TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

Letter to Presiding Judge I

2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury Members II

Role of the Grand Jury III

2004- 2005 GLENN COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT

Response Requirements & Instructions IV

CITY / COUNTY GOVERNMENT

Agricultural Commissioner 1- 2

City of Orland 3- 4

City of Willows 5- 6

Glenn County Public Libraries 7- 9

Exhibit: Orland Library Budget 10- 13

Local Agency Formation Commission 14- 15

Planning & Development Conflicts - Glenn County & Cities 16- 17

Exhibit: Orland response to proposed Glenn County 18- 23

General Plan Amendment

FINANCE

County / City Property Tax Splits 24- 25

Development Impact Fees 26- 27

Exhibit: Development Impact Fees - Orland/ Willows 28- 33

Glenn County Assessment Practices Survey 34

Grand Jury Copy Machine Lease ( Inland Leasing, Inc.) 35

HEALTH SERVICES

Glenn County Environmental Health 36- 37

Glenn Medical Center ( GMC) 38- 40

PUBLIC SAFETY

Glenn County Jail 41- 42

Glenn County Sheriff’s Department 43- 44

Intruder Alert Procedures 45- 46

Jane Hahn Juvenile Hall 47- 48

Orland Police Department 49- 50

Willows Police Department 51- 52

TABLE OF CONTENTS ( continued)

PUBLIC WORKS

Public Facilities Projects 53- 54

Butte City Boat Ramp 55

Fleet Management 56- 57

Exhibit: Title 14 - Fleet Management Policy 58- 64

Glenn County Airports 65- 66

North Willows Storm Drainage 67- 68

Orland Public Works and Infrastructure 69- 70

Willows Public Works and Infrastructure 71

SCHOOLS

Capay Joint Union Elementary School 72- 73

C. K. Price School 74- 75

Elk Creek School 76

Fairview 77- 78

Hamilton Union School District 79

Lake School 80

Murdock Elementary School 81- 82

Plaza School 83

Princeton Elementary School 84- 85

Willows Intermediate School 86

2004- 2005 GLENN COUNTY GRAND JURY EVALUATION OF

RESPONSES ( 2003- 2004 Glenn County Grand Jury Final Report)

04- 02 Board of Supervisors, Golden State Risk Management 87- 88

Authority, City of Orland, All Glenn County Schools

04- 04 Glenn County Assessor, Department of Finance 89

04- 05 Human Resource Agency ( HRA) 90

04- 18 Child Welfare Re- Design of Glenn County Foster Care 91

04- 20 Glenn Medical Center Administration / Glenn County Board 92

Of Supervisors

04- 21 C. K. Price School 93

04- 21 Capay Joint Union Elementary School 94

04- 21 Glenn County Board of Supervisors 95

TABLE OF CONTENTS ( continued)

04- 21 Glenn County School Board, Willows Unified School Board, 96

Willows High School, Willows Intermediate School,

Willows Elementary School, Office of Education

04- 21 Hamilton Elementary School 97

04- 21 Hamilton Union School District 98

04- 21 Lake School 99

04- 21 Mill Street School 100

04- 21 Orland Unified School District 101

04- 21 Plaza School 102

04- 21 Princeton Unified School District 103

04- 21 Stoney Creek Unified School District 104

04- 22 Plaza School 105

04- 22 Office of Education, Glenn County School Board 106

04- 23 Lake School 107

04- 23 Office of Education, Glenn County School Board 108

04- 24 Mill Street School 109

04- 24 Office of Education, Glenn County School Board 110

04- 25 Fairview School 111

04- 26 Willows High School 112

04- 26 Willows Superintendent of Schools 113

04- 27 Willows Intermediate School, Office of Education, Glenn 114

County School Board

04- 28 Willows Elementary School, Glenn County School Board, 115

Office of Education

04- 29 Capay School, Office of Education, Glenn County School 116

Board

04- 31 Hamilton Elementary School 117- 118

04- 33 C. K. Price Middle School 119

04- 35 Orland High School, Orland Superintendent of Schools 120- 122

04- 36 Princeton Elementary and High School 123

04- 38 Hamilton High School 124

04- 40 Glenn County Superintendent of Schools 125

04- 42 Glenn County Board of Supervisors 126

04- 43 Willows Superintendent of Schools 127- 128

04- 46 Glenn County Board of Supervisors 129

04- 49 Glenn County Board of Supervisors 130

TABLE OF CONTENTS ( continued)

04- 50 Probation Department - Jane Hahn Juvenile Hall 131

04- 53 Board of Supervisors, Department of Public Works 132

04- 54 Department of Public Works 133

04- 56 Glenn County Department of Public Works 134- 135

04- 58 Provident Irrigation District Board of Directors 136

No Response Received As of April 1, 2005

04- 60 Princeton- Cordora- Glenn Irrigation District ( PCGID) 137

No Response Received As of April 1, 2005

04- 61 Glenn County Board of Supervisors 138

04- 62 Glenn County Public Works 139

04- 63 Glenn County Board of Supervisors 140

04- 64 Glenn County Public Works 141

04- 65 Glenn County Public Works 142

04- 66 Glenn County Public Works, Glenn County Board of 143

Supervisors

04- 67 Glenn County Public Works 144

04- 68 Glenn County Public Works 145

04- 69 Glenn County Public Works 146

04- 70 Bayliss Library and Park, Glenn County Public Works 147

Department

04- 71 Glenn County Board of Supervisors 148

2004- 2005 GLENN COUNTY GRAND JURY

P. O. Box 1023

Willows, Ca. 95988

June 30, 2005

The Honorable Donald Byrd

Presiding Judge

Superior Court, County of Glenn

526 West Sycamore Street

Willows, Ca. 95988

Dear Judge Byrd,

In compliance with California Penal Code, Section 933, the 2004- 2005

Glenn County Grand Jury respectfully submits its Final Report to the Court.

The report consists of the work of six committees: City/ County

Government, Finance, Public Health, Schools, Public Safety, and Public

Works.

The nineteen- member jury made inquiries and investigations and served as a

civil jury considering a variety of complaints.

The Jury expresses its appreciation for the cooperation and assistance

received from the County employees during its interview and investigation

process.

The members of the 2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury are honored to

have had the opportunity to be of service to our County. We sincerely hope

our efforts are received as a positive contribution.

Sincerely,

Al Calonico, Foreperson

Glenn County Grand Jury, 2004- 2005

I

2004- 2005 GLENN COUNTY GRAND JURY MEMBERS

Vicki Allen

Robert Banfill

Cynthia Boracci

Mark Brown

William Brown - Sergeant At Arms

Al Calonico - Foreperson

Dennis Champagne

Barbara Estes

Patricia Faver - Secretary

Deborah Jackson

Jean Langston

Ralph Langston

Brenda Lester

John McCarthy

Matthew McGann

Debra Ramsey

Bree Schmidt

Gary Taylor

Robert Torres

II

THE ROLE OF THE GRAND JURY

The Grand Jury is primarily an investigative body created by the United

States Constitution’s Fifth Amendment and the California Constitution.

Nineteen residents of Glenn County are selected after interviewing 30 to 40

people. Grand Juries are impaneled annually and are officers of the Court,

but work independently. Most of the work is done by committees, which

include Public Safety, Schools, Public Works, Health Services, City/ County

Government and Finance. Other committees may be appointed as needed.

The Grand Jury and committees meet several times a month. The Jury

meets with County and City officials, visits local government facilities, and

conducts research on matters of interest and concern. The proceedings of

the Grand Jury are kept confidential. Jurors may not discuss the business of

the Jury with other individuals.

The Grand Jury receives letters from citizens expressing concern over a

particular matter of local government. Anyone may file a complaint with the

Grand Jury. The Grand Jury chooses which complaints to investigate. The

Grand Jury cannot investigate disputes between private parties. All

complaints to the Grand Jury are confidential.

All Grand Jury findings and recommendations are issued in written reports.

Each report must be approved by at least 12 members of the Jury. At the end

of the term ( June 30th), the Jury issues its final report. Copies of the report

are distributed to public officials, libraries, news media, and any entity that

is the subject of a report. Within ninety days, following the issuance of the

report, officials responsible for matters addressed are required to respond in

writing.

III

RESPONSE REQUIREMENTS & INSTRUCTIONS

The legal requirements as contained in the California Penal Code, Section 933.05 are

summarized as follows:

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

( 1) That you agree with the finding.

( 2) The you disagree wholly or partially with the finding. The response shall

specify the part of the finding that is disputed and shall include an

explanation of the reasons for the disagreement.

Recommendations by the Grand Jury require action. The responding entity or person

must report action on all recommendations in one of four ways:

( 1) The recommendation has been implemented with a summary of the

implemented action.

( 2) The recommendation has not been implemented but will be implemented

in the near future with a time frame for implementation.

( 3) The recommendation requires further analysis. If an entity or person

reports in this manner, the law requires a detailed explanation of the

analysis or study and time frame not to exceed six months. In this event,

the analysis or study must be submitted to the director of the agency being

investigated.

( 4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted

or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore.

If either a finding or recommendation deals with budgetary or personnel matters of a

County department headed by an elected officer, both the elected officer and the Board of

Supervisors shall respond if the Grand Jury so requests. The Board of Supervisors’

response may be limited, while the response by the department head must address all

aspects of the finding or recommendations.

Two working days prior to the release of the Final Report, the Grand Jury will provide a

copy of the portion of the report to all affected agencies or persons. No officer, agency,

department, or governing body of a public agency shall disclose the contents of the

report prior to its public release.

Section 933( c) of the Penal Code provides two different response times.

( 1) Public Agency: The governing body of any public agency must respond

within 90 days. The response must be addressed to the Presiding Judge of

the Superior Court.

( 2) Elective Officer of Agency Head: All elected officers or heads of

agencies who are required to respond must do so within 60 days to the

Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, with an informational copy

provided to the Board of Supervisors.

IV

2004- 2005

GLENN COUNTY GRAND JURY

FINAL REPORT

June 30th, 2005

2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury

Final Report

Agricultural Commissioner

I. PURPOSE:

To review the Glenn County Agricultural Commissioner’s programs,

goals, and objectives.

II. BACKROUND:

The Agricultural Commissioner’s Office consists of six areas.

Environmental Protection, Consumer Protection, Special Services,

Weights and Measures, Air Pollution Control, and Vegetation and

Environmental Management.

III. FINDINGS:

Staffing is adequate. The department has seventeen full time

positions, and vacancies are filled at a lower grade position. Six

employees will retire within three to five years. Sixty- three percent of

the departments budget is funded from outside sources. Total

reductions in the budget for the last three years is two- hundred- fifty-two

thousand five- hundred fourteen dollars. The agricultural revenue

for the county is three- hundred- eighteen million dollars annually. The

Department has a twenty- five acre plot of land to test for field pests

and insects which they sweep and check for any infestations. The

Department has budgeted eighty- eight thousand dollars for home

hazardous waste pickup. Less than five percent of the gas pumps

tested in the county fail tests. Rice burning is down to twenty- one

point four percent of all county rice fields.

IV. CONCLUSIONS:

The Agricultural Department is well managed and performs a wide

variety of services for Glenn County.

V. RECOMMENDATION:

The structure of all fines or citations imposed by the Agricultural

Department be reviewed to include all costs of legal services.

1

Build an Agricultural Extension Center on county property located

near the existing county office. This would be a one stop building for

all agricultural related needs. The building could lease office space to

Farm Credit, USDA, Farm Advisors and other Agricultural related

agencies.

VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:

Agricultural Commissioner

Glenn County Board of Supervisors

2

2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury

Final Report

City of Orland

I. PURPOSE:

To investigate current working conditions within the City of Orland

and discuss possible problems with budgetary constraints and their

ability to operate effectively.

II. BACKROUND:

Grand Jury members interviewed the Orland City Manager on

October 5th, 2004.

III. FINDINGS:

There is a major area of concern regarding the amount of office space

currently in use. The City Manager states the he requires more space

to function properly. At the time of this interview the budget for 2005

was not yet complete. The city gets approximately twenty- five

percent of the property taxes collected locally and thirty- three percent

from sales taxes and impact fees. Plans are being developed to find

new quarters for the Orland Police Department. The City Manager is

appointed by City Council and has been in office for two and one half

years. The department consists of the City Manager and forty- three

staff members. The number of staff members has not changed since

1990. In the next ten years projected expansions for single family

dwellings include some one- thousand two- hundred homes with eight-hundred

multi- family residences.

IV. CONCLUSIONS:

With the current growth, the major problems facing City Hall are lack

of office space and the relocating of the Orland Police Department.

V. RECOMMENDATIONS:

Explore the possibilities of relocating the Orland Police Department,

either permanently or temporarily, to the now, unoccupied, Sheriff’s

substation at 821 South Street in Orland. City Hall could then expand

to occupy the Police Department.

3

VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:

Orland City Manager

Orland City Council

Glenn County Board of Supervisors

4

2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury

Final Report

City of Willows

I. PURPOSE:

To investigate current working conditions within the City of Willows

and discuss possible problems with budgetary constraints and their

ability to operate effectively.

II. BACKROUND:

Grand Jury members interviewed the Willows City Manager on

October 4th, 2004.

III. FINDINGS:

One major area of concern, regarding the city’s ability to maintain

quality of life, is with State delays and cancellation of important

programs.

There have been no major changes in the last six months other than

the ongoing improvement with the old water supply system and

sewage treatment plant. If funds become available, improvements are

planned for the streets and sidewalks. The new budget was currently

at the printers as of this interview. The City receives approximately

twenty percent of their funds from property taxes. Other sources are

sales taxes and development fees.

The City Manager’s position is appointed by the City Council. The

department consists of the City Manager and thirty- six staff members.

The city presently has an infrastructure valued at approximately five

to six million dollars with private investors willing to invest in the

quality of life in Willows. In the past, a large portion of the county

has been annexed into the city. There are two housing tracts approved

for single family homes. Commercial property plans include Wal-

Mart’s plan to expand from eighty- six thousand to one- hundred eight-six

thousand square feet. There are plans for a new Holiday Inn

Express and for Superior Products ( Budweiser) to build a large new

facility on the east side. Starbuck’s Coffee has plans to locate in

Willows, as do a couple of fast food establishments. The City has

property zoned for an industrial park.

5

IV. CONCLUSIONS:

The city has major concerns with the State budget problem. The

League of California Cities predicts major cuts for all cities across the

State. Current monies due are not being paid. This is making it very

difficult to make plans and accept proposals for future needs when the

State simply delays or cancels programs. This problem may change in

three years. However, the City’s concern seem justified at the present

time.

V. RECOMMENDATIONS:

None

VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:

None

6

2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury

Final Report

Glenn County Public Libraries

I. PURPOSE:

To investigate the budget cuts by Glenn County as they relate to

Glenn County Public Libraries.

II. BACKROUND:

Glenn County funding of the public libraries has been cut, roughly,

fifty per cent over the past two years. The cities have been able to

supplement cuts in order for the libraries to survive. While the cities

increased library funding has been necessary and appreciated, it is not

expected to continue in such significant percentages. Disproportionate

General Fund budget cuts for the county library system will make it

difficult for the libraries to function at existing levels if the cities

aren’t able to offset the cuts with increased funding each year.

III. FINDINGS:

The public libraries of Glenn County are to be funded by the county,

and run by the cities. As recently as two years ago, the libraries

considered themselves to be in decent financial shape. With county

funding maintaining consistent levels, more or less, year after year.

With the cities supplementing library funding, the libraries were able

to function in such a capacity that there was no need to cut their most

important resource, staff. Some libraries have volunteer groups

called “ Friends of the Library. They provide valuable hours of service

to the libraries. The “ California Tele- Connect Fund” has helped keep

telecommunication more affordable to the libraries. The Bill and

Melinda Gates Foundation helped the Orland Library establish

stronger computer services. Budget cuts have been implemented, but

library visitation has not waned. The Orland Library is visited by over

two- hundred- fifty people per day, while the Willows Library averages

around one- hundred- twenty. The Bayliss Branch is open on Tuesdays

and the Elk Creek Branch is open on Wednesdays and Thursdays.

7

The Bayliss and Elk Creek branches have been nearly closed in the

past, but community fundraising and support has kept them open. The

Willows Library is open twenty- nine hours a week, Tuesday through

Saturday. The Orland library is open thirty- seven hours per week,

Monday through Friday. As a rule, materials and maintenance are the

first things cut when libraries are in financial binds, with staff being

the last to be cut. The Orland Library employs five full- time and three

part- time staff. Although two full- time employees are retiring and

lack of funding might not allow for the replacement of the full- time

staff. The Willows Library employees two full- time staff and five

part- time staff. Budget cuts have hurt the face- to- face service that the

library has traditionally been able to provide. This year, the libraries

were given the budget without the ability to discuss it beforehand, as

they had in the past.

Percentage- wise, the county’s funding of the libraries is as low as its

ever been and it has probably gone as low as it can go.

IV. CONCLUSIONS:

Library services and their role in the education of the community are

unquestionably an important part of the county. The fact that the need

for library services to be part of the General Fund clearly

acknowledges the importance of the existence of a library system.

However, for a county to choose to maintain a library system without

adequate funding, disproportionate cuts in library services will not

allow for continued excellence in the quality of service that Glenn

County libraries provide. With population growth in the county the

necessity of public libraries will only increase. If, as expected, the

cities are unable to give more funding to the libraries each year the

libraries will be unable to stay open for as many hours as they are now

and will not be able to continue to adequately staff for the face- to- face

service that good libraries provide.

Willows will not be able to afford to supplement the Elk Creek &

Bayliss cuts in the future.

V. RECOMMENDATION:

The librarians of the county should be allowed to offer input to the

county regarding their fate before being given a no- questions- asked

budget to accept.

8

While it goes without saying that services such as public protection,

safety and public assistance are necessary for the community, it

should not be discounted that library services and education are

entities that influence the General Fund across the board. A literate,

educated society will reduce crime and the need for increased

incarceration facilities. Education was the only budgeted area to be

cut more than thirty per cent by the county ( the only other are to

experience decreased funding - Public Protection/ Safety - endured a

one point five percent decrease) from the previous year. Library

services decreased thirty- seven percent. Considering the relatively

small operating budget of the libraries in the past, County funding of

education and the libraries should be expanded. Therefore, we

recommend the following:

1) Basically, county residents are 50% of the Library patrons. The

County should, therefore, pay half the cost of providing library

services.

2) The library should have a voice in the budget process.

VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:

Director of Finance

Glenn County Board of Supervisors

9

10

11

12

13

2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury

Final Report

Local Agency Formation Commission

I. PURPOSE:

To determine whether or not the Local Agency Formation

Commission ( LAFCO) is an independent agency. Also, to determine

if there were city and county planning conflicts due to the fact that

LAFCO is currently staffed by county employees.

II. BACKROUND:

The Grand Jury interviewed various heads of City and County

Government in order to find out if LAFCO is functioning

independently, without City and County conflict, in accordance with

the law.

III. FINDINGS:

The Orland City Manager says that LAFCO should be independent.

Each city contributes one third of the LAFCO budget. Orland’s City

Manager mentions that MSRs and Sphere of influence costs are paid

now by the city. He also mentions that the County Planning and

Public Works Director is the director of LAFCO and this is unusual

for counties.

The Willows City Manager doesn’t think that it makes any sense to

staff LAFCO any differently than it is now. The Willows City

Manager believes that it would cost too much money to independently

staff LAFCO.

The County Planning and Public Works Director believes that LAFCO

is ensuring that districts are efficient and well- planned. LAFCO

hasn’t met in almost a year but will be meeting soon to discuss the

inclusion of Thunder Hill Raceway to the water district. Part of the

County Planning and Public Works Director’s job description is that

he heads LAFCO.

IV. CONCLUSIONS:

LAFCO is not an agency separate from Glenn County staffing, but

economical factors limit hiring an outside agency at this time.

14

Considering how infrequently LAFCO meets, it is not fiscally

responsible to fund an outside agency.

V. RECOMMENDATION:

No recommendations are necessary, however the Grand Jury would

like written confirmation from County Counsel that the LAFCO in

Glenn County is legally compliant with statues defining the

independence of the agency.

VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:

Glenn County Counsel

15

2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury

Final Report

Planning and Development Conflicts

Between County and Cities

I. PURPOSE

To determine the nature of communication and conflicts between

Glenn County and the cities within Glenn County, with regard to

planning and development issues.

II. BACKGROUND

The Grand Jury interviewed various City and County staff members

and inquired specifically about the manner of communication between

all groups and their overall satisfaction with the planning and

development process.

III. FINDINGS

The current County Planning and Public Works Director has

encountered some lack of communication with the cities, specifically

with Orland, claiming they have not receiving some County

correspondence. Monthly lunch meetings between City and County

leaders have proven beneficial in communication efforts. The County

Planning and Public Works Director also recommends the

development of a pre- development round- table with prospective

developers in efforts to further communications in planning.

The City of Willows is satisfied with the level of communication

between themselves and the County. The Willows City Manager

meets with the County Planning and Public Works Director on a

regular basis. He makes note of the fact that his relationship with the

County has been easy because their offices are down the street from

each other. Also, Willows does not have as much development and

pressure as Orland.

In Orland, the City Manager acknowledges problems in

communication with the County but that things are improving.

Orland’s hiring of a full- time planner has made communication easier

for the City. The Orland City Manager mentioned that he’s starting to

receive notice of development applications.

16

However, recent proposed County development brought strenuous

objections from the City of Orland. The City felt the development

would inhibit the future “ orderly and rational expansion” of urban and

residential uses and services to the areas. In prior years, the County of

Glenn and the City of Orland worked together and jointly adopted a

general plan that directed growth in Orland and the surrounding

planning area. In 2003 the City of Orland amended its general plan

without joint cooperation with the County. As a result, the County

plan and the current City plan were not jointly adopted. In addition,

the Orland plan is now outdated, after only two years.

IV. CONCLUSIONS

Recent efforts to maintain monthly meetings between all planning

staff is a step in the right direction. All planning staff see these

meetings as appropriate methods of communication. A joint planning

effort between Orland and Glenn County, to revise and update their

general plans, would provide more consistent development policies in

Orland and the surrounding planning area.

V. RECOMMENDATIONS

The Glenn County Grand Jury recommends a joint planning effort to

structure a cooperative planning direction. The Grand Jury

specifically recommends a written, Cooperative General Plan between

the incorporated Cities and the County. Both groups should also

ensure that legal requirements are met for all methods of

correspondence and notification in matters of planning.

VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED

Glenn County Planning and Public Works Director

City of Orland

City of Willows

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury

Final Report

County / City Property Tax Splits

I. PURPOSE

To investigate whether or not Assembly Bill 8 property tax splits are

equitable.

II. BACKGROUND

Assembly Bill Eight ( AB 8) was implemented in 1979 and established

a method of allocating property tax revenues to local government

agencies. The State of California completed an audit in 2003 which

determined that Glenn County was in accordance with AB 8

allocation. The Grand Jury asked various City and County staff

members whether or not they found the AB 8 splits to be equitable.

III. FINDINGS

By interviewing the County Planning and Public Works Director, the

Willows City Manager and the Orland City Manager it was clear that

each entity believes it is being shorted by the AB 8 tax split. The

County Planning Director mentioned that outside firms are being

considered to determine whether or not the current fifty/ fifty

City/ County splits are equitable. But, finding the right firm has not

been easy. He mentioned that the City of Orland had hired the former

City Manager of Roseville to assess the splits. According to The

County Planning Director, part of the problem is that the cities and

county are competitors for every piece of the property tax dollar and

they each believe they are entitled to seventy cents on the dollar, but

are settling on fifty/ fifty splits.

The Willows City Manager has accepted the fifty/ fifty split between

the cities and the county. However, the County Planning Director

feels that it should rightfully be swayed more towards his side in a

seventy/ thirty split. The Orland City Manager believes that the cities

withstand a greater burden and are entitled to a seventy/ thirty split.

The Orland City Manager asked for a fifty/ fifty split as a compromise,

but is of the opinion that the city can live with the inequitable split for

the time being.

24

It was The Orland City Manger’s hope that the hiring of an outside

consultant would help assist in the development of a master agreement

between the cities and county. He still believes that the best way to do

a proper split would be to conduct a study, but that the study would

cost a minimum of sixty thousand dollars. All of this being said, the

Orland City Manager maintains that the lack of a formal split

agreement is not delaying any development.

IV. CONCLUSIONS

In prior years, the City / County AB- 8 Tax split was 54/ 46. Recently

the City of Orland has given up some funds and agreed to a 50/ 50

split, although the Orland City Manager feels the City is entitled to

70%. The County also feels it is entitled to 70%. It is clear that each

side is dissatisfied with its share of the split at the current fifty/ fifty

ratio.

V. RECOMMENDATIONS

The Grand Jury strongly recommends a joint group of existing City

and County government leaders be devised to negotiate a formal and

universally accepted split of AB 8 property tax dollars.

V. RESPONSE REQUIRED

County of Glenn

City of Willows

City of Orland

25

2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury

Final Report

Development Impact Fees

I. PURPOSE

To investigate the possibility of the County charging developers for

impact fees in much the same way the cities are now charging.

II. BACKGROUND

The Grand Jury interviewed three representatives of city and county

government. The County Planning and Public Works Director, was

interviewed on the county side, and city managers of Orland and

Willows were interviewed to represent the views of the incorporated

cities. Currently only the cities of Glenn County are charging impact

fees for development within cities limits.

III. FINDINGS

The county representative acknowledges that they don’t charge

developer impact fees at this time but he would like to see a change in

this policy. The county believes that a study is needed to determine

how to charge for developer fees. The County Planning and Public

Works Director recommends that Glenn County could use a recent

study done by Butte County to support the viability of charging county

impact fees. In the words of The County Planning and Public Works

Director, the absence of developer fees will lead to the “ future

deterioration of services.”

The Orland City Manager pointed out that county development

brought no impact fees to fund the city services that these county

residents would ultimately be using. The Orland City Manager

believes that impacts in county planning are even more important to

the cities in many instances. While the city has developer impact fees,

they are one- time- only fees and can’t perpetuate some of the services

and, coupled with the fact that county land- use designation isn’t

always in the best interest of city growth plans, the cities are often

burdened with extra costs to provide services.

26

The Willows City Manager acknowledged that the city of Willows

charges different impact fees for different areas of development.

Developers are required to submit evaluations of development before

approval and, if development commences, the work is bonded in the

event that the city might end up picking up the costs. Some developers

decide to back out when they don’t like the looks of the fees. Copies

of development proposals are given to the members of an informal

group of city and county leaders. This group consists of The Human

Resources Agency Director, The County Planning and Public Works

Director, The Orland City Manager, and The Willows City Manager.

The Willows City Manager believes that there are no inconsistencies

between Willows and Glenn County with regard to planning, but does

acknowledge that Willows’ small footprint ( two and one half square

miles), tends to make growth in the Willows area less controversial

than cities like Orland.

IV. CONCLUSIONS

City and County staff agree that the County should charge developer

impact fees.

V. RECOMMENDATIONS

Glenn County should use a study and implement county development

impact fees in Glenn County.

VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED

Board of Supervisors

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury

Final Report

Glenn County Assessment Practices Survey

I. PURPOSE:

To acknowledge the Glenn County Grand Jury’s receipt of the Glenn

County Assessment Practices Survey Report.

II. BACKROUND:

Section 15646 of the Government Code requires the State Board of

Equalization to survey each county to determine the adequacy of the

practices and procedures used by the County Assessor in valuation of

properties and related duties. Section 15646 requires the report be

sent to specific state and local government officials and that it also be

made available to other interested parties for their information upon

request. The Glenn County Grand Jury was also sent a copy of the

report.

III. FINDINGS:

The Glenn County Assessment Practices Survey Report was received

by the 2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury.

IV. CONCLUSIONS:

The Glenn County Assessment Practices Survey Report was reviewed

by the 2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury and found the report

acceptable.

V. RECOMMENDATIONS:

None

VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:

None

34

2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury

Final Report

Grand Jury Copy Machine Lease

Inland Leasing, Inc.

I. PURPOSE

To determine the feasibility of continuing the copy machine leased for

the Grand Jury from Inland Leasing, Inc.

II. BACKGROUND

The Grand Jury has a copy machine under lease through Inland

Leasing, Inc. of Chico, California. The Grand Jury also has a

maintenance agreement for the leased copy machine through Inland

Business Systems of Chico, Ca.

III. FINDINGS

The Grand Jury determined that the copy machine lease will expire in

June of 2005.

IV. CONCLUSIONS

The Grand Jury concurs with the 2003- 2004 Grand Jury Final Report

with the fact that the number of copies required to be printed by the

Grand Jury does not justify the annual cost of the copy machine lease

and has elected not to continue the lease upon expiration. The Grand

Jury will be better off purchasing a smaller, less sophisticated machine

or have copies made at a local printers.

V. RECOMMENDATIONS

The Grand Jury recommends that the 2005- 2006 Grand Jury purchase

a smaller, less sophisticated machine or have copies made at a local

printers.

VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED

None

35

2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury

Final Report

Glenn County Environmental Health

I. PURPOSE:

To meet with Glenn County’s Director of Environmental Health

review administrative operations and agency service related to

environmental issues such as the West Nile Virus.

II. BACKROUND:

Several members of the Glenn County Grand Jury met with Glenn

County’s Director of Environmental Health who welcomed questions

and offered facts related to administrative operations and agency

services and explained the West Nile Virus issue was not a serious

problem, in his opinion.

III. FINDINGS:

Currently there are three full time staff members as well as the

director. The director’s salary is paid by both county and state

funds. The department monitors retail food sales such as restaurants

and grocery stores. They also monitor rabies control within Glenn

County and issue permits.

The director was kind, receptive and very informative. When

presented with questions concerning the West Nile Virus issue he

related several facts which dispelled any rumors concerning the

seriousness of the issue. Among them was the fact that chances of any

Glenn County resident contracting this virus were extremely rare and

that concerns should be directed on issues surround the public waste

facility and state laws regarding the depth of mandated wells to

monitor toxic gases. He stated the landfill site is currently safe but

state laws require deep wells which are not practical in measuring

amounts of ground surface gases. Another concern is the county must

purchase the lands so that permits may be issued and the purchase of

this property is meeting resistance from the landowner. He also stated

the cause of the pollution in the ocean shoreline of Southern

California is not related to septic systems in the North State and new

laws, currently being

36

presented at the State level, may pose serious problems because of the strict

monitoring of these septic systems and the lack of staffing to meet new

demands placed on increased inspection requirements is another important

area of concern.

IV. CONCLUSIONS:

At the time of the interview, the Glenn County Grand Jury agreed

with the Director of Environmental Health’s presentation of facts and

his conclusion that West Nile Virus was not an area of great concern.

However, a recent death of a young man in the Capay area, from

complications related the West Nile Virus, offers new concerns

regarding the facts first presented during the interview. There are also

concerns related to the land fill and new State laws.

V. RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. The Board of Supervisors finalize the process to acquire land

needed for the Glenn County Land Fill as soon as possible.

2. The establishment of a county wide mosquito abatement

district.

3. The Director of Environmental Health continues to monitor and

respond to new State law that may impact North State

development.

VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:

Glenn County Director of Environmental Health

Board of Supervisors

Planning and Public Works

37

2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury

Final Report

Glenn Medical Center ( GMC)

I. PURPOSE:

To review Glenn Medical Center’s service to the community. To

observe the current condition of the building and its economic

viability to remain open in the future.

II. BACKROUND:

The Glenn County Grand Jury met with the hospital administrator and

attended a session discussing several programs/ plans currently under

development, on October 13, 2004.

III. FINDINGS:

1. Jared Garrison, M. D. joined the Medical Staff in July as a fulltime

physician in the hospital’s Family Care Clinic. In addition to

providing patient services in the clinic, Dr. Garrison, along with other

medical staff members, is assisting GMC in the development of a

Worker’s Compensation program for area employers.

2. Dr. Larry Highman, Board Certified General Surgeon has joined

the hospital to provide endoscopy and outpatient surgical services. He

is a member of the Colusa Regional Medical Center Board of Trustees

and Foundation and a respected physician in the community.

3. Glenn Medical Center is developing a broader base of physician

clinics. In the 2004- 2005 fiscal year, the hospital will offer a Hepatitis

C clinic, a new Worker’s Compensation clinic, and an OB/ GYN

clinic.

4. Glenn Medical Center is in the midst of a fund drive to bring

mammography back to Glenn County. The hospital anticipates having

this service on board by January 1st, 2005. It is anticipated that 50 to

60 tests will be done on a monthly basis given a sampling of area

physicians and allied health providers.

38

5. The hospital, in cooperation with Colusa Regional Medical Center,

will offer mobile MRI services on a twice monthly basis. The

expected start date is December 1, 2004.

6. Glenn Medical Center is exploring acquisition of a Dexa Scanner

for bone densitometry testing. This may be the hospital’s next major

fund raising project following the mammography services.

7. The hospital is currently licensed for fifteen acute beds, with

another thirty- four being held in reserve. Of these fifteen beds, GMC

is awaiting approval from CMS and their fiscal intermediary to utilize

a portion of these beds for what are termed, “ swing patients”. These

are patients who do not qualify for acute care but who are awaiting

nursing home placement or other lower levels of care.

8. Glenn Medical Center continues to operated through a lease

arrangement with Enloe Medical Center and William Casey, Inc.

Enloe has engaged Mr. Casey to provide management services to

Glenn Medical Center and has appointed Woody Laughnan Jr. as day-to-

day administrator through December 31st, 2004.

9. The existing hospital building meets current standard. However,

this building will not meet standards in the year 2013 without adding

additional buildings or portables outside the main building for certain

services. This building will not meet the year 2030 standards.

Several hospitals in other rural areas will not meet the year 2030

standards as well.

IV. CONCLUSIONS:

Grand Jurors have concluded Glenn Medical Center’s current outward

appearance needs improvement in the area of landscaping. Along

with much needed improvements to the landscaping GMC needs to

develop a positive public image through improved public relations

locally as well as in surrounding communities to draw patients back to

this location for their medical needs.

39

V. RECOMMENDATIONS:

Solicit local non- profit organizations such as the one used at the Glenn

County Fairgrounds or other organizations such as the Boy Scouts of

America. Other possibilities include local church organizations, and

public volunteers such as senior citizens groups for assistance in the

area of planting, beautification, and maintenance.

Develop a public relations media campaign for Glenn County and

surrounding areas.

Develop funding sources for expansion and improvements to help

meet the 2013 standards. Work with other rural hospitals and state

legislators to amend 2030 standards to keep rural hospitals open and

viable.

VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:

Glenn Medical Center Administration

Glenn County Board of Supervisors

40

2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury

Final Report

Glenn County Jail

I. PURPOSE:

To investigate current conditions at the Glenn County Jail and assess

any needs or concerns regarding this facility.

II. BACKROUND:

Members of the Glenn County Grand Jury toured the Glenn County

Jail on November 10th, 2004.

III. FINDINGS:

The population of the jail at the time of this tour was approximately

one- hundred- two inmates. The facility can hold a maximum of one-hundred

forty- four inmates. With one- hundred- two inmates and three

staff members on duty, the ratio is about thirty- four inmates per staff

member. It takes approximately forty- five to sixty minutes for most

bookings. The facility has only one padded cell which, at times, is a

problem. The jail currently contracts for space with Tulare and

Colusa Counties. The general appearance of the facility ranged from

poor to good. There were many areas, including doors, floors and

walls that are in need of painting throughout the facility. The kitchen

floor needs to be swept and cleaned. The floor was wet and very

slippery. The grand Jury visited the kitchen during the evening meal

preparation. The cove base along the walls and floor is in need of

repair or replacement. At the time of this tour the kitchen floor posed

a safety hazard for employees and inmates. The food seemed well-prepared.

There was a distinct odor throughout the facility and the

lighting system was not working in the visitation area. The staff

appeared more efficient and organized than had been reported in

previous Grand Jury findings. The area had an effective layout with

good scheduling. Additional cameras are to be added for the

observation tower.

IV. CONCLUSIONS:

Proper maintenance of this facility seems to be lacking.

41

V. RECOMMENDATIONS:

The kitchen floors need repair/ repainting. The kitchen base coving

needs to be repaired/ replaced. The floor needs to be maintained at a

higher lever of sanitary standards. Lighting needs to be

repaired/ replaced in the visitation area. It is further recommended

there be an addition of more cameras.

VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:

Glenn County Sheriff

Glenn County Board of Supervisors

42

2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury

Final Report

Glenn County Sheriff’s Department

I. PURPOSE:

To investigate current working conditions within the department and

discuss possible problems with new budgetary constraints and its

ability to serve the public effectively.

II. BACKROUND:

The Grand Jury interviewed the Glenn County Sheriff’s Department

on November 3rd, 2004 and found several issues which may have

significant impacts on its ability to serve the public effectively.

III. FINDINGS:

The Glenn County Sheriff’s Department received funds from the State

of California in the amount of five- hundred thousand dollars. It was

used to subsidize the department this year. And, it helped save many

jobs. Concerns are that, without this funding in future years, jobs will

be lost and service to the community will suffer. The Sheriff’s

Department annual cost to the general fund is approximately six

million dollars.

Funds generated from the 9- 1- 1 rollover calls are approximately one-hundred

twenty thousand dollars per year from the Orland and

Willows Police Departments. And, funds generated from booking

fees for the California Highway Patrol are approximately five

thousand dollars.

Due to cutbacks in funding and the lack of officers on patrol, the

department is currently prioritizing calls with those posing the greatest

danger to person or public safety being given top priority. Small

crimes such as thefts or robberies, not involving confrontation

between those being robbed and those committing the crime, are

usually handled the next day.

The sheriff is planning a visit the Planning Commission meeting in

Mid- November to petition for a zoning review and study for impact

fees on new development which will help cover costs resulting in the

need for increased services.

43

IV. CONCLUSIONS:

Budgetary constraints and the necessary cut backs which accompany

such constraints present serious problems to the community. The

Sheriff’s Department will, undoubtedly, not have the ability to serve

the community as effectively as they have in past years. This situation

will only worsen as the community grows.

V. RECOMMENDATIONS:

It is the recommendation of the Grand Jury to the Board of

Supervisors to implement a one- time impact fee of approximately

one- thousand five- hundred dollars to two- thousand dollars from

developers for all new residences in Glenn County to help cover the

costs of increased services for Law Enforcement.

The Grand Jury also recommends a citizens patrol program be formed

to help with crime watch / VIP style, or perhaps, SWORN DEPUTY

style.

VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:

Glenn County Board of Supervisors

Glenn County Sherrif’s Department

44

2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury

Final Report

Intruder Alert Procedures

I. PURPOSE:

To determine the procedures regarding an Intruder Alert Lockdown

between the Orland Police Department and the Orland Unified School

District

II. BACKROUND:

The Grand Jury interviewed the Orland Chief of Police and the

Superintendent of Schools to review procedures for communicating,

for school lockdown, in the event of an intruder alert.

III. FINDINGS:

In 2004 there was a bank robbery at the Orland Branch of the Bank of

America located approximately four blocks from Orland High School

and approximately five blocks from Mill Street Elementary School.

Following the robbery there were various law enforcement agencies at

the bank, including the Orland Police Department. There was no

communication to the school district, from the various law

enforcement agencies, for a possible intrusion alert from the bank

robbery suspect.

The Superintendent of Schools drove by the Bank of America and

continued on to his office located on sixth street. The Superintendent

states that he called the Orland Police Department and then called the

schools and ordered a lock down. The Grand Jury asked the Police

Chief who was responsible to call the school district for a possible

intruder alert lockdown. The Grand Jury was advised that the Police

Chief makes the call, when necessary.

The Grand Jury did not see a written procedure from the Police Chief

for an intruder lock down. After the incident, the Superintendent held

a debriefing meeting with the school principals to discuss the

lockdown procedures and possible ways to improve the process.

However, according to the Superintendent, he did not have a post

incident meeting or debriefing with the Orland Police Department to

discuss ways to improve communications.

45

In December of 2004 several principals attended a training session on

emergency procedures and the School District is in the process of

updating its procedure manual on this topic.

IV. CONCLUSIONS:

During this situation there was no direct communication between the

Orland Chief of Police and the Orland Superintendent of Schools.

The Chief did not feel a school lockdown was warranted and the

Superintendent acted without talking to the Chief or another Incident

Commander. The incident may have caused some inconveniences at

the school, but fortunately, no one was injured or endangered. The

Grand Jury is very concerned about improving the communication

process between the Orland Police Department and the schools

regarding lockdowns. There certainly should have been a meeting or

a debriefing between the Orland Police Department and the schools

after the incident.

V. RECOMMENDATIONS:

The Orland Police Department and the Orland School District meet

and adopt written procedures for intruder alert lockdowns, including

completing the update of the School Procedure Manual.

VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:

Orland Police Department

Orland Unified School District

46

2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury

Final Report

Jane Hahn Juvenile Hall

I. PURPOSE:

To investigate current working conditions at the Jane Hahn Juvenile

Hall and assess any needs or concerns regarding this facility.

II. BACKROUND:

Grand Jury members toured Jane Hahn Juvenile Hall on October 13th,

2004 and a follow- up interview was performed on October 19th, 2004.

III. FINDINGS:

According to State standards the Juvenile Hall is short one line staff

member. The Director has done some fine work in writing grants and

securing additional funding to improve this facility. She is obviously

dedicated to the children under her charge. The philosophy and

attitude of management and staff is great.

An absence of fire extinguishers in the kitchen area was noted. The

kitchen is being equipped with a new stove, walk- in freezer and walk-in

refrigerator. Once this equipment has been installed, evening meals

will be prepared on site. There is an education program structured like

public schools and it is well equipped with adequate supplies. Staff

members reported that it was difficult to make a good presentation to

all Grand Jury members as the group was too large to manage in

secured area. Approximately eight to ten percent of the residents are

repeat offenders. This facility currently houses twenty- two occupants.

Under extreme conditions this capacity has the ability to house

approximately thirty youth. Paint is peeling off on some of the floors.

Recreational equipment, specifically, basketball hoops, are not secured

in the yard area which may be of some concern.

IV. CONCLUSIONS:

There are concerns relating to the security of the youth from drive- by

harassment and/ or potential drive- by shootings from the street area

directly behind the exercise yard. The shortage of line staff adds to

the problem of supervisors and their ability to perform their duties.

47

V. RECOMMENDATIONS:

Appearance and presentation are important and the peeling of the paint

is unsightly. It is recommended that the floor be repainted and that

adequate fire fighting equipment be installed in the kitchen to meet

guidelines set by the State and County. It is also recommended that the

2005- 2006 Grand Jury visit to this facility be confined to the

committee members involved ( Public Safety Committee), plus the

Grand Jury Foreperson. The Grand Jury recommends the staffing for

the Juvenile Hall be brought up to State standards.

VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:

Director of Probation

48

2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury

Final Report

Orland Police Department

I. PURPOSE:

To investigate current working conditions within the department and

discuss possible problems with new budgetary constraints and their

ability to serve the public effectively.

II. BACKROUND:

Grand Jury members interviewed with the Orland Police Chief on

November 19th, 2004 and found one major issue concerning the

present quarters for the department.

III. FINDINGS:

There are many new housing tracts currently under development

within the community. The addition of approximately one- thousand

new homes will expand the Orland Police Departments realm of

responsibilities significantly.

The Orland Police Department has been granted thirty- thousand

dollars for a feasibility study for additional space. The Orland Police

Department and Willows Police Department both agree that shared

communication is needed. The 9- 1- 1 rollover costs are approximately

forty- five thousand dollars annually to the jail, sixty thousand dollars

to the Sheriff’s Department and three thousand one- hundred dollars

monthly for booking fees. The department has three new tazer guns at

a cost of one thousand nine- hundred seventy- seven dollars each; tazer

guns are shared by nine officers. Volunteers in the Police Service

program provide services to the residence of the community while the

home owners are out of town. They also search for missing children

and direct traffic at major accidents when necessary. This is an

excellent program and permits sworn officers time to fulfill other,

more serious, community needs. At the time of this interview, the

Chief’s position was held on an “ acting” basis. It has since become a

permanent position. The department has four marked vehicles and

one unmarked vehicle.

49

The department has a good working relationship with the Willows

Police Department, the California Highway Patrol and drug agencies.

IV. CONCLUSIONS:

Currently, booking a person into the Glenn County Jail requires

officers spend one hour traveling time for simple charges such as

shoplifting. It takes three to four hours for a D. U. I. ( Driving Under

Influence). Lack of officers on patrol, during these booking/ traveling

times, poses significant safety issues to the public. The present

quarters are insufficient and have no “ holding area”. This hinders the

departments ability to provide necessary services.

V. RECOMMENDATIONS:

Plans for future developmental growth must include looking into the

feasibility of relocation to larger quarters. Suggestions might include

looking into the now, unoccupied, Sheriff’s Substation located at 821

South Street as a stop- gap or permanent location.

VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:

Orland Police Chief

Orland City Council

Board of Supervisors

Glenn County Sheriff

50

2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury

Final Report

Willows Police Department

I. PURPOSE:

To investigate current working conditions within the Willows Police

Department and discuss possible problems with budgetary constraints

and their ability to serve the public effectively.

II. BACKROUND:

Grand Jury members interviewed the Willows Police Department on

November 12th, 2004, and found a major issue concerning future

growth and development within the community and their ability to

provide necessary services with those currently working within the

department.

III. FINDINGS:

The department is currently in the same building with the Willows

Public Library and Willows City Hall functions. The 9- 1- 1 rollover

number and department number operate five days per week during

normal business hours. After hours, the Sheriff’s Department handles

911 calls.

There is one- thousand three- hundred square feet of space for eleven

sworn officers. There are three members of the office staff. The

department and the city are currently paying fees to the county. These

fees are increasing administration costs.

The department has a quote of three- hundred- nine thousand dollars

dated 2002 to remodel the present quarters giving them a total of two-thousand

nine- hundred square feet. This is provided the Public

Library relocates altogether. Another option is to use the property

directly behind their present quarters. However, this might pose a

traffic hazard with growth and personnel expansion. Currently, the

department will need three more sworn officers within the next three

to five years because of growth within the community.

There are four patrol vehicles plus the Chief’s vehicle and one

unmarked vehicle. No vehicles are taken home with the exception of

the Chief’s.

51

There are no volunteer programs. However, there is a community

service program. This community service program, consisting of two

non- sworn members who have had police schooling and training, are

on call and are paid for their services.

The Chief has been with the department six years. The department

mails out a citizen’s survey every Friday by randomly choosing ten

calls received each week. These citizens are asked 7 questions

relating to department and officer performance. The responses are

rated on a scale from one to five, with one being poor and five being

excellent.

IV. CONCLUSIONS:

The Police Department needs more room for current employees. In

addition, they would need six to seven more employees if they were to

handle their own calls twenty- four hours, seven days per week. This

would further increase the need for expanded quarters.

V. RECOMMENDATIONS:

The department must plan to move or build larger quarters, as the

department increases in personnel, to cover necessary services to a

growing community.

VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:

City Council

Willows Chief of Police

52

2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury

Final Report

Public Facilities Projects

I. PURPOSE:

To assess the progress of improvements to certain public facilities.

II. BACKGROUND:

Several County facilities need major repairs and upgrades. The

County has deferred maintenance on these facilities and has been

unable to upgrade them due to budget shortfalls and lack of alternative

funding sources. Prop. 40 allocated 1.2 million dollars to the County.

The County dispersed $ 220,000 to each City and will use the

remainder on County facilities.

III. FINDINGS:

On June 1, 2004, with the recommendation of the County Facilities

Planning Committee, a list of Prop. 40 Grant funded projects, with

cost estimates, were proposed and approved by the Board of

Supervisors. These projects included:

1. Bayliss Library - Renovation and restoration for an estimated

$ 195,000.

2. Orland Memorial Hall and Park - Improve the method of

ingress/ egress to meet ADA requirements, install exit and

emergency lighting, and enlarge / remodel restrooms with new

ADA compliant facilities and fixtures for an estimated $ 85,000.

3. Willows Memorial Hall and Park - Installation of an ADA

compliant drinking fountain for an estimated $ 5,000.

4. Hamilton City Park - Replace and/ or install ADA compliant

sidewalks, construct a 50 foot diameter gazebo, run all

underground electric, install new lighting, upgrade the area and

replace the basketball court to prevent loose balls from escaping

into the street for an estimated $ 90,000.

5. Ord Bend Park and Boat Ramp - upgrade the parking lot and

walkway surfaces around the rest room for ADA compliance,

add additional lighting, upgrade the irrigation system to

improve

53

efficiency and improve the boat ramp area for an estimated cost

of $ 88,000.

The Bayliss Library project is the first priority and construction is

scheduled to start in the summer of 2005. After the Bayliss Library

project, the others will be developed and constructed.

IV. CONCLUSIONS:

The Planning Department is doing an excellent job moving forward

on the Bayliss project and developing the other projects. These

repairs and upgrades are important. Deferred maintenance leads to

higher costs in the future.

V. RECOMMENDATIONS:

Glenn Planning continues the development of these County facilities

projects and tries to access additional funds, with the Prop. 40 Grant

Funds. Glenn Planning provides the 2005- 2006 Glenn County Grand

Jury with an update and status report on these projects.

VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:

Glenn County Planning and Public Works Agency

54

2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury

Final Report

Butte City Boat Ramp

I. PURPOSE:

To continue monitoring and assess the progress at the boat ramp.

II. BACKROUND:

The 2002- 2003 Grand Jury recommended installation of security

lighting and a camera at the boat ramp. The project was put on hold

because silting problems are occurring in the area and the County has

been delayed in getting the necessary permits to dredge.

III. FINDINGS:

If the County cannot get a permit and dredge the site the ramp will not

be used. Installation of the lights and camera, at this time, would be a

waste of money.

IV. CONCLUSIONS:

The County should pursue the dredging permit or find an alternative

site for access in that area.

V. RECOMMENDATIONS:

When the present site is dredged or an alternative site is developed the

County should proceed with the installation of lighting and a security

camera.

VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:

Glenn County Planning and Public Works Agency

55

2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury

Final Report

Fleet Management

I. PURPOSE:

To review the Glenn County Fleet Management Policy.

II. BACKROUND:

Fleet Management is a Division of the Public Works Department. The

county makes transportation available to the various county

departments through the operation of a Fleet Management Division.

They purchase, maintain and operate all vehicles to reduce the cost of

transportation to the county. Costs of the Fleet Management Division

are received from the user departments.

III. FINDINGS:

Fleet Management is responsible for all fleet vehicle purchases and

cannot increase the size of the fleet without approval of the Board of

Supervisors. Vehicles are purchased either from the California State

List of bids, or from vendors, whichever is lower priced. Vehicles are

only replaced when they meet the replacement criteria. Vehicle

outfitting is done in house with the exception of radio installations

which is contracted out to vendors. Departments can purchase cell

phones for their supervisors, which are the Nextel model with Walki-

Talkie features thus reducing call time expenses. Vehicles are

disposed of at vehicle auctions after being declared surplus by the

Board of Supervisors with the funds going into the Fleet Management

Fund. Fuel is purchased on an annual bid and is dispensed using a

card lock system. A new vehicle car wash rack is under construction.

The water is recycled to meet the new National Pollution Discharge

requirement. County tools and equipment are not loaned out to

individuals. The County is mandated to convert diesel vehicles to

cleaner burning, with less emissions.

IV. CONCLUSIONS:

The Fleet Management Division adheres to the policies set forth in the

Glenn County Administrative Manual Title Fourteen.

56

V. RECOMMENDATION:

Diesel vehicles should be retrofitted to comply with all State and

Federal Clean Air Standards.

VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:

Planning and Public Works Agencies

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury

Final Report

Glenn County Airports

I. PURPOSE:

To review the current operations of the Glenn County Airports.

II. BACKROUND:

Glenn County Airports have minimal security. Funds have been

allocated for partial fencing of the Orland Airport. Grants were also

applied for funding at the Willows Airport for security.

III. FINDINGS:

Federal Aviation Administration has allocated thirty thousand dollars

for fencing and the State will provide a matching five percent of that

amount for the Orland Airport. The grants for fencing at the Orland

Airport will not cover the cost of labor and materials to fence the

entire airport. Installation of the perimeter fencing will be done by

county crews as work load permits. Fence construction will start on

the East Side, along the airport side of the industrial park after the

environmental clearances are completed. The installation will

continue until the funds are exhausted. At the Orland Airport the

county building is currently vacant. The Public Works Department

perceives that security is a low risk concern due to the many available

Agricultural air strips in the county. Fuel is provided at both airports

using a card lock system. One public works maintenance worker is

assigned to split his duties between both airports. FAA wants an

updated master plan for the Willows Airport before it will allocate any

funding. The existing master plan is twenty years old.

IV. CONCLUSIONS:

The consolidation of both airports into one new airport could be an

advantage to Glenn County. The existing building could be rented out

for non airport uses at market values. The City of Willows could then

expand to the West Side of Interstate 5.

65

V. RECOMMENDATION:

A master plan for the airports should be drafted and a feasibility study

should be done to determine if a new airport complex with a ten

thousand foot airstrip should be considered. The location could be

midway between Orland and Willows adjacent to the I- 5 Highway.

The larger airport could accommodate larger aircraft and convenient

access to the I- 5 Highway. An industrial site could be incorporated in

the plan. An updated master plan for the Willows Airport must be

done. Fence construction should continue at the Orland Airport as

planned.

VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:

Planning and Public Works Agencies

Board of Supervisors

66

2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury

Final Report

North Willows Storm Drainage

I. PURPOSE:

Investigate the Glenn County storm drainage system North of the City

of Willows.

II. BACKROUND:

Flooding has occurred North of the City of Willows in the Glenn

County service area.

III. FINDINGS:

The Public Works opinion is that the drainage system is adequate, and

the pumps can handle the additional water runoff.

If a developer proposes building residential housing North of Green

Street, it should be noted that the property is now in the county. A

solution has been suggested to construct a swale ( holding pond)

adjacent to the exiting drainage canal. An additional swale could be

constructed on other property in the event more temporary storage is

needed. This area is in the North Willows Storm Drain Maintenance

District. Some flooding has occurred because trash has blocked the

inlets to the system.

IV. CONCLUSIONS:

The North Willows Storm Drain Maintenance District has knowledge

of the flooding problems and are evaluating proposed additional needs

for necessary drainage requirements for the future.

V. RECOMMENDATION:

1. If development is proposed for the property in this flood prone area

the contractor should bear all costs to upgrade the drainage system

and all impact fees for water, sewer, streets and curbs with gutters.

2. Initiate a free dump day at the land fill or free pickup of trash,

possibly twice a year. This may eliminate some of the illegal dumping

which is done in remote areas, along the roads and drainage ditches.

67

Hazardous waste and large appliances could also be collected. This

may also reduce some of the code violations at private residential

properties.

VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:

City of Willows

Glenn County Planning and Public Works Agency

Board of Supervisors

68

2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury

Final Report

Orland Public Works and Infrastructure

I. PURPOSE:

To interview the City of Orland’s City Manager and the Director of

Public Works to review the city’s infrastructure of the Public Works

Department, water, sewer, streets and storm drains.

II. BACKROUND:

Can the City of Orland’s infrastructure accommodate future growth?

III. FINDINGS:

The Public Works Department has nine full- time and two part time

employees and a new director has been promoted from within the

department. The part- time employees are very reliable and do a good

job for the city. The department is funded from fees collected from

water and sewer with some collected from gas taxes and the General

Fund. Engineering is contracted with Anderson & Rolls of Chico.

Services are billed on an hourly basis as needed. New developers pay

for installation of services in new subdivisions.

According to the City Manager, the sewer system is currently

operating at fifty percent capacity. The total capacity is for twelve

thousand people. A PRIMARY raw sewage system is currently being

used and they do not anticipate switching to a secondary sewage plant

because of the vast amount of land available for future expansion of

the current POND systems. “ BUGS” are purchased from Ennix

Corporation and they are doing an excellent job keeping the ponds up

to standards.

The drain system for rain run off is adequate since Orland is built on a

virtual gravel bed. Occasionally, during heavy rains, the system does

not drain as fast as necessary because of the capacity of the existing

pipes. This is currently being corrected with new pipes. All water run

off flows to Lely Aquatic Park.

Additional lands currently not being used for new ponds will more

than satisfy any future growth and development needs for Orland.

However, piping to new ponds at the Orland Airport, as approved by a

City/ County agreement, was never completed.

69

The city has eight water wells and they are adding a new water

storage tank with a capacity of three quarters of a million gallons of

water. The existing one has a capacity of eighty thousand gallons.

There are city developer fees imposed on new developments which

can be used for infrastructure improvements. There are no County

Developer fees at this time. The developer pays the fees during the

permit process.

Curbs, sidewalks, and gutters are required for all new homes.

There is a sewer line now in place under the freeway to service the

West side.

The new subdivision located North of the arch has been annexed into

the city.

Property must be annexed into the city to obtain city services.

Increased costs due to Workman’s Compensation and medical benefits

are slowly siphoning money from current funds. This ultimately will

result in a loss in the quality of services.

IV. CONCLUSIONS:

The Orland infrastructure is adequate with upgrades for additional

growth. However, funding sources are being diverted and additional

funds are necessary to maintain level of services.

V. RECOMMENDATION:

Review fees for services and adjust, if necessary, to upgrade

infrastructure and maintain quality of services.

VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:

City of Orland

70

2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury

Final Report

Willows Public Works and Infrastructure

I. PURPOSE:

To interview the City Manager of Willows and the Director of Public

Works to review the city’s infrastructure of the Public Works

Department, water, sewer, streets and storm drains.

II. BACKROUND:

Can the City of Willows infrastructure accommodate future growth?

III. FINDINGS:

The Public Works Department has twelve full- time positions.

The city maintains four parks, three city and one for the railroad.

The city only supplies water to three sites with the majority of water

supplied by the California Water Service Company.

Forty- two new homes are to be built within the Willows city limits

and an additional forty- three homes are proposed to be built adjacent

to the city. All impact fee’s will be paid by the developer and are

bonded in case the project is not completed. Two to three percent

growth for the city is projected over twenty years, with a population

of six thousand two hundred to ten thousand. The sewage system will

be updated with an eight million dollar grant. It will expand to serve a

ten thousand population. The water recycling project is funded by

grant funds. The city has hired two community service/ code officers

and are slowly improving their ability to respond to code violations.

The Fire Department handles the weed abatement program.

IV. CONCLUSIONS:

The Willows infrastructure is adequate with upgrades for additional

growth.

V. RECOMMENDATION:

None

VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:

None

71

2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury

Final Report

Capay Joint Union Elementary School

I. PURPOSE:

To investigate school safety drills, including fire drills and/ or intruder

on campus drills.

II. BACKROUND:

Glenn County Grand Jury members met with Capay Joint Union

Elementary School’s representatives on February 4th, 2005, to witness

a fire drill.

III. FINDINGS:

The school consists of grades K through 8 with student enrollment

being approximately one- hundred twenty five to one- hundred thirty-five

students. They currently hold one fire drill per month.

The fire drill began at 11: 00 am and ended at 11: 04 am. Students

walked out of the classrooms single file to designated areas located

approximately one- hundred yards from buildings. Each teacher is

responsible for his/ her class. If, after taking roll call, all students are

present a large green card, approximately twenty by twenty inches,

was held high overhead by the teacher. If someone is missing a large

red card is held up. During this drill one student was missing. His

name was called out and he was located with another class where he

was on assignment at the time of the drill.

The secretary checks all restrooms on her way out and is responsible

for the card display. Drill procedures are posted in all classrooms.

At this time there are no “ Intruder Drills” taking place. It has been

discussed but no decision has been made as to when they should start.

This fire drill was carried out in a very orderly fashion.

The custodian was very helpful in explaining how the drill works and

in sounding the ( ear piercing) alarm.

The office secretary was very forthcoming with information. The

Superintendent/ Principal was on medical leave. By the nature of the

conversation they would have appreciated more members of the

Grand Jury being present.

72

IV. CONCLUSIONS:

The school needs to holding drills for intruder- on- campus and finalize

drill procedures. The school also needs to install door locks, blinds

for windows, and a notification system for such procedures to account

for all students in classrooms. The school is still in the process of

applying for Financial Hardship Modernization funds to pay the

$ 7,162.31 needed for the door locks.

V. RECOMMENDATION:

Initiate intruder- on- campus drills and procedures without further

delay. Install locking devices which may be locked from the inside of

the classroom and put blinds on the windows. Make sure drills are

practiced frequently and that a notification system which insures all

students are accounted for in the classrooms during the drill is in

adopted as part of the procedures for intruder alerts.

Complete application for Financial Hardship Modernization Funds

from the Office of Public School Construction. If application is not

successful, school should immediately pursue other sources to fund

door locks.

VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:

Capay Joint Union Elementary School

73

2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury

Final Report

C. K. Price School

I. PURPOSE:

To review current procedures regarding emergency evacuations and

intruder on campus drills.

II. BACKROUND:

Grand Jurors met with the Vice Principal of C. K. Price School on

January 13th, 2005 at 1: 35pm.

III. FINDINGS:

Instructional booklets regarding school procedures are given to

substitute teachers upon their arrival day of assignment. The Vice

Principal and Grand Jurors in attendance both found it difficult to

locate fire drill and intruder drill procedures in this booklet.

It was noted that only a map, without instructions, was displayed on

the walls in the classroom.

The fire department was notified of the pending fire drill scheduled

that day. The alarm was sounded. As Grand Jurors walked the

grounds to observe children and teachers it was noted that no lines

were formed as children exited the classrooms. Some children were

running to other children from other rooms. However, once they

were out on the field behind the school they did form lines and

teachers took roll call.

Most rooms were checked and found to be locked. The bell rang

signaling all was safe and the children returned to class in a semi-orderly

fashion.

It was noted that some rooms do not lock from the inside for intruder

protection.

IV. CONCLUSIONS:

Emergency procedures need to be located at the front of substitute

teacher manuals for easier access and review.

74

Remaining classrooms not equipped with inside door locks for

intruder protection need attention. Children running from classrooms

is cause for concern.

V. RECOMMENDATIONS:

Move emergency procedures to the front of the substitute instructional

manual. Install locks on the inside of the doors, currently without

such devices, for intruder prevention. As an alternative, use the same

“ foam rubber” device currently being used by Willows Intermediate

Schools. It is manufactured and designed to allow access in and out

of the classroom while the door remains locked at all times. If an

ALERT is activated, this devise is pulled out from the inside, and the

door automatically locks shut. This will prevent faculty members

from having to step outside the classroom to lock the door keeping

them out of harms way.

School Administrators and Teachers should review drills procedures

and insure that students are instructed not to run during drills.

Everyone should go to his or her assigned areas quickly, quietly and

orderly, but not running.

VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:

C. K. Price School

75

2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury

Final Report

Elk Creek School

I. PURPOSE:

To review current procedures regarding emergency evacuations and

intruder on campus drills.

II. BACKROUND:

Grand Jurors attended a presentation and witnessed a fire drill at Elk

Creek School on February 18th, 2005.

III. FINDINGS:

The fire drill went off smoothly and in an orderly fashion. Teachers

and students seem well prepared for this type of emergency.

The school is funded with 10% Federal and 90% State funds.

Indian funds are approximately $ 7,000.00 per year. There are

approximately 130 children in the district. Only 2 classroom doors

lock from the inside. All others lock from the outside with the

exception of room number 2.

IV. CONCLUSIONS:

Because only two of the classrooms lock from the inside there are

serious concerns for the safety of teachers having to step outside the

classroom to lock doors in the event of an intruder on campus.

V. RECOMMENDATIONS:

Install locks on the inside of the three remaining doors or use the same

“ foam rubber” device currently being used by Willows Intermediate

Schools. It is manufactured and designed to allow access in and out

of the classrooms while the door remains locked at all times. If an

ALERT is activated, this device is pulled out from the inside, and the

door automatically locks shut. This will prevent faculty members

from having to step outside the classroom to lock the door keeping

them out of harms way.

VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:

Elk Creek School

76

2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury

Final Report

Fairview School

I. PURPOSE:

To review current procedures regarding emergency evacuations and

intruder on campus drills.

II. BACKROUND:

Grand Jurors attended and witnessed a fire drill/ evacuation on

October 19th, 2004 and met with the principal on January 10th, 2005 to

discuss possible areas of concern pertaining to these issues.

III. FINDINGS:

The emergency evacuation on October 19th, 2004 was executed

without incident and the subsequent meeting with the new principal

was both informative and interesting. Fairview School’s new

principal is genuinely concerned for the safety of the children and has

implemented a new and improved program outlining emergency

procedures. This program will be presented to the Site Council for

approval.

These new procedures, along with several drills will, undoubtedly,

help make Fairview School one of the best prepared schools in the

district.

Three rooms still need locking devices from the inside, for intruder

prevention, keeping faculty members from having to step outside the

classroom to lock the door placing them in harms way.

IV. CONCLUSIONS:

Grand Jurors have concluded that Fairview School’s proposed

emergency program is excellent.

V. RECOMMENDATIONS:

Install locks on the inside of the three remaining doors or use the same

“ foam rubber” device currently being used by Willows Intermediate

Schools. It is manufactured and designed to allow access in and out

of the classrooms while the door remains locked at all times.

77

If an ALERT is activated, this device is pulled out from the inside, and

the door automatically locks shut. This will prevent faculty members

from having to step outside the classroom to lock the door keeping

them out of harms way.

VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:

Fairview School

78

2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury

Final Report

Hamilton Union School District

I. PURPOSE: To follow up on prior Grand Jury recommendations and

investigate the status of installation of hardware for door locking

device.

II. BACKROUND: The 2003- 2004 Grand Jury recommended the

schools install door locks that can be locked from the inside. The

School District responded on August 10th, 2004 and stated,

“ Retrofitting all doors that fall into this category with locking devices

which are approved by the State Fire Marshall will cost the District

approximately $ 20,000. This expense is not reflected in the District’s

current budget. The District will pursue obtaining a matching funds

JPA Safety Grant. If the District is successful in obtaining a grant,

$ 10,000 will be applied toward retrofitting during the school year

2005- 2006. If succeeding grant applications are forthcoming, an

additional and final $ 10,000 will complete the project during the

school year 2006- 2007. If the District is not successful in obtaining

JPA grant funding, it will be necessary to phase in the retrofitting over

a longer period.”

III. FINDINGS: The District has installed the locks on the multipurpose

rooms. However, installation on the classrooms is very expensive.

The JPA Grant is still available but the District cannot include the

matching funds in their current budget, at this time, because of the

uncertainty of possible State impact on school financing.

IV. CONCLUSIONS: The safety of teachers and students is important

& proper door locks would help ensure their safety.

V. RECOMMENDATIONS:

The District should continue its efforts to fund this project and provide

matching funds for the JPA Door Lock Safety Grant.

VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:

Hamilton Union School District

79

2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury

Final Report

Lake School

I. PURPOSE:

To investigate school safety drills, including fire drills and/ or intruder

on campus drills.

II. BACKROUND:

Glenn County Grand Jury members interviewed the school principal

and determined their was one major issue that needed attention.

III. FINDINGS:

1. Practices for intruder drills include a lock down of the entire

campus.

2. All rooms locked from either the inside or the outside.

3. Procedures for all drills are posted in all classrooms.

4. The drill observed was carried out in an orderly manner.

5. All procedures were supervised and checked by the principal.

IV. CONCLUSIONS:

Doors not equipped with inside locking mechanisms do not provide

safety for teachers in the event of an intruder on campus. Teachers

must step outside these rooms to lock the door putting them in harms

way.

V. RECOMMENDATIONS:

Install locks on the inside of all doors or use the same “ foam rubber”

device currently being used by Willow Intermediate Schools. It is

manufactured and designed to allow access in and out of the

classrooms while the door remains locked at all times. If an ALERT

is activated, this device is pulled out from the inside, and the door

automatically locks shut. This will prevent teachers from having to

step outside the classroom to lock the door keeping them out of harms

way.

VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED: Lake School

80

2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury

Final Report

Murdock Elementary School

I. PURPOSE:

To investigate school safety drills, including fire drills and/ or intruder

on campus drills.

II. BACKROUND:

Glenn County Grand Jury members interviewed the Vice Principal

who directed them to the principal on January 11th, 2005 at

approximately 9: 20am. A folder was offered to the Grand Jury listing

the procedures used for intruder drills along with fire and earthquake

drills.

III. FINDINGS:

Murdock Elementary School alternates between inside drills and

outside drills, having one drill per month. Code Blue is a practice

drill. Code Red is the real thing. Grand Jurors walked around with

the principal as she checked all doors to see if they were locked. She

noted any procedures which were not followed, Finding only one; a

light which had been left on. All lights are to be turned off, curtains

pulled and rubber blocks are removed from the doors securing them

from the inside. A sign with a CIRCLE in the window means all

children are present. A sign with a SQUARE in the window means a

student is not in the classroom. The students name is written on the

SQUARE. If students are out of the classroom or in the restroom they

are instructed to put their feet up in the stall. During outside drills all

students are to drop where they are and lay flat like stones. The

principal and vice- principal divided the campus to check rooms. The

total drill time took eight minutes. When all was clear an

announcement was made over the loud speaker that the code blue was

all clear. There is a teacher handbook in each room for substitute

teachers to review. With repeated practices students now know what

they must do in cases of such alerts. The drill went smoothly and the

principal was very informative and pleasant.

81

IV. CONCLUSIONS:

Murdock Elementary seems well prepared for emergency procedures.

V. RECOMMENDATION:

Continue practicing drills as scheduled.

Recommend a secondary ( backup) location for activating the alert

system, such as the teacher’s lounge.

VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:

Murdock Elementary School

82

2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury

Final Report

Plaza School

I. PURPOSE:

To investigate school safety drills, including fire drills and/ or intruder

on campus drills.

II. BACKROUND:

Glenn County Grand Jury members met with Plaza School’s principal

and observed a fire drill.

III. FINDINGS:

1. When the alarm was sounded all students and teachers moved

quickly and quietly to their assigned locations on the field.

2. All teachers and aids had their roll sheets and called roll to

insure one- hundred percent participation.

3. No students or employees remained in the buildings.

4. Upon inspection of the alarm system the annual alarm

inspection report for 2004 was not in place in the alarm box.

IV. CONCLUSIONS:

The fire drill was properly executed in a timely and efficient manner.

The equipment appeared to be in good working order, but the last

inspection report was not in the alarm box.

Construction was proceeding on new classrooms and other buildings.

All new construction meets latest state codes for door locks and other

hardware.

V. RECOMMENDATION:

After annual equipment inspections school staff should insure that

inspectors provide reports and that they are placed in the alarm boxes.

VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:

Plaza School

83

2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury

Final Report

Princeton Elementary School

I. PURPOSE:

To investigate school safety drills, including fire drills and/ or intruder

on campus drills.

II. BACKROUND:

Two Glenn County Grand Jury members met with Plaza School

representatives on February 24th, 2005 at approximately 10: 43 to

observed a Fire Drill.

III. FINDINGS:

Approximately 60% of the children are Spanish speaking. There are

special teachers assigned to these children.

Overall the school is well taken care of and seems up on all the latest

procedures.

FIRE DRILL:

1. When the alarm was sounded all students and teachers walked

or ran to their assigned locations on the playground.

2. Teachers checked their respective lists of names to see if all

children were present.

3. The school principal checked the bathrooms.

4. The superintendent checks with all teachers to make sure they

are present.

5. The superintendent gives the thumbs up to signal the end of the

fire drill. The alarm sounds until this sign is given.

6. The school bell rings as the signal for all students and teachers

to return to their classrooms.

One teacher was asked what she would do if one of her students was

missing during the drill. Her reply was that she would probably ask

another teacher to watch her class while she went looking for the

missing student.

84

At the beginning of the year all teachers and students review the rules

for emergency evacuations and they include a bus evacuation once per

year. All teachers attend training for lock down drills which are also

scheduled once per year. Some fire drills are unannounced.

Not all classrooms have telephones but teachers have cell phones and

classrooms have intercoms.

Classroom doors do not lock from the inside. However, the

installation of locks is in progress and has been approved since

January, 2005 with grant funding. “ North State Deferred Maintenance

Funds.”

IV. CONCLUSIONS:

The Fire Drill was properly executed in a timely and efficient manner.

The equipment appeared to be in good working order and evacuation

was well executed.

V. RECOMMENDATION:

The Grand Jury strongly recommends fine tuning and reviewing the

written for the procedures for locating missing students during

emergency drills as one teacher seemed unsure of what to do in such a

case.

School Administrators and Teachers should review drills procedures

and insure that students are instructed not to run during drills.

Everyone should go to his or her assigned areas quickly, quietly and

orderly, but not running.

Make sure locks, now being installed, lock from the inside of the

classroom permitting the teacher to lock the doors without having to

step outside the classroom to accomplish this task which may put

them in harms way.

VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:

Princeton Elementary School

85

2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury

Final Report

Willows Intermediate School

I. PURPOSE:

To investigate school safety drills, including fire drills and/ or intruder

on campus drills.

II. BACKROUND:

Glenn County Grand Jury members interviewed the school principal,

and Vice Principal on January 11th, 2005 at approximately 1: 15.

III. FINDINGS: There are approximately five- hundred students. One

fire drill and one intruder drill are held each month with two disaster

drills being held each school year. A CODE BLUE was announced at

1: 15 and one member of the Grand Jury attended one classroom and

found the substitute teacher and all students were under desks.

Another Grand Juror attended the Nurses office and found four

students, one mother, and two members of the office staff secure. A

third Grand Juror walked around campus with the Vice Principal and

found all areas secured. All doors were secured by interior fitted door

lock bands. All exterior doors were fitted with a bar type lock as well.

All windows were either darkened and/ or shades were fitted for cover.

This drill took approximately twelve minutes. The school also has a

new telephone communication system.

IV. CONCLUSIONS:

There is only one location to activate emergency procedures. Two

locations might be beneficial in cases where one area is subject to an

intruder and staff may not be permitted to sound the alarm from that

location.

V. RECOMMENDATION:

Install a secondary location to activate emergency procedures other

than the office location. Continue practicing drills as scheduled.

VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:

Willows Intermediate School

86

2004- 2005

GLENN COUNTY GRAND JURY

EVALUATION OF

RESPONSES

To

2003- 2004

Grand Jury Final Report

June 30th, 2005

2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury

Evaluation of Responses To

2003- 2004 Glenn County Grand Jury Report

DEPARTMENT NAME: Board of Supervisors / Golden State Risk

Management Authority / City of Orland, All Glenn County School Districts

REPORT NUMBER: # 04- 02

RECOMMENDATION: That GSRMA provide training to the member

agencies on how to deal with claims and claimants and the need for a

friendly and informative attitude; keeping in mind that members are public

agencies and public servants. The GSRMA should strongly urge members to

attend. A brochure should be provided to all members outlining the positive

aspect of good public relations and how to help claimants fill out claims and

the procedure for filing them. A claimant has a right to file a claim in a

timely manner without difficulty and should be given all the help needed,

with instructions, on where to file by trained agency personnel.

RESPONSE: Letter dated 09/ 21/ 04

The Board of Supervisors concurs with the response from Golden Risk

Management Authority, dated July 14, 2004 per attachment A which states:

Dear Judge Saint Evens:

Pursuant to Penal Code 933.05, the following is Golden State Risk

Management Authority’s ( hereinafter GSRMA) response to the Glenn

County Grand Jury’s 2003/ 2004 Final Report. Specifically, pages 1 and 2

covering GSRMA.

GSRMA partially disagrees with the findings as stated on pate 1 of this

report. Our disagreements are as follows:

A. Member contributions are paid directly to the GSRMA to cover the

pooled layer and to purchase reinsurance, or excess insurance, or both,

depending on the specific program.

87

Attached you will find copies of GSRMA’s 2003/ 2004 Memorandums of

Coverage. These documents provide a clearer picture of how each program

is structured.

B. Per Government Tort Claims Act 910.4, GSRMA has provided all of its

Member Agencies with a claim form template. This document was adopted

by each Member Agency and is available to the public should they desire to

file a claim against said Public Agency. In addition, GSRMA has said claim

form template is available on its website, www. gsrma. org for any Member

Agency to download as needed.

In regards to said claim form, it is constructed as recommended by the

Government Claims Tort Act. It is set up in an easy to read format that

could be completed by anyone having a basic understanding of the English

language. It is not required by the Government Claims Tort Act that a Public

Agency have said form in any foreign language.

Enclosed you will find a copy of said template. As you can read, this

document clearly spells out what information is needed to file a claim

against any Public Agency.

GSRMA takes exception to the Grand Jury’s findings that GSRMA should

train its membership on how to train the public to sue at Public Agency.

GSRMA has clearly demonstrated it does provide service to its membership

in the steps that are necessary should the public wish to file a claim against

said Public Agency.

2004- 2005 GRAND JURY REVIEW OF RESPONSE:

Response accepted

88

2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury

Evaluation of Responses To

2003- 2004 Glenn County Grand Jury Report

DEPARTMENT NAME: Glenn County Assessor, Department of Finance

REPORT NUMBER: # 04- 04

RECOMMENDATION: There needs to be clarification of exactly what

A87 is and if its use is mandatory for counties in determining how costs are

allocated for each department. All county departments should be provided

this information.

RESPONSE: Letter dated August 6, 2004 from the Department of Finance.

A presentation was given at the Board of Supervisors meeting on March 18th,

2003, explaining the A- 87 plan. Additionally, the plan was further presented

at the management Council Meeting on April 8, 2003. These meetings were

properly noticed and all interested county departments were invited. A copy

of the Board report and Agenda Item Transmittal of that date will be re-issued

to all current county department heads.

The A- 87 plan is the only allowable cost allocation methodology for the

State of California and the Federal government. As such, its use is

mandatory in determining costs of each department.

The Finance Director concurred that the Board of Supervisors had the

ultimate authority to raise or lower each Department’s budget. As such,

taking A- 87 costs from each Department’s budget does not necessarily

reduce the Department’s level of funding. If appropriate, the Board can

simply raise a Department’s budget to offset the A- 87 changes.

2004- 2005 GRAND JURY REVIEW OF RESPONSE:

Response accepted.

89

2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury

Evaluation of Responses To

2003- 2004 Glenn County Grand Jury Report

DEPARTMENT NAME: Human Resource Agency ( HRA)

REPORT NUMBER: # 04- 05

RECOMMENDATION: HRA needs to publicize and promote a more

positive image for their programs in order to have the services utilized by a

broader range of people; i. e., employers.

RESPONSE: Letter dated 08/ 19/ 04

The HRA fully concurs with this and has already initiated an

outreach/ marketing program which targets/ emphasizes employer programs

and services.

2004- 2005 GRAND JURY REVIEW OF RESPONSE:

Response accepted

90

2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury

Evaluation of Responses To

2003- 2004 Glenn County Grand Jury Report

DEPARTMENT NAME: Child Welfare Re- Design of Glenn County Foster

Care

REPORT NUMBER: # 04- 18

RECOMMENDATION: The Grand Jury needs to actively follow this

process. ( Child Welfare Redesign). A member of the Grand Jury should

attend the CICC meetings, to be aware of how the redesign proceeds. The

CICC agendas should be sent to the Grand Jury on an ongoing basis and

should be given a copy of the final Redesign Plan, and an overview

presentation by an HRA management team.

RESPONSE: The HRA concurs with this recommendation and appreciates

the Grand Jury’s interest in this important effort to improve mandated

services to children and families. A copy of the monthly CICC meeting

notices and proposed agendas will be forwarded to the Grand Jury ( P. O. Box

1023) beginning in September 2004. The Grand Jury will also be given a

copy of the final Redesign Plan ( when completed) and provided with an

overview presentation of the plan by the HRA management team if

requested by the 04/ 05 Grand Jury. The final Redesign Plan was received by

the 2004/ 2005 Grand Jury in February of 2005.

2004- 2005 GRAND JURY REVIEW OF RESPONSE:

Response accepted

91

2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury

Evaluation of Responses To

2003- 2004 Glenn County Grand Jury Report

DEPARTMENT NAME: Glenn Medical Center Administration / Glenn

County Board of Supervisors

REPORT NUMBER: # 04- 20

RECOMMENDATION: The Grand Jury should review quarterly progress

reports on the process of separation from Enloe Medical Center. Grand Jury

members should also attend foundation meetings and meet with the

administrator on a quarterly basis. The administration should provide

progress reports to the Grand Jury.

RESPONSE: Letter dated 07/ 19/ 2004

In accordance with reporting requirement, please find Glenn Medical

Center’s responses to the 2003- 2004 Glenn County Grand Jury Final Report.

Representatives from Bill Casey and Associates and Glenn Medical Center

Administration meet with the Board of Supervisors on a quarterly basis with

updates regarding the facility. Minutes of these quarterly updates are

available for the Grand Jury. Should the Grand Jury wish to meet separately

with Bill Casey and Associates and the hospital administration, a quarterly

meeting could be scheduled to discuss the Enloe separation issue. Glenn

Medical Center would be happy to host this meeting following direction

from the Grand Jury. With respect to the newly formed Glenn Medical

Center Foundation, I have asked the Foundation Board to contact the Grand

Jury to advise as to the Foundation’s meeting schedule. I am sure the

Foundation Board would welcome attendance by Grand Jury members to

hear the progress and plans of the Foundation. The Hospital Administrator

would also attend this meeting. Mr. Vern Roberts, Foundation Board

Member, will contact Mr. Calonico to share the Foundation’s meeting

schedule.

Glenn Medical Center is committed to providing quality health care services

throughout the County and looks forward to working with the Grand Jury.

2004- 2005 GRAND JURY REVIEW OF RESPONSE:

Response accepted

92

2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury

Evaluation of Responses To

2003- 2004 Glenn County Grand Jury Report

DEPARTMENT NAME: C. K. Price School

REPORT NUMBER: # 04- 21

RECOMMENDATION: Re- evaluation of the Team Concept of school

grounds care. All classrooms need inside/ outside door locks for the

protection of our children.

RESPONSE:

C. K. Price will be refitted with anti- intruder locks during the “ 04/ 05” school

year. The Team Concept will be continued for the “ 04/ 05” school year. This

program became effective once permanent employees were on the job and

retraining had taken place. The program will be monitored for effectiveness.

2004- 2005 GRAND JURY REVIEW OF RESPONSE:

Response accepted.

93

2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury

Evaluation of Responses To

2003- 2004 Glenn County Grand Jury Report

DEPARTMENT NAME: Capay Joint Union Elementary School

REPORT NUMBER: # 04- 21

RECOMMENDATION: Re- evaluation of the Team Concept of school

grounds care. All classrooms need inside/ outside door locks for the

protection of our children.

RESPONSE: Letter dated 08/ 19/ 04

The school has received a quote of $ 7162.31 from Johnny’s Lock and Safe.

This does not include keying and master keying of all locks. Also, the

District is in the process of applying for Financial Hardship Modernization

money. If approved, these state funds could be used to cover the cost of

installing the locks.

2004- 2005 GRAND JURY REVIEW OF RESPONSE:

Response accepted.

94

2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury

Evaluation of Responses To

2003- 2004 Glenn County Grand Jury Report

DEPARTMENT NAME: Glenn County Board of Supervisors

REPORT NUMBER: # 04- 21

RECOMMENDATION: Re- evaluation of the Team Concept of school

grounds care. All classrooms need inside/ outside door locks for the

protection of our children.

RESPONSE: The Board concurs with the recommendations of the Grand

Jury, however, the Board has no jurisdiction over the school districts.

2004- 2005 GRAND JURY REVIEW OF RESPONSE:

Response accepted

95

2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury

Evaluation of Responses To

2003- 2004 Glenn County Grand Jury Report

DEPARTMENT NAME: Glenn County School Board, Willows Unified

School Board, Willows High School, Willows Intermediate School, Willows

Elementary School, Office Of Education

REPORT NUMBER: # 04- 21

RECOMMENDATION: Re- evaluation of the Team Concept of school

grounds care. All classrooms need inside/ outside door locks for the

protection of our children.

RESPONSE:

It is always a pleasure to work with the members of the Grand Jury. This

year the focus for the education community was to review progress of the

2002- 2003 Grand Jury recommendation for intruder prevention and other

school operations and to determine the authority of the Superintendent.

Over the years progress has been made in the area of school safety. We have

a countywide disaster preparedness plan, and the individual school districts

have plans for a variety of contingencies. We have met with law

enforcement and the office of emergency services to talk about potential

problems and their solutions.

Your committee did a thorough job of reviewing the Superintendent’s

authority. AB 2756 was just passed which extended the AB 1200 budget

oversight for districts. We are currently determining what this will entail.

Under recommendation for the 2004 year you encouraged schools to use the

grant writer and apply for grants. With tight budgets I would heartily

endorse looking for extra grant funding. Unfortunately our county grants

writer is currently working on facilities and will not be available until we

complete the funding cycle for building projects. When those are completed

we will return to our grantsmanship. Thank you for your work and

dedication to the children of Glenn County.

2004- 2005 GRAND JURY REVIEW OF RESPONSE:

Response accepted

96

2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury

Evaluation of Responses To

2003- 2004 Glenn County Grand Jury Report

DEPARTMENT NAME: Hamilton Elementary School

REPORT NUMBER: # 04- 21

RECOMMENDATION: Re- evaluation of the Team Concept of school

grounds care. All classrooms need inside/ outside door locks for the

protection of our children.

RESPONSE: Letter dated July 28, 2004

The 2002- 2003 Grand Jury report recommended that locks were to be

installed on all doors to enable personnel to lock the doors from the inside.

In May, 2004, at considerable expense our district installed an “ inside

locking system” on all doors in all schools in our district. All exterior doors

are now compliant not only with the Grand Jury recommendations but also

with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the State Fire Marshall.

2004- 2005 GRAND JURY REVIEW OF RESPONSE:

Response accepted

97

2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury

Evaluation of Responses To

2003- 2004 Glenn County Grand Jury Report

DEPARTMENT NAME: Hamilton Union School District

REPORT NUMBER: # 04- 21

RECOMMENDATION: Re- evaluation of the Team Concept of school

grounds care. All classrooms need inside/ outside door locks for the

protection of our children.

RESPONSE: Letter dated August 10, 2004

Regarding the third recommendation: Retrofitting all doors that fall into this

category with locking devises which are approved by the State Fire Marshall

will cost the District approximately $ 20,000.00. This expense is not

reflected in the District’s current budget. The District will pursue obtaining

a matching funds JPA Safety Grant. If the District is successful in obtaining

a grant, $ 10,000.00 will be applied toward retrofitting during the school year

2005- 2006. If succeeding grant applications are forthcoming, an additional

and final $ 10,000.00 will complete the project during the school year 2006-

2007. If the District is not successful in obtaining JPA grant funding, it will

be necessary to phase in the retrofitting over a longer period.

2004- 2005 GRAND JURY REVIEW OF RESPONSE:

Response accepted.

98

2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury

Evaluation of Responses To

2003- 2004 Glenn County Grand Jury Report

DEPARTMENT NAME: Lake School

REPORT NUMBER: # 04- 21

RECOMMENDATION: Re- evaluation of the Team Concept of school

grounds care. All classrooms need inside/ outside door locks for the

protection of our children.

RESPONSE: Letter dated 07/ 23/ 04

I discussed the findings with our Board of Trustees and wish to report on the

things we will be doing this year to address their findings:

We will check to see that all door hardware meets the latest state codes.

2004- 2005 GRAND JURY REVIEW OF RESPONSE:

Response accepted

99

2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury

Evaluation of Responses To

2003- 2004 Glenn County Grand Jury Report

DEPARTMENT NAME: Mill Street School

REPORT NUMBER: # 04- 21

RECOMMENDATION: Re- evaluation of the Team Concept of school

grounds care. All classrooms need inside/ outside door locks for the

protection of our children.

RESPONSE: The team concept for custodial work was developed because

the custodian at one of the schools retired and was not replaced. There was

not a smooth transition to concept due to the necessity of retraining and the

long- term absence of two employees. After permanent employees were

hired and employees adapted to their new work environment, the program

became successful. The team concept will be monitored to be sure the kinks

have been worked out.

Safety money has been budgeted to install such locks at C. K. Price and Mill

Street School.

2004- 2005 GRAND JURY REVIEW OF RESPONSE:

Response accepted

100

2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury

Evaluation of Responses To

2003- 2004 Glenn County Grand Jury Report

DEPARTMENT NAME: Orland Unified School District

REPORT NUMBER: # 04- 21

RECOMMENDATION: Re- evaluation of the Team Concept of school

grounds care. All classrooms need inside/ outside door locks for the

protection of our children.

RESPONSE: The team concept is not used for maintenance only cleaning.

The concept is workable but was hamstrung by the long- term absence of two

employees. The program was running smoothly and effectively the last two

months of school.

As part of the modernization of Fairview School, anti- intruder locks were

installed on all classroom doors. Audio- visual curtains have been installed

and can be drawn in the event an intruder is on campus. The high school

already has the anti- intruder locks installed. Safety money has been

budgeted to install such locks at C. K. Price and Mill Street.

2004- 2005 GRAND JURY REVIEW OF RESPONSE:

Response accepted.

101

2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury

Evaluation of Responses To

2003- 2004 Glenn County Grand Jury Report

DEPARTMENT NAME: Plaza School

REPORT NUMBER: # 04- 21

RECOMMENDATION: Re- evaluation of the Team Concept of school

grounds care. All classrooms need inside/ outside door locks for the

protection of our children.

RESPONSE: Letter dated 08/ 25/ 04

The Plaza School District is about to begin a construction program that will

replace some of our older portable classrooms and administrative offices. I

anticipate the start of construction in late July and a completion date of about

December of 2004. After the District completes their project the County

Office of Education will begin work an a new 3500 square foot structure on

our campus with a completion date near the end of the 2004- 2005 school

year. Some of the findings expressed in the report will be addressed during

construction.

Door locks - once again, new construction will be up to the latest state codes

and should be adequate for protection of staff and students.

2004- 2005 GRAND JURY REVIEW OF RESPONSE:

Response accepted.

102

2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury

Evaluation of Responses To

2003- 2004 Glenn County Grand Jury Report

DEPARTMENT NAME: Princeton Unified School District

REPORT NUMBER: # 04- 21

RECOMMENDATION: Re- evaluation of the Team Concept of school

grounds care. All classrooms need inside/ outside door locks for the

protection of our children.

RESPONSE:

The District agrees with this finding. The District will comply with the

requirements outlined in the California Public Contract Code to install the

new locks. However, these requirements may not necessarily require the

District to undertake the competitive bidding process to complete these

project. Please note that prior to the Grand Jury’s issuance of its report, the

District was already in the process of obtaining estimates from appropriate

contractors to replace all classroom door locks at the Elementary School and

the Jr./ Sr. High School.

2004- 2005 GRAND JURY REVIEW OF RESPONSE:

Response accepted.

103

2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury

Evaluation of Responses To

2003- 2004 Glenn County Grand Jury Report

DEPARTMENT NAME: Stoney Creek Unified School District

REPORT NUMBER: # 04- 21

RECOMMENDATION: Re- evaluation of the Team Concept of school

grounds care. All classrooms need inside/ outside door locks for the

protection of our children.

RESPONSE:

Stoney Creek School District, page 21, is actually Elk Creek High and

Elementary School ( K- 6), page 32 of 2003- 2004 Grand Jury Report.

2004- 2005 GRAND JURY REVIEW:

Report on page 21 recommends the re- evaluation of the Team Concept of

school grounds care and that all classrooms need inside/ outside door locks

for the protection of our children.

Report on page 32 states that Elk Creek High School’s and Elementary

School’s kitchens, bathrooms and grounds are very clean and well kept and

that all doors lock from the inside and NO RESPONSE IS REQUIRED.

Therefore, Stoney Creek School District ( Elk Creek) need not respond to

maintenance and door lock issues requested on page 21.

104

2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury

Evaluation of Responses To

2003- 2004 Glenn County Grand Jury Report

DEPARTMENT NAME: Plaza School

REPORT NUMBER: # 04- 22

RECOMMENDATION: Fencing the school ground perimeter and provide

control gates. Install locks on doors for intruder prevention.

RESPONSE: Letter dated August 25, 2004

Need for fencing - The area in question has a new classroom being

constructed nearby and heavy equipment will be in and out of the area.

After construction is complete the fencing will be evaluated and replaced as

needed.

Door locks - once again, new construction will be up to the latest state codes

and should be adequate for protection of staff and students.

2004- 2005 GRAND JURY REVIEW OF RESPONSE:

Response accepted

105

2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury

Evaluation of Responses To

2003- 2004 Glenn County Grand Jury Report

DEPARTMENT NAME: Office of Education / Glenn County School

Board

REPORT NUMBER: # 04- 22

RECOMMENDATION: Fencing the school ground perimeter and provide

control gates. Install locks on doors for intruder prevention.

RESPONSE: Letter dated July 20, 2004

Over the years progress has been made in the area of school safety. We have

a countywide disaster preparedness plan, and individual school districts have

plans for a variety of contingencies. We have met with law enforcement and

the office of emergency services to talk about potential problems and their

solutions.

2004- 2005 GRAND JURY REVIEW OF RESPONSE:

Response accepted

106

2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury

Evaluation of Responses To

2003- 2004 Glenn County Grand Jury Report

DEPARTMENT NAME: Lake School

REPORT NUMBER: # 04- 23

RECOMMENDATION: Install locks on doors for intruder protection.

RESPONSE: Letter dated July 23, 2004

Door locks - We will check to see that all door hardware meets the latest

state codes.

2004- 2005 GRAND JURY REVIEW OF RESPONSE:

Response accepted

107

2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury

Evaluation of Responses To

2003- 2004 Glenn County Grand Jury Report

DEPARTMENT NAME: Office of Education / Glenn County School

District

REPORT NUMBER: # 04- 23

RECOMMENDATION: Install locks on doors for intruder protection.

RESPONSE: Letter dated July 20, 2004

Over the years progress has been made in the area of school safety. We have

a countywide disaster preparedness plan, and individual school districts have

plans for a variety of contingencies. We have met with law enforcement and

the office of emergency service to talk about potential problems and their

solutions.

2004- 2005 GRAND JURY REVIEW OF RESPONSE:

Response accepted

108

2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury

Evaluation of Responses To

2003- 2004 Glenn County Grand Jury Report

DEPARTMENT NAME: Mill Street School

REPORT NUMBER: # 04- 24

RECOMMENDATION: Re- evaluate the Team Custodial Concept for the

keeping of the grounds and classrooms. Install door locks for intruder

protection. Determine if buildings contain any lead- based paint and remove

lead- based paint.

RESPONSE:

The API test scores at Mill Street are an impressive 726. This score equates

to a rank of five on a 10- point scale compared to all California elementary

schools. Compared to schools with similar demographics, Mill Street ranks

a seven out of a possible ten. A researched based- approach and data- driven

instruction will take the scores even higher. I issued a safety memo to all

Mill Street staff urging them to remove all combustible material from the

vicinity of heating units. A work order has been written regarding an

inspection of outlets in the library floor. A work order has also been

submitted to repair faulty faucets and drinking fountains. Flaking paint has

been removed from the cafeteria walls and the entire building has been

repainted. Anti- intruder locks are scheduled for installation within the next

two years. The team concept for custodial work was developed because the

custodian at one of the schools retired and was not replaced. There was not

a smooth transition to the new concept due to the necessity of retraining and

the long- term absence of two employees. After permanent employees were

hired and employees adapted to their new work environment, the program

became successful. The team concept will be monitored to be sure the kinks

have been worked out.

2004- 2005 GRAND JURY REVIEW OF RESPONSE:

Response accepted

109

2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury

Evaluation of Responses To

2003- 2004 Glenn County Grand Jury Report

DEPARTMENT NAME: Office of Education / Glenn County School

Board

REPORT NUMBER: # 04- 24

RECOMMENDATION: Re- evaluate the Team Custodial Concept for the

keeping of the grounds and classrooms. Install door locks for intruder

protection. Determine if buildings contain any lead- based paint and remove

lead- based paint.

RESPONSE:

As part of the modernization of Fairview School, anti- intruder locks were

installed on all classroom doors. Audio- visual curtains have been installed

and can be drawn in the event an intruder is on campus. The high school

already has the anti- intruder locks installed. Anti- intruder locks are

scheduled for installation within the next two years. Safety money has been

budgeted to install such locks at C. K. Price and Mill Street.

Flaking paint has been removed from the cafeteria walls and the entire

building has been repainted. The Team concept for custodial work was

developed because the custodian at one of the schools retired and was not

replaced. There was not a smooth transition to the new concept due to the

necessity of retraining and the long- term absence of two employees. After

permanent employees were hired and employees adapted to their new work

environment, the program became successful. The team concept will be

monitored to be sure the kinks have been worked out.

2004- 2005 GRAND JURY REVIEW OF RESPONSE:

Response accepted

110

2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury

Evaluation of Responses To

2003- 2004 Glenn County Grand Jury Report

DEPARTMENT NAME: Fairview School

REPORT NUMBER: # 04- 25

RECOMMENDATION: Re- evaluate the Team Custodial Concept for

grounds and classroom maintenance. It is suggested that the principal apply

for a grant to continue the GATE program.

RESPONSE: The Team concept is not used for maintenance, only cleaning.

The concept is workable but was hamstrung by the long- term absence of two

employees. The program was running smoothly and effectively the last two

months of school. The team concept will continue with the newly hired staff

for the 2004- 2005 school year. The condition of the schools will be closely

monitored for maintenance and cleanliness.

The GATE program was not eliminated. On the contrary, hiring two new

and enthusiastic GATE coordinators has enhanced the program. The “ aging”

computers are Macs that some teachers prefer. Sixty new and reconditioned

IBM compatible computers are replacing the old MACS for the 2004- 2005

school year. Fairview is technically a Program Improvement School despite

the fact that it met overall growth targets each year. One subgroup failed to

meet the target in “ 00- 01” and a different group failed in “ 01- 02”. The

school greatly exceeded their growth targets for the “ 02- 03” school year in

all groups but must remain a PI school until all groups meet the targets two

years in a row. The new principal brought a new level of commitment to

teaching standards and motivated students to do their best. When the scores

come out for the “ 03- 04” school year, I strongly suspect that Fairview will

no longer be a PI school.

A work order to inspect and repair drinking fountains at Fairview School has

been issued.

2004- 2005 GRAND JURY REVIEW OF RESPONSE:

Response accepted

111

2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury

Evaluation of Responses To

2003- 2004 Glenn County Grand Jury Report

DEPARTMENT NAME: Willows High School

REPORT NUMBER: # 04- 26

RECOMMENDATION: The school grounds and classrooms need

cleaning. The kitchen needs a thorough cleaning.

RESPONSE: The cleaning issues in the kitchen and the classrooms have

been addressed with the custodial staff. With the reduction of custodial

time, classrooms are only cleaned every other day. The kitchen is cleaned

every day and has received a thorough cleaning since the Grand Jury Report.

With the assistance of the ASB organization, the grounds are now being

cleaned regularly by the students. Administration is actively addressing

campus beautification with students and staff. “ Be proud of our school.

Keep it clean” is the them we’ve embraced at Willows High School.

2004- 2005 GRAND JURY REVIEW OF RESPONSE:

Response accepted

112

2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury

Evaluation of Responses To

2003- 2004 Glenn County Grand Jury Report

DEPARTMENT NAME: Willows Superintendent of Schools

REPORT NUMBER: # 04- 26

RECOMMENDATION: The school grounds and classrooms need

cleaning. The kitchen needs a thorough cleaning.

RESPONSE: Due to financial constraints, the Willows Unified School

District has been forced to reduce Custodial, Grounds and Maintenance

personnel. I’m certain it is obvious that, with fewer personnel, it has been

necessary that we prioritize our many tasks and complete those jobs that are

most important. Believing it to be appropriate, the District has implemented

and every- other- day classroom cleaning schedule. Specific areas, such as

bathrooms, cafeterias/ kitchens, offices and main hallways are cleaned at the

end of every day, however. Although this schedule is far from ideal, it does

provide for an adequate cleaning of all of our facilities. Strong emphasis is

now placed on the staff and students cleaning up after themselves and, as a

result less custodial time is required. In general, students throughout the

district are being held more responsible for campus beautification and

cleanliness.

2004- 2005 GRAND JURY REVIEW OF RESPONSE:

Response accepted

113

2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury

Evaluation of Responses To

2003- 2004 Glenn County Grand Jury Report

DEPARTMENT NAME: Willows Intermediate School / Office of

Education / Glenn County School Board

REPORT NUMBER: # 04- 27

RECOMMENDATION: Install locks on doors to lock from inside for

intruder protection. Replace playground bench.

RESPONSE: Currently the Willows Unified School District provides our

site with a foam rubber device, for each classroom, manufactured and

designed to allow access in and out of the classrooms while the door remains

locked at all times. If an ALERT is activated, the device is pulled out from

the inside, and the door automatically locks shut.

The District’s Safety Committee and Site Administration pursues and