SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF BUTTE

One Court Street

Oroville, CA 95965- 3303

( 530) 538- 7611

June 28, 2002

2001- 2002

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 pub lic 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.

2001- 2002 Butte County Grand Jury Final Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Foreperson's Letter to the Presiding Judge ........................................................................... i

Grand Jury Members............................................................................................................ ii

Final Resolution.................................................................................................................. iii

Grand Jury Statement.......................................................................................................... iv

Acknowledgements.............................................................................................................. v

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

Final Reports

Audit/ Finance & Administration

Butte County Auditor- Controller .................................................................................... 1

Butte County Auditor- Controller– Travel Reimbursement Policy .................................. 3

Accounting Procedures for Grants .................................................................................. 6

Investigators For Public Defenders ................................................................................. 9

City Government

Town of Paradise

Downtown Revitalization Master Plan.................................................................... 13

Projected Retir ement Related Attrition of Town Administrators............................ 20

Emergency Notification System.............................................................................. 23

County Offices

Butte County Board of Supervisors............................................................................... 26

Butte County Information Systems and Communications Services.............................. 33

County Veterans Service Office .................................................................................... 36

Districts & Commissions

Rock Creek/ Keefer Slough Flood Control Project ........................................................ 39

Butte County Fire Department– Upper Ridge Fire Protection....................................... 46

Butte County Local Agency Formation Commission................................................... 48

Emergency Services & Law Enforcement

Butte County Jail and Sheriff's Evidence Facility......................................................... 51

Butte County Jail– Mentally Ill Inmates ........................................................................ 54

Butte County Juvenile Hall ........................................................................................... 56

General Services Department

Butte County Emergency Services Office............................................................... 58

2001- 2002 Butte County Grand Jury Final Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS

( Continued)

Health, Education & Social Services

Butte County Office of Education

North County Community School and

South County Community School........................................................................... 61

Butte- Glenn Community College District

Sexual Harassment Prevention................................................................................ 65

Proposed Chico Center ............................................................................................ 72

Foster Family Agencies– Foster Care ........................................................................... 79

Butte County Department of Behavioral Health

Patients Rights......................................................................................................... 88

Public Works

Department of Development Services– Building Division

County Code Enforcement ...................................................................................... 93

Unclassified Zoning of Cherokee ............................................................................ 96

Department of Development Services

Termination of a County Employee ........................................................................ 97

Department of Public Works

Fleet Maintenance ................................................................................................... 98

Appendices

Appendix I

Summary of Requested Respondents to the

2001- 2002 Grand Jury Final Report ............................................................................ 101

Appendix II

Orientation and Training ............................................................................................. 105

Appendix III

Offices, Departments, Boards, Commissions and Officials

Visited, Observed, Reviewed, Investigated,

Interviewed or Consulted by the Grand Jury............................................................... 107

Appendix IV

Communicating With the Grand Jury.......................................................................... 111

Appendix V

Comments to Responses of the

2000- 2001 Grand Jury Final Report ............................................................................ 112

2001- 2002 Butte County Grand Jury Final Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS

( Continued)

Responses to the 2000- 2001 Butte County

Grand Jury Final Report

Index .......................................................................................................................... 115

RESPONSES TO THE 2000- 2001 GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT MAY BE

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

COPIES OF THE 2001- 2002 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT

ON PERMANENT FILE IN THE BUTTE COUNTY LIBRARIES

i

BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY

P. O. Box 110

Oroville, CA 95965

June 28, 2002

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 2001- 2002 Butte County Grand Jury it is my privilege to present our

Final Report to you and to the people of Butte County. This report reflects the work of a

dedicated group of citizens.

This year’s Grand Jury was comprised of 19 talented and hard working individuals from

all walks of life. They spent many hours in research, interviews, visitations and

investigations. After gathering all the information necessary they worked together to

write, rewrite, update and edit the 26 individual reports that comprise the Final Report. I

congratulate them for what they have achieved and want to express my deepest

appreciation for the time and extra effort they put forth to make this year a very

productive and rewarding time.

The citizens of Butte County experienced some unique political maneuvers and problems

this past year. As a result, the print media often speculated as to what the Grand Jury was

investigating and, at times, even suggested what the Grand Jury should be investigating.

At times the Grand Jury felt they were being used by certain factions to promote their

own political agenda. This became quite a concern for the jurors as the confidentiality of

our work was at stake. The Grand Jury maintained integrity in their activities, overcame

the temptation to respond to the media and stood tall in their commitment to avoid public

comment and allow the written Final Report to speak for itself.

It has been my honor serving as Foreperson of the 2001- 2002 Butte County Grand Jury

and to represent our community in this capacity.

Sincerely,

JoAnn Reiswig Loeffler

Foreperson

2001- 2002 Butte County Grand Jury

ii

2001- 2002

GRAND JURY MEMBERS

JoAnn Reiswig Loeffler, Foreperson Chico

Cynthia Hightower, Foreperson Pro Tem Chico

Dorothy Anrig, Recording Secretary Chico

Bette Garver, Corresponding Secretary Oroville

Raymond Rice, Sergeant- at- Arms Paradise

Kathryn Adams Gridley

Naomi Bidleman Oroville

Mary Buckingham/ Pinkerton Oroville

Stephanie Eveatt Oroville

Richard German Durham

Joanne Gerson Chico

Dallas Gilbertson Chico

Chrisanne Gniechwitz Oroville

Howard Grimes Oroville

Terry Hanna Berry Creek

Darlene Hollmann Chico

Patricia Jones Chico

Barbara Mahler Chico

David Wilkinson Chico

" The people's government made for the people, made by the people, and

answerable to the people." Daniel Webster

iii

2001 - 2002

BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY

FINAL REPORT

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 recommenda-tions

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 2001- 2002 Butte County Grand

Jury in Oroville on the 12th day of June 2002.

" We think in America that it is necessary to introduce the people into every department of

government as far as they are capable of exercising it, and that this is the only way to

insure a long- continued and honest administration of its powers."

Thomas Jefferson to Abbe Arnoux, 1789

2001- 2002 Butte County Grand Jury Final Report

iv

GRAND JURY STATEMENT

The 2001- 2002 Butte County Grand Jury, impaneled on July 6, 2001, 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 2001- 2002 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 inspect 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.

" Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do

our duty as we understand it." Lincoln's Cooper Institute Address, February 27, 1860

2001- 2002 Butte County Grand Jury Final Report

v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The 2001- 2002 Butte County Grand Jury sincerely appreciates, acknowledges and thanks

the following people and organizations for their support, guidance, and professional

assistance and orientatio n, 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 Orrin Banta, Administrative Services

Assistant;

·   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 Candace Grubbs and the superb staff of the County Recorder's

office make Grand Jury Final Reports available on their web site:

http:// clerk- recorder. buttecounty. net

2001- 2002 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 Norma n 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

2001- 2002 Butte County Grand Jury Final Report

vii

and investigate the activities of county government, and in 1983 the State added munici-palities

and districts to the purview of grand juries. Certain larger jurisdictions - such

as the Cities/ 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 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 the ir 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 min-utes

of its meetings may not be inspected by anyone, nor can its records be subpoenaed.

2001- 2002 Butte County Grand Jury Final Report

vii

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

the Grand Jury shall inquire into the conditions and management of the public prisons,

jails, and juvenile detention facilities within the County.

The members of the Grand Jury are collectively granted special powers and privileges to

aid them in carrying out their duties. The Grand Jury in its official capacity is permitted,

with limited exceptions, access to and the right to inspect government facilities, and to

review official books and records to which other citizens are denied access. The Grand

Jury may issue subpoenas as necessary. The Grand Jury findings and recommendations

are to be unbiased and impartial.

How is the jury selected?

Each fiscal year the Butte County Superior Court summons a large number of qualified

citizens who have resided in the County for over a year and are at least 18 years of age.

The court makes it clear that service on the Grand Jury is voluntary. Potential jurors

should be reasonably intelligent, of good character, and must possess a working

command of the English language. From the pool of willing candidates, the Court makes

a good faith effort to select qualified men and women who are diverse in age and

socioeconomic, ethnic and educational backgrounds, and who represent the varied

geographic areas of the County.

Superior Court judges and staff interview the body of qualified and willing candidates

and choose 30 potential jurors. Nineteen members make up a full jury. At the discretion

of the Presiding Judge, as many as 10 members from the previous year's jury may

" holdover" or serve a second term. In order to constitute the full panel of 19, names are

drawn at random, and new jurors are added to the existing holdovers. Jurors serve for a

term of twelve months beginning in July. Over the course of the year and as necessary,

alternates are called in sequential order from the pool of remaining potential jurors.

How does it work?

The Presiding Judge appoints a foreperson to preside at meetings. The Grand Jury

organizes itself into officers and committees and determines which of the various

departments and functions of county, city and joint powers government it will review. It

also reviews compliance with the recommendations of previous Butte County Grand

Juries.

Inquiries on the part of the jury, letters and complaints from citizens, and dictates of the

State Penal Code collectively determine the jury's work. The Grand Jury aims to identify

policies in government that may need improvement. All actions of the jury - including

any communication from the public and all deliberations and votes - are completely con-fidential.

The jury does publish a report of its significant findings and recommendations.

2001- 2002 Butte County Grand Jury Final Report

ix

The jury's final report, however, typically reflects only a small part of the jury's actual

endeavors over the course of its term. State law requires specific and detailed re-sponses

from departments upon which the jury renders findings and recommendations in

its reports. Elected officials have 60 days to respond; public agencies have 90 days.

The work of a Grand Jury is demanding. Most members can expect to invest

approximately 500 hours of time over the course of their term, but the work can be both

gratifying and personally rewarding. Service on a jury leads one to a much improved

understanding of the organization and business of local government, and to the personal

satisfaction of having contributed to its improvement. The Grand Jury experience

provides a unique and valuable opportunity for community service.

2001- 2002 Butte County Grand Jury

BUTTE COUNTY AUDITOR- CONTROLLER

1

Reason For Visit/ Investigation

The 2001- 2002 Grand Jury conducted the mandated review of the Independent Auditor’s

Report for the year ended June 30, 2001, and the Butte County Final Budget for the fiscal

year 2001- 2002.

Background

The audit was conducted for Butte County by Bartig, Basler & Ray, CPAs, Inc. of

Roseville, California. The report includes a general- purpose financial statement of

County assets, liabilities, equity, changes in fund balances, revenues, other credits and

expenditures. In addition, a Single Audit Report was prepared on expenditures of Federal

awards.

Each year reference copies of the Butte County Final Budget are made available as public

record documents at the Butte County libraries. The Butte County Audit Report may be

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

Investigation

Butte County usually enters into a three- year contract for outside auditing services. The

County prefe rs to contract with a CPA firm that can send a relatively large team to

conduct the audit over several weeks. This is the second year of Bartig, Basler & Ray,

CPAs, Inc.’ s three- year contract.

According to the contract the final report is due by December 31st. This year the draft

received was dated January 18, 2002. The final report was not received until mid-

February 2002. By contrast, the same audit firm submitted the report for the year ended

June 30, 2000, in early December 2000.

The Single Audit Report for the year ended June 30, 2000, determined that the

requirement for an annual face- to- face reassessment of all recipients’ eligibility for

CalWORKS and Food Stamps was not being met. The report’s recommendation was that

eligibility must be updated at least once every year. At the time the audit for the year

ended June 30, 2001, the corrective action agreed upon by the Department of

Employment and Social Services had not been implemented. In early March 2002 the

Auditor- Controller requested that the Employment and Social Services Director respond

in writing regarding the status of the Corrective Action Plan. The Director responded on

April 30, 2002. The recommendations are being implemented.

Many California counties have an audit committee cons isting of 3 to 5 members that

includes the Auditor- Controller, the Chief Administrative Officer representing the Board

2001- 2002 Butte County Grand Jury

BUTTE COUNTY AUDITOR- CONTROLLER

2

of Supervisors and 1 to 3 others as deemed appropriate. The purpose of an audit

committee includes being the liaison between the County and the independent audit firm,

making any necessary follow- ups, and being instrumental in selecting and changing the

independent audit firm.

Butte County does not have an audit committee. The Auditor- Controller functions as the

“ Audit Committee". Discussions with the Chief Administrative Officer and his staff

indicated that they had little involvement with the audit process. They referred any

questions concerning the audit process to the Auditor- Controller.

Findings

1. The general- purpose audit and the single audit for the year ended June 30, 2001,

conducted by Bartig, Basler & Ray, CPAs, Inc. was not completed timely.

2. Recommendations made in the audit for the year ended June 30, 2000, were not

implemented by the time of the audit for the year ended June 30, 2001.

3. Face- to- face reassessments of individuals in the CalWORKS and Food Stamp

programs are not being made annually.

4. The Employment and Social Services Director has not completed implementing

the corrective action that will bring Butte County into full compliance.

5. Butte County does not have an audit committee. A standard practice is not to

have one individual with sole responsibility for the audit process.

Recommendations

1. The Auditor- Controller insist on follow through of all audit finding responses to

bring Butte County into full compliance.

2. The Board of Supervisors establish an Audit Committee to include the County

Auditor- Controller, the Chief Administrative Officer and 3 other individuals.

Responses Required ( Penal Code § 933 & 933.05)

Butte County Board of Supervisors

Butte County Chief Administrative Officer

Butte County Auditor- Controller

Butte County Department of Employment and Social Services Director

2001- 2002 Butte County Grand Jury

BUTTE COUNTY AUDITOR- CONTROLLER

TRAVEL REIMBURSEMENT POLICY

3

Reason for Visit/ Investigation

The Grand Jury chose to check the quality of Butte County internal controls. We decided

to investigate how travel reimbursements are processed, approved and paid.

Background

Butte County reimburses employees and department heads for travel expenses incurred

while on authorized County business. The policies, rules and procedures are set out in

written personnel rules and Memoranda of Understanding ( MOUs) with the unions.

Investigation

Members of the Grand Jury interviewed the Auditor- Controller regarding the

reimbursement procedures. He informed the Grand Jury that Butte County has a standard

travel voucher format. Mileage expenses are reimbursed at a standard mileage rate.

Employees are reimbursed for the actual costs of meals and lodging. The claims must be

backed up with receipts. An employee is not reimbursed for the purchase of any

alcoholic beverages. All expenses must be reasonable. It was pointed out that a lobster

dinner would not be considered reasonable. The only exception to the “ actual expenses”

rule is that some MOUs require per diem in some situations.

Employees submit a request for travel reimbursement through their department. They

sign a statement ". . . under penalty of perjury that the services . . . have been performed

. . . and that this claim is true and correct as stated”. Before it is submitted to the Auditor-

Controller, the department head or his authorized agent signs a statement certifying that

“. . . to the best of my knowledge, the services . . . have been performed . . . and there is a

Budget Appropriation”. The Auditor- Controller’s staff checks the claim in minute detail

for appropriate receipts and verifies the math.

The Grand Jury discovered that department heads, appointed and elected, approve their

own travel vouchers. Although their reimbursement requests must meet the same minute

scrutiny as other employees, in case of a problem the Auditor- Controller will personally

discuss it with the department head. The Grand Jury asked to see a sample of department

head travel vouchers. The Grand Jury reviewed the reimbursement and the backup

documentation of 4 department heads, 2 elected and 2 appointed, for the period July 2001

through December 2001. It was interesting to note that one of the appointed department

heads wrote his signature differently when he signed as the claimant and when he

approved the voucher. One of the elected department heads often had a member of his

staff sign as the “ authorized agent”.

2001- 2002 Butte County Grand Jury

BUTTE COUNTY AUDITOR- CONTROLLER

TRAVEL REIMBURSEMENT POLICY

4

For the period reviewed some appointed department heads received a $ 520 per month

auto allowance for mileage within Butte County. The total monthly payments are

included as compensation on their W- 2. It is the employee’s responsibility to keep the

required records for claiming the expenses as an itemized deduction when filing State and

Federal tax returns. An appointed department head received the monthly allowance only

if it was part of his negotiated contract. As of January 2002, the Board of Supervisors

approved the monthly auto allowance for all department heads, both appointed and

elected, except for those department heads who are provided emergency vehicles.

On the selected travel reimbursements the Grand Jury determined that for the most part

the claims were complete and thorough. The Grand Jury noted that one appointed

department head did not always have the required receipts for meals claimed and was

allowed a reasonable estimate. This same department head was one who received the

monthly auto allowance. When traveling out of the County he computed his mileage

from his office to the conference. The department head erroneously claimed, and was

paid, mileage within Butte County.

An elected department head used the travel voucher system for reimbursement when

small equipment was purchased for the office, thus circumventing the County purchasing

procedures. It was unclear whether this was an emergency, and the sample was too small

to determine if this was done with any regularity. The purchase was charged to the

correct budget code. In the future, reimbursing individuals for non- travel exp enses will

not be a problem as Butte County has become a participant in Cal Card, a credit card

program. Upon request, a department head can receive a credit card to use for County

purchases. Controls can be put in place for each card to set a dollar limitation and

parameters for restricted purchases. The cards can also be used for authorized travel.

Findings

1. Butte County has a set of general travel reimbursement polices and procedures,

which is augmented by Memorandum of Understanding with unions.

2. Travel reimbursement requests are reviewed and approved by the employee’s

department head before being submitted to the County Auditor- Controller.

3. The County Auditor- Controller’s staff thoroughly checks the submitted travel

requests for the required receip ts and to verify the math. The process is labor

intensive for all concerned.

4. Department heads approve their own travel reimbursement requests. They attest

to the accuracy of the claim and that there is a Budget Appropriation.

2001- 2002 Butte County Grand Jury

BUTTE COUNTY AUDITOR- CONTROLLER

TRAVEL REIMBURSEMENT POLICY

5

5. Butte County is now partic ipating in the Cal Card program. It may choose to

issue credit cards to employees who frequently travel on County business.

Recommendations

1. Butte County explore the use of a per diem rate for meals by all employees. This

would reduce employee time in preparing travel vouchers and the time for

reviewing travel vouchers by the County Auditor- Controller’s staff.

Responses Required ( Penal Code § 933 & 933.05)

Butte County Chief Administrative Officer

Butte County Auditor- Controller

2001- 2002 Butte County Grand Jury

ACCOUNTING PROCEDURES FOR GRANTS

6

Reason For Visit/ Investigation

While interviewing various Butte County department and division heads, the Grand Jury

heard concerns about what happens to Grant money after it was received by the County.

The department heads felt that whether or not they received the benefits was arbitrary.

Background

Butte County derives significant funds from State, Federal and private Grants.

Department heads and division heads are encouraged to actively pursue funding from

available Grants. When a department submits its annual budget, it not only includes the

expected expenditures, it includes an estimate of funds it expects to receive from other

sources, resulting in “ Net Cost to the County”. Other sources can include fees, charges,

reimbursements and funds from Grants.

Investigation

The Grand Jury began by interviewing department and division heads. Those

interviewed informed us that they were actively applying for Grant funds that would

benefit their departments and the County. They all had projects or equipment needs that

could use additional funds. The departments felt they were diligent in doing the follow-up

work required of the Grantee. However, when the funds came in, some departments

felt they did not receive the expected benefits.

Grants are submitted for approval to the Board of Supervisors ( Board). The Grand Jury

interviewed staff members of the Chief Administrative Office ( CAO). We were

informed that:

·   Grant requests go through the CAO before going to the Board.

·   The Grant may or may not have explicit language designating how the funds

should be spent.

·   The CAO requires that a Grant include at least an additional 5% for cost of

administrating the Grant.

·   The CAO does not aid departments in obtaining Grants or tell them which Grants

to apply for.

Department heads, and in some cases division heads, find available Grants and apply for

them. All departments are encouraged to apply for Grants to offset their budgets.

The County Auditor stated that his office disburses funds as instructed by the Board. The

Board may instruct that the funds go directly to a department fund pursuant to the Grant

language. At other times the funds are put into a “ Suspense Fund” until the Board makes

2001- 2002 Butte County Grand Jury

ACCOUNTING PROCEDURES FOR GRANTS

7

a designation. Without an explicit designation the funds go into the General Fund. It is

the responsibility of the department head to make a request to the Board in order to spend

funds. Like all other requests for Board action, the request goes through the agenda

process in the CAO.

For example, Butte County received funds from the Governor’s Office for Law

Enforcement Technology. The funds were placed in the Auditor’s Suspense Fund.

When the Sheriff’s office proposed to purchase an Emergency Notification System they

sent the proposal to the Board for approval. The Board approval instructed that funds be

transferred to the Sheriff’s budget.

The Grand Jury found that department heads interviewed had some confusion about

whether funds are a Grant or a reimbursement. The County can receive funds under

several different sets of facts. Examples are:

·   A Grant is obtained for a particular purpose. The money is received before the

funds are expended.

·   The Grant bases its payment on a reimbursement of the actual expenses made. A

percentage may be added for administration costs.

·   The Grant may be designed to match expenses. For example, for every two

dollars budgeted and/ or expended the County is reimbursed one dollar.

·   It is also a common practice for the State or Federal government to set up a “ block

Grant” or a “ Grant pool”. Every county or city government that meets the

requirements of the Grant can apply for the funds. The funds are disbursed

annually on a pro rata basis to the applicants. In this situation, the County does

not know in advance how much it will receive.

When funds are expended before the Grant is received the County Auditor, unless

otherwise instructed by the Board, applies the funds to the account where the expenditure

was made.

Findings

1. Only the Board of Supervisors can approve a Grant proposal and approve the

expenditure of funds.

2. If the Grant does not explicitly state how the funds are to be spent and the Board

of Supervisors does not give a specific authorization, the funds go into an

Auditor’s Suspense Fund or the General Fund.

3. It is the responsibility of each department head to receive authorization from the

Board of Supervisors to spend Grant funds.

2001- 2002 Butte County Grand Jury

ACCOUNTING PROCEDURES FOR GRANTS

8

4. Some department and division heads interviewed by the Grand Jury did not

appear to clearly understand the process. There was frustration in applying for the

money and apparently never seeing it.

5. The active search and application for Grants and reimbursements has benefited

Butte County.

Recommendations

1. The department and division heads continue to be encouraged to apply for Grants

and reimbursements of all kinds.

2. The Chief Administrative Officer and the County Auditor include in their initial

orientation of department heads, and in continuing training, the procedures and

process for obtaining the necessary Board of Supervisors’ approval of Grants and

the subsequent expenditure of the funds.

3. The County recognize or acknowledge department heads who bring to the County

significant outside Grant funds.

Responses Required ( Penal Code § 933 & 933.05)

Butte County Board of Supervisors

Butte County Chief Administrative Officer

2001- 2002 Butte County Grand Jury

INVESTIGATORS FOR PUBLIC DEFENDERS

9

Reason For Visit/ Investigation

The Grand Jury received a citizen complaint about contract investigators assigned to the

Public Defenders that questioned:

a. The misuse of the contingency fund. No oversight or accounting is provided.

b. Investigators are not being reimbursed for mileage and other necessary expenses.

c. No investigators have been hired for conflict of interest, death penalty and third

strike cases.

d. How contracts are given to individual investigators.

The citizen suggested that the County cont ract with one investigative firm, not with the

Public Defender’s Consortium.

Background

Butte County is required by law to provide legal services for indigent defendants. Since

1998 Butte County has contracted with a group of independent attorneys in private

practice, known as the Butte County Indigent Services Consortium ( Public Defenders

Consortium), to provide these services. Each contract attorney is required to maintain an

office, a staff, pay all expenses and have a current insurance policy for malpractice. One

of the Public Defenders is contracted as the Executive Director of the Butte County

Indigent Services Consortium. Two other Public Defenders are on the Executive Board.

Butte County Indigent Services Consortium contracts with licensed investigators to

provide investigative services for the Public Defenders. Investigators are funded

separately.

Investigation

The Grand Jury interviewed the County Auditor and the Executive Director of the

Consortium for the 2000- 2001 fiscal year. The contracts of Public Defenders and an

investigator were reviewed.

The contract with each Public Defender has the following provisions relating to

investigative services:

a. If investigation services are required the Executive Director will assign an

investigator.

b. The Executive Committee ( 3 public defender attorneys, including the Executive

Director) will set the guidelines.

2001- 2002 Butte County Grand Jury

INVESTIGATORS FOR PUBLIC DEFENDERS

10

c. Extraordinary expenses for capital and other cases are approved by a 3- member

committee, comprised of an individual from the County Administrative Office,

the County Counsel’s Office and the Butte County Bar Association.

The contract with the Executive Director of the Butte County Indigent Services

Consortium requires the following:

a. The Director is responsible for the management and supervision of the

investigative contracts, including the coordination and assignments of

investigators.

b. He will establish a separate bank account.

c. A monthly advance of $ 22,720 will be made to the Executive Director upon

submission of a claim. The claims may be larger, but cannot exceed $ 287,700

annually. ( These numbers are for the 2000- 2001 fiscal year.)

d. Bank statements and documentation in support of all investigator payments must

be retained and are subject to review by the County.

e. Copy of monthly bank statements shall be forwarded each month to the County

Auditor’s Office.

f. Advances not expended for investigative services shall remain the property of the

Consortium.

g. The Executive Director, in consultation with the Executive Committee and Butte

County, will develop mutually satisfactory reporting requirements for

investigative service providers.

The budget in the annual contracts includes fees for 10 investigators, plus a $ 15,000

contingency fee for other expenses such as extraordinary travel. At present there are 10

investigators. Eight are assigned to the Oroville Superior Court Public Defenders. The

Chico branch misdemeanor Public Defenders and the Juvenile Court Public Defenders

share 2 other investigators. Each investigator’s contract includes the following

provisions:

a. The investigator is responsible for all expenses related to the investigation and

must obtain Errors and Omissions insurance.

b. The investigator is responsible for the cost of travel within 75 miles from Butte

County Superior Court.

c. For extraordinary travel, which is defined as travel beyond 75 miles from Butte

County Superior Court, and for overnight meals and lodging, the investigator

must get advanced written authorization from the Director by submitting a written

budget. The investigator must submit receipts before he can be reimbursed.

d. The investigator may represent additional clients as long as the work does not

conflict with his contract with the Consortium.

In discussions with the County Auditor and the Executive Director it was determined that

the Executive Director submit claims monthly for an amount equal to the monthly

2001- 2002 Butte County Grand Jury

INVESTIGATORS FOR PUBLIC DEFENDERS

11

payments to the investigators, plus any other reimbursements including extraordinary

travel. The backup receipts accompany the request for the other charges. The Executive

Director also submits the monthly bank statements, which are reviewed by the County

Auditor. Although the agreement gives the impression that the Consortium’s bank

account is accumulating funds, this in fact does not happen. The County only pays the

fund for actual authorized expenses.

The Grand Jury asked why the Consortium hired several independent investigators rather

than one large firm. The response was that hiring one firm would lead to conflict of

interest issues. In cases where there are multi- defendants represented by separate public

defenders, it is important that an investigator not investigate for both sides of an issue.

Findings

1. Oversight of the contingency fund and procedures to be followed are stated in

contracts with the Public Defenders. Before contracts are accepted they must be

approved by County Counsel, the County Administrator and the County Auditor.

The County Auditor oversees the disbursement of funds to the Consortium bank

account and reviews bank statements.

2. Investigators are independent contractors who are responsible for their own

expenses in providing services. Extraordinary travel is provided for in their

contracts.

3. Reimbursement for extraordinary travel must be approved prior to the travel. The

amount reimbursed must be reasonable and supported by receipts.

4. To avoid conflict of interest issues each Superior Court Public Defender is

assigned a separate investigator. The only exception is that the Juvenile Court

Public Defenders use the Chico branch court investigators when an investigation

is necessary.

5. Hiring one firm would not be practical. Assuming a firm is found that could

provide 10 investigators, there is still the problem of providing the confidentiality

needed to avoid any conflict of interest or any appearance of conflict of interest.

Recommendations

None

Responses Required ( Penal Code § 933 & 933.05)

None required.

2001- 2002 Butte County Grand Jury

12

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

2001- 2002 Butte County Grand Jury

TOWN OF PARADISE

DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION MASTER PLAN

13

Reason for Visit/ Investigation

Each year the Grand Jury selects one of Butte County’s incorporated municipalities for

review ( Biggs, Chico, Gridley, Oroville, Paradise). Members of the Grand Jury visited

the Town of Paradise and took an in- depth look at its plans for growth and development.

Background

At the time of the California Gold Rush there was a saloon on a ridge east of Chico called

“ Pair- O- Dice”. After the Gold Rush people remained to farm and establish apple

orchards in the ridge area that later became known as Paradise. Since then people have

continued to move to the Paradise area to vacation, raise families and retire. Several

unincorporated communities were developed such as Stirling City, Magalia and Paradise.

However, it was not until 1979 that the community on the lower ridge was incorporated

as the Town of Paradise.

The Town of Paradise that incorporated in 1979 was already a thriving community with a

distinct character. From the beginning residents were determined not to be simply a

Chico “ with elevation”. They started by naming the new incorporated community the

Town of Paradise rather than the City of Paradise.

The area grew without any particular plan in mind in the years before incorporation.

Businesses that developed along the main roads became the business district by default.

Although the Town has a few supermarkets and a K- Mart, a significant portion of its

shopping dollars goes down to Chico. It was not until incorporation that the community

was able to develop a master plan.

The Town of Paradise has adopted the City Manager form of government. In California

the term “ city” and “ town” are interchangeable. The people of Paradise have chosen to

call themselves a “ Town”. The citizens elect directly a five- member Town Council. The

Town Council selects one of its members to be the Mayor. The day- to- day operations are

overseen by a Town Manager hired by the Town Council. The Town Treasurer, Town

Clerk, Town Attorney and the members of commissions are also selected by and answer

to the Town Council. The Police Department, Fire Department, Finance Department,

Public Works Department and the Community Development Department are responsible

to the Town Manager. The Town of Paradise currently has 7 commissions. The Town

prides itself on having commissions that reflect the diversity of the community. A

commission may include members who are high school students.

2001- 2002 Butte County Grand Jury

TOWN OF PARADISE

DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION MASTER PLAN

14

Investigation

In October 2001 members of the Grand Jury met with the Town Manager for a discussion

about the Town of Paradise operations, its goals and its concerns. The Town Manager

invited the Community Development/ Planning Director to the meeting. To continue the

discussion of the Town’s development the Grand Jury again met in late December 2001

with the Town Manager, Community Development/ Planning Director and the Public

Works Director. The Town of Paradise has developed a Downtown Revitalization

Master Plan.

For most of its history the Town of Paradise was an unincorporated community without a

general plan. What is now referred to as the “ downtown business district” grew more or

less at random along the Skyway, Clark Road and various connecting streets. Paradise,

like all California cities and towns, is dependent upon sales tax revenues. A major

problem for Paradise is that many of its residents work and shop in Chico. This results in

64% of the Town’s potential sales tax revenues being lost to surrounding communities.

Due to land- use problems and other factors Paradise cannot be fully competitive. Rather

than concentrating exclusively on keeping the revenue in Paradise, the Town is looking

for ways that spending can be brought into Paradise. The Town is developing antique

stores, local specialty restaurants and other business that would draw tourists and others

to Paradise to enjoy a unique “ day in the pines”.

In September 2000 the Paradise Town Council adopted the Town of Paradise

Revitalization Master Plan. The Town of Paradise has identified the revitalization of its

downtown as its primary goal for the community. The downtown has been suffering for

many years from a deteriorating economy and its general physical appearance. In the

introduction to the Master Plan, marginal retail businesses, vacant buildings,

underutilized commercial and residential properties, inadequate infrastructure and

physical blight were considered unacceptable.

Other goals the Plan would like to accomplish:

·   Establish a new Paradise Town Center at the current location of the Police

Department that will house the civic buildings within one area.

·   Encourage the merchants in the downtown to re- establish an active downtown

merchants association.

·   Develop parking, improve traffic control and circulation, and establish a

downtown public transportation hub to support businesses.

·   Develop a retail and professional services recruitment program for the downtown.

The area designated for the proposed downtown revitalization is north along the Skyway

from Pearson Road to Elliott Road and east to the Memorial Trail ( See Exhibit A).

2001- 2002 Butte County Grand Jury

TOWN OF PARADISE

DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION MASTER PLAN

15

To revitalize the Town’s historic character, the Town has obtained access to grant funds

that will encourage property owners to improve the downtown property. A downtown

plan is being developed where the facade of each building is to reflect the Town’s

historic past. Business owners may apply for grant funds to upgrade the facade of their

building to conform to the Town plan. The program will be voluntary, but performance

standards and maintenance commitments would be required from all participating

property owners.

The Memorial Trail is an abandoned railroad track bed that runs along the eastern edge of

the Revitalization District. The Town of Paradise is purchasing the right- of- way and is

developing a scenic bike path and walking trail. It has completed the purchase except for

less than a quarter of a mile near Pearson Road. The part of the trail north and south of

Elliott Road has been paved and benches installed. The Town is protecting the integrity

of the project through careful zoning of business property adjacent to the Trail.

Across the street from the current Town Police Station is the original railroad station.

Historically, before the railroad would build in an area it would send an agent to buy

land. The agents often would make the original purchase in their own name. Title did

not always get transferred to the railroad. In Paradise this has resulted in the unusual

situation where the railroad owns the buildings and the individual heirs of the railroad

agent own the land. The Town of Paradise would like to add this property to its

downtown revitalization. According to the Master Plan, Paradise could make the

property into a central community park and possibly use the building for the Gold Nugget

Museum’s establishment of a “ Living History Center”.

Due to the Town’s terrain Paradise did not consider a conventional sewer system

practicable. It is not on a municipal sewer system, but uses septic systems. The Town of

Paradise is the largest septic system community west of the Mississippi. Although the

use of septic systems has been satisfactory for residences and sma ll businesses, it has

presented a problem for heavy use businesses such as restaurants. Some restaurants must

pump their system daily. The Town is presently in the final stages of engineering and

planning installation of a clustered septic system. For example, a large septic system is

built that has 4 to 6 businesses feeding into the system. The result is a mini- sewer

system. While the Town will own and maintain the common facility, the participating

property owners will purchase the amount of capacity they currently need and will

require for the future.

Now that the Town of Paradise has completed the Downtown Revitalization Master Plan

the community is ready for the next step. It is expected that implementation of the Plan

will cost approximately $ 10 Million. In February 2002 the Paradise Town Council

approved the establishment of a Redevelopment Agency for Paradise ( Agency). The

Agency project area will be larger than the area designated for the Downtown

Revitalization.

2001- 2002 Butte County Grand Jury

TOWN OF PARADISE

DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION MASTER PLAN

16

The formation of a redevelopment agency does not increase property tax rates. The

agency receives funds known as “ tax increment”. As property is sold and as new

construction occurs in the redevelopment project area the assessed value of the property

goes up. This causes tax revenue to increase. These funds are used to pay the agency’s

expenses for improvement of the project area. The expected revenues can be used to

leverage the sale of tax increment bonds to finance the necessary improvements and

projects. The incurred debt is the obligation of the agency, not the town/ city. The next

step is to complete feasibility studies, the required environmental impact reports and a

redevelopment agency master plan.

Findings

1. The Town of Paradise adopted an effective Downtown Revitalization Master Plan

in September 2000.

2. Part of the Plan has been implemented and good progress is being made toward

implementing the entire Plan ( See Exhibit B).

3. To offset unrealized sales tax revenue the Town is encouraging the establishment

of sales tax producing businesses such as specialty shops and restaurants.

4. The Plan’s goals are to improve the aesthetics of the downtown along with the

traffic control, parking, lighting, etc.

5. The Town of Paradise is making use of its historic environment by the

development of the Memorial Trail and the proposed development of the train

station.

6. The Town of Paradise through its Town Manager is proactively pursuing grant

funding.

7. The Town Council is in the process of establishing a Paradise Redevelopment

Agency to provide the necessary funding for the revitalization projects.

Recommendations

1. The Town of Paradise actively continue with its plans to make the Town a

desirable and unique community for residents and visitors. Rather than compete

with Chico or other cities, it continue to develop reasons to come to Paradise as a

destination place and spend sales tax dollars.

2001- 2002 Butte County Grand Jury

TOWN OF PARADISE

DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION MASTER PLAN

17

2. The Town of Paradise continue to be proactive in exploring all possible funding

sources to finance its redevelopment plans.

Responses Required ( Penal Code § 933 & 933.05)

Town of Paradise Town Council

Town of Paradise Town Manager

PLEASE SEE EXHIBITS ON PAGES 18 & 19

2001- 2002 Butte County Grand Jury

TOWN OF PARADISE

PROJECTED RETIREMENT RELATED ATTRITION

OF TOWN ADMINISTRATORS

20

Reason for Visit/ Investigation

Each year the Grand Jury selects one of Butte County’s incorporated municipalities for

review ( Biggs, Gridley, Oroville, Chico, Paradise). During a visit to the Town of

Paradise it was brought to the attention of the Grand Jury that retirement related attrition

of administrative personnel is a near term problem.

Background

Paradise has been an active community in Butte County since the early history of the

County. It was not incorporated until 1979. At that time a choice was made to

incorporate as the Town of Paradise rather than as a city. Paradise adopted a Town

Manager system of government. The Town has 5 elected town council members, and

from their number the council elects a Mayor. The day- to- day operations of the Town

are handled by a Town Manager who is recruited and appointed by the Town Council.

The Town Manager oversees the following departments: Police, Fire, Finance, Public

Works and Community Development. The Town Manager also works closely with

several citizen commissions appointed by the Town Council.

Investigation

Members of the Grand Jury visited the Paradise Town Manager and the Community

Development/ Planning Director in October 2001. A discussion of upcoming challenges

to Paradise included a concern that Paradise will lose a large percentage of its

administrative personnel in the next several years due to normal retirement age related

attrition. At the present time, personnel who retire cannot return to the Town's

employment under normal circumstances. The concern is not only losing personnel but

also the loss of valuable administrative expertise and experience. This problem is not

unique to Paradise and will impact virtually all municipal governments in Butte County.

Paradise employees are members of the California Public Employees Retirement System

( CalPERS) operated by the State. Under the current rules the retirement system allows

only very limited situations where simultaneous receipt of a CalPERS pension while

working is allowed, as noted in PERS- Pub- 33. An employee who works for any

employer under the Ca1PERS system after retirement may experience a substantial

adverse impact on retirement benefits.

By contrast California State University ( CSU) faculty employees, who are also members

of CalPERS, have other options regarding working after retirement. Through what is

known as the Faculty Early Retirement Program ( FERP), CSU faculty may retire with

2001- 2002 Butte County Grand Jury

TOWN OF PARADISE

PROJECTED RETIREMENT RELATED ATTRITION

OF TOWN ADMINISTRATORS

21

full retirement benefits and work for the university system on a part- time basis after

retirement for a limited period. With this strategy the university may retain post-retirement

expertise and knowledge of CSU faculty, and administrators with faculty

retreat rights, without adverse impact on the retiree.

Findings

1. The Town of Paradise is facing an age related retirement attrition situation

whereby a large percentage of its administrators are approaching normal

retirement age, and their talents, expertise and experience will be lost.

2. Other municipal governments in Butte County are under CalPERS and may be

facing the same retirement related attrition challenge.

3. The CSU has a system presently in place, known as FERP, that partially alleviates

the retirement related attrition problem of lost expertise, talent and experience.

Recommendations

1. The Paradise Town Council and its administration secure the cooperation of other

Butte County municipalities to lobby, either directly or through appropriate

municipal professional associations, for CalPERS and the State to change their

rules concerning retirement to encourage post- retirement part- time employment of

current municipal administrators.

Responses Required ( Penal Code § 933 & 933.05)

Paradise Town Council

Paradise Town Manager

2001- 2002 Butte County Grand Jury

22

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

2001- 2002 Butte County Grand Jury

TOWN OF PARADISE

EMERGENCY NOTIFICATION SYSTEM

23

Reason For Visit/ Investigation

During a Grand Jury visit to the Town of Paradise, an emergency notification system,

generically known as “ Reverse 911”, was briefly discussed. This is a system where

police and/ or fire departments notify residents by telephone in the event of an emergency.

The Grand Jury was so impressed that it felt a visit to review the Paradise system would

be beneficial. Members of the Grand Jury also met with several Butte County officials

and discussed their plans to install a similar system County wide.

Background

In the summer of 2000 when it appeared the Concow fire was going to sweep over the

ridge into Paradise, it took over 7 hours to notify 1,200 Paradise residents to prepare to

evacuate. By contrast, during the Poe fire in the summer of 2001, it took an hour and a

half to notify the same people. In 2000 the Police Chief had to use all available off- duty

police and fire personnel in addition to personnel donated by the City of Chico and

investigators from the District Attorney’s office. In 2001 the personnel requirement was

a person from the Police Chief’s office and a Fire Marshal. What made this possible was

that after the Concow fire the Town of Paradise purchased and installed a Reverse 911

system.

A Reverse 911 warning system utilizes a computer based telephone system with multiple

telephone lines. The software, backed by a strong database, allows the operator to choose

a specific area where to notify residents by telephone. A message is then recorded and

the system automatically calls the telephones in the chosen area. Automatic callback

continues for the telephones that do not answer. The system was installed by the Town

of Paradise in early 2001 and was first used in the notification of Paradise residents

during the Poe Fire.

Investigation

In November 2001 members of the Grand Jury visited the Town of Paradise Police

Station where the Reverse 911 system is located to receive a thorough briefing and

demonstration of its system. Reverse 911 is a generic term with each manufacturer

assigning its own brand name. Paradise has purchased a system known as “ City Watch”.

The Town of Paradise Police Department and Fire Department have worked together to

implement, operate, maintain and enhance the system. Law enforcement is an important

component because it has access to the unlisted private telephone number database.

Prior to the new system only 300 to 500 emergency calls per hour could be made to

inform residents of a problem. In addition to the need for a large staff to make the

2001- 2002 Butte County Grand Jury

TOWN OF PARADISE

EMERGENCY NOTIFICATION SYSTEM

24

telephone calls, a number of patrol cars were required to go house to house, and

neighborhood to neighborhood. The Reverse 911 system using one operator can make up

to 1,200 calls per hour. This frees numerous personnel to handle the emergency and save

valuable time.

The system will automatically call back if the telephone is busy or not answered. The

system can also determine if a person or an answering machine answered the telephone.

The Reverse 911 system operator immediately gets a printout that lists the results from

each call and the subsequent callback. The information is organized by address.

Emergency personnel need only be sent to the non- response addresses. After the

emergency is over the system will again make calls giving the all clear.

The message being sent out can be dictated to cover any subject deemed appropriate.

The system is also used for emergency information such as a lost child or adult, road

closure, barricaded suspect( s), or the danger of an explosion. The system can be

programmed to call one house, one block, one specific neighborhood or the whole town.

The Town of Paradise is enhancing the database to incorporate special needs capability.

Residents of Paradise are returning questionnaires stating if in an emergency they would

require assistance because of being bedridden, in a wheel chair, blind, elderly, etc. In

case of an evacuation or other emergency the system can automatically notify patrol cars

and emergency personnel which specific residents need extra help.

The Town of Paradise has invested approximately $ 42,000 of a $ 60,000 Police Technical

Grant in the system, which includes training and the first year maintenance. There is a

$ 2,500 to $ 3,500 yearly maintenance cost, which presently includes 16 dedicated

telephone lines, a monthly updating of the database for the Town of Paradise and a yearly

updating for Butte County.

Butte County established a committee, which includes the Emergency Services Officer,

the Undersheriff and the Chico Fire Chief, to pursue the possibilities of a Reverse 911

system. On February 26, 2002, the Butte County Board of Supervisors approved the

expenditure of funds from a State Law Enforcement Technical Grant for a “ County

Watch” system. County Watch is the same system as the City Watch system used by the

Town of Paradise. Due to California mutual aid law, every telephone number and

address within the borders of Butte County will be in the database, which will be updated

monthly. It will be installed at the Butte County Sheriff Station. The Grand Jury has

been informed that the County Watch system will be up and running during the summer

of 2002.

The total cost of the Count y Watch system is expected to be $ 32,925 for the first year

including hardware, software, training, telephone lines and installation. An additional

$ 17,933 was approved for a fixed asset purchase of a computer server. There will be a

2001- 2002 Butte County Grand Jury

TOWN OF PARADISE

EMERGENCY NOTIFICATION SYSTEM

25

$ 7,500 yearly maintenance cost for telephone lines, hardware upgrades and monthly

updating of the database for Butte County.

Representatives of the Town of Paradise stated that they do not plan to merge its system

with the Butte County system. The Town of Paradise Police Department and Fire

Department are continuing to enhance the system to meet the needs of the Ridge.

Paradise considers having another system in Butte County not redundant, but a backup.

Commendation

The Grand Jury commends the Paradise Police Department, Paradise Fire Department

and Paradise Town Manager for being the first to explore and then take the initiative of

implementing and successfully operating a Reverse 911 system known as City Watch.

The Town of Paradise continues to investigate and implement ways to enhance the

system for the Town.

Findings

1. The Town of Paradise obtained funding and installed a Reverse 911 system and

successfully used the system during the Poe fire and other situations.

2. The Town of Paradise is continuing to expand and enhance its system.

3. Butte County will have a system in place during the summer of 2002 that will

cover all of Butte County, border to border.

Recommendations

None

Responses Required ( Penal Code § 933 & 933.05)

None required.

2001- 2002 Butte County Grand Jury

BUTTE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

26

Reason for Visit/ Investigation

Performance of the Board of Supervisors ( Board) as a unit of Butte County government

had not been reviewed by the Grand Jury for several years.

Background

Counties are required by state law to adjust their supervisorial districts ( districts)

following a national census when imbalances in district populations exceed an acceptable

tolerance.

Counties are expected to maintain their general plans in current condition. California

State Government Code Section 65103 provides that a county’s “ planning agency” is

responsible for amending and implementing the general plan. However, it is ultimately

the duty of the Board to set the policy and make decisions regarding the general plan.

Butte County has not issued a statement of the manner in which the Board is expected to

conduct the County’s affairs.

Investigation

Members of the Grand Jury interviewed various County staff, reviewed the minutes of

Board meetings and examined correspondence and documents pertaining to this inquiry.

Redistricting:

On April 24, 2001, the Board established a Redistricting Subcommittee. Its members

were 2 Supervisors, County Clerk- Recorder, County Counsel and staff from the

Development Services Department.

Alternative plans, each designed to meet the legal requirement fo r redistricting, were

prepared. Plans 1 through 4 prepared by the subcommittee were made available to the

public several times, until the period for public comment ended at the Board meeting of

July 10, 2001. At that meeting, some changes were made in plan 4, resulting in plan 4A.

These changes affected district boundaries in certain canyon areas.

Along with the original plans, this plan was reviewed during the July 24, 2001, Board

meeting. Plans 4 and 4A both received favorable public comment at that time. At that

same meeting, one of the Supervisors who was a subcommittee member presented “ plan

5” and requested an immediate vote on it. At that moment, no vote had been taken on

any plan in the 1 through 4A group. The subcommittee had not seen plan 5, and neither

2001- 2002 Butte County Grand Jury

BUTTE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

27

the County Clerk- Recorder nor County Counsel had been given opportunity to review

plan 5 in the context of their organizational responsibilities. County Counsel pointed out

that voting on plan 5 on July 24, 2001, would violate the Brown Act since it was not

agendized properly. It would also violate a portion of the Elections Code, which requires

at least one public hearing before voting on any redistricting plan. The matter was placed

on the August 28, 2001, agenda.

On August 28, 2001, the Board adopted plan 5 by a 3- 2 vote.

On September 26, 2001, a “ Referendum Petition to Protest the Adoption of ‘ Plan 5’ ”

was filed with the Clerk of the Board. The filing of this petition, as provided in Elections

Code Section 9144, suspended implementation of plan 5.

On November 5, 2001, the County Clerk- Recorder determined the referendum petition

qualified for inclusion on the ballot.

The Board considered possible steps to specify language to be used on the ballot question

relating to the referendum and to force use of plan 5 in an election scheduled for March 5,

2002.

On November 12 and 13, 2001, County Counsel presented legal opinions to the Board:

·   The first opinion related to the subjects just mentioned.

·   The second pointed out that the district lines set in 1991 were not

unconstitutional.

·   The Board had no authority to declare those lines unconstitutional.

·   The Board did not have power or authority to order the County Clerk- Recorder to

use plan 5 lines for the March 2002 election.

·   The ballot language proposed for the referendum did not meet statutory

requirements.

On November 13, 2001, County Counsel also stated to the Board that if it took actions

directly contrary to the same advice County Counsel had provided to the Board of

Supervisors and the County Clerk- Recorder, that it would create a conflict of interest and

that County Counsel could not represent either the Board of Supervisors against the

County Clerk- Recorder or the County Clerk- Recorder against the Board of Supervisors.

On November 15, 2001, the Board voted 3- 2 to hire an outside attorney to represent it in

the redistricting dispute with the County Clerk- Recorder. The action of the Board in

voting 3- 2 to hire an outside attorney created a conflict of interest* for County Counsel.

* For a discussion of conflict of interest, see Formal Opinion No. 2001- 156 issued by the State Bar of

California

2001- 2002 Butte County Grand Jury

BUTTE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

28

Thereafter, County Counsel could not provide legal representation to the Board of

Supervisors or to the County Clerk- Recorder in the ongoing dispute.

On November 26, 2001, the Board voted 3- 2 to adopt a resolution authorizing the filing

of litigation against the County Clerk- Recorder.

On December 6, 2001, a Butte County Superior Court Judge issued a ruling that

essentially agreed with the opinion of the County Counsel and the County Clerk-

Recorder. The Court ruled:

·   Plan 5 was suspended by operation of law.

·   The 1991 redistricting lines were not unconstitutional.

·   The 1991 lines would be used for the March 2002 election.

General Plan:

In August 2000 the State Attorney General wrote to the Board about the current status of

the County’s General Plan. The Attorney General noted that recency of the revision does

not, in itself, establish whether a plan may be legally inadequate. However, the Attorney

General stated that “ If a general plan does not reflect substantial compliance with the

requirements of state law, the city or county may be held to have failed in the

‘ performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins,’ . . . Failure to review and to

update the plan as warranted by local circumstances could, however, subject your

jurisdiction, as well as parties who are pursuing development approvals, to expensive and

time consuming challenges.”

The letter of August 2000 was not the first time the state expressed concern about the

County’s General Plan. For example, in February 2000 the Governor’s Office of

Planning and Research wrote to the Board on the same subject. In its response to each

letter, the Board referred to the County’s fiscal situation in describing the level of review

and revision.

A lawsuit recently filed against the County is related to la nd use. It alleges deficiencies

in the County’s General Plan that may have impact on future development in the County.

The Board has announced on many occasions the importance of development and

economic growth, yet the very document that controls this has been neglected.

In the context of this review of the Board’s handling of County affairs, the General Plan’s

status is significant in itself. It is also significant as an indicator of the Board’s

perception of priorities in its expenditure of funds. On the one hand, the Board relied on

scarcity of funds to justify inaction with respect to the General Plan. On the other, a

majority of the Board has unproductively expended in excess of $ 175,000 on

2001- 2002 Butte County Grand Jury

BUTTE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

29

redistricting. When other costs that arose only because of the Board’s stance on

redistricting are added, the outlay exceeds $ 228,000.

Expenditures on Litigation and Accounting for Them:

The amount of money spent on attempting to revise supervisorial districts is a major

concern. The total expenditure exceeds $ 228,000. More than $ 106,000 was spent on the

litigation itself and to pay yet another attorney hired to review bills submitted by outside

legal services. The Grand Jury has not been able to uncover a legal requirement for

review by an attorney of the bill solely because it was submitted by an attorney.

Another concern is the County’s accounts to which litigation costs were charged.

The County’s accounting system has a “ professional and special services account” in

each department’s budget. Outside legal services, for example, are charged to this fund

in County Counsel’s budget. Usually, such charges are “ allocated” to the department

where they arose. However, there is no provision for allocation to the Board of costs,

such as the redistricting litigation, which it originates. Because these costs followed the

Board’s rejection of the County Counsel’s advice, rather than because that office was

unable to respond, leaving them in County Counsel’s budget hides their true nature.

County Counsel gave the Board legal opinions on redistricting and related matters. If the

Board had heeded those opinions, it would not have undertaken legal action against the

County Clerk- Recorder. Eventually the outcome of the lawsuit demonstrated that County

Counsel’s opinions reflected a correct interpretation of law. If County Counsel were

unable to respond to a need for information within the assigned area of responsibility,

outside sources might be used to make up the deficiency and the cost charged to County

Counsel. However, in this instance County Counsel fully responded to the Board’s need

for information. To charge these costs to other than the Board effectively separates them

from their origin. Whether by design or not, the true nature of the costs is concealed.

Other Expenditures Related to Redistricting:

About $ 69,000 of the total expenditure reflects payroll and other costs associated with

developing plans by the subcommittee appointed for that purpose. If this futile project

had not been undertaken, those resources would have been available for other County

needs.

The pro- rata share of the costs of the March 5, 2002, election for the Measure B

referendum is $ 53,850. ( Measure B was related to redistricting.)

2001- 2002 Butte County Grand Jury

BUTTE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

30

Code of Ethics:

The County’s “ Mission Statement” is an expression of how “ . . . elected and appointed

officials and employees . . .” are to conduct the County’s affairs. In other words, it is a

general statement applicable to the County’s workforce as a whole.

No statement exists as to what constitutes acceptable conduct by the Board of

Supervisors. However, in its lead role, the Board sets the standard for the rest of County

government.

The Grand Jury communicated with several counties for information about supervisorial

codes of ethics. A distillation of the responses is included here as a suggested outline of a

basic code of ethics.

Code of Ethics

A. We will hold to and demonstrate the highest standards of personal integrity,

truthfulness and honesty in all public activities.

B. We will uphold these principles, being ever conscious that public office is a

public trust.

C. In the performance of our governmental duties, we will be sensitive to

circumstances that could be misconstrued as a special favor, something to be

gained personally, acceptance of a favor, or as an influence in the outcome of our

performance.

D. We will be aware that private promises of any kind may conflict with public duty

and responsibility.

E. We will always perform our governmental duties conscientiously.

F. We will always act responsibly with confidential information received in the

performance of our governmental duties.

G. Outside activities will be compatible with objective performance of governmental

duties.

H. We will faithfully comply with all laws and regulations applicable to the County,

and apply them impartially to everyone.

I. We will not vote on personally related issues.

Findings

1. Several redistricting plans were prepared by a subcommittee established for that

purpose.

2. None of the plans prepared through subcommittee were adopted. Instead, a plan 5

prepared by a supervisor who was a member of the subcommittee, but without

2001- 2002 Butte County Grand Jury

BUTTE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

31

that group’s participation, was presented to the Board of Supervisors and adopted

on a 3- 2 vote.

3. A successful referendum prevented use of plan 5 redistricting lines in the election

of March 5, 2002.

4. The Board of Supervisors voted 3- 2 to bring legal action against the County

Clerk- Recorder, with the intention of forcing use of plan 5 boundaries in the

March 2002 election.

5. A Butte County Superior Court Judge ruled in favor of the County Clerk-

Recorder, agreeing with opinions given both the Board of Supervisors and the

County Clerk- Recorder by County Counsel.

6. On 2 recent occasions the State of California has contacted Butte County about its

General Plan. The Board of Supervisors responded, using a scarcity of funds to

justify the level of review and revision.

7. Litigation against the County has been initiated about land use and alleged

deficiencies in the General Plan.

8. The Board of Supervisors caused over $ 175,000 to be spent unproductively on

redistricting. In addition, $ 53,850 of the cost of administering the March 5, 2002,

election was related directly to the Measure B referendum.

9. The present system of accounting does not charge extraordinary legal fees directly

to the Board of Supervisors.

10. The Board of Supervisors does not have a formal Code of Ethics.

Recommendations

1. A cost be charged to an account that actually reflects the reason the cost was

incurred.

2. An account be established to link directly to the Board of Supervisors any cost it

generates, provided:

a. It proceeds against the opinion or advice of any unit of the county government

when:

1) the unit has spoken to the Board of Supervisors on a matter within its area

of responsibility, and

2001- 2002 Butte County Grand Jury

BUTTE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

32

2) the opinion or advice of the unit is subsequently shown to have been such

that, had it been followed, the costs would not have been incurred, or

b. The Board of Supervisors does not seek an opinion or advice from the

appropriate unit and subsequently takes an action, which results fail to justify

the expenditure.

This account’s title and description should make clear the nature of the charges

made to it.

3. The Board of Supervisors adopt, publicize, and apply a code of ethics covering its

own decisions and actions, apart from any statement of general aims or policy.

Responses Required ( Penal Code § 933 & 933.05)

Butte County Board of Supervisors

Butte County Chief Administrative Officer

Butte County Auditor- Controller

Butte County Counsel

2001- 2002 Butte County Grand Jury

BUTTE COUNTY INFORMATION SYSTEMS

AND COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES

33

Reason for Visit/ Investigation

The Butte County Information Systems and Communications Services is relatively new

in the County. It is important that the citizens of the County be informed of the services

performed by this department.

Background

The Information Systems Director was appointed 4 years ago to update the County’s

antiquated communications services. He started with a very limited budget and 3

employees. Presently there are 10 positions in Information Systems and 8 in

Communications Services.

Investigation

The Grand Jury looked into several areas of the Information Systems and

Communications Services. They are responsible for the computer equipment that allows

all the County departments to communicate with each other through a fiber optic network

and interact on secure systems that are up 99.9% of the time. All communication systems

have multiple backups ( batteries, generators, etc.), and are almost “ virus” proof. When a

virus does manage to invade the system, the department has the means to track it to its

source.

The Director and his team have insured that the County has both network security and

Internet security. They provide training and follow- up support for County departments

and provide centralized e- mail and Internet access. They also manage pager systems and

the Centrex phone system for the County and outside agencies.

The Information Systems Director hired a coordinator with many years experience with

Pacific Bell to head the Communications Services. The first project was to review and

improve the Emergency 911 ( E911) system, which at that time had as many as 300

misdirected calls per year; now they have fewer than 5. Butte County has the lowest

incidence of misdirected E911 calls in the State.

The Communications Services Manager attends all meetings of the National Emergency

Number Association ( NENA) to acquire information on E911 and Reverse 911. Reverse

911 is a system by which citizens can be notified of emergencies in their area. NENA is

made up of several communications elements including Pacific Bell, MCI and several

other wireless as well as line companies. NENA has meetings quarterly as well as an

annual meeting to insure its members have all the latest data available.

2001- 2002 Butte County Grand Jury

BUTTE COUNTY INFORMATION SYSTEMS

AND COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES

34

Butte County has 7 Public Safety Answering Points ( PSAP), consisting of the following:

Butte County Sheriff’s office, Oroville, Chico and Paradise Police Departments,

California Division of Forestry, Butte College and California State University, Chico.

Most counties have only 2 or 3. The Communications Services Manager provides PSAP

members with information from the NENA meetings.

There are 149,000 phone numbers with unique addresses in Butte County updated on a

daily basis. Approximately 48 hours are required to revise information in the database

for E911. A consultant who is paid by the State handles this part of the system. The

Communications Services Manager is the coordinator for the entire County’s E911

system.

The department is now involved with upgrading radio communications within the

County. When the system was first looked into, it was discovered that some radio

communication systems had not been upgraded in 30 years. In many cases, parts are not

available for repairs. When installed, much of the equipment was already nearly

obsolete. An outside engineering firm has been hired to help with the inspection of

towers. The cost of upgrading the radio communications will be approximately $ 4.12

Million and will take from 2 to 3 years to complete.

Communications Services has enlisted the aid of radio user groups to accompany them to

the Board of Supervisors to request funds to improve the system. They first approached

the Board 2 years ago. No changes were approved by the Board. Some of the PSAP

members will be using money from their own budgets to help implement the necessary

improvements.

Another project is the centralization of the dispatch system for radio communications to

be located at the Sheriff’s facility.

Commendation

The talent and dedication of the people in the Information Systems and Communications

Services is outstanding. They have created a system to serve the County with very

limited funds and continue to improve the system for the benefit of Butte County

residents.

Findings

1. Radio communications is seriously out of date and will be costly to repair.

2001- 2002 Butte County Grand Jury

BUTTE COUNTY INFORMATION SYSTEMS

AND COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES

35

Recommendations

1. The Board of Supervisors consider funding sources, including a bond issue to

finance the new radio communications system.

Responses Required ( Penal Code § 933 & 933.05)

Butte County Board of Supervisors

2001- 2002 Butte County Grand Jury

COUNTY VETERANS SERVICE OFFICE

36

Reason for Visit/ Investigation

The services provided by the County Veterans Service Office for our county veterans

needed to be reviewed and reported for the benefit of all our residents. Previous Grand

Juries have focused primarily on the Veteran Memorial Halls.

Background

The County Veterans Service Office was established by Butte County in 1946 for the

purpose of informing veterans of services and benefits available. The office, located in

Chico, assists veterans in filing claims and follows through to make sure the veterans

receive their benefits.

Investigation

This office operates with a budget of $ 167,000, 31% of which is provided by the state,

paid in 2 installments yearly. This money is paid into the general fund and then to the

County Veterans office. The remaining 69% is funded by the County.

The Veterans Service Officer conducts an extensive outreach program. He attends as

many veterans’ gatherings as possible to personally meet veterans and provide

information as to their rights to benefits and services.

A half million veterans live in Northern California, 20,000 of whom are in Butte County.

The benefits paid to these veterans bring $ 18 Million into the County, with an additional

$ 1 Million in claims for new benefits each year.

One of the many benefits available to disabled veterans is a college fee waiver for

dependents. Butte County averages 300 students per year taking advantage of this

benefit.

Veterans have access to rehabilitation facilities for drug and alcohol related problems.

The program is fully funded by the Federal government. If veterans have need of this

type of facility, the County Veterans Service Office refers them to the Veterans

Counseling Center, located in Chico. They are then referred to the type of facility

needed. The rehabilitation centers are located in San Francisco and Palo Alto.

Transitional housing is available for homeless veterans, funded by State and Federal

grants. The only requirement, aside from being a veteran, is to be in a qualifying job

search or school.

2001- 2002 Butte County Grand Jury

COUNTY VETERANS SERVICE OFFICE

37

The Office handles requests for military records and decorations, discharge upgrades and

correction of military records as needed.

Among other services provided by this Office are filing claims for:

·   Compensation for service related injuries or diseases

·   Dependency Indemnity Compensation for survivors based upon service-connected

death

·   Pension for war- era veterans and death pension for dependents of war- era

veterans who died of non- service- connected disability

·   Dependent allowances

·   Vocational rehabilitation

·   Home loans

·   Education benefits

·   Life insurance

·   Burial benefits

At this time, all claims for Northern California are sent to Oakland for processing and

sometimes take up to 2 years to complete after reaching that office.

Commendation

This office is very well run. Only 3 of the staff are employees paid by the County. In

addition, there are 5 college students who are also veterans. They are in a work- study

program and are paid by the Federal Veterans Administration.

Findings

1. The outreach program conducted by the Veterans Service Officer takes him

throughout the County. A laptop computer would allow him to enter information

acquired directly into the system. The software needed would be reimbursed by

the State.

2. An in- office computer program is needed to speed up the claims process. With

the program for their computers, much of the information gathering that slows

down the claims process could be accessed locally, thus speeding up the

processing once the claims are sent to Oakland. The Officer is already in

negotiation for the needed software, which will be paid for by the Federal

Veterans Administration.

2001- 2002 Butte County Grand Jury

COUNTY VETERANS SERVICE OFFICE

38

Recommendations

1. The Veterans Service Officer include in his budget funding for a laptop

computer for the outreach program.

2. The Board of Supervisors allocate funds for said laptop computer.

Responses Required ( Penal Code § 933 & 933.05)

Butte County Board of Supervisors

Veterans Service Officer

2001- 2002 Butte County Grand Jury

ROCK CREEK / KEEFER SLOUGH

FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT

39

Reason for Visit/ Investigation

The 2001- 2002 Grand Jury received a complaint about the proposed flood control project

affecting the Rock Creek and Keefer Slough areas north of Chico. The complainants

were concerned about possible negative effects of flood control measures on their

individual properties.

Background

According to the Butte County Office of Emergency Services, parts of the area have

flooded repeatedly in the past 100 years. Flooding was severe in 1995, 1997 and 1998,

with damages exceeding $ 89 Million. Residents contacted their County Supervisor for

assistance with these problems. The Supervisor has worked on the problem since 1997.

She enlisted help from members of the U. S. Senate and House of Representatives. The

Army Corps of Engineers agreed to do a feasibility study. A working group resulted

which included Butte County, State offices and legislators, and Federal offices and

legislators.

These efforts resulted in the Rock Creek / Keefer Slough Flood Control Project ( See

Exhibit A).

Investigation

The County Supervisor was interviewed by members of the Grand Jury. Lists and

minutes were furnished concerning 26 meetings held from July 1998 to July 2001. Four

of these meetings were for the public at large; others were with special interest groups,

individuals and neighborhood groups. In addition to the minutes, names and addresses

were provided of residents from various impacted neighborhoods to whom notices have

been sent. The Grand Jury also received a breakdown of Federal, State and County

contributions needed, monetary damages from past flooding, and potential cost of the

project to individual homeowners.

The Grand Jury obtained maps of the area showing proposed sites of flood walls, levees,

berms, stream channel improvements, etc. The Supervisor explained the maps in detail,

showing the complexity of the project and the many adaptations that have already been

made to meet individual landowners' needs.

The project manager, in the Butte County Department of Public Works, was interviewed.

He supplied a detailed log of all meetings and activities on the project from May 1999 to

July 2001. He described the first public meeting in June 1999, attended by 500 residents

who were notified by mail and newspapers. Questionnaires were distributed asking for

2001- 2002 Butte County Grand Jury

ROCK CREEK / KEEFER SLOUGH

FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT

40

interest in volunteering and other input. Further meetings were held with residents east

of Highway 99, ranchers west of Highway 99, environmental groups, landowners and

other groups who asked for meetings.

Subsequent meetings were publicized by the Corps of Engineers, the Reclamation Board

of California ( which led a tour of the proposed area) and neighborhood residents

themselves.

The project manager explained the funding: 50% of the cost to be borne by the Corps of

Engineers and 50% by non- federal sources ( Reclamation Board, CalTrans, State

Legislature.) Landowners within the flood control district have incurred no cost but will

pay for maintenance after the project's completion. Their maintenance fees will be based

on the degree of risk of flooding.

One major concern of landowners is possible public use of levees that could diminish

their privacy. The project manager emphasized that the design is evolving and open to

modification. Project time line is not fixed: it may be the year 2004 before the first

shovel of earth is turned. The project is currently on hold because the State Legislature

has not appropriated the needed funds. The next stage will require approvals by various

government entities. No plan will be selected without further citizen input. There is no

firm future time line.

Findings

1. The Grand Jury found evidence that residents of the affected area have been

individually notified of meetings since July 1998 and have been offered many

opportunities for input, both in groups and in individual conferences. It was

found that the complainants' main concerns have been repeatedly dealt with in

meetings from July 1998 to July 2001, and as recently as January 2002, as shown

in minutes of the meetings and newspaper coverage.

2. The flood control project has lagged behind in its projected time line due to

several factors, principally the inaction of the State Legislature in approving funds

needed for the State's share of the cost.

Recommendations

1. Continuation of neighborhood meetings and individual appointments to answer

ongoing concerns of residents of the flood control project area.

2001- 2002 Butte County Grand Jury

ROCK CREEK / KEEFER SLOUGH

FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT

41

2. The Board of Supervisors be kept up to date with current information on the

project, since its approval will be necessary for the completion of the flood

control project.

3. The County continue to lobby governmental agencies for funds to complete the

Rock Creek / Keefer Slough Flood Control Project in order to prevent future

flooding disasters.

Responses Required ( Penal Code § 933 & 933.05)

Butte County Supervisor, District 3

Butte County Board of Supervisors

Butte County Department of Public Works, Project Manager

2001- 2002 Butte County Grand Jury

42

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

.

2001- 2002 Butte County Grand Jury

ROCK CREEK / KEEFER SLOUGH

FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT

43

EXHIBIT A

2001- 2002 Butte County Grand Jury

ROCK CREEK / KEEFER SLOUGH

FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT

44

EXHIBIT B

2001- 2002 Butte County Grand Jury

45

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

2001- 2002 Butte County Grand Jury

BUTTE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT

UPPER RIDGE FIRE PROTECTION

46

Reason for Visit/ Investigation

A Magalia resident had filed a complaint with the 2000- 2001 Grand Jury stating that fire

hydrants in his Paradise Pines neighborhood had not been tested or maintained.

The 2001- 2002 Grand Jury received a follow- up complaint from the same individual

stating that he believed the hydrants still had not received maintenance.

Background

The Butte County Fire Chief verified that the testing and maintenance had been

performed in the year 2000- 2001.

When the same citizen filed a second complaint, stating that he hoped the Grand Jury

“ would seek and investigate service records” of work done on hydrants, members of the

Grand Jury met once again with the Fire Chief to review hydrant maintenance in

Magalia.

Investigation

The Fire Chief stated that hydrants are owned and maintained by the Del Oro Water

Company. He explained how hydrants are tested: ordinarily, hydrants are not flushed out

during their regular maintenance, since flushing causes water in neighborhood mains to

be brown.

A letter from the Fire Chief to the Grand Jury verifies that a member of the Butte County

Fire Department and a Del Oro Water Company representative “ tested and flowed the

hydrants in question and found them all to be operating properly.” The same tests were

conducted after the first complaint and again in answer to this second inquiry.

Findings

1. The Butte County Fire Department conducts regular testing on fire hydrants

throughout the County.

Recommendations

None

2001- 2002 Butte County Grand Jury

BUTTE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT

UPPER RIDGE FIRE PROTECTION

47

Responses Required ( Penal Code § 933 & 933.05)

None required.

2001- 2002 Butte County Grand Jury

BUTTE COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION

48

Reason for Visit/ Investigation

The Butte County Local Agency Formation Commission ( LAFCO) is a regulatory

agency with county- wide jurisdiction. LAFCO is in the process of implementing new

State imposed guidelines issued September 15, 2000. The Commission on Local

Governance for the 21st Century made broad recommendations revising the Cortese- Knox

Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985. The recommendations took effect July 1,

2001. Because of these new guidelines and because the most recent Grand Jury review of

LAFCO took place in 1998, another review is timely.

Background

LAFCOs were established in 1963 by the State Legislature in all 58 California counties.

Their purposes were to deal with issues of orderly growth in the State: to preserve

agricultural land, to discourage urban sprawl, to oversee fiscal responsibility in Special

Districts and County Service Areas ( CSAs) and to establish Spheres of Influence for each

city and Special District.

The Butte County LAFCO is comprised of 7 members: 2 County Supervisors appointed

by the Board of Supervisors, 2 city/ town council members appointed by mayors, 2 from

Special Districts, and a public member elected by the other 6 members. Commissioners

serve 4- year terms. There are 4 alternates.

LAFCO has a full- time staff of 4: an executive officer, senior planner, administrative

assistant and office assistant. Until July 1, 2001, the agency was part of the Development

Services Department.

The Executive Officer is now responsible to LAFCO, not to the Board of Supervisors.

Investigation

The Executive Officer of LAFCO was interviewed. Follow- up questions were answered

by the Senior Planner, and County Counsel clarified the new relationship of LAFCO to

County government.

LAFCO is conducting reviews of all Special Districts and CSAs to determine their

viability. Five years will be required to complete this process.

Special Districts in the County are mentioned in different County documents as

numbering anywhere from 30 to 150. The Grand Jury questioned this disparity. The

distinction between Special Districts and CSAs was clarified. Butte County currently has

2001- 2002 Butte County Grand Jury

BUTTE COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION

49

41 Special Districts and 94 CSAs. The number of CSAs diminishes steadily through

merger, consolidation and dissolution. Less frequently, new ones may be formed.

CSAs may include such services as street lighting, sewer, drainage and storm drain

maintenance. Special Districts may include parks and recreation, reclamation, water,

mosquito abatement and cemetery districts. Typical applicants for LAFCO services

might include an individual home owner requesting annexation to a sewer district due to

a failing septic tank; developers seeking annexation to cities to obtain more favorable

urban services for new housing; cities wishing to annex “ islands” of unincorporated land

located within their borders in order to avoid duplication of services; or Special Districts

or cities wishing to consolidate governmental agencies into one streamlined and

economical entity.

LAFCO, acting on requests, establishes Spheres of Influence for all cities and Special

Districts in the County. A Sphere of Influence is the physical boundary and service area

that a local governmental agency is expected to serve in an efficient manner. LAFCO is

charged with insuring consistency between a city or Special District and its request for

Sphere of Influence designation. A proposed Sphere of Influence must meet

requirements for infrastructure needs ( police, fire, water and sanitation) for the next 20

years. LAFCO recommends that cities and districts make Spheres of Influence more

compact rather than more wide- ranging in order that infrastructure needs be supportable.

The most recently published LAFCO reports on 4 Spheres of Influence ( Chico, Paradise,

Oroville, Gridley) in Butte County are dated 1985. Recently the Chico City Council and

Paradise Town Council have discussed possible expansion of their Spheres of Influence.

The 1985 documents now require revisions in light of the current interest of Chico and

Paradise in expanding their Spheres of Influence.

LAFCO's communication with the public includes a leaflet and a Web site. The present

leaflet is outdated and is under revision to include an explanation of its functions, budget,

membership of the Commission and a map. The Web site contains helpful information

similar to that in the leaflet, but some of it is “ under construction”. The address is

http:// www. butte. lafco. ca. gov. The State of California has a similar Web site at

http:// www. calafco. org.

Since July 1, 2001, LAFCO has been an independent County agency under the State of

California Government Code. It is no longer supported solely by the County but through

a cooperative agreement among its 3 member constituencies represented on the

Commission: 45% from the County, 45% from the 5 cities and 10% from the Special

Districts. This represents an initial step toward separation from the County for all but

specified contracted services, such as auditing, personnel actions, County Counsel, mail

room and insurance.

2001- 2002 Butte County Grand Jury

BUTTE COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION

50

Detailed mapping of the County is crucial to LAFCO’s work. LAFCO in the past has

utilized Geographic Information Systems ( GIS) mapping services in the Development

Services Department, and it has often been difficult to meet mapping needs. Since the

initial Grand Jury interview, LAFCO has solved its problem by purchasing its own

computer equipment for mapping, and the system is functioning.

Commendation

The Grand Jury commends LAFCO, its Executive Officer, staff and Commissioners for

their many improvements under newly revised guidelines. LAFCO is efficiently

pursuing its mandates and moving ahead in solving its most pressing problems.

Findings

1. Basic changes in guidelines have caused major changes in how LAFCO fulfills its

responsibilities.

2. LAFCO is no longer part of the Development Services Department. It is now an

independent County agency.

3. Special Districts and CSAs are being reviewed. Five years will be required to

complete the process.

4. As one of its most important charges, LAFCO adopts Spheres of Influence for

local governments.

5. LAFCO is now equipped to meet its own mapping needs.

Recommendations

None

Responses Required ( Penal Code § 933 & 933.05)

None required.

2001- 2002 Butte County Grand Jury

BUTTE COUNTY JAIL AND

SHERIFF’S EVIDENCE FACILITY

51

Reason for Visit/ Investigation

Each Grand Jury is required to visit/ inspect the Butte County Jail at least once during

their term.

Background

The Butte County Jail was originally built in 1964, and the men’s section was rebuilt to

the present- day pod system in 1994. There exists a total of 12 pods, divided into 2

“ sides”, the “ Charlie Side” ( maximum security) and the “ Delta Side” ( medium security).

Each pod is a large area comprised of cells. On the Charlie Side, 1 pod is made up of 16

single cells, and the other 5 pods are made up of 16 two- man cells, totaling 176 beds on

the maximum security side. The Delta Side is comprised of 6 pods configured in a 40-

man dormitory setting, totaling 240 beds on the medium security side. Control towers,

one for Charlie and one for Delta, overlook these pods, which is a very efficient method

to monitor a large number of inmates with a minimum number of staff.

The women’s section has not been rebuilt into a “ pod” system and remains basically

unchanged as to style since the facility was built in 1964. This section is comprised of 4

sections with steel barred cells. “ U Section” is comprised of 3 single cells, each with 1

bed. “ T Section” is broken down into two 12- bed cells and 2 single cells, each with 1

bed. “ W Section” presently includes one 12- bed cell, one 4- bed cell, one 5- bed cell, and

one 2- bed cell, with an additional 2 beds being added. “ R Section” has one 8- bed cell,

one 6- bed cell and 3 single cells, each with 1 bed. The women’s section holds a total of

68 inmates, and averages between 60 and 65 inmates at any given time.

There are also 6 unisex single cells to accommodate inmates requiring medical treatment,

mentally ill inmates and high security inmates.

The Evidence Facility is under the control of the Butte County Sheriff, and was

established and built in July 1967.

Investigation

The 2001- 2002 Grand Jury made 2 announced visits to the jail facility. The first was

October 3, 2001, and the second was February 2, 2002. Members of the Grand Jury

again visited the facility on April 22, 2002, to re- view the female section of the jail. The

same Facility Sergeant, who was extremely professional and helpful, led these tours. All

areas of the jail were open for inspection.

2001- 2002 Butte County Grand Jury

BUTTE COUNTY JAIL AND

SHERIFF’S EVIDENCE FACILITY

52

The kitchen tour proved to be a positive experience for the Grand Jury. The cleanliness,

staff, facility, meal quality and quantity were beyond all expectations.

During the February 2, 2002, visit the Grand Jury also had the opportunity to view the

Sheriff’s Evidence Facility. The entire facility represents a disaster waiting to happen.

The 2 front areas are cluttered with paperwork. The storage area for evidentiary items is

stacked, floor to ceiling and in the aisles, with everything imaginable. The side area,

where officers bring in evidence, has old Rubber- Maid- type tubs and what appear to be

home- made wooden lockers.

During these visits the Grand Jury members took notes, asked questions and viewed all

areas of both facilities. All staff contacted were very professional in both appearance and

attitude.

Findings

1. The 1999- 2000 Butte County Grand Jury recommended that emergency

procedures be posted conspicuously in the control room to make it clear who has

the authority and responsibility to notify control room personnel when they can

safely leave, or must leave, the control room in the event of an emergency.

The Sheriff responded to the 1999- 2000 Grand Jury Report saying, “ Specific

guidelines will be developed, and posted inside and outside of the control room to

ensure an orderly evacuation or entry, as the situation requires.” As of the Grand

Jury’s latest tour in February 2002 these guidelines have not been established or

posted.

2. In comparison to the Men’s Facility, the Women’s Facility is deplorable. Unlike

the men’s large, bright common areas, the women’s area is taken up with cot- type

beds and eating tables. Although the Women’s section meets minimum State

requirements, it is run down and shabby, generating a completely demeaning

atmosphere.

3. The Evidence Room, also mentioned in the 2000- 2001 Grand Jury Final Report,

remains unchanged. This facility should be classified as “ stone age” still in use in

the 21st Century.

Recommendations

1. The Sheriff establish specific emergency procedure guidelines and post them, as

stated in the Response given to the past Grand Jury.

2001- 2002 Butte County Grand Jury

BUTTE COUNTY JAIL AND

SHERIFF’S EVIDENCE FACILITY

53

2. The Board of Supervisors, as a whole, make an unannounced visit to the Butte

County Jail to compare female and male areas and formulate a plan to correct this

inequity.

3. As recommended by the 2000- 2001 Grand Jury, the 2001- 2002 Grand Jury again

suggests the Board of Supervisors visit the evidence facility for a first- hand view

of these crowded and hazardous conditions and find a way to upgrade this facility

in the immediate future.

Responses Required ( Penal Code § 933 & 933.05)

Butte County Board of Supervisors

Butte County Sheriff

2001- 2002 Butte County Grand Jury

BUTTE COUNTY JAIL

MENTALLY ILL INMATES

54

Reason for Visit/ Investigation

The Grand Jury received a citizen complaint of unjust treatment of a possible mentally ill

inmate at the Butte County Jail.

Background

Butte County does not stand alone with the issue of mentally ill inmates in the jail

system. Numerous other counties within California are also facing the same dilemma.

Due to the shortage of “ secured” mental facilities throughout the State, it could, and

usually does, take weeks or months to transfer a mentally ill inmate from the jail system

to a facility that treats the mentally ill.

Investigation

The Butte County Sheriff and many of the jail staff were interviewed by members of the

Grand Jury regarding mentally ill inmates. All responses were professional and sincere.

All stated they do whatever is possible to protect not only the mentally ill inmate, but also

other inmates and all jail staff. But, again, their hands are tied due to the lack of facilities

in which to relocate these disturbed inmates. The Butte County Jail does maintain an on-call

psychiatrist and an on- duty psychiatric nurse who monitor inmates as needed. The

Grand Jury was informed that because the Butte County Jail is not a “ designated

psychiatric facility”, inmates cannot be forced to take medications.

The California Board of Corrections has issued 30 research grants, one of which was

issued to Butte County, to study this issue in depth. The “ Mentally Ill Offender Crime

Reduction Grant” was approved by the Board of Supervisors. The Sheriff’s department

is the lead agency. Other entities involved in the grant include the Superior Court, the

Consortium of Public Defenders, the Probation Department, the Behavioral Health

Department and the District Attorney’s Office.

Findings

1. The Grand Jury found no evidence to substantiate the citizen’s complaint.

2. The 30 grants are presently in the first year of a 3- year study after which the

California Board of Corrections will evaluate the findings/ recommendations prior

to changing the present system.

2001- 2002 Butte County Grand Jury

BUTTE COUNTY JAIL

MENTALLY ILL INMATES

55

Recommendations

None

Responses Required ( Penal Code § 933 & 933.05)

None required.

2001- 2002 Butte County Grand Jury

BUTTE COUNTY JUVENILE HALL

56

Reason for Visit/ Investigation

The Grand Jury is required, by mandate, to visit the Butte County Juvenile Hall, inspect

the facility and report on its condition.

Background

The Juvenile Hall is under the direction of the Butte County Probation Department and

was constructed in 1976 to house 60 juveniles.

The new 60,000 square foot facility is presently under construction and scheduled to be

completed during the fall of 2002. This new facility is being built to handle a capacity of

120 juveniles. Initially it will hold only 80 juveniles due to a shortage of staff. It is

anticipated the new facility will be fully staffed and occupied in 2 years.

Investigation

On October 17, 2001, the Grand Jury toured the existing Juvenile Hall, which included

housing units, the courtroom, kitchen, classrooms and gymnasium.

The kitchen and dining area appeared clean and cheerful. The menu is cost effective and

meets California State nutritional requirements.

The Grand Jury toured the recently remodeled Juvenile Court. The courtroom now is

adequate to accommodate the judge, court staff, prosecuting and defense attorneys, and

minors and their families.

Schooling is provided by the Butte County Office of Education. The school at the

juvenile facility is known as Table Mountain School. There are presently three

classrooms and a gym for physical education. Each juvenile’s school records are

immediately obtained from the last school attended. The Administrator/ Lead Teacher of

the school described the various ways his staff works to keep the juveniles on track in

their schooling.

Commendation

The Butte County Grand Jury wishes to commend those who donated their time,

materials, and expertise to the remodeling of the courtroom. This was accomplished at

no cost to the County. Their dedication and service to the community are a wonderful

donation to this facility and to Butte County.

2001- 2002 Butte County Grand Jury

BUTTE COUNTY JUVENILE HALL

57

Findings

1. The Administrator/ Lead Teacher at the Juvenile Hall school who gave the Grand

Jury a short orientation on how the school operates was very inappropriately

dressed. “ Casual” is acceptable in certain circumstances, but old tennis shoes,

wrinkled shirt and short pants do not appear appropria te. The law enforcement

personnel at the facility were dressed in uniforms, which sets the tone of the

facility for professional civilian attire.

Recommendations

1. Butte County Probation Department establish guidelines for more appropriate

attire for the Juvenile Hall civilian employees.

Responses Required ( Penal Code § 933 & 933.05)

Butte County Chief Probation Officer

Superintendent, Butte County Office of Education

2001- 2002 Butte County Grand Jury

GENERAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT

BUTTE COUNTY EMERGENCY SERVICES OFFICE

58

Reason for Visit/ Investigation

Part of the function of the Grand Jury is to visit/ investigate as many County offices as

possible during the Grand Jury’s term. This office was selected in part due to the

September 11, 2001, attack on America, and also because this office had not been visited

since 1993.

Background

The Emergency Services Office is a division of General Services and is responsible for

preparing and carrying out plans to protect persons and property within the County in the

event of an emergency. This office also provides coordination of emergency services

within the County.

The Emergency Services Office was established in 1952 by the Thomas B. Stafford Act

and was not staffed with its own officer, whose sole duty was emergency services, until

1994.

The Emergency Services Office establishes and maintains emergency management

functions for both the incorporated and unincorporated areas of Butte County.

Investigation

Members of the Grand Jury met with the Emergency Services Officer on November 26,

2001. Due to lack of office space, the meeting was held in the Personnel Training Room

in the Butte County Administration Building. Numerous subjects were discussed, such as

staffing, budgets, preparedness for biological/ chemical incidents and other possible

emergencies. Jurisdictional issues and the Reverse 911 Notification System ( also known

as “ County Watch”) were also discussed.

The office is staffed with 1 Emergency Services Officer, whose background includes

experience as a HazMat Specialist, nurse, manager of Chico Ambulance Service and

computer programmer, and has various other training related to his field. The office is

also staffed with 1 part- time ( 75%) clerical position. As stated in the State and Federal

Emergency Management Agency ( FEMA) guidelines, this office should be staffed with 5

emergency services personnel and 3 clerical assistants. There is no second in command

within this office who is trained to step in and handle emergencies. There is no staff to

assist in the field should multiple emergencies occur.

The Emergency Services Officer works with FEMA, the State of California and many

department heads within Butte County. Service organizations such as Red Cross and

2001- 2002 Butte County Grand Jury

GENERAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT

BUTTE COUNTY EMERGENCY SERVICES OFFICE

59

Amateur Radio Operators are a valuable resource and provide important assistance in

time of need.

Butte County has a Level I lab. Level I is the required level for detecting

biological/ chemical agents. Butte County has 2 Type I Emergency Vehicl