HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-2018 Grand Jury Report 2017-201
.BUTTE COUNTY
GRAND JURY REPORT
�' �u ,,,r ✓nG��'
i
i
t
I,
Artist: Isabella McMurry, Inspire School of Arts and Sciences
Uperiar Court of CalifornlaF
L mA (�1 L
B,y,.. .,a �tao-�sa�° ��;aae�,. ,..._Deputy
2 0 17®2 0 U8
BUTTE COUNTY
GRAND JURY RErtiRT
0
0
AWL
�a
IW
YI
U
[this page intentionally left blank]
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE I
FOREPERSON'S LETTER TO THE PRESIDING JUDGE II
2017-2018 GRAND JURY MEMBERS III
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS IV
GRAND JURY FINAL RESOLUTION V
PENAL CODE RELATED TO THE GRAND JURY VI
ROLE OF THE GRAND JURY VII
2017-2018 GRAND JURY REPORTS 1
RESPONSES TO THE 2016-2017 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT 3
AUDIT REPORT I I
JAIL AND JUVENILE HALL TOURS 15
OROVILLE: CITY IN TURMOIL 19
TREASURER TAX COLLECTOR DEPARTMENT 35
CODE BLUE ON PUBLIC SAFETY-CITY OF OROVILLE POLICE AND FIRE DEPARTMENTS 45
TO ATTAIN OR NOT TO ATTAIN,THAT IS THE QUESTION 63
PUBLIC WORKS-ROAD MAINTENANCE DIVISION 75
I
'Butte C-bunty
GRAND JURY
............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
The Honorable Tamara L.Mosbarger
Presiding Judge. Superior Court of California
County of Butte
Dear JudgeMosbarger,
On behalf of the 2017-2018 Butte County Grand Jury. it is tummy honor and privilege to
present the 2017-2018 Butte County Grand Jiu-y Final Report for your review and
consideration, The eig
.;Irt indi'%,idual reports.along with their findings and
reconuriendations,have been approved by the Grand Atry,
Nineteen people took the oath of office to serve on the Grand Jury last June. We
represented a diverse cross section of county residents in age, occupation,and gender.
This report is the culmination of a year's hard work and dedication.It is our belief that
these reports will be of benefit to the citizens of Butte County and provide local
............... governments with recommendations for irriproving their operations,and services.
................
The Grand Jury visited ninny County departments,cities,and go-veininent offices.
Nunierous interviews were conducted. While some of these irivestigations did not result
in the issuance of individual reports,we wish to express our appreciation for the
efficiency demonstrated and the assistance we were given I wish to thank the District
attorney and.County Counsel who advised us throughout the year.the CoLut staff who
were always helpful and professional-and the Deputy Comity Administrator for his,
support, The Grand Jtu-y would like to thank the Court for the use of the Butte Comity
Law Library in Oroville to conduct our plenary and commillee meetings. Going forward
however.a larger meeting room for plenary meetings would be of great benefit in
a cconmiodating the space requirernents for the 19 jurors.
The Grand Arty would also like to acknowledge and commend the Butte County Sheriff's
Departinent on their actions related to the safety of all those inipacted during the.Oroville
Darn Spillway crisis in 2017. We appreciate the quick and difficiflt decisions made by
Sheriff Honea and his staff relating to this emergency,
Personally.I wish to express my gratitude and appreciation to the members of the Grand
Jury for their dedication and year of service to Butte County,Above all,the Grand Jury
sincerely thanks our families,friends,and employers for their support and
understanding during our set-vice.
Respectfidly submitted.
e N. Wi
Foreperson 2017-2018
Butte County Grand Jtu-y
2017-2018 MEMBERS OF THE GRAND JURY
Diane N. Williams Chico Foreperson
Susan Struble Chico Foreperson Pro tempore
Sue Bechtol Chico Recording Secretary
Jensine Brown Oroville Corresponding Secretary
Kevin Tokunaga Durham Sergeant-At-Arms
Moria Vinay Chico Treasurer
Keith Barrett Chico
Lorinda Bruen Oroville
Mark Carter Chico
Cheryl Cozad Chico
Jamie Dahlberg Chico
Robert Ichishita Magalia
Samuel Knoche Paradise
Cynthia Robinson-Hightower Chico
Sarah Santana Chico
Dave Stephens Chico
Elisabeth Stewart Chico
Marcia Wilhite Chico
We wish to acknowledge those jurors who served briefly on the 2017-2018 Grand
Jury who were unable to complete their terms. We thank you and appreciate the
time you were able to serve.
111
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The 2017-2018 Grand Jury wishes to acknowledge and thank the following
individuals, County Departments and organizations for their support, guidance and
professional assistance, all of whom made the 2017-2018 Grand Jury Report
possible:
• Presiding Judge, the Honorable Tamara L. Mosbarger and the Honorable
Robert A. Glusman
• District Attorney Michael Ramsey and his staff
• County Counsel Bruce Alpert and his staff
• Butte County Board of Supervisors: William Connelly, Maureen Kirk, Steve
Lambert, Doug Teeter and Larry Wahl
• Sheriff Kory Honea and staff for the guided tour of the Butte County Jail
• Chief Probation Officer, Steve Bordin; Chief Deputy Probation Officer,
Wayne Barley; Manager, Nino Pinocchio and staff for the guided tour of the
Butte County Juvenile Hall
• Deputy Chief Administration Officer Andy Pickett and staff
• Kim Dionne, Thia Osborn, Cynthia Hagar, Kelly Mortensen and the
Superior Court staff
• All those who agreed to be interviewed during investigations and visits
• The Butte County Office of Education and students for allowing the 2017-
2018 Grand Jury to use student art work from their annual art show
• California Grand Jury Association
• Our family, friends and employers for their support and understanding of our
unique responsibility
IV
2017-2018 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY
FINAL RESOLUTION
Whereas, the 2017-2018 Butte County Grand Jury has conducted the business of its term and
has reached certain conclusions, and
Whereas, the 2017-2018 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 2017-2018 Butte County Grand Jury at the
Butte County Superior Court in Oroville on the 17' day of May 2018.
Diane N. Williams, Foreperson
V
PENAL CODE RELATED TO THE GRAND JURY
California Penal Code Sections
The Grand Jury Final Report has been filed on this date pursuant to California Penal Code§933.A copy of the
report is enclosed.Penal Code§933. Report of findings and recommendations; Comment by governing board of
agency and by mayor. (a)Each grand jury shall submit to the presiding judge of the superior court a final report of
its findings and recommendations that pertain to county government matters during the fiscal or calendar year. Final
reports on any appropriate subject may be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court at any time during
the term of service of a grand jury.A final report may be submitted for comment to responsible officers, agencies, or
departments,including the county board of supervisors,when applicable,upon finding of the presiding judge that
the report is in compliance with this title.For 45 days after the end of the term,the foreperson and his or her
designees shall,upon reasonable notice,be available to clarify the recommendations of the report. (b) One copy of
each final report,together with the responses thereto, found to be in compliance with this title shall be placed on file
with the clerk of the court and remain on file in the office of the clerk.The clerk shall immediately forward a true
copy of the report and the responses to the State Archivist who shall retain that report and all responses in
perpetuity. (c)No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public
agency subject to its reviewing authority,the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding
judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the
governing body, and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility
pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court,with an
information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under
the control of that county officer or agency head and any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head
supervises or controls.In any city and county,the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations.
All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who
impaneled the grand jury.A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the
public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable,and shall remain on file in those
offices. One copy shall be placed on file with the applicable grand jury final report by,and in the control of the
currently impaneled grand jury,where it shall be maintained for a minimum of five years. (d)As used in this section
"agency"includes a department.Penal Code§933.05 (a)For purposes of subdivision(B)of Section 933, as to each
grand jury finding,the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1)The respondent agrees
with the finding. (2)The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding,in which case the response shall
specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. (b)For
purposes of subdivision(B) Section 933, as to each grand jury finding,the responding person or entity shall report
one of the following actions: (1)The recommendation has been implemented,with a summary regarding the
implemented action. (2)The recommendation has not yet been implemented,but will be implemented in the future,
with a timeframe for implementation. (3)The recommendation requires further analysis,with an explanation and the
scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the
officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed,including the governing body of the
public agency when applicable.This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand
jury report. (4)The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable,with
an explanation therefore. (c)However,if a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or
personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer,both the agency or department
head and the board of supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury,but the response of the board of
supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision-making
authority.The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or
recommendations affecting his or her agency or department.(d)A grand jury may request a subject person or entity
to come before the grand jury for the purpose of reading and discussing the findings of the grand jury report that
relates to that person or entity in order to verify the accuracy of the findings prior to their release. (e)During an
investigation,the grand jury shall meet with the subject of that investigation regarding the investigation,unless the
court, either on its own determination or upon request of the foreperson of the grand jury,determines that such a
meeting would be detrimental. (f)A grand jury shall provide to the affected agency a copy of the portion of the
grand jury report relating to that person or entity two working days prior to its public release and after the approval
of the presiding judge.No officer, agency,department, or governing body of a public agency shall disclose any
contents of the report prior to the public release of the final report.
VI
THE ROLE OF THE GRAND JURY
Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this
world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or
all wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of
Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from
time to time...
--Winston Churchill
In the 18" century, the greatest experiment in human governance began; a new nation
founded on a system of citizen-led democracy. In a world dominated by monarchs and
dictators, this radical idea of a citizen-run government was met with derision, skepticism
and war. Citizen-led democracy, over 240 years, has proven to be the greatest form of
government the world has ever known, creating opportunity for prosperity,peace and
harmony for all who desire it.
The model of the citizen-run government elevates the requirements of a nation's
occupant. Freedom comes with responsibility and requires dedication of time and
resources from every citizen. The Grand Jury serves as one of these responsibilities,
crucial to the health and continuity of our society.
The Grand Jury serves as a structure for citizens to voluntarily engage with their local
government in a position of authority and acting in secret. The Grand Jury has autonomy
to investigate any area of county or city government, and the right to subpoena
information if not satisfied with what is provided. Citizens can refer issues of
government misconduct to the Grand Jury, who may proceed with an investigation if
deemed appropriate. The subjects of investigations or departmental reviews are
determined solely by the Grand Jury and remain confidential until the end of the one-year
term.
The 19 members of the 2017-2018 Grand Jury have now completed their final report.
Thank you for doing your civic duty by reading it. Butte County and all citizen-led
democracies will either thrive with an informed and engaged citizenry or collapse without
it.
The tyranny of a prince in an oligarchy is not so dangerous to the
public welfare as the apathy of a citizen in a democracy.
--Charles de Montesquieu
VII
[this page intentionally left blank]
VIII
2017-2018 BUTTE (','OIJNTY
GRiDiJURY REPORTS
�r r
ills
c
cr, r
i
Artist: Olivil , Steele, Inspire 11 1 iof Arts and Sciences
I
[this page intentionally left blank]
2
NO�ii/��i��iiia�i��i%///„�,
1
num- ioir6 �r�✓��� �i i ff
�', 1 � r/i� ✓oma �/rr���/� �f �r /D r1 �I l/ fJ
r
brilbg
atYr
� I"J 1/
;
r/
IBM,
l
,
[this page intentionally left blank]
4
COMMENTS REGARDING RESPONSES TO THE
2016-2017 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT
BACKGROUND
In accordance with Penal Code Section 933, local government agencies are required to respond
in writing to Grand Jury reports. The governing body of any agency that is the subject of the
report has ninety days to submit a response, while elected officials and department heads have
sixty days to respond.
Responding agencies must state whether they agree or disagree with the Grand Jury findings,
whether recommendations will or will not be implemented, or whether they require further
analysis. Agencies are required to explain disagreements with both findings and
recommendations.
DISCUSSION
In accordance with Penal Code Section 933.05(a), responses to findings must: 1) agree with the
findings, 2) disagree partially with the findings or 3) disagree wholly with the findings.
5
In accordance with Penal Code Section 933.05(b), responses to recommendations must include
whether each recommendation: 1) has been implemented, 2) has not yet implemented but will be,
3) requires further analysis, or 4) will not be implemented.
The final 2016-2017 Butte County Grand Jury report contained a total of eighteen
recommendations. The Butte County Audit report had no recommendations. The Butte County
Jail and Juvenile Hall report had no recommendations and the Butte County Waste Matters
report had no recommendations. Of the eighteen recommendations, eleven have been
implemented. Three recommendations will be implemented. One recommendation has been
partially implemented. One recommendation will not be implemented. Two recommendations
cannot be implemented at this time.
Agencies responses to the 2016-2017 reports are available at www.:�.Latec Lin,na.
REQUIRED RESPONSES
The responses from Butte County entities to the 2016-2017 Grand Jury report were received on
time and in accordance with California state law. Respondents included: Butte County
Administration Office, Butte County Board of Supervisors, Butte County Chief Administrative
Officer, Butte County Clerk-Recorder/Registrar of Voters, Butte County Director of Information
Services, Butte County General Services Director, Butte Local Agency Formation Commission
(LAFCo), Town of Paradise Town Council, Town of Paradise Manager, and the Superintendent
of the Thermalito Union Elementary School District.
6
BUTTE COUNTY AUDIT
There were no findings or recommendations reported.
VECTOR CONTROL
LAFCo, as a required respondent, agreed with the Grand Jury's two findings. The Grand Jury's
recommendation has been partly implemented.
BUTTE COUNTY JAIL AND JUVENILE HALL
There were no findings or recommendations reported.
INFORMATION SERVICES DEPARTMENT
The Butte County Information Services Director, as the required respondent, agreed with the
Grand Jury's two findings. Of the Grand Jury's three recommendations requiring responses, two
will be implemented and one will not be implemented.
7
BUTTE COUNTY CLERK-RECORDER/REGISTRAR OF VOTERS
The Butte County Clerk-Recorder/Registrar of Voters, as a required respondent, agreed with the
Grand Jury's two findings. Of the two recommendations, one has been, and one will be
implemented.
FIRE SERVICES RESTRUCTURE PLAN
The Butte County Board of Supervisors, as a required respondent, agreed with four of the Grand
Jury's five findings and partially agreed with the fifth. The Director of General Services, as a
required respondent to one finding, agreed with that finding. All three recommendations have
been implemented.
WASTE MATTERS
There were five findings with no required responses.
TOWN OF PARADISE
The Town of Paradise Town Council, as a required respondent, agreed with the Grand Jury's
four findings. Of the five recommendations, three have been implemented and two cannot be
implemented at this time.
8
THERMALITO UNION ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT
The Superintendent of Thermalito Union Elementary School District, as a required respondent,
agreed with the Grand Jury's four findings. All four recommendations have been implemented.
A matrix of the findings and recommendations is presented as Attachment A.
9
ATTACHMENT A
Fin din s Recommendations
2015-2016
Grand Jury c 4
Reports
Butte County 2 1
Vector Control
Butte County
Information 2 2 1
Systems
Butte County 2 1 1
Clerk/Recorder
Butte County 5 3
Fire/Cal Fire
Butte County
Waste 5
Management
Town of Paradise 4 3 2
Thermalito
Union School 4 4
District
10
uuuuuuur
lllllllllli�
[this page intentionally left blank]
12
BUTTE COUNTY AUDIT REPORT
BACKGROUND
California State Law requires the Grand Jury to review the independent audit of Butte County's
financial report.
METHODOLOGY
The 2017-2018 Grand Jury attended the bi-annual County of Butte Audit Committee Meeting
and reviewed the following documents:
• The County of Butte Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the fiscal year ending on
June 30, 2017,prepared under the supervision of David A. Houser, County Auditor-
Controller
• The County of Butte Single Audit Report for fiscal year ending on June 30, 2017,prepared
by the accounting firm, CliftonLarsonAllen LLP
• The County of Butte Landfill Fund Financial Statements for the fiscal year ending on June
30, 2017, prepared by the accounting firm, CliftonL,arsonAllen LLP
13
CONCLUSION
The independent auditor found the County's financial report was in compliance with Generally
Accepted Government Auditing Standards.
The independent auditor recommended that the County perform bank reconciliations for all
outside bank accounts on a monthly basis, especially at year-end. The County agreed with the
recommendation and has implemented it.
The independent auditor also recommended that the County extend its review of significant cash
disbursements beyond August 30" of each year, to ensure the year-end accounts payable balance
is complete. The County agreed with the recommendation and will adjust their practices
accordingly.
The County continues to maintain its credit rating of A+by Standard and Poor's Rating Service.
In 2017, the Government Finance Officers Association awarded the prestigious Certificate of
Achievement for the Excellence in Financial Reporting to the County for the 11th consecutive
year.
RECOMMENDATIONS
There are no recommendations by the Grand Jury.
14
,
✓/// �, ��«rG '' ori✓�i/i
1 �% ��1 � 'j ���60 ✓ � 1� �
nay
0
�/� � ��fr Orr � c�� � f� ✓ �;ori �r',
i
1
[this page intentionally left blank]
16
BUTTE COUNTY JAIL AND JUVENILE HALL TOURS
In accordance with California Penal Code Section 919(b), the 2017-2018 Grand Jury inspected
the operation and management of the Butte County Jail and Juvenile Hall. These visits were
conducted in the Fall of 2017.
As a result of these inspections, the Grand Jury has no recommendations.
17
[this page intentionally left blank]
18
I
19
[this page intentionally left blank]
20
OROVILLE: CITY IN TURMOIL
previously released on April 1311, 2018
SUMMARY
The City of Oroville continues to struggle with the fact that the higher cost of doing business
continues to outpace the modest increases in its income. A recent attempt(Measure R in 2016)
to increase revenues by raising the general sales tax failed. Drastic staffing cuts taken over the
past five years have reduced City staff to a"skeleton" crew with many employees taking on
additional duties and responsibilities that were assigned to the vacated positions. During the past
year City staff accepted a 10% cut in their pay and/or benefits. These actions have had a severe
and negative impact on staff morale and on the ability to provide services to the community.
The Oroville City Council urgently needs to identify and pursue additional sources of revenue.
The City Council must carefully reconsider how they and the City staff operate.
GLOSSARY
Ca1PERS -California Public Employees' Retirement System
PSD -Public Safety Director
HR- Human Resources
21
BACKGROUND
After conducting a preliminary review of all five incorporated cities in Butte County, the Grand
Jury focused on Oroville because of lengthy and numerous vacancies in the Oroville City staff as
well as the concentration of City management into the hands of so few employees. Our research
revealed that one employee was the head of four of the City's six departments while also serving
as Acting City Administrator.
Several recent Grand Jury reports addressed budgeting, city operations, and staff issues in
Oroville (see the 2014-2015, 2012-2013 and 2009-2010 Butte County Grand Jury Reports).
Many of the concerns raised in these reports continue to be a problem.
Towards the end of our investigation, the Acting City Administrator, who also headed four
departments, resigned to take a position elsewhere. Furthermore, the employee that the City
Council selected as the new Acting City Administrator, also resigned to take a position
elsewhere. These events highlight the turmoil that the Grand Jury encountered within the City of
Oroville.
METHODOLOGY
To carry out this investigation, the Grand Jury interviewed the Acting City Administrator, the
Public Safety and Human Resources Director, the Finance Director, all members of the City
22
Council including the Mayor, and several mid-level City employees. The Grand Jury attended
and viewed online, a number of City Council meetings.
In addition, the Grand Jury reviewed the following documents:
• The Charter for the City of Oroville
• The Oroville Municipal Code
• Oroville's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for Fiscal Year 16-17
• City of Oroville organizational charts
• City of Oroville Adopted Annual Budget for the Fiscal Year 2017-2018
• Prior Grand Jury final reports covering the City of Oroville
• Numerous newspaper articles
DISCUSSION
Oroville was incorporated as a Charter City in 1906. The City Charter provides for an elected
Mayor and six other City Council members. The Charter empowers the City Council to appoint
a City Administrator who oversees the day-to-day operations of the City and is responsible for
implementing the policies of the City Council.
23
A history of events outside of Oroville's control created budget imbalances that continue to
plague the City. These events include the 2008 recession, the 2012 statewide dissolution of the
Redevelopment Agency and, most significantly, the precipitous rise in costs of the California
Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS). While all of the cities in Butte County are
facing these problems, Oroville has been the most severely impacted because of a lack of
fiduciary planning. The City of Oroville will become insolvent in three to four years if it does
not address its budget imbalances.
City Staff Organization
The City staff is divided into six departments supervised by directors who report to City
Administration. The directors, in accordance with the City Charter, "serve at the pleasure of the
city council."
The six City departments are:
• Business Assistance and Housing Development
• Finance
• Police and Fire
• Parks and Trees
• Planning and Development Services
• Public Works
In 2013 and 2014 the City of Oroville carried out a series of layoffs to bring its budget into
balance. All positions that became vacant due to the layoffs were "frozen" and left unfilled.
24
Positions vacated after the layoffs are subject to a review to determine whether the position
should be filled or "frozen." In 2018, 46 positions are frozen out of a total of 143 authorized
positions. That is a 32%reduction in staffing levels from 2013.
I
EP EN 17�
Vbsi
DEPARTMENT:
ADMINISTRATION 6.80 2.00 4.80 5.00 (0.05) 4.95
BUSINESS ASSISTANCE AND (HOUSING DEV. 10.00 4.00 6.00 6.08 (0.03)1 6.05
FINANCE DEPARTMENT 7.00 2.00 5.00 5.00 5.00
FIRE DEPARTMENT 25.00 5.00 20.00 20.91 (2.00) 18.91
POLICE DEPARTMENT 53.50 8.50 45.00 44.09 (6.00) 38.09
PARKS&TREES DEPARTMENT 11.93 5.00 6.93 6.99 (1.96)1 5.03
PLANNING& DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 9.00 2.00 7.00 6.40 (0.50) 5.90
PUBLIC WORKS 2.0.00 4.00 16.00 16.26 (2.96) 9.3.30
DEPARTMENT TOTALS: 143.23 32.50 110.73 7110.73 (13.50) 97.23
Table extracted from City of Oroville Adopted Annual Budget for the Fiscal Year 2017-2018
A reduced staff has a direct impact on the services provided by the City. Fewer police officers
result in a higher crime rate. When an employee is sick or takes personal time off, there is often
no one available to perform his or her duties. Several City employees told the Grand Jury that
they found the lack of backup to be extremely stressful. Anyone seeking City services faces
longer waits.
As positions become vacant, duties and responsibilities are reassigned to the remaining members
of the City staff. Some members of the City staff are more willing to accept the additional duties
than others.
25
When three Department Director positions became vacant (Public Works, Parks and Trees, and
Business Assistance and Housing Administration), the Planning Director assumed these roles. In
2015, after the City Council terminated the contract of the City Administrator, the Planning
Director also became the Acting City Administrator. This was thought to be a temporary
measure, however, this structure remained in place for three years. The stress of managing four
departments while serving as Acting City Administrator, who tried to keep seven City Council
members happy, contributed to his decision to seek a position elsewhere.
The Public Safety Director, who already was Director for the recently consolidated Police and
Fire Departments, agreed to add"Director of Human Resources" to his portfolio despite a lack of
experience and training in that field.
These are just two examples that illustrate the breakdown in the structure of the Oroville City
staff. Oroville would benefit greatly by having a systematic review of its staffing and
organizational structure. The review would help identify authorized, unfunded positions that are
no longer needed, leading to a logical consolidation of departments. Such a review should also
help identify the priority for filling positions as funding becomes available.
City Administrator vs. City Manager
The difference between a City Administrator and a City Manager is that an Administrator follows
policies established by the City Council, while a City Manager establishes policies with the
26
guidance of the City Council. Furthermore, hiring and firing of City department heads is
controlled by a City Manager while this authority resides with the City Council under a City
Administrator. City Council members are elected officials who may or may not have any
experience in city management.
Oroville has had difficulties attracting good candidates for the City Administrator position.
Between 2010 and 2015, Oroville had five City Administrators in five years. The turnover of
City Administrators created a negative impact on City staff morale. Each time a new City
Administrator is put in place, the staff has to adjust to a new set of priorities and a different
management style.
The Grand Jury found that all of the Oroville City Council members were deeply committed to
making Oroville a better place. However, none of them have the background or experience to
manage a city. The City Council needs to amend the City Charter to allow for a City Manager
and find a strong, experienced candidate who can provide the leadership needed to bring a bright
future to Oroville.
Human Resources Director
The City of Oroville's Public Safety Director(PSD) supervises the Police Department and the
Fire Department and also briefly served as the Acting City Administrator. The PSD is also
27
tasked with supervising the Human Resources (HR) Department. Apart from the HR Director,
there is a single employee in HR.
The Grand Jury finds there is a conflict of interest for the PSD to be supervising the HR
Department given the large number of unionized Police and Fire staff. Oroville contracts with an
external negotiator/consultant for collective bargaining. The question must be asked: what does
the PSD do for the HR department? If the PSD has no direct experience in labor negotiations,
contract review, hiring/termination procedures, or evaluating benefits (i.e. medical, dental,
retirement, etc.) then this specific area of oversight should be assigned to the Director of the
Finance Department. The Finance Director is much more suited to working with the human
resources areas mentioned above, due to the focus on fiscal controls,procurement, and the
contractual review process.
New Sources of Revenues
Oroville's revenues have experienced a modest increase over the past few years. However, those
increases have not kept pace with the increases in mandatory CalPERS contributions. The cost
for withdrawing from CalPERS is prohibitive. To alleviate the situation, in 2016 the City
Council put a local measure (Measure R) on the ballot to temporarily increase sales tax by 1%.
The measure failed. Repeated attempts to attract new industry to Oroville have also failed.
28
Recognizing the continued shortfall in revenues, the City Council is exploring any and all
possibilities for additional revenue including allowing "Seed to Sale" cannabis and proposing
another sales tax increase measure. The Council is carefully studying all aspects of the cannabis
industry before voting on the required ordinances to permit it. Council members and City staff
visited Lake Shasta, California to learn about that city's experience, both positive and negative,
with the cannabis industry. To maximize the benefit to Oroville from cannabis, the City Council
will have to gain voter approval for a measure to place an additional tax on cannabis and all its
products. If the City Council decides to pursue another sales tax measure, it must do all that it
can to support that measure by providing a united front in favor of the measure and by explaining
the need for the additional funds to the electorate. The Grand Jury applauds the Oroville City
Council's efforts in considering all possibilities for resolving its financial problems.
City Council Operations
During the course of our interviews with the City Council, the Grand Jury discovered a profound
sense of distrust among its members. Accusations of collusion and unethical or illegal behavior
were leveled against each other. The City Council has a great deal of diversity among its
members. That diversity should be a source of strength and creativity.
Interactions between the City Council members outside of the City Council meetings are limited.
The Brown Act prohibits official interactions between four or more City Council members
outside of public meetings. However, social activities, during which government business
29
cannot be discussed, are allowed. Team-building activities and social interactions would break
through the barriers of mistrust that the Grand Jury witnessed.
All of the City Council members are sincerely interested in the betterment of Oroville and all
shared similar concerns about the City. Rising crime rates and public safety issues are high
priorities for all of them. Finding a solution to the budgetary problems is also a common
concern. In the past, the City Council devoted some of its public meeting time to establishing a
"priority list" for the year. Continuing this exercise would help the Council establish common
goals and provide a guideline that Council actions could be measured against during the course
of the year.
City Council Accessibility
One episode that occurred during our investigation sheds light on the disarray and confusion that
was found in the Oroville City government. When Grand Jurors attempted to set up interviews
with the City Council members, there was a significant delay before the first interview could be
scheduled.
An initial email message was sent to one of the council members using the address posted on the
City's website. When there was no response, a follow-up message was sent a week later, and no
response was received. A phone number from the"Contact City Council"web page, on the City
of Oroville website, connected to the voicemail of a former employee who hadn't worked for the
city for several months; messages left went unanswered. Several jurors inquired at City Hall
30
about how best to contact the City Council and were given business cards that each had an email
address (some of them different than the ones on the website) and a phone number. The phone
number on five of the seven business cards was the same number from the website which had
already been tried without success.
Eventually, after intervention by Butte County Counsel, the Grand Jury succeeded in setting up
the interviews. All City Council members were very cooperative during the interviews. Two
Council members reported problems using the city-issued laptops. Given the delays
encountered, the Grand Jury concludes it must be difficult for constituents to communicate with
the Oroville City Council. City officials must be willing and able to use established means of
communicating (i.e., email, voicemail, cell phones, etc.).
CONCLUSION
Oroville continues to face many problems that were not adequately addressed by the City
Council over the past ten years: rising costs coupled with insufficient revenue; the inability to
find a strong, qualified candidate who would remain in the position of City Administrator for a
reasonable period of time; and disagreements and mistrust among the Members of the City
Council. In addition, recent steps taken by City management to cut staffing to balance the
budget have left the City with a demoralized, depleted staff. The City Council needs to take
drastic measures to break out of this vicious cycle.
31
FINDINGS
F l. Over the past few years, as City staff positions have become vacant, the decisions about
whether to fill a position or leave it vacant have been made "on the fly." There is no overall
plan regarding City staffing. Conducting an internal review of the City staff is simply not
practical under the current circumstances given the shortage of staff.
F2.Having one employee act as the City Administrator while also directing four City
departments created an unhealthy situation.
F3. Oroville has had five City Administrators during the past eight years. The turnover has had a
negative impact on City staff morale.
F4.Having the Oroville City Director of Public Safety also serving as the Director of Human
Resources is inappropriate.
F5.Although the City of Oroville has taken a number of drastic steps to reduce spending, the
growth of general fund expenditures continues to greatly outpace the growth of current
revenue.
F6. There is mistrust and misunderstanding among the current members of the City Council
leading to an unusually high level of dysfunction.
F7.All of the members of the Oroville City Council are striving to do what they think is best for
the City. There is, however, disagreement among the City Council Members over how to
achieve these goals.
F8. The Oroville City web page for"Contact City Council" did not provide the Grand Jury
access to the City Council members.
32
RECOMMENDATIONS
Rl. The City of Oroville should contract with a consultant to perform a comprehensive analysis
of the current City staff to ensure that the city has the appropriate number and types of
positions to perform the services required for a city the size of Oroville. The analysis
should propose reassignment of duties where warranted. The analysis should include a
prioritization for filling each position.
R2. The Oroville City Council should amend the City Charter to provide for a City Manager
position in place of the City Administrator position.
R3. The Oroville Finance Director should be designated as the Human Resources Director.
R4. The Oroville City Council should explore all possible sources of additional revenue and
implement those that will allow the City to fill all of its high priority positions.
R5. The Oroville City Council should work towards better collaboration by participating in
periodic social and team-building activities.
R6. The Oroville City Council should meet annually to establish a list of priorities for the City
to serve as a guideline throughout the year for Council actions.
R7. The City Council needs to be more accessible and responsive to the citizens of Oroville thru
operational and valid emails and phone numbers.
R8. The City of Oroville should provide basic technology training for the City Council
members.
33
R9. The Oroville website should be checked and updated frequently for accuracy and
maintained for the benefit of its constituents.
REQUEST FOR RESPONSES
Pursuant to Penal Code section 933.05, the Grand Jury requests responses as follows:
The Oroville City Council respond to F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, RI, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6,
R7, R8, and R9 within 60 days.
The Oroville Acting City Administrator respond to F1, F3, F4, F5, F8, RI, R3, R4, R7, R8, and
R9 within 90 days.
The governing bodies indicated above should be aware that comment or response must be
conducted subject to the notice, agenda, and open meeting requirements of the Brown Act.
Reports issued by the Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed.Penal Code section 929 requires that reports of the
Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the
Grand Jury.
34
I iialio9� IIV � ,,,
I `
ra
I
e:
ti
i
i
I IIII III°
ii
r
r
h
r
Artist: LauraTorres Avila, Paradise High School
35
[this page intentionally left blank]
36
TREASURER-TAX COLLECTOR DEPARTMENT
SUMMARY
The Butte County Treasurer-Tax Collector Department (TTCD) is charged with the
responsibility of billing and collection of property taxes; receiving, processing, investing, and
safeguarding public funds; and functioning as the central bank for County departments, cities,
school districts, and the court system. A critical function assigned to the TTCD is the investment
of public funds to achieve maximum security of principal and preservation of capital; further the
TTCD works to achieve a market rate of return and maintains liquidity for a percentage of the
pool to ensure the smooth flow of business for the departments and districts in this investment
pool.
The Grand Jury found the TTCD highly organized and operating efficiently. Staff morale is
high, and a significant percentage of staff is cross-trained to cover during periods of high volume
or absences. The TTCD is able to achieve this high standard of performance despite its limited
and non-secure office space.
BACKGROUND
The TTCD was last visited by the Grand Jury in 2007-2008. Based on the importance of the
TTCD's role in the County, i.e. collection and management of cash and funds, the Grand Jury
decided to conduct a review of the TTCD's operations and effectiveness.
37
METHODOLOGY
The Grand Jury interviewed department management and staff, toured the offices during
business hours, and reviewed procedure manuals, investment reports, and related resources. In
addition, the Grand Jury researched the TTCD through the Butte County website.
DISCUSSION
The TTCD is comprised of three divisions: the Treasury Division, the Property Tax Division,
and the Central Collections Division. Each division has distinct and unique responsibilities; yet,
as a whole, the TTCD's purpose is the collection and cash management of revenues owed to the
County, cities, special districts, school districts, and court system. Each division, and the distinct
roles assigned, is highlighted, as follows:
The Treasury Division:
• Functions as a central bank to all County departments, Butte County school districts,
special districts and the Superior Court System. The purpose is to maximize investment
returns for pooled funds on deposits and consolidate banking activities to minimize
operating expenses.
• Manages funds to ensure cash is available to meet cash flow needs.
• Invests the balance of funds to protect the principal while maximizing interest earnings
for its depositors.
38
• Manages the County's $430 million investment pool and generates earnings on a pro-rata
basis for investment pool participants.
• Handles large quantities of cash and oversees its safety using current security protocols.
• Balances cash accounts daily; any discrepancy over $20 must be explained to the Board
of Supervisors.
The Property Tax Division:
• Bills and collects taxes assessed on real and personal property in Butte County.
• Works closely with the Auditor and the Assessor to ensure bills to property owners are
accurate and include direct charges, fees and/or special assessments.
• Bills approximately 110,000 property owners and processes approximately $220 million
in tax payments each year.
• Distributes tax revenues to local schools, cities, special districts, and departments.
• Actively works to collect delinquent taxes. Roughly 10% of property owners do not pay
on time; after collection efforts, there remains only a 2% - 4% default rate.
• Conducts auctions of tax-defaulted properties to recoup property taxes more than five
years in arrears.
39
,1 .., , ! /../. .../, .',../,..,..'
Tho corm u4/i�O'
to,the S:"� S, 2,u�)3
Fund
P �l ��
s 9il 1lU"M J"rmPo P� /1 V�ri AU D%"ai�"P 14,/ A ✓'�/ / i
a Iri w"Gt o%^ rr^irrd„,/i:Iii°r:
�,G¢ r wmr,i urnbua iwo`trruu;cuil%
%/f
tlhwrl, ;ilo/ f a"'run tho"
�ti'rr0n'Wrvvl I Wfrm"'IV � P, Vg,%orf /11 I z"'d FY A)01106'�dv%Q,dOV eiI
So une, B uttT County Treasuurer T x Collectof website A1lroow the Departnent
The Central Collections IDivision:
o Serves as the erulleetioti ager:r y fou r. Butte Comity departments wrrl the Superior Court
system.
0 Furictiorls srrurrl.uly to private errterprise collect ori a., eri ies but acllreres to eorrrpharrrde
requirements for public rlie entities,' the l r w r uurua eruertes urr excess, o f 5 millruurur anrruuur.11yr.
Pursues delirrcluuerrt ti ies arid lues assessed by die court system nd various ' urity
rlep rtrrrerrts as well as delirrrlrrerrt urrrseerrred property taxes.
0 SeyveS as the erulleetioll ager:r y fuer.vafi u.uls Comity programs.
('olleets and distribtoes Victim l estrturtiorr luurymerrts.
0
CONCLUSION
The TTCD is multi-faceted, performing a wide range of functions in support of County
departments and outside entities needing a `central bank' function. The TTCD is highly
organized and has developed an extensive collection of procedure manuals and reference
materials to ensure duties are performed properly, within legal parameters, and employing sound
financial business practices. Employees are cross-trained to improve the TTCD's efficiency.
Training opportunities are available and the TTCD encourages staff to participate.
Approximately 25% of all revenue collected directly benefits the County's General Fund.
in the graph below, irtfoh in l s vairy Ibletweeri counties by as much 1,5%.
r
The TTCD manages investments on behalf of the County, school districts, special districts and
various funds. All investment vehicles are AA-rated or higher. Investments are monitored on a
daily basis and investment reports are prepared monthly. The office follows a five-year
investment strategy. The Butte County Pooled Treasury Portfolio's investment strategy
consistently outperforms the State of California's Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF).
41
The Grand Jury focused on the operations and management of the TTCD. Staff and management
expressed safety and space issues to be of concern, especially during peak payment periods. A
review of the 2007-2008 Grand Jury Treasurer-Tax Collector Report also cited space as an issue
needing to be addressed.
FINDINGS
F1. Treasurer-Tax Collector Department is run efficiently, staff morale is high, and staff is
effectively cross-trained.
F2. Treasurer-Tax Collector does an excellent job of managing the funds they are entrusted
with. Investment vehicles are rated AA or higher. Investment growth is approximately
8% over time, consistently higher than LAIF.
w.vw,b.. ..ec;o .�ty,net/Mortals/25/Investn'ients
F3. Office space is limited posing challenges during peak payment periods.
RECOMMENDATIONS
RI. The Grand Jury recommends that County Administration collaborate with the Treasurer-
Tax Collector Department in seeking additional office space for the TTCD by
December 31, 2018.
42
R2. The Grand Jury recommends that County Administration collaborate with the Treasurer-
Tax Collector Department to identify and implement additional safety and security
measures by Fiscal Year end 2018-2019.
REQUEST FOR RESPONSES
Pursuant to Penal Code Section 933.05, the following response to the Grand Jury is required:
• Butte County Treasurer-Tax Collector respond to F3, Rl, and R2 within 60 days.
• Butte County Chief Administrative Officer respond to F3, Rl, and R2 within 60 days.
INVITED RESPONSES
The Grand Jury invites the Butte County Board of Supervisors to respond to F1, F2, F3, Rl, and
R2 within 90 days.
The governing bodies indicated above should be aware that comment or response must be
conducted subject to the notice, agenda, and open meeting requirements of the Brown Act.
Reports issued by the Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed.Penal Code section 929 requires that reports of the
Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the
Grand Jury.
43
[this page intentionally left blank]
44
/
' f
1
l
r
i
wr✓
l
i
F
a
y
[this page intentionally left blank]
46
CODE BLUE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
CITY OF OROVILLE
POLICE AND FIRE DEPARTMENTS
SUMMARY
As a direct result of consecutive years with dwindling revenue and budget cuts, the City of
Oroville and its Public Safety Department is deficient in providing services to the community.
GLOSSARY
BCFD —Butte County Fire Department/CAL FIRE
BCSO —Butte County Sheriff's Office
DPS —Director of Public Safety
LAFCo —Local Area Formation Commission
MLE —Municipal Law Enforcement Officer
OFD —Oroville Fire Department
OPD —Oroville Police Department
47
BACKGROUND
The growing City of Oroville covers 17.1 square miles encompassing multiple intersecting
highways, many rivers and waterways, golf courses and casinos, railways, an airport, and the
Lake Oroville Recreation Area. As the County seat, it is impacted by a high traffic demand from
surrounding communities which influences public safety.
With the higher cost of doing business outpacing the modest increases to revenue, the City of
Oroville has a monetary shortfall. The Grand Jury investigated the significant impact imposed
upon the Police and Fire Departments. Given the decrease in revenue, the City has failed to
react, resulting in staffing inadequacies, low pay, decreased benefit packages, challenging work
conditions, and uncertain job security. The Grand Jury questions how one administrator is
serving simultaneously as Police Chief, Fire Chief, and Director of Personnel. Additionally, that
same administrator was given the added responsibility of Assistant City Administrator by the
Oroville City Council. Due to the multiple roles of this single administrator, there is a risk of the
appearance of impropriety, and the effects it may have on the community and its employees.
48
METHODOLOGY
The Grand Jury studied a number of resources available to them and the public.
• Interviewed City and County personnel
• Viewed online or attended Oroville City Council meetings
• Reviewed:
o Previous Butte County Grand Jury Reports
o Memorandums of Understanding
o Request for Proposal for Provision of Fire Protection Services
o Consolidation Feasibility Study of Public Safety AnsweringPoints
o City of Oroville Cooperative Emergency Dispatch Service Proposal
o Agreement Between the City of Oroville and CAL FIRE, Butte Unit for Fire
Protection in Mutual Threat Zones
o Agreement for Fire Protection under Automatic Aid Between Butte County Fire
Department and Oroville Fire Department
o CAL FIRE Butte County Fire Department Statistics Package, 1/1/2017 to
12/31/2017
49
o Final Report South Oroville Area A and B Annexation Study for Butte
County/City of Oroville, June 27, 2014 prepared by Ralph Anderson and
Associates
o NFPA 1710 - Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression
Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public
by Career Fire Departments, 2016 Edition
o Final City of Oroville Municipal Service Review Update and Sphere of Influence
Plan Update, December 4, 2014
o City of Oroville job descriptions
o Various newspaper articles and news videos
• Visited:
o City of Oroville Public Safety Center
o CAL FIRE Dispatch and Emergency Command Center
DISCUSSION
Since at least 2013,pay and personnel cuts have been an ongoing issue with City management,
employees, the City Council, and the various unions. With revenues declining and no resolution
in sight, along with reduced staffing levels, the employees and citizens of Oroville are negatively
50
impacted. The Public Service Department of Police and Fire utilizes approximately 60% of the
General Fund,' an amount not uncommon for most cities.
CITE' Off' OROVILL 12
�j
c,„m;wr
16
r,w
T /f
gun
,/k
•• �� f NMMM to i.
s �n
%%%�
�`,
Cid
rv,e
a 0,51 12 3iardu�c9ya�y��fakrjla�
uN 2 r MOO 27,2014
map source: http://buttelafco.org/sites/default/files/resources/Final-Report-South-Oroville.pdf2
' ht s://www.bLi.ttecoLnet?Mortals//Grand.1L /14-15GJRes City City of=CJroville,pdf�
2 htt ://bu:ttelafco.or,�/sites/defaLilt/files/resources/Final-fie ort-South-C)roville. df
51
Police Department
The City of Oroville Police Department (OPD) is severely understaffed with sworn personnel.
Currently, Oroville has a population of 19,8953 with a sworn officer staff of 17.54 including only
eight patrol officers. This is fewer than in 1973 when there was a sworn officer staff of 22
officers with a population of 7,550. The City boundaries continue to expand with the annexation
of Southside Oroville. In 2014, Ralph Anderson& Associates reviewed and made
recommendations in their report titled, Final Report South Oroville Areas A & B Annexations
Study for Butte County/City of Oroville.s Acknowledging the staffing impact of the annexation,
the OPD Chief was "agreeable to the addition of 5.63 FTE sworn officers to the Department and
2.65 support personnel as a result of the annexation." The annexation occurred but the police
staffing recommendation, as agreed upon by the City, did not increase but rather decreased.
3 h. p://www,c tyoforov lle,orr;/aboLit-Lis?cis
4h. ://www.cit oforoville.or,�/home/showdocument?id .::14882
s htt ://buttelafco.ox,�/sites/defaLilt/liles/resources/Final-Re ort-South-Oroville. df
52
F)U B L I liC S AIIII IIII IIIIY 10IIII IIIF�' I CSII Illh'"I S IIIh51, lhI 1, 0
R E S IIIII IIII III T S 0 IIFIIII 10'i I LIIII IIE
LU
2� =Hire Hghters Sworn Pohicv Offic-ers
2.8
2,5 2.3
uj "z-gz
WJ 23
z 2
1.7
M8 0.8
al M5
D
0
1973(7,550) 1985(9,75 ) 2014(16,220) 2018(19,895)
YEAR (POPULATION)
During most hours, OPI)Irtis only two sworn p.a,Orol officers on alum y along wAll as Sergeant. OPD
consistently relies on the Butte County Sheriff's Office (BC SO) for backup in all areas ofthe
City to ineet the daily call volume, The support Oroville receives fi-oni BC. C)., and vice versa, is
inatulated by tire Mutual and Autoinatic Aid Agueernents between the City and the County.
However, the OPD relies upon the BCSO far inane than 1111ey can reciprocate.
Per the Fiscal Year 2017-2018 Ardopted City Budget,6 OPD is Hilly staffed with no cm-reiit
funded positions open. With only eight sworn patrol officers ft')r as City with, an expanding
popt,tLation and a, growing crime rate, this creates undue fiardship on eiriployeessand conurninity
alike. Due to reduced staffing, sworn officers, must work overtime. In 1973, there were 2.mg7iP8
61,4 8 82
....... ................. ... .. .... ......... ..................................................................................
sworn officers for every 1,000 residents. Today, there is less than one sworn officer per 1,000
residents.
On paper, OPD is fully staffed. In reality the staffing level is below the State average' of 1.5
sworn officers per 1,000 residents. Recruiting and retaining officers is difficult due to low pay
and decreasing benefit packages; up-to-date job resources; and job security. As an example, the
OPD uniform allowance is $720 annually, compared to City of Chico with$900 and Town of
Paradise with $930. In addition, patrol cars are not equipped with computers requiring sworn
officers to return to the station to write reports, thus taking officers off the streets.
In lieu of hiring additional sworn officers, the City of Oroville chose to create and implement
Municipal Law Enforcement Officers (MLE) for the community. These police support
personnel operate as supplemental officers and have a variety of duties such as code and parking
enforcement, responding to and reporting "after-the-fact" thefts, and performing traffic control.
Important distinctions should be observed between these two classifications of police personnel.
Sworn officers are armed, have arrest authority, and conduct criminal investigations. MLEs do
not have the authority to arrest and do not carry a firearm.
The Grand Jury found that the OPD is understaffed and officers continue to work underpaid
because they respect their oath to serve and protect the citizens of Oroville. The Grand Jury
commends the officers for their dedication to the residents of Oroville.
7 h. ://bu te1af'co.or ,�/sites/defaLilt/liles/resources/Final%20Cit %20oi%20Oroville%20MSR-
.............
$CJI%20...pdf
54
Fire Department
The Oroville Fire Department(OFD) was formed in 1856 and is the second oldest fire company
in the state of California. The department has a long tradition of service, but recently has had to
reduce staff due to funding cuts and decreases in revenue. OFD has a current staff of 16.58
personnel.
Overall, the OFD is operating with minimal staffing despite "being equipment heavy."
Currently, the OFD can staff only one engine with two or three personnel. This is below the
National Fire Protection Association 1710 standard (NFPA 1710)9, which states optimal staffing
should be a minimum of two engines staffed by two personnel each. The shortage of qualified
personnel in the OFD has necessitated the promotion of personnel to cover required job
classifications. This shortfall leaves the community without sufficient resources to respond to
emergency calls safely and effectively. The number of employees does not meet the City's own
set standards as noted on their website: "Fire Department units shall be located and staffed such
that an effective response force of four units with eight personnel minimum shall be available to
all areas of the City within a maximum of ten minutes travel time,for 90% of all structure fires."
Due to the staffing deficiencies of one engine with two-to-three personnel, the OFD relies
heavily on the Butte County Fire Department(BCFD), El Medio Fire Protection District, and
neighboring fire entities for coverage.
8 ht� ://www,c it oforoville,or,/home/showdoc Li.nient?id ::14882
9 ht� s://www,nf` a,or.r/-/media/F'files/Membershi /member-sections/Metro-
Chiefs/[JrbanFireVLi.lnerabil.it ()-275A3DE8B5
................................................................................................................................................
735B��B023
.............................................................
55
'I'llere is a lack of reciprocity between OFD and neighboring fire entities. D: ala shows that OF
relies oil other fire entities morethat it call respond in-kind. The staffing shortage creates ail
environment that leaves the OFD overly deperident oil neighboring fire, entities to assist when
more flian one engine is corninitted/needed, or when multiple calls ale received within the OF
Jurisdiction, This unbalanced reliance on neighboring fire entities is unsustainable.
BUtte ;;r rri int IFire w~pairtment/(Dirovik Hire ID(,.,partimeint
Reciprocity fou rears-' 2016 and 20117
900 837
rig 8100 138
111DO
w
7"
ra.
(V
— IIIDO
TO
3 ll:)o 260
200 160
100
2016 2017
BUD R(,,anpcwses ar(, diot (,,:d 01H) R�,'vSporlse%
El Mdiv Fire Protectio�n, District
The annexation of the area,currently served by the El Medio Fire Protection District into the City
of Oroville is ongoingIO per the previously agreeld upon anneNation plan between the City arld the
L.ocvil Area Formation Conutrission (LAYCo), The plan states that the El Medio File Protedion
District adequately serves Area,A and ShOLIld colitfilue, to do so. The cost to the it for serving
10 h j ' Sj I es/det'i u I /1"i I e /i u Ti ua 111b20(j �11o?('h,)�11/,"' 00, rovllt11. ,�20M'
SR
......... ..................... ................................................................................................................................................................................................ ..................................................................................................................................................
56,
Area A would not change due to the current Mutual and Automatic Aid Agreements and the
Memorandum of Understandings that will remain in place. For Area B, the City will have to
assume coverage, and nothing would change as the City is currently responsible for that
coverage area per the Mutual and Automatic Aid Agreements already in place. The City has
been and will remain the first responder for that area. The Grand Jury finds that a merger
between OFD and El Medio Fire Protection District would be in the best interest for the citizens
of Oroville.
,e
BUTTE COUNTY CALIFORNIA
ANNEXATION FEASIBUTY AREA A S AREA 8
? a a --------------
1-
os�.
o egend ed
a 0 O
Pearl St U Cr""��„ Existing City of Oroville Incorporated Area
C c
W w V
Wyandotte Ave _ r mmm mm W AREA A
1 IC IT= f III"T 11111.. I(11:?� y AREA e
asal�:r" 1114 - IIIIII,; IIIIIIIVI 'I ��-
rr r
�tf MI I.II �� � { y 1Q v Q
�111III,III�III , IIJCII °away
n
cst IICOI 11.1111 111111118 a �� �> a epa
IIII'I'lIrl '
�II osr 1 (�� a.1 11 lII lU l e ca Ele pRwy Y q w
"' l � IIIII ! Ii1il ' III�1� � 4'0
[1111111 111111 '�1���1110 ,Elgin St 111111) �l Il Ill
1 1 �rlrrtrrll�llllrrlrrllr Fnill
m e 111] fIC I Illll'� 1 111 11t � q
o �i JI 111 ��II�"11111111 IFortWavneS#'& I (hill �� ap0111
V l l l l l l ;l f
11111;1 i , .IJ, l ��rele Ntu lt a ��
11,
,� L,.,l�ll, 11'Ill� �Ij�llrlfl111 I�I�I11 I II III:!= I111.NlIIJ�� l /�ll I V�1;1111 �� �� f ea<
� 111 N Oro Bangor i ,1 11i m I I I I fl �1 1 l fest®� OIL
�� � „I ill I' lllllil 111111 ° �µ6,ve
tdoraStII1 iWa�as� .I ,111111 If1111.11.1
,Oro Garden Ranch Rd11((U�
Palm Ave
U
Giro-6Y
� ar
a W-6 Rd
m } u
map source: http://buttelafco.or sites/ciefaGllt/files/rescntrccs/�izal ��Grcyrt-`scyG7th-C)rovil:l:Gr}��if
The Grand Jury commends the firefighters for their dedication to the residents of Oroville.
57
Department of Public Safety
The Oroville City Council created a Department of Public Safety in 2014. This department
combines both police and fire under the leadership of one Director as a cost saving measure.
Since the inception of the position of Director of Public Safety(DPS) the Oroville City Council
has assigned additional duties and responsibilities to the DPS, including those of the Director of
Personnel and most recently Assistant City Administrator. In other words, one individual is
currently tasked with overseeing four departments.
Throughout the many interviews conducted by the Grand Jury of police and fire personnel, one
recurring topic was mentioned: the lack of representation. Personnel interviewed specifically
noted a lack of representation at City Council meetings and during union negotiations. They
need an administrator who fully and whole-heartedly understands the stressors and importance of
their respective departments. The DPS has no direct fire training, city administrator experience
or a human resources background. The Grand Jury finds there is a risk of the appearance of
impropriety for the DPS to supervise the Human Resources Department, the Police and Fire
Departments while simultaneously serving as the Assistant City Administrator.
58
CONCLUSION
The Grand Jury has found that the City of Oroville needs additional revenue sources. These new
revenue sources should be directed specifically for Public Safety and used for the hiring and
retention of sworn officers and fire personnel, equipment, and other necessities for the overall
general public safety and the citizens of the City of Oroville.
FINDINGS
F I. The City of Oroville has a severe budget shortfall.
F2. Public Safety personnel received significant and consecutive salary cuts that have resulted
in low morale and job uncertainty, impacting retention and recruitment.
F3. The Director of Public Safety holds the positions of Police Chief, Fire Chief, Director of
Personnel and Assistant City Administrator.
F4. The City of Oroville Department of Public Safety is understaffed.
F5. The City of Oroville agreed to hire additional sworn officers and support staff with the
annexation of the Southside neighborhood.
F6. No new City revenue stream is directed specifically for public safety.
F7. There is a lack of equitable reciprocation between the City of Oroville Department of Public
Safety and neighboring fire protection and law enforcement entities.
59
RECOMMENDATIONS
RI. Eliminate the position of Director of Public Safety by December 31, 2018.
R2. Hire a Fire Chief with a singular focus in fire protection by December 31, 2018.
R3. Hire a Police Chief with a singular focus in law enforcement by December 31, 2018.
R4. Equip police patrol cars with computers by December 31, 2018.
R5. Identify and obtain untapped revenue sources and earmark new revenue specifically
for public safety by December 31, 2018.
R6. LAFCo and the City of Oroville must work together to develop and submit an
implementation plan to merge the El Medio Fire Protection District to the City of Oroville
Fire Department and begin the process by October 31, 2018.
R7. Meet sworn officer and support personnel needs as recommended, and agreed upon, in the
Final Report South Oroville Areas A & B Annexation Study for Butte County/City of
Oroville, dated June 27, 2014 by December 31, 2018.
R8. The City must host a minimum of three public Town Hall Meetings, facilitated by an
independent third parry, focused on public safety. The first of the three meetings must be
held by September 30, 2018. The last of three meetings to be held no later than
June 30, 2019.
60
REQUEST FOR RESPONSES
Pursuant to Penal Code section 933.05, the Grand Jury requests responses as follows:
• The Oroville Director of Public Safety respond to F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, RI, R2,
R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, and R8 within 60 days.
• The Oroville Acting City Administrator respond to F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, RI,
R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, and R8 within 60 days.
• The Oroville Mayor respond to F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, RI, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6,
R7, and R8 within 60 days.
• The Oroville City Council respond to F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, RI, R2, R3, R4, R5,
R6, R7, and R8 within 90 days.
• LAFCo respond to F5 and R6 within 90 days.
• El Medio Fire Protection District Board of Directors respond to R6 and R7 within 90
days.
The governing bodies indicated above should be aware that comment or response must be
conducted subject to the notice, agenda, and open meeting requirements of the Brown Act.
Reports issued by the Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed.Penal Code section 929 requires that reports of the
Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the
Grand Jury.
61
[this page intentionally left blank]
62
i
i
i
r' 7
r
i
i
'Jf
i
[this page intentionally left blank]
64
TO ATTAIN OR NOT TO ATTAIN, THAT IS THE QUESTION
SUMMARY
Pursuant to California Penal Code Section 925(a), the 2017-2018 Butte County Grand Jury
completed a review of the Butte County Air Quality Management District (BCAQMD) which is
responsible for monitoring and maintaining air quality within the boundaries of Butte County.
GLOSSARY
BCAQMD - Butte County Air Quality Management District
CAPCOA - California Air Pollution Control Officers Association
Nonattainment -An area deemed to have air quality worse than the National Ambient Air
Quality Standard, Federal Clean Air Act 1970
BACKGROUND
The Grand Jury chose to review the operations of the BCAQMD as it had not been investigated
in close to 20 years. The air quality in Butte County is in a nonattainment status for State and/or
Federal standards for ambient air quality. Butte County's geography is unique because it sits in a
basin subject to the prevailing winds from the south where pollutants transported from the
metropolitan areas of Sacramento and the Bay Area can have a profound effect. Clean air is
65
defined by Federal and State air quality standards. BCAQMD is a special district within Butte
County and is the advocate for clean air.
Butte Count..–State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Attainment Status:
Pollutant State Designation Federal Designation
1-hour ozone Nonattainment —
8-hour ozone Nonattainment Nonattainment
Carbon monoxide Attainment Attainment/Maintenance
(Chico)
Nitrogen Dioxide Attainment Attainment
Sulfur Dioxide Attainment Attainment
24-Hour PM10 Nonattainment Attainment
24-Hour PM2.5 No Standard Nonattainment
Annual PM10 Attainment No Standard
Annual PM2.5 Nonattainment Attainment
Source:Butte County AQMD,2014
METHODOLOGY
• Interviewed District personnel
• Reviewed State of the District Report Butte County Air Quality Management District
August 17, 2017
• Reviewed District budget
66
• Visited the BCAQMD website
• Reviewed information from California Air Pollution Control Officers Association
(CAPCOA)
DISCUSSION
BCAQMD is governed by the Air Quality Management Governing Board that is comprised of
the five Butte County Supervisors plus one elected representative from each of the five cities.
The BCAQMD also appoints the Air Pollution Control Officer and District Hearing Board,
which is a quasi-judicial body and is tasked with adjudicating three types of cases: variance
petitions, abatement orders, and permit disputes. There are 35 air districts in California that
make up CAPCOA in which BCAQMD is a member. CAPCOA was formed in 1976 to promote
clean air and to provide an outlet for sharing experiences, knowledge, and information among the
35 air quality districts. CAPCOA promotes consistency in methods and practices of air pollution
control. Each member district has one vote no matter what the population.
BCAQMD sees itself as a health agency, works to reduce impacts to air quality, and is pro-active
when dealing with businesses. In addition, BCAQMD does the following:
• Monitors the county's air quality
• Provides daily air quality information
• Inventories and assesses the health risks of toxic air emissions
• Interrupts and explains State and Federal air pollution control laws
• Provides public education and outreach
67
• Responds to public complaints and inquiries
• Administers grant programs for projects that reduce air pollution
• Prepares implementation plans to bring BCAQMD into attainment
• Adopts rules and regulations that reduce pollution
• Issues permits and conducts inspections for businesses and industries which emit
air pollutants
• Analyzes the air quality impact of new businesses and land development projects
• Implements the Sacramento Valley Air Basin Smoke Management Program that
regulates agricultural burning
• Works with other government agencies to coordinate air quality programs and
regulations
• Issues notices of non-compliance when appropriate
Staffing
BCAQMD is budgeted for 11 full-time employees. It utilizes part-time help and non-paid
interns as needed. Staff attends training classes and seminars to remain current in their field.
Staff are certified in Visible Emissions Evaluation in accordance with the United States
Environmental Protection Agency requirements. Staff is also certified in responding to
hazardous materials spills. (Occupational Safety and Health Administration 1910.120).
68
Staffing levels have not changed since 2001, however, there have been approximately ten
unfunded mandated programs added since that time. These mandates have added complexity to
BCAQMD. Management would like to increase their staffing level by one engineer and two
inspectors to perform additional inspections and administer new programs. Since BCAQMD
does not receive any County General Fund monies, they continually investigate new revenue
sources to meet this end.
BCAQMD Organizational Chart
.... Governing Board
Healring Board
_......
....... ....................... ......... Q ..........
...................... ...... APCO
............
Admin Services Senior AQAssistant Assockate AQ
Officer Engineer APCO Planner
.........................................
Accounting Senior AQCS
'technician
........................................�' ..... .......
Administrative Senior AQCS
Assistant .....,
AQCS I
f AG"awQ=Ahr P6IuUQn CawMrol.Officer ,
V4�
Admmistrative ayes=Ar caFali¢w a;ue,prance5 rrcuaursk
fiechniciian
69
Revenue and Funding
The current BCAQMD budget for Fiscal Year 2017-2018 is $1,884,263. The budget fluctuates
due to inconsistent funding streams. Revenue for the BCAQMD is generated through a variety
of sources, however it does not receive Butte County General Fund money. Funding sources
include:
• Stationary Source permits
• California DMV Registration fee, AB 2766, a $4.00 fee that is given directly to
BCAQMD for those vehicles registered in Butte County.
• Agricultural burn permits
• Permits for portable equipment over 50 horsepower (i.e., generators, agricultural
equipment such as trucks and tractors, etc.)
• Penalties from non-compliance (i.e., trash burning, burning on a no-burn day, out of
compliance equipment)
• Grants
o Carl Moyer: The Carl Moyer Program was established in 1998 as a
partnership between the California Air Resources Board and local air
districts. This grant program provides funding for replacing, repowering,
or retrofitting eligible heavy-duty engines with cleaner-than-required
technology.
o California Air Resources Board: Offers a wood stove replacement
program (with the Wood Smoke Reduction Program). Wood stoves are a
more significant source of pollution than automobiles or combustion
70
engines in Butte County. This program has been very successful in
replacing wood stoves with more environmentally efficient stoves.
o State Subvention: Article 105 of the Clean Air Act to help fund
enforcement to federal standards.
r Uv*&+*morew 4 w,61,90*0,044
.. f i!rmrUH,w,wHiuWw. Yr lv"* Abri*Jw po'm p iU mw Uhor w«r
a
dr
r1
r i
14, 2017
t .:.: . ii9Ih �.
Public Outreach
BCAQMD is proud to be responsible for the air that Butte County residents breathe. They are
dedicated professionals with a mission "to protect the people and the environment of Butte
71
County from the harmful effects of air pollution. We work with our community to promote a
better understanding of air pollution issues through a comprehensive program of planning,
regulation, enforcement, technical innovation, and public education. " They provide workshops,
events, media coverage and Public Safety Announcements to promote programs like, ""CHECK
Before You Light.
FINDINGS
F1. Butte County air quality has improved as a result of regulations adopted by the BCAQMD
Board.
F2. Air quality is impacted by influences from outside the County.
F3. County residents have contributed to improved air quality by their participation and support
of programs managed by the BCAQMD.
F4. Inconsistent funding streams makes it difficult to hire additional staff.
F5. Wood smoke is more polluting to Butte County air than all motor vehicle emissions
combined.
F6. Funding for the wood burning stove replacement program will resume in 2018.
F7. Community education, outreach, and a very user-friendly website, promotes public
understanding and involvement with BCAQMD.
72
RECOMMENDATIONS
Rl. Develop a plan to meet additional staffing needs by December 31, 2018.
REQUEST FOR RESPONSES
Pursuant to Penal Code Section 933.05, the Grand Jury requests responses as follows:
• Butte County Board of Supervisors respond to: F1, F3, and F7 within 90 days.
• BCAQMD Governing Board respond to F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, and Rl within 90
days.
• Butte County Air Pollution Control Officer respond to: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, and
Rl within 60 days.
The governing bodies indicated above should be aware that comment or response must be
conducted subject to the notice, agenda, and open meeting requirements of the Brown Act.
Reports issued by the Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed.Penal Code section 929 requires that reports of the
Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the
Grand Jury.
73
[this page intentionally left blank]
74
Nw,
�a°"y
A'
b",
y
s
r�-,n,° �m �.r�r, �uu ruw m,�+,,,, r ��an� o �" � i%r�'�,q�'�/ i�" "✓///�%:,:��/%//%/� ///�/ ////�/ny //���lg
�� t � o„,�� db, w ✓%��✓ �,. 1 �, :,""r„%�l�� �,� r. „���/iiiiii,i � /�y/�Y ��,i �%%%///iiia � i i1��'��
of
hur
Artist: Brittany Mitta , Pandise Iligl.,i School
77
[this page intentionally left blank]
76
PUBLIC WORKS — ROAD MAINTENANCE DIVISION
SUMMARY
The purpose of this report is to provide information about the Road Maintenance Division of the
Butte County Public Works Department (PW). The Grand Jury investigated how roadwork is
funded, prioritized, tracked, reported, and how complaints are processed.
Many Butte County roadways were compromised as a result of the Oroville Dam Spillway
emergency and the Ponderosa and Wall fires. Hard rains also damaged many local roadways
creating mudslides and potholes.
This report focuses on employee compensation and other issues that arose or were exacerbated
by these severe conditions that impacted the roadways, which resulted in extended work beyond
regularly scheduled work hours.
GLOSSARY
GPR-General Purpose Revenue; County funding used for discretionary programs
PW- Public Works Department
RMCs—Road Maintenance Crews
77
BACKGROUND
The Grand Jury chose to investigate the Road Maintenance Division of the Public Works
Department (PW)because it had not been reviewed for 15 years. Severe weather conditions in
2016 and 2017 resulted in an increase in road-related issues.
METHODOLOGY
The Grand Jury:
• Conducted interviews with several PW staff,
• Reviewed organization charts, studies, budgets, and funding sources.
• Reviewed copies of Butte County Connect complaint logs from November 2017 to
February 2018.
• Observed how complaints are processed from receipt to completion.
• Visited the PW website.
DISCUSSION
Road Maintenance, one of the seven PW divisions, is charged with maintaining approximately
1,300 miles of roadway, including over 500 bridges and drainage structures, and more than
18,000 road signs. The Road Maintenance Division is divided into seven crews: four road crews
78
(Chico, Gridley, Oroville, and Paradise) with a total of 36 employees; one crew for trees and
signage with seven employees; one for bridges with six employees; and two Inmate Crew
employees.
PW coordinates with Cal Fire, Butte County Sheriff's Office, California Highway Patrol, and
Caltrans on emergency situations to assure public safety on a 24/7 basis. The Road Maintenance
Crews (RMCs) clear downed trees and roads blocked by mudslides, place traffic and road
closure signage, and temporarily divert traffic. RMCs also fill potholes, maintain bridges, trim
or remove trees, and supervise inmate road crews. PW contracts out for specialized equipment
during emergency situations and on an as-needed basis.
Funding
The operational budget for the seven divisions of PW is $39 million. Funding comes largely
from intergovernmental revenues including ongoing State Gas Tax revenues, Forest Service
timber sale revenues, Regional Surface Transportation Program federal exchange funds,
unexpended transit funds, State Highway grants, and Federal Highway grants.
79
Table from Butte County Recommended Budget for Fiscal Year 2017-2018
10 W/O
80% 75%
60%
40%
20%
8% 6% 2% 9%
0%
Intergovernmental Charges For Other Financing GPR Road Fund Balance
�Revenues Services Sources
Butte County's General Purpose Revenue (GPR) supplements the PW budget by two percent.
The GPR is used to fulfill state mandated maintenance, provide required matching funds, and
cover unfunded mandates. The GPR comes from property tax, Proposition 172 Sales Tax for
Public Safety, local sales tax, fines, forfeitures, penalties, and other revenues.
Additional funding may become available for major road projects through Senate Bill I (Beall,
The Road Repair and Accountability Act, 2017).
Butte County Connect
Butte County Connect is a web-based complaint log that allows citizens to report items of
concern such as flooding, downed trees, blocked culverts, potholes, and other road-related issues
directly to the County. The complaint is automatically routed to the appropriate County
department.
80
a-m, am
f
r
• li �"ql � � � i""
I
To report a life threatening emergency,filial 9 1 ].Please do not use Butte County Connect to report a crirne.To report nonlife-threatening Ilavy enforc
matters,call the Butte County Sheriff's Office,at 530.53&7322.Fortechnicall issues,submit details lta WQlt utO fr r.db aiJk(.I.igQ,
////.. BILA'te C.COt.lnty
Improve your community, Report an EiEl I st
issue and watch it get fixed.
Map .+1 IDIµ rra rlwk IlrAtlliYlrYabl
ind
r 16"d
", � �Oi 1d l,( rG
alrviab�r6"a1/
Recycling �y Wv'rliw frllwwa
�-;r,Yl Jah,4ouf and c.^':i}wC„I6'ltii? "°'
it„� 83manrrr
(S aadlg Vir llvtinl is
t”""G
Vror Y acuvlay on Fr'CZVVZ,1 C III'I'tC7N'ER"Il+'rrtsalltiuorr,in rnanwuruE 0 ciulhic t II rwualrZlrUotnas
r ds of earth arias rnaterlal r Wil iji()JI a nmiit,tN{)t for req uestlrl [y �s,, BtcOutmRd.: „ Pary;
srorwicrsryrr iullnlir ro�aal^ �� �� ralltlru, ,
aA"itil9l4ry ;,rruwM �; , �` Own
Vaiarq�a ah+�
d � Wuc9 nrac rrr
Illegal�rairlli:nIng lif (-g g)
Pnnvra r
Illegal �
al
Report W vehlid and rc.aa[Tlpirrp,in violaalon oif the County's Zrariing
(fir dinarnca Clha ler'24,Ar Lite IIS�.
��9tl11 tlalrnnDVitual 'ty � ,��/
i
IVL<tijuailaC1,illtflvrhili i vlw rrurharn� 1qJ
al
Report rri trlguluana growing In VIlcpl P jO l Of tire COLIlliicy S Marijuana C"i.ultivarrlion ^p9urrr yiaa�
Ra tnrtion,q,4;har5rrr 34A.e;V34a`.1
laws" i r
GRP;
r r r is 9 apn�xtr9 min
A,IVCrraa9J rp�ata*el ul s�nasVn6CC I".,C Cll Ent;nl. �i pa,•rm t " ��i�;
Road. e�
r thoa Y."ounityr inllra oFwerayr 5w.ich aaa paroflholrns, ep 1� rhl
"rlrlwotaxvr
r�nrrp;n wlg,rra wrrr:. t rctbt r
l
;h ^f
a.r�9"WB u'r I+dnv�urfl�i Lily
Unsafe Structure
auaalu �t.. la�a
ffayrort a property With�urr5.afe struttu.nres. ,` +
NhNullllfuhanu^„„ ,u/' ,
ytulbu
i,; vlllivawhunr:ap ";� fanj r,. „�,�yP
Stf Hutu C.,cmr,.l v atirtwr
Map dai 02018 Google Terme of lAe Report a rmralp e9ror
5uF5rr19n',etl IP�/Received ° tlrnprsagress 19
Completed
eted
aMhcluuat '� a��pU utaHnt.........
h1t ://�v�v�v,bugecount ,Ilc1/ LitteC.OLI[I1 C.oiin ct
81
Identification of road issues comes from several sources: inspection or observation by PW staff,
requests from the public, and calls from emergency services. They are then prioritized for
response and batched by area for efficiency.
Road repair complaints can be reported online, by phone, or in person. Complainants can register
to receive updates by email. To receive an update by phone, the complainant must call the office
to leave a call back number.
Reported complaints and completion status updates can be viewed online at the Butte County
Connect website. Complaints are usually addressed within a few days, although some road
repairs, e.g. potholes, cannot be completed in wet conditions. RMCs can update the status of
complaints in the log by calling office staff, or by using their computer or smart phone. Not all
RMCs routinely update the complaint log when the job is completed, making online status less
reliable.
Employee Turnover
Low compensation, particularly for entry-level employees, makes PW a training ground for
higher paying jobs elsewhere. Previously, the benefits package offset the pay differential. Due to
the increased cost of the employee's share of the health insurance, what once was an attractive
benefit is no longer attractive enough to retain entry-level employees.
The Roads Maintenance Division is challenged by high employee turnover reportedly due
primarily to low compensation. In 2016, 10% of RMC employees resigned. In 2017, 15%
resigned.
82
RMCs were called in beyond regularly scheduled work hours during the Oroville Dam Spillway
evacuation and the Ponderosa and Wall fires. One issue contributing to employee frustration
was the calculation of straight time pay and overtime pay when employees worked from one pay
period directly into the next, as a result of being called in for an emergency. The RMCs
employees Skilled Trade Units' Memorandum of Understanding does not specifically address
this scenario.
Embracing Technology
PW is embracing new technology to improve the way it conducts business.
The Grand Jury experienced firsthand how easy it is to communicate with RMCs in the field. A
combination of smart phones and radios ensures that the RMCs can effectively be reached even
when in remote areas.
Determination of accurate boundaries between the incorporated cities and the County can be
very confusing. If RMCs are in doubt regarding a boundary, they consult an app on their smart
phones using Geographic Information Systems Mapping Technology to verify correct
jurisdiction lit ://www,bLittecoLinty,net/gis/Flome,aspx
Blocked culverts in steep terrain, mudslides, and downed trees can create situations where
inspections are difficult or hazardous. Drone technology may offer better visual inspection of a
worksite with less danger to staff.
Kudos to the Road Maintenance Division Crews
During the course of the investigation, the Grand Jury learned of the extraordinary efforts taken
by the Road Maintenance Division over the past year. Butte County was declared a disaster area
83
because of flooding, erosion and mudslides caused by two consecutive years of exceptionally
heavy rainfall. In addition, the Oroville Crew of the Road Maintenance Division played an
active role in assuring public safety during the Oroville Dam Spillway evacuation and with the
recent major wild fires.
The RMCs are responsible for implementing road closures as well as providing staff for the
Emergency Action Committee during emergency situations. The crews were called out
repeatedly for this purpose.
PW oversaw the maintenance and repair of access roads during the Oroville Dam Spillway
emergency. Movement of the many overweight trucks over access roads, already saturated by
rainfall, caused some of these roads to fail. PW contracted for steel plating to be placed on
damaged roads to allow continual accessibility.
PW performed admirably during these emergencies without receiving any publicity. The Grand
Jury commends the Department for the work it does which assures the safety and comfort of the
citizens of this County.
84
FINDINGS
F1. Online complaint form is user friendly but is not consistently updated.
F2. Proper calculation of employee overtime pay is unclear in certain scenarios.
F3. Low compensation package contributes to increased turnover for entry-level positions.
F4. Assessing hazards can put employees in danger.
F5. Appropriate mapping applications are used to determine city versus County jurisdiction.
RECOMMENDATIONS
RI. Effective immediately, RMC Supervisors must update the complaint log upon completion
of a j ob.
R2. County must address recruitment and employee retention policies by October 31, 2018.
R3. Investigate the use and implementation of drone technology by December 31, 2018.
85
REQUEST FOR RESPONSES
Pursuant to Penal Code Section 933.05, the Grand Jury requests responses as follows:
• The Butte County Board of Supervisors respond to: F2, F3, F4, R2, and R3 within 90
days.
• The Butte County Chief Administrative Officer respond to: F1, F2, F3, R2, and R3 within
60 days.
• The Butte County Public Works Director respond to: F1, F2, F3, F4, RI, R2, and R3
within 60 days.
The governing bodies indicated above should be aware that comment or response must be
conducted subject to the notice, agenda, and open meeting requirements of the Brown Act.
Reports issued by the Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed.Penal Code section 929 requires that reports of the
Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the
Grand Jury.
86