the County in

conducting business.

Employees can apply for an American Express corporate card through the Purchasing

Services Division if they take two or more business trips per year or incur more than

2002- 2003 Butte County Grand Jury

BUTTE COUNTY PURCHASING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

17

$ 300 in business expenses per year. The corporate card is for the purpose of charging

employees’ county business related travel, lodging, and meal expenses only. The

employee must submit a travel expense claim for reimbursable expenses. The card is not

intended for personal use. The employee is responsible for payment of the corporate card

bill. This system reduces the need for processing travel advances, thus reducing

administrative costs.

Gas credit cards can be issued to an employee that is traveling out of the county and can

be used to pay for gas, oil, and minor repairs. The County also utilizes a Cardlock system

for gas purchases at a discount.

Cal Card Visa credit cards are available to departments for purchases. The County

Auditor administers the credit card system. It is the Department Heads’ responsibility to

monitor charges. Benefits of using the Cal Card Visa for purchases are:

• Vendors receive payments in two to three days.

• The Cal Card Visa can be used at any business that accepts Visa.

• Many businesses that do not accept Field Purchase Orders may accept the Cal

Card Visa for purchases.

• Local purchases increase by approximately 17%.

• The Cal Card Visa increases departments’ flexibility for making purchases.

Findings

1. The formation of a Contracts/ Property Division is proposed for the 2003/ 2004

Budget year.

2. A new Contracts/ Purchasing Policy and Procedure Manual will replace the

previously used Policy Manual upon approval by the Board of Supervisors.

3. Butte County has decentralized receiving.

4. Purchase of supplies on an as- needed basis reduces the need for storage space.

5. Negotiated agreements through the National Association of Counties give bulk

rate pricing for low volume.

6. The Cal Card Visa increases departments’ flexibility for making purchases and

benefits local businesses.

2002- 2003 Butte County Grand Jury

BUTTE COUNTY PURCHASING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

18

Recommendation

None

Responses Required ( Penal Code § 933 & 933.05)

None required.

2002- 2003 Butte County Grand Jury

CalWORKS— COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS

19

Reason For Visit/ Investigation

Members of the Butte County 2002- 2003 Grand Jury followed up on the annual

independent audits conducted by a Certified Public Accountant ( CPA) firm for the years

ending June 30, 2000 and June 30, 2001. The CPA and the Department of Employment

and Social Services ( DESS) agreed on corrective action for procedures used for the

reassessment of recipients' eligibility for CalWORKS and Food Stamp Programs.

Background

The independent auditor's opinion in a letter dated December 8, 2000 stated a concern

that Butte County was not in full compliance with federal and state regulations because

annual face- to- face reassessments of recipients' eligibility for CalWORKS and Food

Stamps were not conducted consistently. The independent auditor sampled 40 case files

of CalWORKS and Food Stamp recipients. It was determined that the majority of case

files did not indicate that a face- to- face reassessment had been conducted during the

previous twelve months. The independent auditors stated the County was susceptible to

overpaying recipients if the compliance issue was not remedied.

A corrective action plan was agreed upon by DESS and the CPA. When the independent

auditor followed- up in Fall 2001, the corrective action had not been fully implemented.

In a letter to the 2001- 2002 Grand Jury, the Butte County Director of DESS indicated that

a procedure was initiated to bring DESS into full compliance.

Investigation

Members of the 2002- 2003 Grand Jury interviewed the Director of DESS and two of the

Assistant Directors. It was explained that a face- to- face reassessment of a recipient's

eligibility is conducted during the anniversary month of the recipient's entry into the

program. An annual reassessment has two values: the first is the face- to- face interview,

and the second uses the contact with the recipient to give the recipient law updates and

reinforcement training through a prepared video. However, the Director felt that

contacting recipients and conducting interviews often took staffing hours that could be

better utilized meeting other mandates.

The Director explained that DESS elected to participate in a California State program that

would give Butte County an exemption from requiring annual face- to- face reassessments

of CalWORKS and Food Stamp recipients. The Director's position was that eliminating

the mandatory annual face- to- face reassessments would not jeopardize the integrity of the

programs. CalWORKS and Food Stamp recipients are required to submit a monthly

Statement of Eligibility ( SAWS- 7) in addition to the annual reassessment. Failure to

submit SAWS- 7 timely, immediately terminates benefits. Since SAWS- 7 is signed under

2002- 2003 Butte County Grand Jury

CalWORKS— COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS

20

penalty of perjury, DESS felt the integrity of the program was maintained. Participation

in the State program would also give DESS the staffing flexibility necessary to meet

other priorities, such as processing new applications within the time constraints set by

statute.

A condition of remaining in the State program was that the participating counties must

obtain the approval of their county's District Attorney ( DA). Members of the Grand Jury

interviewed the DA, the Assistant DA who heads the welfare fraud unit, and the

investigator for the welfare fraud unit. The DA does not have a record of formally being

asked by DESS for the approval necessary to continue participating in the program to

eliminate the annual face- to- face reassessments. The DA was aware of the program, and

to the DA's knowledge, no County District Attorney in California had approved

eliminating the annual reassessments. It is the DA who prosecutes welfare fraud. To

establish fraud, the DA must show that the recipient knew he/ she was breaking the law

and intended to commit fraud. Without a face- to- face reassessment procedure, the DA

stated fraud would be difficult to establish.

The corrective action plan agreed upon by DESS and the CPA was implemented in July

2001. The summer of 2001 was spent working out the logistics of administration and

conducting an employee- training program. It would not have been practical to

immediately update the entire backlog of face- to- face interviews. Therefore, DESS

designed an incremental plan. The month for a recipient's reassessment is determined by

the recipient’s entry date into the program. Beginning in September 2001, DESS brought

all recipients with September entry dates into full compliance. This process was

continued through August 2002 when all face- to- face reassessments were in full

compliance. When the independent auditor followed- up in October 2001, DESS had just

begun the incremental process.

The CPA's opinion letter dated November 14, 2002 indicated the independent audit had

sampled another 40 case files. All sampled case files contained a face- to- face

reassessment conducted in the previous twelve months.

Findings

1. In prior years the independent auditor had noted concern that face- to- face

reassessments of individuals in the CalWORKS and Food Stamp programs were

not being made annually.

2. Full compliance requires that the face- to- face reassessments and education of the

recipients be made annually.

3. The Department of Employment and Social Services completed a corrective action

plan that brought DESS into full compliance as of September 2002.

2002- 2003 Butte County Grand Jury

CalWORKS— COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS

21

Recommendation

1. The Department of Employment and Social Services continue to develop and

maintain procedures with available personnel to do the required face- to- face

reassessments annually.

Responses Required ( Penal Code § 933 & 933.05)

Butte County Department of Employment and Social Services Director

2002- 2003 Butte County Grand Jury

CITY OF CHICO HALLOWEEN REPORT

22

Reason for Visit/ Investigation

The Grand Jury selected the City of Chico for review this year. One of the main issues in

Chico has been the Halloween turmoil that has occurred in the downtown area in past

years. Members of the Grand Jury evaluated the past Halloween history and reviewed

current efforts to reduce law enforcement problems.

Background

Past Halloween events in Chico had drawn approximately 15,000- 25,000 people. A

major percentage of participants, drawn by a party atmosphere, was from out of town.

An adult magazine had categorized the California State University Chico ( CSUC) as the

number two party school in the United States. This article may have accelerated the draw

of non- residents to Chico at Halloween.

The streets surrounding the downtown area had been blocked off. Extra lights and

portable restrooms were installed in the City Plaza area in unsuccessful attempts to

control the problems. Public drunkenness, robberies and violent crimes such as stabbings

and rapes had occurred in the downtown and surrounding areas. Gang related crimes

were linked to this event. In both 1999 and 2001, there was near- rioting with cars turned

over, robberies, and rocks and bottles thrown at police.

The cost to the City of Chico was magnified by the overtime pay for city employees,

clean up, organization of volunteers, added law enforcement resources, and the cost of

destroyed property.

Butte County Jail had added staff to handle the expected influx and released some

inmates early to make room for arrestees resulting from the Halloween event.

Enloe Medical Center had increased staffing to handle the anticipated large number of

injuries.

Investigation

The City Council determined that changes were required to quell this excessively

destructive activity and associated threats to the residents of Chico. In January 2002, the

Chico City Council authorized monies to fund a publicity campaign to deter out- of- town

participants from coming to Chico to celebrate Halloween. Authorization was provided

to the Chico Police Department to arrange for significant reinforcements to enforce new

restrictions. A low tolerance policy was established to arrest or to cite anyone suspected

of driving under the influence or other vehicle code violations, urinating in public, being

a minor in possession, being drunk in public, having false ID, and/ or having an open

2002- 2003 Butte County Grand Jury

CITY OF CHICO HALLOWEEN REPORT

23

container. Previous unsuccessful accommodations such as blocking off some streets and

providing extra lighting and portable restrooms in the City Plaza area were eliminated.

These low- tolerance plans were released to the press for wide distribution in conjunction

with the media campaign purchased by the City of Chico. The Associated Students ( AS)

of CSUC cooperated with the City of Chico to spread the word that Halloween 2002

event would be different than in the past. Students were asked to conduct private parties

and to refrain from inviting out- of- town guests.

A Social Accountability Program ( SAP) was established by the Butte County Superior

Court for citations issued Halloween night and for other events during the year. Upon

conviction, the guilty party is required to pay a $ 150 monitoring fee to the City of Chico

who then monitors the party’s participation in cleaning up Chico over two consecutive

weekends. Out- of- town arrestees would be required to return to Butte County to perform

their community service work. This program proves to be an effective deterrent.

Some individuals did not take the publicity campaign by the city positively. The City

Manager’s office received 187 E- mails against the new restrictions with some suggesting

possible rioting could take place on Halloween 2002.

The CSUC Associated Student Body Officers worked with the City of Chico to help

promote safety on Halloween 2002 by distributing flyers entitled, “ Keep It Local.” This

flyer had information on the City of Chico’s Halloween 2002 plan, ways to stay safe, and

information on identifying alcohol poisoning with what to do in case it happens. It also

listed alternative events such as the Frightfest, and the Midnight Breakfast, both hosted

by the AS on campus, plays at the Chico Cabaret and the Blue Room, and a haunted

house at Konkow Hall. Information on the Town Hall- o- ween meeting with the City and

AS representatives was listed, along with important telephone numbers to call to ask

questions, to report incidents, or to get any other help one may need. Most students were

supportive.

The fraternities at CSUC also helped. The Inter Fraternities Council ( IFC), which was

formed about three years ago, elected to eliminate open- house parties on Halloween

using fences to keep attendance under control.

The cost to the City for the Halloween 2002 event was approximately $ 100,000 including

the publicity beforehand, overtime pay, facilities for mounted- patrol horses, and the other

law enforcement resources.

The publicity campaign had a positive effect on the safety of the Halloween 2002 event.

The number of participants was reduced to approximately 3,000- 5,000. The California

Highway Patrol set up DUI checkpoints at major entrances to the downtown area.

Parking lots at Orange, Salem, 8th and on the CSUC campus were closed off. The bars in

2002- 2003 Butte County Grand Jury

CITY OF CHICO HALLOWEEN REPORT

24

the downtown area along with the 5th and Ivy area closed early. The market at 5th and Ivy

did not sell liquor that night.

There were 400 police patrolling during the evening of Halloween 2002, including an

equestrian group. The CSUC provided another 40- 50 personnel. Volunteers numbered

250 and were a valuable asset to police.

There were 88 arrested during the evening and into the morning hours. Of these, 52 were

residents and only 36 were out- of- town visitors. No sexual assaults or gang related

activities were reported. Citations for traffic violations numbered 66 for the night.

Enloe Medical Center treated only 11 patients with injuries resulting from Halloween

2002 incidents.

On the evening of October 31, 2002 twenty- five researchers, hired and trained by the

Political Science Department of CSUC, solicited voluntary responses from participants

located at the intersections of 5th and Ivy Streets, 5th and Salem, 4th and Main Streets, and

2nd and Broadway, as well as outside a number of bars in the downtown Chico area.

Respondents were asked a number of questions about their perceptions of the Halloween

event, law enforcement, the media campaign purchased by the City of Chico, and a

number of demographic characteristics.

In total, 408 surveys were collected from these participants. In addition, 63 surveys were

completed by respondents who participated in an alternative activity sponsored by the

CSUC Associated Students in the Bell Memorial Union.

A further 256 surveys were collected from CSUC students who attended morning classes

on November 1, 2002. It was hypothesized that this group was less likely to have

participated in the previous night’s activities. By surveying this group, it gave a better

understanding about the reasons why some students did not attend the previous night’s

events.

One of the findings from the survey stated, “ The combination of commercial

advertisements, an increased police presence, and police tactics contributed to a

significant decrease in both turnout and violent behavior during Halloween 2002.” This

survey can be found at the City Manager’s office entitled: Halloween 2002 Survey

Findings ( file # PS- 11- 154).

The funding of this survey came from CSUC’s College of Behavior and Social Sciences

for the administration part and the City Council of Chico for the data analysis and report.

2002- 2003 Butte County Grand Jury

CITY OF CHICO HALLOWEEN REPORT

25

Findings

1. The publicity campaign by the City of Chico had a positive effect on the safety of

the Halloween 2002 event.

2. Additional law enforcement resources were helpful in maintaining a safe event.

The California Highway Patrol set up DUI checkpoints at major entrances to the

downtown area. Parking lots on Orange, Salem, and 8th Streets and on the

California State University, Chico campus were closed off.

3. There were 88 arrests for the whole night, including into the early morning hours.

The increased law enforcement presence provided the ability to make more

arrests. Of these arrests, 52 were residents and only 36 were out- of- town visitors.

4. No sexual assaults or gang related activities were reported.

5. Citations for traffic violations numbered 66 for the night.

6. The number of participants at the Halloween 2002 event was reduced from

15,000- 25,000 to an estimated 3,000- 5,000.

7. The cost to the City was about $ 100,000. This included the publicity beforehand,

overtime pay, facilities for mounted- patrol horses, and the other law enforcement

resources.

8. Enloe Medical Center treated only 11 patients resulting from incidents at the

Halloween 2002 event.

9. Twenty- five researchers were hired by three California State University, Chico

( CSUC) Political Science Professors to solicit voluntary responses from

participants of the Halloween 2002 event in Chico.

10. California State University, Chico Associated Student Officers worked with the

City of Chico to help promote safety on Halloween 2002.

11. A Social Accountability Program ( SAP) was established by the Butte County

Superior Court for citations issued Halloween night and other events during the

year. The cited individual has to pay $ 150 monitoring fee to the City of Chico

who then monitors the party’s participation in cleaning up Chico over two

consecutive weekends.

2002- 2003 Butte County Grand Jury

CITY OF CHICO HALLOWEEN REPORT

26

Recommendations

1. The City of Chico continue this same low- tolerance policy and enforcement to

keep the Halloween event under control.

Responses Required ( Penal Code § 933 & 933.05)

Chico City Council

City of Chico, Chief of Police

Butte County Sheriff

City of Chico, City Manager

2002- 2003 Butte County Grand Jury

27

Reason for Visit/ Investigation

Each year the Grand Jury selects one of Butte County’s incorporated municipalities ( i. e.,

Biggs, Chico, Gridley, Oroville, and Paradise) for review. Members of the Grand Jury

selected the City of Chico and took an in- depth look at its unique situation of having

approximately 45 unincorporated “ island” areas located within its city limits.

Background

The City of Chico, founded in 1860 by John Bidwell, has grown to be the center of

economic activity in the Tri- County region. It is the home of the California State

University, Chico 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.

The population of the city’s sphere of influence is more than 100,500. However, the

population of the actual incorporated city areas totals approximately 68,589. The other

estimated 31,911 people inhabit a multitude of unincorporated areas most of which are

county islands located within the city limits ( see map, Exhibit A).

Investigation

The existence of approximately 45 unincorporated islands within the city limits causes a

duplication of service. This provides a significant challenge to the City/ County agencies

in numerous areas, notably law enforcement. While a shared responsibility agreement

allows for the Chico Police Department to respond to urgent or serious law enforcement

needs occurring within these unincorporated islands, the primary law enforcement and

routine patrolling responsibilities remain with the Butte County Sheriff’s Department.

Therefore, less than critical law violations, involving citizens living on opposite sides of a

single street, could require actions by two separate law enforcement agencies. Since, at

any given time, there are only two Sheriff patrol cars on duty for the whole North Butte

County, the typical response time to an unincorporated island is significantly longer than

for city residents.

The Chico Public Works Department provides regular street maintenance, including

sweeping and storm drainage. These services do not extend to the unincorporated islands

that are the responsibility of the County Public Works Department. Coordination of both

City and County Public Works projects become excessively complex when street repair

needs extend into or out of one or more unincorporated county islands.

The right to vote in city elections is restricted to residents of the City of Chico. This

leaves the residents of the unincorporated islands without a voice in city elections.

2002- 2003 Butte County Grand Jury

28

During the past several decades, selected parcels of such unincorporated county islands

were annexed to the city. Accusations have been made that all too frequently these

parcels have consisted primarily of commercial properties that generate significant sales

tax revenues for the city to the detriment of county coffers. The North Valley Plaza Mall

and the more recent Courtesy Motors annexations are sited as specific examples of this

allegation. However, members of the Grand Jury found that the majority of previous

annexations were actually residential areas.

In 1977, the California State Legislature passed the Municipal Organization Act

( MORGA) allowing cities to mandate annexation of unincorporated areas located within

a city’s sphere of influence. This legislation applied to areas of less than 75 acres that

were located within 300 feet of incorporated areas. At that time, the City of Chico

allowed this window of opportunity to expire in 1986 without action.

In the year 2000, the California State Legislature passed the Cortese- Knox- Hertzberg

Local Government Reorganization Act that again authorized mandatory annexation into

the city of unincorporated areas of less than 75 acres. This unique opportunity will

remain in effect until January 1, 2007. There are approximately 45 unincorporated

islands existing within the City of Chico that qualify for annexation using this act.

The concerns voiced by many living within these unincorporated islands include

misconceptions regarding one or more of the following issues.

a) Property taxes, fees and voting: The property taxes in the City of Chico are no

different than in the County. In certain parcels, County Service Area fees are

eliminated upon annexation. The right to vote in city elections is restricted to

residents of the City of Chico.

b) Sewers and drainage: The City of Chico does not require developed property to

connect to the sanitary sewer or storm drainage systems. However, the State

Water Quality Control Board has previously issued a mandate requiring

abandonment of all septic systems throughout the Chico urban area. If the State

of California should choose to enforce this mandate, it would apply equally to

properties in the unincorporated islands as well as areas annexed to the City.

c) Land use, zoning and sign requirements: Property ( land) has been pre- zoned

consistent with the current City General Plan designation which is, in most cases,

the same as the County’s designations. Most existing legally established land

uses, such as keeping animals, may continue after annexation. This would only

change if the designated land use has not been exercised for one year or more.

Existing posted signs are unaffected by annexation. New signs must comply with

city standards.

2002- 2003 Butte County Grand Jury

29

d) Burning of trash and vegetation: In general, burning of trash and vegetation

within the city limits is prohibited. However, on- site burning of vegetation could

be permitted on parcels of five acres or more with a permit. The city provides

leaf pickup, only on its city streets, each fall season. Trash pick up is available to

all residents.

Findings

1. An estimated 31,911 people live in the unincorporated areas located within the

City of Chico’s sphere of influence.

2. There are approximately 45 unincorporated “ island” areas within Chico city limits

that could be annexed using the Cortese- Knox- Hertzberg Local Government

Reorganization Act.

3. The objections to annexation are usually misunderstandings or misconceptions in

matters such as:

a) Property taxes, fees, and voting

b) Sewers and drainage

c) Land use, zoning, and sign requirements

d) Burning of trash and vegetation

4. Law enforcement resources are challenged for the unincorporated areas within the

sphere of influence of the City of Chico. The Butte County Sheriff’s Department

is limited at any given time to two sheriff patrol cars the whole North Butte

County that includes these unincorporated areas.

5. The Chico Police Department and the Butte County Sheriff’s Department have a

shared responsibility agreement that applies to urgent and severe law enforcement

needs within the unincorporated areas. Minor infractions, non- emergency and

routine patrolling are not included in the shared responsibility agreement.

6. Coordination of public works projects becomes complex when street repair

requirements extend beyond the city limits and into county unincorporated islands

within the city limits.

7. The City of Chico provides regular street maintenance including sweeping and

storm drainage. These services do not extend to unincorporated islands within the

city limits.

2002- 2003 Butte County Grand Jury

30

8. The right to vote in city elections is restricted to residents of the City of Chico.

This leaves the residents of the unincorporated islands within the city limits

without a voice in city elections.

Recommendations

1. The Grand Jury recommends that the City of Chico exercise the current unique

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.

Responses Required ( Penal Code § 933 & 933.05)

Chico City Council

Butte County Board of Supervisors

Local Agency Formation Commission

PLEASE SEE MAP ON NEXT PAGE

I V Y   S T

S A L E M   S T

W   2 N D   S T

W   6 T H   S T

W A L L   S T

W   4 T H   S T

W   7 T H   S T

H A Z E L   S T

F L U M E   S T

W   8 T H   S T

C H E R R Y   S T

W   9 T H   S T

O R A N G E   S T

N O R M A L   A V E

C E D A R   S T

P A R K   A V E

W A L N U T   S T

W   1 0 T H   S T

W   1 2 T H   S T

W A R N E R   S T

N

0 0 . 5 1 2

M i l e s

C . M . A .

B i d w e l   P a r k

S T A T E   H I G H W A Y   3 2

S T A T E   H I G H W A Y   3 2

S T A T E   H I G H W A Y   9 9 S T A T E   H I G H W A Y   9 9

G I S

C o m m u n i t y   D e v e l o p m e n t   D e p a r t m e n t

C i t y   o f   C h i c o

A p r i l   2 3 ,   2 0 0 3

C . S . U . C .

E A S T   A V E

W   E A S T   A V E

E S P L A N A D E

E A T O N   R D

C O H A S S E T   R D

B E L L   R D

N O R D   H W Y

L A S S E N   A V E

B R U C E   R D

E   2 0 t h   S T

W   8 t h   A V E

F O R E S T   A V E

W   S A C R A M E N T O   A V E

M A N G R O V E   A V E

C H I C O - R I V E R   R D

W   1 2 t h   A V E

S K Y W A Y

C U S S I C K   A V E

P A R K   A V E

F a i r -

g r o u n d s

F I L B E R T   A V E

D A Y T O N   H W Y

H E G A N   A V E

M I D W A Y

C i t y   o f   C h i c o

I n c o r p o r a t e d   A r e a

K e y :

C i t y   o f   C h i c o

    I n c o r p o r a t e d   A r e a

B u t t e   C o u n t y

    U n i n c o r p o r a t e d   A r e a

      w i t h i n   S . O . I .

B u t t e   C o u n t y

      o u t s i d e   S . O . I .

C i t y   o f   C h i c o  

    S p h e r e   o f   I n f l u e n c e

B u t t e   C o u n t y / C h i c o

    A d o p t e d   G r e e n l i n e

B i d w e l l   P a r k

2002- 2003 Butte County Grand Jury

33

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

2002- 2003 Butte County Grand Jury

CHARGES FOR CANDIDATE STATEMENTS

34

Reason For Visit/ Investigation

The 2002- 2003 Grand Jury received a complaint from three candidates for the Board of

the Paradise Irrigation District about printing charges that pertained to each candidate's

statement of qualifications in the 2002 General Election Sample Ballot.

Background

Prior to an election, all voters receive the Sample Ballot and Voter Information Pamphlet

( Voter's Pamphlet). The Voter's Pamphlet includes candidates' statements of

qualification. It is the choice of each candidate whether or not to have a statement

included in the Voter's Pamphlet. A candidate's statement is prepared by the candidate

and is printed at the expense of the candidate unless otherwise determined by a governing

body.

The Butte County Registrar of Voters prepares a Candidate Handbook for Judicial,

School, and County Offices ( Handbook) to guide a candidate in the filing and election

process. It has a broad scope of information relating to the election process. Under the

heading “ Advance Payment Required,” the Handbook states:

The advance charges are estimated costs for the Candidate's Statement which

reflects one to three Candidate's Statements for the same elective office being

printed. The actual cost could be more or less than the required deposit

depending on the number of Candidate's Statements printed for the candidate's

race.

After the election, actual costs are determined. Candidates are billed for any additional

charges or if they have overpaid, they receive a refund.

The Paradise Irrigation District ( PID) board member election was one of two races that

had less than 20,001 registered voters within its election jurisdiction. The Handbook

stated that the charge to submit a Candidate’s Statement was $ 300. However, when PID

candidates submitted their Candidate Statement to the Registrar of Voter's Office, they

were informed that the charge would be $ 600. At that time, four candidates submitted

statements and paid $ 600.

At a Board of Supervisors meeting during an unrelated discussion of County Clerk fees

on the agenda, two of the four PID candidates were present and spoke about the increased

Candidate’s Statement charge. The Registrar of Voters ( Registrar) arranged a meeting

with three of the candidates at a later date. After the meeting, the three candidates wrote a

letter of complaint to the Registrar, noting a copy was sent to the Grand Jury. At that

time, the Registrar offered to return $ 300 on the condition that the candidates pay any

additional charges when the actual cost was determined. Three candidates accepted the

2002- 2003 Butte County Grand Jury

CHARGES FOR CANDIDATE STATEMENTS

35

return of $ 300; the fourth declined, choosing to wait for any available refund. In the end,

the actual charge was determined to be $ 354.06. Three PID candidates were billed and

paid $ 54.06, and one PID candidate was refunded $ 245.94.

Investigation

The four PID candidates who filed candidate statements in the General Election were

invited to meet with members of the Grand Jury. Two of the PID candidates were

interviewed. Two candidates had other obligations on the date the Grand Jury conducted

the interviews. One of the interviewees had accepted the return of $ 300; the other chose

to wait for any available refund. The candidates interviewed expressed the following

concerns:

• The charges were doubled.

• They were not informed of the increase until they submitted their statements.

• Paradise Town Council candidates did not pay the increased charges when they

filed their Candidate Statements.

• One candidate interviewed considered the charges for printing excessive.

Some members of the Grand Jury attended, as citizens, the Board of Supervisors meeting

where the PID candidates spoke to the Board about the charges. At that meeting, the

terms fee, charge, advance payment and deposit were used interchangeably causing

confusion. In the context of the Voter's Pamphlet, it is important to understand the use of

these terms.

FEES A fee is set by a county ordinance that is approved by the Board of

Supervisors who also must approve any change in a fee. An example

of an election- related fee is any required filing fee.

CHARGES A charge is an amount computed by the Registrar to recoup the cost of

printing the Voter's Pamphlet. Candidates are charged a pro rata share

of the costs.

DEPOSIT A deposit is a pre- payment that equals the estimated actual cost of

printing the candidate's statement in the Voter's Pamphlet. After the

determination of actual cost, an additional charge or a refund is made.

ADVANCE An advance payment is the deposit that is made at the time a

Candidate’s

PAYMENT Statement is submitted to the Registrar.

2002- 2003 Butte County Grand Jury

CHARGES FOR CANDIDATE STATEMENTS

36

The Grand Jury interviewed the Registrar of Voters and the Assistant Registrar of Voters.

They clarified many of the issues.

The comprehensive Handbook totals over 100 pages. It includes information and

instructions for the candidate process, time lines, fee schedules and sample forms.

Candidates may obtain the Handbook on the Web or a printed bound copy from the

Registrar of Voters. The Handbook used for the General Election was prepared for the

Primary Election. For fiscal reasons, the Registrar decided not to create a new Handbook

since there were sufficient Handbooks in stock and the information was substantially

unchanged. The Handbooks were designated for November 5, 2002 General Election by

a sticker on the cover. The candidates interviewed were not aware that they received a

re- cycled Handbook. The only significant change was the amount of the advance

payment required for election jurisdictions of less than 20,001 registered voters.

Cost per page of the Voter Pamphlet is based on the printing costs and the labor provided

by the Registrar's office. The Registrar reduced costs by having the office staff do the

layout, graphics and composition work. Prior to each election, the Registrar requests bids

for the printing contract. There are few printers in California that can handle the size and

complexity of printing voter pamphlets. For example, in the General Election, there were

31 separate election jurisdictions each with a unique pamphlet. The problem is magnified

in the Primary Election since each political party has a separate pamphlet.

Once the cost per page is determined, then candidates are billed for their share of the

page. Each page is dedicated to one Elected Office and can contain one to four candidate

statements. The candidate's cost is greater when only two candidates choose to file

statements than when four choose to file statements. When more than four candidates file

statements, the cost is computed by dividing the cost of the total pages by the number of

candidates.

When the advance payments are made, an accurate cost cannot be determined because the

bidding process is not complete. In the Primary Election, candidates in election

jurisdictions comparable in size to PID, the actual cost was $ 660.30, and candidates were

billed an additional $ 441.65. Therefore, the Registrar felt justified in increasing the

deposit for the General Election. However, the bid for the 2002 General Election was

substantially less than the bid for the 2002 Primary Election.

The Registrar makes every effort to avoid candidates paying additional charges after the

election, because if candidates do not pay when billed, the Registrar’s office would incur

collection expenses.

2002- 2003 Butte County Grand Jury

CHARGES FOR CANDIDATE STATEMENTS

37

The Results of the 2002 Elections

Item Primary General

Total deposits received $ 15,400.00 $ 6,900.00

Total amount reimbursed $ 930.21 $ 245.94

Additional amount due county $ 4,233.78 $ 2,670.93

Candidates reimbursed 3 1

Candidates billed for additional payment 14 10

Number sent to collections 1 0

The PID candidates were concerned that the Paradise Town Council candidates paid $ 300

for Candidate’s Statements for substantially the same size election jurisdiction.

Candidates for Paradise Town Council pay their monies to the Town Clerk, not the

County Registrar. Paradise was billed the pro rata charges attributable to its candidates.

The governing body of the Town of Paradise determines what costs to pass on to the

Town's candidates.

Findings

1. The Candidate Handbook that was prepared for the Primary Election was reused

for the General Election.

2. The Candidate Handbook states the charge required for Candidate Statements of

Qualifications for an election jurisdiction of Registered Voters of less than 20,001

was $ 300.

3. The deposit for candidates for the General Election for Paradise Irrigation District

( PID) was $ 600 at the time the Candidate Statements were filed.

4. The actual charge for the PID candidates in the General Election was $ 354.06.

5. The increased estimate was based on the actual costs of the Voters Pamphlet for

the Primary Election. The potential for the lower costs in the General Election

was unknown at the time the deposit was due.

Recommendations

1. When changes are made to an existing publication, a correction ( ERRATA) sheet

should be enclosed and the corresponding Web pages updated.

2002- 2003 Butte County Grand Jury

CHARGES FOR CANDIDATE STATEMENTS

38

Responses Required ( Penal Code § 933 & 933.05)

Butte County Clerk/ Recorder- Registrar of Voters

2002- 2003 Butte County Grand Jury

COUNTY CLERK- RECORDER’S OFFICE

39

Reason for Visit/ Investigation

One of the responsibilities of the Grand Jury is to visit as many county offices as possible

during the Grand Jury’s term. Members of the Grand Jury scheduled a tour and follow-up

interview to learn more about the Clerk- Recorder’s Office.

Background

Butte County Clerk- Recorder’s Office functions as both the County Clerk and the County

Recorder. The County Clerk’s functions include filing a variety of public notices, such

as, fictitious business names, notary public names, oaths of office for county employees,

and environmental review documents. The County Clerk also serves as a Commissioner

of Civil Marriages and often conducts civil marriage ceremonies. The County Clerk’s

Office performs an average of 200 ceremonies annually. The County Recorder’s

functions include recording real property transactions, financing statements and maps,

and also the Recorder is responsible for registering all marriages, births, and deaths that

occur in Butte County.

The Clerk- Recorder’s Office serves an average of 100 telephone customers and 86

counter customers daily. There are two types of customers-- external and internal.

External customers include a variety of businesses, attorneys, genealogists, newspapers,

realtors, and the general public. Internal customers are those from other county

departments.

The Clerk- Recorder’s Office is solely supported by the fees charged for services; no

general fund monies are allocated to it.

Investigation

The Clerk- Recorder’s Office has a duty to protect the public’s property by keeping

records of property transactions, encumbrance claims of lien holders, maps, and other

official documents required by statute. This is done effectively by keeping accurate and

accessible indexes that allow a recorded or filed document to be located. The title of the

document, the names of the parties on the document, and the serial number of the

document are indexed.

The Clerk- Recorder’s Office has moved into the digital age of computer technology and

information storage. The information on the computers is backed up and saved regularly.

Documents are saved on microfilm as an additional back- up. All copies of this digital

information and microfilm are sent to a storage facility for safe keeping.

When a document is brought to the office for recording, it is examined for legibility and

recordability, then scanned, and indexed. Next, the image and information is reviewed

for quality and accuracy before the original is mailed back to the customer. Currently, the

2002- 2003 Butte County Grand Jury

COUNTY CLERK- RECORDER’S OFFICE

40

document is indexed the same day it is submitted for recording. The official record index

for Butte County from January 1, 1988 to the present is available on the Clerk- Recorder’s

website: http:// clerk- recorder. buttecounty. net/ election/ index. html.

The County Clerk- Recorder’s Office houses the following records:

Birth Indexes from 1859 Marriage Indexes from 1851

Death Indexes from 1859 Property records from 1850

Powers of Attorney Mining claim records from 1853

Abandoned roads from 1853 Water claims from 1851

Land patents from 1860 Road deeds

Maps from 1868 Mortgages

Fictitious Business Names from 1984 Registered process servers

Public Notaries

Although the Clerk- Recorder’s Office houses a variety of records that are accessible to

the public, recent legislation has made some vital statistics inaccessible to the public,

such as Birth, Marriage, and Death Indexes. Due to the recent concerns about increases

in identity theft, the information found in these indexes is now considered confidential

information. The fact that these indexes are no longer open to the general public makes

them nearly inaccessible for historical research. Citizens no longer are able to order

documents through the Internet. According to the Clerk- Recorder, such legislation not

only hinders researchers, scholars, and other individuals wanting to learn about the past,

but it also hinders parents trying to get their children’s birth- certificates.

Even with the legislative restrictions, the public can still access many of the records at the

Clerk- Recorder’s Office. Some records may require special clearance, but the staff is

friendly, informative, and available for assistance. The Clerk- Recorder’s Office has a

number of touch- screen computers and microfilm machines available for viewing records

stored electronically and on microfilm. There are also numerous volumes of books and a

variety of maps. Some of the records date back to the original mining claims in Butte

County. Members of the Grand Jury viewed a book containing mining claims dating

back to 1853, a map of Dayton filed in 1868, and John Bidwell’s signature on a

document regarding the sale of Chico Cemetery. These three examples are only a

fraction of the Butte County historical records for which the Clerk- Recorder’s Office is

responsible.

Realizing the importance of these historic documents, the Clerk- Recorder began two

major projects— book preservation and map preservation. The books and maps had been

treated with care, but use and age were causing them to become worn and cracked.

Pulling the maps out of the map drawers stressed the paper and caused wear. The Clerk-

Recorder decided to start hanging the maps— not only is this functional and less harmful

to the maps but saves space, and the maps are more easily accessed. The Clerk- Recorder

2002- 2003 Butte County Grand Jury

COUNTY CLERK- RECORDER’S OFFICE

41

will continue with this conversion to hanging map storage. Eventually all maps will be

scanned and saved to CD- ROM.

The map preservation project has successfully restored and preserved 800 maps, some

that date from the 1860s. One hundred historic books have been de- acidified and

restored to date. The project continues at a rate of about fifteen books a year. One newly

preserved book contains mining claims dating back to 1853. One of the oldest maps

currently hanging in the new filing cabinets depicts the City of Dayton and was recorded

in 1868.

These restorations are time consuming and expensive, but the project requires no general

fund money. The cost of approximately $ 1,000 a book is covered by the fees charged for

the Clerk- Recorder’s services. When a document is recorded, a portion of the recording

fee goes into a special trust fund that has been set up for the purpose of saving and

protecting the records kept by the Clerk- Recorder’s Office.

The Clerk- Recorder’s Office is a busy office that supplies a variety of services, and all

are vital to the citizens of Butte County. For a century and a half, the Clerk- Recorder’s

duties have remained the same: record an official document for a fee, give the original

back to the owner, and keep that record safe and secure for the document holder and

future generations. The difference is that in 1850 multiple copies were not saved on

microfilm, digitally, or in storage. The Clerk- Recorder is preserving and protecting

historical documents by refurbishing books and hanging maps, plus protecting Butte

County’s history by moving into the digital age.

Findings

1. The Clerk- Recorder’s Office is solely supported by the fees charged for services;

no general fund monies are allocated to it.

2. The Clerk- Recorder’s Office is in the business of recording documents and

protecting those records. Essentially, its duties have not changed over the years.

3. The Clerk- Recorder’s Office is one of the county offices that has moved into the

digital age of computer technology and information storage.

4. The Clerk- Recorder’s Office is preserving and protecting historical documents by

refurbishing books and hanging maps.

5. The trust fund for the map preservation and book preservation projects insures

that the projects continue.

6. Due to recent legislation, there is a concern that “ public records” will be less

available to the public.

2002- 2003 Butte County Grand Jury

COUNTY CLERK- RECORDER’S OFFICE

42

Recommendations

1. The Clerk- Recorder support legislation to amend the laws that restrict public

access to historical “ public records.”

Responses Required ( Penal Code § 933 & 933.05)

Butte County Clerk- Recorder

2002- 2003 Butte County Grand Jury

VOTING MACHINES

43

Reason For Visit/ Investigation

Due to recent promises by the federal government to provide funding to upgrade voting

methods and procedures, members of the Grand Jury visited the Registrar of Voters to

obtain information on any plans to upgrade the voting process in Butte County.

Background

Counties nationwide are being encouraged to update their voting systems to touch- screen

voting machines. The voting system used in Butte County prior to 1988 was similar to

the systems that caused problems in the 2000 Presidential Election. Butte County

adopted a scanning system in 1988 that requires a special type of pen or pencil to fill in

the correct bubble on a ballot that can be read by a scanning machine. The scanner can

process hundreds of ballots in minutes.

The scanning system is an improvement, but the system does not prevent voter error. A

major problem occurs when a voter chooses more than the designated number of

candidates— if the ballot states " vote for no more than three," then the ballot is void if

four selections are made. The voter is asked to make a selection and then to fill in the

corresponding bubble. The scanning machine cannot read the ballot if the voter fills in

the entire box surrounding the bubble, uses an X, uses some other type of check mark, or

makes stray marks on the ballot.

Preparing ballot cards for the scanning machine is labor intensive. Before the cards can

be fed into the scanner, volunteers must correctly align the cards and then review the

cards in order to pull any cards that cannot be correctly read by the scanner. Cards that

cannot be scanned are reviewed the next day by the Election Office staff and counted

manually. After the polls closed on the 2002 General Election night, it took over twenty

volunteers until 1: 00 AM to get all the ballots cards ready for the scanner.

Investigation

After the 2000 Presidential Election, Congress promised to make funds available to

insure that states upgrade voting methods and procedures. In October 2002 " Help

America Vote Act of 2002" ( Act) was signed into law by the President. The Act provides

$ 3.86 billion in funding nationally to states and counties to be paid over three years. The

real cost to upgrade the nation's voting process is estimated to be $ 8 to $ 12 billion.

The funds will be allocated among the states. California is projected to receive a total of

$ 356,817,975. The state will determine the distribution of funds to the counties. Not all

of the funds will be distributed to the counties; the state will keep what it determines is

necessary for statewide programs. The state must use the funds for the designated

2002- 2003 Butte County Grand Jury

VOTING MACHINES

44

purpose and follow the guidelines and parameters required in the Act. In addition, the

state is not allowed to use Act funds for routine election expenses.

Title I, Section 101 of the Act designates funding of $ 325 million nationally for the

following:

• Improving or purchasing voting systems

• Improving elections for federal office

• Developing a state plan for election improvements

• Improving accessibility of polling places

• Providing language assistance

• Increasing voter participation

• Training election officials, poll workers, etc.

• Improving voter fraud investigation

It is estimated that Butte County's share of the funds will be approximately $ 1.2 million.

This will be approximately half of the funds necessary to purchase touch- screen voting

machines. To receive Act funds from the state, a county must submit a valid contract

with an approved vendor and the county's plan for securing the additional funding. The

contract will contain a contingency clause that will void the contract if funding is not

received from the state. Butte County is still trying to determine how they can obtain the

additional funding.

Title I, Section 102 of the Act specifically designates an additional $ 325 million for the

replacement of punch card or lever voting machines with touch- screen voting machines.

The Registrar of Voters has briefed the Board of Supervisors on Butte County's funding

status. In regards to receiving any Sec. 102 funds, the briefing paper states:

Butte County does not qualify for any funding under Sec. 102 since the County

made the move from punch card systems in 1988 because of the " chad" issue. In

other words, the County is being penalized for recognizing the problem and doing

the right thing.

Butte County successfully tested touch- screen voting machines in a Chico Municipal

election. A touch- screen system not only eliminates the labor- intensive work by

volunteers on election night, but it also eliminates voided ballots due to voter error. The

touch- screen machine does not allow voters to continue if they vote for extra candidates,

vote yes and no for a Proposition, and, of course, there are no stray marks on the ballots.

Voters can even change their choice before submitting the ballot. Ballots are submitted

electronically; therefore, at the close of the polls, the Registrar will have instant totals

from the machines.

2002- 2003 Butte County Grand Jury

VOTING MACHINES

45

The Act has an additional mandatory requirement to improve accessibility for disabled

voters. The touch- screen technology allows the disabled voter the option of using

headphones. With the current system, disabled voters have the ballot read to them, which

raises concerns about secret- ballot infringement. The adoption of touch- screen voting

machines will enable Butte County to meet the disabled accessibility mandates.

Findings

1. Butte County updated from a punch card voting system to a scanning system in

1988.

2. The current system is labor intensive and subject to human error.

3. Butte County will receive federal funds, authorized in the " Help America Vote

Act of 2002," to replace the existing system with a touch- screen system. The

Federal funding will cover only fifty percent of the actual costs.

4. The challenge for Butte County will be to obtain the necessary funding.

Recommendations

1. Butte County proactively search for funding to purchase touch- screen voting

machines to update and improve the voting process.

Responses Required ( Penal Code § 933 & 933.05)

Butte County Board of Supervisors

Butte County Clerk/ Recorder- Registrar of Voters.

2002- 2003 Butte County Grand Jury

BUTTE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT UPPER RIDGE FIRE PROTECTION

46

Reason For Visit/ Investigation

The 2000- 2001 Grand Jury received a letter from an Upper Ridge resident concerned

with fire protection in the area. The 2001- 2002 Grand Jury received a follow- up

complaint from the same individual. The 2002- 2003 Grand Jury received another letter

from the same individual who was still concerned about fire safety in his area. The

Grand Jury determined that the issue needed additional clarification and therefore chose

to further investigate.

Background

Fire hydrant maintenance and testing were a central theme of the two prior Grand Jury

investigations. The first report stated, “ Fire hydrant testing is done annually.” The

second report stated that Del Oro Water Company ( DOWC) and the Butte County Fire

Department ( BCFD) representatives “ tested and flowed the hydrants in question and

found them all to be operating properly.”

Members of the Grand Jury interviewed the Upper Ridge resident to clarify the issues and

concerns regarding fire protection. The resident related that the condition of fire hydrants

in his neighborhood had improved since his first complaint. Hydrants near his residence

had been painted, flushed, and had insulation materials replaced as needed. However, his

concern was not just for the fire hydrants near his residence but also for the entire area of

the Upper Ridge. Following the interview, members of the Grand Jury concluded that

three questions remain to be answered:

1. Who is responsible for the inspection, testing, and maintenance of the fire

hydrants within the DOWC area?

2. What criteria are used for inspection, testing, and maintenance?

3. How are inspection, testing, and maintenance verified?

Answering these questions will aid in the public’s understanding of fire protection

procedures.

Investigation

The DOWC is a private water company and is not under County jurisdiction, but the

Upper Ridge area it serves is under BCFD’s jurisdiction. However, fire hydrant

maintenance in areas owned by a private water company comes under regulation of the

Public Utilities Commission ( PUC). The PUC regulation that covers fire hydrant service

agreements is General Order 103 ( page 28, VIII, 4) which states in part:

2002- 2003 Butte County Grand Jury

BUTTE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT UPPER RIDGE FIRE PROTECTION

47

The Commission encourages all water utilities to provide fire hydrant

service by agreement between the utility and the fire protection agency

responsible for the use of the hydrants.... In the absence of any written

agreement between the utility and the fire protection agency, the utility

will be responsible for maintaining fire hydrant service to the extent of its

means.

In that this regulation has two options, the PUC’s Water Advisory Branch recommends

that the local fire protection agency either maintain the hydrants themselves or sign a

written agreement with the utility specifying what will be done and when.

Members of the Grand Jury met with the Butte County Fire Chief and questioned whether

there was any written agreement between BCFD and DOWC regarding the maintenance

of the fire hydrants. Information in a subsequent letter from the BCFD Chief advised the

members of the Grand Jury that there is no written maintenance agreement between

DOWC and BCFD. In the absence of a written agreement, the Grand Jury members

inquired as to the maintenance procedure. It became evident that “ who” did the hydrant

inspection, testing, and maintenance varied.

After interviewing the BCFD Chief and reading the literature he provided, members of

the Grand Jury found that the terms inspection and testing were used interchangeably.

For this report, clarification of the activities associated with inspection and maintenance

are presented in the listings below from The California Division of Forestry Fire/ Butte

County Fire Operations Manual ( 1/ 96):

Fire Hydrant Inspection and Maintenance Activities

Annual Inspection

1. Exercise valves with caps on.

2. Remove all hydrant caps.

3. Lubricate female cap threads and male hydrant heads with graphite. ( Graphite will

be available through the Service Center).

4. Replace hydrant caps using hydrant wrench to tighten just enough so that caps

cannot be removed by hand.

5. Record and report any significant leaks.

6. Notify the water purveyor.

7. Check hydrant access and visibility. Remove weeds as necessary. If privately

owned, ornamental vegetation causes a problem, ask the owner for permission to

do trimming or removal. If the owner is not cooperative, relay the information to

the Battalion Chief.

2002- 2003 Butte County Grand Jury

BUTTE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT UPPER RIDGE FIRE PROTECTION

48

Biannual Inspection

1. Perform all annual inspection tasks.

2. Notify the water purveyor prior to flowing water.

3. In addition, after the caps are off, open each valve slowly and fully check it’s ( sic)

operation. Flow water until the water runs clear of debris and silt….

4. While water is flowing, lubricate stem( s) with graphite.

5. After water flow is checked, close the valve SLOWLY. If the valve is closed

rapidly, a water hammer may result which could cause serious damage.

6. After valves are closed, observe for a short time. Record leaks or valve problems

and notify the water purveyor.

7. Complaints about stirring up silt in the mains should be handled diplomatically at

station level if possible.

Records

Maintain the Hydrant Inspection Records in the appropriate binder at the station.

It was documented in a letter from the BCFD Chief that annual flushing of fire hydrants

is a recommended practice per the National Fire Protection Association ( NFPA 25)

Standard for the Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance of Water- Based Fire Protection

Systems ( 2002) that states, “ Hydrants shall be tested annually to insure p