SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF BUTTE ONE COURT STREET OROVILLE, CA 95965-3303 (530) 538-7611 June 30, 2001

2000-2001 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT

The Grand Jury Final Report has been filed on this date pursuant to Penal Code Section 933. A copy of the report is enclosed. Your attention is invited to the following code section regarding the time requirements for comment to the report. PENAL CODE SECTION 933 Section 933. [Findings and recommendations; comment of governing bodies, elective officers, or agency] (a) No later than the end of each fiscal or calendar year of a county, each grand jury impaneled during that fiscal or calendar year shall submit to the presiding judge of the superior court a final report of its findings and recommendations that pertain to county government matters other than fiscal matters during the fiscal or calendar year. Final reports on any appropriate subject may be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court at any time during the term of servi ce of a grand jury. A final report may be submitted for comment to responsible officers, agencies, or departments, including the county board of supervisors, when applicable, upon finding of the presiding judge that the report is in compliance with this title. One copy of each report found to be in compliance with this title shall be placed on file with the county clerk and remain on file in the office of the county clerk. (b) No later than the end of each fiscal or calendar year, each grand jury impaneled during that fiscal or calendar year shall submit to the presiding judge of the superior court a final report of its findings and recommendations that pertain to fiscal matters of county government during the fiscal or calendar year of the county. (c) No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body, and every elective county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head and any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All such comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. One copy shall be placed on file with the applicable grand jury final report by, and in the control of the currently impaneled grand jury, where it shall be maintained for a minimum of five years. [Amended by Stats 1987 c. 690 1; Stats 1988 c. 1297 5] PENAL CODE SECTION 933.05 Section 933.05. [Grand Jury Reports; Responses]

(a)

For purposes of subdivision (c) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person shall indicate one of the following: (1) (2) The respondent agrees with the finding. The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor.

(b)

For purposes of subdivision (c) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. The recommendation requires further analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or director of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor.

(2)

(3)

(4)

(c)

However, if a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county department headed by an elected officer, both the department head and the board of supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the board of supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her department. A grand jury may request a subject person or entity to come before the grand jury for the purpose of reading and discussing the findings of the grand jury report that relates to that person or entity in order to verify the accuracy of the findings prior to their release. A grand jury may request a subject person or entity to come before the grand jury for the purpose of reading and discussing the findings of the grand jury report relating to that person or entity two working days prior to its public release and after the approval of the supervising judge. No officer, agency, department or governing body of a public agency shall disclose any contents of the report prior to the public release of the final report. [Added by Stats. 1996, c. 1170 11]

(d)

(e)

2000-2001 Butte County Grand Jury Final Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS Final Resolution................................................................................................................... 1 Grand Jury Statement .......................................................................................................... 2 Foreperson's Letter to the Presiding Judge............................................................................ 3 Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................... 5 A Brief History and Overview of the Grand Jury ..................................................................... 6 REPORTS Audit/Finance & Administration Committee Butte County Auditor-Controller ...................................................................................... 9 Butte County Office of the Treasurer/Tax Collector.......................................................... 10 City Governments City of Gridley-Growth and Development ....................................................................... 11 Supplement - Biggs-Gridley Memorial Hospital ............................................................ 18 Housing Authority of the County of Butte - Farm Labor Community.................................. 22 Gridley High School ..................................................................................................... 25 County Offices Butte County Library Re: Flying the American Flag ......................................................... 29 County Clerk-Recorder's Department Elections Division Butte County Elections - Absentee Ballots................................................................... 31 County Clerk -Recorder's Department Elections Division Butte County Elections - Electronic Voting Machines .................................................. 34 Butte Community Employment Center - Chico................................................................ 37 Regional Occupational Program Butte Culinary Academy .............................................. 39 Regional Occupational Program Northern California Food Service School ....................... 41 Regional Occupational Program Butte Baking Academy ................................................. 43 Regional Occupational Program Registered Dental Assistant.......................................... 45 Districts & Commissions Paradise Irrigation District............................................................................................. 47 Upper Ridge Fire Protection (DOWC) ............................................................................ 49 Emergency Services & Law Enforcement Butte County Jail .......................................................................................................... 51 Butte County Jail Re: Overtime & Staffing...................................................................... 55 Butte County Juvenile Hall ............................................................................................ 62 Butte County Child Protective Services .......................................................................... 65 Butte County Sheriff's Department Re: Hit and Run Complaint ........................................ 66 Health, Education & Welfare Butte County Behavioral Health - Youth Services ........................................................... 67 Public Works Yards, Shops and Stores Division ................................................................................. 72 Department of Development Services - Building Division ................................................ 74

APPENDICES Appendix I Summary of Requested Respondents to the 2000-2001 Grand Jury Final Report ............................................................................... 77 Appendix II Offices, Departments, Boards and Commissions and Officials Visited, Interviewed, Observed, Reviewed, Investigated or Consulted by the Jury ................................................................................................... 80 Appendix III Membership of the 2000-2001 Grand Jury ..................................................................... 85 Appendix IV Communicating with the Grand Jury .............................................................................. 86 Appendix V Comments to Responses - 1999-2000 Grand Jury Final Report ...................................... 88

RESPONSES TO THE 1999-2000 GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT MAY BE FOUND IN BOUND COPIES OF THE 2000-2001 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT ON PERMANENT FILE IN THE BUTTE COUNTY LIBRARIES

2000 - 2001 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT

Final Resolution Whereas, the Butte County Grand Jury has concluded the business of its term and has reached certain conclusions, and Whereas, the Butte County Grand Jury desires to disclose the substance of those conclusions for the benefit of local government, its agencies and the citizens of Butte County; Be it resolved that the attached papers, commendations, findings and recommendations are adopted as the Grand Jury Final Report and submitted to the presiding judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Butte to be entered as a public document pursuant to California Law. The above Resolution PASSED AND ADOPTED by the 2000-2001 Butte County Grand Jury in Oroville on the 30th day of June 2001.

We think in America that it is necessary to introduce the people into every department of government as far as they are capable of exercising it, and that this is the only way to insure a long-continued and honest administration of its powers. Thomas Jefferson to Abbe Arnoux, 1789

GRAND JURY STATEMENT

The 2000-2001 Butte County Grand Jury, impaneled on July 7, 2000, pledged itself to conduct its business in an ethical manner, to be responsive to citizen complaints, to visit and review offices and agencies, as mandated, to undertake to visit and review various other agencies, to accomplish the goals it set for itself and, at the end of its term, to render a comprehensive Final Report to the citizens and agencies of Butte County. Further, the 2000-2001 Butte County Grand Jury pledged itself to uphold the following values throughout its term: to recognize its purpose and duties in accordance with the laws of the State of California; to maintain the confidentiality and integrity of all Grand Jury proceedings; to recognize the importance of applying to all individuals the same objective standards of conduct and responsibility; to respect every individuals right to privacy; to recognize that the Grand Jury functions lawfully as a legal entity and that no single grand juror, when acting alone, has any power or authority to represent the Grand Jury; to remain vigilant to detect and avoid any personal conflicts of interest that may arise during the course of performing the business of the Grand Jury; to recognize the importance of relying on the opinions and expertise of others more skilled in particular matters regarding the business of public office and government; to respect the discretionary policy-making or operational powers of public officials; and to recognize the importance of maintaining accuracy and integrity in our activities, and to keep our reports confined to matters within the scope and power of our authority.

It is a blessing that our people are reasonable; that they keep so well informed of the state of things as to judge for themselves, to see the true sources of their difficulties, and to maintain their confidence undiminished in the wisdom and integrity of their functionaries. Thomas Jefferson to Caesar A. Rodney, 1810

Butte County Grand Jury P.O. Box 110 Oroville, California 95965 (530) 538-7667

June 30, 2001

The Honorable Judge Gerald Hermansen Superior Court of California, County of Butte One Court Street Oroville, California 95965 Dear Judge Hermansen: It is an honor and a pleasure to present the Butte County Grand Jury 2000-2001 Final Report to you as presiding judge over this grand jury, and to Presiding Judge Thomas Kelly, and the residents of our county. Our goals included providing citizens with an insight into local government and making recommendations that may prove to be helpful. Since taking the oath on July 7, 2000, all of the members of the Grand Jury have diligently met the requirements associated with their positions, while maintaining confidentiality and respect for everyone involved. Local training included learning about the organization and functions of each of the 21 county departments through a series of orientation meetings graciously presented by department heads or their representatives. Members of the Board of Supervisors gave us an overview of Butte County and specifics about their five respective districts. In August, the jurors attended a 2-day, state-level training seminar conducted in Yuba City by the California Grand Jurors Association. The work of this year's Grand Jury was determined in three basic ways. First, the entire panel conducted the mandated annual inspections of the Butte County Jail and Juvenile Hall. It was a pleasure to see the construction of the new Juvenile Hall get under way in May. The required review of the Audit Report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2000, was also completed. Second, citizens' confidential complaints were investigated, providing they were within the jurisdiction of the Grand Jury. Everyone interviewed was cooperative and helpful. One complaint, requiring a thorough study, but received too close to the end of this term, will be carried over to the next Grand Jury for consideration. Third, jurors chose to visit and/or investigate agencies or areas listed on the matrix in the Grand Jury Procedures Manual. Some of these agencies were visited for the first time. Following the example of previous grand juries, committees conducted investigations. A great deal of time, effort and care went into the research, visitations, interviews and investigations conducted to gather information for each of the enclosed reports. Regularly scheduled oral progress reports kept all the jurors informed and provided time for questions and discussion. Reports were outlined, written, updated, edited and rewritten more than once by the committees. Nothing seemed constant but change! The Grand Jury is making approximately 46,500 newspaper insert copies of this 2000-2001 Final Report available to the citizens of Butte County in mid-July. Responses are welcomed. None of this would have been possible without the help of many people. Our sincere appreciation is extended to Presiding Judge Thomas Kelly, who honored your request, Judge

Hermansen, to "holdover" with this Grand Jury until the end of our term. We are truly grateful for the support and guidance afforded us by you, County Counsels Bruce Alpert and Dave McClain, and District Attorney, Michael Ramsey. We also owe many thanks to our Deputy Jury Commissioners, Richard Holst and Toni Conner, and all the court clerks who assisted the Grand Jury in many ways. It speaks well of the citizens of Butte County who agree to serve on the Grand Jury for one or, in some cases, two years. "Holdover" jurors provide organizational experience and background information about "carry -over" complaints to the new members. This Grand Jury was a dedicated, hard-working and effective team. Officers Kent Yaeger (Foreman-Pro Tem), Dorothy Anrig (Recording Secretary), Leilani Wheat (Corresponding Secretary) and David Johnson (Sergeant-at-Arms) provided invaluable assistance. Stan Tracy, Cynthia Hightower, Bob Johnson, David Ferguson, Kent Yaeger, David Wemple and JoAnn Loeffler accepted additional responsibilities and excelled as Committee Chairpersons. The Editorial Committee comprised of Chairperson Leilani Wheat, Dorothy Anrig and Harold Cox did an outstanding job in preparing this Final Report. Every juror was a valuable asset to his/her committees and to the group as a whole. Thank you for selecting me to serve as a juror last year and especially for the opportunity to be the foreperson of the 2000-2001 Butte County Grand Jury. It has been a rewarding and treasured experience.

Sincerely,

Lillian Miskey, Forepers on 2000-2001 Butte County Grand Jury

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The 2000-2001 Butte County Grand Jury sincerely appreciates, acknowledges and thanks the following people and organizations for their support, guidance, and professional assistance and orientation, and for helping to make this Final Report possible: Gerald Hermansen, Judge of the Superior Court of California, Butte County, who presided over this Grand Jury; County Counsel Bruce Alpert and Assistant County Counsel David McClain; District Attorney Michael Ramsey; The staff of the Superior Court of California, County of Butte, including A. Lynn Woods, Deputy Court Executive Officer, and Deputy Jury Commissioners Richard Holst and Toni Conner; Butte County Superior Court Bailiffs; Butte County Board of Supervisors Curt Josiassen, Jane Dolan, Mary Anne Houx, Robert Beeler, Kim Yamaguchi, and former supervisor Fred C. Davis; The twenty-one Butte County Department Heads, the Superintendent of Schools and their staffs; Officers who guided members of the Grand Jury through the Butte County Jail and Juvenile Hall; All those who agreed to be interviewed during investigations and visits; California Grand Jurors Association for the training seminar; and Our endlessly patient and understanding families and employers who supported us while we performed this challenging public service.

Clerk -Recorder/Registrar Candace Grubbs and the superb staff of the County Recorder's office make Grand Jury Final Reports available on their web site: http://clerk-recorder.buttecounty.net

A BRIEF HISTORY AND OVERVIEW OF THE GRAND JURY

(with appreciation to various other grand juries for much of the following information) What is a grand jury? The name of "grand jury" derives from the fact that the body usually has a greater number of jurors than a trial (petit) jury. The concept of the grand jury traces its roots to classical Greece. Ancient Athenians employed an "accusatory body" much as the Saxons of early Briton did. In fact, from 978 until 1016 one of the Saxon Dooms (laws) required an accusatory body of 12 for every 100 men. The accusing body was exhorted "not to accuse an innocent man or spare a guilty one." The modern European jury system began to evolve during the eleventh and twelfth centuries. As early as 1066, during the Norman conquest of England, courts summoned bodies of sworn citizens to investigate crimes that had come to their attention. Initially, these early juries both accused and tried suspects, and since the members of the accusing bodies were selected from small jurisdictions, they naturally presented accusations based on their personal knowledge. During the reign of Henry II (1154-1189), juries were divided into two types-civil and criminal-with the development of each influencing the other. The oath taken by these jurors provided that they would faithfully carry out their duties, that they would aggrieve no one through enmity nor give deference to anyone through love, and that they would conceal those things that they had heard. By the year 1290, civil juries were given authority to inquire about the conditions of bridges and highways and review the practices and conditions in the jails. The Massachusetts Bay Colony impaneled the first American grand jury in 1635 to consider cases of murder, robbery and wife beating. By the end of the colonial period the institution of the grand jury was firmly fixed in America's new and ever-evolving system of government. Although the Constitution does not specifically mention grand juries, the Fifth Amendment provides the guarantee that "No person shall be held to answer to a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on the presentment of indictment of a Grand Jury"Grand juries were used in our early history to protest governmental abuses, to propose new laws and very often to determine who should face trial. Today, forty-two states have some form of grand jury, and California is one of the states that still allow prosecution to be initiated by either criminal grand jury indictment or by judicial preliminary hearing. The California State Constitution calls specifically for the use of grand juries in the governance of the state, and in 1849 the California Legislature authorized grand juries in each county. The Legislature passed laws in 1880 that required grand juries to review and investigate the activities of county government, and in 1983 the State added municipalities and districts to the purview of grand juries. Beyond alleged misconduct of public officials, just seven other states currently provide for grand jury investigations of county and city government. Only California and Nevada laws require the annual impanelment of grand juries with the specific civil duty of local government "watchdog." Certain larger jurisdictions-such as the Cities/Counties of San Francisco and Los Angeles-impanel separate criminal (indictment) and civil (watchdog) grand juries each year. Some counties impanel a separate criminal grand jury only when needed. The Butte County Grand Jury serves in both capacities. How is the jury selected? Each fiscal year the county superior court summons a large number of qualified citizens who have resided in the County for over a year and are at least 18 years of age. The court makes it clear that service on the Grand Jury is voluntary. Potential jurors should be reasonably intelligent, of good character, and must possess a working command of the English language. From the pool of willing candidates, the Court makes a good faith effort to select qualified men and women who are diverse in age and socioeconomic, ethnic and education backgrounds, and who represent the varied geographic areas of the County.

Superior court judges and staff interview the body of qualified and willing candidates and choose 30 potential jurors. Nineteen members make up a full jury. At the discretion of the presiding judge, as many as 10 members from the previous year's jury may "holdover" or serve a second term. In order to constitute the full panel of 19, names are drawn at random, and new jurors are added to the existing holdovers. Jurors serve for a term of twelve months beginning in July. Over the course of the year and as necessary, alternates are called in sequential order from the pool of remaining potential jurors. How does it work? The presiding judge appoints a foreperson to preside at meetings. The Grand Jury organizes itself into officers and committees and determines which of the various departments and functions of county, city and joint powers government it will review. It also reviews compliance with the recommendations of previous Butte County Grand Juries. Inquiries on the part of the jury, letters and complaints from citizens, and dictates of the State Penal Code collectively determine the jury's work. The Grand Jury a ims to identify policies in government that may need improvement. All actions of the jury - including any communication from the public and all deliberations and votes - are completely confidential. The jury does publish a report of its significant findings and recommendations. The jury's final report, however, typically reflects only a small part of the jury's actual endeavors over the course of its term. State law requires specific and detailed responses from departments upon which the jury renders findings and recommendations in its reports. Elected officials have 60 days to respond; public agencies have 90 days. The work of a grand jury is demanding. Most members can expect to invest approximately 500 hours of time over the course of their term, but the work can be both gratifying and personally rewarding. Service on a jury leads one to a much - improved understanding of the organization and business of local government, and to the personal satisfaction of having contributed to its improvement. The grand jury experience provides a unique and valuable opportunity for community service.

BUTTE COUNTY AUDITOR-CONTROLLER

Reason for Reviews The 2000-2001 Grand Jury conducted the mandated reviews of the Independent Auditors Report for the year ended June 30, 2000, and the Butte County Final Budget for fiscal year (FY) 2000-2001.

Background The audit was completed for the County of Butte by Bartig, Basler & Ray, CPAs, Incorporated of Roseville, California. Their report includes General-Purpose Financial Statements on county assets, liabilities, equity and other credits, revenues, expenditures, and changes in fund balances. Single Audit Reports appear on expenditures of federal awards. Monthly budget fund balance reports were regularly and promptly provided to the Grand Jury by the Butte County Auditor-Controller throughout the fiscal year July 2000-2001. These, along w copies of the ith Proposed and Final Butte County Budget for FY 2000-2001, were reviewed and put on permanent file for future reference. Each year reference copies of the Butte County Final Budget are made available to everyone as public record documents at the Butte County libraries. The County of Butte Audit Report may be reviewed at the Auditor-Controllers office in Oroville.

Commendation The 2000-2001 Grand Jury appreciates the efficiency, promptness and cooperation of the AuditorControllers office in Oroville.

Findings None noted. Recommendations None Responses Required (Penal Code 933 & 933.05) None required.

TREASURER/TAX COLLECTOR

Reason for Visit/Investigation As part of the ongoing effort of the Grand Jury to visit as many county offices as possible during its term, this office was selected for inspection. It had not been visited since the 1994-1995 Grand Jury term.

Background The Treasurer/Tax Collector is responsible for the investments, banking, loans to districts, revenue appropriation through tax collection, fines, etc., necessary to support the Butte County Government operations in smooth transitional harmony with all departments within the County.

Investigation On September 13, 2000, members of the Grand Jury made an announced visit to the office of the Treasurer/Tax Collector. After being greeted by the department head, he gave an overview of the office functions. Jurors were escorted through the area and introduced to staff members. Each staff member explained, in detail, their individual contribution to the office, which gave us the opportunity to ask questions. It was revealed by the department head that several employees have previous banking experience relative to their particular assignments. This contributes to the high efficiency of the offices operation. All employees were upbeat and knowledgeable about their responsibilities. The area had a neat, clean and spacious atmosphere.

Findings None noted.

Recommendations None

Responses Required (Penal Code 933 & 933.05) None required.

10

CITY OF GRIDLEY GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT

Reason for Visit/Investigation Each year the Grand Jury selects one of Butte Countys five incorporated areas for review (Biggs, Gridley, Oroville, Chico, Paradise). Issues pertaining to Gridleys growth and development are addressed in this report. Officials generously provided the Grand Jury with copies of the City of Gridley General Plan June 1999, City of Gridley Working Budget 2000-2001, and a wealth of additional information and materials during interviews and public meetings.

Background The City of Gridley, located in Californias Central Valley, 70 miles north of Sacramento and 30 miles south of Chico, was established in 1870 and incorporated in 1905. This small agricultural community, with a population of approximately 5,380 (2000 Census), is home to the Butte County Fair and Sportsmans Expo. The citys low growth rate, averaging 1.62% per year, is partially due to the fact that its area of 1.7 square miles is surrounded by agricultural land.

Investigation Gridley is attempting to expand the citys boundaries through the creation of a sphere of influence and annexations approved by the Local Agency Formation Commission (see accompanying map SECTION 7, FIGURE 13 from the City of Gridley General Plan). There are parcels of land in various stages of the approval process for commercial and residential development. A proposed subdivision is in its seventh year of planning. It took 16 years to complete the last subdivision built in the city. Several factors are influencing the growth and development of Gridley. In March 2001, the Butte County Planning Commission approved a proposal to rezone several areas, amounting to nearly 350 acres, from SR-1, (single residence per acre) to SR-5 (single residence per 5 acres). After the required public hearings and possible revisions, the proposal will be sent to the Butte County Board of Supervisors for their decision. If it passes, these areas of Gridley will become urban reserves, and subdividing the parcels to less than 5 acres will be prohibited until adequate services are available and the need is deemed appropriate. The Agricultural Element of the Butte County General Plan was approved by the Board of Supervisors on May 9, 1995. Its four main policies, as stated in the Element (p. AE-1), are: (a) To preserve agricultural lands for agricultural uses (b) To strengthen and support the agricultural sector of the economy (c) To protect the natural resources that sustain agriculture in Butte County (d) To consolidate agricultural policies required in mandated general elements into one document This year the county Planning Commission held several public hearings on the proposed revisions to Phase 1 of the Element. Some citizens questioned the necessity for new buildings to be set back 300 feet from all agricultural operations, except where road frontage is involved. The Agricultural Commissioner stated that dust, noise, and pesticides blown by the wind are the reasons for the setback. Members of the Planning Commission agreed to give the issue additional study. The former Butte County Planning Director met with members of the Biggs and Gridley City Councils and Planning Commissions to discuss the impact on the land within the corridor between the two cities. The corridor is bordered by Biggs on the north, Hwy 99 on the east, Gridley on the south, and the Biggs-Gridley Road on the west. In its present form, the Agricultural Element will require parcels now designated A-10 through A-160 (Agriculture 10-160 acres), to be reclassified to the new zoning, IA-10 through IA-160 (Intensive Agriculture 10-160 acres). The

CITY OF GRIDLEY GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT

Mayor of Gridley requested that the mile-long corridor be declared a study area, and the future growth and economic development of the two cities be considered. Gridley is surrounded by rich agricultural lands that produce a variety of crops such as rice, almonds, walnuts, apples, plums, kiwi (it is called the Kiwi Capital of the U.S.) and peaches. A large percentage of the 42,000 tons of peaches grown in Butte County are processed in Gridley. Most employment in Gridley centers around the agriculture-related jobs. According to 1999 city figures, out of a total workforce of approximately 2,080, over 1,200 employees worked seasonal jobs at one of the two food processing plants. That number of employees dropped to about 200 when the canning was complete. The citys two other major employers are the Gridley Unified School District and Biggs-Gridley Memorial Hospital. Together with the city itself and five smaller companies, close to 640 year-round positions are offered that provide higher wages. The unemployment rate of this combined workforce in 1999 varied between 10.9 and 14.3 percent. Figures from the 2000 Census were not available to show the impact of the current economy when this report was written. After claiming over $500 million of debt, Tri Valley Growers (TVG) was approved for sale in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, in January 2001. The 69 year-old company was one of the nations largest processors of peaches, pears, apricots, and tomatoes. The nine canneries are now owned by a newly formed entity, Signature Fruit Company, under John Hancock Life Insurance. The Gridley Plant is scheduled to open for a 31-day season this year. Representatives from the Signature Fruit Company announced on May 1, 2001, that the Golden Butte Receiving Station which has served area peach growers since 1956 will no longer be used. Instead, approximately 50 local growers must transport their crops to the Lomo Crossing Station which is located about five miles south of Live Oak on Hwy 99 where an S curve in the road is divided by a railroad crossing. This raises several major concerns: (a) (b) (c) (d) Safety problems will be exacerbated by the increased truck traffic. The fragile fruit may suffer damage when it is hauled 20 additional miles. Transportation costs will be higher. Worst of all, this may signal the future closing of the Gridley processing plant.

In March 2001, the U.S. Congress approved a $20 million aid package for TVG members only. The aid will cover about half of last years losses. Prospects for a profitable dried plum year are dim. Some growers will be able to sell only a portion of this years crop, while others will n be able to renew their contracts with processors at all. ot Markets are estimating they will need only 70% of this years prune crop, and co-op members may not be paid until their fruit is sold on the market. Like the peaches last year, 20-30% of the prune trees may need to be pulled. Orchardists are struggling to find a crop that is not in surplus. City officials and the community are working to create more jobs and diverse employment opportunities in Gridley. Economic development is a high priority. In 1997, the City Council formed the Business Improvement District (BID). It operates under a contract that must be renewed each year. In the event businesses representing 50% or more of the fees assessed by BID write letters protesting the fees, the council would not be able to vote in favor of allowing the district to levy the assessments ranging from $50 to $500 annually. BID anticipates collecting $22,000 in fees from 165 businesses located within the city limits. The City Council matches these funds, and with $4,975 carrying over from last year, the 2000-2001 budget will be approximately $48,975.

CITY OF GRIDLEY GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT

The twelve members of the Board of Directors have set four goals: (a) BEAUTIFICATION of the district, making it more attractive to shoppers, business investors, and tourists (b) PROMOTION of the commercial district to increase sales (c) RECRUITMENT of new investment into business start-ups and expansion of existing businesses (d) OPERATIONS to foster understanding of BIDs programs and projects through communication and member participation The October 2000 BID newsletter reported an increase of 12% in Gridleys retail sales since 1997. One of the many strategies to implement these four goals is the citys contract with an economic development firm. Over the period of a year, consultants will work with several local citizens to create and maintain a database of vacant buildings, condition of buildings, listing prices and suggested use of specific buildings. The firm a prepares promotional packages for existing lso businesses to increase sales and to attract new businesses to the city. A major goal is to identify a suitable site for the development of an industrial park and to recruit businesses that are clean and compatible to that site. South Butte County has plenty of open space and people who need jobs. In March 2001, a public hearing was held regarding the application for a proposed Foreign Trade Zone in the area. The sites toured by the legal counsel of the U.S. Department of Commerce included 2,646 acres in Oroville and 164 acres in Gridley. The zone would allow companies to import and export manufacturing parts and products with no imposed tariff until the product leaves the zone. April 17, 2001, was the last day to make comments. The review process will take an additional eight to twelve months. The California legislature passed a law in 1991 requiring Sacramento Valley rice growers to begin phasing down rice straw burning at the rate of 10% per year beginning in 1992. Except under limited circumstances, burning will not be allowed after 2001. Farmers will need to prove their fields are contaminated by disease before they will be permitted to burn the stubble. Rice growers have spent more than $50 million in disposal costs since 1992. Assembly Bill-2514, sponsored by the Californian Rice Commission and authored by Assemblywoman Helen Thompson, would create jobs by offering a $20 per ton incentive for businesses to use rice straw in a product or service. The $2 million Thompson bill is aimed at finding alternative economical and environmentally safe ways to dispose of 1.5 million tons of Northern Californias rice straw. Ethanol is seen as a future source of inexhaustible and clean energy for the world. It is produced when sugars are extracted from biomass or organic waste products and then fermented. In California, rice straw ethanol may become a replacement for the gasoline additive MTBE which is mandated to be phased out because it is a hazardous groundwater pollutant. Officials in Gridley have researched the possibility of building a rice straw ethanol plant. A committee comprised of the mayor, the citys energy commissioner, a councilman, the presidents of the Chamber of Commerce and BID, and the Business Development Manager of BC International Corporation (BCI) toured six Minnesota co-op corn ethanol plants in March 2001. The plants, which varied in size and production, were built between 1983 and 1997. It was noted that some odor is associated with the processing of the by-product, dried distilled grain (DDG) and sewer problems developed in two of the cities. The delegates presented all the information to the City Council. Their research suggests that:

CITY OF GRIDLEY GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT

(a) The ethanol plant needs to be located where the truck traffic will not create congestion. (b) Odors can be minimized or eliminated by not producing DDG. (c) New technology filtration systems clean the plant waste water so it can be used over and over. The U.S. Department of Energy has already budgeted $5 million for this project. Spurred on by the committees report, the need to create local jobs and the prospect of increased revenue for Gridley, the city administrator and the energy commissioner traveled to Washington, DC. Their mission was to seek an additional $5 million from the Department of Energy and $10 million from the Department of Agriculture for the Gridley Ethanol Project. In 1998, BCI was selected to be the developer, major owner and operator of the Gridley plant. The proposed site is next to the Pacific Oroville Power Plant. Construction of the facility, which will be capable of producing 20 million gallons of ethanol per year, is estimated to take 14 months. It will provide about 350 construction jobs and employ more than 60 full-time personnel.

Commendation The Butte County Grand Jury commends the Gridley officials on their efforts to improve the economic development of their community while helping those associated with agriculture. Findings A. The residential, commercial and industrial growth of Gridley is handicapped by its limited area. B. Gridleys high unemployment rate is a chronic problem that directly or indirectly affects all businesses in the city. C. Economic development is limited by dependence on seasonal agriculture-related jobs.

Recommendations 1. Continue to: (a) Support the expansion of the city's boundaries. (b) Pursue the possibility of building an environmentally safe rice straw ethanol plant. (c) Work toward the development of an industrial park. (d) Strive for diversification of jobs that provide higher wages and year-round employment. (e) Promote Gridley as a good place to relocate or start a business. Take full advantage of the services offered by the new Butte Community Employment Center in Oroville.

2.

Responses Required (Penal Code 933 & 933.05) Gridley City Council Butte County Planning Commission Butte County Board of Supervisors

BIGGS-GRIDLEY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

Reason for Visit/Investigation Interviews conducted with Gridley City officials in November 2000 and local newspaper articles provided information about the serious difficulties facing Biggs-Gridley Memorial Hospital (BGMH). The Grand Jury decided to investigate those issues.

Background The main core of BGMH was built in 1949 as a community-owned, nonprofit corporation. Over the years, additions to the facility expanded its capacity to 49 licensed beds including five in intensive care. Currently, BGMH offers inpatient and outpatient surgery, intensive and critical care units (ICU/CCU), cardiopulmonary testing, laboratory work, radiology, rehabilitation therapy and many other services to the communities of Gridley, Biggs, Richvale, Live Oak and surrounding areas. The hospital also operates two health clinics and a home health agency. Tele-Care services, provided by BGMH Pink Ladies Auxiliary, are available to anyone who lives alone. Paramedics are on duty 24 hours per day/7 days per week. The shifts include 24 hours on duty and 24 hours off duty for 10 days, then 4 days off. A trailer on the east side of the building has beds, a kitchen and living quarters for those who are on call. The Butte County Supervisors formed County Service Area-37 (CSA). A 7-member advisory committee evaluates the bids for ambulance service. Enloe Hospital holds the contract at this time, and also provides CSA-37 with helicopter transport to trauma centers throughout the region.

Investigation When the new Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) were hired in March and May 2000, respectively, the Biggs-Gridley Memorial Hospital faced two serious problems. First, like many small rural hospitals, it had major financial difficulties: (a) There were no reserve funds with which to pay outstanding debts for goods and services rendered. (b) Federal, State and HMO payments declined for the large number of Medicare (63%) and MediCal (14%) patients. (c) Child Health and Disability Prevention (CHDP) and County Medical Services Plan (CMSP) patients amounted to 3 percent. (d) BGMH provided $282,845 for free and charity cases. (e) Y2K computer conversion complications impacted the collection of accounts receivable from patients. With unpaid debts of $1,010,300 and a year-to-date loss through December 2000 of $1,796,820, the hospital requested and was granted a line of credit from a regional bank. However, the account was frozen at $710,000. In January, the Gridley City Council offered to loan the hospital up to $300,000 in city funds, to keep it open for 60 days. This loan was not used.

18

BIGGS-GRIDLEY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

After the Northridge earthquake in 1994, the Governor of California signed Senate Bill-1953 (SB). It requires all acute care facilities in the State to meet stringent seismic-safety standards by January 2008, or close the doors. The estimated cost to retrofit or replace the acute care section of BGMH is between 5 and 10 million dollars. The Biggs-Gridley Memorial Hospital Board of Directors and the Chief Executive Officer began to negotiate a proposal for affiliation with the Fremont-Rideout Health Group. FRHG is a communitybased, locally governed, nonprofit organization based in Yuba City, California. It has approximately $200,000,000 in assets and employs 1800 people. A public hearing was held in Gridley on February 26, 2001. Representatives from BGMH, FRHG, and the California Attorney Generals Office provided information, answered questions, and listened to audience comments. The community showed strong support for the affiliation. Endorsements for the proposal also came from the BGMH Corporate Members, state legislators representing the area, and the City Councils of Gridley, Biggs, and Live Oak. A letter dated March 20, 2001, stated that the Attorney General approved the transfer of corporate control of Biggs-Gridley Memorial Hospital to the Fremont-Rideout Health Group pursuant to Corporations Code Sections 5921. His consent was subject to conditions previously accepted by both parties.

The Affiliation Agreement includes, in part: (a) The name of the hospital will remain the same. (b) An in-depth analytical study is to be conducted after the legal transfer is completed on April 1, 2001. (c) All employees (approximately 193) will keep their jobs, seniority and benefits. (d) FRHG will assume all BGMH debts. (e) A new acute care center will be built, in compliance with SB-1953 standards, on a 5-acre parcel owned by BGMH. It does not include ICU/CCU at this time. (f) The present facilities will be remodeled and become an outpatient care center. (g) One BGMH representative will serve as a full, voting member of the FRHG Board Directors.

of

(h) The Biggs-Gridley Memorial Hospital Operations Committee will have 4 members, 2 from BGMH and 2 from FRHG. (i) The current BGMH Board of Directors will become the Board of Directors of the Gridley Memorial Hospital Foundation. Biggs-

Construction of a new ICU/CCU will cost between $350 and $400 per square foot compared to $100 per square foot for other sections of the building. Since BGMH averages only 1 or 2 patients in this unit, there is no guarantee it will be included. Some services will be eliminated and some surgeons will be lost if the new ICU/CCU is not built.

Commendations The Grand Jury commends the efforts of everyone who is working to save these vital hospital services. 19

BIGGS-GRIDLEY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

Findings None noted.

Recommendations None Responses Required (Penal Code 933 & 933.05) None required.

20

HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF BUTTE FARM LABOR COMMUNITY

Reason for Visit/Investigation Members of the Grand Jury visited the Butte County Housing Authority Farm Labor Community, located east of the City of Gridley, to learn about the complex and the impact of its residents on area jobs, businesses, services, and schools.

Background In 1946, the Housing Authority of the County of Butte (HACB), which was formed by the Board of Supervisors, incorporated as a nonprofit public agency in accordance with regulations of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The Housing Authority receives no funds from Butte County. All funding is provided by HUD and Farmers Home Administration (FmHA). The HACB Board of Commissioners, comprised of one appointed member from each of the five supervisorial districts, serve four-year terms which coincide with the elected term of the supervisor representing each respective district. Additionally, two appointed resident or tenant commissioners serve two-year terms. The seven board members meet once each month. The programs provide affordable, safe and decent housing for qualified families, seniors, disabled and handicapped persons. In addition to the applicants family composition, their rental history and other evidence of responsible behavior is considered for occupancy. There is always a waiting list. HUD evaluates all Butte County Housing Authority complexes annually. The Farm Labor Community consistently ranks above the 90 percentile and is in the high performance category.

Investigation Members of the Grand Jury have interviewed the Butte Housing Authority Executive Director and the Assistant Housing Manager of the Farm Labor Community. The Grand Jury appreciates the wealth of information and the guided tour of the complex. Residents of the community live in cement block duplexes. The 130 two-bedroom units rent for $325 per month, while the 6 three-bedroom units rent for $450 per month. However, the rent is adjusted as needed. Tenants are given $50 per month utility credit on their P.G.&E. bill. The community has water from its own well, street lighting, off-street parking, a laundry room, and a large recreation field. Trash collection is provided by the same company that serves Gridley, and the City of Gridley extends sewer service to the complex. Two or more workers are in charge of general maintenance on a daily basis. The exteriors of the buildings are painted every eight years. However, painting over graffiti on the laundry room walls is an ongoing job. The interiors of the buildings are either touched-up or painted when tenants move out. Long term tenants homes are painted approximately every five years. Recent improvements include new roofing, lowered living room ceilings that help conserve energy, and new wall heaters with improved air return. Most of the adult residents work at agriculture-related jobs. The sale of Tri Valley Growers has left many workers unsure of employment. A day care center, located on the premises, is open from April to October to accommodate work schedules.

22

HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF BUTTE FARM LABOR COMMUNITY

Families shop in Gridley, avail themselves of medical and dental services, enjoy the special events sponsored by the city, and send approximately 200 children to the Gridley Unified School District. Youngsters attend the Head Start Program located on the premises, and all families are invited to attend the English as a Second Language (ESL) class. Tutoring and after school programs are available with the assistance of a Gridley teacher and trained volunteer college students. The Butte County Fire/California Department of Forestry (CDF) and the Sheriffs Department provide assistance and protection to approximately 600 residents of the Farm Labor Community. A Spanish speaking deputy sheriff, currently assigned to that area of the county, patrols the complex five nights per week. When this deputy is off duty, the response time is understandably longer. All emergency calls should be made to 911. Statistics, provided to the Grand Jury by the Butte County Sheriff and Undersheriff, show only one serious crime reported at the Farm Labor Community between September 1992 and February 2001. However, the new clinic, that was opened nearby to serve the complex residents and their neighbors, was burglarized and damaged in March 2001.

Findings A. Gang activities and drug problems reportedly increase between April and November, especially when outsiders attend soccer games. B. Graffiti is frequently found on the walls of the laundry room.

Recommendations 1. 2. 3. Request help from the Sheriffs Team of Active Retired Seniors (STARS) and the head of the Gang unit. Discuss possible solutions to existing concerns. Maintain and enhance the Neighborhood Watch Program. Attempt to form a tenant graffiti eradication team that includes some teenagers. Consider starting art classes. Display the work, on a rotating basis, in a central location.

Responses Required (Penal Code 933 & 933.05) Butte County Sheriff Housing Authority of the County of Butte Board of Commissioners

23

GRIDLEY HIGH SCHOOL

Reason for Visit/Investigation Grand Jury investigations into school matters are limited to areas involving finances. Personnel and curriculum decisions do not fall within that jurisdiction. Two issues were reviewed this year. A citizens complaint requested that the Grand Jury study the Gridley High School (GHS) policy which determines whether students are required to pay a $30 transportation fee before being permitted to participate in a sport. Secondly, the Grand Jury inquired about the Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools (II/UPS) state grant which Gridley High School plans to use in order to help raise the test scores associated with the Academic Performance Index (API). Extra-Curricular Transportation Fees Background A comprehensive investigation of extra-curricular transportation fees in Butte County schools was conducted by the 1997-1998 Grand Jury. The report stated that the office of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, California Department of Education, advised that transportation fees are prohibited by the Free School Guarantee of the California Constitution and Section 350 of Title 5 of the California Code of Regulations. The high school in question stopped charging transportation fees.

Investigation Members of the 2000-2001 Grand Jury interviewed the complainant, the former principal of GHS, a coach and a student advisor to gain more information about current policy on this subject. A January 9, 2001 copy of Gridley Unified School District Board Policy 6145(a) states, in part, No student shall be prohibited from participating in extra-curricular activities related to the educational program because of inability to pay fees associated with the activity. Until this year, students were required to pay the $30 per sport fee, up to a maximum of $120 per year, per family, to offset the increased cost of $3 per mile to operate busses. This required transportation fee has since been rescinded. The school now asks for a voluntary payment of $30 per sport, and those who are unable to pay are given the opportunity to serve the school by doing various on-campus tasks. Findings A. School Board Policy does not clearly state that, by law, transportation fees cannot be required of students.

Recommendations 1. Members of the Grand Jury understand the financial dilemma of the school system. However, the Board of Trustees needs to develop a clear policy that adheres to the Free School Guarantee which states that transportation fees are prohibited. 2. Consider forming a permanent sports-boosters organization that can sponsor fund-raisers for transportation costs.

25

GRIDLEY HIGH SCHOOL

Responses Required (Penal Code 933 & 933.05) Gridley High School Principal Gridley High School Athletic Director Gridley Unified School District Board of Trustees Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools State Grant

Background The Governor of the State of California signed the Public Schools Accountability Act into law in 1999. It provides a method by which academic performance level and growth in the areas of reading, writing, math, science and history can be measured. The Academic Performance Index (API) ranges from a low of 200 to a high of 1000. The Governor encourages all high schools to strive for a goal of 800 or higher.

Investigation Gridley High School students in grades 9 through 11 had a base score of 596 in 1999. After setting a growth target of 10 points, the Stanford 9 (SAT 9) test was given in April 2000. This test score was compared for positive or negative growth from the 1999 score. GHS missed its growth target of 10 and the 2000 score dropped to 558 or -38 points. When a school does not meet its growth target, it is placed on the Immediate Intervention/Underperforming School List and becomes subject to local intervention. An external evaluator is selected to work with a committee comprised of 25-30 parents, city representatives, teachers and school trustees. They are charged with developing an action plan which must be submitted to and approved by the California Department of Education. Approval of the action plan qualifies the district for help and implementation grants. GHS could receive between $50,000 and $96,000. Gridley High School has followed these procedures. Failure to improve scores sufficiently after implementing the action plan will subject the school to state intervention at the end of the second year. If the school makes significant progress, but fails to meet the growth target rate after two years in the program, it may continue to receive help and funding for a third year. The School Board and the California Department of Education will closely monitor the progress which includes teacher training and aligning curriculum to state educational standards. A strong program must also encourage students to have a positive attitude about learning, preparing for and taking the test. Findings None. It is not within the jurisdiction of the Grand Jury to determine or evaluate school curriculum. Recommendations None Responses Required (Penal Code 933 & 933.05) None required.

26

BUTTE COUNTY LIBRARY FLYING THE AMERICAN FLAG

Reason for Visit/Investigation The Grand Jury received a citizens complaint that the American Flag was not being flown outside the Chico Library.

Background The head librarian of the Chico Library was contacted and questioned regarding the flag. She stated that they no longer fly the flag due to vandalism and the resulting cost of replacement and maintenance.

Investigation Members of the Grand Jury looked into trying to obtain free flags for the library. Several veterans groups were contacted and responded that due to cost they no longer give out free flags. The Grand Jury also looked at other Butte County Libraries and found that the Oroville and Gridley Libraries fly the flag on a daily basis. After checking into the codes regarding flying the flag, the Grand Jury submitted an Opinion Request to the office of the County Counsel requesting the following information: Who is responsible for providing and maintaining flags for the county? and What constitutes a public building of the county? Government Code Section 431 provides, in pertinent part, that: The Flag of the United States and the Flag of the State shall be prominently displayed during business hours upon or in front of the buildings or grounds of . . . each public building belonging to the State, a county or municipality . . . Butte County Code Section 2-20.8 titled General Services provides, in pertinent part, the following: The Chief Administrative Officer shall be responsible for, and exercise supervision and control over, services provided to county departments as follows: (a) Direct the purchasing of supplies, materials through the procedures set forth in the purchasing and equipment ordinance.

(b)

Exercise general supervision over all public buildings and property . . .

On the advice of the County Counsel, the Grand Jury advised the County Administrative Officer and the Library Director of Butte County of the above code provisions.

Findings A. The Durham and Biggs Libraries do not display the flag outside the buildings

29

BUTTE COUNTY LIBRARY FLYING THE AMERICAN FLAG

because there are no flagpoles.

Recommendation 1. Butte County attempt to find adequate funding to supply the county libraries with American flags.

Responses Required (Penal Code 933 & 933.05) Butte County Chief Administrative Officer Butte County Library Director

30

COUNTY CLERK-RECORDERS DEPARTMENT ELECTIONS DIVISION BUTTE COUNTY ELECTIONS ABSENTEE BALLOTS

Reason for Visit/Investigation Prior to the 2000 November General Election, the Grand Jury members visited the Election Office as a follow-up to a previous Grand Jury report.

Background In elections held in Butte County there has been a steady increase in the number of absentee ballots mailed to voters, in part due to the remote living areas in the county. In the 2000 Presidential General Election, 24,632 absentee ballots were cast in Butte County, or 21.7% of the total ballots cast. This is a substantial increase from the 7,341 absentee ballots or 7.4% of the total ballots cast in the 1984 Presidential General Election. This continually presents a problem to the Election Office in finding ways to ensure that the absentee ballots are returned prior to the close of the polls on election day. The California Elections Code, Division 3, Chapter 1, Section 3017, states, in pertinent part: All absentee ballots cast under this division shall be voted on or before the day of the election. After marking the ballot, the absent voter shall either: (1) return the ballot by mail or in person to the elections official from whom it came or (2) return the ballot in person to any member of the precinct board at any polling place within the jurisdiction. . . . The ballot must, however, be received by either the elections official from whom it came or the precinct board before the close of the polls on election day. The provisions of this section are mandatory, not directory, and no ballot shall be counted if it is not delivered in compliance with this section. In the November 1998 General Election 400 to 500 absentee ballots did not arrive in time to be counted. While human error will always play a part in this process, the Grand Jury felt that with the help of the Registrar of Voters and the Assistant Registrar of Voters, we might find some ways to decrease the number of uncounted absentee ballots in future elections.

Investigation It should be stated here that the Registrar of Voters and the Assistant Registrar were just as concerned and had started their own brainstorming to decrease the number of uncounted ballots. They welcomed any assistance and input from the Grand Jury.

Because the next election was the 2000 November Presidential General Election, the Grand Jury members and the Registrar of Voters determined that a solution needed to be found immediately. It was felt that there were two main issues at play here. One was the education of the voters to obtain their absentee ballot and return it early to allow the most amount of time for the transportation of the ballot. It was felt that public service announcements, both on radio and television about returning the ballots early, would help immensely. The second issue was the transport of the ballots by the U.S. Postal Service. An assessment was done of the various lines of travel of mail in Butte County. It was discovered that all mail picked up in Butte County on Saturday was sent to Sacramento to be processed, and not to Marysville, therefore it may not arrive at the Election Office by the close of the polls on election day. Members of the Grand Jury arranged a meeting with election and postal officials and various options were discussed. It was

31

decided that each post office would be asked to pull the ballots from the outgoing mail and hold them to be picked up by election officials starting on the Friday before the election. A meeting was held after the election and an analysis was done on the absentee ballots received too late to be counted for the 2000 election. It was found that the number of uncounted absentee ballots had decreased to less than 100. The vast majority of those ballots were mailed from out of the county, state, or country.

Commendations 1. The Registrar of Voters and the Assistant Registrar of Voters are to be praised for the work they do to put on an election. They are highly motivated and devote many long hours getting everything in place for the elections. The local Postmasters, Letter Carriers, and Mail Clerks are to be commended for their cooperative efforts in the 2000 November General Election.

2.

Findings A. Four hundred to five hundred absentee ballots in the 1998 November General Election did not arrive in time to be counted. B. Some absentee voters are not adhering to ballot instruction deadline times. C. Mail picked up in Butte County on Saturday is processed in Sacramento rather than Marysville.

Recommendations 1. The Registrar of Voters continues to inform and educate the voters of the need to return their absentee ballots in a timely manner. 2. The Registrar of Voters and U.S. Postal Service continue to diligently communicate and cooperate to ensure that absentee ballots are delivered to the Election Office in a timely manner.

Responses Required (Penal Code 933 & 933.05) Butte County Registrar of Voters

32

COUNTY CLERK-RECORDERS DEPARTMENT ELECTIONS DIVISION ELECTRONIC VOTING MACHINES

Reason for Visit The Registrar of Voters invited members of the Grand Jury to an Election Technology Exposition at the State Capitol.

Background The 2000 Presidential General Election brought to the forefront the deficiencies of the various voting systems used nationwide and the need to modernize and standardize the voting and tabulation systems. At present, individual states and counties design their own ballots. There are many different ways in which the votes are tabulated due to the number of different ballot designs within the state. The Grand Jury was informed that 54 separate and distinct ballots were used in Butte County alone due to different issues in the various precincts. Grand Jury members assisting the Election Board in the 2000 Presidential General Election saw firsthand the number of improperly marked ballots. Butte Countys ballots are designed to be marked with an X. Even with this simplified form of voting, failure to follow instructions lead to many ballots having to be individually reviewed by election officials.

Investigation Many vendors at the Election Technology Exposition displayed and demonstrated their current and potential technology. These new developments can enhance and improve the election processes, making our elections more accurate, user friendly and cost effective. Two separate types of voting machines were on display: Touch Screens Touch screens can be placed at the precincts in the county, thus enabling voters to accurately cast their vote and have it electronically recorded and counted. These touch screens have the potential of being set up several weeks prior to an election at various remote sites in the county to enable voters to vote prior to the actual election day, thus eliminating the need for many absentee ballots. The touch screen machines can be programmed to include all types of separate ballots used in the county, so no matter where a person votes, they may pull up the ballot for their individual precinct.

The touch screens are also capable of being programmed so that the visually impaired voter may accurately and secretly cast their vote. They can also be programmed to accommodate any of the languages required by the federal Voting Rights Act. One major advantage of the touch screen is the elimination of over-voting. Also, if a box is not marked, it will question the voter to make sure they did not accidentally miss this issue on the ballot. The new touch screen voting machines are as simple to use as todays automatic teller machines (ATM).

34

Optical Scanning Machines The optical scanning machine reads a printed ballot marked by the voter at the precinct, or an absentee ballot that is returned by the voter in a timely manner. At the precinct level, the voters marked ballot is inserted into the optical scanner. If the voter made a mistake on the ballot, such as an over-vote or not marking the ballot properly, the optical scanner will reject the ballot and the voter can then correct the mistake and re-enter the ballot into the scanner to be accurately tabulated. Both machines have elaborate security measures built in, including a battery backup in case of loss of electrical power. They also have the ability to be reprogrammed as needed to fulfill future usage. Combined with the above and the ability to give instantaneous results, and the low maintenance required, either of these machines represent a good investment for the future of Butte County. Several counties within the State of California, as well as other states in the nation, have already modernized their voting system and have purchased or are in the process of purchasing this new voting technology. The County Election Office and the City of Chico have combined efforts to lease touch screen voting machines for the June 5, 2001, special election.

Findings A. The election equipment being used in Butte County is outmoded and outdated. B. The X marked paper ballots now in use allow for errors that require time consuming and costly special handling.

Recommendations 1. The Butte County Election Office needs to modernize and update their voting equipment in order to keep pace with the state and the nation as a whole. The Butte County Board of Supervisors diligently attempt to make available to the Election Office sufficient money to allow for a more advanced voting system.

2.

Responses Required (Penal Code 933 & 933.05) Butte County Registrar of Voters Butte County Board of Supervisors

35

BUTTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE BUTTE COMMUNITY EMPLOYMENT CENTER

Reason for Visit/Investigation Members of the Butte County Grand Jury were invited to visit and tour the Butte Community Employment Center (BCEC) in Chico.

Background The Chico facility was opened in May 1998 and currently employs 250 people. Six different languages are spoken by employees of the center. BCEC is a cooperative effort between the Department of Social Welfare, Employment Development Department (EDD) and the Private Industry Council (PIC). Some of the other departments associated with the facility are Regional Occupational Program (ROP), Behavioral Health, Public Health and District Attorney - Family Support Division. While the BCEC is exemplary in many ways, the Grand Jury members noted that the Public Health Department lacked a restroom immediately adjacent to the examining rooms. The clients are required to utilize the restroom in another area of the center. The county has recently opened a similar facility in Oroville that houses many of the same departments and programs as the Chico offices.

Investigation The Grand Jury members found this to be far more than an employment center. Many types of job training, health services, adult services, childrens services, general assistance and food stamps are available. There is also a unit called Green Thumb Inc. to help senior citizens find jobs to supplement retirement income. This offers special training when necessary to qualify for employment. Help is available with the collection of child support from delinquent parents for those who need the service. The major focus of the center is to assist people in getting their lives in order by helping them to help themselves. This is accomplished through job training and placement. Childcare for working parents and health services for the entire family is available when needed. Approximately 10,000 people enter the front door to make use of the many resources available at the center each year. Of that number, about 3,000 come to utilize the employment services only. Various departments work with community groups and businesses to aid in job search. For example, an agreement with the Enterprise-Record allows applicants to go on the Internet and pull up the classified ads. When clicking on an employment ad they can get an application or rsum form that can be filled out and sent directly to the employer via the net. The center considers itself the One Stop to Success for anyone in need

Commendation The Butte Community Employment Center and its personnel are to be commended for their dedication and pride in their accomplishments.

37

BUTTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE BUTTE COMMUNITY EMPLOYMENT CENTER

Findings A. The Public Health Department lacked a restroom immediately adjacent to the examining rooms. The clients are required to utilize the restroom in another area of the center.

Recommendations 1. The Grand Jury strongly encourages the Public Health Department and PIC to install a restroom in the existing department or an alternative may be to relocate the entire department to an area of the facility where a restroom could be more easily installed.

Responses Required (Penal Code 933 & 933.05) Butte County Public Health Department Director Butte County Public Health Department Clinic Manager

38

REGIONAL OCCUPATIONAL PROGRAM BUTTE CULINARY ACADEMY

Reason for Visit/Investigation Grand Jury members felt the Culinary Academy should be visited, as it had never received a Grand Jury visit in the past.

Background Butte Culinary Academy is a cooperative training venture between Butte County Regional Occupational Program (ROP), Butte County Private Industry Council (PIC) and California State University Chico (CSUC). The Academy started about 6 years ago in Oroville. After one year it moved to its present location on the CSUC campus in the faculty/staff dining area and utilizes the full service kitchen at Selvesters Caf by the Creek. The Academy has one full time instructor and an assistant instructor. The classes are made up of 15 students and the course takes seven months to complete. The stated goal of the Academy is to prepare students for permanent full time employment in a variety of food establishments and settings, with the ultimate goal of achieving chef status.

Investigation The Grand Jury members found that the teaching staff at the Academy is motivated and knowledgeable. This is also reflected in the students interviewed as they now have a future and are eager to embrace it. The students come from a wide variety of social and economic backgrounds. A review of the course graduates for 1997/1998 shows 32 completers with 27 employed in a related field an 85% success rate. The 1998/1999 class shows 23 completers with 18 employed in related fields a 78% success rate. The 1999/2000 class had 24 completers with 21 employed in a related field an 88% success rate. These numbers do not include the graduates that have gone on to further their education. The Academy has a very favorable relationship with the Work Training Center (WTC). The WTC is contracted to clean the work area and dishes at the end of the day. Besides being paid, the workers all receive a free meal before leaving. An interview of the WTC workers reveals the fact that this is a very popular job to have and many are long term workers there. Each is aware they are a part of a team and take great pride in their work. This also gives the WTC valuable experience in restaurant cleaning, an aid in obtaining more jobs in this field.

Commendation The Academy appears to be well run and efficient. The staff is to be commended for their hard work and dedication. Butte County is very fortunate to have such a program.

Findings None noted.

39

Recommendations None

Responses Required (Penal Code 933 & 933.05) None required.

40

REGIONAL OCCUPATIONAL PROGRAM NORTHERN CALIFORNIA FOOD SERVICE SCHOOL

Reason for Visit/Investigation The Northern California Food Service School has never received a Grand Jury visit. It was felt that a visit and report were in order. Background The Northern California Food Service School is operated under the guidance of the Butte County Office of Education and the Regional Occupational Program (ROP). This program has been in operation since the latter part of 1999. The Food Service School shares its facilities with the Butte Baking Academy program. The two compliment each other and, at times, it is difficult to tell where one stops and the other begins. The stated purpose of the course is to . . . provide skills necessary to obtain employment or gain job training in the food service field. Training will include the areas of food preparation, safety and sanitation, line cook, assistant cook, bakery/pastry, host/cashier, pantry, waitstaff, busser, and catering occupations. Additional courses include dishwasher, cafeteria worker, sandwich person and janitor/restaurant. The classes have a maximum of 15 students and are open-ended. The length of a course is between 400 and 800 hours. Students can earn a Certificate of Proficiency, high school credit, or college credit for some classes. Investigation The instructor is very experienced and knowledgeable. The lessons, both classroom and hands-on, are taught with care and great attention to detail by the instructor and an assistant. The difficult and challenging responsibility of the instructor cannot be over-emphasized. Fifteen students of various skills and backgrounds are performing different assignments at the same time. The instructor seems to be everywhere at once with a friendly encouraging voice, giving direction, bestowing praise and demonstrating difficult tasks. The students enrolled in this school come from varied backgrounds and educational levels. They seek the necessary skills to enter the food service field, from entry level to more advanced positions. The success ratio of placing students in the food service field is growing with each class. The skills they learn and confidence they gain help them in advancing in their new careers. Commendation The Northern California Food Service School fills a very necessary niche in Butte County. There is a growing demand for skilled food service personnel, which this school effectively fills. It takes a very special person to instruct such a class and Butte County is very fortunate to have found one. The staff and students of this school are to be commended. Findings None noted. Recommendations None Responses Required (Penal Code 933 & 933.05) None required.

41

REGIONAL OCCUPATIONAL PROGRAM BUTTE BAKING ACADEMY

Reason for Visit/Investigation This was the first visit to the Butte Baking Academy by a Grand Jury. It was felt that this program was too important to go without a visit.

Background The Butte Baking Academy is under the guidance of the Butte County Office of Education and the Regional Occupational Program (ROP). This program is completing its second year and shares quarters and equipment with the Northern California Food Service School. The two schools interact with each other. The stated purpose of the course is, in pertinent part, to . . . prepare individuals in baking productions skills used in institutional, commercial, and privately owned bakeries . . .. . . . the curriculum includes instruction in planning and preparation of baked products, safety and sanitation procedures, efficient time management, public relations and the use and care of commercial equipment.

Investigation The instructor is extremely well qualified and experienced and brings a wealth of knowledge to both the classroom and hands-on instruction. Class size is limited to accommodate comprehensive individual instruction. The class is ongoing with open enrollment. The instructor and assistant are highly visible, giving demonstrations, helpful hints and some well-deserved praise. The students attending this academy are from diverse backgrounds and educational levels. Some are entering the job market for the first time, while others are seeking skills for a career change. All the students soon become inspired by their instructors passion for detail and show a collective pride, both in themselves and their accomplishments. Upon completion of the program students earn a Certificate of Proficiency.

Commendation This program and its instructor deserve some well-earned praise. With an ever-increasing student placement, Butte County benefits twice: gainfully employed citizens and some great tasting breads and pastry.

Findings None noted.

Recommendations None

Responses Required (Penal Code 933 & 933.05) None required. 43

REGIONAL OCCUPATIONAL PROGRAM REGISTERED DENTAL ASSISTANT

Reason for Visit/Investigation An initial Grand Jury visit was made to the Registered Dental Assistant (RDA) clinical classroom in response to an invitation by the Regional Occupational Program (ROP) director. Background The Registered Dental Assistant program is offered through Butte County Regional Occupational Program. The ROP job-training course is highly marketed through many advertising avenues. Each year the program maintains its viability by receiving a sufficient number of applicants. Those who complete the program are eligible for immediate employment or can continue their education. The student survey of 1999-2000 indicates that over 91% of the graduates are employed or are continuing their education. Investigation The Dental Assistant program had its beginnings in 1980, and in 1984 it became a Registered Dental Assistant program. It provides a high quality job training study course. The classroom will soon relocate, moving from Durham to the newly constructed facility in Chico. The school applicants respond to a written and oral interviewing process. Twenty students ranging in age from 18-35 are accepted to begin in mid-August. This is a nine month, 1,012 hour course of study. There is no tuition charge, but all students pay a registration fee. Individuals are responsible to purchase textbooks, miscellaneous supplies and pay fees for the RDA Certification. The full-time instructor and a part -time RDA instructional aide t ach in a well-equipped clinical e classroom. Local dentists donate most of the dental equipment. The dentists also teach procedures in the classroom by giving dental care to the students who volunteer to be patients. The dentists furnish the instrument trays and occasionally bring their own dental assistant to aid in the training process. Observing the interaction between the dentist and the assistant allows the student to realize the skills that are imperative for making an office procedure run smoothly. This and other operative practice time prepares the student for the internship program that occurs in the private practice. In the dentists office the internship consists of spending 162 hours assisting in the laboratory and at chair side. The front office duties are practiced a total of 108 hours. During the training experience, staff observes the student applying their learned skills. The in-office training benefits both the student and the dentist, for often the graduate is employed by the office where they served their internship. Commendation The Grand Jury commends the ROP director, the RDA instructor and the staff for their efforts to prepare students to have a successful job experience. Findings None noted. Recommendations None Responses Required (Penal Code 933 & 933.05) None required. 45

PARADISE IRRIGATION DISTRICT

Reason for Visit/Investigation Based on a citizens comments following the 1998-1999 Grand Jury report recommending an intertie (connection) between Paradise Irrigation District (PID) and Del Oro Water Company (DOWC), members of the 2000-2001 Grand Jury visited the PID and toured their water treatment facility. The Grand Jury wishes to thank PIDs management and staff for their courtesy and cooperation during our visit and tour of their facilities.

Background PID was formed in 1916 and currently has a staff of 38 full time employees, including a District Manager who reports to a 5 -member Board of Directors. The District delivers water to about 10,000 metered connections and maintains approximately 170 miles of pipeline. Their main water supply is comprised of surface runoff into Paradise and Magalia Reservoirs located above Paradise on the Little Butte Creek watershed. PID also has one well used primarily as an emergency backup supply and is currently studying the feasibility of installing additional wells. The annual budget of $5.3 million is derived mainly from water service and delivery charges. Current major expenses include debt service, water transport and distribution costs, administrative costs, and an ongoing pipeline replacement program. PID serves entire town of Paradise except for the southeast corner, which is served by Del Oro Water Company. Currently, all water delivered by PID is treated at a plant constructed in 1995 and located at base of Magalia Dam. A pump station was constructed in 1995 to draw water from Magalia Reservoir.

Investigation Members of the Grand Jury met with the District Manager along with the President of the Board of Directors in their Paradise office. The District Manager had compiled a very comprehensive and useful information package for each attending juror. The information included staffing figures, budget information, and an Operations and Maintenance report. Many areas were discussed including water sources supply and entitlements, replacement of aging pipeline system, the problems with Magalia Dam, and water deliveries to outside entities including DOWC. Following the discussions, the PID water treatment facility was visited.

Commendation The Grand Jury wishes to commend Paradise Irrigation District on the appearance and operation of their treatment facility. The plant was clean, appeared to be well maintained, and operated in a professional manner.

Findings A. PID has 18,000 acre-foot (AF) entitlement on the Little Butte Creek watershed but only has 12,000 AF storage capacity in its two reservoirs.

47

PARADISE IRRIGATION DISTRICT

B. The State of California, due to liquefaction concerns in the event of a magnitude 6.5 earthquake, has declared Magalia Dam, an 82-year old structure, unsafe. C. Paradise Dam and Reservoir was designed for future enlargement, but continuing development around Paradise Reservoir may restrict any proposed expansion of those facilities. D. PID cannot be expected to continue to transfer their water to other districts on an annual basis while meeting their own commitments. E. PIDs delivery system is comprised of many aging and leaking pipes. The cumulative water loss can be appreciable if not stopped. PID has undertaken an aggressive pipe replacement program and has seen a reduction in their unaccounted for water over the last 3 to 4 years.

Recommendations 1. The Grand Jury urges PID to consider proceeding with engineering studies to either enlarge Paradise Dam or repair Magalia Dam, or a combination of both, to fully utilize their water entitlements from the Little Butte Creek Watershed. 2. The Butte County Board of Supervisors may consider limiting any development Paradise Lake that may preclude future enlargement of that facility. around

3. The Grand Jury e ncourages Del Oro Water Company to continue the development of their own water sources and delivery system.

Responses Required (Penal Code 933 & 933.05) Paradise Irrigation District Butte County Board of Supervisors

48

UPPER RIDGE FIRE PROTECTION

Reason for Visit/Investigation The 2000/2001 Grand Jury received a letter from an upper ridge resident concerned with fire protection in the area. The letter was prompted by reports that water mains had failed during scheduled exercises. The complaint also questioned the maintenance and reliability of Del Oro Water Companys 30-year old water delivery system.

Background Del Oro Water Company (DOWC) supplies water in the Paradise Pines/Magalia area. DOWC is a privately owned utility company and subject to regulation by the State Public Utility Commission. DOWC also operates and maintains the water system used for fire suppression efforts in the upper ridge. The company serves about 5,000 customers, including Lime Saddle and Stirling City.

The companys roots can be traced back to the early 1960s when subdivision development began in the upper ridge. DOWC provides water from seven wells in the area. In recent years DOWC has had to supplement its supply with purchases from Paradise Irrigation District, and is currently seeking to augment its water supplies with additional wells. Studies are also underway on how to bring Lake Oroville water from Lime Saddle to the upper ridge.

Investigation The Butte County Grand Jury is impaneled to investigate civil matters. Due to pending litigation against DOWC, the Grand Jury was unable to investigate the maintenance procedures of the company. A meeting was held with the Butte County Fire Chief to discuss the adequacy of fire protection in the upper ridge. The Fire Chief commands the combined state and county fire suppression forces in Butte County. Two California Division of Forestry/Butte County fire stations, one in Magalia and the other in Stirling City serve the Magalia/Paradise Pines region. These stations are manned year-round. The Paradise Fire Department can also respond to the area. The current maximum response time is approximately ten minutes. Although this is considered adequate, the Fire Chief would ideally like to reduce that time to five minutes. The Insurance Service Office (ISO) gives the area a rating of four, which is the top rating for a residential area. The ISO is a private company supported by the insurance companies, who may use this information when setting their rates. Fire hydrant testing is done annually. At the time of the interview, the Fire Chief was not aware of any hydrant failures due to testing; he would confirm this with his field personnel. Subsequent correspondence from the Fire Chief stated that although testing had not caused any hydrant failures, in 1998 six hydrant mains had failed in one weekend. The correspondence also delineated several cases in the mid 1990s of equipment clogged or damaged by gravel after using DOWC hydrants. While there have been some instances of h ydrant main failures, they have been repaired and the Fire Chief is satisfied with the current fire protection water supply availability and reliability

49

UPPER RIDGE FIRE PROTECTION

Findings A. With 20,000 people in the upper ridge, and considering the projected population growth, the area will need another fire station.

Recommendations 1. The Grand Jury encourages that the Butte County Board of Supervisors consider the construction of a new fire station in the DeSabla area as outlined in the Fire Chiefs fiveyear plan.

Responses Required (Penal Code 933 & 933.05) Butte County Board of Supervisors Butte County Fire Chief

50

BUTTE COUNTY JAIL

Reason for Visit Each Grand Jury is required, by mandate, to visit the Butte County Jail and inspect the facility, review procedures, and make suggestions and recommendations when appropriate in order to enhance the overall operation. Two announced visits were made; the first on October 4, 2000, and the second on February 21, 2001.

Background Ninety-three questionnaires were passed out to the employees. They were asked to respond, with assurances of confidentiality. Forty were returned to the Grand Jury, which is a very good response percentage. Response to the 1999-2000 Final Report On the following recommendations made by the 1999-2000 Grand Jury, Sheriff Scott A. Mackenzie gave his response August 18, 2000, which states, in pertinent part: (a) Emergency procedures in Control Room be clarified: . . . Specific guidelines will be developed, and posted inside and outside of the control room to ensure an orderly evacuation or entry, as the situation requires. (b) County departments cooperate to obtain necessary funding to identify and monitor the mentally ill: This is being discussed at the Department Head Level. The Sheriffs Office is seeking grants in conjunction with other county departments to deal with this issue. . .

(c) The Butte County Board of Supervisors work with the Sheriffs Department to determine the necessary and realistic staffing requirements, i.e., budget increase, creative staffing, parttime and on-call personnel to fill in as needed and take any other steps to ease the burden on jail employees: The Sheriffs Office has requested an independent consultant to determine staffing levels, review jail operations and management by conducting a staffing study. The study would provide details and data on the current operations as well as aid in planning for future growth, expansion and operations . . . (d) The Butte County Board of Supervisors conduct a survey of similar facilities to determine to what extent Butte County Jail personnel are underpaid: While this recommendation is supported, it is beyond our control. The Sheriffs Office encourages such a review to ensure our employees that they are receiving a fair wage . . . (e) Implement standard procedures across the board so that employees are fully aware of their duties and responsibilities: Each employee is currently required to read and sign an acknowledgment form that they have read the Sheriffs Office Departmental Orders pertaining to their job classification. Any updates or changes must also be read and documented. The Corrections Division administrative staff holds a weekly staff meeting to discuss issues and respond to situations raised during operations. The Corrections Division Sergeants hold a monthly meeting, to discuss issues at that level and develop guidelines that are consistent throughout the division. An informal newsletter provides information from the Sergeants meeting, as well as other information about the Division. Each employee of the Division has e-mail access on the Countys system. E-mails are regularly sent to staff and flow in reverse order. Any employee can contact an

51

BUTTE COUNTY JAIL

administrator to ask questions, provide information, request information or log complaints in addition to regular physical contacts. (f) Many staff members are under stress, working long hours and spending less down time with their families. Working with prisoners is a difficult job and improving morale is a high priority: The Correction Division staff and I are very aware of the effort the employees make on behalf of the County. Their efforts have led to a facility that is secure, safe and operated in a professional manner. I encourage and write letters of appreciation and commendation when appropriate. The staff is working closely with Buildings and Grounds to improve the facility to make the working environment safe and productive. The Corrections Division aggressively pursues a safety plan and is actively working with the County Safety Officer to inspect and correct any hazards. A list of those actions is posted in the staff lounge. Until the issue of staffing is resolved, there will be little the Sheriffs Office can do to mitigate the long hours and stress associated with this facility. Although we are short staffed, the Corrections Division works with employees to allow them to take vacation and holidays earned. The Corrections Division Commander makes himself available to employees and directs his staff to respond to employee concerns in a timely manner. Our administration encourages employee participation in the Divisions operation. . .

Investigation The Grand Jury was met at the entrance to the jail by the facility Commander and a facility Corrections Lieutenant. The Lieutenant gave a very informative orientation prior to beginning the tour. Each Grand Jury member was allowed to take notes, ask questions, and view all areas during the trip through the facility. The Grand Jury members were also able to grade specific categories on a scale from 1 to 5, from very poor to very good. Some of the categories include Noise Level, Sanitation, Lockup Security and General Appearance. The tour of the kitchen was very favorable. Every effort is being made to provide a well-rounded wholesome diet at a reasonable cost. The kitchen was clean and well staffed. Inmates are being trained so that they can possibly be employed in the food industry upon their release from jail. The Food Service Supervisor is to be commended for a well-run operation. The no smoking policy in the jail facility has resulted in an immense reduction in the accessibility to drugs. In many cases, drugs were brought into the facility concealed in cigarette packs. Pruno has also been an ongoing concern at the jail for some time. Pruno is a product of homemade alcohol made from various fruits and/or substances available to the inmates. Through approximately 50 closed circuit video cameras in various locations, and random inspections, the occurrence of pruno manufacturing and drug use has been greatly reduced. Except for the recreation area and evidence room, all areas of the facility viewed were rated above average when inspected by the Grand Jury. The most outstanding aspect of the tour was how neat and well kept the facility looked.

Findings A. In one of the outdoor recreation areas, between buildings, there is a hazardous condition where the asphalt has crumbled to the point of having loose debris scattered in the area. If and when the area is utilized, there could be an accident waiting to happen.

52

BUTTE COUNTY JAIL

B. Results of the survey re-kindled the concern with overtime and salary issues that have affected the morale and possible turnover of employees for the past couple of years. The Grand Jury members have addressed the overtime and staffing issues in a separate report which is included in this years Final Report. C. The evidence room, a separate area of the facility, has exceeded its capacity for the retention of evidential items, creating a fire hazard. The building shows evidence of longterm water leakage. The officers in charge of the secured area have had to reconfigure the actual packaging of evidence to accommodate the remaining space available. This is caused by the required length of time evidence must be held before it can be removed permanently. Reasons for retention are numerous. Some evidence must be stored for years, if not decades.

Recommendations 1. In order to avoid a possible accident by an inmate or staff member, the hazard in the recreation area could be repaired and brought to a safe condition by funds obtained through regular building and grounds maintenance requests, thus preventing a possible lawsuit by an injured party. Extra effort by the current administration can improve morale by interacting with employees and reassuring them of their value to the Butte County Jail. It would be prudent for the Board of Supervisors to visit the evidence facility to see first hand the existing crowded conditions and find a way to upgrade the facility.

2. 3.

Responses Required (Penal Code 933 & 933.05) Butte County Board of Supervisors Butte County Sheriff

53

BUTTE COUNTY JAIL RE: OVERTIME AND STAFFING

Reason for Investigation Inadequate staffing and mandatory overtime have been major problems at the County Jail for three years or more. This Special Report is issued to direct attention to these important matters.

Background Following is the text of the 1999-2000 Grand Jury Finding and Recommendation and Board of Supervisors Response: Grand Jury Finding 1999-2000 Mandatory Overtime. Although mandatory overtime temporarily ended (see Sheriff Mackenzies response to the 1998-1999 Grand Jurys recommendation), it was subsequently reinstated due to continued personnel shortages. A Consent Decree of the Superior Court requires that every position in the jail be filled every day. Even in the best of circumstances with all staff positions filled, there are still no backup employees for staff vacations, sick days, required training days, etc. To staff all stations as required, an inordinate amount of overtime has been necessary. Grand Jury Recommendation 1999-2000 The Butte County Board of Supervisors work with the Sheriffs Department to determine the necessary and realistic staffing requirements for Butte County Jails operation. Unless an employee expressly requests it, require no overtime hours on an ongoing, mandatory basis. Since adequate staffing must be available at all times, consider a budget increase to allow funding for those extra positions. In a cooperative effort, the Board and the Sheriffs Department look for new and creative ways to staff the jail, recruit part-time and on-call personnel to fill in as needed and take any other steps to ease the burden on jail employees. Board of Supervisors Response 1999-2000 The Board of Supervisors disagrees with the above finding and recommendation. The Butte County Jail is operated pursuant to a court ordered Consent Decree which governs specific aspects of jail operations. The Consent Decree establishes a specific number of positions in specific classifications. Many of these positions require backfilling, however, this requirement does not apply to all of the positions. The Board of Supervisors continues to approve funds and authorized positions beyond the level mandated by the Consent Decree. The Board of Supervisors believes that sufficient funds have been approved for the jail to cover personnel costs related to all forms of vacancies, including extra help, absences, and overtime. The Sheriff has discretion on the manner in which positions are backfilled. The Sheriff has chosen the use of overtime, which is the most expensive approach to backfilling. The Board of Supervisors cannot mandate how the Sheriff utilizes Sheriff Department personnel. Furthermore, an analysis of total staff hours used in the jail for calendar year 1999 and to date in 2000 shows that the full time equivalent use of people exceeds both the minimum and authorized levels of staffing by as much as 20%. The 2000-2001 Grand Jury has conducted an investigation to determine realistic overtime and staffing levels.

55

BUTTE COUNTY JAIL RE: OVERTIME AND STAFFING

Investigation The average daily population of prisoners at the Butte County Jail is approximately 500. The jail is staffed by 94 employees: 1 Sheriffs Captain 3 Corrections Lieutenants 7 Correctional Sergeants 54 Correctional Officers 18 Correctional Technicians 11 Clerical and Food Services employees A survey of jail personnel revealed that excessive and mandatory overtime continues to be a major source of dissatisfaction. Mandatory overtime has been discontinued in the past but was, by necessity, reinstated due to lack of adequate personnel. A study of hours and costs conducted by the Grand Jury revealed the following: (a) Total staff hours used in the jail does not appear to be excessive. (b) It is not possible to provide coverage for vacations, holidays, sick time, or training hours with the present staff unless overtime is used. (c) Approximately $228,000 in scheduled overtime was spent in 1999/2000 to provide for 12-hour shift employees and 24 hour staffing requirements. (d) An additional $479,000 was spent in 1999/2000 in excessive overtime. (e) Approximately 80% of overtime hours were used by a total of 79 Correctional Sergeants, Officers and Technicians. (f) Approximately 19% of overtime hours were provided by sworn officers and sergeants from other divisions within the Sheriffs Department. It should be noted that costs associated with these hours were considerably increased due to higher labor rates. (g) The remaining 1% of overtime hours were used by clerical personnel, etc. (h) The Captain and Lieutenants are not compensated for overtime. (i) Eight part time employees were utilized to support the existing staff. Expenditures for part time employees are considerably lower since no benefits are paid. (j) The Board of Supervisors, in their response to the 1999/2000 Grand Jury report, acknowledged that overtime is the most expensive approach to backfilling. (k) The Sheriffs Department requested an additional 13 correctional personnel for 2000/2001, however, the Chief Administrative Officer and the Board of Supervisors provided none. (l) Projected overtime expenditures for 2000/2001 are exceeding 1999/2000 actuals. 56

BUTTE COUNTY JAIL RE: OVERTIME AND STAFFING

Findings A. The Grand Jury study and employee survey reveal that excessive mandatory overtime is responsible for low morale, which affects overall jail operations.

Recommendations 1. Board of Supervisors amends the Salary Ordinance to provide for 10 additional Correctional Officers or Technicians, for an overall first year savings of approximately $64,000. (See Hour and Expenditure Study, Attachments 1 thru 3) 2. Continue to use part time employees to supplement staffing requirements. Responses Required (Penal Code 933 & 933.05) Butte County Chief Administrative Officer Butte County Board of Supervisors Butte County Sheriff

57

Attachment 1 REQUIRED HOURS-JAIL Post Assignment/Classification Transportation/Sergeant Transportation/CO Transportation/CO Transportation/CO ESP & SWAP/Sergeant ESP & SWAP/CO ESP & SWAP/CO ESP & SWAP/CO ESP & SWAP/CT Road Crew/CO Medical Unit/CO Administration/Sergeant Administration/CT Utility/CO Classification/CO Team Sergeant Booking/CT Release/CT Central Control/CT Window & Booking/CT Intake-Male/CO Intake-Female/CO Docile Holding/CO Female Housing/CO Charlie Control/CO Delta Control/CO Charlie Floor-Day/2 CO's Charlie Floor-Night/CO Delta Floor-Day/2 CO's Delta Floor-Night CO Rove & Relief/CO Total Yearly Hours Notes 2,080 = 10 hr. post (10x4x52) 4,380 = 12 hr. post (12x365) 8,760 = 24 hr. post (24x365) Hours Per Year 2,080 2,080 2,080 2,080 2,080 2,080 2,080 2,080 2,080 2,080 2,080 2,080 2,080 4,380 8,760 8,760 8,760 8,760 8,760 8,760 8,760 8,760 8,760 8,760 8,760 8,760 8,760 4,380 8,760 4,380 8,760 171,580 CO = Correctional Officer CT = Correctional Technician SWAP = Sheriff's Work Alternative Program ESP = Electronic Surveillance Program

59

Attachment 2 STUDY OF HOURS-JAIL 4 - 10 hr. shift employee Adjustments: Vacation (avg.) Special Allocation Sick (6 day) Training Holiday (13) Total Actual Hrs. Available 13 Employees on 4 - 10 hr. shifts = = 100 24 60 24 130 338 1,742 22,646 work hours 2,080 hrs. per year (40 hrs. wk.)

12 hr. shift employee Adjustments: Vacation (avg.) Special Allocation Sick (6 day) Training Holidays (6) Total Actual Hrs. Available 66 Employees on 12 hr. shift

= 100 24 72 24 781 298

2,184 hr. per year (42 hr. wk.)

1,886 = 124,476 work hours (incl. 9,504 O.T. hrs.)

Total hrs. needed to staff jail Total hrs available with current staff Difference Hrs. provided by part time employees Difference excessive O.T. hrs. Avg. Hrs. available per employee 147,122 79 Additional Employees Recommended Existing O.T. Factor (171,580 4,930) (79 x 1,742) = 1.21 Proposed O.T. Factor (171,580 4,930) (89 x 1,742) = 1.07

171,580 147,122 24,458 4,9302 19,528

1,862 10 21% 7%

1 2

12 hr. shift employees typically work 1/2 of their holidays 1999/2000 actual $69,000 avg. $14/hr 60

Attachment 3 SUMMARY OF OVERTIME EXPENDITURE-JAIL

Overtime $ (1999-2000 Actuals) (1) Less 1.2% used by clerical, etc. Balance (2) (3) Scheduled O.T. (9,504 x 24) Excessive O.T.

$716,000 - 9,000 $707,000 - 228,000 $479,000

(4) Cost of 1st step Correctional Officer incl. benefits Scheduled O.T. 26,500 x .07 x 1.5 Total

$39,000 + 2,500 $41,500

Cost of 10 1st step Correctional Officers Approximate 1st Year Savings

$415,000 $ 64,000

(5) Cost of top step Correctional Officer incl. benefits Scheduled O.T. 32,800 x .07 x 1.5 Total

$46,300 + 3,400 $49,700

Cost of 10 top step Correctional Officers Approximate annual increase in cost after 5 years

$497,000 $ 18,000

NOTE: Cost of Correctional Technicians are $6,000-$7,000 less per year

Source (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

7-1-00 through 11-9-00 Actuals Attachment 2 - Scheduled O.T. hrs. 9504; Total O.T. hrs. 29,032 Calculate avg. O.T. rate 1.5 x 16 or 707,000 29,032 2000/2001 Budget Request Sheriff & Personnel Dept.

61

BUTTE COUNTY JUVENILE HALL

Reason for Visit/Investigation The Grand Jury is mandated by law to visit the Butte County Juvenile Hall to inspect the facility and report on its condition. Two announced visits were made, one on October 18, 2000, the other on March 8, 2001. The tours included the housing units, the court, kitchen, classrooms, gym and grounds.

Background Juvenile Hall is under the direction of the Butte County Probation Department. The present facility was built in 1976 and was designed to house 60 juveniles. A new 60,000 sq. ft., 96 room, 120 bed Juvenile Hall has been funded and the bid awarded. The ground breaking ceremony was held on May 8, 2001. The facility will open approximately July 2002, based upon a 14-month construction schedule. Construction costs are estimated at $9.3 million, with approximately $8 million provided by a federal grant and the balance provided by the county.

Investigation The new juvenile hall will be divided into six 20-bed pods to provide for better separation of minors according to age, gender and behavior. Separate classrooms will be provided in each pod and meals will be served in the pods, instead of the central dining hall presently in use. A Central Control post will regulate movement of minors, staff and visitors throughout the facility. These new features will greatly improve operations and security. Present plans for the new facility call for an initial juvenile population of 80 and expansion to the 120 bed capacity in two years. Initial staffing requirements will be 61 full time equivalent (FTE) employees, an increase of approximately 21. Five of these positions are related to the operation of the new Central Control. When operated at the full 120 bed capacity, staffing needs will increase to approximately 84 FTE employees. The initial staffing budget is approximately $2.1 million. Needs for juvenile detention facilities are expected to increase. An additional 20-bed pod could be added to the new hall at a later date. If that proves inadequate, refurbishing of the old juvenile hall is possible; however, costs would be extremely high to bring it up to required present day building codes and standards. The number of juveniles needing supervision has increased substantially over the years. Currently there are approximately 550-600 on probation. At present there are about 50 juveniles allowed to live at home and use ankle monitors so the Probation Department knows their whereabouts and an additional 50 assigned to the Weekend Accountability Program. This program runs on Saturday and Sunday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Each weekend 10 to 20 of these juveniles do cleanup work around the grounds. In case of bad weather they stay inside and watch educational videos and do school work. Schooling is provided by the Butte County Department of Education. Each juveniles school records are immediately obtained from the last school attended. Classes are held five days per week from 8:00 to 12:00 a.m. and 1:30 to 2:30 p.m. There are three full-time certified instructors. Two part-time instructors work with an average of 5 to 15 Special Education juveniles. There are presently three academic classrooms and a gym for physical education. There is an honor roll for those that choose to do extra work. Those making the honor roll receive extra privileges. Many more programs are available from the school district, but lack of space is a problem. The new facility will provide more space and a better environment. At least four previous Grand Juries have commented on the cramped condition and lack of safety in the courtroom at juvenile hall. This 12 x 20 room is used three days a week for detention hearings and one day a week for Juvenile Court. A caseload of 100 or more per session is not uncommon. 62

The space is totally inadequate to accommodate the judge, court staff, prosecuting and defense attorneys, and minor and minor's family. Juveniles waiting their turn in court sit on the floor in the hallway. The waiting room for family members is too small to accommodate everyone on a busy day. Many stand outside in the parking lot. Security appears to be inadequate considering the number of defendants and others present and the cramped quarters.

Findings A. Existing plans do not include a courtroom in the new structure or expansion of the inadequate courtroom in the existing structure. During the tour it was noted that the gym was badly in need of cleaning. Vents were dusty and cobwebs were hanging down all over. A cover was missing from a hole in the gym floor that housed a volleyball net post. A gym is not included in the new structure.

B.

Recommendations 1. Accelerate county and state negotiations to provide funding for remodeling of a portion of the old facility to allow adequate space for the court, or move the juvenile court to a new location. Resolution of this problem is long overdue.

2.

Provide funding for a thorough cleaning of the gym and replace the equipment cover on the hole in gym floor.

Responses Required (Penal Code 933 & 933.05) Butte County Board of Supervisors Butte County Chief Probation Officer

63

CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES CARRY-OVER COMPLAINT

Grand Jury members looked into a carry-over complaint alleging child abuse by visiting with Child Protective Services (CPS) and conducting a thorough review of the file. Department of Social Welfare, CPS, granted us this privilege. The file revealed that CPS has made several visits to the residence of the parties involved. Investigation showed there was no basis for the complaint. CPS cannot take further action unless and until a new accusation is made in the case. The CPS file is closed.

65

BUTTE COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT HIT AND RUN COMPLAINT

Reason for Visit/Investigation The Grand Jury received a citizens complaint claiming an alleged hit and run committed by the wife of the complainant. The day prior to the alleged hit and run the complainant had been arrested on a domestic violence charge. The Grand Jury also received 2 other statements from the complainants relatives inquiring if something could be done regarding this matter. Grand Jury members visited with a Butte County Sheriffs Captain to review their file. The file revealed that documentation of the incident was given to the District Attorneys office and they have determined that no prosecution is warranted. After reviewing the file, the Grand Jury concurs.

66

BUTTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF BEHAVIORAL HEALTH YOUTH SERVICES

Reason for Visit/Investigation The 1999-2000 Grand Jury received a complaint with accompanying documents concerning Butte County Behavioral Health (BCBH) Youth Services issues. They determined that the problems were severe and far-reaching and there was not time to do a thorough investigation. They passed the complaint on to the 2000-2001 Grand Jury. The 2000-2001 Grand Jury received two other related complaints this year. These complaints concerned the lack of mental health services available to the youth of the community, and the interagency dispute regarding responsibility for care of emotionally and behaviorally disturbed children.

Background Interagency responsibilities for related services are spelled out in Government Code Chapter 26.5, Division 7, Title 1. The intent of this legislation is that existing services provided by state and local government agencies to disabled children be maximized and coordinated. It is the further intent of the legislature that specific state and local interagency responsibilities be clarified by this act. Pertinent portions of this legislation specifically state: 7572. (a) A child shall be assessed in all areas related to the suspected disability by those qualified to make a determination of the childs need for the service before any action is taken with respect to the provision of related services or designated instruction and services to a child, including, but not limited to, services in the areas of, occupational therapy, physical therapy, psychotherapy, and other mental health assessments. All assessments required or conducted pursuant to this section shall be governed by the assessment procedures contained in Article 2 (commencing with Section 56320) of Chapter 4 of Part 30 of the Education Code. 7572. (c) Psychotherapy and other mental health assessments shall be conducted by qualified mental health professionals as specified in regulations developed by the State Department of Mental Health, in consultation with the State Department of Education, pursuant to this chapter. (d) A related service or designated instruction and service shall only be added to the childs individualized education program by the individualized education program team, as described in Part 30 (commencing with Section 56000) of the Education Code, if a formal assessment has been conducted pursuant to this section, and a qualified person conducting the assessment recommended the service in order for the child to benefit from special education. In no case shall the inclusion of necessary related services in a pupils individualized education plan be contingent upon identifying the funding source. Nothing in this section shall prevent a parent from obtaining an independent assessment in accordance with subdivision (b) of Section 56329 of the Education Code, which shall be considered by the individualized education program team. 7572.5. (a) When an assessment is conducted pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 56320) of Chapter 4 of Part 30 of Division 4 of the Education Code, which determines that a child is seriously emotionally disturbed, as defined in Section 300.5 of Title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and any member of the individualized education program team recommends residential placement based on relevant assessment information, the individualized education program team shall be expanded to include a representative of the county mental health department.

67

BUTTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF BEHAVIORAL HEALTH YOUTH SERVICES

(b) The expanded individualized education program team shall review the assessment and determine whether: 1. 2. 3. The childs needs can reasonably be met through any for out-of-home care. Residential care is necessary for the child to benefit from educational services Residential services are available which address the needs identified in the assessment and which will ameliorate the conditions leading to the seriously emotionally disturbed designation. . . ."

There is an interagency agreement between Butte County Office of Education (BCOE), the Butte County Special Education Local Planning Area (SELPA), and BCBH. It appears this agreement is in the process of being revised. Only a draft is available, which is currently being used by the agencies. Day Treatment is a service delivery model that involves a combination of mental health and special education services for children and youth certified as seriously emotionally disturbed. Recreational, family, individual, group, and music and art therapy may be services offered. Day treatment may also include psychopharmacotherapy (Sayegh and Grizenko, 1991). BCOE contracted the Day Treatment Program until 7/1/00, at which time BCBH took over the operation of these day treatment programs. It would appear this change has had an adverse affect on the relationship between the educators and Youth Services.

Investigation Interviews were held with both current and prior SELPA directors, school principals, school psychologists, the Director of BCBH, the Director of BCBH Youth Services, counselors, and parents. In addition to interviews, numerous interagency memos were received describing issues concerning lack of services to area youth. It was noted during these interviews that there is broad disagreement as to what is required under Government Code Chapter 26.5 and that time requirements were not met. It appears that each agency has its own interpretation of the Government Code Chapter 26.5. There was even disagreement as to the rapport between agencies. One of the complaints received by the Butte County Grand Jury (BCGJ) concerned a student who, it was felt, was not receiving services from Butte County Behavioral Health and was a potential threat to the student and to others. Members of the BCGJ interviewed the complainant and determined the complaint had merit. Because of the need for confidentiality, the BCGJ enlisted the aid of the Butte County Counsel's Office (BCCO). The BCCO saw the need for some action to be taken and arranged for a meeting with members of the BCGJ and the Director of Butte County Behavioral Health. A representative of the BCCO was present at this meeting to insure that no confidences were broken. After hearing the Grand Jurys concerns and conveying the position of BCBH, the Director advised he would look into the matter further.

68

BUTTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF BEHAVIORAL HEALTH YOUTH SERVICES

The Director of BCBH later relayed to the BCGJ that this youth is a client of theirs and is currently in a treatment program. According to the Director, the youth is being well served. During an exit interview with the complainant, it was evident that there is still a major disagreement as to what services are appropriate for the youth.

Findings A. There is a serious lack of communication between the educators and BCBH which affects the level of their cooperation. There appears to be a disagreement as to when mental health services are needed, as well as financial responsibility. B. There is a difference of opinion as to the qualifications for out-of-home placement using Government Code Chapter 26.5, and some parents have had to resort to a Due Process Hearing in order to obtain these services for their child. This results in additional costs to BCOE for outside attorneys. C. It appears that the educators and BCBH Youth Services often do not have the same interpretation of emotional and behavioral characteristics which impede the child from benefiting from educational services. D. On occasion, when out-of-home placements were agreed upon at Individualized Education Plan (IEP) meetings, timelines set forth by the Special Education Codes were not followed, resulting in long delays by BCBH. E. There is ambiguity concerning a course of action necessary to resolve conflicts between BCBH and those in the education field. This results in frustration for the educators and, on occasion, a lack of services to which the youth are entitled under the law.

Recommendations 1. That the educators and BCBH work together as a cooperative team, giving consideration to each others approach, bringing needed and required education and behavioral health services to the youth of the county. That a workshop for the SELPA Director, Special Services Directors of all Butte County School Districts, Director BCBH and Director Youth Services, along with an impartial, experienced, outside consultant, be held to solve the many interagency disputes. This would be beneficial to all concerned, including the students and parents. The cost of the consultant could be shared by the attending agencies and school districts. That the educators and BCBH come to a mutual agreement concerning the criteria required for out-of-home placement and other educational services. That BCBH adhere to the timelines set forth by the Special Education Codes.

2.

3.

4.

69

BUTTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF BEHAVIORAL HEALTH YOUTH SERVICES

5.

That service care providers and educators review the procedural guidelines and proper chain of command for resolving conflicts. That all educators and BCBH Youth Services have in-service training on a regular basis in order to review procedures and exchange ideas.

6.

Responses Required (Penal Code 933 & 933.05) Butte County Behavioral Health Director Butte County Behavioral Health Youth Services Director Butte County Special Education Local Plan Area Director Butte County Superintendent of Schools Chico Unified School District, Special Services Director Butte County Board of Supervisors

70

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS YARDS, SHOPS AND STORES DIVISION

Reason for Visit/Investigation In September 2000 members of the 2000/2001 Grand Jury met with the director of the Butte County Department of Public Works (BCDPW) and visited the Yards, Shops and Stores Division as a follow-up to the directors 1999-2000 final report response. The 1999/2000 Grand Jury reported that it appeared that personal vehicles were being worked on in the county shops and recommended that management monitor the auto repair shop to determine that only authorized vehicles are being repaired. BCDPW responded that only county vehicles are worked on in the shops. The 1999/2000 Grand Jury reported that lost and misplaced tools are replaced at county expense and recommended that distribution and use of county tools and materials be recorded in order to control the rate of loss. BCDPW responded that this recommendation is already being implemented. (See complete text of the BCDPW response in the response section of this Final Report.)

Background The Yards, Shops and Stores Division is staffed by 13 employees including a supervisor, foreperson, storekeeper, heavy equipment mechanics and auto mechanics. Their primary responsibility is to maintain the fleet of county vehicles ranging from heavy road maintenance equipment to passenger vehicles. Investigation

The Grand Jury interviewed the director and shop supervisor and toured the facility. The shops and yard were well organized and maintained. There were a number of unmarked vehicles in the yard. They are used extensively by members of the sheriff, probation, district attorney and other departments. Every vehicle obtained or purchased by the various departments is issued a county identification number which serves as a means of identifying the vehicle on work orders for repair or maintenance. Costs are charged back to the appropriate department. License plates are not used to identify county vehicles. No personal vehicles are worked on in the county shops. Records of county tool purchases are available dating back to fiscal year 1987/1988. All orders are reviewed and approved by the shop supervisor. The number of damaged and misplaced tools is considered to be within industry standards. It is concluded that existing tool and material controls are satisfactory. The 2000-2001 Grand Jury appreciates the cooperation and open exchange by the Butte County Department of Public Works director and the personnel of the Yards, Shops and Stores Division and regrets the errors in the previous report.

72

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS YARDS, SHOPS AND STORES DIVISION

Findings None noted.

Recommendations None

Responses Required (Penal Code 933 & 933.05) None required.

73

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT BUILDING DIVISION

Reason for Visit/Investigation In September and October 2000, members of the Grand Jury met with the Director of Development Services and the Building Division Manager for a routine review of the operations of the Building Division.

Background The Development Services Department is comprised of a Planning Division and a Building Division. The Planning Division is responsible for implementing the County General Plan, administering zoning and subdivision ordinances, and environmental mitigation measures. This Grand Jury review focused on the Building Division whose primary responsibility is enforcement of the State Building Standards Code in the unincorporated areas of the county. The Building Division has a staff of 23 full-time employees which include the manager, a civil engineer, 13 plan checkers/inspectors, 4 plan application assistants, and 4 code enforcement officers. In addition to the main County Center facility, a small satellite office is maintained in Chico. The Building Division issues 2,500 to 3,500 commercial and residential permits per year, including approximately 500 for single-family residences. The division budget is approximately $1.3 million per year of which $1 million is obtained from permit fees. The last fee increase was implemented in 1993.

Investigation In August 2000 the Development Services Department remodeled their permit center and established a common public counter for the building and planning permits in order to provide more efficient service. Environmental Health Department personnel are available at an adjacent counter to issue permits for wells and septic systems as well as providing assistance on other public health matters. This remodel has greatly enhanced customer service and convenience. A sample of the public surveys, which are provided at the common counter, rated the quality of service good to outstanding. The Building Division makes every effort to assist the public during the permit and construction process. Guides and checklists are made available or preparing plans and obtaining permits; f details are also provided for standard structural requirements. A lateral design review is provided at the time of application to determine if professional engineering analysis is required. Standard plan review timelines are 15 days for commercial buildings and 10 days for residential buildings. A one-day fast track permit process is available for smaller structures such as garages, decks and carports. Field inspections are given top priority to m inimize construction delays. The inspectors are committed to responding to requests within 24 hours, or the same day if the request is made prior to 8:00 AM. During peak periods, it is sometimes necessary to close the Chico satellite office to meet this commitment. The Building Division manager estimated that existing staffing is adequate 80% of the time. Conversion to an electronic permitting system is scheduled for the third quarter of 2001 at a cost of about $75,000. The new software will eliminate many of the labor and time-consuming paper

74

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT BUILDING DIVISION

processes, in addition to improving overall operations and record keeping. Future features of this software will include on-line permit applications and an informational website. Findings One Licensed Civil Engineer on the staff is responsible for approving all plans requiring engineering review. During peak periods, it is necessary to contract some of this work out to private engineering firms. During fiscal year 1999/2000, $56,800 was expended for these contracts. This process becomes a problem when the contract engineers do not apply building codes uniformly. This results in confusion and public dissatisfaction. In addition, duplication of effort is necessary during rechecks of the contract-approved plans. Recommendations The Grand Jury encourages the Board of Supervisors to study the advantages and economics of providing a second Civil Engineer in the Building Division and, if and when warranted, amend the salary ordinance to provide for the additional position. Responses Required (Penal Code 933 & 933.05) Butte County Development Services Department Butte County Board of Supervisors

Supplemental Report Citizens Complaint

Background Concurrent to this visit, a citizens complaint was received questioning the Building Division's business practices. It was alleged that advance information on new permit applications was being provided to a specific building materials supplier from an insider at the County Building Division thereby providing an unfair advantage over other building suppliers.

Investigation Current permit application information for Butte County as well as other counties and cities in Northern California are compiled by a private enterprise and provided at a fee to interested parties. Customized reports are available on request on a monthly, weekly, or daily basis via Email, FAX, or U.S. Mail. Periodic customized reports are provided to the Building Division on request at no charge. Another weekly publication provides information on permits in the plan check phase or already issued for some county and city jurisdictions in the area. In addition to the subscription services provided by others, the Butte County Building Division provides semimonthly lists of approved permits. Arrangement can be made for direct mailing. No lists of applications are currently available at the Building Division; however, information on specific projects may be obtained upon request since these are public records. Allegations of insider information appear to be groundless since this information is available through various sources.

75

APPENDIX I SUMMARY OF REQUESTED RESPONDENTS TO THE 2000-2001 GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT

RESPONDENT(S) Butte County Board of Supervisors

REPORT(S) Butte County Office of the Treasurer/Tax Collector City of Gridley-Growth and Development Butte County Elections DivisionElectronic Voting Machines Paradise Irrigation District Upper Ridge Fire Protection Butte County Jail Butte County Jail Re: Overtime and Staffing Butte County Juvenile Hall Butte County Department of Behavioral Health-Youth Services Butte County Department of Development Services-Building Division

Butte County Chief Administrative Officer

Butte County Jail Re: Overtime and Staffing Butte County Library-Flying the American Flag

Butte County Treasurer/ Tax Collector Butte County Chief Probation officer

Butte County Office of the Treasurer/Tax Collector Butte County Juvenile Hall

RESPONDENT(S) Butte County Sheriff

REPORT(S) Butte County Jail Butte County Jail Re: Overtime and Staffing Housing Authority of the County of Butte-Farm Labor Community

77

Butte County Registrar of Voters

Butte County Elections DivisionAbsentee Ballots Butte County Elections DivisionElectronic Voting Machines

Director, Butte County Department of Behavioral Health Director, Butte County Libraries Director, Butte County Department of Development Services Director, Butte County Department of Social Welfare Butte County Fire Chief Directors, Paradise Irrigation District Butte County Planning Commission

Butte County Department of Behavioral HealthYouth Services Butte County Library-Flying the American Flag Department of Development Services-Building Division Butte Community Employment Center, Chico Upper Ridge Fire Protection Paradise Irrigation District City of Gridley-Growth and Development

RESPONDENT(S) Gridley City Council Principal, Gridley High School Director, Gridley High School Athletics Board of Trustees, Gridley Unified School District Board of Commissioners, Housing Authority of the County of Butte Director, Youth Services Butte County Department of Behavioral Health Director, Special Education Local Plan Area (SELPA) Superintendent, Butte County Schools

REPORT(S) City of Gridley-Growth and Development Gridley High School Gridley High School Gridley High School

Housing Authority of the County of ButteFarm Labor Community Butte County Department of Behavioral Health-Youth Services Butte County Department of Behavioral Health-Youth Services Butte County Department of Behavioral Health-Youth Services Butte County Department of Behavioral Health-Youth Services

Director, Special Services Chico Unified School District

78

APPENDIX II

OFFICES, DEPARTMENTS, BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND OFFICIALS VISITED, OBSERVED, REVIEWED, INVESTIGATED, INTERVIEWED OR CONSULTED BY THE GRAND JURY

Grand Jury Orientation; Butte County Officials and Department Heads or Representatives: Robert Beeler Supervisor, District 1 Jane Dolan Supervisor, District 2 Mary Anne Houx Supervisor, District 3 Curt Josiassen Supervisor, District 4 Fred C. Davis (former) Supervisor, District 5 ___________________________________________________________________________ Agriculture Commissioner Library Director Assessor Personnel Director and Auditor-Controller Assistant Personnel Director Behavioral Health Director Chief Probation Officer and Chief Administrative Officer Assistant Chief Probation Officer Clerk -Recorder/Registrar Public Health Director County Counsel and Public Works Director Assistant County Counsel Sheriff-Coroner Development Services Director Treasurer-Tax Collector District Attorney Water Resources & Conservation Farm and Home Advisor Director Fire Chief Welfare Director and Assistants Information Systems Director ___________________________________________________________________________ Superintendent, Butte County Schools Reports: Butte County Auditor-Controller Auditor-Controller Butte County Treasurer-Tax Collector Treasurer-Tax Collector On-site Office Visit City of Gridley Mayor of Gridley City Administrator Consulting City Engineer Public Works Director Chief of Police On-site Facility Tour Gridley High School Former Principal Athletic Coach Migrant Education Advisor Interview with Complainant On-site Visit

80

Housing Authority of the County of Butte - Farm Labor Community Executive Director Assistant Housing Manager Butte County Sheriff Butte County Undersheriff On-site Complex Tour Flying the American Flag Butte County Library Director Head Librarian, Chico Branch Assistant County Counsel Chief Administrative Officer Butte County Elections - Absentee Ballots Registrar of Voters Assistant Registrar of Voters Accounts Representatives, U.S. Postal Service Customer Service Representative, U.S. Postal Service On-site Assistance with November 2000 General Election Butte County Elections - Electronic Voting Machines Registrar of Voters On-site Visit to Election Technology Expo in Sacramento Butte Community Employment Center Public Information Coordinator Regional Occupational Program (ROP) Director ROP Administrator Butte County Public Health, Clinic Manager On-site Facility Tour - Chico Butte Culinary Academy Chef-Instructor On-site Facility Visits - Chico Northern California Food Services ROP Director ROP Administrator Instructor On-site Facility Visits Chico Butte Baking Academy ROP Director ROP Administrator Instructor On-site Facility Visits Chico Registered Dental Assistant ROP Director Instructor On-site Facility Tour - Durham Paradise Irrigation District Paradise Irrigation District (P.I.D.) Manager P.I.D. Board of Directors' President P.I.D. Water Treatment Superintendent On-site Tour of Water Treatment Plant Upper Ridge Fire Protection Butte County Fire Chief

81

Butte County Jail (2 reports) Butte County Sheriff-Coroner Facility Commander/Captain Corrections Lieutenant Operations Captain Survey of Jail Employees On-site Jail Inspections (2) Evidence Technicians On-site Evidence Facility Inspection Butte County Juvenile Hall Chief Probation Officer Assistant Chief Probation Officer Facility Supervisor Table Mountain School Instructor Survey of Employees On-site Facility Inspections (2) Child Protective Services Child Protective Services Representative Clerical Supervisor Hit and Run Complaint Sheriff's Captain of Operations Butte County Behavioral Health - Youth Services Behavioral Health Director Behavioral Health Assistant Director-Youth Services Butte County Counsel Special Education Local Planning Area (SELPA) Director Special Education Director On-site Tour of Psychological Hospital Facility (PHF) PHF Director Butte County Juvenile Hall Counselor School Officials Interviews With Parents Public Works - Yards, Shops and Stores Division Public Works Director Yards, Shops and Stores Manager Yards, Shops and Stores Shop Foreman Former Grand Jury Member On-site Facility Inspection Development Services - Building Division and Supplement Former Development Services Director Building Division Manager On-site Facility Visit

Members of the Grand Jury attended numerous public meetings.

82

APPENDIX III MEMBERSHIP of the 2000-2001 GRAND JURY

Lillian Miskey, Foreperson Kent Yaeger, Foreperson Pro-Tempore Dorothy Anrig, Recording Secretary Leilani Wheat, Corresponding Secretary David Johnson, Sergeant-at-Arms

Chico Chico Chico Oroville Chico

Mary Buckingham-Pinkerton Harold B. Cox David Ferguson Carolyn Heithecker Cynthia Hightower Bob Johnson Margaret Kvidahl JoAnn Loeffler Judith Nathan Janett Ott William Ries Karl Tippets Stanley Tracy David Wemple

Oroville Oroville Forest Ranch Durham Chico Magalia Magalia Chico Chico Oroville Gridley Paradise Paradise Paradise

85

APPENDIX IV COMMUNICATING WITH THE GRAND JURY 1. Citizen Concerns Regarding Local Government The Grand Jury frequently receives letters of grievance from citizens, civic groups and government employees. Although the California Penal Code does not assign the Grand Jury any specific duties regarding complaints, the jury can, and does, look into such matters as part of its watchdog responsibility. All concerns brought to the attention of the jury are handled in strictest confidence. Grievances that individuals convey to the jury should pertain to matters of policy or procedure. Inevitably, some issues brought to the jury involve matters over which the jury has no jurisdiction and are, therefore, dismissed. All concerns directed to the jury must be expressed in writing and should include a signature, date, return address and phone number. Each jury develops its own procedures to facilitate this process, but under no circumstances will a concern be discussed over the phone. Since the Grand Jury is not required by law to act on citizen concerns, the jury can decline individual complaints for any good reason, including the urgency of more pressing matters or for lack of merit (misdirected, frivolous, or trivial complaints). Citizens Confidential Complaint Form Name: _______________________________________________________ Address: ______________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ Phone: __________________Date:_________________________________ Subject Of Complaint: ___________________________________________ Complaint: Please be concise. Attach additional pages as needed ______________________________________________________________________________

Signed ________________________________________________________

Send to: Butte County Grand Jury P.O. Box 110 Oroville, CA 95965-3303 2000-2001 Butte County Grand Jury Final Report 86

2. Public Response To This Report

The Grand Jury welcomes your response to this report. Please use this form to send your comments to the address below. Attach additional sheets as necessary.

Send to: Final Report Comments Butte County Grand Jury P.O. Box 110 Oroville, CA 95965-3303

87

APPENDIX V

COMMENTS TO RESPONSES1999-2000 GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT

Effective January 1, 1997, state law requires that all agencies and public officers promptly submit responses to grand jury final reports, and to address every finding and recommendation pertaining to that agency or officer. (Penal Code 933.05; see beginning pages of this Final Report for Penal Code excerpts). The 2000-2001 Grand Jury has published, as part of its Final Report, responses to the findings and recommendations of the 1999-2000 Grand Jury Final Report. The 1999-2000 Grand Jury Final Report is available for public review at all Butte County Libraries and on-line at the Butte County Recorders Office Web site (http://clerk-recorder.buttecounty.net). The 2000-2001 Grand Jury wishes to thank those who responded to last years Final Report and recognizes their contribution to the community and to the Grand Jury process. The time and effort taken to review the 1999-2000 Grand Jury Final Report and to prepare and submit responses to the presiding judge is greatly appreciated. Butte County Superintendent of Schools, Jerry McGuire, was inadvertently requested to respond to the 1999-2000 Final Report on the Pioneer Union Elementary School District, Berry Creek Elementary School. He is not required to respond.

We shall secure the continuance of purity in our government by the salutary, peaceable, and regular control of the people.Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816.

88